Where would Nadall rank among the greats if he wins RG-Wimb again this year?

[The-Champ]

Nope not at all. But Andre's BH wouldnt competely deteriorate and breakdown against Nadal as Fed's always does. Andre at 35 took Nadal to 3 sets. Not to mention Andre could rattle Nadal's 2nd serve since Nadal is not that big of a server especially 2nd serve. Andre IMO would be a much deadlier matchup problem for Nadal than Fed has been.

But Andre's court coverage is not even comparable to Federer's.


Andre at 35? They played in 2005, how old was Nadal? 18? 19? who was closer to their prime? In your own words, Nadal was pre-pubecent at that time.

Q. You said you'd have the best seat in the house. I'm curious as to your impressions of the young man.

ANDRE AGASSI: Well, he has a difficult game. It's certainly easy to see why he's won so many matches. He does a lot of things really well. Just a great mover on the court. Gets good power from very stretched positions so you're never quite sure if you have complete control of the point. I found his serve more awkward than I was anticipating because if you don't hit a good return, he immediately gets on the offense. That's a sign of a great player: somebody who can play good defense, but also when they get ahold of a point, they don't let go of it. He's one of those guys that if he gets ahold of a point, he's not going to let go of it. It puts more pressure on you to hit a quality return, and it moves a little bit. I felt like today that was a big difference. I wasn't getting neutral enough right off his serve. That surprised me a little bit.

how come one of the greatest returners ever, had difficulty figuring out such WEAK serve. Shouldn't he just blast winner off every Nadal's serve? Maybe Agassi was an overrated returner after all. What do you think GameSampras?

Q. We know you like to take the ball pretty early. It looked like you were a little bit closer up to the baseline at the start of the match on Nadal's serve, a little bit further back towards the end. Is that a good assessment?

ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, that is a good assessment. That was the case. I thought -- you know, you watch him on TV, it looks like he just rolls that serve in. It looks like you should be able to hit it pretty effectively. But it is a lefty action with sort of a slice sometimes kick to it. So the ball's moving around a bit. If you don't hit it square, you leave anything hanging, and that's where he's really dangerous. So it's not so much that you can't stand up on the serve as much as if you don't hit it perfectly, you're going to pay for that. And I felt like I wasn't getting into enough points on his serve, so I drifted back to give myself a chance just to hit a quality cut and get into the point, which turned out to be pretty necessary. You know, the ball's jumping out there. The way he hits it, it's even jumping that much more.

So, GameSampras, have you actually experienced receiving Nadal's serve or are you basing your assessment on what you see on TV?

Here, we have one of the all-time greatest returner of the game having problems with Rafa's WEAK serve, and felt he had to stand further back to have a chance. BTW, Rafa serves better today than 4 years ago.

Q. Can you compare him to other players in terms of his quickness?


ANDRE AGASSI: You know, there's so many different ways to assess speed. You got guys that are tremendously fast, but they only use their speed defensively, then you really don't care about how fast they are because they're only going to have to run more. You got other guys that can use their speed offensively, but if you get them on the defense they can't hurt you on the stretch, so you can take a point over early and they can be fast but never turn a point around. Nadal has the ability to run as fast as the best of 'em, but on the stretch actually hurt you. You know, he can transition those points into offense. That makes you sort of walk on egg shells. He draws out errors that I think normally you wouldn't make against any other player, which is a credit to the way he plays the game.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=39

 

[The-Champ]

Tennis is alot about matchups in case u havent figured that out. Who is Nadal most likely going to have more problems with? A player like Edberg? A player like Becker? Goran? or Sampras? who could not only hurt players from the baseline but hold serve much easier and attack the net and put Nadal on the defensive. Or a style like Fed's game or Fed's mentality? Fed doesnt have much to rely on against Nadal. Fed's serve isnt as a big as Pete so he cant rely on free points like Pete could or hold serve as well. Fed's volley game is not all that impressive against Nadal since Fed is good but not great at the net. Certainly not a serve-volley marvel. If Fed's baseline game isnt clicking on all fronts, he doesnt have the Serve-volley attacking capablity to put Nadal on his toes. That should be apparent by now after all this time I thought.

