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

[huntingyou]

Novak Djokovic has provided the tennis world with the evidence needed to make Rafa's case for the greatest player in the open era or at the very least his generation.

Where Roger failed miserably under the excuse of "match-up" Nadal has excel beyond expectations. Tennis it's a head to head sport and champions make their dues in the biggest of stages against their toughest competition where the light shine the brightest.

Statically speaking, Rafa needs to win at least 16 slams or pull the elusive channel slams for a third time to surpass Roger.

Rafa's supremacy on clay which is at this point stuff of comic books and mastering of his weakest surface has propelled him as the most versatile and his records and stats speak to that. Another AO would give him a second Career Slam.......another Wimbledon would give him the mind boggling record of 3+ slams in three surfaces. He already owns the three slams in three surfaces in the same calendar year......these are the stats that makes Rafa unique.

H2H? Yeah, that's huge.

But, Rafa hasn't won those slams yet and he might not....... so at this point in time, Roger has the greater career despite Rafa being the greater player.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Novak Djokovic has provided the tennis world with the evidence needed to make Rafa's case for the greatest player in the open era or at the very least his generation.

Where Roger failed miserably under the excuse of "match-up" Nadal has excel beyond expectations.

But Federer has proven he is the best player of his generation. Rafa is not in Federer's generation, it should be noted. The match-up thing is not an excuse, at least not initially. Yeah, Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer. However, I agree that Roger played him enough times to make the proper adjustments and he failed. That is deservedly held against him, and I have no problems with that. Nadal's head to head record over Federer in general and at the Grand Slams is eye-opening. And yes, his dominance against his peers will be a huge feather in his cap.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I think McEnroe is finding it hard to worship Federer.....because of the head2head-

John McEnroe astutely pointed out yesterday, "it's hard for Federer to be considered the greatest player of all time when he's lost to Rafa more than twice as many times as he's beaten him. He might not even be the best player of his own era."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-goldring/nadal-french-_b_871946.html

 

[huntingyou]

Novak Djokovic has provided the tennis world with the evidence needed to make Rafa's case for the greatest player in the open era or at the very least his generation.

Where Roger failed miserably under the excuse of "match-up" Nadal has excel beyond expectations.

But Federer has proven he is the best player of his generation. Rafa is not in Federer's generation, it should be noted. The match-up thing is not an excuse, at least not initially. Yeah, Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer. However, I agree that Roger played him enough times to make the proper adjustments and he failed. That is deservedly held against him, and I have no problems with that. Nadal's head to head record over Federer in general and at the Grand Slams is eye-opening. And yes, his dominance against his peers will be a huge feather in his cap.

Rafa and Roger belong to the same tennis generation, this is not a matter of age but career. There is no denying that when Rafa first beat him in 2004 after Roger got the #1 rank for the first time in his career.

The fact Rafa is 5 years younger makes his case even more fantastic, a kid going against the man and dominate him where it matter the most.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

The fact that Nadal supposedly used up a lot more mileage in his teen years and yet is now better at age 27 than Federer was at age 27, says a lot about how different they are physically. It wouldn't surprise me if 30-year-old Nadal is also better than 30-year-old Federer.

 

[ClayDeath]

Novak Djokovic has provided the tennis world with the evidence needed to make Rafa's case for the greatest player in the open era or at the very least his generation.

Where Roger failed miserably under the excuse of "match-up" Nadal has excel beyond expectations. Tennis it's a head to head sport and champions make their dues in the biggest of stages against their toughest competition where the light shine the brightest.

Statically speaking, Rafa needs to win at least 16 slams or pull the elusive channel slams for a third time to surpass Roger.

Rafa's supremacy on clay which is at this point stuff of comic books and mastering of his weakest surface has propelled him as the most versatile and his records and stats speak to that. Another AO would give him a second Career Slam.......another Wimbledon would give him the mind boggling record of 3+ slams in three surfaces. He already owns the three slams in three surfaces in the same calendar year......these are the stats that makes Rafa unique.

H2H? Yeah, that's huge.

But, Rafa hasn't won those slams yet and he might not....... so at this point in time, Roger has the greater career despite Rafa being the greater player.

excellent post. that "matchup" excuse has never had any traction except in the minds of legless trolls who just needed a god to worship.


the fact that he has a winning record against 100% of the top 30 players dispels that myth in a hurry.


I would have to agree. one more channel slam does it for him if it plays out that way in 2014.


that should clearly put him in a class by himself. lets see how 2014 plays out.

it is the single most important year in the history of tennis in my estimation.

