Rafa - Is he the first player to be the best on all surfaces?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 77403
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
We have had some all time greats in the past that have dominated tennis, I don't need to make the list, but I'm sure you all know. Was there ever a time, when one player was the best on all the surfaces?

A lot of people are picking Nadal to win the AO, sure the guy has won it before, proven his Grand Slam pedigree, and won the USO. So by picking Nadal to win it, I am assuming, match-ups aside, that overall against the field, he is man to beat at AO, and can be assumed to be currently the best in the world on a hard court.

He owns the clay, and after four straight Wimbledon finals, has two titles there, and won the last two times he played there.

Can it be safe to say that no matter what the surface, Rafa is the best?

Federer had incredible domination, but was always second on clay to Nadal. Sampras never dominated clay.

So is this the first time we can say that we have player who is the favourite on all surfaces with the current results to prove it? Of course things can change very quickly if he does not win in Australia.

I think he is co-favourite with Federer at Wimbledon and AO. But a lot of people have him outright favorite every slam, and with reason to be, he just won three straight slams on all surfaces. What do you guys think?
 
I don't think anyone is the best, as in better than everyone else. Everyone has weaknesses. Period. That's why people only get a limited amount time in the limelight. Someone will always come around who is better. And then the battle rages on ad nauseum.

People are different, not necessarily better, imo.
 
TheTruth said:
I don't think anyone is the best, as in better than everyone else. Everyone has weaknesses. Period. That's why people only get a limited amount time in the limelight. Someone will always come around who is better. And then the battle rages on ad nauseum.

People are different, not necessarily better, imo.
Click to expand...

Truth - While I understand what you are saying, the results say something different. Rafa had a dream last few months, the clay sweep, three slams in three different surfaces in a row, and ended the year outright world number one. If that does not make someone the best, then I don't know what does.

Regarding weaknesses. I agree that just like everyone else, Rafa has weaknesses. But, I am not stating that the guy is perfect, no one is. I am asking the question, that despite still improving, is he currently better than everyone else on all surfaces?

And yes, just like those before him, one day, someone else will come.
 
Well, I think we'll have to wait an watch what happens in 2011. He's up there, but nobody talks about Rafa's chances on HC the way they do on clay. So it's hard to conclude that he's the best everywhere. Outside of clay, Rafa is not the overwhelming favorite to win. So I guess it's difficult to say.
 
Federer has had better overall results on hard courts in the last years than Nadal. So he isnt currently the best on hard courts.
 
Since when is Rafa the best on hard courts? Yeah, he won the USO, but he lost pretty convincingly to Murray at the AO, went on to lose to Ljubicic, Roddick, Muuray in Toronto and Baggy at Cincy. He lost to Melzer in Shanghai and didn't even play in Paris. He played well at the WTF but was 2nd best to Federer at that event.

Also on grass, Rafa is great, but he was twice facing an early loss at Wimbledon this year (to two nobodies) and I promised I won't mention anything that happened there for a week.

Rafa is a fantastic hard court player, but like on grass, he's hardly unbeatable. On clay, he's nearly unbeatable. He's as unbeatable as you can possibly get, but give Rafa a bad day on clay, he'll still probably win easy. Give Rafa a bad day on grass, he might lose. Give Rafa a bad day on HC, he'll probably lose.
 
Federer is better on hardcourts. More titles this year, including a major to match nadal's.

I wouldn't call Nadal better on grass either.. Federer only just this year failed to reach the final. He had 7 straight, hard to argue with that. we have to wait till next year, but I'm willing to bet that if Federer isn't having any physical issues come wimbledon, he will be winning no. 7.
 
Hitman said:
Truth - While I understand what you are saying, the results say something different. Rafa had a dream last few months, the clay sweep, three slams in three different surfaces in a row, and ended the year outright world number one. If that does not make someone the best, then I don't know what does.

Regarding weaknesses. I agree that just like everyone else, Rafa has weaknesses. But, I am not stating that the guy is perfect, no one is. I am asking the question, that despite still improving, is he currently better than everyone else on all surfaces?

