Tennis Magazine Tournament of Champions - Men

CEvertFan

CEvertFan

Hall of Fame
In the current issue of Tennis magazine there is a fantasy Tournament of Champions made up of current/former top players pitted against one another. Format is best of 3 sets with 1st set on clay, 2nd set on hard and 3rd set on grass.

Criteria is to have won at least one major during their career and the players are seeded according to how many majors they won. A panel of tennis commentators/former players picked the winners. This month's issue only covered the first round matches.

Seeds:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Roy Emerson
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Rod Laver
7. Jimmy Connors
8. Ivan Lendl
9. Ken Rosewall
10. Andre Agassi
11. John McEnroe
12. Novak Djokovic
13. Mats Wilander
14. John Newcombe
15. Boris Becker
16. Stefan Edberg
17. Jim Courier
18. Guillermo Vilas
19. Manuel Santana
20. Gustavo Kuerten
21. Arthur Ashe
22. Jan Kodes
23. Johan Kriek
24. Lleyton Hewitt
25. Andy Murray
26. Marat Safin
27. Patrick Rafter
28. Sergei Bruguera
29. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
30. Stan Smith
31. Ilie Nastase
32. Fred Stolle



First Round:

(1)Federer d. (32) Stolle 6-4, 6-4
(16) Edberg d. (17) Courier 4-6, 7-5, 7-5

(9) Rosewall d. (24) Hewitt 6-4, 7-6(5)
(8 ) Lendl d. (25) Murray 6-3, 7-6(5)

(5) Borg d. (28 ) Bruguera 6-3, 6-4
(12) Djokovic d. (21) Ashe 6-3, 7-5

(20) Kuerten d. (13) Wilander 7-6(4), 7-6(5)
(4) Emerson d. (29) Kafelnikov 5-7, 6-4, 6-4

(3) Sampras d. (30) Smith 6-4, 7-5
(14) Newcombe d. (19) Santana 4-6, 6-4, 7-6(6)

(11) McEnroe d. (22) Kodes 7-5, 6-3
(6) Laver d. (27) Rafter 6-4, 7-6(4)

(7) Connors d. (26) Safin 5-7, 7-6(3), 6-4
(10) Agassi d. (23) Kriek 6-4, 6-4

(18 ) Vilas d. (15) Becker 6-3, 7-6(10)
(2) Nadal d. (31) Nastase 6-4, 7-6(5)

Next issue is when the rest of the tournament will be finished.

Discuss.
 
CEvertFan said:
In the current issue of Tennis magazine there is a fantasy Tournament of Champions made up of current/former top players pitted against one another. Format is best of 3 sets with 1st set on clay, 2nd set on hard and 3rd set on grass.

Criteria is to have won at least one major during their career and the players are seeded according to how many majors they won. A panel of tennis commentators/former players picked the winners. This month's issue only covered the first round matches.

Seeds:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Roy Emerson
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Rod Laver
7. Jimmy Connors
8. Ivan Lendl
9. Ken Rosewall
10. Andre Agassi
11. John McEnroe
12. Novak Djokovic
13. Mats Wilander
14. John Newcombe
15. Boris Becker
16. Stefan Edberg
17. Jim Courier
18. Guillermo Vilas
19. Manuel Santana
20. Gustavo Kuerten
21. Arthur Ashe
22. Jan Kodes
23. Johan Kriek
24. Lleyton Hewitt
25. Andy Murray
26. Marat Safin
27. Patrick Rafter
28. Sergei Bruguera
29. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
30. Stan Smith
31. Ilie Nastase
32. Fred Stolle



First Round:

(1)Federer d. (32) Stolle 6-4, 6-4
(16) Edberg d. (17) Courier 4-6, 7-5, 7-5

(9) Rosewall d. (24) Hewitt 6-4, 7-6(5)
(8 ) Lendl d. (25) Murray 6-3, 7-6(5)

(5) Borg d. (28 ) Bruguera 6-3, 6-4
(12) Djokovic d. (21) Ashe 6-3, 7-5

(20) Kuerten d. (13) Wilander 7-6(4), 7-6(5)
(4) Emerson d. (29) Kafelnikov 5-7, 6-4, 6-4

(3) Sampras d. (30) Smith 6-4, 7-5
(14) Newcombe d. (19) Santana 4-6, 6-4, 7-6(6)

(11) McEnroe d. (22) Kodes 7-5, 6-3
(6) Laver d. (27) Rafter 6-4, 7-6(4)

(7) Connors d. (26) Safin 5-7, 7-6(3), 6-4
(10) Agassi d. (23) Kriek 6-4, 6-4

(18 ) Vilas d. (15) Becker 6-3, 7-6(10)
(2) Nadal d. (31) Nastase 6-4, 7-6(5)

Next issue is when the rest of the tournament will be finished.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the seeds are based on total majors won in the Open Era. Silly way to do it since Emerson is seeded ahead of Laver. Frankly it has been done so many times and while interesting to see opinions really doesn't mean much. They had John McEnroe win one of these in the mid 1980's.
 
