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

[masterclass]

This thread has turned into an "Endless Federer-Nadal debate" thread just like the one on MTF. In fact many of the other recent threads have some of this debate. It usually happens when one player goes through a strong run of form and dominates and the strong media hype kicks in. In 2013 so far, it's Nadal. In 2012 it was Federer who made the great run. In 2011, it was Djokovic; 2010, Nadal; 2009, Federer and so on.

These arguments just go round and round with no end, mainly because huge fan bases want to emphasize their favorite's strong points and minimize his weaker points and then make a comparison to the other player where they minimize that player's strong points and maximize his weaker points. They take the facts and skew their importance to suit their favorite. The more biased the fan, the more skewing takes place.

People can't even agree on all of the criteria that are the most important in determining greatness or the weight that each factor should be given. Who can? One may start simply and say for example, the winner of the most majors or how long they were number one in the world. But if that evaluation doesn't suit, then people reach for other criteria. How does one compare different achievements over time? Even the same achievement can be difficult to compare because of when, where, and who was there at the time. x masters is worth y Master's cups? Come on. x H2H advantage is worth y weeks at #1? Apples and oranges. Pure silliness. If one goes further back in time, how is one even to evaluate majors won during the era of the better professionals not being allowed to play?

Some make a real effort to keep their arguments as unbiased as possible, but it only takes one or two extremists to derail any of their points and go off on more tangents that just fan the flames higher. For many fans it boils down to an "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality to give one bragging rights about their player.

As I pointed out in my original post in this thread, the media, here represented by McEnroe/Wilander but it could be anyone, use this fan-player controversy to stir up and incite more debate, because they know people will buy into it. Anything that causes fans to pay more attention to tennis, to watch more tennis, makes money for them.

I usually make a point of not getting into the debate, but offer an alternative. I say appreciate the greatness of each player and their merits. Applaud what each has done. This is an appreciation of great tennis. Don't even try to compare in absolutes. These players have not even retired yet, and people still insist on making these types of judgements.

Why do so many insist on making these absolute comparisons of great players? What does it solve? What interest do they have? Of course the players themselves have their own interest in being recognized as "one of the best". But most players get very uncomfortable when asked if they are "the best". Why? Because they have played the sport. They know that the other great players in time all have different circumstances and that there are a plethora of factors that influence their results.

Look at what the two players involved in this discussion have said about some of these kinds of comparison types of things. Rafael Nadal, for example, has said that:

"Talk about if I'm better or worse than Roger is stupid." "Head-to-head is just one fact, that may be important for discussing important matches." He used the football analogy. "Chelsea beats Manchester Utd. in both matches during the year, but Manchester wins the Premier League Championship, the better team is Manchester Utd."

"Anyone that says I'm a better player than Roger because of the head-to-head, doesn't know tennis. Roger has 17 Grand Slams and a lot of records on his shoulders. It would be very arrogant and very stupid for me say that today I have a comparison with him just because he has a negative head-to-head against me."

“I’m happy about what I achieved, I’m happy about what I’m winning. But Roger has better numbers than me, and that’s the real thing. Nobody has more Grand Slams than him. He’s the guy with more weeks in the history in the No. 1..."

After Nadal lost to Federer at the 2011 World Tour Finals, 6-3 and 6-0, Rafa made some interesting observations of ability, surface/condition preferences and said:

"I didn't play badly in the first set so I must keep a positive attitude and just accept that he played better than me." "I accept he played a fantastic level. A very, very top level. Something that only one player like Roger can arrive at," Nadal said.

"When you play against Federer and he's playing like this the only way to stay in the match is to get free points with the serve and I couldn't do that. He was too good for me." "But when I beat him in the Roland Garros final in 2008 it was a similar thing..." "My level is mostly higher than Roger's on clay; the numbers show this."

"But his level is probably higher here because all the conditions are perfect for him as the bounce is not too high and there is no wind. In these conditions he can attack better than on other surfaces. But if he plays like this in the other surfaces he will still beat me. That is true."

In August of 2012, Roger Federer was asked if he agreed with statements by McEnroe and others that the current generation top players (himself, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray) were the strongest in tennis history. He said:

“I'd say no, but I don't know. Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don't know who else. Those guys weren't good or what? You look back, further back, more than 20 years, and you have Connors, Lendl, Borg. Those weren't good either? I mean, I don't know. So for me I think that's respectful."

