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

[Kieran]

The difference between grass and clay was much more extreme in the 90's than the 00's or now. It was two completely different tours. You were one or t'other. You didn't bring your clay game to grass, make a few small adjustments, and succeed without ever going to the net.

You didn't bring your serve-volley game to clay and make outlandish changes to become a grinder, and succeed. Now, a middle-way game sorts all problems. Yes, Agassi, won on both surfaces, and Borg did it spectacularly before him, but these were exceptions, not the rule (except when Borg ruled ).

The game has been changed...

 

[ClayDeath]

why would I bother with putting words in somebody's mouth when they keep putting their foot in their mouth?

it is clear bitterness and insecurity to suggest that roger's 17 slams are "far less impressive" and that somehow getting to all those slams is more important.


that is plain ridiculous.

equally ridiculous if not more ridiculous is your statement that some mythical or imaginary player is going to come along any day now and hit 20 slams.


good luck trying to sell that snake oil to somebody.

As for your butt hurt statement , that is childish and rude.

it is also wrong. now you have put your foot in your mouth again.


I am feeling pretty damn good about all this.

 

[Didi]

Interesting thread. In my opinion Nadal has yet to pass Pete before we talk about Roger. I still give Pete the edge over Rafa because he dominated the YEC, two different slams (W & USO) and finished 6 straight seasons as the #1 which is simply incredible. I still consider Pete's and Roger's careers significantly better than Nadal's.
And to be honest, even an unprecedented 2nd career slam would not change my mind given that Nadal is playing in heavily favored circumstances in my eyes.

But that's just how I see it, I guess the general consensus will change though as Rafa will very likely surpass Pete's slam tally within the next 12 months and get to around 150 weeks at #1. Once he gets above the 14, it will be tough for Pete fans like me to find arguments against the general consensus. I'm aware of that. That's the way it is and I'm fine with it.

Still, I give Nadal a lot of credit. He played against a prime version of Federer in 2005 - 2007 in Paris and Wimbledon, later against a still very strong version of Roger from 2008-12 plus young Nole, then Murray, then peak Nole etc. He had to overcome all of them and came out on top in that period with 13 majors so far. That's huge for his legacy.

As for the argument that Federer was only able to dominate a so-called weak field - I thought that we had already put that to bed when a 31 year old version of Roger regained the top spot in the peak of all of his rivals. Guess I was wrong. Other than that, I enjoyed the posts from Britbox and Murat. Very balanced views.

EDIT: I don't know who mentioned it before, maybe tented, but kudos to whoever came up with John McEnroe always currently watching the greatest player ever hitting the finest shots he's ever seen, playing in the match of the century in the best stadium ever built around the greatest city since Jesus in the best weather since forecasts.

 

[Front242]

It's not posting your reply, so this is in reply to Clay Death:

it is clear bitterness and insecurity to suggest that roger's 17 slams are "far less impressive" and that somehow getting to all those slams is more important.


that is plain ridiculous.

If Nadal ever manages that feat then get back to me. No idea what his longest semi streak is. Care to look it up for me as I couldn't be bothered. Whatever streak he had up till Darcis disposed of him in the summer ended and it had to start again with the US Open. See how difficult it is? Imagine the consistency required to keep that going for almost 6 straight years. It's one record which may well stand the test of time. At least in many of our lifetimes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Interesting thread. In my opinion Nadal has yet to pass Pete before we talk about Roger. I still give Pete the edge over Rafa because he dominated the YEC, two different slams (W & USO) and finished 6 straight seasons as the #1 which is simply incredible. I still consider Pete's and Roger's careers significantly better than Nadal's.
And to be honest, even an unprecedented 2nd career slam would not change my mind given that Nadal is playing in heavily favored circumstances in my eyes.

I still rank Pete above Nadal (slightly), but how did he have a "significantly better" career? He never won on clay. Never won the FO. Surely that cancels out the fact that he dominated two slams, vis-a-vis Nadal.

Nadal has won way more Masters 1000 events too, which should cancel out the YEC.

