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

[Front242]

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?

What Darth has said makes perfect sense. Clearly the slowing of the courts favours defensive play over attacking play or how else do you think we have 50+ shot rallies? If the courts were faster they wouldnt be able to outrun shots that would be clear winners. As for the 23 semis streak, only a clown would diminish that. That means you're so good you're going to the latter stages of every single slam against a 128 player draw for almost 6 years straight. You do realize you lose one for any reason and that streak is over? It's one that won't be beaten for quite some time as it shows incredible consistency.

 

[ClayDeath]

to say that nadal is better does not mean that we dislike roger.

this is a tennis chat forum and people try to be objective and reasonable.

at least I do anyway.

like huntingyou said, it is a head to head sport. so people spend a lot of their free time comparing athletes. this is happening in all sports.

if I say messi is a better football player, it does not diminish Ronaldo`s achievements and his own abilities. of course I would have to have a relatively sound basis for saying that but that is all it is.

it is not a damn religion. it is just sports. we don't have to try to diminish their lifetime of achievements because of our own insecurities and bitterness.

 

[DarthFed]

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?

We can continue this discussion as soon as I get the sense you have the slightest bit of reading comprehension. You and HY are the only ones who made my comments into a Roger vs. Rafa thing. No surprise...

 

[Ricardo]

to say that nadal is better does not mean that we dislike roger.

this is a tennis chat forum and people try to be objective and reasonable.

at least I do anyway.

like huntingyou said, it is a head to head sport. so people spend a lot of their free time comparing athletes. this is happening in all sports.

if I say messi is a better football player, it does not diminish Ronaldo`s achievements and his own abilities. of course I would have to have a relatively sound basis for saying that but that is all it is.

it is not a damn religion. it is just sports. we don't have to try to diminish their lifetime of achievements because of our own insecurities and bitterness.

you are forgetting what Tony Nadal told you, if the game was only played between Fed and Nadal, then Nadal is better. But overall Fed is still better because he gained the results against the field, of course Nadal has time to catch up and when he does, he will be seen as the greater player.

it's not objective to zoom in on just a particular H-H and draw conclusion only based on that, otherwise you'd have Davydenko > Nadal, Haarhuis better than Sampras, Santoro better than Safin. Objective people would tell you that you are better based on career results, not just one H-H.

 

[huntingyou]

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?

We can continue this discussion as soon as I get the sense you have the slightest bit of reading comprehension. You and HY are the only ones who made my comments into a Roger vs. Rafa thing. No surprise...

What's the title of the thread?

Roger is at the top and Rafa is trying to chase him down; it's all about Rafa vs Roger when it comes to this discussion.

and please stop with the surface thing. Wimbledon it's grass and total opposite from clay and the UO plays nothing like the AO or else how can you explain Novak's total dominance over one event while coming second best at the other?

you want to talk about homogenization of surfaces? try three three Grand Slams on grass and one on clay; that's what Rod Laver had to win in order to get the Calendar Slam and I don't see people complaining about that.

It's merely by chance that you Roger right after Pete and now Rafa trying to follow their path. All those three players were/are one in a lifetime talent so we are kind of bless to have witnessed them.

Do you think Novak can get to 20 slams? Tell me a junior player that you see with enough talent to translate his game into 20 slams? Admit it bro, your claim it's ludicrous when it comes to the Slams record...a record that even me thinks Rafa might not break it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

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

I am close bro..70-30 now...Roger retires, 50-50 it is...and 100-0 against the field.

 

[huntingyou]

to say that nadal is better does not mean that we dislike roger.

this is a tennis chat forum and people try to be objective and reasonable.

at least I do anyway.

like huntingyou said, it is a head to head sport. so people spend a lot of their free time comparing athletes. this is happening in all sports.

if I say messi is a better football player, it does not diminish Ronaldo`s achievements and his own abilities. of course I would have to have a relatively sound basis for saying that but that is all it is.

it is not a damn religion. it is just sports. we don't have to try to diminish their lifetime of achievements because of our own insecurities and bitterness.

you are forgetting what Tony Nadal told you, if the game was only played between Fed and Nadal, then Nadal is better. But overall Fed is still better because he gained the results against the field, of course Nadal has time to catch up and when he does, he will be seen as the greater player.

it's not objective to zoom in on just a particular H-H and draw conclusion only based on that, otherwise you'd have Davydenko > Nadal, Haarhuis better than Sampras, Santoro better than Safin. Objective people would tell you that you are better based on career results, not just one H-H.

your davydenko angle it's silly!!!!!!

Davydenko the obscure has never face Rafa in a slam......on top of that the H2H it's pretty damn close; nothing like 21-10 you know.

Perspective my friend :snigger

 

[britbox]

Sure it's a head to head sport, and right now Roger heads Rafa 17-13 in majors. It's not a two man sport.

