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

[Front242]

Never said they were better players. Simply, you make it out that Nadal can beat anyone as if he's the only one who can do so. Yeah the H2H is highly swayed in Nadal's favour against Federer but your point that Nada's game can beat anyone is just silly. There aren't many people Federer can't beat either with his game (not his current level mind you but Fed playing well) and that includes Nadal, even if not often. So saying he can beat anyone with his game makes him no different than Federer at all. Not even one bit.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Navratilova on Nadal in October 2010-

'You can be pretty safe in predicting Nadal will claim two Slams a year for the next five years, so that puts him on 19 Slams and I'd be confident in saying he should get to 20 at least. Having won already on all four surfaces, he will be the greatest tennis player of all time.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1321161/Andy-Murray-told-shut-stop-whingeing-Martina-Navratilova.html

 

[DarthFed]

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...

Greatness is about achievements. Roger is still the more accomplished player by a good amount but that is subject to change and likely will when all is said and done.

 

[Kieran]

Navratilova on Nadal in October 2010-

'You can be pretty safe in predicting Nadal will claim two Slams a year for the next five years, so that puts him on 19 Slams and I'd be confident in saying he should get to 20 at least. Having won already on all four surfaces, he will be the greatest tennis player of all time.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1321161/Andy-Murray-told-shut-stop-whingeing-Martina-Navratilova.html

That's bizarre. How could anyone feel "safe" predicting anything like this? Especially in 2010, the year after the year before it... :huh:

 

[Front242]

Navratilova on Nadal in October 2010-

'You can be pretty safe in predicting Nadal will claim two Slams a year for the next five years, so that puts him on 19 Slams and I'd be confident in saying he should get to 20 at least. Having won already on all four surfaces, he will be the greatest tennis player of all time.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1321161/Andy-Murray-told-shut-stop-whingeing-Martina-Navratilova.html

Yeah, you can take her word for gospel. I mean she only said Fed would never win another slam and wouldn't reach world number one again. Well, he left her with a big dirty wad of egg and gunk on her face with that prediction. So read into that what you like..

 

[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...

Greatness is about achievements. Roger is still the more accomplished player by a good amount but that is subject to change and likely will when all is said and done.

That's true, and Nadal's achievements are enough for me, and hopefully they will grow...

 

[DarthFed]

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...

Greatness is about achievements. Roger is still the more accomplished player by a good amount but that is subject to change and likely will when all is said and done.

That's true, and Nadal's achievements are enough for me, and hopefully they will grow...

You aren't greedy enough. And here's to hoping he never wins again!

 

[NADAL2005RG]

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...

Greatness is about achievements. Roger is still the more accomplished player by a good amount but that is subject to change and likely will when all is said and done.

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).

What would Federer's 5 most impressive records be?

 

[Front242]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer

 

[DarthFed]

23 straight semis
10 straight GS finals and the 2nd longest streak at 8
237 straight weeks at #1
Winning 5 straight at 2 different slams which mostly coincided (2003-2007 Wimbledon and 2004-2008 USO)
Owning the longest streaks on both hard courts and grass at 56 and 65

17 slams is the most important but also one of his least impressive/easiest to break. As I've said before, if Nadal doesn't pass it someone else will within 15 years, I have no doubt about that. Roger should be at 20+ if he stood tough in the do or die moments in 5th sets.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

That's what I figured. A couple of Federer's 5 biggest records are not so much about "winning" but "reaching". Semi-final streaks, and Final streaks. You probably almost put the QF streak in too.

 

[Front242]

That's what I figured. A couple of Federer's 5 biggest records are not so much about "winning" but "reaching". Semi-final streaks, and Final streaks. You probably almost put the QF streak in too.

If they're that unimpressive let's see Nadal beat them.

 

[DarthFed]

That's what I figured. A couple of Federer's 5 biggest records are not so much about "winning" but "reaching". Semi-final streaks, and Final streaks. You probably almost put the QF streak in too.

The QF streak is not impressive since it ain't a deep run to make a QF of a slam. You have to make it to the big dance to have a chance to win, or you can bow out early to the likes of Rosol and Darcis while you're in your prime.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Once one understands the fact that tennis is played against a field and you can only play the person across the net, then you look at things that are objective to everyone , like total weeks at number 1 (Federer 302, Nadal 102) or consecutive weeks at number 1 (Roger 237, Nadal 56). Roger fought off the next generation (Nadal, Murray, Nole) successfully for 4-5 years and kept his number 1 ranking. Even after he lost it, he went ahead and got it back when ALL of that next generation were on their respective peaks! That should mean something...I would like to ask the board who is pressuring today's peak players (Nadal, Murray , Nole) like those three pressured Roger? Is there anyone remotely close to what Roger had to fend off for years?

Roger's generation is the Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby generation and he fought and won against them. He fought brilliantly against the next generation of Murray, Nole, Nadal...and he still has a winning record against the newest generation of youngsters, like Milos, Tomic etc...

Listen , if you want to believe what you do against the field does not matter, it is all about h2h, you will have an awful hard time trying to convince me why Krajicek is better than Sampras or Davydenko is better than Nadal.

Federer is the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least four times each. The guy owns a gazillion records...As great as Nadal is, he has a lot more to achieve to catch Roger. Maybe he will . I would not mind, I like the guy.

