Which Career would you Prefer hypothetical

Will 22 slams be enough for Rafa to surpass Rogers Career

  • Total voters
    73
  • Poll closed .
PETEhammer said:
I'll take Pete - Most Alpha Game in history. 14 slams, 286 weeks and 6 consecutive year end #1s, dominate all rivals in the deepest, toughest era in history - PLUS won Davis Cup on clay against the Russians, ending the American Drought. With a genetic disorder affecting stamina, prior to Wunder Juice and Medical Senzu Beans. Set the barometer by which all future ATGs will be judged, live rent free in insecure fans of future ATGs heads.
Click to expand...
That distinction should go to the 1980s.
 
mike danny said:
More than evened out by Rafa's even LOLer slams since 2017.

Hilarious how it's 2021 and people are still obsessed with Fed's early slams (which weren't even that weak, certainly not weaker than Novak's in 2015-2016).
Click to expand...
Getting your clowns on the front end is a much easier way to build your confidence and aura than having to earn those by beating ATGs and cementing it off clowns.
 
itrium84 said:
First of all, it's always nice to see kind and reasonable fans in here.
Second, with these hypothetical circumstances you proposed (Nadal +2 FO), I still give a slight edge to Fed. If it was 1 FO and one AO/W/USO, then I would give slight edge to Rafa. If it was +3 FO for him, again, slight edge to Rafa.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response! Appreciated
 
tennisjedi said:
I'd prefer Rafa's career. His dominance on clay is just unbelievable and should not be held against him.
This board has an anti-clay bias. If Nadal's slam distribution was 1 AO, 2 RG, 13 W, 4 USO, I doubt many people here would care if he had a grass skew.
Click to expand...
Yes u have to have a big number somewhere to break to build your resume!
 
Y
Sport said:
The part in bold is key. Nadal does not have "very few other Slams" outside clay. Nadal has 7 Slams outside clay (ATG tier, same as Agassi and McEnroe), and has won at least 2 Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay), while Federer only has won 1 Slam on clay. If we add to his 7 Slams outside clay (already ATG level) his 13 RG we have a GOAT candidate.

Thus, Nadal having a lot of RG is not a problem because he has at least 2 Slams on each surface and 7 Slams outside clay.

21 > 20.
[/QUOTE
I agree with this would love to see 1 more non clay slam would really cement it for me, beyond a reasonable doubt if fed stays as is.
Click to expand...
 
PETEhammer said:
21 is enough for Rafa to surpass Fed. Nobody cared that Pete had more WTFs, weeks at #1 or consecutive year end #1s when Rodgi surpassed him by 1 slam. I believe in extending the same grace to Rafa.
Click to expand...
Yes when he even equalled Pete it was hard to justify Pete being superior when he didn’t have the Career slam.
 
DIMI_D said:
Hello Everyone,

I have finally joined the forums after a couple of years reading on here on a daily basis as a guest. A little about myself - I have been a tennis fan since being a primary school kid in 95 watching the Australian open quarterfinal between Sampras and Courier. I didn't know the rules at the time but picked it up pretty easily, I ended up staying till past midnight to see the conclusion of the match when my parents had already gone to sleep. I was hooked after that and ended up playing tennis against a wall in my backyard and representing my school (I only play socially now). I was a Pete fan until he's retirement but after that found myself not really backing someone until Rafa really emerged WIM 08 and especially 09 OZ open I was and have been a die-hard fan ever since.

This Post is hypothetical and speculative I know we all value certain things more than others in terms of career achievements be interesting to see the results at the end. BGod had a poll a while back about what Rafa has to do to surpass Roger career wise and this is attempting to simplify if possible to if you believe -

22 Slams (assumption is 2 more FO) will be enough to consider Rafa's career superior to Rogers (assuming Roger adds no more)
which career do you choose and why.

Assume roughly things stay similar as they are now between their respective careers -

H2H - advantage Nadal
Slam head to head - Nadal
Total Career titles - Fed
BIG Titles - Nadal
slam distribution surface - Fed (9 titles off hard 45%)
total slams - Nadal (assume)
masters - Nadal
WTF - Fed ( we assume nadal doesn't get any)
weeks number 1 - Fed
consecutive weeks number 1 - Fed
Olympic gold - Nadal
Year end number 1 - Even (maybe Rafa has one more in him)

This post is not trying to diminish the Career of either one as they are living legends and icons of the sport. I actually ponder the question and am on the fence at present about it. I think currently them being tied in the slam race I would take Federer's Career over Rafa's if offered one over the other that's pure opinion as we all value certain things more than other things.