If you listen to some of the analysts they tell how Fed should approach certain matches against Nadal. Serve big, attack. Who could do these things to their utmost? Yep Sampras. Obviously its more of an uphill to beat Nadal from the baseline as it is Attacking and serving big.

You're right, it's all about match-ups, Therefore we cannot draw any conclusion until they've actually had those match-ups. It's funny that Bruguera has a losing record against krajicek on clay, but a winning record on indoor carpet. Maybe Sampras would tripple bagel Nadal at the French and Nadal tripple bagel him at wimbledon.



So basically, those players have no weaknesses. They had amazing baseline games (that could hurt anyone), great at the net and monster serves. That's a deadly combination. That would make them lethal on clay. Nadal doesn't have a monster serve and certainly not amazing net game. How many FO titles did these unbeatable players you've mentioned collected in their carreers? With the arsenal they had at their disposal, shouldn't they have at least won one?

 

[clayman2000]

Pre primed Nadal better than Djoker and Murray how? On what? Certainly not Hardcourts. Nadal was losing to stiffs like Ferrer and Youzhny on Hardcourts. Clay yes.. Grass maybe but Murray has yet to prove himself on those surfaces and I imagine he eventually will and Djoker isnt all that bad on grass. Hardcourts CERTAINLY NOT. Not even close. Both are light years ahead on Hardcourts NOW than Nadal was THEN.

Have the Djoker and Murray won 4 AMS titles and 1GS title in one year?
So while Nadal lost on hard to Ferrer and Youznhy, Djokovic now is out loosing to Jarko Neminen, Tsonga

Easy to forget Nadal won Montreal in 05, Dubai vs Fed in final in 06, IW in 2007.

What were Djokovic and Murray doing in 2005 - 2007 (well for Djokovic 1/2 way into 07). They would be around the same age as Rafa, and Djokovic in 05 wasnt even on the map

 

[clayman2000]

And Djoker and Murray have affected Fed in someway. Dont kid yourself. Djoker was one of the few giving Fed problems way back in 07 and Djoker had yet to hit his stride. He whooped on Roger at the AO in 08.

Murray was the only player in 06 outside of Nadal who even got a match off Roger, while the rest of the field could barely even take a set.

So two straight set losses in GS matches and one win for Djokovic against an uninterested Fed counts as giving Federer problems?

In 06, Murray beat Fed right after 3 straight 3 set matches in Toronto. Back then of course the Cincy draw was 64, so Fed was back at it on Tuesday

 

[JoshDragon]

I like how Nadal fans like to diminish Feds achievements by saying hes played against a weak field and then have the nerve to boast about how great Nadal is on clay when the reality is Nadal has won all of his French Opens, Wimbledon, and AO(not to mention his masters titles) playing against the exact same field. LOL

Of course the argument from a Nadal fan would be that the field has gotten immensely stronger the last two years and that is why Fed has struggled. Well, Nadals first couple of French Opens were against a weak field still so we shouldnt count those when we speak of his greatness then, correct? If the logic applies to Fed how can it not apply to Nadal?

And true Nadal does have a huge lead in the h2h against Federer and that does not look good on Feds greatness but I dont think its an apples to apples comparison. Fed is Nadals elder of what 5-6 years? So while they have played each other and can be considered same generation I feel its more of a "similar" generation and not same. Same would be Nadal and Fed being close to same age much like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

The people who think that Fed plays during a weak era are living in denial. Fed, could have 20 slams and it wouldn't mean anything to some people because he didn't have to beat Connors or Agassi or Rosewall.

 

[rafan]

Where would Nadal rank? - good heavens! He's won RG, Wimbledon, Olympics and Australian open - and this is all in one year. He is already a phenomenen. He has quietly swept the board when a lot of the media were shouting for Federer or Murray to do the job.

