What if Nadal won the French 7 times...

[illkhiboy]

Just thinking, what if Nadal won the French 7 times, the Aussie 5 times and the US a couple times, thereby winning 14 Slams, and Federer won 13 Slams (5 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 3 Aussies) where you place him in history? I am asking because, personally, to me Federer will overtake Sampras as a better player even if he wins 2 more Slams in his career. Sampras' 14 wouldnt mean all that much next to Federer's incredible run in the past 3 years on all surfaces. But most people seem to be insistent on Federer having to pass 14 Slams to move ahead of Sampras.

 

[Jack Romeo]

if nadal had those stats you mentioned, he still probably wouldn't be considered as great as sampras. why? because people put so much importance on winning wimbledon. another factor would be overall titles and time spent at number 1. sampras was a year-end number 1 six times - a record. i don't think nadal can finish number 1 six times, not with federer around.

also, i don't agree that federer needs to pass sampras' 14 slams to move ahead of him if he wins at least one french open. but yes, i do think that if he ends up never winning the french, people will have a hard time putting him ahead of sampras if he has less than 14 slams. if roger gets more than 14, then undoubtedly people will consider him the greatest, french open or no french open. if he ties sampras at 14, but has no french open, they might be considered equals, but i believe roger will have the edge, having already played in the french open final (something sampras never did). but honestly, i believe federer will win the french one day. he certainly believes so himself. pete seemingly never really believed he could win RG.

 

[Watcher]

I imagine people don't yet consider Federer to be better than Sampras in the all-time sense (I am one of these people) because Federer hasn't been dominating for the length of time that Sampras dominated yet. Sampras was pretty much the king of the 90s, and Federer's not yet dominated quite that long.

And then yeah, there's also the Grand Slams.

 

[jackson vile]

Who cares, it is all dreaming LOL

Reguardless if Nadal could never play tennis again today he could go down as the worlds greatest clay courter ever and he is just getting started.

No one else can say that Roger fears them, that they have a winning record on the world number one.


If Roger could never play tennis again starting today, he would not be GOAT, people would remeber how he has a losing record to Nadal, and how Nadal was closest to beating him at Wim than anyone else.

It is hard to be a legend when you have someone whip'n up on you making you look bad.

Roger has a long ways to go and IMO he will make it, he needs to beat all of Sampras' records, but he must also end his career with the French title and a winning record over Nadal.

If he can do this he will not be a legend but rather a GOD! of tennis, I look forward to seeing what happens.

How long can Roger play like this and dominate?

 

[InvisibleSoul]

Just thinking, what if...

End thread.

 

[dave333]

i think fed could adjust his game to match clay court style. federer can play like anyone, agassi,nadal, sampras. he just doesn't work on playing like them because he plays like himself; whatever style you call him.

 

[dennis10is]

Play tennis, watch tennis. It doesn't matter who is the best, bestest, besterer.

Apply this fascination with ranking to say your parents.

Mom, Dad, I'm trying to rank the both of you. Which of you is the better parent. I love you both, but I must know which of you is the superior parent. So, here are some dimensions that I would like to discuss with you, as I go thru the process of ranking you. You have room to improve and I will update you regularly with a ranking race. Please do not feel discouraged if you come in dead last, there is time, as long as you are alive to improve your ranking and crush your opponent. Now, my sibling there, whom I love a lot, as a different ranking system, I think it is pure rubbish and you should not follow that stupid ranking system. My ranking is the one and only.

Mom you held me in your arms for approximately 4.5 seconds versus Da measly 1.75 sec. However, Dad, you were much better in teaching me how to beat the school bully. Mom, your handling of my cowlicks with your quick little dabble with your own spit was excellent. Dad, you teach me how to aim when I pee was unsurpassed.

 

[FiveO]

...Reguardless if Nadal could never play tennis again today he could go down as the worlds greatest clay courter ever and he is just getting started....

Really? Bjorn Borg ring a bell?

 

[avmoghe]

also, i don't agree that federer needs to pass sampras' 14 slams to move ahead of him if he wins at least one french open.

My take :

To be considered equal to Sampras, Federer needs to win 14 slams without winning a French Open. Yes, Sampras was year end number 1 but Federer will have the consecutive weeks at number 1 record. Really, its only the total number of slams that would really matter.


To be considered greater than Sampras: Federer needs 15 slams without French Open or three more slams with the French Open. Yes, 12 slams with the French beats Sampras' 14 without French.