Last edited:
It says in my post seeds are determined by how many majors won.

I'm aware it doesn't mean much, it's just a bit of good fun.
 
To put it bluntly, and at the risk of agreeing with sureshs, the very notion of a fantasy tournament is a bad joke, nothing more than marketing filler to engage the unsophisticated fans that it's specifically designed for. After all what's the point? If it's to decide who could play at the highest level in a given match (or three in this case, on separate surfaces), then no need to hold a knockout tournament, just put the best of them together and see who emerges victorious. But of course tennis isn't about the level of play in a single match, but rather performance over a period of several years against many players of different skill sets, and that's how we know that the big-name players were/are good to begin with. So if tennis in its highest (professional) form is a career rather than a pastime, then what's the point of holding a one-off event which, again, says little about its participants' excellence? It's the question that its organizers (often those that should know better) either purposely ignore or fail to answer, and we should respond by showing as much respect to them as they do to us.
 
Lol...I notice all higher seeds beat lower seeds with the sole exception of Kuerten-Wilander! Have the authors got something against poor Mats or are they just Guga fanboys? :wink:

PS. Why is Kriek seeded higher than any of those below him? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Mainad said:
Lol...I notice all higher seeds beat lower seeds with the sole exception of Kuerten-Wilander! Have the authors got something against poor Mats or are they just Guga fanboys? :wink:

PS. Why is Kriek seeded higher than any of those below him? :confused:
Click to expand...

I think they based the seeds on the amount of majors won. There is no way Kriek at his best is seeded above guys like Nastase.
 
pc1 said:
I think they based the seeds on the amount of majors won. There is no way Kriek at his best is seeded above guys like Nastase.
Click to expand...

But Kriek won the same amount of Majors as all those listed below him and yet many of them accomplished more besides (Hewitt, Safin, Murray, Nastase etc.) than Kriek did! :confused:
 
Mainad said:
But Kriek won the same amount of Majors as all those listed below him and yet many of them accomplished more besides (Hewitt, Safin, Murray, Nastase etc.) than Kriek did! :confused:
Click to expand...

They threw him a bone - it doesn't matter anyway.

And he lost in the first round as well so...
 
Also they only took major winners from 1965 to the present which is why you don't see the likes of Tilden, Perry etc.
 
What raised red flags for me is that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Laver, Borg and JMac are all winners.

Really? No kidding?

These happen to be exactly the players who, had they been defeated in the first round, would have caused a million hate letters to arrive at the magazine offices.
 
sureshs said:
What raised red flags for me is that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Laver, Borg and JMac are all winners.

Really? No kidding?

These happen to be exactly the players who, had they been defeated in the first round, would have caused a million hate letters to arrive at the magazine offices.
Click to expand...

Good point! I feel like posting a few on Murray's behalf. When was the last time he lost in the 1st round of anything? :twisted:
 
LOL everyone would dream of getting Emerson's quarter. If it were clay everyone would hope to be in Federer or Sampras half, and if it were grass in Nadal's. The seedings are as skewed against reality as the WTA rankings often are, which will likely lead to an unbalanced draw no matter how it turns out.
 
CEvertFan said:
Also they only took major winners from 1965 to the present which is why you don't see the likes of Tilden, Perry etc.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be surprised if the main reason was that they didn't have enough information on these players or perhaps they felt it was too far back. Another possibility is that the Amateur/Pro divide plus the travel conditions made it tough to accumulate a lot of majors in those days. I would tend to think the former is the probable reason.

Funny how several major GOAT candidates like Vines, Budge, Kramer and Gonzalez aren't even mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Mainad said:
Good point! I feel like posting a few on Murray's behalf. When was the last time he lost in the 1st round of anything? :twisted:
Click to expand...

Look at the "losers": Murray, Courier and Ashe. One is Scottish, not too likely to rile Americans. Ashe is a little too much in the past now to matter. Courier definitely excites much less passion than Connors or JMac. A very carefully chosen selection of sacrificial lambs!
 