 

[srinrajesh]

He would be just behind Laver, Sampras, Borg, federer to reach the Top 5 of alltime.
To win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces would be something no one has done in the history of tennis...

 

[srinrajesh]

The people who think that Fed plays during a weak era are living in denial. Fed, could have 20 slams and it wouldn't mean anything to some people because he didn't have to beat Connors or Agassi or Rosewall.

We do not dispute federer is one of the greatest but definitely he won during probably one of the weakest era in world tennis.
He won most of his grand slams in 2004-2007 (one four year period does not constitute dominance or longevity) when there was no djoker, murray and nadal only just cutting his teeth on grass and hard courts.

Nadal on the other hand won all his 6 grand slams having to beat a GOAT contender Federer in all 6 tournaments (5 finals and 1 SF)
If Roger had beaten Nadal in at least 1-2 FO after Nadal won at least 2 FO then we would agree that Federer had the all court game.

Remember nadal is less than 5 years younger than Federer. So the last year and this year would be prime age for both. 21-22 agaisnt 26-27.

Definitely we have never seen a GOAT player overall who had losing records during his NO.1 days to 2 contenders in top 10 -Nadal and Murray like Federer has.

 

[saram]

I have noticed that a lot of people in the forum rank Borg above Federer, even though Fed has won more GS and has been 4 straight years #1, so I guess it's because winning the channel slam weights heavily in the list of acomplishments. So, if Nadal wins it two years in a row, where would you rank him among the all time greats?

You cannot compare generations to generations. It is impossible.

I think Rafa is the greatest thus far--but someone will come along even better.

There is NO GOAT.

NEVER WILL BE, either....

 

[cknobman]

Do u even watch tennis at all? The field only looks better because Fed is declined? Thats completely idiotic to think that. So I guess Nadal hasnt got better. I guess , Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, Baghaditis are better than Djoker, Murray, and Nadal.

Then answer me this wise guy. Where are is Fed's 04-06 crowd then outside of Nadal if Fed has declined? Where are they at the slams? Where is Blake, Safin, Gonzales, Baghaditis, Nalbandian? Shouldnt they be winning slams? If Fed has declined why the hell hasnt Roddick won 1 ****ing slam or Masters? Ohh yea because he he gets tallywhacked by Djoker, Murray, or Nadal because he just isnt that good? Thats right. Roddick ISNT THAT GOOD and he was Fed's main competition for most of that time outside of pre pubescent Nadal.

Where is Safin? Where is Gonzales? Ljubicic? Nalbandian? Baghaditis? Davydenko and down the line? Where have these guys been since Fed has declined? I dont see any slams there.. Do you? Shouldnt they be winning slams since Fed has declined? They should be winning multiple titles right?


Yea major ownage huh? More like crappty crap. Why would I argue with someone who prolly doesnt even watch tennis and cant see the glaring truth in their face.


Djoker, Murray, Nadal are better players any day of the week and twice on Sunday than Fed's 04-06 competition.

And you think you have come tennis knowledge? LMAO your making yourself look stupid.

Safin, Nalby, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Roddick are all 4-8 years older than Nadal, Murray, and Djoker so as Federer is older they all are a semi generation ahead of Murray, Djoker, and Nadal.

Furthermore when Hewitt, and Safin were the age of Nadal, Murray, Djoker they were winning slams (both have more than 1), and contending heavily at every slam (even Roddick was a contender and a slam winner).
You act like Murray and Djoker are so great that they are leagues above the crowd from 00-04 but in reality they havent even really proven themselves yet.
Murray has 0 SLAMS and Djoker has 1 SLAM. Big whoopee!!!!!

You are very shortsighted person with a narrow vision and will never see past your own deluded little world into what everyone else calls REALITY.

I dont discredit anything Nadal has done. He earned everything hes achieved and is a great player but it really chaps my arse to see people put down Fed achievements based on unfounded facts or deluded fantasies of a player they like more.