And yes, just like those before him, one day, someone else will come.
Click to expand...

It's probably me, but I don't think some things can be quantified. How good someone is cannot be decided simply by results. Tommy Haas is an extremely talented player who has never been able to stay on tour consistently enough to parlay his talent into results, same for Nalbandian, and as of this writing Del Potro. Safin is another one, along with Rios. There are other factors that go into results like heart, consistency, timing, field, and most of all desire.

I guess I'm saying, how can we base it on results when so many have done different things and no one's accomplishments exactly mirror another's?

Is Borg better than Nadal, or Roger better than Pete? How can we say that when the surfaces were different, the competition different, the technology, fitness, there are too many factors to try to make a direct comparison, imo. Even the formats were different. Masters were all best of five as compared to today's best of three even in the final. You can't get a good measure like that when the former players could play 25 sets to today's 15 sets. Nah, that's not fair.

It's all apples and oranges to me. I don't believe in comparing. It's like those People Magazine issues. The 50 Most Beautiful people in the world, and then you see that they're adding accomplishments and not relying on physical beauty. That to me is the dumbest idea ever. I hate that and Blackwell's List of the Best Dressed. No way of quantifying any of those results, imo.
 
Last edited:
Nadal is the best on grass right now. He won this years Wimbledon convincingly while Federer put on an abysmal performance. Furthermore Nadal has won 2 of the last 3 Wimbledons and the last 2 he played. Thus Nadal is the best on grass today.

Hard courts is still Federer for now though.
 
I sincerely think that if it improves one's life by regarding Mr. Nadal as the best in all surfaces, then he is. This is not sarcasm, but a sincere opinion that reflects the ideology of 'beauty in the eye of the beholder'.

nadalfan.jpg
 
NadalAgassi said:
Nadal is the best on grass right now. He won this years Wimbledon convincingly while Federer put on an abysmal performance. Furthermore Nadal has won 2 of the last 3 Wimbledons and the last 2 he played. Thus Nadal is the best on grass today.

Hard courts is still Federer for now though.
Click to expand...

But Federer was injured.
 
Hitman said:
We have had some all time greats in the past that have dominated tennis, I don't need to make the list, but I'm sure you all know. Was there ever a time, when one player was the best on all the surfaces?

A lot of people are picking Nadal to win the AO, sure the guy has won it before, proven his Grand Slam pedigree, and won the USO. So by picking Nadal to win it, I am assuming, match-ups aside, that overall against the field, he is man to beat at AO, and can be assumed to be currently the best in the world on a hard court.

He owns the clay, and after four straight Wimbledon finals, has two titles there, and won the last two times he played there.

Can it be safe to say that no matter what the surface, Rafa is the best?

Federer had incredible domination, but was always second on clay to Nadal. Sampras never dominated clay.

So is this the first time we can say that we have player who is the favourite on all surfaces with the current results to prove it? Of course things can change very quickly if he does not win in Australia.

I think he is co-favourite with Federer at Wimbledon and AO. But a lot of people have him outright favorite every slam, and with reason to be, he just won three straight slams on all surfaces. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Short answer no
Long answer nein
Really long answer niet

Nadal isn't the best on hard court at all. Nadal isn't even second best on hard court. He won two titles this year on hard. Personally, I don't think Nadal on hard court is as good as Federer on clay.

He also had 3 straight Wimbledon finals.
 
A thread like this will only lead to Rafa bashing. If you mean at the moment, then he currently holds a title on each surface, so I suppose he is the best right now. Plus, one of the reasons he's such a favorite at AO, is because there is a huge motivation for him to win it this year.

I also dunno if his USO style of play will return for AO. I think it's wise for him to keep some tricks for majors. Fed and Murray for example haven't faced, Nadals "new and improved" serve. By reserving that style for play for HC majors, players will find it harder to adapt. Only time will tell.
 
meg0529 said:
A thread like this will only lead to Rafa bashing. If you mean at the moment, then he currently holds a title on each surface, so I suppose he is the best right now. Plus, one of the reasons he's such a favorite at AO, is because there is a huge motivation for him to win it this year.

