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

[zalvar]

until you cut that weak era crap, you don't know what you are talking about.

also, how is age excuse for Fed? the guy is much older and past his prime indeed, and when the current big 3 start losing to nobodies on a consistent basis when they are in their 30s, i count on you not to use age as 'excuse'. But i bet you will, and i know being objective is very difficult.

I don't think it's a weak ERA. I never said that :huh: Since the 80s I've never really considered any ERA weak. But I wouldn't give the word "Rival" so liberally. Roger didn't have one until Rafa. When he was losing against Hewitt and the likes, he wasn't yet in his prime. When he was beating all of them, he was TOO GOOD for them. He didn't have a guy until Rafa where you didn't lean so hugely towards Roger to win any match he plays.

you never said? ok, so it's just that Fed had nobodies to compete against except Rafa, and he had it EASY..... of course you didn't say 'weak era', but what does the above really say? sure :clap

Let's just make this plain and easy, ya?

I: Think Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa and Novak and Andy.

You: Think he just played the same way regardless if it was Hewitt or Novak.

Just because I think Rog has better competition now doesn't automatically mean I think the others were bad. Why is it so hard to admit that Nadal and Novak are better than Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt?

Great, another one of those who thinks Roger is as good/better at 30 than he was at 25 :huh: Roger at 25 would have had no prayer vs. Novak and Andy :laydownlaughing

Why are you all so extreme? I did not say Fed would OWN or be owned by Andy or Novak. All Im saying is I THINK they'd prove to be more of a challenge than his early contemporaries. Feel free to think otherwise!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

folks I think these factors well be the deal breakers:


1. nadal`s head to head against roger. there is no way around his 21 wins against roger. he also has him in at least 6 of 8 slams--which is the single greatest ultimate test of who is better--on all 3 surfaces.

2. nadal`s total slam haul. it could hit 17.

3. nadal`s head to ahead against ALL of his greatest rivals. he owns a winning record against all top 30 players. so don't talk about matchups because people who know the game and understand it laugh at that. you might have a matchup issue with one or two players but how do you explain that he owns a winning record against all top 30 players and all of his greatest rivals.

and with the way he is going, you expect his record against them to get a little better.

4. composition of nadal`s slams. his haul of 8-10 RG crowns will work for him and not against him when considering the fact that some of the greatest players in history could not even get a single RG crown.. it is the hardest slam to win.

5. his masters series haul which may hit 35-40 if he can stay healthy.



and to a lesser extent: he has an Olympic gold and countless davis cup wins. these accomplishments will work for him and not against him.

Clay, there is one thing you are conveniently leaving out from your deal breakers. It is important and let me tell you why: Anyone who is somebody in ANY sport play that sport to be the best, to be number 1. Nadal will never say " Let me just beat Nole a couple of times, that is good enough, I don't have to be number 1", or Michael Jordan never said " Well , I don't have to beat Karl Malone and his Jazz in the finals...I already beat them in the regular season...who cares about the ring..."

Number 1 matters. It means you have dominated the whole FIELD, not just a guy or two, for the whole year. That means you were consistent, you brought the lunch pail every day, you did not get satisfied with a win or two...

Roger brought the lunch pail for 302 weeks. Sampras, Lendl, Connors, JMac and Borg follow him. Lots of greatness on that list. You cannot look at that list and seriously say "Those guys don't matter" Nadal might get there too, maybe even pass it...He is an amazing player, but he has got a long way to go.

 

[ClayDeath]

just look at who nadal has had to beat to get his slams:

1. he has had to beat the so called the greatest of all time for 6 of his 13 slams on all 3 surfaces. so he had to deal with the one they call the greatest of all time. all those guys like Sampras and the others did not have a challenge of such a staggering proportions.

so nearly 50% of his slams had to come through the so called the greatest player ever lived.


2. he also had to beat nole for 3 of his slams. and nole has been the greatest player in the game for the last 2 years or so. this guy is also an all time great.

