Do you agree with McEnroe/Wilander on Nadal needing 15 slams to surpass Federer?

[Kieran]

Again, Hunting, you're missing the point. Of course they're better - as El Dude said elsewhere, there's fifty years of development happened since then. How could they not be better? But that's not the point. You're missing the point of these mens greatness - they were the best that tennis players could be at that point in time, just as Roger and Rafa and Novak are now.

Going by your criteria, JJ is a greater player than Borg, which is just plain wrong thinking...

 

[Didi]

It gets complicated, doesn't it!

But I actually agree about McEnroe over Connors and Lendl. He was a tennis genius, the most naturally gifted I ever saw, but he was blown out by the age of 25, more or less. He didn't adapt, whereas Lendl and Connors had more engine power. But for sheer heights? McEnroe. Which adds further problems to the discussion, and creates a Best v Greatest scenario, that's like an MTV Deathmatch beerfest thingy...

Agreed. At many points durinh his career McEnroe was the best player in the world in singles and in doubles at the same time. You could pair him with pretty much anybody and you would win. Besides Federer I have never seen such a complete package of a player. His touch and feel for the game was simply godly genius. I felt like he could play tennis with a coconut or a stone just as well. His peak was as great as anybody's in history but as you rightly pointed out, how to measure the superior greatness in a peak vs. longevity debate where, say, the peak of player A reached a higher ceiling than the highest peak within player B's superior longevity. Impossible.

 

[huntingyou]

Again, Hunting, you're missing the point. Of course they're better - as El Dude said elsewhere, there's fifty years of development happened since then. How could they not be better? But that's not the point. You're missing the point of these mens greatness - they were the best that tennis players could be at that point in time, just as Roger and Rafa and Novak are now.

Going by your criteria, JJ is a greater player than Borg, which is just plain wrong thinking...

you keep trying but oh boy......

Murray it's not GREATER than JMac despite being a better tennis player now due to fact he is 35 years in front of him.

JMac played in the open era and got to faced what the world had to offer.

The relics of the past didn't; they play Country Club Tennis...no different from what goes on at the Hampton.

and stop the cute analogies; even with different technology; you can tell Borg was just amazing while JJ isn't. The game in the 80s was already modern..........

 

[Kieran]

you can tell Borg was just amazing while JJ isn't. The game in the 80s was already modern..........

But Borg played "sissy tennis!" :huh: You're a bit all over the place.

And Gonzales etc played against the best in the world too...

 

[nehmeth]

Even if I'm wrong about this, I think Nadal needs 18, just because all the other achievements each player has are too subjective in value. So might as well just go by the total number of slams each have won.

Good point. 18 should put things to bed for all except some of Roger's fans. Kind of like Roger's winning 15 quieted most of Pete's fans.

 

[El Dude]

How about this, Huntingyou. Ken Rosewall won 4 Slams in the Open Era. In 1974 he was destroyed in two Slam Finals by Jimmy Connors, who in a way we could say was the first great Open Era-only player. But to get to the Finals, he had to beat Stan Smith and John Newcombe, both former number ones and among the best players of the transitional period and early Open Era.

But here's the kicker: Ken Rosewall turned 40 years old that year. How would a 25 year old Rosewall fared?

This is the same Rosewall that had a losing record against Pancho Gonzales.

Can you see the point I'm trying to make? Ken Rosewall did just fine in the early Open Era - in his late 30s and early 40s. He made it to the SF of a Slam as late as 1977, when he turned 43 years old. If Rosewall could remain a top 20 player into his 40s in the early Open Era, how would he have done in his prime? Laver too - he was pretty good into his mid-30s in the mid-70s.

Obviously the 1970s aren't 2013, but they're still the Open Era. And if Rosewall and Laver held their own against early Open Era stars - not to mention the ancient Pancho Gonzales - those same early Open Era stars did fine against the stars of the 1980s, who did fine against the stars of the 1990s, etc. Players evolve and adapt. Maybe Roger Federer is actually right when he said that he hopes he's better now (or last year) at age 31 than he was when he was 25. But the thing is, he would have been even greater now if he was age 25 in 2012 than he was in 2006, because of the evolved game.

Do you catch my drift? You can only ever speak of a player's greatness relative to the context he played in. If we stick with that, we're fine. But if we start comparing players across generation - like you're doing - as if the 1968 version of Rod Laver played the 2011 version of Novak Djokovic, we also have to imagine how Rod Laver would have played in 2011 - he wouldn't be the same player he was in 1968. That's all speculative, but its the other side of comparing players across generations.