 

[Pirao]

And you think you have come tennis knowledge? LMAO your making yourself look stupid.

Safin, Nalby, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Roddick are all 4-8 years older than Nadal, Murray, and Djoker so as Federer is older they all are a semi generation ahead of Murray, Djoker, and Nadal.

Furthermore when Hewitt, and Safin were the age of Nadal, Murray, Djoker they were winning slams (both have more than 1), and contending heavily at every slam (even Roddick was a contender and a slam winner).
You act like Murray and Djoker are so great that they are leagues above the crowd from 00-04 but in reality they havent even really proven themselves yet.
Murray has 0 SLAMS and Djoker has 1 SLAM. Big whoopee!!!!!

You are very shortsighted person with a narrow vision and will never see past your own deluded little world into what everyone else calls REALITY.

I dont discredit anything Nadal has done. He earned everything hes achieved and is a great player but it really chaps my arse to see people put down Fed achievements based on unfounded facts or deluded fantasies of a player they like more.

I agree. Fed didn't play in a weak era, it's that he didn't let anyone else win slams because he was winning everything (with the exception of clay). And yeah, Nadal, Murray and Djoker are like the new generation, while Hewitt, Safin, Fed, Roddick, etc, are the old guard now. But don't write Murray and Djokovic off in slams just yet, I'm sure they'll win some in the years to come.

 

[vtmike]

And you think you have come tennis knowledge? LMAO your making yourself look stupid.

Safin, Nalby, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Roddick are all 4-8 years older than Nadal, Murray, and Djoker so as Federer is older they all are a semi generation ahead of Murray, Djoker, and Nadal.

Furthermore when Hewitt, and Safin were the age of Nadal, Murray, Djoker they were winning slams (both have more than 1), and contending heavily at every slam (even Roddick was a contender and a slam winner).
You act like Murray and Djoker are so great that they are leagues above the crowd from 00-04 but in reality they havent even really proven themselves yet.
Murray has 0 SLAMS and Djoker has 1 SLAM. Big whoopee!!!!!

You are very shortsighted person with a narrow vision and will never see past your own deluded little world into what everyone else calls REALITY.

I dont discredit anything Nadal has done. He earned everything hes achieved and is a great player but it really chaps my arse to see people put down Fed achievements based on unfounded facts or deluded fantasies of a player they like more.

I have been trying to get this through his thick skull for some time now...I have given up now...The guy is so blindsighted by his eternal love for Sampras to the point that he wants to turn down every other tennis players achievements no matter how good they are!

 

[mandy01]

We do not dispute federer is one of the greatest but definitely he won during probably one of the weakest era in world tennis.
He won most of his grand slams in 2004-2007 (one four year period does not constitute dominance or longevity) when there was no djoker, murray and nadal only just cutting his teeth on grass and hard courts.

Nadal on the other hand won all his 6 grand slams having to beat a GOAT contender Federer in all 6 tournaments (5 finals and 1 SF)
If Roger had beaten Nadal in at least 1-2 FO after Nadal won at least 2 FO then we would agree that Federer had the all court game.

Remember nadal is less than 5 years younger than Federer. So the last year and this year would be prime age for both. 21-22 agaisnt 26-27.

Definitely we have never seen a GOAT player overall who had losing records during his NO.1 days to 2 contenders in top 10 -Nadal and Murray like Federer has.

are you kidding yourself or others? First you say Federer won in an era of nobodies ( which is utter BS) then you say Nadal had to contend with Fed everytime and then you call Federer GOAT contender...why are you contradicting yourself? You talk like Federer is the ultimatum and then you dont even give enough crediblity to his achievements :lol:
You're ignorant and your post is extremely lame :wink:

 

[Bud]

Where would Nadal rank? - good heavens! He's won RG, Wimbledon, Olympics and Australian open - and this is all in one year. He is already a phenomenen. He has quietly swept the board when a lot of the media were shouting for Federer or Murray to do the job.

