What does Djokovic have to do to surpass Nadal?

[Eragon]

In my opinion, Nadal has (just) surpassed Borg.

They're certainly in the same tier of greatness, though. You can't put Borg a tier above Nadal.

I don't like using tiers but if I had to use them.

Tier 1: Federer
Tier 2: Sampras, Nadal, Borg
Tier 3: Rosewall, Laver, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, Gonzales, McEnroe

I'm certain Djokovic will get to tier 3, at least.

 

[Clarky21]

Sorry Novak can rack up slams on HC as that is the majority surface and there are 2 slams on HC,nothing odd about it. OTOH Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay when there's only one slam on it, his game is far too clay specific. Infact he's gone 2 seasons(coming up on 3 now) winning just RG in the middle of his prime.

Borg won 6 RGs but the reason why he's rated so highly is because he won 5 consecutive Wimbys when grass was quick and he played lot of S&V.

If there were two slams on clay like there used to be, would you feel the same way about Nadal racking up slams on one surface and one surface only? Nadal has won multiple slams on all surfaces while Cvac has won one slam off of hardcourts. I'd say Nadal wins the battle of versatility between the two.

 

[Clarky21]

Yes, I included the 2 WTFs, and am assuming that Nole will pass 102 weeks at being number 1 (he is on track).

The WTF's are not slams and should not be counted. Especially since the surface never rotates, and favors hard court specialists like Cvac. I also get sick of seeing the whole "weeks at being number 1" argument as well. What counts is slams; unless it comes to anything Nadal related, that is.

 

[powerangle]

Sorry Novak can rack up slams on HC as that is the majority surface and there are 2 slams on HC,nothing odd about it. OTOH Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay when there's only one slam on it, his game is far too clay specific. Infact he's gone 2 seasons(coming up on 3 now) winning just RG in the middle of his prime.

Borg won 6 RGs but the reason why he's rated so highly is because he won 5 consecutive Wimbys when grass was quick and he played lot of S&V.

So then Novak is lucky that there are two slams on hard then right? And Rafa is unfortunate to have only 1 slam on clay.

 

[monfed]

In my opinion, Nadal has (just) surpassed Borg.

They're certainly in the same tier of greatness, though. You can't put Borg a tier above Nadal.

No way Ralph is tier 1 yet,no ****ing way! He's only got 4 non-clay slams.He's neither top 10 on grass or on HC. Borg is easily top 5 on grass and was great indoors. Sure Borg didn't win the USO but that was more a case of bad luck than being poor on the surface like Sampras was on clay,Borg was great indoors. You can't win a bazillion slams on one surface and expect to be tier 1,just doesn't work that way.

 

[Eragon]

If there were two slams on clay like there used to be, would you feel the same way about Nadal racking up slams on one surface and one surface only? Nadal has won multiple slams on all surfaces while Cvac has won one slam off of hardcourts. I'd say Nadal wins the battle of versatility between the two.

If there were 2 Slams on Clay, even 10/12 Slams being on Clay wouldn't be too bad. That would be a Slam distribution of 5-5-1-1, best case. 8-2-1-1 looks like it's tilting to the left, don't you think? I'm not saying 4-1-1-0 is any better, for the record.

 

[powerangle]

The WTF's are not slams and should not be counted. Especially since the surface never rotates, and favors hard court specialists like Cvac. I also get sick of seeing the whole "weeks at being number 1" argument as well. What counts is slams; unless it comes to anything Nadal related, that is.

Stop thinking or placing words inside mouths for everyone else, please. Who says that slams are the only thing that counts?? Not everyone has an anti-Nadal agenda, so stop being paranoid. I already consider Nadal to be on par with Sampras even though Nadal has 2 fewer slams. I do account that Nadal has the Olmypic Gold as well (yes, there are other things that count besides slams...unless you are discounting his OG because, quoting you here, "what counts is slams").

 

[Eragon]

The WTF's are not slams and should not be counted. Especially since the surface never rotates, and favors hard court specialists like Cvac. I also get sick of seeing the whole "weeks at being number 1" argument as well. What counts is slams; unless it comes to anything Nadal related, that is.

So I guess the French Open shouldn't count because the surface never rotates and favors Claycourt specialists like Nadal :roll:

 

[Eragon]

Stop thinking or placing words inside mouths for everyone else, please. Who says that slams are the only thing that counts?? Not everyone has an anti-Nadal agenda, so stop being paranoid. I already consider Nadal to be on par with Sampras even though Nadal has 2 fewer slams. I do account that Nadal has the Olmypic Gold as well (yes, there are other things that count besides slams...unless you are discounting his OG because, quoting you here, "what counts is slams").