Maybe its a jubilee year of Tennis, i think it was founded in 1965, much later than the rival Magazine World Tennis.
 
A lot of negative reaction to this tournament, so I couldn't resist.

Didn't think too much about this, mainly gut instinct. Hard courts are very medium paced, Grass is proper fast. At least one result will make some people very angry...

First Round:

Federer def. Stolle 6-3, 6-2
Courier def. Edberg 6-3, 7-6
Rosewall def. Hewitt 6-2, 4-6, 6-2
Lendl def. Murray 6-2, 6-4
Borg def. Bruguera 6-2, 6-2
Djokovic def. Ashe 6-3, 6-3
Wilander def. Kuerten 6-7, 6-4, 6-2
Emerson def. Kafelnikov 6-4, 3-6, 6-2
Sampras def. Smith 7-6, 6-2
Newcombe def. Santana 3-6, 6-3, 6-1
McEnroe def. Kodes 6-4, 6-2
Laver def. Rafter 6-2, 6-3
Connors def. Safin 6-3, 4-6, 6-2
Agassi def. Kriek 6-3, 6-2
Becker def. Vilas 2-6, 6-3, 6-1
Nadal def. Nastase 6-3, 6-4


Second Round:

Federer def. Courier 5-7, 6-3, 6-1
Rosewall def. Lendl 7-6, 3-6, 6-3
Borg def. Djokovic 6-4, 2-6, 6-2
Wilander def. Emerson 6-4, 6-4
Sampras def. Newcombe 7-6, 6-3
Laver def. McEnroe 6-4, 6-3
Agassi def. Connors 6-4, 7-5
Nadal def. Becker 6-0, 6-4


Quarter-Finals:

Federer def. Rosewall 4-6, 6-2, 6-3
Borg def. Wilander 6-3, 6-7, 6-1
Laver def. Sampras 6-2, 7-5
Agassi def. Nadal 3-6, 6-4, 6-4


Semi-Finals:

Federer def. Borg 3-6, 6-1, 7-6
Laver def. Agassi 6-4, 7-5


Final:

Laver def. Federer 6-4, 3-6, 6-4
 
Just a disclaimer - I am most definitely not reading too much into this fantasy tournament because it's all just hypothetical and subjective anyway but I thought it would be fun to either discuss it or rip it apart, whichever one prefers.

Hopefully in the next issue I can get some sort of list of who exactly was on the panel picking the winners because the article didn't say.
 
I think it's just for fun and interesting to read. They do need more info on how they are picking the winners though. Kuerten beating Wilander? I don't think so. Like someone said, there must be Guga fanboys on the panel. Only explanation.

Does the winner get a trophy or a free trip to Disney World at least?
 
Prime Nadal would win over Agassi on both clay or grass in the hypothetical quarterfinal IMO and advance to the semis. If Nadal played Borg in the semis he would also win the sets on clay and hard courts and advance to the final. If he played Federer in the final he would win, since regardless that Federer is probably better on both hard courts and grass, it is Nadal vs Federer and everyone knows what happens there.
 
HARD COURTS - US OPEN:
(1)Federer d. (32) Stolle 6-1,6-3
(16) Edberg d. (17) Courier 6-7,6-4,3-6
(9) Rosewall d. (24) Hewitt 6-2,6-4
(8 ) Lendl d. (25) Murray 7-5,6-2
(5) Borg d. (28 ) Bruguera 6-2,6-1
(12) Djokovic d. (21) Ashe 7-5,6-7,7-6
(20) Kuerten d. (13) Wilander 4-6,2-6
(4) Emerson d. (29) Kafelnikov 4-6,7-6,1-6
(3) Sampras d. (30) Smith 6-1,7-6
(14) Newcombe d. (19) Santana 3-6,6-3,3-6
(11) McEnroe d. (22) Kodes 6-4,3-6,6-3
(6) Laver d. (27) Rafter 6-2,7-5
(7) Connors d. (26) Safin 6-4,6-7,6-4
(10) Agassi d. (23) Kriek 7-6,6-7,7-5
(18 ) Vilas d. (15) Becker 3-6,2-6
(2) Nadal d. (31) Nastase 6-4,6-1