3. nadal has also had to deal with andy murray who has 2 slams on 2 different surfaces and an Olympic gold medal.


nadal`s accomplishments will be taken lightly only by religious fed fanatics and even they are in the minority now. most all of the smart tennis insiders know and understand how tough it is and has been for nadal to win his matches in this golden age of tennis.

some of those fanatics were misled by roger himself who failed to give nadal proper credit:

he called him one dimensional. he also said that he had the game to dismantle him. and so on.

so some of the fed extremists bought that hook, line, and sinker.

people still continue to call nadal one dimensional and even lucky. others swear that he doping as if a game can be developed from a few pills in a bottle. I just saw on at least 2 forums where they swear that there is nothing wrong with nadal. and they say he is a doper and a cheater.


of course people are free to call him anything they please. its their right and I have no problem with that. every person is entitled to his/her opinion in the free world.


dismiss his game and count him out at your own peril. maybe it was roger himself who forced nadal to become what he has become because he called him "one dimensional" too many times. perhaps he should have never uttered those words that he had the game to dismantle him.

it is nadal who has the game to dismantle roger and yet he never ever says anything disrespectful about roger.

nadal used to say that he was happy being in the top 2. and that it was good enough for him.

 

[britbox]

Moxie, I wasn't comparing them at all to Novak or Andy, initially. On the contrary, I was suggesting that Novak and Andy are obviously better than them that I don't have to bother comparing. lol I get that the level "just below" was still good. As you said, comparable to now's top 10-5, but they hardly won anything when Rog got rolling.

Anyway, no matter if it's a walk in the park or the Sahara desert, we won't really remember any of those details. In the end, Roger won most of it, regardless of the struggle.

I don't even remember what my point is anymore.

What I was just trying to say was. Roger had a little bright light early in his career where the competition was a lot manageable FOR HIM (and only him). Where as Rafa, Novak, and Andy was slammed in the face by the shining glory of Roger Federer from the start of their career and then STILL have each other till the end.

A little bright light? No, Roger surpassed all his peers and took the game to the next level. Maybe, that's what Nadal is doing right now... who knows... we'll see retrospectively in a few years.

Yeah, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had a tough opening assignment when they started breaking out. On the flipside, they don't have any young bucks coming through challenging them, so it evens things out.

When was the last time Nadal played Murray by the way?

 

[ClayDeath]

folks I think these factors well be the deal breakers:


1. nadal`s head to head against roger. there is no way around his 21 wins against roger. he also has him in at least 6 of 8 slams--which is the single greatest ultimate test of who is better--on all 3 surfaces.

2. nadal`s total slam haul. it could hit 17.

3. nadal`s head to ahead against ALL of his greatest rivals. he owns a winning record against all top 30 players. so don't talk about matchups because people who know the game and understand it laugh at that. you might have a matchup issue with one or two players but how do you explain that he owns a winning record against all top 30 players and all of his greatest rivals.

and with the way he is going, you expect his record against them to get a little better.

4. composition of nadal`s slams. his haul of 8-10 RG crowns will work for him and not against him when considering the fact that some of the greatest players in history could not even get a single RG crown.. it is the hardest slam to win.

5. his masters series haul which may hit 35-40 if he can stay healthy.



and to a lesser extent: he has an Olympic gold and countless davis cup wins. these accomplishments will work for him and not against him.

Clay, there is one thing you are conveniently leaving out from your deal breakers. It is important and let me tell you why: Anyone who is somebody in ANY sport play that sport to be the best, to be number 1. Nadal will never say " Let me just beat Nole a couple of times, that is good enough, I don't have to be number 1", or Michael Jordan never said " Well , I don't have to beat Karl Malone and his Jazz in the finals...I already beat them in the regular season...who cares about the ring..."

Number 1 matters. It means you have dominated the whole FIELD, not just a guy or two, for the whole year. That means you were consistent, you brought the lunch pail every day, you did not get satisfied with a win or two...

Roger brought the lunch pail for 302 weeks. Sampras, Lendl, Connors, JMac and Borg follow him. Lots of greatness on that list. You cannot look at that list and seriously say "Those guys don't matter" Nadal might get there too, maybe even pass it...He is an amazing player, but he has got a long way to go.

excellent post general murat.



I like the way you advance your argument. it is done with tact, respect, and with logic.



I personally don't put much stock in number #1 because there are so many ways of getting there. you can even make the top spot with zero slams in your pocket. or just 1 slam.


