Rafa Nadal - The most important professional tennis player in history

[borg number one]

“

What does a tennis player look like? In many people’s minds, the description hasn’t changed in 40 years: The male version has long hair, wears a headband and tight white shorts, and swings a wooden racquet. This image survives in the popular imagination, despite all evidence to the contrary, because of one man: Bjorn Borg. The Swede’s hold over the game was so powerful that when he left the tour abruptly at age 25 in 1981, tennis seemed to stop with him.

Borg was the Open era’s first superstar and sex symbol, and its most popular player. His debut run, at 17, to the quarterfinals at Wimbledon in 1973 was tennis’ version of the Beatles’ arrival in America. Schoolgirls screamed through the Teen Angel’s matches, and chased him across the grounds. That same year he signed with IMG and left home for tax haven Monte Carlo.

But Borg matched his pop-star style with a champion’s substance. His speed, stamina, steadiness and athleticism were unparalleled, and his heavy-topspin Western forehand and two-handed backhand—both were especially lethal on passing shots—became the models for virtually all players to come. Borg’s outward silence masked a cold-blooded instinct for the kill; from 1976 to 1980, he would win 13 straight five-set matches.

The Ice Man, he was dubbed; at the peak of his powers, in 1980, he appeared on the cover of Time magazine under the headline, “The Incredible Tennis Machine.” This machine, which was plastered with endorsements, was particularly good at making money. Playing a never-ending slate of exhibitions, Borg became one of the world’s highest-paid athletes.

By the late ‘70s, the Teen Angel went by a new nickname: the Angelic Assassin. He won the first of his six French Opens in 1974, led Sweden to its first Davis Cup title in 1975 and began a five-year reign at Wimbledon in 1976. From 1978 to ’80, Borg won the French and Wimbledon back-to-back three straight times (it would be 18 years before any man won the “Channel Slam” again). Borg still owns the highest winning percentage in Wimbledon history (92.7), Grand Slam history (89.8) and against Top 10 opponents (70.0).”

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

What people find boring is all subjective opinion the same with what people find exciting.

You'd think your statement would be held as common sense, but....

 

[clayqueen]

Laver played a ton in 3 decades and yea his stats are jaw dropping. Borg ushered in the modern era. You don’t see tennis players making the cover of Time these days. Borg was likely the biggest tennis star in terms of worldwide fame in history. Ask Nadal, Federer and Novak, they know.

Rafa regularly makes the cover of L'Equipe. I wouldn't judge influence simply on being on the cover of TIME.

 

[borg number one]

Rafa regularly makes the cover of L'Equipe. I wouldn't judge influence simply on being on the cover of TIME.

Borg as a worldwide superstar >Nadal. I lived through those times and its not close. He was more impactful and famous. Borg and Nadal are my two favorite players by the way and I was a serious tournament player my whole junior career. I have followed tennis very closely since the late 1970’s. Look up when the US had the most tennis players ever? The year was 1980. Even with population growth, the numbers have never reached those levels. Borg was instrumental in making it a Golden Era in tennis.

 

[Neptune]

Borg is a legend on three surfaces (clay, grass, carpet)
Rafa, clay.

Are there any other top-tier legends as one surface specialist?

 

[Bartelby]

You are more likely to get important players during pivotal changes in tennis history. I can't see any of the Big Three qualifying given how predictable tennis has been.

None of them can lay claim to pioneering polyester, for example.

 

[NeutralFan]

And I thought it was Arthur Ashe or BJK or Nav. Silly me.

It might not be Rafa but yeah silly you for those names. Even Borg has a better case for Arthur Ashe.

 

[NeutralFan]

Have you ever seen Laver's career statistics? I think Laver has had greatness bestowed upon him in my opinion. He is from a very different era when hardcourts were few and far between now they form the core of the tour. Laver got his Grand Slam Record by playing in 1962 and 1969, the rest of the time he was absent. Borg did make an impact but as his career was so short, the impact wasn't that great.