My point is, the above argument seems a touch selective, since I can easily claim that "Nadal has had a way better career" because he won a career slam, was excellent on all surfaces, has won way more Masters 1000 events, and an Olympic gold medal.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

This is for folks that believe H2H is the most important thing when comparing players. I have picked up the Sampras bio from the library and got some quotes regarding the players that had a better H2H against him.

Sergei Bruguera (2-3): "He posed special problems that lifted him a healthy notch above other baseliners. Sergei played from way back, which made him vulnerable to attack, but the guy moved like a deer. He was one of the best movers ever and he could get to anything and take a good whack at it with a heavy, topspin forehand." (Some similarities?)

Lleyton Hewitt (4-5):" He was one of the few guys who could resist the onslaught of a high quality attacker. He was quicker than Andre , and therefore passed a little better. For a period I felt that he might really dominate..."

Richard Krajicek (4-6) :" I never really liked big servers, the guys who could do to me what I routinely did to them.I was OK with them but having to do that over and over took me out of my comfort zone.Krajicek could really put the pressure on, if he had his serve going, he was very tough to break, and that put more pressure on my service games."

Michael Stich(4-5) :" Out of all the guys who were real or potential rivals, Stich is the one who scared me the most.He moved very well and could do it all- stay back, chip and charge, serve and volley. He really had an all-court game and among all the guys I played, the best combination of power, movement and mental strength. It is a pity he quit the game so soon, although it made me breath a huge sigh of relief."

Now, who thinks these guys are better than Pete? Let me see the hands...Or who thinks these guys posed "special problems" on any given day and made life miserable for Pete?

 

[brokenshoelace]

You were one or t'other. You didn't bring your clay game to grass, make a few small adjustments, and succeed without ever going to the net.

Did anyone ever do that? This is one of the over-exaggerations when people talk about surfaces nowadays. Nadal brought his clay game to grass? How?

Did Novak do it? Murray? Who was successful at Wimbledon by bringing their "clay game." Also saying they never went to the net is a huge fallacy. They went to the net A LOT (check the stats), they just didn't do it right after a serve.

I keep reading people equating "serve and volley" with "grass court tennis." This is not true, and it never was. Yes, grass has been slowed down. But trying, in any way, to imply that players play on clay the way they play on grass is a bit dubious (not referring to you, but to the general consensus).

 

[Kieran]

You were one or t'other. You didn't bring your clay game to grass, make a few small adjustments, and succeed without ever going to the net.

Did anyone ever do that? This is one of the over-exaggerations when people talk about surfaces nowadays. Nadal brought his clay game to grass? How?

Did Novak do it? Murray? Who was successful at Wimbledon by bringing their "clay game." Also saying they never went to the net is a huge fallacy. They went to the net A LOT (check the stats), they just didn't do it right after a serve.

I keep reading people equating "serve and volley" with "grass court tennis." This is not true, and it never was. Yes, grass has been slowed down. But trying, in any way, to imply that players play on clay the way they play on grass is a bit dubious (not referring to you, but to the general consensus).

Glad you're not referring to me! :snigger

I said they make a few small adjustments. The games aren't hugely dissimilar, when compared to the huge adjustments that were necessary back in the 80's and 90's. The 70's were slightly different because S&V tennis went out of fashion for a few years, allowing Borgie to make hay, but once it came back, it was dominant again.

Sure, the bounce is different, and faster on one surface than the other - this is why they make slight adjustments. But not a whole re-tooling of their skills, as they used have to make.

Nadal goes to the net now more than ever, but in the 2008 Wimbledon final he went to the net 31 times out of 413 points. About 7%? From memory, the first time he serve-volleyed in that final was in the final game. Most matches now are baseline crunchers. And Novak has even perfected the slide on grass, which is impressive, though I sometimes think he'll pay for it some day.

As for S&V being grasscourt tennis, etc, it's fine toothcomb stuff. In the 70's and 80's, when people spoke of having a great grasscourt game, and taught it, they meant S&V, and also, chip and charge and other redundant features of the sport...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I said they make a few small adjustments. The games aren't hugely dissimilar, when compared to the huge adjustments that were necessary back in the 80's and 90's.