Let the debate begin if you want to vote then even list what u believe is enough for Rafa would be great.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Hi, do you like cheaters?

8-)
 
DIMI_D said:
Yes when he even equalled Pete it was hard to justify Pete being superior when he didn’t have the Career slam.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, but that's another discussion. Main takeaway is the minute Nadal surpasses his slam count, he's the superior player per the Fed precedent
 
In 2000’s era I’ll take Djokovic. Dominated both main rivals , won every big title twice except RG, held 4 slams YEC and 6 masters in a row. Best season in open era, highest ELO of all time, highest ATP ranking points ever.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
Everyone will take an era with no younger generation ATGs whatsoever.

:cool:
Click to expand...
How do you know Thiem, Tsisipas, Medvedev, Zverev arent future ATG? Their career isn’t finished.

ok the lostgen were disappointing compared to the golden 85-88 gen, but having to face peak Federer, peak Murray and peak Wawrinka until 2016 more than made up for it :whistle:
 
NoleIsBoat said:
How do you know Thiem, Tsisipas, Medvedev, Zverev arent ATG? Their career isn’t finished.

ok the lostgen were disappointing compared to the golden 85-88 gen, but having to face peak Federer, peak Murray and peak Wawrinka until 2016 more than made up for it :whistle:
Click to expand...

I don't. Just like I didn't about Federer in 2002. Then again, in 2002 Federer's level was not one of an ATG.

:cool:
 
NoleIsBoat said:
In 2000’s era I’ll take Djokovic. Dominated both main rivals , won every big title twice except RG, held 4 slams YEC and 6 masters in a row. Best season in open era, highest ELO of all time, highest ATP ranking points ever.
Click to expand...
Good points but this post was more to do with Nadal passing Fed and if 2 slams (FOs) would be enough to have the better/superior career
 
NoleIsBoat said:
How do you know Thiem, Tsisipas, Medvedev, Zverev arent future ATG? Their career isn’t finished.

ok the lostgen were disappointing compared to the golden 85-88 gen, but having to face peak Federer, peak Murray and peak Wawrinka until 2016 more than made up for it :whistle:
Click to expand...
Yes next gen crop is much better than the lost gen raonic, nishi, Dimitrov etc
 
dr325i said:
Yes, Baggy, Gonzo, Phillapousis, crippled Agassi, always scary Roddick, etc were tough obstacles.
Click to expand...
Of course, you didn't even argue my point about Nadal's LOLer slams.

At this point, calling Agassi crippled while wins over old the Big 3 are marveled at is just pure hypocrisy, but I expected nothing less from Fed haters whose only words in their vocabulary and Baghdatis and Phillippoussis. And even funnier to see this coming from a Djokovic fan who's built his entire second half of his career on wins over old Fed.

At this point, obsessing over 2004-2007 when Djokodal have beaten Anderson and Karatsev in big matches is ridiculous.
 
mike danny said:
Of course, you didn't even argue my point about Nadal's LOLer slams.

At this point, calling Agassi crippled while wins over old the Big 3 are marveled at is just pure hypocrisy, but I expected nothing less from Fed haters whose only words in their vocabulary and Baghdatis and Phillippoussis. And even funnier to see this coming from a Djokovic fan who's built his entire second half of his career on wins over old Fed.

At this point, obsessing over 2004-2007 when Djokodal have beaten Anderson and Karatsev in big matches is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Federer's first 7 slam wins were LOL compared to Andersons... 6:0 6:0 in the slam final on the surface that fits well for his opponent (Hewitt)?? Really?!
Yes, at that point, in 2005, Andre could barely walk. Unless he was lying in his book and unless his coaches were exaggerating.
2007 Gonzo was the power house! 2017 wins over Cilic were a joke when the tour was crippled.
"who's built his entire second half of his career on wins over old Fed" - yes, he is 0:4 vs. Djokovic in the slam finals 2014 and on but Novak has won 11 GS since 2014 -- how does that show that Novak has built second half of his career "on wins over old Fed"???
2014-2020 Novak Slam wins: Murray, Federer, Nadal, DelPo, Anderson, Thiem. Only 1 not a slam winner.
2003-2007 Federer Slam wins: Phillipousis, Safin, Roddick, Agassi, Baghdadis, Hewitt, Nadal, Gonzo, Djokovic. First 14 slam finals (2003-2007): 12:2!! Next 17, he is 8:9, losing record to both of his strongest competitors (1:4 vs Rafa, 0:4 vs Djokovic since 2008)
Rafa had Anderson and Berdych in the slam finals, the rest was pretty solid woth 20:8 winning record -- pretty impressive. With 5:4 record over Djokovic and 6:3 over RF