In either case, even if Federer never wins the French, he will almost certainly get to 15 slams. So, the GOAT argument will be reduced to Laver vs. Federer (unless someone brings in pre-open era players into the mix)

 

[ATXtennisaddict]

Just thinking, what if Nadal won the French 7 times, the Aussie 5 times and the US a couple times, thereby winning 14 Slams, and Federer won 13 Slams (5 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 3 Aussies) where you place him in history? I am asking because, personally, to me Federer will overtake Sampras as a better player even if he wins 2 more Slams in his career. Sampras' 14 wouldnt mean all that much next to Federer's incredible run in the past 3 years on all surfaces. But most people seem to be insistent on Federer having to pass 14 Slams to move ahead of Sampras.

lol you're quite an optimist I can say that much

 

[illkhiboy]

lol you're quite an optimist I can say that much

Nah I am not really a big Nadal fan. I just wanted to see how people would react. In reality its a very very very distinct possibility that Nadal wins 14 Slams. Federer on the other hand....

 

[OrangeOne]

Nah I am not really a big Nadal fan. I just wanted to see how people would react. In reality its a very very very distinct possibility that Nadal wins 14 Slams. Federer on the other hand....

there's a history for players, clay-court specialists even, who win the french a few times and not much else, GS-wise. Guga, Muster, and others.

Right now, that's who Nadal is to me. Another player in that group. W final seemed a surprising aberration, and he had a terrible (relatively speaking) hardcourt season.

For the record, I already consider Federer to be the greatest of all time simply due to the way he plays the game, it's a level, a style, an intellect and a raw-shot-making ability i've never seen the equal of.

 

[quest01]

It wont happen. I cant see Nadal winning anything else besides the French. He is a clay court specialist only.

 

[Zaragoza]

It wont happen. I cant see Nadal winning anything else besides the French. He is a clay court specialist only.

As he showed winning 2 Masters Series on hardcourts and making the Wimbledon final.

 

[DashaandSafin]

Nothing would happen. He's a good claycourter and slow hardcourt player. Big whoop.

Honestly, I'm watching Sampras footage right now...and the shots that he pulled off that were "amazing". Federer does in every single match...

 

[Andy Hewitt]

Nevermind.....

 

[doriancito]

there is no way nadal wins 7 times the french open, just 2 more times, thats all

 

[OrangeOne]

Nothing would happen. He's a good claycourter and slow hardcourt player. Big whoop.

Honestly, I'm watching Sampras footage right now...and the shots that he pulled off that were "amazing". Federer does in every single match...

Yup - I agree. It's rare to watch him and not be amazed a couple of times....

 

[Deleted member 12045]

End thread.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Deleted member 12045]

End thread.

I couldn't agree more!
"we gonna see what happening together" so stop this thread

 

[Rhino]

As he showed winning 2 Masters Series on hardcourts and making the Wimbledon final.

A lot of unexpected people end up in grand slam finals and Nadals appearance in the Wimbledon final is a good example.
It was a one-off, like say Verkerk and Puerta at the French or Schuettler and Clement at the Australian.
Nadal got to the final because he played a wild card, two qualifiers, a 36 yr old with a bad back, and not a single player in the top 15!!!!!! When was the last time that happened? He won't be so lucky in the years to come. Not that I have anything against Nadal but I bet it doesn't happen again.

 

[Zaragoza]

A lot of unexpected people end up in grand slam finals and Nadals appearance in the Wimbledon final is a good example.
It was a one-off, like say Verkerk and Puerta at the French or Schuettler and Clement at the Australian.
Nadal got to the final because he played a wild card, two qualifiers, a 36 yr old with a bad back, and not a single player in the top 15!!!!!! When was the last time that happened? He won't be so lucky in the years to come. Not that I have anything against Nadal but I bet it doesn't happen again.

He´s world no. 2 so don´t put him on the outsiders players group, please.
He won 5 of his 6 matches in straight sets. I don´t think Agassi playing his last match at Wimbledon was easy and he beat him in straights.
Nieminen beat Tursunov who beat Ljubicic so Nieminen was in great form and Nadal beat him in straights. Baghdatis beat Hewitt and Murray and Nadal beat him in straights...and Nadal was the only one to take a set off Fed. and was close to take off a 2nd... so tell me who deserved to play the final instead of Nadal?