I don't agree that they're small adjustments. If small adjustments was all that was necessary, Nadal would never lose to Rosol or Darcic at Wimbledon ever. They were however, indeed not as big as the necessary adjustments back in the 90's (which many were generally failing to make, by the way).

 

[Kieran]

Of course they were failing to make them - it was a basic bottom-up relearning of the sport...

 

[Jelenafan]

The game is always evolving and changing, because quite frankly I think in the Laver era a lot of serve and volleyers were not exceptionally good from the baseline. Laver's Grand Slam stands out for sheer dominance, though OTOH it was grass and clay, no HC. Still grass was very fast and slick in those days and clay was very slow and heavy so Laver's feat can't be minimized.

So we go round and round. Rafa getting to 16 with at least 3 slams in each surface would do the trick, he needs IMO another W.

 

[ClayDeath]

I dont agree with mac and wilander but I can appreciate their thinking on this matter.

also to me, its not really about the greatest ever to play the game. its simply about who is better between these two and I believe that answer is a little too clear to most of the objective, informed, and reasonable insiders of the sport. roger, for the most part, has no answers for nadal. everybody knows that and understands that.

I could not care less about who the hell is the greatest ever to play the game. I don't need a sport figure to worship. but evidently this concept of GOAT has a great deal of traction for the press and media who need a story to sell. and of course it was important to roger which is why he went after the slam record.

so it was evidently important to roger because that is what he wanted to be called. he said very clearly to a top espn analyst just before one of the French open that the reason it was so critical and important for him to win the French open was because he wanted to be known as the greatest ever to play the game.

and obviously it became 100 times more important to the fed extremists.


and now that somebody is gaining on him, all of a sudden his slams are "far less impressive" than his several trips to the semis. imagine that.


so winning a slam means nothing but somehow getting to the semifinal of a slam has a great deal of significance. who the hell are they trying to sell this snake oil to? maybe to each other but nobody is buying it.


and if that was not ridiculous enough, now they say that some imaginary/mythical figure just happens to be lurking in the shadows who will quickly hit 20 slams or better since it is so damn easy to win slams today.

so if some imaginary dude is going to win all these slams then what guarantee is there that he is not going to bust up all of roger`s other records also in the process. how the hell do you think roger got all those records? he got them by chasing all those slam wins of his own.


so they say slams are too easy to win today and they "come in bunches". really. what are you smoking? it must be good.

somebody better not tell nole that otherwise he will have 12 more slams by the end of 2016.


this is just madness.


forget the damn semifinal appearances. nobody gives a damn. nobody has ever mentioned even Lendl's 11 losses at slam finals. it is not much of a record to brag about.

similarly nobody really cares in the long run scheme of things how many times you made #1.

what is the ultimate gold standard is how many slams you won and who did you beat in those slams.

what matters is your head to head against your greatest rivals.

it is an individual sport.

there is no way around it.



anyway I started out by saying that I don't agree with mac and wilander but it does show what they are seeing with objective eyes. and they know hell of a lot more than anybody here.

I already know that nadal is a better player but 17 slams will make it academic. that will make it a slam dunk case for everyone.

there was a time when roger was better but he got passed. nadal worked hard to develop a more robust game. no way around that. the matchup excuse has zero traction because nobody has any answers for him. he has a winning record against all of the top 30 players. others don't matter because the sample size is too small.

and I really don't give damn about who is the greatest of all time. press always needs a story to sell.

 

[El Dude]

I can't believe I actually made it through the gauntlet. I didn't read everything, but skimmed it all. An entertaining, if headache-inducing, read.

The irony is that about a week ago I wrote a blog post about Rafa's chances of being the GOAT but didn't polish it up. This thread kind of makes it superfluous, but maybe I'll revisit it and post it in a few days.

A few comments to make. First of all, and perhaps most importantly, when we talk about the "GOAT" at the end of the day we're not talking about how good a player was at their best, or how good they were versus specific players, or any combination of specific stats - we're talking about overall career greatness. The whole shebang. There are numerous factors but the most important two are, in my opinion, Slam wins and weeks at #1.