 

[DarthFed]

Mac and Wilander are major Rafa fans and Fed detractors. This isn't surprising talk. Rafa needs at least 16 and if that becomes a Rafa slam by chance then absolutely. Slams are still where it's at and tennis is more than just one head to head matchup. Fed failed miserably vs. Nadal on every surface (grass included) there is no doubt about that, but as of now his achievements dwarf Nadal's.

 

[DarthFed]

but he's older and he's been unaffected by injuries but aside from all this, \

The first part is irrelevant to this conversation, and the second part (injuries) is a testament to his greatness. It didn't happen by pure luck.

First part is highly relevant given how many slams Roger won before Rafa started. Rafa has won most of his going through Roger and Novak. Non-injuries isn't a testament to greatness unless you're referring to mysterious genetics or something...

Roger won 4 slams before Rafa won his first. You seem to act like it was 10 and then he was worthless everywhere after Rafa's arrival.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

1. With 18, everybody would agree.

2. With 17, most would agree given his H2H against Federer.

3. With 16, many would agree, provided he has a Rafa Slam.

4. With 15, some would agree, if he has double career grand slam and at least one WTF win.

5. With 14 or less, none would agree independent of other factors.

Needless to say that all of the above assumes Roger does not add to his
total, which is not automatic.

I don't care too much for Rafa's multiple Davis Cup Victories. Ultimately,
Tennis is an individual support. All of us know that Roger did not have supporting
crew to earn davis cup victory.

Rafa has Olympic Gold. But it is not a deal maker, given that Roger also has
a Olympic Gold in Doubles and a Silver in Singles.

I believe Nadal will eventually surpass Roger in an uncontroversial fashion (by reaching
at least 17), if Roger does not add any more. It won't be easy; but with Rafa's
dedication and will power, he will get it done.

Even if Roger adds just one, I guess the task might be very very difficult for Rafa.

 

[Jelenafan]

I don't care too much for Rafa's multiple Davis Cup Victories. Ultimately,
Tennis is an individual support. All of us know that Roger did not have supporting
crew to earn davis cup victory.

Rafa has Olympic Gold. But it is not a deal maker, given that Roger also has
a Olympic Gold in Doubles and a Silver in Singles.

Not that I think as of now the Olympic singles gold medal is a deal breaker , though it could be down the line. I mean the difference between a Gold Medalist and a Silver Medalist in the Olympics is IMO the difference between winning a Major or just reaching the final. Some would say that is a big difference.

And if the criteria is "individual" than I don't think doubles victories should count at all. If Davis Cup doesn't fit the criteria than neither should Olympic doubles.

 

[DarthFed]

Rafa has a Gold medal, H2H and the Masters record, Roger has the YEC record, tons more records in general, including #1 where Rafa barely has 100 weeks.

 

[Jelenafan]

I agree that 1 more AO and 1 more W would probably seal the deal. That would make 3 Major wins on 3 different surfaces. Since I think he will proably get another FO before he retires, ***knock on wood and is healthy for the next 3 years..**** I guess it's my way of saying that Rafa will need 16 Majors. In 3 years I like his chances of getting 3 more Majors including 2 more non French Majors...

 

[brokenshoelace]

excellent post. that "matchup" excuse has never had any traction except in the minds of legless trolls who just needed a god to worship.


the fact that he has a winning record against 100% of the top 30 players dispels that myth in a hurry.

So you don't think Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer?

More importantly, how does Nadal having a winning record over 29 other players show that he isn't a bad match-up for Federer? I don't see the correlation there. Of course, Nadal having a winning record against all of them is a testament to how good he is, but he can be both A) incredibly good and B) a bad match up for Federer. Again, these are not mutually exclusive issues.

Isn't it you who always talks about how Federer's one handed backhand is outdated and can't handle these players (a sentiment I don't exactly agree with, by the way)? Doesn't that logic mean that a player who will spin relentless forehand to Roger's backhand IS a bad match-up for him?

 

[Kieran]

but he's older and he's been unaffected by injuries but aside from all this, \

The first part is irrelevant to this conversation, and the second part (injuries) is a testament to his greatness. It didn't happen by pure luck.

First part is highly relevant given how many slams Roger won before Rafa started. Rafa has won most of his going through Roger and Novak. Non-injuries isn't a testament to greatness unless you're referring to mysterious genetics or something...