Laver Career stats

It's not his fault TBH, as much as I think Lil Rod would be a top 20 player at best in modern era ( not this sht post2000) his greatness should be seen in the time he played.

 

[Fabresque]

They’ve gone from “Greatest of all time” to “Most important of all time”. He isn’t even the most important player of all time.

Federer was way more popular and did much more in terms of getting kids etc interested, and every young player is taught to model Djokovic.

What did Nadal offer? Butt picking and sleeveless shirts? Some legacy.

 

[clayqueen]

They’ve gone from “Greatest of all time” to “Most important of all time”. He isn’t even the most important player of all time.

Federer was way more popular and did much more in terms of getting kids etc interested, and every young player is taught to model Djokovic.

What did Nadal offer? Butt picking and sleeveless shirts? Some legacy.

 

[clayqueen]

It's not his fault TBH, as much as I think Lil Rod would be a top 20 player at best in modern era ( not this sht post2000) his greatness should be seen in the time he played.

It's not Laver's fault at all. I just find tennis is very subjective about how commentators create heroes at will on air, often based on their own fandom and casual fans lap it all up as legitimate. Margaret Court still holds the record for slams in women's tennis but the pundits wanted Serena to be the GOAT and they willed her on to, at least, equal Margaret Court's record, which she never did. Margaret Court was only mentioned in the context of Serena surpassing her. Court achieved far far more than Laver did and many people have never heard of her.

 

[Gizo]

It's safe to say that none of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, as incredible as they and their achievements over such a long period are, have been anywhere near as important for the sport as any of Connors, Borg and McEnroe were (without even getting to other instrumental figures during the sport's history), with those latter 3 (plus other players such as Gerulaitis and Vilas) driving a huge global tennis boom.

Following on from that tennis boom, it felt that the sport became much ‘cooler’ and more accessible. Nowadays it feels more elitist and restrictive again, especially given that lower ranked players are comparatively worse off financially that they were in previous eras (with playing expenses increasing at a faster rate through inflation than lower level prize money).

Looking at the European tennis report, I saw that tennis participation figures were down in Spain in 2018 (so pre-COVID) as well in 2022 compared to in 2009. I’d be interested to see participation figures in the country from previous years as well, particular from the around the turn of the millenium and early 00s.

 

[clayqueen]

It's not his fault TBH, as much as I think Lil Rod would be a top 20 player at best in modern era ( not this sht post2000) his greatness should be seen in the time he played.

In Laver's era, players were mainly Americans, Australians and British. Now it's global. Many players in Laver's era, didn't compete in every tournament because travelling around the world wasn't so easy. Players were competing against their countrymen half the time because it took too long to fly around the world and as prizemoney was virtually non-existent, no one could afford to travel. Amateur tennis players ( on the circuit), were banned from advertising or sponsorship, and before the open era, pro-tennis players were banned from the circuit. There were no ranking points hence no rankings until 1973. Players didn't have to play for 11 months of the year to gain enough points for direct entry into tournaments.

Laver's era has nothing to do with tennis today.

 

[Subway Tennis]

It's safe to say that none of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, as incredible as they and their achievements over such a long period are, have been anywhere near as important for the sport as any of Connors, Borg and McEnroe were (without even getting to other instrumental figures during the sport's history), with those latter 3 (plus other players such as Gerulaitis and Vilas) driving a huge global tennis boom.

Following on from that tennis boom, it felt that the sport became much ‘cooler’ and more accessible. Nowadays it feels more elitist and restrictive again, especially given that lower ranked players are comparatively worse off financially that they were in previous eras (with playing expenses increasing at a faster rate through inflation than lower level prize money).

Looking at the European tennis report, I saw that tennis participation figures were down in Spain in 2018 (so pre-COVID) as well in 2022 compared to in 2009. I’d be interested to see participation figures in the country from previous years as well, particular from the around the turn of the millenium and early 00s.

