What would Nadal have to do in order to become the greatest ever?

[World Beater]

Sampras

1. Serve-Excellent plus (if Federer is excellent Sampras is higher)
2. Volley-Excellent-Not on the level of guys like Edberg but overall excellent. Would be by far the best volleyer in the game today.
3. Backhand-Good
4. Forehand-Excellent
5. Mobility-Excellent
6. Drop shot-Good
7. Lobs-Good
8. Return of serve-Good. He never was very high in the percentage of breaking serve category.
9. Variety of spin-Very good
10. Changes of pace-Very good
11. Stamina-This is tough. His stamina wasn't great but he rarely lost five setters from what I've seen. I'll give him a good.
12. Mental strength-Excellent
13. Defensive ability-Good
14. Weapons-Excellent plus. His serve can be argued to be the best stroke in history. A great forehand. Top notch volley and he could attack on the backhand if needed.
15. Surface adaptability-Tough one. He actually wasn't a bad clay court player as evidenced by his Italian Cup win and his fantastic play against Russia in the Davis Cup.-I'll give him very good.
16. Passing shots-Good.
17. General anticipation- Excellent
18. Consistency-Very good. He did lose some matches he shouldn't have lost.
19. General shotmaking prowess-Very good

Not as many excellents as some but I'm a tough grader. He overcomes a lot of that with some all time weapons like his serve. He could play badly and still be in the match. Actually he could play badly and win a match against a top player.

agreed. sampras could sleepwalk to court and even be totally outmatched, yet somehow he would win?

lets be honest, here. laver and federer and borg etc have all played bad matches and won many times. Sampras is not unique in this aspect. It is very difficult to prognosticate a hypothetical real match scenario, however, pete's skills on paper look like pete is lacking in comparison to other GOAT level candidates.

personally, i find this rate their all time skills stuff useless because it reflects the bias of the poster so obviously. It is more useful, to me at least, to rate the players against their contemporaries in these skill categories.

I'm not sure how anyone could even rate laver against sampras or federer in certain categories. We can say however, that, sampras' serve was more outstanding than laver's in their respective eras. That makes more sense.

 

[krosero]

I'm not sure how anyone could even rate laver against sampras or federer in certain categories. We can say however, that, sampras' serve was more outstanding than laver's in their respective eras. That makes more sense.

That makes a lot of sense: and it's generally true no matter what you're looking at in history (not just tennis). The more time passes by between eras, the more change there is, and hence the more difficult (eventually impossible) it becomes to do comparisons. I mean, you can do them, but everyone will disagree vehemently, because they've all interpreted the various changes differently.

 

[pc1]

agreed. sampras could sleepwalk to court and even be totally outmatched, yet somehow he would win?

lets be honest, here. laver and federer and borg etc have all played bad matches and won many times. Sampras is not unique in this aspect. It is very difficult to prognosticate a hypothetical real match scenario, however, pete's skills on paper look like pete is lacking in comparison to other GOAT level candidates.

personally, i find this rate their all time skills stuff useless because it reflects the bias of the poster so obviously. It is more useful, to me at least, to rate the players against their contemporaries in these skill categories.

I'm not sure how anyone could even rate laver against sampras or federer in certain categories. We can say however, that, sampras' serve was more outstanding than laver's in their respective eras. That makes more sense.

You are of course right about some bias in anything, that's just life. I try to be as objective as possible but it's all opinion. Maybe some have been more impressed with Sampras than I have been and would rank him higher.

Vic Braden for example ranks Pancho Gonzalez's serve higher than Sampras and he could very well be right. I'm sure others who saw both may rank Sampras' serve higher.

Of course it depends on the era but let's say we have an era like the current era in which very few approach the net. Well of course if few people practice the volley it would stand to reason that the players may not be as skilled as players in the past, like an Edberg or a McEnroe. So do you rank an average player in volleying today as high as an average volleyer in the past?

On the other end, because players stay back more it also stands to reason that perhaps the groundstrokes are better too. So do you rank an average groundstroker today as high as an average groundstroker in the past?

I would tend to use the approach that if an average volleyer in the past is better than today, I would rank the average volleyer of the past higher. If the average groundstroker of today is better than the past, I would rank the average groundstroker of today higher than the one of the past.

