Nadal on your All-Time List?
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
i dont have an all time list, but how far have u moved up nadal and where exactly do u rank him?
As for me, i rate players in the open era because i have enough knowledge of them to rate them. I respect the players before the open era because of their achievements and abilities but i simply dont have enough knowledge or footage of them to rank them
As far as the open era is concerned, i now think he is def top 10
Fed, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Mac, Connors, Agassi, Lendl, Nadal and Becker/Edberg.
As far as the open era is concerned, i now think he is def top 10
Fed, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Mac, Connors, Agassi, Lendl, Nadal and Becker/Edberg.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Here's his record. I'm not sure if it includes today's French Open victory.
MATCH RECORD
ATP World Tour & Grand Slam
Year To Date: Career:
Match Record Won Lost Won Lost Titles
Matches 31 4 432 95
Tiebreaks 4 4 101 73
vs. Right Handers* 29 4 388 92
vs. Left Handers* 2 0 44 3
Finals 3 1 39 12 39
Surface
Clay 15 0 196 16 28
Grass 0 0 31 7 2
Hard 16 4 203 66 9
Carpet** 0 0 2 6 0
Indoor/Outdoor
Indoor 0 0 41 25 1
Outdoor 31 4 391 70 38
It's very impressive to say the least. The guy has won on all surfaces, including hard court. He beats everyone. He's won Wimbledon, the French and the Australian and he's done this at a very young age. He's already accomplished so much.
I figure he's better than a lot of greats but we still have to wait to see his final record. I think for example he's superior to Vilas among others.
Incidentally I still want to see an arm wrestling (lefty) match between Vilas and Nadal. Talk about tennis players with powerful arm muscles. lol.
MATCH RECORD
ATP World Tour & Grand Slam
Year To Date: Career:
Match Record Won Lost Won Lost Titles
Matches 31 4 432 95
Tiebreaks 4 4 101 73
vs. Right Handers* 29 4 388 92
vs. Left Handers* 2 0 44 3
Finals 3 1 39 12 39
Surface
Clay 15 0 196 16 28
Grass 0 0 31 7 2
Hard 16 4 203 66 9
Carpet** 0 0 2 6 0
Indoor/Outdoor
Indoor 0 0 41 25 1
Outdoor 31 4 391 70 38
It's very impressive to say the least. The guy has won on all surfaces, including hard court. He beats everyone. He's won Wimbledon, the French and the Australian and he's done this at a very young age. He's already accomplished so much.
I figure he's better than a lot of greats but we still have to wait to see his final record. I think for example he's superior to Vilas among others.
Incidentally I still want to see an arm wrestling (lefty) match between Vilas and Nadal. Talk about tennis players with powerful arm muscles. lol.
Last edited:
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
He moves up a little, but not in any major way, I still have him outside the top 10. He could definitely move up even more, especially if he wins another Wimbledon or Australian or Wins the US Open. I agree I would rate him based on ability over players like Vilas as PC1 said, but I also want to see how his numbers continue to pan out. He has the potential to be a top 10 all time player, but he needs to keep himself healthy and fit. I agree with Benhur that he is already a top 10 Open Era player...but he has to work a little harder for overall. I'd have to really sit and think about it, but all time he is for me likely somewhere between 15-20 right now, but that will likely change for the better assuming he continues to win win masters and GS tournaments (as long as they are not completely Clay centered as well).
CyBorg
Legend
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'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.
Last edited:
BullDogTennis
Hall of Fame
hes a one slam wonder...how can he be an all time list?
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
He was #3(I think) after Montreal for a while last year .
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
You say right behind Mac, wheres Mac on your GOAT list?
D
decades
Guest
he is an excellent clay court player. But uni dimensional players are not to be found at the top of goat lists.
Al Czervik
Hall of Fame
Rafa is going to blow by the Agassi/McEnroe/Lendl/Wilander/Connors/Becker/Edberg tier into the Pete/Laver/Fed/Borg pantheon.
CyBorg
Legend
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.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Ok, thanks.
davey25
Banned
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.
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.
akv89
Hall of Fame
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).
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).
Agree with your list, though I'd be inclined to put Agassi ahead of JMac.
BullDogTennis
Hall of Fame
bahaha your an idiot!
Grigollif1
Semi-Pro
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.
Last edited:
CyBorg
Legend
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.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I would tend to agree with you Cyborg.