Exactly! Interesting how some on these boards seem to forget his accomplishments in the last year, alone.

When he wins the US Open at some point (and he will) he'll have a non-calendar year Golden Grand Slam.

If he wins the USO in 2009, he'll hold all majors' titles and the Olympic Gold medal concurrently. That's pretty darn close to a Golden Slam.

 

[Pirao]

Exactly! Interesting how some on these boards seem to forget his accomplishments in the last year, alone.

When he wins the US Open at some point (and he will) he'll have a non-calendar year Golden Grand Slam.

If he wins the USO in 2009, he'll hold all majors' titles and the Olympic Gold medal concurrently. That's pretty darn close to a Golden Slam.

I didn't forget anything lol, if you hadn't figured by my location I¡m a huge Nadal fan, I just wanted to know other people's opinion.

 

[egn]

He would be just behind Laver, Sampras, Borg, federer to reach the Top 5 of alltime.
To win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces would be something no one has done in the history of tennis...

Mats Wilander - 2 Australian Opens on Grass, 1 Australian Open on Hard, 3 French Opens on Clay 1 US Open on Hard
Andre Agassi - 4 AO on hard, 1 FO on clay, 1 Wimby on grass, 2 USO on hard
Jimmy Connors - 5 USO, on all three surfaces I believe it is 2 grass 1 clay 2 hard not sure off the top my head, 1 AO on grass and 2 Wimbys on grass

It has been done before.

 

[Bud]

I didn't forget anything lol, if you hadn't figured by my location I¡m a huge Nadal fan, I just wanted to know other people's opinion.

I wasn't referring to you. I was speaking in generalities.

 

[egn]

Exactly! Interesting how some on these boards seem to forget his accomplishments in the last year, alone.

When he wins the US Open at some point (and he will) he'll have a non-calendar year Golden Grand Slam.

If he wins the USO in 2009, he'll hold all majors' titles and the Olympic Gold medal concurrently. That's pretty darn close to a Golden Slam.

Olympics happens once every four years and Olympics goes out the window when comparing him to anyone prior to 1984 and post 1920 because there was no Olympics. Saying Nadal for having a golden grand slam is better than Laver because he has no olympics is completely unjust as Laver never had an Olympics to play in.

Nadal accomplished a lot last season but the olympics is not one of the biggest tournaments in tennis, I can name five ahead of it.

Wimbledon
US Open
French Open
Australian Open
Year-End Masters

In all of those the fields are stronger and it is held with more regard. Other tournaments held with more regard include

Italian Open
Monte Carlo
Indian Wells
Miami
Queens Club

etc. The Olympics is a nice tournament to win, but no offense prior to Nadal's winning it I never heard it ever used in GOAT discussion. Does anyone hold Sampras not having the gold medal against him? Or Lendl? Nope. It frankly is not one of the biggest tournaments in tennis. Nadal's season last year was impressive but it was not one of the best ever seen. It might just make top 10. There have been better years if you look at statistics and some that can be arguebly better with more or just as many titles, and equal or higher winning percentages.

Laver 69 - won 4 GS and sources say somewhere between 10-15 titles
Connors 74 - won 3 GS and 15 titles
McEnroe 84 - 2 GS out of 3, final in third one, 13 titles, best winning percentage of each season
Borg 78 - 2 GS final in third one he entered 9 titles
Borg 80 - 2 GS final in third one he entered 9 titles including year end masters
Federer 04, 05, 06 (07 even has a case) - you know the facts for these
Lendl 86, 87 - 2 slams each year, runner up at wimby both years, semi in australia in 87, won the masters both year, 9 titles in 86, 8 in 87, 90% wins all years

Case can be made that all of those are better years it is all matter of opinion. Nadal's season was great but it was not the best tennis season ever and is not even top 5, but than it is about overall career. He accomplished a lot for himself last season, but what people seem to not take into accounts is other people have accomplished it.