If you transported the best volleyer of 1990 and let's say it's Edberg to today versus the best volleyer of today, well you can't call them equal because Edberg may be just plain better than anyone today.

The best groundstroker of today, let's say it's Nadal may be better than the best groundstroker of 1990, whoever it is.

It's all subjective and perhaps useless but it is fun to discuss.

 

[abmk]

You are of course right about some bias in anything, that's just life. I try to be as objective as possible but it's all opinion. Maybe some have been more impressed with Sampras than I have been and would rank him higher.

Vic Braden for example ranks Pancho Gonzalez's serve higher than Sampras and he could very well be right. I'm sure others who saw both may rank Sampras' serve higher.

Of course it depends on the era but let's say we have an era like the current era in which very few approach the net. Well of course if few people practice the volley it would stand to reason that the players may not be as skilled as players in the past, like an Edberg or a McEnroe. So do you rank an average player in volleying today as high as an average volleyer in the past?

On the other end, because players stay back more it also stands to reason that perhaps the groundstrokes are better too. So do you rank an average groundstroker today as high as an average groundstroker in the past?

I would tend to use the approach that if an average volleyer in the past is better than today, I would rank the average volleyer of the past higher. If the average groundstroker of today is better than the past, I would rank the average groundstroker of today higher than the one of the past.

If you transported the best volleyer of 1990 and let's say it's Edberg to today versus the best volleyer of today, well you can't call them equal because Edberg may be just plain better than anyone today.

The best groundstroker of today, let's say it's Nadal may be better than the best groundstroker of 1990, whoever it is.

It's all subjective and perhaps useless but it is fun to discuss.

agreed. you can't only compare with respect to the era , although that is one of the parameters you could/can use ...

I don't see any reason to say edberg "may" be plain better at volleying than anyone else today. He IS better - there is no doubt about that

 

[World Beater]

agreed. you can't only compare with respect to the era , although that is one of the parameters you could/can use ...

I don't see any reason to say edberg "may" be plain better at volleying than anyone else today. He IS better - there is no doubt about that

you sure about that?

I would love to see how edberg would do against big banger topspin passing shots and the groundstroke game of today.

edberg's technique looks good in videos obviously, but lots of players look good volleying when in their comfort zone. Edberg made it look easy. You could be right, but, i wouldnt go as far you in this assessment because the difficulty of volleying passing shots today is higher.

Just ask pete sampras. he has commented numerous times on "cheatalon". other players that support this line of thinking...tim henman, roger federer, andre agassi.

 

[World Beater]

Of course it depends on the era but let's say we have an era like the current era in which very few approach the net. Well of course if few people practice the volley it would stand to reason that the players may not be as skilled as players in the past, like an Edberg or a McEnroe. So do you rank an average player in volleying today as high as an average volleyer in the past?

On the other end, because players stay back more it also stands to reason that perhaps the groundstrokes are better too. So do you rank an average groundstroker today as high as an average groundstroker in the past?

I would tend to use the approach that if an average volleyer in the past is better than today, I would rank the average volleyer of the past higher. If the average groundstroker of today is better than the past, I would rank the average groundstroker of today higher than the one of the past.
If you transported the best volleyer of 1990 and let's say it's Edberg to today versus the best volleyer of today, well you can't call them equal because Edberg may be just plain better than anyone today.

The best groundstroker of today, let's say it's Nadal may be better than the best groundstroker of 1990, whoever it is.

You have pinpointed the source of the problem. Depending on which i assumption is made, you could reach two different conclusions. One assumption is no more better than the other.

To me the arugments should not be about who is better but who is greater. If laver was the best volleyer of his time, and nobody came close in his generation, even if jmac were better than laver, but, lets say only a little better than the field ..then i would say laver > jmac in this regard.

 

[abmk]

you sure about that?

hell yeah !

I would love to see how edberg would do against big banger topspin passing shots and the groundstroke game of today.

edberg's technique looks good in videos obviously, but lots of players look good volleying when in their comfort zone. Edberg made it look easy. You could be right, but, i wouldnt go as far you in this assessment because the difficulty of volleying passing shots today is higher.