Those 70’s players were rock stars individually, but they were also capable of banding together to completely change the game and help professionalize it.

It’s hard to imagine something like the Wimbledon boycott or a similar seismic change being achieved by the current generation.

 

[clayqueen]

It's safe to say that none of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, as incredible as they and their achievements over such a long period are, have been anywhere near as important for the sport as any of Connors, Borg and McEnroe were (without even getting to other instrumental figures during the sport's history), with those latter 3 (plus other players such as Gerulaitis and Vilas) driving a huge global tennis boom.

Following on from that tennis boom, it felt that the sport became much ‘cooler’ and more accessible. Nowadays it feels more elitist and restrictive again, especially given that lower ranked players are comparatively worse off financially that they were in previous eras (with playing expenses increasing at a faster rate through inflation than lower level prize money).

Looking at the European tennis report, I saw that tennis participation figures were down in Spain in 2018 (so pre-COVID) as well in 2022 compared to in 2009. I’d be interested to see participation figures in the country from previous years as well, particular from the around the turn of the millenium and early 00s.

The Borg/McEnroe/Connors era certainly was a great era but it was nothing like it is now simply because satellite communication didn't exist, consequently, only Americans could watch the USO, only the British could watch Wimbledon, only Australians could watch the Australian Open and only the French could watch Roland Garros. The lack of technology also meant that computer leaderboards did not exist, players did their own thing; they did not try and compete with their peers' achievements. They all wanted to beat each other when they met but they didn't care how many titles their rivals had because no one was counting.

That's a very different mindset to how tennis is seen today because of all the bean-counting of who has won what and young players wanting to emulate the greatest players of today.

 

[clayqueen]

Those 70’s players were rock stars individually, but they were also capable of banding together to completely change the game and help professionalize it.

It’s hard to imagine something like the Wimbledon boycott or a similar seismic change being achieved by the current generation.

It's true that the 70s players did make professional tennis what it is today.

 

[Gizo]

The Borg/McEnroe/Connors era certainly was a great era but it was nothing like it is now simply because satellite communication didn't exist, consequently, only Americans could watch the USO, only the British could watch Wimbledon, only Australians could watch the Australian Open and only the French could watch Roland Garros. The lack of technology also meant that computer leaderboards did not exist, players did their own thing; they did not try and compete with their peers' achievements. They all wanted to beat each other when they met but they didn't care how many titles their rivals had because no one was counting.

That's a very different mindset to how tennis is seen today because of all the bean-counting of who has won what and young players wanting to emulate the greatest players of today.

Borg, Connors and McEnroe all played in a huge number of invitational tournaments across the world. Those events for great for their bank balances (they all had individual seasons in which they were the best paid athletes on the planet for perspective), but also crucially allowed fans in many different countries whether it was Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Argentina, Mexico, Hong Kong, Belgium, Egypt, Denmark (plus in numerous other cities in the US) etc., to watch them play live (or on TV), and also helped drive the global tennis boom.

And as Borg was playing so often in the US and had big rivalries against US (and global) superstars, it helped ensure that his star appeal in the country was enormous. He as a none-US athlete being on the cover of Sports Illustrated 5 times, the same number as Sampras and Agassi combined, was remarkable. Not to mention him getting mobbed on the court as a 17 year at Wimbledon in 1973 when Borg-mania was running wild.

Thanks to them the popularity of tennis surged across the globe. On the flip side it looks like overall tennis participation nowadays (or just before COVID) is down across Europe since 2009.

Those 70’s players were rock stars individually, but they were also capable of banding together to completely change the game and help professionalize it.

It’s hard to imagine something like the Wimbledon boycott or a similar seismic change being achieved by the current generation.

Agreed.

From a US context, Roddick was nowhere near as household a name during the early 00s (it wouldn't surprise me if McEnroe still earned more from endorsements in 2003 than he did), as Gerulaitis was around the late 70s - early 80s for example.