I also dunno if his USO style of play will return for AO. I think it's wise for him to keep some tricks for majors. Fed and Murray for example haven't faced, Nadals "new and improved" serve. By reserving that style for play for HC majors, players will find it harder to adapt. Only time will tell.
Click to expand...

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but talking about Rafa's serve like that is just absurd. You seem to be implying that his serve is now in the upper echelon of serves today. It just isn't. Also, Fed and Murray are two of the best returners in the game. I doubt that new serve will be too devastating to them.
 
He is the best currently on grass (not by far) and clay. But he clearly isn't the best on hard courts. Consider the fact that he's won just the one hard court tournament all year. Federer and Murray have proven themselves to be better hard court players this year.

If Federer had won the US Open last year, he wouldn't have been the best on all surfaces. Nadal dominated the clay season and was obviously the better player despite Federer winning Roland Garros.

That said, of course he's one of the two hot favorites to win the Australian Open. Not many can beat him there. Now if he wins the Australian Open, a very strong case can be made for him to be the best on all surfaces at the same time---something Federer never achieved.
 
Jchurch said:
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but talking about Rafa's serve like that is just absurd. You seem to be implying that his serve is now in the upper echelon of serves today. It just isn't. Also, Fed and Murray are two of the best returners in the game. I doubt that new serve will be too devastating to them.
Click to expand...

Talking about his serve like what? I wasn't implying that at all! If you read through my post there is no mention of it being better than anyone else. It is an improvement upon his "old serve". I also didn't say it would be devastating to them.

I agree both Fed and Murray can adapt to it, but they have to play against it to adapt, no? So AO is best of 5, BUT, even if it takes them a few games to get a feel for it, that could mean first set goes to Nadal, and that is a big advantage, isn't it? In addition, it can help him get cheap points, something he's always found hard to do. You have probably been watching tennis a lot longer than I have, so you know that when two players are on, it really boils down to a few points here and there. Part of the reason Nadal and Fed have dominated they way they have is because they have successfully been able to tweak their games.

Bottom line is, you are not bursting any bubbles, I think changing things up is always an asset, and he cannot rely on it completely to win the AO, but it's not like he needs to. It helps, that's all. You are free to disagree.
 
Objectively he's not

If you add up the hard court points for 2010 Nadal isn't first, Federer is.

Hence, he is not best on Hard Courts.

And if Nadal isn't the best on Hard Courts, therefore he isn't the best on all surfaces (because Hard Court is one of the surfaces)
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
We have had some all time greats in the past that have dominated tennis, I don't need to make the list, but I'm sure you all know. Was there ever a time, when one player was the best on all the surfaces?

A lot of people are picking Nadal to win the AO, sure the guy has won it before, proven his Grand Slam pedigree, and won the USO. So by picking Nadal to win it, I am assuming, match-ups aside, that overall against the field, he is man to beat at AO, and can be assumed to be currently the best in the world on a hard court.

He owns the clay, and after four straight Wimbledon finals, has two titles there, and won the last two times he played there.

Can it be safe to say that no matter what the surface, Rafa is the best?

Federer had incredible domination, but was always second on clay to Nadal. Sampras never dominated clay.

So is this the first time we can say that we have player who is the favourite on all surfaces with the current results to prove it? Of course things can change very quickly if he does not win in Australia.

I think he is co-favourite with Federer at Wimbledon and AO. But a lot of people have him outright favorite every slam, and with reason to be, he just won three straight slams on all surfaces. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Overall, Federer will always have a better HC resume. Grass is questionable at this point in time.

Currently, Rafa is close to the best on all surfaces. We'll see what happens in 2011. If he were to win a HC slam (defeating Federer) and then the FO/Wimby double for the third time... he would without a doubt be the current best on all 3 surfaces.

As a subsurface... Federer will always be superior on indoor HC. However, If Rafa continues on his current path, he could be second best on indoor HC even though it's by far his weakest surface.
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
We have had some all time greats in the past that have dominated tennis, I don't need to make the list, but I'm sure you all know. Was there ever a time, when one player was the best on all the surfaces?