How can Nadal be Sampras's equal so soon? 184 weeks at #1, 5 WTF titles?

 

[powerangle]

The WTF's are not slams and should not be counted. Especially since the surface never rotates, and favors hard court specialists like Cvac. I also get sick of seeing the whole "weeks at being number 1" argument as well. What counts is slams; unless it comes to anything Nadal related, that is.

Why should it not be counted? Sure, it's not weighed as heavily as a slam, but why eliminate it completely? One should look at the whole picture, which includes slams, weeks at number 1, Masters, WTFs, Olympic results, Davis Cups, total number of titles, etc. The slams are worth the most, but they are not the end-all-be-all (those are for one-track minded simpletons, imo, but they have a right to that opinion). There are many things that are included on a player's resume.

 

[monfed]

So then Novak is lucky that there are two slams on hard then right? And Rafa is unfortunate to have only 1 slam on clay.

When Nadal turned pro there were 2 HC slams,1 clay slam, 1 grass slam. Ralph knew exactly what the constitution of the tour was, he should've modeled his game accordingly. He chose to be a claycourt specialist and ended up feeding off of his dominance on clay to have the same success on other surfaces, tough luck his 1D game wasn't good enough for it and he met his match in Novak Djokovic. The tour is the same for Novak,Fed and everyone else. It's not like one of the clay slams got converted to HC in the middle of Ralph's prime and poor Rafi got shafted.

 

[Incognito]

Sorry Novak can rack up slams on HC as that is the majority surface and there are 2 slams on HC,nothing odd about it. OTOH Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay when there's only one slam on it, his game is far too clay specific. Infact he's gone 2 seasons(coming up on 3 now) winning just RG in the middle of his prime.

Translation: "i hate Nadal. He made the love of my life and favorite player cry during a trophy presentation. I hate that he has a 20-10 h2h over Roger. He always attacks Roger's backhand...... I hate Nadal, I hate Nadal and I hate Nadal"

 

[Phoenix1983]

No way Ralph is tier 1 yet,no ****ing way! He's only got 4 non-clay slams.He's neither top 10 on grass or on HC. Borg is easily top 5 on grass and was great indoors. Sure Borg didn't win the USO but that was more a case of bad luck than being poor on the surface like Sampras was on clay,Borg was great indoors. You can't win a bazillion slams on one surface and expect to be tier 1,just doesn't work that way.

So what that Nadal has "only" 4 non-clay slams? Borg has a grand total of...5 non-clay slams, and he achieved all those victories at one tournament (admittedly the most prestigious, but still).

If we ignore the AO - because Borg and the other top players of his day hardly ever played there - we have the following totals at the big tournaments:

Nadal: 8 FO, 2 W, 1 US
Borg: 6 FO, 5 W

Both men have 11 slams. Nadal has won at all three major venues, whereas Borg never won the US. On the other hand, Borg was completely dominant on two surfaces, Nadal only on one.

In terms of other stats (time spent at No 1, winning %, consecutive years winning a slam, Davis Cup record, etc.) the two guys are very evenly matched as well.

So, there is no case for putting Borg a whole tier ahead of Nadal. They have to be very closely ranked, whichever one you decide to put ahead.

 

[powerangle]

How can Nadal be Sampras's equal so soon? 184 weeks at #1, 5 WTF titles?

Career Grand Slam, Olympic gold, 2 slams on every surface (compared to a big fat zero on clay for the Samp), dominating h2h against perhaps the GOAT (even if clay-centric). Also: Nadal had weeks at #2, where in Sampras' time, would have been sufficient for #1 (IMO: Sampras would have fewer weeks at #1 if he played alongside Federer for much of their careers).

Again, just my opinion.

 

[Fiji]

Win 13 slams.

 

[Eragon]

Translation: "i hate Nadal. He made the love of my life and favorite player cry during a trophy presentation. I hate that he has a 20-10 h2h over Roger. He always attacks Roger's backhand...... I hate Nadal, I hate Nadal and I hate Nadal"

Do you know what "translate" means? Here's a hint: it doesn't mean "paraphrase"

 

[Eragon]

Career Grand Slam, Olympic gold, 2 slams on every surface (compared to a big fat zero on clay for the Samp), dominating h2h against perhaps the GOAT (even if clay-centric). Also: Nadal had weeks at #2, where in Sampras' time, would have been sufficient for #1 (IMO: Sampras would have fewer weeks at #1 if he played alongside Federer for much of their careers).