Roger won 4 slams before Rafa won his first. You seem to act like it was 10 and then he was worthless everywhere after Rafa's arrival.

When did I act like that?

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Rafa has a Gold medal, H2H and the Masters record, Roger has the YEC record, tons more records in general, including #1 where Rafa barely has 100 weeks.

So if Federer has tons more records in general, the issue is how valuable each record is compared to Nadal's records. Let's take each player's 5 most impressive records, and compare them. Of course, this is not going to be fair on Nadal, since he's still in his hardcourt prime and therefore is yet to fulfill his potential (and the first 2 records may be extended heavily in future= "and counting"). So its not fair on 27-year-old Nadal, but let's try it anyway....

Here are Nadal's 5 most impressive records (the following Nadal records are not in order of importance but what I consider to be the 5 most impressive):
Nadal is the only man ever to win slams for 9 years in a row (and counting).
Nadal is the only man ever to win 26 masters shields (and counting).
Nadal is the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.
Nadal is the only man ever to win 81 straight matches on a surface.
Nadal is the outright leader of a slam event - Roland Garros (Nadal 8, comfortably ahead of Borg 6).

 

[DarthFed]

but he's older and he's been unaffected by injuries but aside from all this, \

The first part is irrelevant to this conversation, and the second part (injuries) is a testament to his greatness. It didn't happen by pure luck.

First part is highly relevant given how many slams Roger won before Rafa started. Rafa has won most of his going through Roger and Novak. Non-injuries isn't a testament to greatness unless you're referring to mysterious genetics or something...

Roger won 4 slams before Rafa won his first. You seem to act like it was 10 and then he was worthless everywhere after Rafa's arrival.

When did I act like that?

When haven't you? And do the math, since 2005 it is 13-13 in majors. Rafa was green the first few years and Roger has been washed up for 3-4 years short of one good 7 month patch.

 

[Kieran]

When haven't you? And do the math, since 2005 it is 13-13 in majors. Rafa was green the first few years and Roger has been washed up for 3-4 years short of one good 6 month patch.

Hey, just cos I never bought the hype doesn't mean I think Federer's a clown. Far from it. But I also would never think of him as being as great as Nadal.

I'm sure you disagree, however...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

excellent post. that "matchup" excuse has never had any traction except in the minds of legless trolls who just needed a god to worship.


the fact that he has a winning record against 100% of the top 30 players dispels that myth in a hurry.

So you don't think Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer?

More importantly, how does Nadal having a winning record over 29 other players show that he isn't a bad match-up for Federer? I don't see the correlation there. Of course, Nadal having a winning record against all of them is a testament to how good he is, but he can be both A) incredibly good and B) a bad match up for Federer. Again, these are not mutually exclusive issues.

Isn't you who always talks about how Federer's one handed backhand is outdated and can't handle these players (a sentiment I don't exactly agree with, by the way)? Doesn't that logic mean that a player who will spin relentless forehand to Roger's backhand IS a bad match-up for him?

That's a big knock on Federer. It shows that Federer's game was not able to beat all types of players. That is knock on Federer's historical standing. Nadal meanwhile, another feather in the cap (and perhaps the most important feather of all) - Nadal's game can beat all types of players.

 

[Front242]

That's a big knock on Federer. It shows that Federer's game was not able to beat all types of players. That is knock on Federer's historical standing. Nadal meanwhile, another feather in the cap (and perhaps the most important feather of all) - Nadal's game can beat all types of players.

Yeah, he sure showed Rosol and Darcis.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

That's a big knock on Federer. It shows that Federer's game was not able to beat all types of players. That is knock on Federer's historical standing. Nadal meanwhile, another feather in the cap (and perhaps the most important feather of all) - Nadal's game can beat all types of players.

Yeah, he sure showed Rosol and Darcis.

Are Rosol/Darcis better than Raonic (whom Nadal leads 4-0 and has never dropped a set to), and Tsonga and Berdych.....? I mean Nadal's record vs power players, is outstanding. Nadal has beaten Tsonga in 4 of their last 5 outdoor hardcourt matches. Nadal has won 14 in a row vs Berdych (and only 4 on clay). So it looks like the only issue for Nadal, regarding Rosol/Darcis, is a grass issue (as in he needs some time to adapt to grass after the clay season, hence 2015 will suit Nadal more when the Wimbledon date is a week later). BTW, no surprise, Tsonga (and Lopez) has beaten Nadal on grass (at Queens).