A lot of people are picking Nadal to win the AO, sure the guy has won it before, proven his Grand Slam pedigree, and won the USO. So by picking Nadal to win it, I am assuming, match-ups aside, that overall against the field, he is man to beat at AO, and can be assumed to be currently the best in the world on a hard court.

He owns the clay, and after four straight Wimbledon finals, has two titles there, and won the last two times he played there.

Can it be safe to say that no matter what the surface, Rafa is the best?

Federer had incredible domination, but was always second on clay to Nadal. Sampras never dominated clay.

So is this the first time we can say that we have player who is the favourite on all surfaces with the current results to prove it? Of course things can change very quickly if he does not win in Australia.

I think he is co-favourite with Federer at Wimbledon and AO. But a lot of people have him outright favorite every slam, and with reason to be, he just won three straight slams on all surfaces. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

err, I believe that the info should be accurate first.

1} he wasn't ever in 4 straight Wimbies. Try losing in 2007, winning in 2008 and 2010 and not getting to final in 2009.

2} he didn't play the best USO players this year for the final. He played Joker, but did not play either Del Potro or Federer, so he cannot be considered best at that surface

3} He got to one AO, radically different surface from USO

4} He is not that great on indoor courts, another surface, so no

5} He's never played on wood courts, and wouldn't win on them anyway (they are far faster than any court we have here)

6} he didn't play on the courts of the 90s, which are much faster than these, and he wouldn't have won Wimby on the traditional grass

7} when's the last time he played on carpet and won?

8} he didn't win three straight slams on all surfaces, just three of them. Last I checked, none of those slams included indoor, wood, carpet, green clay, blue clay, or old grass

9} Federer is better than he is at grass and HC. He wasn't in top form either this year or in 2008, and didn't get to finals this year in USO for whatever reason.

10} Del Potro is better than Nadal at USO, but was injured

that enough reasons why Nadal isn't the best at all surfaces?
 
Manus Domini said:
err, I believe that the info should be accurate first.

1} he wasn't ever in 4 straight Wimbies. Try losing in 2007, winning in 2008 and 2010 and not getting to final in 2009.

2} he didn't play the best USO players this year for the final. He played Joker, but did not play either Del Potro or Federer, so he cannot be considered best at that surface

3} He got to one AO, radically different surface from USO

4} He is not that great on indoor courts, another surface, so no

5} He's never played on wood courts, and wouldn't win on them anyway (they are far faster than any court we have here)

6} he didn't play on the courts of the 90s, which are much faster than these, and he wouldn't have won Wimby on the traditional grass

7} when's the last time he played on carpet and won?

8} he didn't win three straight slams on all surfaces, just three of them. Last I checked, none of those slams included indoor, wood, carpet, green clay, blue clay, or old grass

9} Federer is better than he is at grass and HC. He wasn't in top form either this year or in 2008, and didn't get to finals this year in USO for whatever reason.

10} Del Potro is better than Nadal at USO, but was injured

that enough reasons why Nadal isn't the best at all surfaces?
Click to expand...

This made me think of Steve Carell's character in Dinner for Schmucks.
 
The trickiest one is going to be the USO again.

But with murray struggling in slams, nadal being much more competitive with djokovic on HCs now (:)), federer getting old, jmdp hurt and the new serve, he could be the favorite for the first time this coming year!

Of course as long as he isn't injured he owns RG, is going to be the slight favorite favorite at wimbledon-with him and federer the overwhelming favorites over the field- and is already the bookies favorite at the AO.

BITE THE SUSHI. :)

H/T Messarger.
 
He isn't the best on all surfaces, definitely the best on one (clay), and top 2 on one (grass), and top 5 on the other (hard)
 
Federer is better on hardcourt, especially indoors.

Also, in 2009 Federer won more points on clay, grass, and hardcourts than Nadal did that year, so he was the best on all four surfaces then.
 
P_Agony said:
Since when is Rafa the best on hard courts? Yeah, he won the USO, but he lost pretty convincingly to Murray at the AO, went on to lose to Ljubicic, Roddick, Muuray in Toronto and Baggy at Cincy. He lost to Melzer in Shanghai and didn't even play in Paris. He played well at the WTF but was 2nd best to Federer at that event.
Click to expand...
^ This.