 

[DarthFed]

But let's replace those unimpressive streaks with a couple "winning" records

Roger is the only man to hold a major on grass, clay, and hard on 2 different occasions.
Roger won an all-time record 124 consecutive matches against players ranked outside of the Top 5 in Grand Slam tournaments

 

[ClayDeath]

"17 slams is the most important but also one of his least impressive/easiest to break".


how the hell is it important if you diminish it in the same damn sentence.

also since you know that nadal is within the striking range, you are trying desperately to hang on to other stats.

you are trying to not only diminish roger`s most significant achievement but you are also trying to diminish the achievements of all those who follow.

you are so terrified of nadal`s achievements that you end up trying to totally discredit roger`s most significant and his most amazing achievement.

unbelievable. let me grab some popcorn. this is getting comical now.


also if you got this mythical and highly imaginary player who is going to come along and win 20 slams as you keep saying then what makes you so damn sure that he will not bust up all of roger`s other records too?


like roger for all the right reasons. don't try to diminish his most significant achievement. records are meant to be broken.

its just that some records are a little harder to fall. look how long it took for somebody good enough to come along and win the channel slam. it took 30 years.


the sport is simply too demanding today and getting more and more demanding with each passing year. the probability of somebody coming along and getting 20 or more slams is pretty damn low. in fact it is almost negligible.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Navratilova on Nadal in October 2010-

'You can be pretty safe in predicting Nadal will claim two Slams a year for the next five years, so that puts him on 19 Slams and I'd be confident in saying he should get to 20 at least. Having won already on all four surfaces, he will be the greatest tennis player of all time.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1321161/Andy-Murray-told-shut-stop-whingeing-Martina-Navratilova.html

You know she was wrong, right?

 

[ClayDeath]

Once one understands the fact that tennis is played against a field and you can only play the person across the net, then you look at things that are objective to everyone , like total weeks at number 1 (Federer 302, Nadal 102) or consecutive weeks at number 1 (Roger 237, Nadal 56). Roger fought off the next generation (Nadal, Murray, Nole) successfully for 4-5 years and kept his number 1 ranking. Even after he lost it, he went ahead and got it back when ALL of that next generation were on their respective peaks! That should mean something...I would like to ask the board who is pressuring today's peak players (Nadal, Murray , Nole) like those three pressured Roger? Is there anyone remotely close to what Roger had to fend off for years?

Roger's generation is the Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby generation and he fought and won against them. He fought brilliantly against the next generation of Murray, Nole, Nadal...and he still has a winning record against the newest generation of youngsters, like Milos, Tomic etc...

Listen , if you want to believe what you do against the field does not matter, it is all about h2h, you will have an awful hard time trying to convince me why Krajicek is better than Sampras or Davydenko is better than Nadal.

Federer is the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least four times each. The guy owns a gazillion records...As great as Nadal is, he has a lot more to achieve to catch Roger. Maybe he will . I would not mind, I like the guy.

you guys cant keep playing on both sides of the fence.


either you compare roger to nadal in which case roger loses. nadal is simply a better player than roger. I don't know of anybody who does not know that and understand that.



or you just look at roger`s overall achievements as they relate to the "field". in that case he has a better resume.


nadal`s resume is no less impressive. his winning percentage is the highest in the sport. he has a winning record against 100% of the top 30 players.

he has 8 RG crowns. there is no slam so hard to win as RG. some of the greatest players in history failed there.

and so on and on. he has his own resume which is pretty damn impressive.



also if he beats the best of the best the greatest of the greatest then what the hell is he? chopped liver?

he is also 5 years younger. those 26 masters shields will end up being nearly 40. he will most likely get 4 more slams.


if you embrace roger then you have no choice but to embrace nadal as well.

 

[Jelenafan]

The fascinating thing is that all the GOATS of the Open Era have different impressive stats:

Laver has the calender year Grand Slam
Roger has the most Slams and multiple 3 Major win years (3)
Sampras was YE #1 for six consecutive years...

If Rafa wins the AO, he joins them with his own distinct stat,
Ie winning all the Majors at least twice , already he has the most domination in one Major (FO)

Slam totals is impressive but Laver was always in the conversation even though he never led IN Majors ...

 

[DarthFed]

"17 slams is the most important but also one of his least impressive/easiest to break".


how the hell is it important if you diminish it in the same damn sentence.

also since you know that nadal is within the striking range, you are trying desperately to hang on to other stats.

you are trying to not only diminish roger`s most significant achievement but you are also trying to diminish the achievements of all those who follow.

you are so terrified of nadal`s achievements that you end up trying to totally discredit roger`s most significant and his most amazing achievement.

unbelievable. let me grab some popcorn. this is getting comical now.


also if you got this mythical and highly imaginary player who is going to come along and win 20 slams as you keep saying then what makes you so damn sure that he will not bust up all of roger`s other records too?


like roger for all the right reasons. don't try to diminish his most significant achievement. records are meant to be broken.

its just that some records are a little harder to fall. look how long it took for somebody good enough to come along and win the channel slam. it took 30 years.


the sport is simply too demanding today and getting more and more demanding with each passing year. the probability of somebody coming along and getting 20 or more slams is pretty damn low. in fact it is almost negligible.

That's all well and good but as I said, it is going to be one of the easiest to break and that's just the way it is. I am not desperately hanging onto other stats, if you bothered to read the thread you would have noticed NadalRG asked what we thought Fed's greatest records are. I gave my opinion on that. 17 slams is far down on the list of most impressive compared to those listed.

As for why I think 17 will fall fairly quickly I have explained it countless times and you're too blind or stubborn to take it in. Homogenized surfaces and everyone playing from the baseline undoubtedly makes it easier for the best pure baseliner to win slams in bunches. It is not easier to become the best baseliner, it is harder in fact, but the reward is greater (an important distinction).