They had the star appeal and the influence. Even players such as Borg and Evert (after Connors did it one year and was unfortunately banned from entering the Italian Open and RG) joining Billie Jean King by playing in World Team Tennis, helped drive Chatrier and Roland Garros to improve its grounds, expanding its stadia and more importantly offer more prize money.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Well wouldn't that be depressing?

 

[clayqueen]

Borg, Connors and McEnroe all played in a huge number of invitational tournaments across the world. Those events for great for their bank balances (they all had individual seasons in which they were the best paid athletes on the planet for perspective), but also crucially allowed fans in many different countries whether it was Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Argentina, Mexico, Hong Kong, Belgium, Egypt, Denmark (plus in numerous other cities in the US) etc., to watch them play live (or on TV), and also helped drive the global tennis boom.

And as Borg was playing so often in the US and had big rivalries against US (and global) superstars, it helped ensure that his star appeal in the country was enormous. He as a none-US athlete being on the cover of Sports Illustrated 5 times, the same number as Sampras and Agassi combined, was remarkable. Not to mention him getting mobbed on the court as a 17 year at Wimbledon in 1973 when Borg-mania was running wild.

Thanks to them the popularity of tennis surged across the globe. On the flip side it looks like overall tennis participation nowadays (or just before COVID) is down across Europe since 2009.



Agreed.

From a US context, Roddick was nowhere near as household a name during the early 00s (it wouldn't surprise me if McEnroe still earned more from endorsements in 2003 than he did), as Gerulaitis was around the late 70s - early 80s for example.

They had the star appeal and the influence. Even players such as Borg and Evert (after Connors did it one year and was unfortunately banned from entering the Italian Open and RG) joining Billie Jean King by playing in World Team Tennis, helped drive Chatrier and Roland Garros to improve its grounds, expanding its stadia and more importantly offer more prize money.

That's your perspective as an American but as a Brit, I know how I used to pine for Wimbledon to see the great stars play. My favourite eras in tennis are the 70s and the noughties after Rafa came on the scene. I stopped following tennis avidly after the Edberg/Becker era and only came on board again when I discovered Rafa, who, to me, is the most watchable player ever.

 

[Gizo]

That's your perspective as an American but as a Brit, I know how I used to pine for Wimbledon to see the great stars play. My favourite eras in tennis are the 70s and the noughties after Rafa came on the scene. I stopped following tennis avidly after the Edberg/Becker era and only came on board again when I discovered Rafa, who, to me, is the most watchable player ever.

I'm not American, I'm a Brit as well, and I very much remember Borg-mania at Wimbledon year after year, Connors and McEnroe (including when he was 18 in 1977) being huge news, it big a very deal when they showed up to play at the Wembley indoor event as well etc.

The tennis boom driven by those 3 (plus the likes of Evert on the women's side with Goolagong also incredibly popular everywhere she went) certainly extended to the UK. Wimbledon in those days felt (and genuinely was) one of the biggest sporting events on the planet. Nowadays it's much lower down the sporting pecking order.

Honestly the summary is that Borg, Connors and McEnroe were legends and huge stars, that helped catapult tennis to new heights popularity-wise, while Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have 'merely' been legends (with truly incredible numbers that they all deserve a lot of credit for) and huge stars, without anything close to the same influence (in-fact their sustained success hasn't been able to stop declining participation figures across Europe).

 

[Phoenix*]

Sounds like discount goat to me.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

At least the deranged Djokovic fanbase hasn't discovered this thread yet.

Anyway, it's Björn Borg.

 

[Sport]

Have you ever seen Laver's career statistics? I think Laver has had greatness bestowed upon him in my opinion. He is from a very different era when hardcourts were few and far between now they form the core of the tour. Laver got his Grand Slam Record by playing in 1962 and 1969, the rest of the time he was absent. Borg did make an impact but as his career was so short, the impact wasn't that great.