Also if he is to win USO2009 he would have to defend France and Wimby for it to even be concurrent. Which would then be a real grand slam. If he fails to defend one of those and then wins USO2009 he is not holding all four at the same time as he would have not won four in a row.

 

[Nadalfan89]

Regardless of the accomplishments that Rafa has done or will do, he'll never recieve the credit that he should. The God of tennis that is Roger Federer has captivated tennis fans for the last 5 years with his beautiful strokes and graceful footwork. Nadal comes in and starts grinding out matches and grunting and running all over the place and people automatically write him off as some mindless baseline basher that will have his 15 minutes of fame and fade away. The truth is that he's already accomplished things that Federer hasn't, including the FO, winning a GS on all surfaces, winning a gold medal in olympics singles and doing it all by the age of 23.

He may not be the GOAT but to not even include him in the top 5 would be ridiculous and just flat out wrong.

 

[egn]

He may not be the GOAT but to not even include him inthe top 5 would be ridiculous and just flat out wrong.

Okay so in the open era who are you kicking out

Laver, Sampras, Borg, Federer or Lendl. I guess you can edge Lendl out but of all time you have to contest with the following

Laver
Rosewell
Sampras
Borg
Federer
Lendl
Budge
Tilden
Gonzales
the list continues..

those are just a few who can claim better resumes than Nadal? Putting Nadal in the top 5 means excluding one of them who have done a lot more than Nadal has done to date. It's not all about federer he isn't the whole top 5..there are 4 other great players.

 

[Nadalfan89]

^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

 

[egn]

^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

You still make a case for one player. Are you telling me you are not going to include Laver because he won his GS on clay and grass. Well he won professional majors in the mid 60s on surfaces like indoor wood and indoor carpet. So there are extra surfaces. Laver dominated his field and even took down his biggest foes like Pancho and Rosewell.

Pancho and Rosewell the same dominated the pro circuit in the 50s and 60s gather tons of majors and Rosewell has something like 7 slams if I recall correctly. Rosewell played top tennis for about 20 years..most players today are lucky if they are top tennis for 10 years. The two were forces to be reckoned with and were winning tournaments on multiple surfaces left and right. I am too lazy to go pull up all the stats but in former pro player talk you can find some good threads on them.

Borg never got a hardcorut grandslam because he only had the oppurtunity to compete in 4... out of the 40 slams he played in. He was winning tons of tournaments on hard and carpet though he was not bad on the surface. He was not the best in his era, but I would reckon if there would have been 2 hard court slams like there are today he could have won at least one. Borg dominated two completely opposite surfaces slow clay and fast grass. Besides the masters were played on indoor courts and he did really well there.

Sampras never had any problems with a rival except if you want to note his losing record against Kracijek (sp?) but he dominated his major rivals, he excelled on hardcourts and grass. He won 7 Wimbledons and was year end number 1 for 6 straight years in the open era? He played in a tough clay court field where there was 3 great clay courters playing at one point in top form 92-95. Sure go ahead 96 on the clay field was weak, but by then Sampras was in his late 20s and his game was bad as it was for clay. I mean come on Muster, Brugera and Courier were all rotating winning slams at France and at all times at least 2 of them were playing their best.

Federer from 2004-2007 broke and shattered records. He won 2 slams 5 times in a row, the US Open and Wimbledon and he is no crappy clay courter. He has issues against Rafael Nadal who is a future GOAT candidate. His record against Nadal without clay puts him in the lead...he can't beat him on clay, he managed it once though. He has 13 slams and he can be credited with creaming some really good players. He beat Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi and even Nadal for some of his slams. Sure now he falls to Nadal but Nadal is now at his peak and Federer is out of it. Federer crushed his field and his field was good people make it out to be worse than it is.

So really how can you discredit them? Where does Nadal fit in? It is not like he has 10 slams right now. If he wins the calendar year then yes he will fit in, but please wait until he does something that should have him be called one of the greatest before you crown him it.