Right now you can't rate him on career accomplishments because frankly his career isn't over yet. You can't rate him for his peak years yet because you don't know what his peak years were until his career is over.
However you CAN rate him on how dominant he has been and he has been very consistent in majors and many big time tournaments outside of the majors. His best year for winning percentage were 2008 in which he was in the high 80 percentage range, which is superb.
For overall consistency for his career so far I would think he ranks ahead of Agassi but he hasn't quite done as much as Agassi for his career yet. Agassi has had some years in which he disappeared. Nadal has always been a factor in just about any top tournament since he come on the scene.
Nadal's 24 now with 40 ATP titles and he is five years younger than Federer. I think off the top of my head that he has 7 majors. It'll be tough however to match Federer's pace at the same age. Still, it's an awesome record for Nadal to have at such a young age.
Federer was 80-4 five years ago, won Wimbledon and the US Open at age 24. Doubtful if Nadal can match that type of winning pace.
One comment today that McEnroe made at 4-3 in the first set was that he felt Nadal's backhand was as good or better than his forehand on fast courts. What do you guys think of this?
Last edited:
Sorry but I'll take Agassi and his two US Open titles and multiple finals appearances there over Nadal. Nadal has proved he is great on clay. Fine start winning some US Opens now.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I believe that he dropped to no. 4 at one point.
statto
Professional
1. Federer (1st in slams, 3rd in masters, career slam).
2. Borg (3rd in slams, 3xRG/W double).
3. Laver (3rd in slams, calender slam (only two surfaces)).
4. McEnroe (8th in slams, but has DC, doubles, and 1984).
5. Sampras (2nd in slams, not much else).
6. Agassi (6th in slams, 2nd in masters, career slam).
7. Connors (6th in slams, incredible career length).
8. Lendl (5th in slams, career almost as long as Connors).
9. Nadal (8th in slams, 1st in masters).
Nadal could get into the top three if he gets into double figures for slams and one of them is the US Open. I'll probably get slammed for Mac's position on my list, but I don't care. He's the most naturally gifted player I've ever seen, and to have the combined singles and doubles career he had is something that will never be repeated in the mens game.
2. Borg (3rd in slams, 3xRG/W double).
3. Laver (3rd in slams, calender slam (only two surfaces)).
4. McEnroe (8th in slams, but has DC, doubles, and 1984).
5. Sampras (2nd in slams, not much else).
6. Agassi (6th in slams, 2nd in masters, career slam).
7. Connors (6th in slams, incredible career length).
8. Lendl (5th in slams, career almost as long as Connors).
9. Nadal (8th in slams, 1st in masters).
Nadal could get into the top three if he gets into double figures for slams and one of them is the US Open. I'll probably get slammed for Mac's position on my list, but I don't care. He's the most naturally gifted player I've ever seen, and to have the combined singles and doubles career he had is something that will never be repeated in the mens game.
Grigollif1
Semi-Pro
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`s success had and still is mostly centered around clay. This year for instance, he is problably having his second best year ever, raging to the N. 1. And why ? Clay, he hasn't won nothing big outside of clay. If not for clay, Nadal would have left the top 5 or so several times over, would not have been able to do what he has done to Federer and his career would similar to a Safin wise in results and GS. So that has to be taken into account when talking about the argument of Domination.
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.
Last edited:
davey25
Banned
Agassi's ability to contend and win on all surfaces in an era of vastly contrasting playing conditions is impressive no doubt. However Nadal also has proven his ability to contend and win on all surfaces, despite not yet winning the U.S Open (should happen at some point).
Nadal destroys Agassi in both dominance and consistency. Nadal has dominated the French Open and clay in general in a way Agassi has never dominated an event or a surface. That includes the Australian Open. Nadal has been 1 of the 2 dominant players on grass along with historic Wimbledon Champion Federer. Nobody else has been able to touch him at Wimbledon since 2006 now really. Nadal has also been a dominant #1 or #2 player since 2005, only briefly dropping below #2 during a period of injuries.