Just ask pete sampras. he has commented numerous times on "cheatalon". other players that support this line of thinking...tim henman, roger federer, andre agassi.

edberg hit plenty of tough volleys in his prime .......

while it is true that volleying is tougher today, I've seen edberg enough times - hitting tough volleys, being consistent up there, rarely missing easy volleys, reaching the net fast ( IMHO he was the fastest to the net ), handling pace and dipping topspin well - etc etc to conclude he'd still be by a distance, the best volleyer if he were in his prime today

 

[World Beater]

hell yeah !



edberg hit plenty of tough volleys in his prime .......

while it is true that volleying is tougher today, I've seen edberg enough times - hitting tough volleys, being consistent up there, rarely missing easy volleys, reaching the net fast ( IMHO he was the fastest to the net ), handling pace and dipping topspin well - etc etc to conclude he'd still be by a distance, the best volleyer if he were in his prime today

yeah, so did sampras and henman and rafter and federer. Federer was a s/ver in his younger days and he was thought of very highly at net. then they all started getting torched at net. some fo them weren't in their prime but still putting in good performances.

something happened to their volleying though after strings enabled guys to hit the crap out of the ball and still land in the court. To volley these types of shots, you really need to have a dead racket bed (very tight strings), else your volleys will go out of the court like home runs. If you have a dead racket bed, though, you will be destroyed at the baseline.

im not disputing your point about edberg being the best volleyer today, but, perhaps the extent to which he would be successful. He might be the best today, but, i think he would realize fast that chipping and charging like he used to probably wouldnt work.

 

[abmk]

yeah, so did sampras and henman and rafter and federer. Federer was a s/ver in his younger days and he was thought of very highly at net. then they all started getting torched at net. some fo them weren't in their prime but still putting in good performances.

something happened to their volleying though after strings enabled guys to hit the crap out of the ball and still land in the court. To volley these types of shots, you really need to have a dead racket bed (very tight strings), else your volleys will go out of the court like home runs. If you have a dead racket bed, though, you will be destroyed at the baseline.

im not disputing your point about edberg being the best volleyer today, but, perhaps the extent to which he would be successful. He might be the best today, but, i think he would realize fast that chipping and charging like he used to probably wouldnt work.

of course he'd find it tougher today at the net and have lesser success than he had ... not disputing that at all ... Just that even today, he'd be the best volleyer around ( if he were in his prime ), given his skills ..

 

[pc1]

agreed. you can't only compare with respect to the era , although that is one of the parameters you could/can use ...

I don't see any reason to say edberg "may" be plain better at volleying than anyone else today. He IS better - there is no doubt about that

I have no doubt Edberg is a better volleyer than anyone today but there is doubt because no one can prove it because prime Edberg isn't around today. So I use the world "may."

 

[Pioneer]

I'd say defense was excellent too. The way he sometimes would bait the opponent to go for his forehand and then hit a running forehand winner was phenomenal

Sampras

1. Serve-Excellent plus (if Federer is excellent Sampras is higher)
2. Volley-Excellent-Not on the level of guys like Edberg but overall excellent. Would be by far the best volleyer in the game today.
3. Backhand-Good
4. Forehand-Excellent
5. Mobility-Excellent
6. Drop shot-Good
7. Lobs-Good
8. Return of serve-Good. He never was very high in the percentage of breaking serve category.
9. Variety of spin-Very good
10. Changes of pace-Very good
11. Stamina-This is tough. His stamina wasn't great but he rarely lost five setters from what I've seen. I'll give him a good.
12. Mental strength-Excellent
13. Defensive ability-Good
14. Weapons-Excellent plus. His serve can be argued to be the best stroke in history. A great forehand. Top notch volley and he could attack on the backhand if needed.
15. Surface adaptability-Tough one. He actually wasn't a bad clay court player as evidenced by his Italian Cup win and his fantastic play against Russia in the Davis Cup.-I'll give him very good.
16. Passing shots-Good.
17. General anticipation- Excellent
18. Consistency-Very good. He did lose some matches he shouldn't have lost.
19. General shotmaking prowess-Very good

Not as many excellents as some but I'm a tough grader. He overcomes a lot of that with some all time weapons like his serve. He could play badly and still be in the match. Actually he could play badly and win a match against a top player.