Federer vs Courier 7-6,6-4
Rosewall vs Lendl 2-6,7-6,4-6
Borg vs Djokovic 6-2,6-3
Wilander vs Kafelnikov 6-2,7-5
Sampras vs Santana 6-1,7-6
McEnroe vs Laver 5-7,7-6,6-4
Connors vs Agassi 3-6,6-0,6-4
Becker vs Nadal 7-6,0-6,4-6


Federer vs Lendl 6-3,5-7,6-4
Borg vs Wilander 6-7,6-7
Sampras vs McEnroe 6-3,7-6
Connors vs Nadal 6-2,3-6,6-4


Federer vs Wilander 6-2,6-3
Sampras vs Connors 7-5,6-2


Sampras vs Federer 3-6,6-3,7-6,6-3
 
Last edited:
lud said:
HARD COURTS - US OPEN:
(1)Federer d. (32) Stolle 6-1,6-3
(16) Edberg d. (17) Courier 6-7,6-4,3-6
(9) Rosewall d. (24) Hewitt 6-2,6-4
(8 ) Lendl d. (25) Murray 7-5,6-2
(5) Borg d. (28 ) Bruguera 6-2,6-1
(12) Djokovic d. (21) Ashe 7-5,6-7,7-6
(20) Kuerten d. (13) Wilander 4-6,2-6
(4) Emerson d. (29) Kafelnikov 4-6,7-6,1-6
(3) Sampras d. (30) Smith 6-1,7-6
(14) Newcombe d. (19) Santana 3-6,6-3,3-6
(11) McEnroe d. (22) Kodes 6-4,3-6,6-3
(6) Laver d. (27) Rafter 6-2,7-5
(7) Connors d. (26) Safin 6-4,6-7,6-4
(10) Agassi d. (23) Kriek 7-6,6-7,7-5
(18 ) Vilas d. (15) Becker 3-6,2-6
(2) Nadal d. (31) Nastase 6-4,6-1


Federer vs Courier 7-6,6-4
Rosewall vs Lendl 2-6,7-6,4-6
Borg vs Djokovic 6-2,6-3
Wilander vs Kafelnikov 6-2,7-5
Sampras vs Santana 6-1,7-6
McEnroe vs Laver 5-7,7-6,6-4
Connors vs Agassi 3-6,6-0,6-4
Becker vs Nadal 7-6,0-6,4-6


Federer vs Lendl 6-3,5-7,6-4
Borg vs Wilander 6-7,6-7
Sampras vs McEnroe 6-3,6-7,6-7
Connors vs Nadal 6-2,3-6,6-4


Federer vs Wilander 6-2,6-3
McEnroe vs Connors 7-5,6-2


Federer vs McEnroe 6-3,3-6,6-2,6-1
Click to expand...

How come your losers are advancing?
 
Russeljones said:
And that (bolded) would be the match of the tournament. Maybe not so lopsided on hard, unless you are suggesting Borg tanks somewhat.
Click to expand...

Ha, no, it was a nod towards Borg getting breadsticked by McEnroe twice in slams in 1980. So it could still be match of the tournament! (I don't know if Borg tanked those two sets, but I'm guessing no).

I also had Borg losing two tie-breakers in this tourney, partly as a nod towards his strangely poor tie-break record. If there were no tie-breaks in the 3rd set maybe Borg wins?!
 
CEvertFan said:
First Round:

(1)Federer d. (32) Stolle 6-4, 6-4
(16) Edberg d. (17) Courier 4-6, 7-5, 7-5

(9) Rosewall d. (24) Hewitt 6-4, 7-6(5)
(8 ) Lendl d. (25) Murray 6-3, 7-6(5)

(5) Borg d. (28 ) Bruguera 6-3, 6-4
(12) Djokovic d. (21) Ashe 6-3, 7-5

(20) Kuerten d. (13) Wilander 7-6(4), 7-6(5)
(4) Emerson d. (29) Kafelnikov 5-7, 6-4, 6-4

(3) Sampras d. (30) Smith 6-4, 7-5
(14) Newcombe d. (19) Santana 4-6, 6-4, 7-6(6)

(11) McEnroe d. (22) Kodes 7-5, 6-3
(6) Laver d. (27) Rafter 6-4, 7-6(4)

(7) Connors d. (26) Safin 5-7, 7-6(3), 6-4
(10) Agassi d. (23) Kriek 6-4, 6-4

(18 ) Vilas d. (15) Becker 6-3, 7-6(10)
(2) Nadal d. (31) Nastase 6-4, 7-6(5)

Next issue is when the rest of the tournament will be finished.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
No way Nadal beats Nastase. Nasty gets out the spaghetti strings and the ball goes anywhere but where Rafa anticipates. Nadal cannot even get a racquet on the ball. Ilie takes it 6-0, 6-0.