Agassi's only dominance of an event was somewhat dominating the Australian Open for a 3 year span in the interim era between the Sampras and Federer generations. Even then he was mere points from losing to an injured Sampras the first one, and then so nearly went out to a cramping Rafter in the 2nd one. Other than that Clement, Schuettler, Ferreira were his victims. He has never dominated a surface, he certainly was nowhere near ever dominating grass, clay, carpet, or indoors. He never even dominated hard courts for a period really, at best he shared dominance for years with 1 or 2 others on the surface. Agassi was never truly the best player in the World. In his best years he was ultimately bested by Sampras in 95, shown conclusively to be inferior to Sampras in 99 despite ending the year #1 due to Pete's U.S Open DNP, and bested by Hewitt in both 2001 and 2002.
Consistency wise Agassi cant even scrape the surface of Nadal. Nadal has only lost before the quarters of a slam twice since the start of 2006 now, and both of those were in the round of 16. Nadal has only lost before the semis of a slam once since the start of 2008. Nadal has won multiple Masters and played consistently well at nearly every event throughtout the year since 2005 now.
Of course Agassi has amazing longevity but Nadal is building up some very good longevity even for great player standards too, even if he doesnt match Agassi here. And as far as versatility Nadal isnt that far behind Agassi IMO. Agassi was really more of a hard court specialist himself. Some people point out that it is a reasonable estimate Agassi would have won another maybe say 2 slams had he played the Australian Open every year. However that only further shows Agassi is as much a specialist on a surface like rebound ace relative to the others as Agassi is on clay, as that would give him over twice his slams there alone in this hypothetical.
I could actually see the argument that possibly under 90s playing conditions Agassi at his best possibly having the edge over Nadal in a head to head matchup on anything but clay (Nadal would own on clay). What does that matter though when Agassi was never hardly ever at his best during his own potential physical prime, thus was rarely at his potential best ever, while Nadal almost alway has been for years. Plus how Agassi and Nadal matchup has little bearing on how they matchup to the various fields they faced. Lastly Nadal plays under the playing conditions he plays on including the current grass, it is how it is and he pretty much has to be evaluated on that. With Agassi's massive consistency issues in contrast to Nadal who is already one of the most consistent players of the Open Era, with Agassi's complete lack of dominance in his own era and career relative to Nadal's, and with Nadal's facing down Federer to win so many slams, and his overall record vs top players of his own era in general, it is hard to rank Nadal behind Agassi already.
And if Nadal wins more than 8 slams and a U.S Open then it will be a complete blowout comparing the two. We are now at one of the last stages I think you could even discuss it.
Last edited:
Grigollif1
Semi-Pro
Not to mention Indoor carpet, which was a quite important surface for a great period of time when Agassi was around. And he managed to do quite well there.
The little tournaments we have had on fast inddor surfaces, Nadal has not done very well. And is where he sufered his most convincing lost to Federer at the MC in 2007. So is not wrong to assume that he would have suffered more around Agassi's time.
The little tournaments we have had on fast inddor surfaces, Nadal has not done very well. And is where he sufered his most convincing lost to Federer at the MC in 2007. So is not wrong to assume that he would have suffered more around Agassi's time.
CyBorg
Legend
Hmmm... I must have dreamt those wins at Wimbledon, Australian Open, multiple masters series wins on hardcourts.
Agassi may be the most overrated athlete in tennis history. Yes, he was good on all surfaces. But Nadal is as well. Except that on clay he's a living legend.
Well, maybe not fluke. But good luck.
As for fragility on hardcourts, Agassi had plenty of years in which he was atrocious on all courts. As davey25 points out Nadal's results on all surfaces, including hardcourts, are extremely consistent - including grand slam results.
Last edited:
davey25
Banned
What is your definition of outstanding? From 1993 until the 1999 French Agassi made it past the 3rd round of the French Open once, a quarterfinal loss in 1995. I dont think he made it past the quarterfinals of any Masters events on clay either.
Between Wimbledon 1992 and Wimbledon 1999, Agassi had one semifinal and one quarterfinal of Wimbledon.
If Agassi was outstanding on clay and grass then Nadal is certainly outstanding on hard courts. He has more consistently excellent results there than Agassi has on either surface. Even taking into account the short grass court season he has probably achieved more on hard courts already than Agassi on any surface other than hard courts.
Nadal is more dominant on grass than Agassi is on either clay or grass.
Agassi won 6 of his 8 slams on hard courts. As his own fans like to claim he would have won over half his slams at the Australian Open on rebound ace had he played it earlier in his career. He won 16 of his 17 Masters on hard courts. Who knows how many of his tournaments. Agassi is just as much a hard court specialist as Nadal a clay court specialist, and to a degree specific types of hard courts. The only difference being he isnt as great or dominant even on his specialty surface as Nadal on his.