I am not sure what your argument is on this?
 
dr325i said:
Federer's first 7 slam wins were LOL compared to Andersons... 6:0 6:0 in the slam final on the surface that fits well for his opponent (Hewitt)?? Really?!
Click to expand...
No, they weren't. He beat Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and still a very good Agassi who was better than 2015 Fed on HC. Baghdatis was only one weak opponent, not all his slam wins were against guys like Baghdatis. And even Baghdatis was better than someone like Anderson because he actually beat better players to get to his slam final, while Anderson beat mugs after mugs to reach the 2017 USO final and went on to bend over against Rafa, while Baghdatis at least put up a fight against Federer. Djokovic just beat a qualifier in a slam semi so this Baghdatis obsession needs to stop. Qualifiers weren't reaching slam semis in 2004-2007.

Federer beat Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Safin all in a row to win 2004 AO.

He beat in form Hewitt and Roddick to win 2004 Wimb. Roddick played an amazing final. He was legitimately a tough opponent in that final, better than 2011 Nadal and 2015 Fed. And Hewitt and Roddick were the only guys to take sets off Federer in that entire grass court season (including Halle), so again, they clearly weren't jokes.

Beat a very good Agassi at the 2004 USO, who certainly wasn't crippled. If wins over old Fed are to be marveled at, don't see why this one should be brushed aside. Gave Fed all he could handle.

Wimb 2005 was his only comfortable and clear win in 2004-2005.

And at the USO he played well-playing Hewitt and Agassi, who both challenged him. They didn't just roll over for him.

If you call this weak, you're being disingenuous. Rafa's slams since 2017 are much much worse than these. These slam wins are no worse than Novak's in 2014-2016. If these are weak, then you have to be the biggest hypocrite on the planet to not say the same about Djokovic's.

dr325i said:
Yes, at that point, in 2005, Andre could barely walk. Unless he was lying in his book and unless his coaches were exaggerating.
Click to expand...
His movement was a bit diminished, but he made up for it with great ballstriking. He gave Fed a challenging match thanks to it. Movement is not everything. If he gave Fed a difficult match, he must have been doing something right. Not really a worse match than Fed playing well for 2 sets in the 2015 Wimb final and then rolling over in the next 2. How did Fed's better movement help him exactly against Novak since none of his efforts in 2015-early 2016 were significantly better than this one from Agassi?

If Agassi could indeed barely walk, Fed would have brushed him aside, which clearly didn't happen.

dr325i said:
2007 Gonzo was the power house!
Click to expand...
Gonzo was a top 10 player at that time. Since when is it bad that a top 10 player reaches a slam final? And he was on fire. Completely destroyed Nadal and Haas in the QF and semis. Against Haas he committed something like 4 UEs which is insane. I don't see how he is a weaker opponent than 2019 AO Nadal other than Nadal's name.

dr325i said:
2017 wins over Cilic were a joke when the tour was crippled.
Click to expand...
Federer built his 2017 dominance with wins over Nadal or is that irrelevant now? The tour wasn't in dire straights during the first half of 2017 when Fed built his dominance anyway.


dr325i said:
"who's built his entire second half of his career on wins over old Fed" - yes, he is 0:4 vs. Djokovic in the slam finals 2014 and on but Novak has won 11 GS since 2014 -- how does that show that Novak has built second half of his career "on wins over old Fed"???
Click to expand...
Well, he wouldn't have 11 slam wins without those wins over old Fed that propelled him from just a Becker/Edberg player to a Borg level player. And after that he has feasted on the weak younger guys to win more slams. So it's thanks to weaker competition too that Novak is even in contention for surpassing Fedal.