"It's just different times and definitely more athletic, there's no doubt about that. But then again we don't play doubles. We don't play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it's more taxing, but we do play less best of five set tennis than they used to play."

"You can't compare really, but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It's nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It's definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It's very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. But then best ever? The four of us? That's a really difficult call.”

Now one may say that these players are just being modest. But I would like to think they know what they are talking about. Praise each of them for their accomplishments, their strengths, criticize them for their weaknesses. And it may be fun to compare player's accomplishments, but comparing them in absolutes, i.e. Who is the best of all time, and the like? It's a fool's errand, no doubt escalated by media hype. They are two of the great players of this time and all time. I am happy to leave it at that.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Kieran]

masterclass, I doubt you gave yourself your own name, but that's a masterclass post... :clap

 

[El Dude]

masterclass, first of all, welcome to the Internet Age - these sorts of discussions arise in just about every context, every discussion board, about every conceivable topic. Tennis is no different.

Secondly, and more to the point, while I agree with the gist of your post I see no harm in the discussion.* What are tennis forums for if not to have conversations around such questions as "who is the best ever?" I think the key is just to take it with a grain of salt.

Actually, your post is rather predictable. This isn't an indictment of you personally, and isn't meant to be personal at all, but in the wider picture of internet forum discussions in which these sorts of squabbles are common, you almost always end up with someone coming in and pointing out how such discussions are pointless and stupid and trying to point the way to a higher ground. It rarely works.

I say, just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. Oh yeah, don't be afraid to get your hands dirty. There's nothing wrong with trying to answer the unanswerable - especially when you know its unanswerable! Then its just play.

Great Nadal and Federer quotes, by the way.

*(although I must admit to finding the bias of some fans annoying, especially when their attempt at "objectivity" is an obvious mask for their underlying agenda, which is to support the greatness of their favored player. Mr. Federer is my favorite player, but I really don't care whether he's considered the "GOAT" or not - it has nothing to do with my enjoyment of his play, his record, or my self-esteem).

 

[Kieran]

*(although I must admit to finding the bias of some fans annoying, especially when their attempt at "objectivity" is an obvious mask for their underlying agenda, which is to support the greatness of their favored player. Mr. Federer is my favorite player, but I really don't care whether he's considered the "GOAT" or not - it has nothing to do with my enjoyment of his play, his record, or my self-esteem).

Speaking of objectivity, you said in a post above that "the most important records are # of slams and weeks at #1." I paraphrased cos I'm bone idle and lazy to go back and make it exact. But there's the gist. Hold your hands up high and start walking, mister, this ain't no banana, it's made of real steel, see.

Then after this, you said the five GOATee's are some names + Nadal.

Your "some names" didn't include Sampras, who fitted your own criteria better. Why? Because of what Ralph will do in the next "year or two." This is where the cold steel dispatches real lead. The next couple years could be 2012 and 2009 for Nadal. In which case Sampras is safe and Roger goes to 19 or 20 slams.

BLAM!

 

[El Dude]

Kieran my man, you're being selective in your memory. I also said that, right now, Sampras has the better record than Nadal, but that Nadal should surpass him in another year or two. But you're right: there's no guarantee.

But the reason I see Nadal as a GOAT candidate but not Sampras is that Sampras is done, his legacy set, while Nadal is still playing at a very high level (arguably as good as he's ever been). Sure, his knees could give out at the WTF this year, or he could charge on for another three or four years and win six or seven more Slams. I look forward to finding out.

But in my view, there are clear tiers of all-time greats:

Tier One: Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal

Tier Two: Vines, Budge, Perry, Kramer, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi

Tier Three: Riggs, Cochet, Emerson, Newcombe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Djokovic, maybe one or two older players

In my view, tier one are the eight greatest players ever, with a clear demarcation between them and the rest of the field (although Don Budge in particular softens the gradation between one and two). The rest gets fuzzier, and you could argue for this or that player in three being in two.

For me the GOAT comes down to three players, with Nadal being a possible 4th in another year or two: Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and Federer. Its hard to give it to Rosewall over Laver, even though Rosewall has more Slams (23 to 19) and had greater longevity. But Laver was more dominant in his prime, which was quite significant in length.