After the match in the press conference, Rafa blurts out: "I've never seen such spins; zee ball was all over the place, no.?"
 
Last edited:
They're updating this tournament daily on the Tennis Magazine website. They've just had McEnroe beat Laver in 3.

In the accompanying blurb Brad Gilbert says he thinks McEnroe would beat Laver on clay and hard (something about exploiting Rods second serve).
 
70sHollywood said:
They're updating this tournament daily on the Tennis Magazine website. They've just had McEnroe beat Laver in 3.

In the accompanying blurb Brad Gilbert says he thinks McEnroe would beat Laver on clay and hard (something about exploiting Rods second serve).
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw that.

Gilbert needs to study his history a bit more. He also said "On a hard court and clay, John would be better."

John McEnroe--the great clay court wizard.
Rod Laver--useless and weak on clay.
 
Last edited:
70sHollywood said:
They're updating this tournament daily on the Tennis Magazine website. They've just had McEnroe beat Laver in 3.

In the accompanying blurb Brad Gilbert says he thinks McEnroe would beat Laver on clay and hard (something about exploiting Rods second serve).
Click to expand...

Link?

10chars
 
70sHollywood said:
They're updating this tournament daily on the Tennis Magazine website. They've just had McEnroe beat Laver in 3.

In the accompanying blurb Brad Gilbert says he thinks McEnroe would beat Laver on clay and hard (something about exploiting Rods second serve).
Click to expand...

So guys like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, Emerson couldn’t exploit Laver’s second serve on clay and hard but Gilbert thinks McEnroe could?? Interesting. I’ll admit McEnroe did take excellent advantage of weak second serves but Laver had an excellent second serve. It declined only later when he was older due to back problems and just plain age.

Now of course McEnroe would have a chance to defeat Laver but I think how Gilbert thought McEnroe would defeat Laver is flawed. Ironically McEnroe's excellent second serve, like Laver's declined with age and I assume some injuries.
 
70sHollywood said:
They're updating this tournament daily on the Tennis Magazine website. They've just had McEnroe beat Laver in 3.

In the accompanying blurb Brad Gilbert says he thinks McEnroe would beat Laver on clay and hard (something about exploiting Rods second serve).
Click to expand...
Remember that both are lefties and both had excellent out-wide serves.

I don't see either as having a weak second serve, and either exploiting it.

"Garbage" said Al Hazan.
 
Last edited:
70sHollywood said:
Ha, no, it was a nod towards Borg getting breadsticked by McEnroe twice in slams in 1980. So it could still be match of the tournament! (I don't know if Borg tanked those two sets, but I'm guessing no).

I also had Borg losing two tie-breakers in this tourney, partly as a nod towards his strangely poor tie-break record. If there were no tie-breaks in the 3rd set maybe Borg wins?!
Click to expand...

Sure, there's no way to tell, especially if the grass is a hybrid harking back to the speedier days of the surface.
 
First round:

Federer defeats Stolle 6-3, 6-3
Courier defeats Edberg 6-3, 7-5 (Jim was bad matchup for Stefan so unless Stefan was zoneing he would lose)
Hewitt defeats Rosewall 2-6, 7-5, 7-5 (as I said on womens thread have to call a few big 1st round upsets, this seems like one of the most plausible ones)
Murray defeats Lendl 2-6, 7-6, 6-4 (read above)
Borg defeats Bruguera 6-4, 6-2
Djokovic defeats Ashe 6-1, 6-4
Wilander defeats Kuerten 6-7, 6-3, 6-2
Emerson defeats Kafelnikov 6-4, 6-4
Sampras defeats Smith 7-6, 7-5
Newcombe defeats Santana 3-6, 7-5, 9-7
McEnroe defeats Kodes 6-7, 6-3, 6-2
Laver defeats Rafter 6-3, 6-3
Connors defeats Safin 7-5, 6-4
Agassi defats Kriek 6-2, 6-2
Becker defeats Vilas 5-7, 6-3, 6-0
Nadal defeats Nastase 6-2, 6-4

Second round:

Federer defeats Courier 6-7, 6-3, 6-0
Murray defeats Hewitt 7-6, 7-5
Borg defeats Djokovic 6-4, 3-6, 6-4
Wilander defeats Emerson 6-4, 6-4
Sampras defeats Newcombe 6-4, 7-6
Laver defeats McEnroe 6-3, 6-7, 6-4
Connors defeats Agassi 5-7, 7-5, 6-4
Nadal defeats Becker 6-0, 6-4