 

[deltox]

^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

when you rate Borg or Sampras on your list, do you look back and think how did he do in those finals or those semis, or who he faced?

ive said it tons here on this forum so far, in ten years people will rarely even remember who you faced during the tourney. only the stats and the final scores for accomplishments.

 

[deltox]

^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

its not so important because his wins come on one surface against roger for the overall record. ok so concede the point rafa is better on clay. now were does that leave the statement

 

[Andyk028]

Fair enough, but I actually think that winning finals means more than reaching more. Plus the 2 consecutive channel slams would weight heavily on Nadal's favour.

I definetly agree with this statement..If a guy gets beat 6-0 6-0 I wouldn't exactly consider the final to be a statistic worth noting.

 

[AprilFool]

^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

But that is offset by the fact that Federer was the only player in tennis history to have won 5 consecutive Grand Slam titles at two separate Grand Slam Events (Wimbledon 2003–2007 and US Open 2004–2008). Nadal was in the finals only three of those ten slams. But I do think Nadal is going to be one of the GOATS if he keeps on playing at his current level. (Unless Fed wakes up)

 

[JoshDragon]

We do not dispute federer is one of the greatest but definitely he won during probably one of the weakest era in world tennis.
He won most of his grand slams in 2004-2007 (one four year period does not constitute dominance or longevity) when there was no djoker, murray and nadal only just cutting his teeth on grass and hard courts.

Nadal on the other hand won all his 6 grand slams having to beat a GOAT contender Federer in all 6 tournaments (5 finals and 1 SF)
If Roger had beaten Nadal in at least 1-2 FO after Nadal won at least 2 FO then we would agree that Federer had the all court game.

Remember nadal is less than 5 years younger than Federer. So the last year and this year would be prime age for both. 21-22 agaisnt 26-27.

Definitely we have never seen a GOAT player overall who had losing records during his NO.1 days to 2 contenders in top 10 -Nadal and Murray like Federer has.

Federer, is definitely not in his prime right now. If you compare Wimbledon 2006 (one of Fed's best tournaments) to the Australian Open 2009 you will see a huge difference in his consistency and his shot placement. Federer, has not been playing anywhere near his 2006 level for a long time.

One of the biggest changes in Fed's game is his forehand. 3 years ago his forehand was an unbelievable weapon. Today his forehand is a joke, he basically beat himself when he was playing Djokovic last week in Miami.

 

[P_Agony]

Nadal is already one of the greats, and anybody who says otherwise is in denial. His ability to turn a losing situation to a great win is amazing, his spirit and his will to win are unmatched, and the results show it. I don't like his game at all, but gotta give the guy credit, he is already a tennis legend IMO.

 

[egn]

Federer, is definitely not in his prime right now. If you compare Wimbledon 2006 (one of Fed's best tournaments) to the Australian Open 2009 you will see a huge difference in his consistency and his shot placement. Federer, has not been playing anywhere near his 2006 level for a long time.

Fed is still prime. He is not peak. He is still one of the best players on the tour. Top 4. Maybe even top 3. He only gets beat by the other top 3 players. He has not lost to anyone this year outside of the top 4. One loss to Nadal, One lose to Djokovic and 2 to Murray. So he beats everyone else. He is struggling against the other top guys who are now just as good or better than him. He might not be in his peak but he is still prime and still capable of beating them. he is having a mental block. He has lost a bit of movement and yes his shots are not as consistent but he is not fallen of the top. He still has some of the best game out there and can still bring it.

Fed is probably going through a slump that most players go through, I imagine he turns things around against Murray and DJokovic soon and starts to win some against them soon, but to say he is far from his 2006 level and has been that way for a long time is a bit of a stretch. 2007 he was probably playing 90 percent of his 2006 level. I think he is playing better now than he was last year and the results are showing as he actually did better this year early off than last year. Federer is still playing way to well for people to say he is out of his prime. He has been better but he is still one of the top notch players currently on the tour. Fed 2008 played poorly at points but Fed 2009 has showed more consistency and actually improved game over 2008, if he was still playing in his 2008 form he would have been bounced by Berdych and probably not made nearly as good runs at IW or Miami, he is playing like he was in 2007. Just now unlike 2007 Nadal is ten times as good.