Laver Career stats

Laver wasn't absent between 1963 and 1968. He won 8 Pro Slams (which are deemed Majors by tennis historians). That is quite impressive, 19 Majors in his career (11 Grand Slams + 8 Pro Slams), including 2 Calendar Year Grand Slams and 1 Calendar Year Pro Slam. His resume is almost immaculate in terms of dominating all the Majors and all the surfaces of his time. You can't criticize Laver for not playing Slams on hard courts, not his fault that hard courts weten't that important during his time and obviously you can't assume he's bad on hard courts just because Slams were not disputed on hard during those days (untestable assumption).

 

[clayqueen]

Honestly the summary is that Borg, Connors and McEnroe were legends and huge stars, that helped catapult tennis to new heights popularity-wise, while Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have 'merely' been legends (with truly incredible numbers that they all deserve a lot of credit for) and huge stars, without anything close to the same influence (in-fact their sustained success hasn't been able to stop declining participation figures across Europe).

Undeniably, Borg, Connors, and McEnroe were stars, but what stifled the 'rockstar' evolution of the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era was the obsession with Federer, leading to a reluctance of anyone surpassing his so-called popularity, which was propaganda that many casual tennis fans bought into. No one else was allowed to get a look in.

For me, the Federer hype did not match the reality I just found it frustrating. People made up their own minds about the adulation of the 70s stars. Despite McEnroe's belligerent behaviour, people still warmed to him and would move mountains to watch him do his magic on the court. During Federer's stint as a player, he was relentlessly marketed as the best thing since sliced bread and so many people bought into the hype. It was quite a turn-off for me.

I'll just add that all the petty rules today have robbed players of their personality. They've all become indentikits. They all have to praise each other and are not allowed to express their own opinion about other players.

 

[clayqueen]

Laver wasn't absent between 1963 and 1968. He won 8 Pro Slams (which are deemed Majors by tennis historians). That is quite impressive, 19 Majors in his career (11 Grand Slams + 8 Pro Slams), including 2 Calendar Year Grand Slams and 1 Calendar Year Pro Slam. His resume is almost immaculate in terms of dominating all the Majors and all the surfaces of his time. You can't criticize Laver for not playing Slams on hard court, not his fault that hard court wasn't that important during his time and obviously you can't assume he is bad on hard court just because Slams were not disputed on hard court those days (untestable assumption).

I'm just saying it's apples and oranges.

 

[MrFlip]

Federer is. I'm sorry. Nadal close 2nd.

 

[weakera]

Nadal is so special, we're all lucky to have seen him

 

[clayqueen]

Federer is. I'm sorry. Nadal close 2nd.

You are just one of many who bought into the media hype.

 

[MrFlip]

You are just one of many who bought into the media hype.

No I am old enough to have seen the start of the big 3. Fed was a player for ALL surfaces, he made final after final and raised the bar and continued to win slams into his late 30s.
Nadal is sadly about to retire.
Djokovic is the GOAT but his style and character don't transcend the sport.

 

[weakera]

No I am old enough to have seen the start of the big 3. Fed was a player for ALL surfaces, he made final after final and raised the bar and continued to win slams into his late 30s.
Nadal is sadly about to retire.
Djokovic is the GOAT but his style and character don't transcend the sport.

Player for all surfaces who didn't win a double career slam... interesting.

 

[clayqueen]

No I am old enough to have seen the start of the big 3. Fed was a player for ALL surfaces, he made final after final and raised the bar and continued to win slams into his late 30s.
Nadal is sadly about to retire.
Djokovic is the GOAT but his style and character don't transcend the sport.

Federer triumphed in the weak era. ALL of the people he used to beat for fun were still very much active when the Big 4 dominated the game for a decade.

 

[Azure]

It might not be Rafa but yeah silly you for those names. Even Borg has a better case for Arthur Ashe.

Ah yes because a black man winning the most prestigious tournament in a predominantly white man’s sport, or the two women who fought the most for the most important things for equality is just being silly.

 

[beautyistruth!!]