 

[Borg Number One]

yeah, so did sampras and henman and rafter and federer. Federer was a s/ver in his younger days and he was thought of very highly at net. then they all started getting torched at net. some fo them weren't in their prime but still putting in good performances.

something happened to their volleying though after strings enabled guys to hit the crap out of the ball and still land in the court. To volley these types of shots, you really need to have a dead racket bed (very tight strings), else your volleys will go out of the court like home runs. If you have a dead racket bed, though, you will be destroyed at the baseline.

im not disputing your point about edberg being the best volleyer today, but, perhaps the extent to which he would be successful. He might be the best today, but, i think he would realize fast that chipping and charging like he used to probably wouldnt work.

I think you've touched on something very important here. Shifts in technologies as to both racquets and strings (and the surface change at the AELTC for W I might add) are all things that in combination, have changed the volleyer vs. baseliner battle. I submit that McEnroe, Edberg, and Sampras as well would have more difficulty charging the net and putting away volleys against great baseliners given today's dynamics. I'm not talking about increased "physicality" right now (although I do think that the current crop of pros is very strong from the baseline in terms of movement/stamina especially). I'm speaking specifically about how it's easier to get shots back once you have reached them, how you can "muscle" back shots from strange shots now, the increased pace that can be applied to passing shots/returns, and how you can really hit hard/dipping passing shots loaded with topspin. All these things have become relatively easier given the most modern frames combined with strings most conducive to spin. I agree that volleyers even as great as Edberg, McEnroe, and Sampras would find it a bit more difficult to "chip and charge" a lot (although Edberg/McEnroe tended to use that a bit more than Sampras, who was more "choosy" about the net). Sampras of course had the huge serve, but Edberg and McEnroe had GREAT serves as well. Having said that, all three may very well find other ways to win points. Yet, they would have to be creative. I suppose that they would have to really pick their spots for volleying and wait for true floaters or put aways. They could not simply get up to the net, crowd it, and try and force errors/look for winning volleys. Players would just hammer away at them and dip very hard shots at their feet over and over, and after a set or two, that strategy may very well have to be abandoned. Just my opinion, but I think that the dynamics have been perhaps irreversibly altered at this point in the Game's evolvement. Nadal is the guy that is best taking advantage of the present dynamics and therefore, he is the player enjoying the most success.

 

[pc1]

I think you've touched on something very important here. Shifts in technologies as to both racquets and strings (and the surface change at the AELTC for W I might add) are all things that in combination, have changed the volleyer vs. baseliner battle. I submit that McEnroe, Edberg, and Sampras as well would have more difficulty charging the net and putting away volleys against great baseliners given today's dynamics. I'm not talking about increased "physicality" right now (although I do think that the current crop of pros is very strong from the baseline in terms of movement/stamina especially). I'm speaking specifically about how it's easier to get shots back once you have reached them, how you can "muscle" back shots from strange shots now, the increased pace that can be applied to passing shots/returns, and how you can really hit hard/dipping passing shots loaded with topspin. All these things have become relatively easier given the most modern frames combined with strings most conducive to spin. I agree that volleyers even as great as Edberg, McEnroe, and Sampras would find it a bit more difficult to "chip and charge" a lot (although Edberg/McEnroe tended to use that a bit more than Sampras, who was more "choosy" about the net). Sampras of course had the huge serve, but Edberg and McEnroe had GREAT serves as well. Having said that, all three may very well find other ways to win points. Yet, they would have to be creative. I suppose that they would have to really pick their spots for volleying and wait for true floaters or put aways. They could not simply get up to the net, crowd it, and try and force errors/look for winning volleys. Players would just hammer away at them and dip very hard shots at their feet over and over, and after a set or two, that strategy may very well have to be abandoned. Just my opinion, but I think that the dynamics have been perhaps irreversibly altered at this point in the Game's evolvement. Nadal is the guy that is best taking advantage of the present dynamics and therefore, he is the player enjoying the most success.