Again, just my opinion.

1. Olympic Gold is a 750-pointer
2. Head-to-head doesn't mean anything. Is Hrbaty a great?
3. 184 weeks still stands. And if Sampras would have fewer weeks if he played today, Nadal would have fewer Slams in the 90s, because of the faster conditions.

The only thing Nadal has is the Career Grand Slam. And the 13 additional Masters titles, which you didn't mention. Sampras's 2 additional Slams more than negate the Career Grand Slam. And Nadal's big fat 0 WTF titles (and his 9-10 record at the WTF) compared to Sampras's 5 titles there is a huge, huge difference. Also the 184 weeks.

 

[powerangle]

When Nadal turned pro there were 2 HC slams,1 clay slam, 1 grass slam. Ralph knew exactly what the constitution of the tour was, he should've modeled his game accordingly. He chose to be a claycourt specialist and ended up feeding off of his dominance on clay to have the same success on other surfaces, tough luck his 1D game wasn't good enough for it and he met his match in Novak Djokovic. The tour is the same for Novak,Fed and everyone else. It's not like one of the clay slams got converted to HC in the middle of Ralph's prime and poor Rafi got shafted.

"He should've"? Cuz you say so?

Rafa's game excels on clay, whether he willingly decided to be so or not. He already sacrificed some of his total slam count by not being as dominant on other surfaces, why do a double-whammy and count it against him twice by saying his distribution is weak?

Good for Novak that there happens to be two slams on his favorite surface. His slam total will rise/benefit accordingly. But in the end: Rafa dominates on one surface and is much weaker (but still great) on others. Same with Novak.

 

[Phoenix1983]

^ Agreed, Sampras is greater than Nadal.

 

[90's Clay]

Nole will be hard pressed to surpass Borg overall. Probably even Agassi. .. Nevermind Nadal

 

[Clarky21]

Why should it not be counted? Sure, it's not weighed as heavily as a slam, but why eliminate it completely? One should look at the whole picture, which includes slams, weeks at number 1, Masters, WTFs, Olympic results, Davis Cups, total number of titles, etc. The slams are worth the most, but they are not the end-all-be-all (those are for one-track minded simpletons, imo, but they have a right to that opinion). There are many things that are included on a player's resume.

Ok, then so can we count how many masters a player has won too since Nadal has the record at the moment?

 

[Incognito]

Do you know what "translate" means? Here's a hint: it doesn't mean "paraphrase"

Yes I do. I was translating the logic he was trying to convey with his post. It has none, and the conclusion is therefore that he is just another butthurt Fed****. But thanks for pointing that out.

Here's the logical translation of your post:

"Monfed is a good poster because he hates Nadal and therefore everything he says is correct".

 

[jg153040]

Ok, then so can we count how many masters a player has won too since Nadal has the record at the moment?

I think we should stop at WTF and Olympics. Otherwise we can start counting 500 titles and 250 as well.

But if they are tied, Nadal having a lot of more masters could be a tie-breaker.
Especially since Nadal has the record.

 

[powerangle]

1. Olympic Gold is a 750-pointer
2. Head-to-head doesn't mean anything. Is Hrbaty a great?
3. 184 weeks still stands. And if Sampras would have fewer weeks if he played today, Nadal would have fewer Slams in the 90s, because of the faster conditions.

The only thing Nadal has is the Career Grand Slam. And the 13 additional Masters titles, which you didn't mention. Sampras's 2 additional Slams more than negate the Career Grand Slam. And Nadal's big fat 0 WTF titles (and his 9-10 record at the WTF) compared to Sampras's 5 titles there is a huge, huge difference. Also the 184 weeks.

1. So what if OG is a 750-pointer? Slams are 2000 points and Masters are 1000 points. Does 1 slam exactly equal 2 Masters in terms of greatness? Who is greater: Player A who has won 10 slams but zero masters, or Player B who won zero slams and 20 Masters? Not everything is exactly measured by point values on the tour.

2. It is your opinion that h2h doesn't mean anything. Is that a rule? I didn't say it means a lot or the most, but it still means something to me. If you think it means absolutely nothing...ok, that is your choice.

3. Ok, tit-for-tat.

4. Yes, you are correct, Nadal also has 13 additional Masters titles, which is another plus in Rafa's column.

5. Yes, Nadal has a big fat zero at the WTF. And Sampras has a big fat zero at the FO. FO > WTF (unless you think WTF is worth more than a slam...).

I will state it again, this is just my opinion. I see your points and understand where you are coming from, but I just disagree (in the case you want to impose your opinion on me).