Saying Nadal is the best player on all surfaces is no more accurate than saying Federer was best on all surfaces in 2009 when he won the French.
 
Last edited:
Rafa is the best tennis player OVERALL right now. He's 24; he's fitter than anybody on tour; he's ranked #1 in the world; he's coming off an incredible season where he won 3 majors. Thus, he is favored to win most tournaments he enters in 2011. Roger was the best overall player from 2004-2007 and was similarly favored to win virtually every tournament he entered.

Is Rafa the best player on each individual surface right now?

On clay he is the best player. On grass it's hard to argue with Federer's domination and 6 Wimbledon titles but Rafa's certainly in the top 3 in today's game (I'd rank Roddick on his day as a tough out on grass along with Murray). On hardcourts where a majority of the season is played its hard to always pick Rafa because he simply hasn't shown enough consistency yet. You can make the case for a handful of people having a better game on hardcourts. Federer, Djokovic, Del Potro, Soderling, Davydenko, and Hewitt all have positive head-to-head records against Nadal on hardcourt. Murray, Roddick, Berdych, and Nalbandian have nearly even head-to-heads against Rafa on hardcourts. Nonetheless, Rafa can still be considered the favorite in each of these match-ups because he is an overall great player in the prime of his career and is the toughest competitor out there. He can play great defense and grind his opponents like no other.

Is Rafa's all-court competitiveness unprecedented?

Again, there is no easy answer but I'd have to say no to this as well. I agree with those who have said Federer was a better clay court player in his prime than Rafa is a hardcourt player in his prime. If Rafa suddenly starts winning every hardcourt tournament out there and consistently beats the best hardcourt players in the world then we can re-visit this argument.

On a side note, kudos to Rafa and Roger for playing these two charity matches. It's wonderful to see these two great athletes giving back.

Hitman said:
We have had some all time greats in the past that have dominated tennis, I don't need to make the list, but I'm sure you all know. Was there ever a time, when one player was the best on all the surfaces?

A lot of people are picking Nadal to win the AO, sure the guy has won it before, proven his Grand Slam pedigree, and won the USO. So by picking Nadal to win it, I am assuming, match-ups aside, that overall against the field, he is man to beat at AO, and can be assumed to be currently the best in the world on a hard court.

He owns the clay, and after four straight Wimbledon finals, has two titles there, and won the last two times he played there.

Can it be safe to say that no matter what the surface, Rafa is the best?

Federer had incredible domination, but was always second on clay to Nadal. Sampras never dominated clay.

So is this the first time we can say that we have player who is the favourite on all surfaces with the current results to prove it? Of course things can change very quickly if he does not win in Australia.

I think he is co-favourite with Federer at Wimbledon and AO. But a lot of people have him outright favorite every slam, and with reason to be, he just won three straight slams on all surfaces. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
 
 
Last edited:
Since when did Nadal become "the best" on hard courts? He just won his FIRST USO 3 months ago?
 
Hitman said:
We have had some all time greats in the past that have dominated tennis, I don't need to make the list, but I'm sure you all know. Was there ever a time, when one player was the best on all the surfaces?
Click to expand...

You've answered your question in the very first sentence; that makes the rest of your post entirely pointless. If other players have dominated the game (for example - winning all four majors and having match records far better than Nadal's) then of course there have been other times when one player was the best on all surfaces (not that Nadal can make that claim).

I don't get why you guys can't just appreciate Nadal and Federer for what they are and not feel the need to deify them. Enjoy their tennis and leave it at that.
 
AndrewD said:
You've answered your question in the very first sentence; that makes the rest of your post entirely pointless. If other players have dominated the game (for example - winning all four majors and having match records far better than Nadal's) then of course there have been other times when one player was the best on all surfaces (not that Nadal can make that claim).

I don't get why you guys can't just appreciate Nadal and Federer for what they are and not feel the need to deify them. Enjoy their tennis and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

lol. :) look at the guy jumping to defend the old timers based on some perceived nonexistent slight.