It doesn't matter to me if Nadal is knocked out of Wimbledon by Rosol or Federer. The last man standing is the greatest in the tournament. The man who racks up the most majors (at least in the modern era) is by proxy the greatest player.

If people have alternative parameters on how they form a different view then that's fine. If Nadal hits 17, I will regard him as the greatest player of all time. I'd also like to see him spend a little longer in the #1 slot but that in itself is not a breaker.

I never thought Federer should have been labelled the mythical goat until he surpassed Sampras and won Roland Garros back at the time either.

 

[huntingyou]

Sure it's a head to head sport, and right now Roger heads Rafa 17-13 in majors. It's not a two man sport.

It doesn't matter to me if Nadal is knocked out of Wimbledon by Rosol or Federer. The last man standing is the greatest in the tournament. The man who racks up the most majors (at least in the modern era) is by proxy the greatest player.

If people have alternative parameters on how they form a different view then that's fine. If Nadal hits 17, I will regard him as the greatest player of all time. I'd also like to see him spend a little longer in the #1 slot but that in itself is not a breaker.

I never thought Federer should have been labelled the mythical goat until he surpassed Sampras and won Roland Garros back at the time either.

tell that to yourself

people remember the Wimbledon final when they think tennis. When people talk about Sampras-Agassi they don't even remember the number of slams but Sampras coming on top at the UO and Wimbledon.

It's a two men sport, their is only two sides to the net and roger fans have painfully lied to themselves whenever the H2H discussion comes up. You use the criteria you want, history already has it's criteria and Rafa beating Roger in all those finals has a nice page in that book.

 

[Ricardo]

to say that nadal is better does not mean that we dislike roger.

this is a tennis chat forum and people try to be objective and reasonable.

at least I do anyway.

like huntingyou said, it is a head to head sport. so people spend a lot of their free time comparing athletes. this is happening in all sports.

if I say messi is a better football player, it does not diminish Ronaldo`s achievements and his own abilities. of course I would have to have a relatively sound basis for saying that but that is all it is.

it is not a damn religion. it is just sports. we don't have to try to diminish their lifetime of achievements because of our own insecurities and bitterness.

you are forgetting what Tony Nadal told you, if the game was only played between Fed and Nadal, then Nadal is better. But overall Fed is still better because he gained the results against the field, of course Nadal has time to catch up and when he does, he will be seen as the greater player.

it's not objective to zoom in on just a particular H-H and draw conclusion only based on that, otherwise you'd have Davydenko > Nadal, Haarhuis better than Sampras, Santoro better than Safin. Objective people would tell you that you are better based on career results, not just one H-H.

your davydenko angle it's silly!!!!!!

Davydenko the obscure has never face Rafa in a slam......on top of that the H2H it's pretty damn close; nothing like 21-10 you know.

Perspective my friend :snigger

what isn't silly is that, you don't determine who's better based on H-H but on career results. Do people look at the H-H of past greats? we talk about the Lavers, Rosewalls, Borgs, Connors, Lendls, Sampras, as the all time greats but who remembers or cares to study their H-H? apparently their results at major events and rankings determine their place in history.

you've been saying H-H determines who's better not career results, so you'd have to have Davydenko > Rafa ... so what if it 'only' slightly favors Davy? it's still in his favor, going by this you may have Rafa >>> Fed but Davy is still better than Rafa. I am not surprised to see that your standard is only good for you, and people do talk about number of majors..... unlike what you claimed.

 

[britbox]

It might be a two man sport to you buddy, but it's not and never has been for me.

Safin was actually my favourite player above Federer during Federer's prime and I wasn't too fussed about remembering Nadal in the AO Semi Final where Safin beat Federer... and I'd hazard a guess people spoke more of Sampras record number of majors than you'd like to believe.

There's plenty of tennis outside Fedal if you look hard enough. You might even enjoy it.

 

[huntingyou]

to say that nadal is better does not mean that we dislike roger.

this is a tennis chat forum and people try to be objective and reasonable.

at least I do anyway.

like huntingyou said, it is a head to head sport. so people spend a lot of their free time comparing athletes. this is happening in all sports.

if I say messi is a better football player, it does not diminish Ronaldo`s achievements and his own abilities. of course I would have to have a relatively sound basis for saying that but that is all it is.

it is not a damn religion. it is just sports. we don't have to try to diminish their lifetime of achievements because of our own insecurities and bitterness.

you are forgetting what Tony Nadal told you, if the game was only played between Fed and Nadal, then Nadal is better. But overall Fed is still better because he gained the results against the field, of course Nadal has time to catch up and when he does, he will be seen as the greater player.

it's not objective to zoom in on just a particular H-H and draw conclusion only based on that, otherwise you'd have Davydenko > Nadal, Haarhuis better than Sampras, Santoro better than Safin. Objective people would tell you that you are better based on career results, not just one H-H.

your davydenko angle it's silly!!!!!!