I am just looking at other factors. to me slams, masters shields, head to head against ALL of the top 30 players in the world, davis cup, and Olympics matter. also it has to do with nadal`s performance against roger at slams.

remember we are comparing just 2 players so their head to head at slams matters the most. that is the ultimate test of who is better. and of course their total number of slams matter also. but as I have suggested, nearly 1/2 of nadal`s slams, he has had to deal with so called the greatest player of all time on all 3 surfaces.


we are in for a treat. 2014 is the single greatest year in tennis history.

it will give us all the information we seek.


nadal will catch him if he gets 2 slams. he will probably not catch him if he gets just 1.


you never know when the damn knee is going to give out.

roger will try to make his one last charge at Wimbledon.

these are going to be exciting times for us the fans.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I wasn't comparing them at all to Novak or Andy, initially. On the contrary, I was suggesting that Novak and Andy are obviously better than them that I don't have to bother comparing. lol I get that the level "just below" was still good. As you said, comparable to now's top 10-5, but they hardly won anything when Rog got rolling.

Anyway, no matter if it's a walk in the park or the Sahara desert, we won't really remember any of those details. In the end, Roger won most of it, regardless of the struggle.

I don't even remember what my point is anymore.

What I was just trying to say was. Roger had a little bright light early in his career where the competition was a lot manageable FOR HIM (and only him). Where as Rafa, Novak, and Andy was slammed in the face by the shining glory of Roger Federer from the start of their career and then STILL have each other till the end.

A little bright light? No, Roger surpassed all his peers and took the game to the next level. Maybe, that's what Nadal is doing right now... who knows... we'll see retrospectively in a few years.

Yeah, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had a tough opening assignment when they started breaking out. On the flipside, they don't have any young bucks coming through challenging them, so it evens things out.

When was the last time Nadal played Murray by the way?

Baron...you're very right that it was Federer who took the game to the next level. And I think a lot of people are guilty of buying into "truisms" about the competition at the start of his career. I tried to make a point. But anyway, yours is well taken: there is really no one worth a shake coming up behind, so it does even up, if it needs evening.

 

[zalvar]

Moxie, I wasn't comparing them at all to Novak or Andy, initially. On the contrary, I was suggesting that Novak and Andy are obviously better than them that I don't have to bother comparing. lol I get that the level "just below" was still good. As you said, comparable to now's top 10-5, but they hardly won anything when Rog got rolling.

Anyway, no matter if it's a walk in the park or the Sahara desert, we won't really remember any of those details. In the end, Roger won most of it, regardless of the struggle.

I don't even remember what my point is anymore.

What I was just trying to say was. Roger had a little bright light early in his career where the competition was a lot manageable FOR HIM (and only him). Where as Rafa, Novak, and Andy was slammed in the face by the shining glory of Roger Federer from the start of their career and then STILL have each other till the end.

A little bright light? No, Roger surpassed all his peers and took the game to the next level. Maybe, that's what Nadal is doing right now... who knows... we'll see retrospectively in a few years.

Yeah, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had a tough opening assignment when they started breaking out. On the flipside, they don't have any young bucks coming through challenging them, so it evens things out.

When was the last time Nadal played Murray by the way?

Yes, Brit, Rog took it to another plane ... on his own ... with no one to match him.

Nadal vs Murray was 3 years ago maybe? In Japan. But Murray and Novak certainly met eachother. Just how the draw is. As much as I love Rafa I don't think he'll be able to consistently beat Novak and Andy. They'll always be tug-o-warring.

What Roger did, when he elevated his game was amazing. His talent and skill was unmatched. Till it was.

Anyway, I think we've come full circle with this discussion because your argument (that I bolded above) was the same one I first responded to on someone else's. Yes, they don't have Young Bucks that Roger had with them, BUT they have each other (which roger didn't have in the beginning imo) to contend with, which is, I think, better than fledgelings.

All in all this is very riveting. :angel:

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Moxie, I wasn't comparing them at all to Novak or Andy, initially. On the contrary, I was suggesting that Novak and Andy are obviously better than them that I don't have to bother comparing. lol I get that the level "just below" was still good. As you said, comparable to now's top 10-5, but they hardly won anything when Rog got rolling.