 

[powerangle]

Ok, then so can we count how many masters a player has won too since Nadal has the record at the moment?

Yes we can count the masters too...when did I say it couldn't?? You even quoted me where I listed "masters" on things that should be counted:

Why should it not be counted? Sure, it's not weighed as heavily as a slam, but why eliminate it completely? One should look at the whole picture, which includes slams, weeks at number 1, Masters, WTFs, Olympic results, Davis Cups, total number of titles, etc. The slams are worth the most, but they are not the end-all-be-all (those are for one-track minded simpletons, imo, but they have a right to that opinion). There are many things that are included on a player's resume.

Did you miss that?!

 

[monfed]

So what that Nadal has "only" 4 non-clay slams? Borg has a grand total of...5 non-clay slams, and he achieved all those victories at one tournament (admittedly the most prestigious, but still).

If we ignore the AO - because Borg and the other top players of his day hardly ever played there - we have the following totals at the big tournaments:

Nadal: 8 FO, 2 W, 1 US
Borg: 6 FO, 5 W

Both men have 11 slams. Nadal has won at all three major venues, whereas Borg never won the US. On the other hand, Borg was completely dominant on two surfaces, Nadal only on one.

In terms of other stats (time spent at No 1, winning %, consecutive years winning a slam, Davis Cup record, etc.) the two guys are very evenly matched as well.

So, there is no case for putting Borg a whole tier ahead of Nadal. They have to be very closely ranked, whichever one you decide to put ahead.

Sorry,Borg's versatility is his biggest selling point and one that majorly cuts across Ralph's clay-padded numbers. Borg won 3 channel slams when the surfaces were polar opposites and he had to play two separate styles to win on 2 surfaces. Heck even Fed cannot make this claim,let alone Ralph but then Fed's the most versatile player of all time by the sheer amount of finals he's made across all surfaces and has proven his game is adaptable to all surfaces.

Borg was unlucky to not win the USO, it's not like Pete who was terrible on the surface. Borg not winning a slam on USO is a bit like Ralph not winning Miami,bad luck, one can't say they weren't good enough to win it. Can't believe you factored in DC, cmon now that is a team event.

As far as Ralph having "only" 4 non-clay slams. Yes very unimpressive given that there are 3 surfaces not just one and there are 3 non-clay slams in AO,USO and Wimby. AO is slow HC and USO is fast HC so they are two different surfaces. Seriously what is Ralph's excuse of not winning lots of AO's? His retrieving and moonballing is heavily suited to the surface, I can still understand him not being successful at USO since it's fast HC(arguably his worst surface).

Unfortunately Ralph has done little to shake off his dirtballer image from his younger days, even now he's so heavily reliant on winning RGs to make a run for Fed's slam count and to maintain his position in the rankings,he makes like 5000 points on clay and just tanks the entire year and is still top 5 LMAO! I highly doubt anyone would bet money on Ralph to overtake Fed by winning 5 non-clay slams. So yes his overdependence on clay is staggering and also a bit hilarious if I may say so.

 

[Clarky21]

Yes we can count the masters too...when did I say it couldn't?? You even quoted me where I listed "masters" on things that should be counted:



Did you miss that?!

Ok, then how does a record number of masters titles get dwarfed by 2(so far) WTF titles? I really think far too much credit is given for winning a tournament that is at the very end of the year when everyone is spent, never rotates the surface and favors hard court specialists, and where you can actually lose matches yet still win the title. I'm not seeing it as any kind of deal breaker when it comes to accomplishments.

 

[Eragon]

1. So what if OG is a 750-pointer? Slams are 2000 points and Masters are 1000 points. Does 1 slam exactly equal 2 Masters in terms of greatness? Who is greater: Player A who has won 10 slams but zero masters, or Player B who won zero slams and 20 Masters? Not everything is exactly measured by point values on the tour.

2. It is your opinion that h2h doesn't mean anything. Is that a rule? I didn't say it means a lot or the most, but it still means something to me. If you think it means absolutely nothing...ok, that is your choice.

3. Ok, tit-for-tat.

4. Yes, Nadal also has 13 additional Masters title, which is another plus in Rafa's column.

5. Yes, Nadal has a big fat zero at the WTF. And Sampras has a big fat zero at the FO. FO > WTF (unless you think WTF is worth more than a slam...).

I will state it again, this is just my opinion. I see your points and understand where you are coming from, but I just disagree (in the case you want to impose your opinion on me).