Nope, not buying it. This is just another bogus fake award created to give Rafa some respect after having squandered the GOAT title which the establishment basically gave to him in a silver platter. The establishment is trying to fabricate Rafa above Djokovic with these media tricks, smoke and mirrors. But it's propaganda. Rafa failed.

 

[clayqueen]

Nope, not buying it. This is just another bogus fake award created to give Rafa some respect after having squandered the GOAT title which the establishment basically gave to him in a silver platter. The establishment is trying to fabricate Rafa above Djokovic with these media tricks, smoke and mirrors. But it's propaganda. Rafa failed.

Only if you say so yourself. No one is asking you to buy it.

 

[Razer]

During Federer's stint as a player, he was relentlessly marketed as the best thing since sliced bread and so many people bought into the hype. It was quite a turn-off for me.

Sorry to say but Djokovic and Nadal are/were not as marketable as Federer.

Nadal cannot even speak English properly, giving interviews and having a charming personality is also important to be marketed among the "Casual fans". Then again Rafa is injured half of the time and he is not ranked 1 for long periods, that was also a problem when it came to marketing him. His scintillating athleticism was his USP but he was always under Federer's shadow and failed to take the baton from Federer. Nole arrived and took it in 2011, the baton which Federer has sort of passed to Nadal, it was a short-lived affair. These things affect marketability as well.

Coming to Novak, we all know he too is a bit low of marketability despite being ranked 1 for so long, he was marketed as some third wheel character/villain types due to he emerging as a rival to Fedal, and the audience were just too engrossed in Federer to actually accept Novak as a new top dog.

So that's the point, Djokodal were not as marketable enough to break the hold which Federer had over the public.

I feel even if Federer was the youngest of the 3, he would still have sidelined Djokodal as soon as he hit his peak. His personality, his winning ways was all too magnetic, his charm was second to none in his time. Djokodal just lack the charisma to attract the crowd like Federer.

 

[clayqueen]

Sorry to say but Djokovic and Nadal are/were not as marketable as Federer.

Nadal cannot even speak English properly, giving interviews and having a charming personality is also important to be marketed among the "Casual fans". Then again Rafa is injured half of the time and he is not ranked 1 for long periods, that was also a problem when it came to marketing him. His scintillating athleticism was his USP but he was always under Federer's shadow and failed to take the baton from Federer. Nole arrived and took it in 2011, the baton which Federer has sort of passed to Nadal, it was a short-lived affair. These things affect marketability as well.

Coming to Novak, we all know he too is a bit low of marketability despite being ranked 1 for so long, he was marketed as some third wheel character/villain types due to he emerging as a rival to Fedal, and the audience were just too engrossed in Federer to actually accept Novak as a new top dog.

So that's the point, Djokodal were not as marketable enough to break the hold which Federer had over the public.

I feel even if Federer was the youngest of the 3, he would still have sidelined Djokodal as soon as he hit his peak. His personality, his winning ways was all too magnetic, his charm was second to none in his time. Djokodal just lack the charisma to attract the crowd like Federer.

Federer scrubbed up well.

 

[Razer]

Federer scrubbed up well.

It is more about his game and the way he speaks with clarity.

Not his looks.

 

[clayqueen]

Sorry to say but Djokovic and Nadal are/were not as marketable as Federer.

Nadal cannot even speak English properly, giving interviews and having a charming personality is also important to be marketed among the "Casual fans". Then again Rafa is injured half of the time and he is not ranked 1 for long periods, that was also a problem when it came to marketing him. His scintillating athleticism was his USP but he was always under Federer's shadow and failed to take the baton from Federer. Nole arrived and took it in 2011, the baton which Federer has sort of passed to Nadal, it was a short-lived affair. These things affect marketability as well.

Coming to Novak, we all know he too is a bit low of marketability despite being ranked 1 for so long, he was marketed as some third wheel character/villain types due to he emerging as a rival to Fedal, and the audience were just too engrossed in Federer to actually accept Novak as a new top dog.