Anyway, no matter if it's a walk in the park or the Sahara desert, we won't really remember any of those details. In the end, Roger won most of it, regardless of the struggle.

I don't even remember what my point is anymore.

What I was just trying to say was. Roger had a little bright light early in his career where the competition was a lot manageable FOR HIM (and only him). Where as Rafa, Novak, and Andy was slammed in the face by the shining glory of Roger Federer from the start of their career and then STILL have each other till the end.

A little bright light? No, Roger surpassed all his peers and took the game to the next level. Maybe, that's what Nadal is doing right now... who knows... we'll see retrospectively in a few years.

Yeah, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had a tough opening assignment when they started breaking out. On the flipside, they don't have any young bucks coming through challenging them, so it evens things out.

When was the last time Nadal played Murray by the way?

think it was Tokyo atp500 event in October 2011..andy won 3-6, 6-2, 6-0. in the final.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I wasn't comparing them at all to Novak or Andy, initially. On the contrary, I was suggesting that Novak and Andy are obviously better than them that I don't have to bother comparing. lol I get that the level "just below" was still good. As you said, comparable to now's top 10-5, but they hardly won anything when Rog got rolling.

Anyway, no matter if it's a walk in the park or the Sahara desert, we won't really remember any of those details. In the end, Roger won most of it, regardless of the struggle.

I don't even remember what my point is anymore.

What I was just trying to say was. Roger had a little bright light early in his career where the competition was a lot manageable FOR HIM (and only him). Where as Rafa, Novak, and Andy was slammed in the face by the shining glory of Roger Federer from the start of their career and then STILL have each other till the end.

A little bright light? No, Roger surpassed all his peers and took the game to the next level. Maybe, that's what Nadal is doing right now... who knows... we'll see retrospectively in a few years.

Yeah, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had a tough opening assignment when they started breaking out. On the flipside, they don't have any young bucks coming through challenging them, so it evens things out.

When was the last time Nadal played Murray by the way?

Yes, Brit, Rog took it to another plane ... on his own ... with no one to match him.

Nadal vs Murray was 3 years ago maybe? In Japan. But Murray and Novak certainly met eachother. Just how the draw is. As much as I love Rafa I don't think he'll be able to consistently beat Novak and Andy. They'll always be tug-o-warring.

What Roger did, when he elevated his game was amazing. His talent and skill was unmatched. Till it was.

Anyway, I think we've come full circle with this discussion because your argument (that I bolded above) was the same one I first responded to on someone else's. Yes, they don't have Young Bucks that Roger had with them, BUT they have each other (which roger didn't have in the beginning imo) to contend with, which is, I think, better than fledgelings.

All in all this is very riveting. :angel:

Not so riveting, if it's circular. I'd say we're at an impasse. Which makes sense, given the question.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/09/04/confident-federer-strong-mathieu/

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Roger Federer has warned Rafa Nadal that he must win the U.S. Open to stand any chance of being labeled as the greatest to ever play the game.

But Federer, who has won each of the grand slams at least once, said Nadal would have to complete the full set before he is included in the discussion about who is the best ever,

"Then again, obviously I guess he would need to win the U.S. Open, to put himself there. He's won the Olympics, done some amazing things. So he'll have a shot at it, I'm sure."

Second seed Federer and world number one Nadal could meet in the final in New York and the Swiss maestro reiterated that he has become a better player because of the Spaniard.

 

[Ricardo]

Brit, Safin ... Hewitt .. Ferrero ... they were transitional number ones. Sampras and Agassi were oldish and Roger wasn't mature enough in his play and they swooped in for a bit. Male versions of Ivanovic, Jelena, Safina, Woz. It wasn't a weak era. Imo there were always dark horses, but Rog didn't have a rival until Rafa came - let's be honest. If Rafa and Novak met these days, we have no idea who will win. Roger vs those contemporaries ... you would have bet 85-90% Roger will win when he was in those years you listed as his prime EXCEPT against rafa.

Transitional? what makes you think Hewitt and Roddick wouldnt be getting 4-6 majors if Fed wasn't around? when i see 'transitional' i can smell shameless crap relating to weak era theory, which is based on your wishful thinking at denigrating somebody.