dr325i said:
2014-2020 Novak Slam wins: Murray, Federer, Nadal, DelPo, Anderson, Thiem. Only 1 not a slam winner.
2003-2007 Federer Slam wins: Phillipousis, Safin, Roddick, Agassi, Baghdadis, Hewitt, Nadal, Gonzo, Djokovic. First 14 slam finals (2003-2007): 12:2!! Next 17, he is 8:9, losing record to both of his strongest competitors (1:4 vs Rafa, 0:4 vs Djokovic since 2008)
Click to expand...
Djokovic also was 6-7 in slam finals pre 2014 Wimb and since then he is 11-3 in them. So what?

Of course he ended up with losing records against both since he is a generation older than them and he exited his prime by the time both of them peaked. Where are the younger guys for Djokovic? By default he inflated his slam final records since he played old Fed in a lot of them. Reverse their ages and Fed would be the one owning Djokovic in slam finals and inflating his record.

And before you bring up 2008-2009 against Rafa, all 3 of them had bad stretches against each other at one point, Nadal in 2011-early 2012 against Novak and Novak in mid 2012-mid 2014 against Rafa. Difference is, they weren't a generation older than each other so they could strike back. Fed exited his prime after early 2010 and didn't get the chance to fix things against Rafa before that since Rafa himself didn't show up to face him in the remaining slams after RG 2009.

dr325i said:
Rafa had Anderson and Berdych in the slam finals, the rest was pretty solid woth 20:8 winning record -- pretty impressive. With 5:4 record over Djokovic and 6:3 over RF

I am not sure what your argument is on this?
Click to expand...
Rafa had Ferrer as well.

Anyway, make Rafa a generation older than both Fedovic and I doubt he still has these records. He has already been owned by Fedovic after turning 28 so that is definitely telling enough.
 
Last edited:
mike danny said:
No, they weren't. He beat Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and still a very good Agassi who was better than 2015 Fed on HC. Baghdatis was only one weak opponent, not all his slam wins were against guys like Baghdatis. And even Baghdatis was better than someone like Anderson because he actually beat better players to get to his slam final, while Anderson beat mugs after mugs to reach the 2017 USO final and went on to bend over against Rafa, while Baghdatis at least put up a fight against Federer. Djokovic just beat a qualifier in a slam semi so this Baghdatis obsession needs to stop. Qualifiers weren't reaching slam semis in 2004-2007.

Federer beat Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Safin all in a row to win 2004 AO.

He beat in form Hewitt and Roddick to win 2004 Wimb. Roddick played an amazing final. He was legitimately a tough opponent in that final, better than 2011 Nadal and 2015 Fed. And Hewitt and Roddick were the only guys to take sets off Federer in that entire grass court season (including Halle), so again, they clearly weren't jokes.

Beat a very good Agassi at the 2004 USO, who certainly wasn't crippled. If wins over old Fed are to be marveled at, don't see why this one should be brushed aside. Gave Fed all he could handle.

Wimb 2005 was his only comfortable and clear win in 2004-2005.

And at the USO he played well-playing Hewitt and Agassi, who both challenged him. They didn't just roll over for him.

If you call this weak, you're being disingenuous. Rafa's slams since 2017 are much much worse than these. These slam wins are no worse than Novak's in 2014-2016. If these are weak, then you have to be the biggest hypocrite on the planet to not say the same about Djokovic's.


His movement was a bit diminished, but he made up for it with great ballstriking. He gave Fed a challenging match thanks to it. Movement is not everything. If he gave Fed a difficult match, he must have been doing something right. Not really a worse match than Fed playing well for 2 sets in the 2015 Wimb final and then rolling over in the next 2. How did Fed's better movement help him exactly against Novak since none of his efforts in 2015-early 2016 were significantly better than this one from Agassi?

If Agassi could indeed barely walk, Fed would have brushed him aside, which clearly didn't happen.


Gonzo was a top 10 player at that time. Since when is it bad that a top 10 player reaches a slam final? And he was on fire. Completely destroyed Nadal and Haas in the QF and semis. Against Haas he committed something like 4 UEs which is insane. I don't see how he is a weaker opponent than 2019 AO Nadal other than Nadal's name.