 

[Bud]

Olympics happens once every four years and Olympics goes out the window when comparing him to anyone prior to 1984 and post 1920 because there was no Olympics. Saying Nadal for having a golden grand slam is better than Laver because he has no olympics is completely unjust as Laver never had an Olympics to play in.

Nadal accomplished a lot last season but the olympics is not one of the biggest tournaments in tennis, I can name five ahead of it.

Wimbledon
US Open
French Open
Australian Open
Year-End Masters

In all of those the fields are stronger and it is held with more regard. Other tournaments held with more regard include

Italian Open
Monte Carlo
Indian Wells
Miami
Queens Club

etc. The Olympics is a nice tournament to win, but no offense prior to Nadal's winning it I never heard it ever used in GOAT discussion. Does anyone hold Sampras not having the gold medal against him? Or Lendl? Nope. It frankly is not one of the biggest tournaments in tennis. Nadal's season last year was impressive but it was not one of the best ever seen. It might just make top 10. There have been better years if you look at statistics and some that can be arguebly better with more or just as many titles, and equal or higher winning percentages.

Laver 69 - won 4 GS and sources say somewhere between 10-15 titles
Connors 74 - won 3 GS and 15 titles
McEnroe 84 - 2 GS out of 3, final in third one, 13 titles, best winning percentage of each season
Borg 78 - 2 GS final in third one he entered 9 titles
Borg 80 - 2 GS final in third one he entered 9 titles including year end masters
Federer 04, 05, 06 (07 even has a case) - you know the facts for these
Lendl 86, 87 - 2 slams each year, runner up at wimby both years, semi in australia in 87, won the masters both year, 9 titles in 86, 8 in 87, 90% wins all years

Case can be made that all of those are better years it is all matter of opinion. Nadal's season was great but it was not the best tennis season ever and is not even top 5, but than it is about overall career. He accomplished a lot for himself last season, but what people seem to not take into accounts is other people have accomplished it.


Also if he is to win USO2009 he would have to defend France and Wimby for it to even be concurrent. Which would then be a real grand slam. If he fails to defend one of those and then wins USO2009 he is not holding all four at the same time as he would have not won four in a row.

Where did I compare Nadal to Laver? Did I say that those playing tennis prior to Olympic tennis in 1984 weren't great? Please, don't put more into my post than what was there.

The bottom line is since 1984, only 2 players have a Golden Grand Slam and a career Golden Slam and they are married to one another. For Nadal to be in that company would be impressive, whether you think so or not.

 

[Bud]

Nadal is already one of the greats, and anybody who says otherwise is in denial. His ability to turn a losing situation to a great win is amazing, his spirit and his will to win are unmatched, and the results show it. I don't like his game at all, but gotta give the guy credit, he is already a tennis legend IMO.

Agreed. You can't argue with what the guy has accomplished.

 

[veroniquem]

Mats Wilander - 2 Australian Opens on Grass, 1 Australian Open on Hard, 3 French Opens on Clay 1 US Open on Hard
Andre Agassi - 4 AO on hard, 1 FO on clay, 1 Wimby on grass, 2 USO on hard
Jimmy Connors - 5 USO, on all three surfaces I believe it is 2 grass 1 clay 2 hard not sure off the top my head, 1 AO on grass and 2 Wimbys on grass

It has been done before.

Yes but holding slam titles on 3 different surfaces simultaneously has never been done before, Nadal is the first one to do it.

 

[egn]

Yes but holding slam titles on 3 different surfaces simultaneously has never been done before, Nadal is the first one to do it.

That is true and is a good point he was one of the best on each surface at a single given point in time.

 

[rafan]

I was an enormous fan of Borg but Rafa puts him in the shade. He has done wonders on his less than favourite surface (HC) and he isn't going to stop now.