I don't know who gives you the idea that if Fed was born a few years later, that he couldn't handle it. It's reasonable to assume he still has matchup issues with Rafa, but against Djoker and Murray he'd be favored to win still. If a past his prime version Fed can compete with them in majors, even at RG 2011 when Djoker was at his best beating Rafa, at USO where he was match points up playing slightly better tennis of the two, at Wimbledon where he actually beat them back to back, at various MS1000 events, etc etc etc; what makes you think he couldn't have it 'easy' these days?

Just because he achieved and you don't like it.

Uhhhh, I don't think he'll do it quite easily because I watch tennis? Because of what I see now from Rafa and Novak and Andy? lol It's easy to see those three are quite more consistent, dedicated and focused than the ones that Rog whoopped. I have no idea what he would have won or not won had he been born later, but I'm convinced it would have been harder for him against these 3.

You seem to be convinced that I hate Roger but that's not even close, I'm a fan as well.

Leave Rafa out the picture for a second, he is a tough one for Federer in any case. But Novak and Murray? i am not convinced they are that much better than when Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalby were at their peak. from what i saw when these old useless folks played these young champs, i don't think their game was all that bad if at all.

Man. Ok sure Andy still has a lot to prove as well. But to be specific about stuff, Hewitt didn't have enough power. Safin was inconsistent. Roddick could not rally with fed ... Nalby was great but weak in the mind. I don't remember much how they played but those are glaring weaknesses and I can't think of any with regards to Novak. With andy, his head i guess and he gets defensive ... Blah. I am tired. We should agree to disagree. lol.

what a shallow, clueless and simply wrong observation about the game. Hewitt didn't have enough power? when did he win by over-powering his opponents? it was never a strength for him, geez.... look at your post, 3 yo standard basically. Safin was inconsistent? oh yeah, consistency wasn't the name of his game thanks for telling us, but on his day he was better than Djoker and Murray; and he happened to be Fed's competitor.

Blah you should be tired, just start using some brain is a very difficult thing for you to do.

 

[Ricardo]

I guess those are rivalries ... I don't know lol I wish they played when they're all at the same level like the big 3 are right now. I just never imagined any of those guys as a threat to Roger in the slams once 2004 started and Roger dominated. So the "catching up" on those h2h happened post 2003 wimbly and he never looked back. But you're correct, Nalby def proved to be the stiffest challenge semi-consistently. Hewitt was number one when he was beating Roger and once Roger took over, Hewitt was basically unable to be scrappy enough for Rog's brilliance at that time. I can't even talk about Roddick .. he was my fave and Roger stabbed me in the heart everytime Andy's serve got backband sliced to death. gah. bad memories.

Anyway, to me, Rog is GOAT ... for now.

Rafa needs a Tour finals win, another Aussie ... stay a little longer at number 1.

until you cut that weak era crap, you don't know what you are talking about.

also, how is age excuse for Fed? the guy is much older and past his prime indeed, and when the current big 3 start losing to nobodies on a consistent basis when they are in their 30s, i count on you not to use age as 'excuse'. But i bet you will, and i know being objective is very difficult.

I don't think it's a weak ERA. I never said that :huh: Since the 80s I've never really considered any ERA weak. But I wouldn't give the word "Rival" so liberally. Roger didn't have one until Rafa. When he was losing against Hewitt and the likes, he wasn't yet in his prime. When he was beating all of them, he was TOO GOOD for them. He didn't have a guy until Rafa where you didn't lean so hugely towards Roger to win any match he plays.

you never said? ok, so it's just that Fed had nobodies to compete against except Rafa, and he had it EASY..... of course you didn't say 'weak era', but what does the above really say? sure :clap

Let's just make this plain and easy, ya?

I: Think Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa and Novak and Andy.

You: Think he just played the same way regardless if it was Hewitt or Novak.