Davydenko the obscure has never face Rafa in a slam......on top of that the H2H it's pretty damn close; nothing like 21-10 you know.

Perspective my friend :snigger

what isn't silly is that, you don't determine who's better based on H-H but on career results. Do people look at the H-H of past greats? we talk about the Lavers, Rosewalls, Borgs, Connors, Lendls, Sampras, as the all time greats but who remembers or cares to study their H-H? apparently their results at major events and rankings determine their place in history.

people don't care about H2H between the haves and have not so take advice

people do care how Laver and Rosewell did against each other, how Borg and JMac did in all those finals, Boris-Edberg, etc.

If Rafa was just a great player but far away from Federer then it's not that big of a deal but we are talking about someone who is in by his own standards one of the greatest to ever play the game......it certainly determine thier place in history. That you accept that it's another story

 

[huntingyou]

It might be a two man sport to you buddy, but it's not and never has been for me.

Safin was actually my favourite player above Federer during Federer's prime and I wasn't too fussed about remembering Nadal in the AO Semi Final where Safin beat Federer... and I'd hazard a guess people spoke more of Sampras record number of majors than you'd like to believe.

There's plenty of tennis outside Fedal if you look hard enough. You might even enjoy it.

I'm no talking Fedal when I say a a two men sport, I'm talking tennis in general. The players on court buddy, two men........

reading comprehension owns you or perhaps you couldn't resist a chance to take jab. Good try :clap

 

[britbox]

It might be a two man sport to you buddy, but it's not and never has been for me.

Safin was actually my favourite player above Federer during Federer's prime and I wasn't too fussed about remembering Nadal in the AO Semi Final where Safin beat Federer... and I'd hazard a guess people spoke more of Sampras record number of majors than you'd like to believe.

There's plenty of tennis outside Fedal if you look hard enough. You might even enjoy it.

I'm no talking Fedal when I say a a two men sport, I'm talking tennis in general. The players on court buddy, two men........

reading comprehension owns you or perhaps you couldn't resist a chance to take jab. Good try :clap

There were two men on the court when Federer won 17 majors then. Thanks for the info.

 

[britbox]

people remember the Wimbledon final when they think tennis. When people talk about Sampras-Agassi they don't even remember the number of slams but Sampras coming on top at the UO and Wimbledon.

Disagree. I'd say discussion on Sampras's legacy is talked about far more in terms of an overall slam count than a Wimbledon final against Agassi. Don't take my word for it - look on sports forums.

Great matches do go down in folklore though - the Nadal/Federer 2008 Wimbledon is one for the ages, as was Borg/Mac 1980, so on that I agree.

I also agree Nadal's H2H does carry - but not to the extent of overturning a 4 slam, 200+ weeks at #1 (in itself that gap is a hall of fame career) . You're basically isolating a H2H and saying it carries greater sway than that difference... which I don't buy.

If Nadal gets to 17 then the H2H is a tiebreaker IMO and puts him past Federer.

 

[Ricardo]

to say that nadal is better does not mean that we dislike roger.

this is a tennis chat forum and people try to be objective and reasonable.

at least I do anyway.

like huntingyou said, it is a head to head sport. so people spend a lot of their free time comparing athletes. this is happening in all sports.

if I say messi is a better football player, it does not diminish Ronaldo`s achievements and his own abilities. of course I would have to have a relatively sound basis for saying that but that is all it is.

it is not a damn religion. it is just sports. we don't have to try to diminish their lifetime of achievements because of our own insecurities and bitterness.

you are forgetting what Tony Nadal told you, if the game was only played between Fed and Nadal, then Nadal is better. But overall Fed is still better because he gained the results against the field, of course Nadal has time to catch up and when he does, he will be seen as the greater player.

it's not objective to zoom in on just a particular H-H and draw conclusion only based on that, otherwise you'd have Davydenko > Nadal, Haarhuis better than Sampras, Santoro better than Safin. Objective people would tell you that you are better based on career results, not just one H-H.

your davydenko angle it's silly!!!!!!

Davydenko the obscure has never face Rafa in a slam......on top of that the H2H it's pretty damn close; nothing like 21-10 you know.

Perspective my friend :snigger

what isn't silly is that, you don't determine who's better based on H-H but on career results. Do people look at the H-H of past greats? we talk about the Lavers, Rosewalls, Borgs, Connors, Lendls, Sampras, as the all time greats but who remembers or cares to study their H-H? apparently their results at major events and rankings determine their place in history.

people don't care about H2H between the haves and have not so take advice

people do care how Laver and Rosewell did against each other, how Borg and JMac did in all those finals, Boris-Edberg, etc.