Federer built his 2017 dominance with wins over Nadal or is that irrelevant now? The tour wasn't in dire straights during the first half of 2017 when Fed built his dominance anyway.



Well, he wouldn't have 11 slam wins without those wins over old Fed that propelled him from just a Becker/Edberg player to a Borg level player. And after that he has feasted on the weak younger guys to win more slams. So it's thanks to weaker competition too that Novak is even in contention for surpassing Fedal.


Djokovic also was 6-7 in slam finals pre 2014 Wimb and since then he is 11-3 in them. So what?

Of course he ended up with losing records against both since he is a generation older than them and he exited his prime by the time both of them peaked. Where are the younger guys for Djokovic? By default he inflated his slam final records since he played old Fed in a lot of them. Reverse their ages and Fed would be the one owning Djokovic in slam finals and inflating his record.

And before you bring up 2008-2009 against Rafa, all 3 of them had bad stretches against each other at one point, Nadal in 2011-early 2012 against Novak and Novak in mid 2012-mid 2014 against Rafa. Difference is, they weren't a generation older than each other so they could strike back. Fed exited his prime after early 2010 and didn't get the chance to fix things against Rafa before that since Rafa himself didn't show up to face him in the remaining slams after RG 2009.


Rafa had Ferrer as well.

Anyway, make Rafa a generation older than both Fedovic and I doubt he still has these records. He has already been owned by Fedovic after turning 28 so that is definitely telling enough.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about Djokovic strength initially. All I said was that federer had no clear comp until Nadal showed up and until Djokovic got stronger. After that he turns into their puppet with a 1:8 slam final score.

I believe any of the other two would have racked up on the slams 2003-2007 if they were in the position.
 
dr325i said:
I never said anything about Djokovic strength initially. All I said was that federer had no clear comp until Nadal showed up and until Djokovic got stronger. After that he turns into their puppet with a 1:8 slam final score.

I believe any of the other two would have racked up on the slams 2003-2007 if they were in the position.
Click to expand...
Same way Federer would have racked up many slams in 2014-present and in 2010 in Djokodal's positions. Competition has evened out.

Djokovic has had no competition from 2014-present and Nadal has had no competition since 2017 and in 2010.

As for the slam final score, again, that's because he's a generation older than them. Reverse Federer and Djokovic's ages and Federer is owning Djokovic in slam finals. It's simply luck for Djokovic that he is younger. That's all there is to it.
 
Last edited:
Love myself some Fed but I'd probably have Rafa's career at this point. Fed used to have better numbers all around but I don't think that's the case anymore, and also, some of Rafa's records aren't going to be surpassed while some of Fed's are very close to doing so.
 
clout said:
Love myself some Fed but I'd probably have Rafa's career at this point. Fed used to have better numbers all around but I don't think that's the case anymore, and also, some of Rafa's records aren't going to be surpassed while some of Fed's are very close to doing so.
Click to expand...

So, you are basically a glory hunter?

8-)
 
mike danny said:
Same way Federer would have racked up many slams in 2014-present and in 2010 in Djokodal's positions. Competition has evened out.

Djokovic has had no competition from 2014-present and Nadal has had no competition since 2017 and in 2010.

As for the slam final score, again, that's because he's a generation older than them. Reverse Federer and Djokovic's ages and Federer is owning Djokovic in slam finals. It's simply luck for Djokovic that he is younger. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with age. Absolutely nothing however, the fed fans want to believe that. Even RF said he’s been playing better and smarter tennis post 2015 than earlier in his career.
You have no idea if Fed would own Djokovic if the ages were reversed, pure speculation.
Also, Nadal is a good example, when he showed up on the tennis scene in 2007, Federer’s dominance over blah competition was over. In the end, he is HEAVILY negative score against all of his true challengers.
Rafa, on the other hand, battled his true competition in 25+ out of 30 finals and has a positive score vs both of his biggest challengers, more masters wins and equal number of slams with federer.
Easily seen that he surpassed RF some time ago...
 
dr325i said:
Nothing to do with age. Absolutely nothing however, the fed fans want to believe that. Even RF said he’s been playing better and smarter tennis post 2015 than earlier in his career.
You have no idea if Fed would own Djokovic if the ages were reversed, pure speculation.
Also, Nadal is a good example, when he showed up on the tennis scene in 2007, Federer’s dominance over blah competition was over. In the end, he is HEAVILY negative score against all of his true challengers.
Rafa, on the other hand, battled his true competition in 25+ out of 30 finals and has a positive score vs both of his biggest challengers, more masters wins and equal number of slams with federer.
Easily seen that he surpassed RF some time ago...
Click to expand...
Well, sorry for thinking you were better than the typical Ultronian. I won't waste my time anymore with you if this is the best you can come up with.