1. Points decide tiers. Always have, always will.

2. Yes, it is a rule. Which is why you don't get points, trophies, or money for having good head-to-heads. It's like saying, hey, I have a better winner/unforced-error ratio, so I'm greater! :lol:

3. Thank you.

4. Yes, a big plus.

5. Sampras has 2 more Slams than Nadal does. 14 > 12 (with Career Grand Slam).


We're debating. I'm not threatening to kill you or anything

 

[powerangle]

I feel like I am confusing some of you guys because I am defending BOTH Nadal and Federer (if you read of some of my posting history). You guys are not used to this kind of posting. I feel like I am pulling double-duty here. :lol:

Am I the only Fedal fan here??

 

[monfed]

"He should've"? Cuz you say so?

Rafa's game excels on clay, whether he willingly decided to be so or not. He already sacrificed some of his total slam count by not being as dominant on other surfaces, why do a double-whammy and count it against him twice by saying his distribution is weak?

Good for Novak that there happens to be two slams on his favorite surface. His slam total will rise/benefit accordingly. But in the end: Rafa dominates on one surface and is much weaker (but still great) on others. Same with Novak.

Point being Ralph knew EXACTLY what the tour consisted of. He wasn't screwed by the ATP all of a sudden by changing a clay slam to HC. So to say he was unlucky because there's only one slam on clay is absurd. It's like saying Fed got screwed because there are no masters on grass for him to having the record MS titles.

Every player knows what he's getting into and knows fully well what accolades their playing style will fetch them on tour. Ralph knew his claycourt pedigree wouldnot amount to a lot of success off clay and the numbers indicate the same.

And yes I do agree that if Novak racks up all his slams on AO and does little on other slams then he'd be just as 1D as Ralph but then again that has to be taken with a grain of salt,given that Novak is a favourite/co-favourite on all the slams. But he's gonna be a massive contender at USO and could end up with 1/2 RGs as well,might even win another Wimby, so goodluck trying to pin Novak as 1D.

 

[powerangle]

1. Points decide tiers. Always have, always will.

2. Yes, it is a rule. Which is why you don't get points, trophies, or money for having good head-to-heads. It's like saying, hey, I have a better winner/unforced-error ratio, so I'm greater! :lol:

3. Thank you.

4. Yes, a big plus.

5. Sampras has 2 more Slams than Nadal does. 14 > 12 (with Career Grand Slam).


We're debating. I'm not threatening to kill you or anything

1. Hmm ok, your opinion. I also noticed you side-stepped my question about Player A and Player B.

2. That's nice of you to think that. I think h2h matters. I'm sure Fed would rather have a positive h2h than a negative one.

3. You're welcome.

4. Exactly.

5. To me, a career grand slam is worth more than 2 slams (or at least are about equal), but that's just me.

Uh huh.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sorry,Borg's versatility is his biggest selling point and one that majorly cuts across Ralph's clay-padded numbers. Borg won 3 channel slams when the surfaces were polar opposites and he had to play two separate styles to win on 2 surfaces. Heck even Fed cannot make this claim,let alone Ralph but then Fed's the most versatile player of all time by the sheer amount of finals he's made across all surfaces and has proven his game is adaptable to all surfaces.

Nadal has 2 Channel Slams, which is only 1 less than Borg.

Borg was unlucky to not win the USO, it's not like Pete who was terrible on the surface. Borg not winning a slam on USO is a bit like Ralph not winning Miami,bad luck, one can't say they weren't good enough to win it.

He wasn't unlucky, he wasn't able to cope with facing US stars in that atmosphere (lost twice each to Connors and McEnroe in finals, but also lost to Roscoe Tanner and Dick Stockton, in the period 1976-1981). Note that he was beating all these guys at Wimbledon, so had no excuse for not doing so at the US. However, he had a psychological problem with playing under the lights/in front of a raucous US crowd, so had a much better record in Europe. By contrast, Connors thrived on the atmosphere, but had a much worse record in European records than outside the US.

Can't believe you factored in DC, cmon now that is a team event.

It was a very minor point - but both Borg and Nadal (in their individual matches) have great records in the tournament.

As far as Ralph having "only" 4 non-clay slams. Yes very unimpressive given that there are 3 surfaces not just one and there are 3 non-clay slams in AO,USO and Wimby. AO is slow HC and USO is fast HC so they are two different surfaces. Seriously what is Ralph's excuse of not winning lots of AO's? His retrieving and moonballing is heavily suited to the surface, I can still understand him not being successful at USO since it's fast HC(arguably his worst surface).

Well, it must be unimpressive that Borg only managed to win one non-clay major (Wimbledon). Nadal has managed to win all other non-clay majors. And, as I said before, Borg only leads Nadal 5-4 off clay. He's not in another tier as you suggest.