I'm saying: we CAN discuss historical greatness, but its relative to a player's own generation. A more extreme example is to talk about Peyton Manning as an all-time great athlete. If we compare him to Michael Jordan's physicality, of course he's not. But if we compare Manning relative to quarterbacks in the game of football to Jordan as a basketball player, we can gain a meaningful comparison.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Even if I'm wrong about this, I think Nadal needs 18, just because all the other achievements each player has are too subjective in value. So might as well just go by the total number of slams each have won.

Good point. 18 should put things to bed for all except some of Roger's fans. Kind of like Roger's winning 15 quieted most of Pete's fans.

Exactly. 18 covers all bases.

 

[Kieran]

Even if I'm wrong about this, I think Nadal needs 18, just because all the other achievements each player has are too subjective in value. So might as well just go by the total number of slams each have won.

Good point. 18 should put things to bed for all except some of Roger's fans. Kind of like Roger's winning 15 quieted most of Pete's fans.

Eh, I'm not sure how that could be. In science, for instance, to test the relative strength of two different things they test them in the exact same conditions....

 

[brokenshoelace]

Even if I'm wrong about this, I think Nadal needs 18, just because all the other achievements each player has are too subjective in value. So might as well just go by the total number of slams each have won.

Good point. 18 should put things to bed for all except some of Roger's fans. Kind of like Roger's winning 15 quieted most of Pete's fans.

Eh, I'm not sure how that could be. In science, for instance, to test the relative strength of two different things they test them in the exact same conditions....

This isn't science.

 

[Kieran]

Even if I'm wrong about this, I think Nadal needs 18, just because all the other achievements each player has are too subjective in value. So might as well just go by the total number of slams each have won.

Good point. 18 should put things to bed for all except some of Roger's fans. Kind of like Roger's winning 15 quieted most of Pete's fans.

Eh, I'm not sure how that could be. In science, for instance, to test the relative strength of two different things they test them in the exact same conditions....

This isn't science.

Exactly...

 

[Moxie]

Even if I'm wrong about this, I think Nadal needs 18, just because all the other achievements each player has are too subjective in value. So might as well just go by the total number of slams each have won.

Good point. 18 should put things to bed for all except some of Roger's fans. Kind of like Roger's winning 15 quieted most of Pete's fans.

Eh, I'm not sure how that could be. In science, for instance, to test the relative strength of two different things they test them in the exact same conditions....

This isn't science.

Exactly...

And that's why, in my opinion, we'll never put this one to bed. Even if they both stopped today. And since they won't, it only gets more complicated. There will never be one answer to the question between them, even if Nadal wins 18 or 20.

 

[August]

I think Rafa needs to get two more slams than Roger if he never wins the WTF. No WTF titles is a massive stain in Rafa's resume. Roger has the biggest titles from grass, clay, outdoor HC, and indoors. Rafa lacks the biggest indoor title. And even if he wins the WTF, equalling 17 slams isn't enough. Rafa will never reach over 300 weeks as #1.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

But the value of Olympic singles Gold has become huge, and especially considering the Olympic final is best-of-5 sets. Already many would argue that the Olympic singles Gold is bigger than the World Tour Finals (best-of-3 sets final). And most likely, the Gold will only get bigger (now that Nadal - the player who's won Player Of The Year in 2008, 2010, 2013, and Murray - the winner of 2 of the last 5 slams, has won singles Gold). The public is far more aware of who wins the singles Gold more than who wins the World Tour Finals, especially when Murray won it at London and it made headlines of almost being THE highlight of the Olympics (home athlete winning Gold just after losing Wimbledon final). So I'd say its more important that Federer wins the singles Gold than Nadal winning the World Tour Finals. The missing Olympic singles Gold is the bigger hole in one's profile.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

2008, 2010, 2013 - Nadal year-ending #1 all 3 years.

So if Nadal does it a 4th time, he'll be in the brink of tying Federer for year-ending #1s. Federer did this 5 times (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009).

Federer may still end up with the most weeks ranked #1, but there is a good chance Nadal or Djokovic will be ranked #1 every week for the next 4 years. Nadal will have his chance to get the weeks record or very close.

