Todd Martin : Tennis will not be what it is today without Roger Federer

[octobrina10]

My post was not. It was about the fact that people here misconstrued what Martin was on about.

Again, had you read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote you... not much point really. :roll:

I understood - you wrote about people commenting here.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Well even Sampras has said flat-out that Nadal is the best competitor the sport has ever seen.

So while it's interesting that you put Sampras or Gonzales on a par, I think very much the general consensus (even among one of the guys you place on that level) put Nadal head and shoulders above anyone else on the score.

Nadal and Jordan have different psychologies for sure, but it's ultimately created the two most compeititive animals their sports have ever seen. I don't think it's close for Jordan in B-ball, and I don't think it's close for Nadal in tennis either.

Sampras was a hugely compeititive animal, and even he admits that Nadal is way beyond him on the score, which pretty much says it all. I agree that Jordan had a way bigger chip on his shoulder than Nadal, but i think it's silly to suggest he's 100x more competitive. Nadal's as competitive and unrelenting an athlete as I've seen in any sport....ever. He's up there with Jordan. Due to the fact that he's in an individual sport, you could even put him over on Jordan on that score, as he's out there on his own.

I'm sorry but it just sounds like you picked Jordan's name out of a hat and ran with it a bit, especially with how you seamlessly kept changing the parameters as each supposed similarity was being discussed. It basically boils down to them both being extremely competent in their sport and amazingly competitive. But Nadal is just so outside Jordan's worldwide appeal and scope that it just strikes me as a weird comparison. Hes not even close to having the same impact over his sport as Jordan did with his, which you hinted at in a few of your posts. Not even close. I can't stress how huge the gap is.

He also hasn't achieved the level of greatness in his sport as Jordan has in his. Nadal is IMO a top 5 player but he still has a ways to go to have the GOAT credentials which Jordan has already and has had since his 5th championship. Hell he was widely called the greatest after his first three-peat, which I don't agree with, but still. Nadal has not created such a chasm of separation between him and the other GOAT candidates, or his peers i.e Fed, like Jordan did. Magic and Bird were both retired by Jordan's second championship, and thus their primes didn't really overlap. His most relevant peers were Barkley, Olajuwon, Stockton, Malone, Drexler, Ewing, Robinson and Payton, and he blew them all out of the water.

Then you concede that Jordan and Nadal have very different psychologies but still discuss how their respective mindsets created a similar animal. Fairly vague I'd think, although I suppose most of these comparisons are inherently vague anyway.

I also must question why an appeal to common consent is important when discussing who the must competitive athlete is. A small chunk of it is narrative construction. Most tennis fans can't even rattle off one tidbit of information regarding Pancho Gonzales' career. Gonzales and Connors were both balls of fire that are quite comparable to Nadal in their pursuit of meaningful competition. If anything I find Connors more comparable to Jordan in that respect, talking only about their competitiveness, and the eff-you manner in which they competed. I thought Connors wasn't as gregarious as Jordan could be, but he played every match with a raging fury that him and only a few others had. Even when he was done and dusted as a top player, he relished it (see: 1991 US Open). Is he MORE competitive than Nadal? Don't know if I can say that, but he channeled that competitive nature in the same aggressive way that Jordan did, which is why I think it would be a more apt, but still reaching, comparison.

If you think my assertion was silly, so be it, we're venturing into the land of opinion here. I followed both of their careers almost in their entirety (well, Jordan in the early-90s). I wasn't even a Bulls or Jordan fan, but to me he was the most competitive, driven and mentally tough athlete I've ever seen, by a country mile. Hopefully you don't think I'm understating Nadal's incredible will just by me saying that. But even if I were to grant you that, they're just so different in so many ways that I can't see it. With that said I respect your point of view. So I guess we've hit an impasse on this one.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Interesting.

I think Senna may be the one sports figure who rivalled Jordan in this way, although in his case it was more of a belief in his God-like invincibility which made him always need to be No 1.

I recall that Alain Prost (himself of course among the top 5 F1 drivers of all time) say that Senna did not just want to beat him, he wanted to humiliate him. This desire to win knew no boundaries, even to the extent of Senna putting his own and Prost's lives at risk in 1990 when he deliberately crashed into Prost to win the title. Senna often spoke about how he was above other drivers because he was being guided by God in a spiritual way when driving (I think it was at Monaco one year when he spoke out of an out-of-body sensation when setting a lap time that was unfathomably far ahead of his competitors).

OK maybe this is a bit different to Jordan's assholish personality, but it's still an example of someone pathologically driven to be not just No 1, but light years ahead of his competition - as if he had a divine right to be there.

The psychology of the greatest sportspeople is truly fascinating.

Indeed. I think that for all of their humble posturing, most of them have a sense of self-entitlement that is extraordinary. I guess that often gives them the impetus to defend their spot on the proverbial mountaintop.

 

[Magnus]

Roger hasn't been much of a factor in grand slam finals for a couple of years now, and enthusiasm and TV ratings seem to be doing just fine. Last year's US Open final between Nadal and Djokovic was the highest rated US Open mens final since 2007....Federer had featured in a couple of finals after then with lower ratings.

People are used to the fact that Federer is no longer a major factor, and have embraced Nadal. When Nadal is in a final, the ratings spike. Even the Australian Open final this year on ESPN, was up 8% in ratings from 2013 when Djokovic and Murray contested the final.

Nadal has done a good job replacing Federer, for enthusiasm, interest and TV ratings. To be honest, the major storyline for mens tennis in the next year or two will be Nadal's chase for the slam record. Whether or not Roger is actually around to see it happen is irrelevant. The excitement wil be there regardless.

They do need someone to follow Nadal though, as he won't be around forever.

Nah... Nadal is not as popular, and not as loved as Roger. He sure causes more noise, that's due to his dreadful ways, but overall Fed always will be the people's champion, with or without Nadal.

 

[octobrina10]

Nah... Nadal is not as popular, and not as loved as Roger. He sure causes more noise, that's due to his dreadful ways, but overall Fed always will be the people's champion, with or without Nadal.

Which people's ???