Your post completely ignores the giant holes in Agassi's career including many during his physical prime when he was doing virtually nothing (for great players standards on anything):
1992- played reasonably well in the slams, despite being owned by Courier. Very poor results everywhere else. Ended year I think at #9 only due to points from Wimbledon title, showing how poor he was much of the year. Didnt even make 3 man U.S Olympic team.
1993- won 4 slam matches all year. Ended year out of top 20.
1994- slam results for the year were another DNP in Australia, 3rd round loss at the French, 4th round loss at Wimbledon, then a late summer/fall surge which somehow propelled him to year end #2 after still being out of the top 20 halfway through the year.
1996- slam results of two semis where he was beaten in straight sets by Chang in both, and early round losses at the French and Wimbledon to Chris Woodruff and the younger Flach.
1997- year end #122. Nuff said. Was injured alot of the year (well supposably), and sucked bigtime when he did play.
1998- good year outside the slams, but in slams another washout- 4th round, 1st round, 2nd round, 4th round, losing to Berasetegui (hard courts), 18 year old Safin, 20 year old Haas, and Kucera.
Grigollif1
Semi-Pro
I am sorry, but I just find kind of hard to compate Agassi and Nadal, because they are playing in such a differente conditions and are really great for different reasons. When I think of Nadal great, I think of a player that is a goat legeng on clay and this success has helped to propell the success in other surfaces. And has been helped by a greater homonization of surfaces.
When I think of Agassi great. I think of a player who played in an era where you could play Serve and volley players in a lightining quick Fast indoor court and on a Red clay with full of slow dirt specialists. And still being great in all of these conditions.
So they are great for different reasons. And is tough to compare their greatness directly, in my view.
When I think of Agassi great. I think of a player who played in an era where you could play Serve and volley players in a lightining quick Fast indoor court and on a Red clay with full of slow dirt specialists. And still being great in all of these conditions.
So they are great for different reasons. And is tough to compare their greatness directly, in my view.
Last edited:
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.
Nadal’s excellence on clay tends to blind people to his accomplishments on other surfaces. A simple way to dispel these illusions is just to count his points on hard courts and grass for the last 4-5 years. You will find the only player that is ahead of him outside of clay during this period is Federer.
As far as the much advertised huge difference in today’s surfaces compared with those in Agassi’s time, I have said many times I don’t buy a tenth of it. The dissapearance of the net game has nothing at all to to with this. Ask Francesca, who measures 165 centimeters and can beat a powerful baseliner by rushing the net. On clay!
Is Wimbledon a bit slower (in the sense of higher bounce) and does it have a more reliable bounce? Sure. Is it still grass? No doubt. In fact, more so than before. There was hardly any grass left by the end of the second week in the old days. Is Queen’s different than it was? I don’t think so. Yet Nadal still won there, beating some power servers. He also won in some very fast hard courts, like Dubai, and the Olympics.
As far as dominance, these are the statistics (the stats on slam and non-slam winning percentage were compiled by Moose Malloy about 9 months ago). Agassi is many floors below Nadal (and a lot of other players) in all this. There really is no comparison.
Career winning %
Borg 608-127 (82.7%)
Nadal 384-84 (82.0%)
Lendl/Connors 1071-239 / 1241-277 (81.8%)
McEnroe 875-198 (81.5%)
Federer: 664-156 (81.0%)
Sampras 762-222 (77.4%)
Becker 713-214 (76.9%)
Vilas 923-284 (76.5%)
Agassi 870-274 (76.0%)
------
Grand Slam Win %
Borg 141-17 89.2%
Fed 182-26 87.5%
Nadal 90-15 85.7%
Sampras 203-38 84.2%
Connors 233-49 82.6%
Lendl 222-49 81.9%
Mac 167-38 81.5%
If you take away all matches played in majors:
Lendl 849-190 81.7%
Mac 708-160 81.6%
Connors 838-190 81.5%
Borg 467-110 81%
Nadal 294-69 81%
Fed 482-130 78.8%
Sampras 559-184 75%
Nadal’s excellence on clay tends to blind people to his accomplishments on other surfaces. A simple way to dispel these illusions is just to count his points on hard courts and grass for the last 4-5 years. You will find the only player that is ahead of him outside of clay during this period is Federer.