The question is, will Federer ever become GOAT of a slam event? So far he's sharing the lead at AO, USO, Wimbledon. Nadal however is already GOAT of Roland Garros, with a 2 slam lead over Borg (8 Nadal, 6 Borg) and continuing to rule. Also keep an eye on Nadal at US Open. Nadal has won it twice, is now improving on hardcourts, and only Djokovic seems likely to threaten him each year there. In Nadals 2 US Open crowns, he was only broken 4 times in 2013, and 5 times in 2010. 4 times broken is the outright record (and 5 times broken, tied Roddick). As for number of US Open titles, Nadal has an excellent chance at 4 US Open titles, and an outside chance at 5 US Open titles (that would tie the most).

The fact that Nadal is the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a calendar year is beyond HUGE, however I'll let Federer slide on this, because Federer has multiple years of winning 3 slam titles (even if it was the hard-grass-hard combo each time).

But I won't let slide the fact that Nadal has won slams for 9 years in a row, and only getting stronger on hardcourt (the surface of 2 slam events each year). Nadal has that record outright already, and will likely extend the gap.

And then there is the 26 Master shields Nadal has won, very likely to be 30-40 in future. Federer has "just" 21. I don't think World Tour Finals titles will be able to make that up for Federer, especially considering he's already lacking a singles Gold (and as I said earlier, many already value singles Gold more than the World Tour Finals). And before you point out the doubles Gold, we all know that that is a doubles achievement (it belongs in a comparison with Woodies or the Bryan Brothers).

 

[masterclass]

2008, 2010, 2013 - Nadal year-ending #1 all 3 years.

So if Nadal does it a 4th time, he'll be in the brink of tying Federer for year-ending #1s. Federer did this 5 times (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009).

Federer may still end up with the most weeks ranked #1, but there is a good chance Nadal or Djokovic will be ranked #1 every week for the next 4 years. Nadal will have his chance to get the weeks record or very close.

The question is, will Federer ever become GOAT of a slam event? So far he's sharing the lead at AO, USO, Wimbledon. Nadal however is already GOAT of Roland Garros, with a 2 slam lead over Borg (8 Nadal, 6 Borg) and continuing to rule. Also keep an eye on Nadal at US Open. Nadal has won it twice, is now improving on hardcourts, and only Djokovic seems likely to threaten him each year there. In Nadals 2 US Open crowns, he was only broken 4 times in 2013, and 5 times in 2010. 4 times broken is the outright record (and 5 times broken, tied Roddick). As for number of US Open titles, Nadal has an excellent chance at 4 US Open titles, and an outside chance at 5 US Open titles (that would tie the most).

The fact that Nadal is the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a calendar year is beyond HUGE, however I'll let Federer slide on this, because Federer has multiple years of winning 3 slam titles (even if it was the hard-grass-hard combo each time).

But I won't let slide the fact that Nadal has won slams for 9 years in a row, and only getting stronger on hardcourt (the surface of 2 slam events each year). Nadal has that record outright already, and will likely extend the gap.

And then there is the 26 Master shields Nadal has won, very likely to be 30-40 in future. Federer has "just" 21. I don't think World Tour Finals titles will be able to make that up for Federer, especially considering he's already lacking a singles Gold (and as I said earlier, many already value singles Gold more than the World Tour Finals). And before you point out the doubles Gold, we all know that that is a doubles achievement (it belongs in a comparison with Woodies or the Bryan Brothers).

You seem to be on the verge of convincing yourself. Well done! :clap

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[NADAL2005RG]

2008, 2010, 2013 - Nadal year-ending #1 all 3 years.

So if Nadal does it a 4th time, he'll be in the brink of tying Federer for year-ending #1s. Federer did this 5 times (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009).

Federer may still end up with the most weeks ranked #1, but there is a good chance Nadal or Djokovic will be ranked #1 every week for the next 4 years. Nadal will have his chance to get the weeks record or very close.

The question is, will Federer ever become GOAT of a slam event? So far he's sharing the lead at AO, USO, Wimbledon. Nadal however is already GOAT of Roland Garros, with a 2 slam lead over Borg (8 Nadal, 6 Borg) and continuing to rule. Also keep an eye on Nadal at US Open. Nadal has won it twice, is now improving on hardcourts, and only Djokovic seems likely to threaten him each year there. In Nadals 2 US Open crowns, he was only broken 4 times in 2013, and 5 times in 2010. 4 times broken is the outright record (and 5 times broken, tied Roddick). As for number of US Open titles, Nadal has an excellent chance at 4 US Open titles, and an outside chance at 5 US Open titles (that would tie the most).