Excellent points. What I do find today as opposed to a little over a decade ago is that very few players to move in to volley a floating return like they did in the past. They often choose to let the floating return land on the baseline and hit a powerful drive. I do think that the relative safety of the heavy topspin powerful drive from the baseline because of today's great rackets is perhaps used a bit too much.

For example when Federer uses his lacrosse forehand to barely get back a shot, how often do you see his opponent move in to take the ball in the air to take advantage of this opportunity. I think Edberg and McEnroe probably would. I think Rosewall and Laver and Sampras would. Yet most do not and the point essentially starts over and everything is even at that point.

Yes perhaps it is in favor of the baseliner today but wouldn't it logically give the player a chance to hit better and safer approach shots. The serves are going in at higher percentages too. It may still be viable for a player like a Sampras to regularly serve and volley, especially on first serve where he will get a lot of weak returns. Of course Sampras has an unusually great serve but Roddick is a possibility on serve also as would a number of others. McEnroe with his old can opener serve in the ad court would probably get a lot of weak returns to volley away.

 

[hoodjem]

Excellent points. What I do find today as opposed to a little over a decade ago is that very few players to move in to volley a floating return like they did in the past. They often choose to let the floating return land on the baseline and hit a powerful drive. I do think that the relative safety of the heavy topspin powerful drive from the baseline because of today's great rackets is perhaps used a bit too much.

For example when Federer uses his lacrosse forehand to barely get back a shot, how often do you see his opponent move in to take the ball in the air to take advantage of this opportunity. I think Edberg and McEnroe probably would. I think Rosewall and Laver and Sampras would. Yet most do not and the point essentially starts over and everything is even at that point.

Gotta agree. Today's players wait for the shot to land hoping that it might float long, and thus they don't have to hit another shot to win the point.

A great volleyer with plenty of aggressive self-confidence will take the advantage and move in to meet the ball in the air and put it away with a sharply angled volley, to win the point.

In this regard, today's game seems more defensively oriented: make the other guy lose the point. The all-court game (lots of S&V) of the 60s and 70s seemed to be more about winning the point outright.

 

[Borg Number One]

I agree 100% PC1 and Hoodjem. Many players with the capability of coming in more, and doing so effectively, fail to do so. They could be "smarter" about their net approaches. Yet, that takes courage, a willingness to change/fail for a while, and a willingness to work to change and get better. It's easier said than done at that level, which is I suppose obvious.

What I am speaking of is that "former" style of chip and charge Tennis, when players such as McEnroe could take shots from the baseline and simply charge the net at every available opportunity. That wouldn't be so easy for him to pull off given today's technology dynamics and given the fact that there are a lot of great baseliners around today. Thanks guys. Excellent points above, as always.

 

[hoodjem]

Sampras

1. Serve-Excellent plus (if Federer is excellent Sampras is higher)
2. Volley-Excellent-Not on the level of guys like Edberg but overall excellent. Would be by far the best volleyer in the game today.
3. Backhand-Good
4. Forehand-Excellent
5. Mobility-Excellent
6. Drop shot-Good
7. Lobs-Good
8. Return of serve-Good. He never was very high in the percentage of breaking serve category.
9. Variety of spin-Very good
10. Changes of pace-Very good
11. Stamina-This is tough. His stamina wasn't great but he rarely lost five setters from what I've seen. I'll give him a good.
12. Mental strength-Excellent
13. Defensive ability-Good
14. Weapons-Excellent plus. His serve can be argued to be the best stroke in history. A great forehand. Top notch volley and he could attack on the backhand if needed.
15. Surface adaptability-Tough one. He actually wasn't a bad clay court player as evidenced by his Italian Cup win and his fantastic play against Russia in the Davis Cup.-I'll give him very good.
16. Passing shots-Good.
17. General anticipation- Excellent
18. Consistency-Very good. He did lose some matches he shouldn't have lost.
19. General shotmaking prowess-Very good

Not as many excellents as some but I'm a tough grader. He overcomes a lot of that with some all time weapons like his serve. He could play badly and still be in the match. Actually he could play badly and win a match against a top player.

Thanks to everyone who contributed, particularly PC1, thalivest, and Borg no. 1.

I am planning to start a new thread where all of these lists are collected.