Just because I think Rog has better competition now doesn't automatically mean I think the others were bad. Why is it so hard to admit that Nadal and Novak are better than Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt?

uh? as soon as i see "Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa, Novak and Andy"...... i know it's nothing but brain-cramp. So we have a player who is nearing 30yo and who happened to improve 'A LOT' in his twilight years so he could beat the young guns...... really? you do know that in his later years Fed started losing to players he used to own (like Roddick, Blake etc) but you are objective enough to say he IMPROVED.

now stop hiding behind Nadal, since he was a top player almost like from day 1 and it happened to be when Fed was in his prime. But Novak? we know what happened when Fed played some good tennis and that was still enough to beat the best Novak could offer. now don't also tell me if Novak would beat those old folks easy..... when i saw that Roddick had a winning record against Novak, and a crippled Hewitt could still take sets of him, i would see them compete well with Novak if they were same age.

In your simplistic mind, Novak would just overpower Hewitt off the court right? that's not what i saw in London Olympics when Hewitt was redirecting Novaks heavy shots for winners..... and i can tell you Hewitt didn't 'improve', not his game or his physical status from his peak, after multiple surgeries he is a crippled shadow of his old self. And Safin? i think a peak Safin would over-power Novak, he has heavier firepower than Novak that when he is on, he doesn't make errors and would be too much.

now Novak is obviously the 'better player' because he has the numbers. going with your argument, i could just as well tell you that he didn't have peak Federer to contend with so he could rack up many more majors. He is overall very slightly better than Murray and Nadal on hardcourt (maybe not now but until recently) and that was enough to accumulate those numbers. Imagine if Fed was still playing his best? i am sorry but i don't buy that peak Fed would lose those USOs when old Fed would hold match points before letting it slip.

just when i thought it was ridiculous posters like mikeone (aka) still insists Fed is every bit as good as ever, we could ever see someone smart guy telling us Fed 'improved a lot' at his age...... yeah sure, we are really going to see the best form of Federer in the coming years :laydownlaughing

 

[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?

She was wrong about him winning 2 per year in 2011 and 2012, but if she meant 2 per year on average, then if Nadal wins 4 slam titles in 2014, she'll be back on course. And since 95% of all tennis forum predictions have been wrong about Nadal (in 2013 and 2010), its not like we are in a position to doubt Navratilova's predictions.

Actually yeah, we are in a position to doubt Navratilova's predictions, since she's so wrong on many of them. Just because she's a former pro doesn't mean her words are gospel. I can't stress this enough.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't think Darth is "diminishing" the 17 slams... he's just stating that of Federer's records, it's not going to be the hardest one to break. Sampras' 14 was broken within a few years of his retirement.

If Nadal doesn't break it, then judging on the other players coming through, then I think Federer's 17 will likely stand for at least a decade.

Agreed, but Darth also called it "the least impressive." I can't agree with that. The semi-final streak is the most difficult to replicate due to the amazing consistency and the margin for error (you lose once, or get injured, and bye-bye). However, winning a slam is more difficult than reaching a semi final, so #17 has to be the most impressive record, still.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Plus majority of the world won't even be aware of the semi-final streak, and most of those who know about the semi-final streak probably won't be able to say the number of semi-finals. The total slams record is much easier for the public to remember and be aware of, plus a lot of the semis actually ended with a choke. A more impressive stat would be the winning% of a player in the semis. Conversion rate of how many semis you've won compared to lost. Although my personal opinion is that semi stats are trivial compared to TITLE stats.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think Darth is "diminishing" the 17 slams... he's just stating that of Federer's records, it's not going to be the hardest one to break. Sampras' 14 was broken within a few years of his retirement.

If Nadal doesn't break it, then judging on the other players coming through, then I think Federer's 17 will likely stand for at least a decade.

Agreed, but Darth also called it "the least impressive." I can't agree with that. The semi-final streak is the most difficult to replicate due to the amazing consistency and the margin for error (you lose once, or get injured, and bye-bye). However, winning a slam is more difficult than reaching a semi final, so #17 has to be the most impressive record, still.

When did I call it the least impressive? All I've been saying is it will prove to be easier to break than a lot of his other records. I've also said that it is easier to win slams in bunches these days due to the playing conditions (more similar surfaces with everyone playing from the baseline). CD doesn't realize it but he is backing it up by talking about how it has proven difficult for most players to even win one title. The number of slams is the holy grail of tennis and therefore it is Roger's most important record but it happens to be much more breakable than a lot of his other ones. Not sure why everyone is taking offense at that observation.