Typical Fed hater mantra: Baghdatis and Phillippoussis, age doesn't matter and 2015 Fed was peak.

I tried, but I guess you're too biased in your own way so not gonna bother anymore (y)

Rafa's been owned by his 2 biggest rivals after turning 28, but sure, age doesn't matter. Whatever, dude.
 
dr325i said:
You have no idea if Fed would own Djokovic if the ages were reversed, pure speculation.
Click to expand...
This one is pure gold. So this is pure speculation, but Djokodal mopping up the slams in 2003-2007 isn't....

Sure thing, dude. Expected no less from hypocrite Fed haters like you yourself (y)
 
BGod said:
Federer dominated for more than a season. That's what I take. He also has numerous records, even though he'll lose some of the bigger ones his name will be on more lists than Nadal. And ultimately, fair or not, clay just isn't as big a prevalent a surface as hard.
Click to expand...
So what’s your vote will 2 FOs be enough in your eyes for Nadal to have the superior career vs Fed things staying relatively the same?
 
NoleIsBoat said:
How do you know Thiem, Tsisipas, Medvedev, Zverev arent future ATG? Their career isn’t finished.
Click to expand...
Does not really matter as during the last few years until now they are not playing at an ATG level and have proven that they cannot compete with even post prime Big three whilr also having a lot of early losses against second tier players from big three generation or even complete mugs. If they end up becoming ATGs based on achievements after the big three retire this will be more due to an even weaker era where someone in the end needs to win the available slams.
 
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT said:
Does not really matter as during the last few years until now they are not playing at an ATG level and have proven that they cannot compete with even post prime Big three whilr also having a lot of early losses against second tier players from big three generation or even complete mugs. If they end up becoming ATGs based on achievements after the big three retire this will be more due to an even weaker era where someone in the end need to win the available slams.
Click to expand...
Med could be considered one if he wins tomorrow and continues. The rest can not.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Med could be considered one if he wins tomorrow and continues. The rest can not.
Click to expand...
Yes he might be the exception as one could then say he went to five with a still strong Nadal and beat a still more or less strong Djokovic. Even with him I cannot see him getting to more than a borderline ATG on the Becker/Edberg/Wilander level. Even if Med now emerges Djokovic had more than enough years to enjoy a very weak competition from the young guys.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Yes he might be the exception as one could then say he went to five with a still strong Nadal and beat a still more or less strong Djokovic. Even with him I cannot see him getting to more than a borderline ATG on the Becker/Edberg/Wilander level. Even if Med now emerges Djokovic had more than enough years to enjoy a very weak competition from the young guys.
Click to expand...
Med could conceivably upend Djoker on grass. Highly unlikely, but he could be that guy too. A loss tonight would end his ATG status though, as every slam that goes by is failure to take down the old guys.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Med could conceivably upend Djoker on grass. Highly unlikely, but he could be that guy too. A loss tonight would end his ATG status though, as every slam that goes by is failure to take down the old guys.
Click to expand...
Agree. If he loses tonight I would not much care about whatever futures success he will have, as it would be more then cemented that he is/was not capable of pushing the big three out of the game even way past their best but had to wait for them to retire, or being completely shot. If he looses tonight I think it is fair to say his next slam where he has realistic chances would be the USO when Nadal and Djokovic will be 35/34.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Federer fans, which would you prefer?
Replies
42
Views
3K
PMChambers
P
Z
Fed vs Nadal, they are both great, but you cannot say Fed is greater
Replies
31
Views
1K
Tennis_Hands
T
R
What would you prefer??
Replies
3
Views
544
richied
R
babbette
How would you define Rafa's career titles?
Replies
7
Views
711
babbette
babbette
Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
Is the career of Sinner, Medvedev or Zverev better at the moment?
Replies
12
Views
381
Dominic & Andrey
Dominic & Andrey
Back
Top