If Rafa was just a great player but far away from Federer then it's not that big of a deal but we are talking about someone who is in by his own standards one of the greatest to ever play the game......it certainly determine thier place in history. That you accept that it's another story

what make the haves and have nots? oh ok so career results are what counts, if you don't have the results then comparing H-H is a moot point.

don't make those claims about H-H, most people have no idea about the H-H between Laver/Rosewall, Borg/JMac, Becker/Edberg etc, don't pretend like you don't know. However they do know about Borg's 11, Laver's Calender GS etc, it's not even worth debating.

Are you seriously going to argue that most people actually know their H-H more than their career results? i mean honestly...... :nono

 

[Mog]

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

I am close bro..70-30 now...Roger retires, 50-50 it is...and 100-0 against the field.

That's a good one Murat.
Where do you stand kieran? Just curious.

 

[huntingyou]

people remember the Wimbledon final when they think tennis. When people talk about Sampras-Agassi they don't even remember the number of slams but Sampras coming on top at the UO and Wimbledon.

Disagree. I'd say discussion on Sampras's legacy is talked about far more in terms of an overall slam count than a Wimbledon final against Agassi. Don't take my word for it - look on sports forums.

Great matches do go down in folklore though - the Nadal/Federer 2008 Wimbledon is one for the ages, as was Borg/Mac 1980, so on that I agree.

I also agree Nadal's H2H does carry - but not to the extent of overturning a 4 slam, 200+ weeks at #1 (in itself that gap is a hall of fame career) . You're basically isolating a H2H and saying it carries greater sway than that difference... which I don't buy.

If Nadal gets to 17 then the H2H is a tiebreaker IMO and puts him past Federer.

Did you read my intial post in this thread?

I said Rafa needs at least 16 Slams or get another channel slam for example along more torneys and weeks at #1 to surpass Federer's career. However, I said I consider Rafa the greater player at this point given what he has achieved and against who he has achieved it. Bascially, I'm saying Rafa is the better tennis player but his results are still lagging behind which is expected given he is 5 years younger.

 

[DarthFed]

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?

We can continue this discussion as soon as I get the sense you have the slightest bit of reading comprehension. You and HY are the only ones who made my comments into a Roger vs. Rafa thing. No surprise...

What's the title of the thread?

Roger is at the top and Rafa is trying to chase him down; it's all about Rafa vs Roger when it comes to this discussion.

and please stop with the surface thing. Wimbledon it's grass and total opposite from clay and the UO plays nothing like the AO or else how can you explain Novak's total dominance over one event while coming second best at the other?

you want to talk about homogenization of surfaces? try three three Grand Slams on grass and one on clay; that's what Rod Laver had to win in order to get the Calendar Slam and I don't see people complaining about that.

It's merely by chance that you Roger right after Pete and now Rafa trying to follow their path. All those three players were/are one in a lifetime talent so we are kind of bless to have witnessed them.

Do you think Novak can get to 20 slams? Tell me a junior player that you see with enough talent to translate his game into 20 slams? Admit it bro, your claim it's ludicrous when it comes to the Slams record...a record that even me thinks Rafa might not break it.

The post I responded to was by NadalRG2005 regarding what I thought Federer's 5 best records were. When the # of slams wasn't included CD got all butt hurt and as usual is putting words in my mouth.

Yes it is not the days where there are 3 grass court slams. But comparing this to the 80's, 90's and early 00's the courts are playing more similar and generally have been slowed down. That is just fact. And Roger has played through the same conditions just as Rafa, Nole and Murray so this is not an excuse, just an observation that yes, it is a bit easier to get slams in bunches compared to just 10-20 years ago.

 

[huntingyou]

The post I responded to was by NadalRG2005 regarding what I thought Federer's 5 best records were. When the # of slams wasn't included CD got all butt hurt and as usual is putting words in my mouth.

Yes it is not the days where there are 3 grass court slams. But comparing this to the 80's, 90's and early 00's the courts are playing more similar and generally have been slowed down. That is just fact. And Roger has played through the same conditions just as Rafa, Nole and Murray so this is not an excuse, just an observation that yes, it is a bit easier to get slams in bunches compared to just 10-20 years ago.

Ok I got it, I don't think there is much difference today than let's say 90s when it comes to slams (clay it's the same, rebound ace and plexi are both in the medium pace high bouncing range and Deco 1 Deco 2 are close although I will admit the balls has made a difference)

grass it's different for sure, but as you have observed over the years; only a handful of players actually excel at it....it's not an easy surface for everybody to adapt to. That's why Murray it's so good for example while Davydenko has never made it past the second round I believe.

The problem it's perception, watching Novak getting all those balls back make the court look slow when it reality is the players in general are just more better at defence since that's their style of play since development years.