So that's the point, Djokodal were not as marketable enough to break the hold which Federer had over the public.

I feel even if Federer was the youngest of the 3, he would still have sidelined Djokodal as soon as he hit his peak. His personality, his winning ways was all too magnetic, his charm was second to none in his time. Djokodal just lack the charisma to attract the crowd like Federer.

So many opinions and half truths is what you've said.

 

[clayqueen]

It is more about his game and the way he speaks with clarity.

Not his looks.

His game style is subjective. I find it boring as hell and stopped watching tennis until Rafa came along.

 

[clayqueen]

Sorry to say but Djokovic and Nadal are/were not as marketable as Federer.

Nadal cannot even speak English properly, giving interviews and having a charming personality is also important to be marketed among the "Casual fans". Then again Rafa is injured half of the time and he is not ranked 1 for long periods, that was also a problem when it came to marketing him. His scintillating athleticism was his USP but he was always under Federer's shadow and failed to take the baton from Federer. Nole arrived and took it in 2011, the baton which Federer has sort of passed to Nadal, it was a short-lived affair. These things affect marketability as well.

Coming to Novak, we all know he too is a bit low of marketability despite being ranked 1 for so long, he was marketed as some third wheel character/villain types due to he emerging as a rival to Fedal, and the audience were just too engrossed in Federer to actually accept Novak as a new top dog.

So that's the point, Djokodal were not as marketable enough to break the hold which Federer had over the public.

I feel even if Federer was the youngest of the 3, he would still have sidelined Djokodal as soon as he hit his peak. His personality, his winning ways was all too magnetic, his charm was second to none in his time. Djokodal just lack the charisma to attract the crowd like Federer.

What would you say if Rafa was any more popular?

 

[clayqueen]

Sorry to say but Djokovic and Nadal are/were not as marketable as Federer.

Nadal cannot even speak English properly, giving interviews and having a charming personality is also important to be marketed among the "Casual fans". Then again Rafa is injured half of the time and he is not ranked 1 for long periods, that was also a problem when it came to marketing him. His scintillating athleticism was his USP but he was always under Federer's shadow and failed to take the baton from Federer. Nole arrived and took it in 2011, the baton which Federer has sort of passed to Nadal, it was a short-lived affair. These things affect marketability as well.

Coming to Novak, we all know he too is a bit low of marketability despite being ranked 1 for so long, he was marketed as some third wheel character/villain types due to he emerging as a rival to Fedal, and the audience were just too engrossed in Federer to actually accept Novak as a new top dog.

So that's the point, Djokodal were not as marketable enough to break the hold which Federer had over the public.

I feel even if Federer was the youngest of the 3, he would still have sidelined Djokodal as soon as he hit his peak. His personality, his winning ways was all too magnetic, his charm was second to none in his time. Djokodal just lack the charisma to attract the crowd like Federer.

No signs tha tennis is missing Federer since he retired.

 

[Neptune]

Player for all surfaces who didn't win a double career slam... interesting.

French politicians don't step up to help Fed?

 

[socallefty]

Tennis participation in Spain and Western Europe is down in the last twenty years. Interesting considering the context of Wilander’s remarks.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Ah yes because a black man winning the most prestigious tournament in a predominantly white man’s sport, or the two women who fought the most for the most important things for equality is just being silly.

That's more about politics and minorities than about tennis overall.

 

[clayqueen]

.

 

[borg number one]

“But July 5, 1980, belonged to Borg, and this is the one match of their 14 that tennis fans remember and celebrate to this day. That’s partly because it’s the last important one where the angel triumphed over the devil. It’s also because, in its setting and place in time, with its wooden racquets, colorful headbands, short shorts, and wild hair, the 1980 Wimbledon final serves as a poignant reminder of a golden era now long past, when tennis reached a peak of popularity and cultural influence it would never reach again. The match took place 12 years after the beginning of open tennis, and in many ways its two protagonists were shining, wealthy examples of how successful the transition from amateur to professional had been.”