 

[hoodjem]

Nadal:

1. Serve- good (but very good if he keeps serving like he did at the Open)
2. Volley- good
3. Backhand- excellent
4. Forehand- excellent
5. Mobility- excellent
6. Drop shot- very good
7. Lobs- very good
8. Return of serve- very good
9. Variety of spin- excellent
10. Changes of pace- very good
11. Stamina- excellent
12. Mental strength- excellent
13. Defensive ability- excellent
14. Weapons- very good
15. Surface adaptabiilty- very good
16. Passing shots- excellent
17. General anticipation- excellent
18. Consistency- excellent
19. General shotmaking prowess- very good

Thanks very much thalivest.

Very good list.

 

[Borg Number One]

I'm starting to think that Nadal is in fact excellent with his return of serve. He's awfully dangerous to a server, and his % of games broken, break points converted are both in the excellent range, in my opinion. I also tend to think his serve is definitely very good, bordering on excellent (US Open form specifically). His volley is also rapidly improving. You can tell that he's putting in a lot of hours volleying, rapid fire too. Something he said in a interview was instructive.I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said, ...I don't just go out a practice, I practice to improve something every day.

 

[World Beater]

I have no doubt Edberg is a better volleyer than anyone today but there is doubt because no one can prove it because prime Edberg isn't around today. So I use the world "may."

that is a very balanced view point, which I appreciate.

 

[abmk]

I have no doubt Edberg is a better volleyer than anyone today but there is doubt because no one can prove it because prime Edberg isn't around today. So I use the world "may."

fair enough ....

 

[abmk]

Just noticed thalivest is banned .....Is that the end of the avatars or will we see a resurgence ????

 

[powerangle]

Unless a player tops/holds record in every statistical category (# of slams, titles, weeks at #1, YE #1, win %, # of CYGS, etc), there will ALWAYS be discussion on who's the greatest. And even then, others will argue about the level of competition.

So, waiting on Nadal to accomplish all of the above.

On a more serious note, take what Nadal has accomplished so far in his career...and double it. Multiple all his significant stats #s (other than win % of course) and multiply by 2. That will put him around about where he needs to be.

 

[Mr_Shiver]

Why does there have to be one? What is this, the Highlander? I am a polygreatennis fan, the more the merrier.

 

[hoodjem]

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!











(Just kidding.)

 

[pjonesy]

What would Nadal have to do to in order to become the greatest ever?
Retire.

 

[jrepac]

Excellent points. What I do find today as opposed to a little over a decade ago is that very few players to move in to volley a floating return like they did in the past. They often choose to let the floating return land on the baseline and hit a powerful drive. I do think that the relative safety of the heavy topspin powerful drive from the baseline because of today's great rackets is perhaps used a bit too much.

For example when Federer uses his lacrosse forehand to barely get back a shot, how often do you see his opponent move in to take the ball in the air to take advantage of this opportunity. I think Edberg and McEnroe probably would. I think Rosewall and Laver and Sampras would. Yet most do not and the point essentially starts over and everything is even at that point.

Yes perhaps it is in favor of the baseliner today but wouldn't it logically give the player a chance to hit better and safer approach shots. The serves are going in at higher percentages too. It may still be viable for a player like a Sampras to regularly serve and volley, especially on first serve where he will get a lot of weak returns. Of course Sampras has an unusually great serve but Roddick is a possibility on serve also as would a number of others. McEnroe with his old can opener serve in the ad court would probably get a lot of weak returns to volley away.

I think they'd need to come in behind good approach shots, which they did most of the time; Mac would come in constantly to apply pressure, even on some so-so shots. Knowing that it would only cost him against the top guys (borg/connors/lendl). Today's guys come in on absolute junk for the most part, let's face it. I'm not sure these guys ever learned how to "chip and charge", nor how to hit/place an effective approach shot from mid-court. Yes, today's guys can hit some fabulous shots, assisted by the racquets and strings, but no one out there applies constant, high quality pressure via an attacking net game. No one.

 

[jrepac]

Nadal

His game was very impressive at the USO....if he can keep this up, he'll be right up there with Fed and maybe even fly by him...who knows?