Was there an old-timer who was the favorite at the outset of a new year at all the upcoming surfaces/slams? It's a simple question. The bookies certainly think nadal is right now. If you have some knowledge related to hitman's question please post it, otherwise please respectfully BITE THE SUSHI. ;)
 
bolo said:
lol. :) look at the guy jumping to defend the old timers based on some perceived nonexistent slight.

Was there an old-timer who was the favorite at the outset of a new year at all the upcoming surfaces/slams? It's a simple question. The bookies certainly think nadal is right now. If you have some knowledge related to hitman's question please post it, otherwise please respectfully BITE THE SUSHI. ;)
Click to expand...

Federer might have been favourite for all the slams in 05/06 at the start of the calendar year. It's not very likely, but it's certainly possible.
 
Last edited:
Rippy said:
Federer might have been favourite for all the slams in 04/05/06 at the start of the calendar year. It's not very likely, but it's certainly possible.
Click to expand...

I think 2005 is very possible rippy. Although things might have changed by the start of 2005 RG. It would be interesting to know if that's true.
 
Ok Rafa is the best right now on grass and has been the best on clay for years BUT

what on earth makes you think he is the best on Hard Courts?
 
There have been several through the years who were the best on all surfaces - the world did not start in the year 2000.


Also, I don't believe Nadal is the best on hard court, though you certainly could make a case for it.
 
Manus Domini said:
err, I believe that the info should be accurate first.

1} he wasn't ever in 4 straight Wimbies. Try losing in 2007, winning in 2008 and 2010 and not getting to final in 2009.
Click to expand...

He did reach 4 straight Wimbledon finals... 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010. He didn't play in 2009, due to injury, so it's not even considered.

BLACKOUT said:
He isn't the best on all surfaces, definitely the best on one (clay), and top 2 on one (grass), and top 5 on the other (hard)
Click to expand...

What other current player besides Federer has 2 HC slams and 5 HC MS 1000 titles?

Rafa owns the 2nd best overall HC resume of all current players. Therefore, he's either #1 or #2 on HC, NOT #3, #4 or #5.
 
Last edited:
Tony Wilding

Between 1913 and 1923 there were only 3 official majors in tennis *- they were played on the three available surfaces at the time - Grass, Clay and Indoor Wood. They were Wimbledon (on grass), the World Hard Court Championships (played on clay) and the World Covered Court Championship (played on indoor wood). Hard court was not a surface available back then to play on (didn't come in at competition level until the 60's).

Hence, because Tony wilding won all 3 majors in 1913 he was 'dominant' on all surfaces.

* Back then the US Championships wasn't a major officially - though it was regarded as such in a defacto sense. (The ILFT had only sanctioned the aforementioned 3 as official 'World Championship' events).
 
Bud said:
He did reach 4 straight Wimbledon finals... 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010. He didn't play in 2009, due to injury, so it's not even considered.



What other current player besides Federer has 2 HC slams and 5 HC MS 1000 titles?

Rafa owns the 2nd best overall HC resume of all current players. Therefore, he's either #1 or #2 on HC, NOT #3, #4 or #5.
Click to expand...

err, injury is part of the game, so he had three straight wimby finals, one non enter, and two wins total

but if finals were a measure of how great a player was on the surface, Fed would as good a clay court player as Rafa.

and with the "2nd best overall HC resume of all current players", he can't be "#1 on HC", but "#2". And he doesn't have the second best one, he has the luckiest one.
 
he might when he becomes the best grass and hc player...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Djokovic2015
Is Novak the only undisputed best player since slams were played on 3 surfaces?
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
mandy01
mandy01
pc1
How good can Soderling be on all surfaces?
Replies
2
Views
612
urban
U
D
Rank top 10 players on all surfaces
2 3
Replies
105
Views
10K
The-Champ
The-Champ
clayqueen
Battle of the surfaces 2
Replies
2
Views
387
Kralingen
K
Lew II
Djokovic is the only player in the Open Era with 80+% of wins on all surfaces
2 3
Replies
116
Views
7K
RS
RS
Back
Top