Unfortunately Ralph has done little to shake off his dirtballer image from his younger days, even now he's so heavily reliant on winning RGs to make a run for Fed's slam count and to maintain his position in the rankings,he makes like 5000 points on clay and just tanks the entire year and is still top 5 LMAO! I highly doubt anyone would bet money on Ralph to overtake Fed by winning 5 non-clay slams. So yes his overdependence on clay is staggering and also a bit hilarious if I may say so.

I'm not talking about him overtaking Fed's slam count, I don't think that's going to happen. I'm talking about him being in the same tier as Borg. There's no way you can put a guy who is also very reliant on clay (6/11 slams) and never won the US Open, in a different tier to a guy who has 8/12 slams on clay and has won the US Open.

 

[jg153040]

Sorry,Borg's versatility is his biggest selling point and one that majorly cuts across Ralph's clay-padded numbers. Borg won 3 channel slams when the surfaces were polar opposites and he had to play two separate styles to win on 2 surfaces. Heck even Fed cannot make this claim,let alone Ralph but then Fed's the most versatile player of all time by the sheer amount of finals he's made across all surfaces and has proven his game is adaptable to all surfaces.

Borg was unlucky to not win the USO, it's not like Pete who was terrible on the surface. Borg not winning a slam on USO is a bit like Ralph not winning Miami,bad luck, one can't say they weren't good enough to win it. Can't believe you factored in DC, cmon now that is a team event.

As far as Ralph having "only" 4 non-clay slams. Yes very unimpressive given that there are 3 surfaces not just one and there are 3 non-clay slams in AO,USO and Wimby. AO is slow HC and USO is fast HC so they are two different surfaces. Seriously what is Ralph's excuse of not winning lots of AO's? His retrieving and moonballing is heavily suited to the surface, I can still understand him not being successful at USO since it's fast HC(arguably his worst surface).

Unfortunately Ralph has done little to shake off his dirtballer image from his younger days, even now he's so heavily reliant on winning RGs to make a run for Fed's slam count and to maintain his position in the rankings,he makes like 5000 points on clay and just tanks the entire year and is still top 5 LMAO! I highly doubt anyone would bet money on Ralph to overtake Fed by winning 5 non-clay slams. So yes his overdependence on clay is staggering and also a bit hilarious if I may say so.

I forgot that Borg was amazing indoor player compared to Nadal. Also he didn't play AO. Considering this could maybe push him above Nadal.

But one thing against is that he retired at his peak. It's hard to be greater if you don't play.

Rafa vs Borg is very debatable. Rafa did have to defeat the goat.

 

[jg153040]

1. Hmm ok, your opinion. I also noticed you side-stepped my question about Player A and Player B.

2. That's nice of you to think that. I think h2h matters. I'm sure Fed would rather have a positive h2h than a negative one.

3. You're welcome.

4. Exactly.

5. To me, a career grand slam is worth more than 2 slams (or at least are about equal), but that's just me.

Uh huh.

Well, I think Cincy matters also. I'm sure Nadal would rather have one than zero

 

[moonballs]

Amateur Slams are not Majors. Pro Slams are. Laver has 8 of those. And 1 additional Major in his Wimbledon Pro. That's 14.

Pro slams are not todays majors either, because the field was divided hence less competitive than the whole. The fair way is to count each pro slam as 0.6 open era slam (or something like that) and each amateur slam as 0.4 open era slam.

 

[Clarky21]

Sorry,Borg's versatility is his biggest selling point and one that majorly cuts across Ralph's clay-padded numbers. Borg won 3 channel slams when the surfaces were polar opposites and he had to play two separate styles to win on 2 surfaces. Heck even Fed cannot make this claim,let alone Ralph but then Fed's the most versatile player of all time by the sheer amount of finals he's made across all surfaces and has proven his game is adaptable to all surfaces.

Borg was unlucky to not win the USO, it's not like Pete who was terrible on the surface. Borg not winning a slam on USO is a bit like Ralph not winning Miami,bad luck, one can't say they weren't good enough to win it. Can't believe you factored in DC, cmon now that is a team event.

As far as Ralph having "only" 4 non-clay slams. Yes very unimpressive given that there are 3 surfaces not just one and there are 3 non-clay slams in AO,USO and Wimby. AO is slow HC and USO is fast HC so they are two different surfaces. Seriously what is Ralph's excuse of not winning lots of AO's? His retrieving and moonballing is heavily suited to the surface, I can still understand him not being successful at USO since it's fast HC(arguably his worst surface).