 

[Rhino]

He´s world no. 2 so don´t put him on the outsiders players group, please.
He won 5 of his 6 matches in straight sets. I don´t think Agassi playing his last match at Wimbledon was easy and he beat him in straights.
Nieminen beat Tursunov who beat Ljubicic so Nieminen was in great form and Nadal beat him in straights. Baghdatis beat Hewitt and Murray and Nadal beat him in straights...and Nadal was the only one to take a set off Fed. and was close to take off a 2nd... so tell me who deserved to play the final instead of Nadal?

You make some points there Zaragoza, especially the point about Baghdatis, that was a good win. Jarkko Nieminen doesn't have a great record at Wimbledon, he went out in the first round last year and this was by far his best ever run so I don't think it was a stretch for any decent player to take him out. i think it's possible that a lot of players may have beaten Nadal at Wimbledon had he faced them but obviously it's just speculation so we'll never be certain. I think some of the players that unluckily faced Federer could have eliminated Nadal, like Gasquet, Ancic, Berdych, maybe Henman. Also Hewitt, posibly Oli Rochus, and we are all STILL waiting for the first meeting between Nalbandian and Nadal. I know you'll say that Verdasco beat Nalby so Nadal would win, and possibly you are right but those two tiebreaks that Nalby lost 11-9 were soul destroying and it could easily have been 2-0 to Nalby too. I also think that Andy Murray and maybe even Roddick could've ousted Nadal.
Two qualifiers and a wildcard though.....cpmpare that to Federers draw, that would've seen Nadal out in the first round I believe.

 

[Rabbit]

Really? Bjorn Borg ring a bell?

Dammit FiveO, you beat me to the punch AGAIN!

I was going to say that the OPs logic clearly defines Borg as GOAT then. If length of career and maintaining a high standard over say 15 years doesn't mean as much as a great 3 year run, Borg clearly stands head and shoulders above any of the rest.

 

[Zaragoza]

As you say it´s all speculation but looking at their results in those 2 weeks nobody but Nadal deserved to play the final against Fed. He had a really tough draw at the French and nobody complained about it,then he got an easier draw than Fed. at Wimbledon and he gets the "Luckiest draw ever" award.
Then he has to face Philippoussis at the USO and some people say he´s the kind of player who can upset him... once Nadal beats him he has beaten a nobody.
Things are more simple than that, he´s world no. 2 by far.

 

[illkhiboy]

As you say it´s all speculation but looking at their results in those 2 weeks nobody but Nadal deserved to play the final against Fed. He had a really tough draw at the French and nobody complained about it,then he got an easier draw than Fed. at Wimbledon and he gets the "Luckiest draw ever" award.
Then he has to face Philippoussis at the USO and some people say he´s the kind of player who can upset him... once Nadal beats him he has beaten a nobody.
Things are more simple than that, he´s world no. 2 by far.

Yeah and there were quite a few who predicted Nadal getting upset by Kendrick, Agassi, then Niemenen and Baghdatis. I thought all of those players were playing fine tennis. Agassi's movement wasnt quite there but IMO he would have beaten most players that day. And if had not been for Nadal's fantastic running fourhand passing shot in the tie-break at 5-5, who knows what would have happened next.

 

[illkhiboy]

Dammit FiveO, you beat me to the punch AGAIN!

I was going to say that the OPs logic clearly defines Borg as GOAT then. If length of career and maintaining a high standard over say 15 years doesn't mean as much as a great 3 year run, Borg clearly stands head and shoulders above any of the rest.

Honestly I am dead right now and I can't even analyze exactly what I meant in my original post. Anyway, Bjorn Borg never won the US. Besides, of course he's a great player and possibly the GOAT. But, did Borg dominate his opponents ala Federer? As far as I am aware, he lost quite a few matches to Connors and McEnroe. You could say McEnroe and Connors are exceptional players, hall of famers but then we could argue endlessly over this as one could say Roddick & Hewitt had their confidence destroyed by Roger. Hell, Agassi could have won a couple more US Opens IMO if it was'nt for Roger being such a top dog everytime he steps on the court.

