Rafa Nadal is the best tennis player to ever live

Thorondor

Rookie
Well what's the point of including 2003 and 2004 in a direct comparison when Nadal and Djokovic were both under 18?

We are comparing three players seems to me a decade is a good yardstick. As they are all playing that means from 2007 to now
When comparing three players (or any number of players) you look at their careers, not at some arbitrary decade that includes more of one player's prime than another's.
 

Thorondor

Rookie
WTF is irrelevant as OG for this generation far more significant as Andy Murray said yesterday replying to McEnroe trolling him.

Total weeks at no. 1 is also irrelevant. Year end no.1 more significant.
Nice try, everyone knows OG is only around the level of a Masters 1000. Of course Andy Murray will say it's significant since he won it. And just because it can be significant in terms of what it means for your country, doesn't make it a higher accomplishment. WTF is the best 8 players in the world competing in controlled conditions (not subject to weather like outdoor venues). Most of Federer's wins were in best of 5 finals, just like the OG match.

Year end no. 1 is simply a discretization of weeks at no. 1 that loses much of the statistic's original information.
 

gplracer

Hall of Fame
Total weeks at number 1 does mean something. Every stat means something. Some just mean more than others. If we take Nadal's best surface and Federer's best surface out of the mix how do they compare? All of a sudden Nadal does not look as good. Granted this is now how things work. EVERYTHING counts.

The main thing here is what is the best player? Everyone's definition is different. You can think whatever you want but when you post on here someone will attack it. That is why it is stupid to make a best thread.
 

ultradr

Legend
So you give no weight to Fed's 237 consecutive weeks at no. 1, nor to his at least five majors each on three of four slams

Absolutely no weight on # of weeks compred to YE#1 and slams.

When Sampras broke # of weeks, previous holder of records was Lendl and Connors, I think.

But when Sampras achieved 6 YE#1, he joined a group of players such as Gonzalez and Laver.

It's homogeneous surface era and last 15 years with best of 13 non slam results ranking system.
Weekly ranking fluctuated a lot more during 70s-90s with very different surfaces and best of 9 non-slam result ranking system.
# of weeks is noisy data.
 
Last edited:

RudyHuxtable

Semi-Pro
I'm a fan of Tommy Haas, but I've oft had difficulty fully enjoying him without arbitrarily establishing his dominance in the tennis world. Therefore, I will present the fact that he beat Rogi in their last meeting.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Well what's the point of including 2003 and 2004 in a direct comparison when Nadal and Djokovic were both under 18?

We are comparing three players seems to me a decade is a good yardstick. As they are all playing that means from 2007 to now
Nadal and Djokovic are like 5 years younger than Federer...
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
WTF is irrelevant as OG for this generation far more significant as Andy Murray said yesterday replying to McEnroe trolling him.

Total weeks at no. 1 is also irrelevant. Year end no.1 more significant.
LOL. Don't even get me started on OG.
 
To remind our friend TennisFan2017 of one famous quote from a poster he knows:

"I never said that the Gold medal is more valuable than 6 WTF. I said the Gold medal is valuable now because Nadal has it. If Nadal didn't have it it wouldn't be such a big deal."

:cool:
 
Nice try, everyone knows OG is only around the level of a Masters 1000. Of course Andy Murray will say it's significant since he won it. And just because it can be significant in terms of what it means for your country, doesn't make it a higher accomplishment. WTF is the best 8 players in the world competing in controlled conditions (not subject to weather like outdoor venues). Most of Federer's wins were in best of 5 finals, just like the OG match.

Year end no. 1 is simply a discretization of weeks at no. 1 that loses much of the statistic's original information.
Del Porto has said that a masters 1000 is bigger than WTF as has Davydenko . So you just yourself admit OG is bigger.
 
When comparing three players (or any number of players) you look at their careers, not at some arbitrary decade that includes more of one player's prime than another's.
But Federer is five years older so you would expect him at the moment to have more Majors and Masters 1000. The latter he doesn't although if there were two on grass he might do
 

Thorondor

Rookie
Del Porto has said that a masters 1000 is bigger than WTF as has Davydenko . So you just yourself admit OG is bigger.
That's opinion, not fact. Inserting someone else's opinion into my argument shows how desperate you are. The fact is WTF is worth 1200-1500 points, Masters is worth 1000 points, and OG was 750 points (now 0).
 
Last edited:
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
Rafa%20stick%20it%20in%20you_zpsatcxlobd.gif
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Go on get started...queens is awful this year so need some entertainment before the main event
List of winners include meth Agassi, Rosset, Massu, Paes (in singles) and historically top players have never cared for the event. It's low-tier in tennis terms, but keep trying to convince us it means more than the WTF that has great players like Sampras, Federer and Djokovic winning there.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.


Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:

  1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.

  2. There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:

  1. His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.

  2. His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.

  3. As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)

  4. Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.

  5. Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live

Nadal is not yet one of the top five players all-time. Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden and Federer have achieved more than him.
 

anhtuanngo

Semi-Pro


Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:

  1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.

  2. There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:

  1. His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.

  2. His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.

  3. As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)

  4. Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.

  5. Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
Your arguments doesn't stand anymore because he's got 19 GS now.

Sent from my LG-M151 using Tapatalk
 

TennisATP

Professional
It's 19 to 15 and Rafa is 5 years younger. Federer is the GOAT right now, but we'll see how the next few years unfold. One thing is for sure the USO will be interesting, hopefully Rafa and Roger will finally meet there. And the race to #1. Nadal and Federer have made tennis interesting again.
 

thomasferrett

Hall of Fame
Nadal has acres of time to win at least 4 more Slams (he is much younger than Federer), I think he will end up with more. That and the dominant H2H will push him as the greater.
 

gut wax

Hall of Fame
Roger Federer is the best tennis player to ever live.


"That is not the point. I am superior to all posters on the forum, that is the main thing." - sureshs
 
Top