Unfortunately Ralph has done little to shake off his dirtballer image from his younger days, even now he's so heavily reliant on winning RGs to make a run for Fed's slam count and to maintain his position in the rankings,he makes like 5000 points on clay and just tanks the entire year and is still top 5 LMAO! I highly doubt anyone would bet money on Ralph to overtake Fed by winning 5 non-clay slams. So yes his overdependence on clay is staggering and also a bit hilarious if I may say so.

Don't hear you complaining when hard court specialists vulture all year long off of hard court tournaments to get all their points. Not that I expected anything from you other than drivel, anyway.

 

[powerangle]

Point being Ralph knew EXACTLY what the tour consisted of. He wasn't screwed by the ATP all of a sudden by changing a clay slam to HC. So to say he was unlucky because there's only one slam on clay is absurd. It's like saying Fed got screwed because there are no masters on grass for him to having the record MS titles.

Every player knows what he's getting into and knows fully well what accolades their playing style will fetch them on tour.

And yes I do agree that if Novak racks up all his slams on AO and does little on other slams then he'd be just as 1D as Ralph but then again that has to be taken with a grain of salt,given that Novak is a favourite/co-favourite on all the slams. But he's gonna be a massive contender at USO and could end up with 1/2 RGs as well,might even win another Wimby, so goodluck trying to pin Novak as 1D.

Yes, Nadal knew that 2 slams are on hc, and only 1 on clay. But maybe Rafa's body and natural talent was only capable of being dominant on clay (as opposed to being dominant on hc)? And I am not saying he's unlucky that there's only 1 slam on clay (what is there is what is there, IMO)...I only pointed it out because posters were stating that he's sooooo much a surface specialist, when IMO, Djokovic is just as much a surface specialist (if you want to call them that). Whether Djokovic wins more USO's to balance out his AO's remains to be seen (of course it is very likely that he will win more USO's)....I'm actually rooting for Nole to win more USO's btw (yes, I'm a fan of his as well...I guess I'm a Fedalovic fan).

And for the record, I do think Fed was "unlucky" that there are not any grass Masters.

 

[Phoenix1983]

For the record, both Nadal and Djokovic have won 67% of their slams at their "pet" slam (FO and AO, respectively).

They are the most "surface-skewed" greats of the Open Era.

 

[Eragon]

1. Hmm ok, your opinion. I also noticed you side-stepped my question about Player A and Player B.

2. That's nice of you to think that. I think h2h matters. I'm sure Fed would rather have a positive h2h than a negative one.

3. You're welcome.

4. Exactly.

5. To me, a career grand slam is worth more than 2 slams (or at least are about equal), but that's just me.

Uh huh.

1. Not my opinion. The ATP has always decided the tiers of different events by the points they're allocated with. I didn't say anything about your "Player A/B" argument because it has no relevance to my point. If I believed points are to be added up, I'd add up all the points Sampras and Nadal have earned over their careers to find out who the greater player is (although I do think that would be a good, but not definite, way to compare players).

2. And I'm sure Nadal would rather have a good winners/unforced-error ratio than a bad one.

3. Don't mention it

4. Yes. You need to thank and appreciate me for bringing that up

5. I certainly don't think so. Each Slam is precious. I am absolutely certain Sampras wouldn't trade 3 of his Slams for 1 French Open.

 

[Eragon]

Pro slams are not todays majors either, because the field was divided hence less competitive than the whole. The fair way is to count each pro slam as 0.6 open era slam (or something like that) and each amateur slam as 0.4 open era slam.

I agree, but there were just 3 Pro Majors a year compared to 4 Slams today. So, I guess, it sort of evens out.

 

[topher]

I feel like I am confusing some of you guys because I am defending BOTH Nadal and Federer (if you read of some of my posting history). You guys are not used to this kind of posting. I feel like I am pulling double-duty here. :lol:

Am I the only Fedal fan here??

You might be, in spirit, but there are at least other people claiming to be fans of both. Forget who they are though. I like Fed, but a "fan" is stretching it.

I commend your efforts, however, and your ability to maintain objectivity on an irrational board.

 

[powerangle]

Ok, then how does a record number of masters titles get dwarfed by 2(so far) WTF titles? I really think far too much credit is given for winning a tournament that is at the very end of the year when everyone is spent, never rotates the surface and favors hard court specialists, and where you can actually lose matches yet still win the title. I'm not seeing it as any kind of deal breaker when it comes to accomplishments.