Quarterfinals:

Federer defeats Murray 6-1, 6-4
Borg defeats Wilander 6-1, 6-2 (awful matchup for Wilander)
Laver defeats Sampras 6-2, 7-6
Nadal defeats Connors 6-1, 6-7, 9-7

Semifinals:

Borg defeats Federer 6-3, 4-6, 10-8
Nadal defeats Laver 6-3, 7-6

Finals:

Nadal defeats Borg 6-4, 7-5
 
Russeljones said:
Hewitt will most likely triumph in 3 and JMac should win the grass set, imo. Nadal beating Becker 6-4 on hard? How many times out of 10?
Click to expand...

Why not? They have won the same number of HC slams, the same number of HC tournaments, and they have the same winning percentage. Outside this Nadal is more achieved in HC slams (more finals, more SF, more QF...).

All things being equal, Nadal is also the best player of the two by a big margin.
 
Even though both have 3 hard court majors, Nadal is overall more accomplished on hard courts, was more consistent on them, and his hard court tennis at events like 2009 and 2012 Australian Opens, 2010 and 2013 U.S Opens is better than anything Becker ever produced. Of his era the only players he has a losing record against on hard courts are Djokovic (clearly a better hard court player than Becker) and Davydenko (a bad matchup). Even not Federer. I see no reason to assume him not beating Becker on hard courts most times out of 10. I believe most others would feel that way too.

Why would McEnroe win the grass set vs Laver. God mode McEnroe of Wimbledon 84 probably would, but otherwise Laver most likely would. Prime McEnroe was about equal to prime Borg on grass as we saw in 80 and 81, and Laver is clearly better than Borg on grass. Laver was utterly dominant on grass for a good 6-7 years.

Murray vs Hewit is a toss up match, but I think Murray at his best was the slightly better player. Both are weaker on clay, and good on grass and hard courts which makes it an even match all the way through though.
 
Flash O'Groove said:
Why not? They have won the same number of HC slams, the same number of HC tournaments, and they have the same winning percentage. Outside this Nadal is more achieved in HC slams (more finals, more SF, more QF...).

All things being equal, Nadal is also the best player of the two by a big margin.
Click to expand...

Yes and the hard court competition today is probably the toughest ever, especialy with Federer and Djokovic leading the way. Nearly every player in the top 20 best surface today is hard courts. Becker would be fortunate to win even 1 hard court major today, let alone 3 and having narrowly missed out on some others like Nadal has. His only tough opponent for his hard court slams was Lendl, who was sort of his pigeon and admited to being intimidated by Becker anyway.
 
Flash O'Groove said:
Why not? They have won the same number of HC slams, the same number of HC tournaments, and they have the same winning percentage. Outside this Nadal is more achieved in HC slams (more finals, more SF, more QF...).

All things being equal, Nadal is also the best player of the two by a big margin.
Click to expand...

Taking Wikipedia out of the equation, having watched both, I will have to respectfully disagree. Becker would win 7-3 vs Nadal on low bouncing fast hard courts.
 
Russeljones said:
And you're basing this on?
Click to expand...

Who is the better and greater player of the two. Who has the more complete game. Who had many more years of peak level play. The answer is one and the same.

Then again given that you seem to think Becker is a better hard court player than Nadal, it doesn't seem you are all that in touch with reality.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
Who is the better and greater player of the two. Who has the more complete game. Who had many more years of peak level play. The answer is one and the same.

Then again given that you seem to think Becker is a better hard court player than Nadal, it doesn't seem you are all that in touch with reality.
Click to expand...

You are asserting that it is a given that Laver is better than JMac on grass, and that Nadal is better than Becker on fast hard. I disagree. To this you reply with "it doesn't seem you are all that in touch with reality". You'll fit right in, alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CEvertFan
Tennis magazine Tournament of Champions - Women
2
Replies
65
Views
6K
pc1
pc1
kiki
1968-2011
Replies
12
Views
3K
kiki
kiki
S
NTL players 1968 calendar
Replies
33
Views
4K
Dan Lobb
D
M
Björn Borg exos 74-87
2
Replies
58
Views
18K
Ivan69
I
380pistol
TennisWeek Tournament of Champions???
Replies
11
Views
2K
380pistol
380pistol
Back
Top