My view is that Rafa has to equal Roger's Slam count to be considered the greatest ever. He won't catch him in weeks at #1, although his superior Masters record equalizes Roger's World Tour Finals. Other factors all seem to even out. we could even say that Rafa's H2H superiority is cancelled by Roger's weeks at #1, so we're left with Slam count.

I think the tie goes to Rafa because of the H2H, but that Rafa needs to tie Roger to be considered greater. If he gets to 15 or 16 it will be close, and we'll debate it for years to come, but 17 and its Rafa's, 14 and its Roger's; 15-16 is up for debate.

One note on H2H. While I think it does mean something, some are putting way too much emphasis on it. As others have pointed out, some match-ups are just bad. Did you know that Becker was 25-10 against Edberg? They're considered just about equal historically. Vilas was 6-5 against McEnroe, but Johnny was a much greater player. Etc. Two factors must be kept in mind: the way two styles of play match up against each other, and the age at which those players played.

Its interesting to note that Roger's very best year, 2006, in which he had an amazing 92-5 record, but went 2-4 vs. Nadal (he was 90-1 vs. everyone else!). Yet in 2007, when Roger was starting to slip a bit - his 88% being his lowest since 2003 - he had his only winning season vs. Nadal, going 3-2. The fact that this doesn't prove anything actually proves something: H2H matchups don't mean much of anything relatively to the overall field. Federer dropped a small step in 2007, then a larger one in 2008 and never really gained it back except for a great half year in 2012. But their H2H wasn't really any different than it ever was, at least until 2013. From 2009-2012 Rafa was 6-4 against Roger, despite the fact that Rafa was in his prime and Roger in decline.

One final remark. While I realize that Open Era tennis is distinct from what came before, I think we should clarify that when we are talking about "all time" or "Slam record" we're really just talking about the last 45 years. When talking about professional tennis history going back almost 100 years, Roger Federer may not even be the GOAT.

Let us not forget that the actual Slam record - including Pro and Amateur Slams - is Ken Rosewall with 23. Rod Laver is second with 19, and then Federer and Pancho Gonzales are next with 17 each. We might look down about Pro Slams, but note that the best players in the game were playing them and there were only three a year, so the competition was comparable. Gonzales was the greatest player of the 50s, Laver of the 60s, and Rosewall probably the second greatest player of both decades. These three men, in my mind, are three of the greatest players of all time and each has a good case to be considered the GOAT.

In the end, I'm left with five candidates: Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Federer, and Nadal. Bill Tilden, Bjorn Borg, and Pete Sampras all fall just a bit short, for various reasons. Nadal's record might be a bit shy of Sampras', but he's fast closing and I think in another year or two he'll have the greater career. After those seven there's a big drop-off to the next tier of greats, none of whom have strong arguments to be GOAT candidates (Budge, Kramer, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, etc).

So if Rafa is going to be considered the GOAT, he needs to pass not just Federer, but also Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver - not to mention Sampras and Tilden.

 

[ClayDeath]

this is exactly why I don't really care for the GOAT stuff. it makes for a great story for the press and also the masses. it is an issue that can never be settled. we can never dismiss players like laver, emerson, Gonzales, and the like that easily.

you may have noted from my long post that I was just going to try deal with who is a better player between nadal and roger. so we put them in a ring and have them fight 31 times.

and we make 8 of those fights for the ultimate heavyweight championship of the world.

nadal wins 21 of those fights. he wins 6 of 8 fights for the heavyweight championship of the world.

a slam is the ultimate dance of death for the two warriors. it is there you prove your mettle or you do not. it looks nadal dealt him devastating blows in 6 of those 8 fights on all 3 different surfaces.


there is just no way around that.




now all that being said, you make some great points if the argument was to expand to who has a better overall resume. in such a scenario, roger gets by. he has been around a lot longer in terms of tennis years.


but you also add and rightfully so that nadal`s 26 masters shields which should eventually grow to 35-40 will have to be dealt with. his 8-10 RG crowns on the toughest surface to win carries major weight.


and so on.


so the argument again becomes more complex. what cancels out what.


this is why I decided to just keep it between just those two.