 

[huntingyou]

Oh my, the insecurities...........

Did somebody just question how "prime" Roger would fare against Novak and Murray? Didn't these kids beat "prime" Roger in 2006 and 2007 on HC? So when Novak took Roger to the cleaners in 2008 at the AO it doesn't count because what? How old was Roggie back then? How old is Rafa now????

I said many times and the last thread it's still around for those who care, 2004 was an amazing year and the competition was brutal so Roger coming on top that year the way he did shatters the argument of weak era. In the other hand, by 2006-2007........the competition was pitiful, a tour full of Tsongas and Berdychs with nobody able to elevate their game outside of a kid that stood his ground.

Regarding accomplishments, there is no debate...Grand Slams titles it's the Holy Grail for those who look to rank players among their peers. The suggestion that it will be easy for a future player to break it due to a mythical concept of surface homogenization (The 4 Slams are actually 4 different surfaces) reeks of bitterness. The default style of baseline game might be the case but this has no correlation with the ability to gather Grand Slams in bunches. Borg got 11 in a short span in an era of S&V players.......it happened because Borg was that GOOD. I don't see many Nadals and Rogers coming up anytime soon so please stop the nonsense of a 20 slam winner coming up the corner.

Some want to dismiss H2H, as an inconsequential statistic but those who do so are lying to themselves. Tennis is a H2H SPORT.......the greatest tennis moments are define by the greatest encounters between the greatest players. We know by default that Sampras OWNED Agassi when it matted the most and that's actually a close H2H so imagine what history will say when the Rafa-Roger H2H it's evaluated? That's just not a feather in the cap for Rafa but the whole Turkey ‘goobeling’ his way into immortality.

Yes the match-up and surface advantage screwball; well what Rafa did Novak and has done to Novak throughout their career just goes to show you why Rafa is the greater player than Federer. There is no doubt Novak is a nightmare match-up for Rafa and it’s actually a better hardcourt player but these nuisances hasn’t stop Rafa from rising to the occasion where the light shine the brightest. The 22-15 overall H2H it’s nice but the 7-11 HC H2H it’s even greater indication of Rafa’s greatness vis a vis Roger.

Yes weeks at #1 matter a lot too but it’s not like Rafa hasn’t have his share at the top of the ranking:
2005: #2, 2006: #2, 2007: #2, 2008: #1, 2009: #2 (injury), 2010: #1, 2011: #2, 2012: #4(injury), 2013: #1
It’s pretty damn impressive as well despite the lack of total weeks at #1.

Finally, Rafa’s dominance on clay it’s huge and it goes a long way in the argument of the greatest player of all time. To put Rafa’s dominance on clay into perspective one has to look outside the sport of tennis and even then, there is really nothing that we can compare with. He has basically been an automatic W against everybody for 9 consecutive years……..the most difficult task in sport it’s to face rafa on clay, you will never see this in your lifetime, NEVER.

 

[DarthFed]

No bitterness to it. Roger has played in the same conditions too except in his early years before he started winning, but you are kidding yourself if you think the surfaces aren't playing more similar today than they did 10-20 years ago. We all see how Wimbledon plays compared to what it used to be. USO is playing a lot more like AO than it used to as well.

The best baseliner on one surface is likely the best on the next or at least damn close to it. And since everyone is a baseliner (and has to be) it is easier to win in bunches if you are the best baseliner.

 

[ClayDeath]

bitterness and insecurities is all I see.

calling his 17 slams the "least impressive" is not just diminishing his most significant achievement and of all those that will follow is insecurity and bitterness at best.

and it is because nadal is gaining on roger.

and now we have the surface excuse.

this gets more and more comical with each passing day.


so winning a slam means nothing but just getting to a slam or making the semis of slams means everything.

good luck with that snake oil. I don't think there is any market for it with the smart and objective insiders of the game.

but you can sell it to a few other fellow grief stricken Federer extremists.


and now it is "easier to win slams in bunches". is this a joke or what?

 

[Kieran]

I wonder will there ever be a person who equally loves both Rafa and Roger...