The fact that Nadal is the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a calendar year is beyond HUGE, however I'll let Federer slide on this, because Federer has multiple years of winning 3 slam titles (even if it was the hard-grass-hard combo each time).

But I won't let slide the fact that Nadal has won slams for 9 years in a row, and only getting stronger on hardcourt (the surface of 2 slam events each year). Nadal has that record outright already, and will likely extend the gap.

And then there is the 26 Master shields Nadal has won, very likely to be 30-40 in future. Federer has "just" 21. I don't think World Tour Finals titles will be able to make that up for Federer, especially considering he's already lacking a singles Gold (and as I said earlier, many already value singles Gold more than the World Tour Finals). And before you point out the doubles Gold, we all know that that is a doubles achievement (it belongs in a comparison with Woodies or the Bryan Brothers).

You seem to be on the verge of convincing yourself. Well done! :clap

Respectfully,
masterclass

Thanks its been a tremendous journey.

 

[huntingyou]

You seem to be on the verge of convincing yourself. Well done! :clap

Respectfully,
masterclass

Don't you do the same? Most fed fans do....especially the H2H thingy.

nadal2005 does make some excellent points (shocking I know)

Rafa has a share of UNIQUE records and statistics that COUNT in the Federer vs Rafa debate.

- Three Slams in three surfaces in the same calendar year (record)
- 2+ Slams in three surfaces (share with Wilander)
- 9 consecutive years winning a slam (record)
- RG-SW19-UO crown (share with Laver)
- 8 RG Crowns (Record)
- 26 MS shields (record)
- Highest winning percentage in the Open Era (record)
- Fastest player to 500 wins (record)
- 3 Davis Cup
- 8 consecutive titles at one Event (Monte Carlos)
- Career Golden Slam (Share with Agassi)
- Two channel Slams (trail Borg 3)

Of course, there is that beyond reality fact of his clay dominance for almost a decade now. How do you qualify Rafa's dominance on clay? It's beyond silly at this point to use it as a knock against him and instead we should recognize what he has done and still doing on clay as "GOATNESS".

Rafa has three years end #1, adding one more would prove to be difficult but I'm not putting it past him since he shut me up this year with his HC domination.

If he puts a solid fall HC season this year (1800 points?), chances are he will hold the #1 ranking for an additional 50 consecutive weeks and then lose it to Novak or Murray during the fall season next year. Still short of 200 weeks I know...the crazy thing is he also holds a record of 162 consecutive weeks of world #2.

Rafa it's the only player to belong to TWO duopoly: FEDAL (2005-2010) and DJODAL (2011-Present). Talk about an incredible career!!!!

 

[El Dude]

Point of clarification: Rafa has TWO year-end #1s. While I think he'll get there this here, it isn't a foregone conclusion.

 

[huntingyou]

Point of clarification: Rafa has TWO year-end #1s. While I think he'll get there this here, it isn't a foregone conclusion.

ok, outside of Rafa falling in his bath tube and cracking his head open, there is no way Novak can't keep him at bay even if he goes on a tear like he did last year. (China, Shangai, WTF)

Rafa has just to show up literally to get the #1

 

[Didi]

Point of clarification: Rafa has TWO year-end #1s. While I think he'll get there this here, it isn't a foregone conclusion.

While you are right that it's not a foregone conclusion, it's basically impossible for Nole. He currently trails Nadal by 3000 points which means that he would need to win Beijing, Shanghai and Paris combined and the YEC unbeaten again to gain a total of 4000p to give him even a slightly realistic chance. That alone is doable as Djokovic is a great player Indoors. Actually I wouldn't even be surprised if he pulls it off but the problem is that at the same time Nadal would have to lose pretty much every match he enters from now on.

By entering the mandatory 500 event after the US Open, in his case Beijing, he will add at least another 150p by either making the semis there or losing earlier and therefore re-activating 150p from his final appearance in Viña del Mar as his currently best non-countable result.
Of course Nole could also gain an additional 225p in the DC final if he wins both matches (2x75) and Serbia wins the DC (+75 bonus if Nole won at least 7 singles matches during the campaign).

So, mathematically Nadal needs another 1100p to be sure, if Nole goes unbeaten that is.