As far as the much advertised huge difference in today’s surfaces compared with those in Agassi’s time, I have said many times I don’t buy a tenth of it. The dissapearance of the net game has nothing at all to to with this. Ask Francesca, who measures 165 centimeters and can beat a powerful baseliner by rushing the net. On clay!
Is Wimbledon a bit slower (in the sense of higher bounce) and does it have a more reliable bounce? Sure. Is it still grass? No doubt. In fact, more so than before. There was hardly any grass left by the end of the second week in the old days. Is Queen’s different than it was? I don’t think so. Yet Nadal still won there, beating some power servers. He also won in some very fast hard courts, like Dubai, and the Olympics.
As far as dominance, these are the statistics (the stats on slam and non-slam winning percentage were compiled by Moose Malloy about 9 months ago). Agassi is many floors below Nadal (and a lot of other players) in all this. There really is no comparison.
Career winning %
Borg 608-127 (82.7%)
Nadal 384-84 (82.0%)
Lendl/Connors 1071-239 / 1241-277 (81.8%)
McEnroe 875-198 (81.5%)
Federer: 664-156 (81.0%)
Sampras 762-222 (77.4%)
Becker 713-214 (76.9%)
Vilas 923-284 (76.5%)
Agassi 870-274 (76.0%)
------
Grand Slam Win %
Borg 141-17 89.2%
Fed 182-26 87.5%
Nadal 90-15 85.7%
Sampras 203-38 84.2%
Connors 233-49 82.6%
Lendl 222-49 81.9%
Mac 167-38 81.5%
If you take away all matches played in majors:
Lendl 849-190 81.7%
Mac 708-160 81.6%
Connors 838-190 81.5%
Borg 467-110 81%
Nadal 294-69 81%
Fed 482-130 78.8%
Sampras 559-184 75%
CyBorg
Legend
Don't be so conservative. Sometimes one can call it early.
Leelord337
Hall of Fame
does that mean ^^"you're^^ not one?
adimax8
Rookie
One slam wonder? Yeah 7 is a one time wonder.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal's world rankings since the 25th July 2005:
Ranked at number 2 (25th July 2005 - 17th August 2008 )
Ranked at number 1 (18th August 2008 - 5th July 2009)
Ranked at number 2 (6th July 2009 - 16th August 2009)
Ranked at number 3 (17th August 2009 - 13th September 2009)
Ranked at number 2 (14th September 2009 - 31st January 2010)
Ranked at number 4 (1st February 2010 - 14th February 2010)
Ranked at number 3 (15th February 2010 - 21st March 2010)
Ranked at number 4 (22nd March 2010 - 4th April 2010)
Ranked at number 3 (5th April 2010 - 16th May 2010)
Ranked at number 2 (17th May 2010 - 6th June 2010)
Ranked at number 1 (7th June 2010 -
Texastennis
Rookie
"career grand slam is a fluke and overrated."
Yep - that's exactly why so few people have done it...
A career grand slam is a phenomenal achievement - it puts Laver (calendar slam twice - extraordinary!) and Federer above all other modern players for me ie clearly above Sampras.
I think it puts Agassi above McEnroe, Connors, Lendl who are in his cohort slam number wise.
If Nadal can win the USO and join that group, that will be a great and additional distinction for him - I'm thinking his total number will in all probability be higher than theirs, and if he has a career grand slam in hand too, he'll be right there with Laver and Federer.
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.
I think it's very difficult to make any useful statement about Nadal on the all time list yet because he's so young still - if he quit now, he's be with the Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors group - but every reason to think and hope he may yet exceed them. Just hasn't so far.
Yep - that's exactly why so few people have done it...
A career grand slam is a phenomenal achievement - it puts Laver (calendar slam twice - extraordinary!) and Federer above all other modern players for me ie clearly above Sampras.
I think it puts Agassi above McEnroe, Connors, Lendl who are in his cohort slam number wise.
If Nadal can win the USO and join that group, that will be a great and additional distinction for him - I'm thinking his total number will in all probability be higher than theirs, and if he has a career grand slam in hand too, he'll be right there with Laver and Federer.
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.
I think it's very difficult to make any useful statement about Nadal on the all time list yet because he's so young still - if he quit now, he's be with the Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors group - but every reason to think and hope he may yet exceed them. Just hasn't so far.