Tennis Anyone Historical U.S. TV Ratings for Wimbledon | Nielsen

It’s that time of year at the All England Lawn Tennis Club. Love — or rather, 40-love, game, set,...

www.nielsen.com

“While the 2000 Wimbledon broadcasts claimed the largest U.S. audiences in recent memory (4.07 million viewers per telecast), the early Eighties remain the true glory days of televised lawn tennis in the U.S. The 1980 and 1981 championships claimed the largest TV audiences to date, with 8.42 million and 7.98 million average viewers, respectively, per telecast.”

1980: The five-set final between Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe was the pinnacle of their rivalry—and the Woodstock of their tennis era | Tennis.com

In its setting and place in time, this Wimbledon final serves as a poignant reminder of a golden era now long past, when tennis reached a peak of popularity and cultural influence it would never reach again.

www.tennis.com

 

[clayqueen]

No I am old enough to have seen the start of the big 3. Fed was a player for ALL surfaces, he made final after final and raised the bar and continued to win slams into his late 30s.
Nadal is sadly about to retire.
Djokovic is the GOAT but his style and character don't transcend the sport.

Federer was rubbish on clay.

 

[_phantom]

Sorry to say but Djokovic and Nadal are/were not as marketable as Federer.

Nadal cannot even speak English properly, giving interviews and having a charming personality is also important to be marketed among the "Casual fans". Then again Rafa is injured half of the time and he is not ranked 1 for long periods, that was also a problem when it came to marketing him. His scintillating athleticism was his USP but he was always under Federer's shadow and failed to take the baton from Federer. Nole arrived and took it in 2011, the baton which Federer has sort of passed to Nadal, it was a short-lived affair. These things affect marketability as well.

Coming to Novak, we all know he too is a bit low of marketability despite being ranked 1 for so long, he was marketed as some third wheel character/villain types due to he emerging as a rival to Fedal, and the audience were just too engrossed in Federer to actually accept Novak as a new top dog.

So that's the point, Djokodal were not as marketable enough to break the hold which Federer had over the public.

I feel even if Federer was the youngest of the 3, he would still have sidelined Djokodal as soon as he hit his peak. His personality, his winning ways was all too magnetic, his charm was second to none in his time. Djokodal just lack the charisma to attract the crowd like Federer.

It seems almost every other young player in the current ATP field had Nadal as their idol in their kid years. I suppose Mats in his lazy/hazy statement tried to allude to that. Just had a quick glance at 128 players of AO main draw this year and about 30 appears to be clear Rafaites. Way more than the number of Federites atm.

Djokovic is not doing too bad, he has 3 now. That's 200% improvement in a year and a half.

 

[Azure]

That's more about politics and minorities than about tennis overall.

Why politics? Regardless, we are talking about significance. If the significance is for one class or population of the world, how is that not something to be recognized? I also named Navratilova who has done A LOT for the sport of tennis with plenty of ‘firsts’ to her name. Stars come and go but the legacy that such players have is to take sports to another level and to provide a platform for a completely new population of people who never thought it may be possible.

I’d argue that the Williamses single handedly have had more influence than Nadal in this aspect.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Why politics? Regardless, we are talking about significance. If the significance is for one class or population of the world, how is that not something to be recognized? I also named Navratilova who has done A LOT for the sport of tennis with plenty of ‘firsts’ to her name. Stars come and go but the legacy that such players have is to take sports to another level and to provide a platform for a completely new population of people who never thought it may be possible.

I’d argue that the Williamses single handedly have had more influence than Nadal in this aspect.

I’m not saying they’re not important, I’m saying that Borg was more influential in terms of making tennis popular. He’s iconic. I’d agree that the Serena Williams is more important for tennis than Nadal. A lot more people who don’t care about tennis know her as an international sports icon. Nadal’s impact may be gone once he retires.