 

[Jelenafan]

The Roger/Nadal head2head isn't as simple as say , comparing Sampras having a losing head2head to Richard Kraijeck or Nadal having a losing one versus Daydenko.

It's the fact that it was the #1 and #2 ranked players, aka Roger's top rival and it includes 8 Major finals on 3 different slams. I think most people accept that a match played in the ultimate pressure cooker of a Major final is different than a final played in Dubai. Add to that that Nadal beat Roger in two other Major SF's (AO and the FO) and suddenly you have a 8-2 edge in Majors head2head. Nadal beat Roger in W, FO and the AO in finals. Roger beat Nadal at W. All these matches were played when they were both top 4 at the worst.

That is what looms larger in using their head2head as a possible tiebreaker in the future. Personally I think Nadal isn't quite there yet as far as GOAT , but a year from now that head2head isn't going to go away.

 

[ClayDeath]

slam is the ultimate dance of death between two warriors.

also nobody intelligent ever brings up the old matchup theory again very simply because it does not work for nadal. he has a winning record against 100% of his greatest rivals.

he has a winning record against 100% of the top 30 players.

his numbers are beyond sick as far the open era is concerned.

roger`s numbers are sick too but not as sick as nadal`s when you consider who nadal has had to deal with to get his slams:

1. he had to deal with roger to get nearly 50% of all his slams on all 3 different surfaces

2. he had to deal with nole who has 6 slams himself. this guy is an all time great.


so that is nearly 75% of his slams have had to come through roger and nole. that is just insane since these two (roger and nole) are among the greatest ever to play.

 

[britbox]

It's interesting you mention boxing CD because you get the same issues.

Aaron Pryor had Alexis Arguello's number when they fought, but nobody would put him above him on a career list of all time greats. Same with Marco Antonio Barrera and Junior Jones. I doubt they would even with Manny Pacquiao and Marquez.

Truth be told it happens in all sports.

If Nadal closes in on the 17, then the H2H definitely makes the difference, but like I mentioned earlier, 4 majors and 200 weeks at Number 1 is a difference that would put somebody in the hall of fame.

It's not a knock on Nadal or belittling his accomplishments - they are huge in themselves. He likely has time on his side and may very well close the gap. Some posters on here seem to think it's a certainty. We will see how it plays out.

 

[ClayDeath]

excellent post baron.


here in America debates rage constantly in all sports. it is a little harder to determine who is the best in team sports but it never stops people. they come up with a new angle each time.

they all want to know who is the greatest of all times in various sports.


it gives the press and media stories to sell and to captivate the public.

 

[ClayDeath]

The Roger/Nadal head2head isn't as simple as say , comparing Sampras having a losing head2head to Richard Kraijeck or Nadal having a losing one versus Daydenko.

It's the fact that it was the #1 and #2 ranked players, aka Roger's top rival and it includes 8 Major finals on 3 different slams. I think most people accept that a match played in the ultimate pressure cooker of a Major final is different than a final played in Dubai. Add to that that Nadal beat Roger in two other Major SF's (AO and the FO) and suddenly you have a 8-2 edge in Majors head2head. Nadal beat Roger in W, FO and the AO in finals. Roger beat Nadal at W. All these matches were played when they were both top 4 at the worst.

That is what looms larger in using their head2head as a possible tiebreaker in the future. Personally I think Nadal isn't quite there yet as far as GOAT , but a year from now that head2head isn't going to go away.

excellent post.

 

[tented]

If Nadal closes in on the 17, then the H2H definitely makes the difference, but like I mentioned earlier, 4 majors and 200 weeks at Number 1 is a difference that would put somebody in the hall of fame.

It's not a knock on Nadal or belittling his accomplishments - they are huge in themselves. He likely has time on his side and may very well close the gap. Some posters on here seem to think it's a certainty. We will see how it plays out.

This Rafa fan does not think it's a certainty. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Hmm ... I'm not sure.

If he were to accomplish it, though, I think he would need to do so within the next two years. After that, the possibility of getting 17+ goes down markedly. He's only 27, but with him it's similar to dog years -- in "tennis years" Rafa is really more like 30 or 31.