 

[malakas]

You make some points there Zaragoza, especially the point about Baghdatis, that was a good win. Jarkko Nieminen doesn't have a great record at Wimbledon, he went out in the first round last year and this was by far his best ever run so I don't think it was a stretch for any decent player to take him out. i think it's possible that a lot of players may have beaten Nadal at Wimbledon had he faced them but obviously it's just speculation so we'll never be certain. I think some of the players that unluckily faced Federer could have eliminated Nadal, like Gasquet, Ancic, Berdych, maybe Henman. Also Hewitt, posibly Oli Rochus, and we are all STILL waiting for the first meeting between Nalbandian and Nadal. I know you'll say that Verdasco beat Nalby so Nadal would win, and possibly you are right but those two tiebreaks that Nalby lost 11-9 were soul destroying and it could easily have been 2-0 to Nalby too. I also think that Andy Murray and maybe even Roddick could've ousted Nadal.
Two qualifiers and a wildcard though.....cpmpare that to Federers draw, that would've seen Nadal out in the first round I believe.

Baghdatis before this year,had very little experience on grass,said that grass was for playing football lol :mrgreen: ,and never had 2 straight wins on grass before.
Only this year,he played more on grass,saw how much it suited his game..and he reached semis in s-Hertonsomething and in Wimby!!
Marcos was as much or perhaps even more inexperienced on grass as Nadal.

 

[illkhiboy]

Baghdatis before this year,had very little experience on grass,said that grass was for playing football lol :mrgreen: ,and never had 2 straight wins on grass before.
Only this year,he played more on grass,saw how much it suited his game..and he reached semis in s-Hertonsomething and in Wimby!!
Marcos was as much or perhaps even more inexperienced on grass as Nadal.

Yes but the fact is, he was playing great tennis and beat Hewitt on the way to the semis.

 

[malakas]

Yes but the fact is, he was playing great tennis and beat Hewitt on the way to the semis.

Hewitt yes.His big wins on grass are: Grosjean in 4,Murray in 3 and Hewitt in 4.These were/are his big wins on grass.He's as inexperienced as Rafa on grass..

I am his fan,don't get me wrong..I don't try to deminish him or smth,but the fact is he's not an experienced grass-court player..I am just being realistic.
BUT,barring injury,wait to see him gettin deep in Wimby next year too.

 

[mdhubert]

Play tennis, watch tennis. It doesn't matter who is the best, bestest, besterer.

Apply this fascination with ranking to say your parents.

Mom, Dad, I'm trying to rank the both of you. Which of you is the better parent. I love you both, but I must know which of you is the superior parent. So, here are some dimensions that I would like to discuss with you, as I go thru the process of ranking you. You have room to improve and I will update you regularly with a ranking race. Please do not feel discouraged if you come in dead last, there is time, as long as you are alive to improve your ranking and crush your opponent. Now, my sibling there, whom I love a lot, as a different ranking system, I think it is pure rubbish and you should not follow that stupid ranking system. My ranking is the one and only.

Mom you held me in your arms for approximately 4.5 seconds versus Da measly 1.75 sec. However, Dad, you were much better in teaching me how to beat the school bully. Mom, your handling of my cowlicks with your quick little dabble with your own spit was excellent. Dad, you teach me how to aim when I pee was unsurpassed.

LOL. What did you smoke man ?

 

[illkhiboy]

Hewitt yes.His big wins on grass are: Grosjean in 4,Murray in 3 and Hewitt in 4.These were/are his big wins on grass.He's as inexperienced as Rafa on grass..

I am his fan,don't get me wrong..I don't try to deminish him or smth,but the fact is he's not an experienced grass-court player..I am just being realistic.
BUT,barring injury,wait to see him gettin deep in Wimby next year too.

Yes Baghdatis was inexperienced but for whatever reason, he adjusted to the surface well enough. I suspect it's because grass plays like hard, especially in the latter stages of the tournament. Which could explain why he had trouble with Alan Mackin in an early round. But then he took out some good grass court players, the ones you listed all have good results on the surface. Which means, despite his inexperience he was playing good grass court tennis and Nadal should be given credit for wiping him out in 3 sets. Baghdatis was never made to feel comfortable that day.
Does somebody remember Nadal beat Ancic at Wimbledon a few years back?

 

[Gilgamesh]

there is no way nadal wins 7 times the french open, just 2 more times, thats all

Since this is such a conclusive statement I must assume you have a crystal ball or some type of time travelling device that allows you to see into the future.

Anyways, at their peak I already have Federer better than Sampras. I have never seen this type of domination before at least on the man's tour.

All-time wise I agree with the poster who said that Federer doesn't need to win 15 GS if he wins the FO to be considered better. I also say if Federer can win 12 GS plus the FO and finish the year #1 at least 6 times and have as many titles as Sampras has I would put him over Sampras all-time.