Polaris
Hall of Fame
I don't have an all-time list; making one, and rationalizing it interferes with my enjoyment of tennis. Nadal is surely one of the all-time greats, and that is enough for me. That said, I don't like the way he plays, and nothing is going to change that even if he wins every Grand Slam for the next five years.
davey25
Banned
Federer wont be playing long enough for a 25-10 head to head to be possible.
W
woodrow1029
Guest
I would have Sampras ahead of Borg and Laver in the middle of them, but I would agree with this list otherwise.
Datacipher
Banned
There really should be a rule against starry-eyed celebrity worshiping ladies who love Agassi's book, then choose to spout off about AA at every opportunity despite making FACTUAL error after error after error on both his personal life and game.
Anyways, the above is of course, stupid. Agassi was NOT amazingly inconsistent in many years, 88, 90, 95...and of course, almost every year from 99 on, save for injuries.
Datacipher
Banned
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.
Texastennis
Rookie
Agassi was in the FO final three times so winning it hardly seems a fluke. And in the W final twice. So across surfaces was a strength. I think McEnroe was only in the FO final once, Connors never, Lendl further away at Wimbledon etc. They all had their strengths in their patterns and their shortcomings.
It will be interesting to see how this all looks at the end of Federer and Nadal's careers - Federer is much closely to the likely end and Nadal is ahead of where Federer was at his age, but it's impossible to predict. I saw Borg being interviewed last week and it reminded me that nobody would have expected when he was 24 how little of his (tennis) career he had left. Nadal may be the all time best 24 year old ...
It will be interesting to see how this all looks at the end of Federer and Nadal's careers - Federer is much closely to the likely end and Nadal is ahead of where Federer was at his age, but it's impossible to predict. I saw Borg being interviewed last week and it reminded me that nobody would have expected when he was 24 how little of his (tennis) career he had left. Nadal may be the all time best 24 year old ...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I agree with you. Career slam is great to have, but hardly shows how great a player were across all surfaces. Case in point would be Ken Rosewall. He won the Australian, French and US Championships when he was young. He was in the Wimbledon final several times when he was young and then he turned pro and couldn't enter the majors for years and specifically these years were his best years in which he was the best player in the world.
In 1968 the Open Era started and immediately Rosewall, in a year in which he would be 34 wins the French Open. In 1970 he reaches the Wimbledon final again and loses to Newcombe. Then in 1974, almost 40 he gets crushed by Jimmy Connors in the Wimbledon final but not before he defeats Roscoe Tanner, Stan Smith and John Newcombe on the way to the final.
After the Open Era started Rosewall won several majors, the Australian in 1971 and 1972, the US Open in 1970 and as mentioned earlier the French in 1968. The Australian and the US Open were on grass.
Do you penalize Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon? I know many argue you cannot revise history but still Rosewall proved himself on every surface. He was the best grass court player in the world, the best clay court player (may be the best clay court player in history incidentally) in the world etc.
The key is to prove greatness over all surfaces.
We may be looking at Jimmy Connors differently if Borg wasn't around to defeat him in so many majors. Yet Connors is still great it's just that Borg won the Wimbledons.
Actually another great case is Roger Federer. Let's say Federer did not win the French last year because Nadal was healthy and defeated him. Can you really penalize Federer for his lack of a French title? He proved himself an excellent player on red clay and I don't think the lack of a French would take away from his greatness. You would have to look at the circumstances and realize that he had the unfortunate timing of playing during a time one of the all time great red clay players was around at his prime.
Federer wouldn't really need to prove his greatness on red clay although it's nice to have the French in his resume.
Last edited:
I think the concept was invented and marketed when Agassi did it. I had never heard of it before.
I would for example give much more weight to winning all 4 slams consecutively, regardless of the starting and ending points. To me that's practically the same as a calendar slam in difficulty. I think Navratilova at some point won 6 slam titles in a row, a feat that I consider far, far more impressive than a career grand slam, and also more impressive than a calendar grand slam in terms of difficulty. Yet no special term was created for such marvels. When it comes to Agassi, the marketing-image apparatus around him is so enormous, especially in the US, that it dazzles people's judgement, and thus you have many posters who place him higher than McEnroe without hesitation, or even higher than Lendl and Connors, which I find totally perplexing.
Similar threads