The record number of masters doesn't get dwarfed by 2 (so far) WTF titles. However, each individual WTF is worth more than each individual Masters, IMO (I don't get why some Rafanatics count the Masters but completely discount the WTF stating that it means ABSOUTELY nothing, or that it's some freakin exho). I was also looking at other areas of their resumes, which (again I will state) are weeks at number 1 and YE #1 (which Nole is on track to surpass Rafa, perhaps by quite a margin, but we shall see). And of course Novak would have to win the FO as well to have a Career Grand Slam for himself, too.

I also feel that Novak's 2011 is greater than any single year by Rafa. H2h does mean a little something to me, and Novak was what? 10-1 against the Fedality that year? That's insane.

 

[jg153040]

Yes, Nadal knew that 2 slams are on hc, and only 1 on clay. But maybe Rafa's body and natural talent was only capable of being dominant on clay (as opposed to being dominant on hc)? And I am not saying he's unlucky that there's only 1 slam on clay (what is there is what is there, IMO)...I only pointed it out because posters were stating that he's sooooo much a surface specialist, when IMO, Djokovic is just as much a surface specialist (if you want to call them that). Whether Djokovic wins more USO's to balance out his AO's remains to be seen (of course it is very likely that he will win more USO's)....I'm actually rooting for Nole to win more USO's btw (yes, I'm a fan of his as well...I guess I'm a Fedalovic fan).

And for the record, I do think Fed was "unlucky" that there are not any grass Masters.

Yeah Nole is a hard court specialist. But hard court is 75% of the tennis. So we may as well say he is a tennis specialist.

And Rafa is unlucky that all 4 majors aren't clay. .

Fed is also a grass, indoor, hard specialist. He is just lucky that most of the surfaces are grass, indoor and hard.

I'm so drunk and tired .

 

[veroniquem]

I don't think he can or will but he has to win more slams, pretty much double his # of slam titles, which I doubt is possible at his age. The rest, he could do: win a few more master titles and spend at least 10 more weeks at #1.

 

[powerangle]

Yeah Nole is a hard court specialist. But hard court is 75% of the tennis. So we may as well say he is a tennis specialist.

And Rafa is unlucky that all 4 majors aren't clay. .

Fed is also a grass, indoor, hard specialist. He is just lucky that most of the surfaces are grass, indoor and hard.

I'm so drunk and tired .

Fed is not a surface specialist. Fed is the GOAT if we must call him anything.

Go take a nap.

 

[Crisstti]

1. Not my opinion. The ATP has always decided the tiers of different events by the points they're allocated with. I didn't say anything about your "Player A/B" argument because it has no relevance to my point. If I believed points are to be added up, I'd add up all the points Sampras and Nadal have earned over their careers to find out who the greater player is (although I do think that would be a good, but not definite, way to compare players).

2. And I'm sure Nadal would rather have a good winners/unforced-error ratio than a bad one.

3. Don't mention it

4. Yes. You need to thank and appreciate me for bringing that up

5. I certainly don't think so. Each Slam is precious. I am absolutely certain Sampras wouldn't trade 3 of his Slams for 1 French Open.

His ratio is bad?.

 

[bullfan]

If he gets to double digits in slams, he'd have surpassed Nadal in my book. Ralph has 8/12 slams on clay, so he's padded up his slam count winning RGs,that has to be factored in.

Ralph has overtaken Borg in slam count yet Borg is tier 1 and Ralph still isn't tier 1. That says a lot.

Wrong, Borg has 3 channel slams, Rafa and Rod laver 2. Your Nadal hate shines bright.

 

[bullfan]

I forgot that Borg was amazing indoor player compared to Nadal. Also he didn't play AO. Considering this could maybe push him above Nadal.

But one thing against is that he retired at his peak. It's hard to be greater if you don't play.

Rafa vs Borg is very debatable. Rafa did have to defeat the goat.

I think Rafa has a stronger resume than Borg.

 

[Bender]

I feel like I am confusing some of you guys because I am defending BOTH Nadal and Federer (if you read of some of my posting history). You guys are not used to this kind of posting. I feel like I am pulling double-duty here. :lol:

Am I the only Fedal fan here??

I'm a Fedal fan but I haven't had my breakfast cereal yet, so I'm more likely to flip tables reading these posts than flip perspectives.

OTOH I noticed that monfed is saying Federer's game works on all surfaces while Nadal's doesn't. Since that essentially means that Federer doesn't have to change his game while Nadal needs to, Federer is therefore more one dimensional than is Nadal. :lol:

 

[Antonio Puente]

A better thread would be: What does Murray have to do to surpass Djokovic?

That's closer and more likely.