Pancho Gonzales may be the most underrated and under-appreciated great player not only in tennis, but all sports. I can't think of another case where you have a player who has a strong argument to be the best in history, or at least among the very best, but is often ignored because he played his best years as a professional, and for whatever reason many historians - or at least armchair historians that blog on the internet and on shoddy sites like Bleacher Report - leave him off the list, even out of the top 20 - the Tennis Channel had him 22nd among men! (They also criminally underrated Ken Rosewall).

The reason I don't see Sampras as being in the same category as the other four (and maybe five) is that Federer's record basically surpassed him in almost ever way. Their eras are close enough to get a close comparison and if you line their records up, Federer has a significant edge.

Bill Tilden is too long ago to get a good read on, but I think he deserves to be in the top tier, although if I had to drop one out it would be him.

I suppose if I absolutely had to come up with an order, I might go with this:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Gonzales
4. Rosewall
5. Sampras
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Budge
10. Lendl
11. McEnroe
12. Connors
13. Agassi...

I think that by the end of 2014, Nadal will have passed Sampras.

 

[Kieran]

The 90's is nearer the 80's, tennis-wise. It's the culmination of what happened in that decade, with Sampras being the dominant force, although obviously not everywhere. But the 00's is a lot different to the 90's. The players are similarly athletic - and more so - but the game looks different in almost every way. Baseline tennis rules everywhere.

Anyway, I think players can only be compared properly with their peers.

One name that doesn't make it onto any of your lists is Lew Hoad. Now, there's many an old cove will shake his head sagely at the mention of Laver and say just one word: Hoad. But you're tied into comparing them statistically. This makes things messy. Even Pancho Gonzalez bowed down to Lew Hoad, who was one match away from completing the slam in 1956, only to be beaten by Rosewall. Similarly to Rafa, Hoad's career was adversely affected by injury. But also similarly to Rafa, he tended to beat his peers when and where it mattered.

I like your posts, by the way, much appreciate the time you take to post the stats, because they're important and informative. All the GOATee stuff is fun, I agree, but mucho inconclusive.

By the way, how'd ya survive that bullet full o' lead? It went right through ya! :huh: uzzled

 

[El Dude]

Passed through me, Kieran

I'd probably put Hoad in tier three. Here's an interesting quote from Wikipedia, from Jack Kramer:

Kramer, however, clearly has mixed feelings about Hoad's ability. In spite of calling him one of the 21 best players of all time, he also writes that "when you sum Hoad up, you have to say that he was overrated. He might have been the best, but day-to-day, week-to-week, he was the most inconsistent of all the top players." When Kramer was thirty-seven, and a part-time player, he played a number of matches against Hoad just after the Australian had turned professional. "I actually beat him thirteen matches to twelve. That was because he just didn't give a damn when he played me.... It was the same thing with Segura, and Lew lost a majority of his matches to Segoo.... He wanted to beat Kenny, and he did. Remember now, Hoad lost 13–12 to me while Rosewall beat me 22–4, but Hoad turned it around and won two-thirds of his matches against Rosewall."

Its also important to note that Hoad was 1-7 at Pro Slam finals, including an 0-5 record against Ken Rosewall in a Pro Slam Final (he was 1-2 vs. Gonzales). He was 2-2 vs Rosewall in amateur Slams.

 

[El Dude]

By the way, the reason I give Roger the edge over Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales is an admitted "proximity bias." While I think all-time lists should be ranked based upon how a player was vs. his contemporaries, when in doubt I'm going to give the edge to more recent players because I think the game has evolved overall and the pressure of winning, say, Wimbledon now, which is televised throughout the world, is monumentally greater than a Pro Slam in the 50s when only a few hundred might be watching in the stands.

With that in mind, if Nadal surpasses Federer, he's the GOAT in my mind. And to clearly pass Roger he needs to equal his Slam count - not pass it, just equal it. In my opinion!

As I said above, assuming Roger stops at 17, if Rafa wins...

17+ Slams he's the GOAT
16 Slams he's arguably the greatest, but its 50-50 with Roger
15 Slams he's just shy of Roger
14 Slams or fewer - close, but no cigar

Of course it matters what else happens - how many more Masters tournaments he wins, whether he wins a WTF or not, and if he gets back to #1 and for how long. All of this could be a moot point if he wins the WTF, wins the AO to complete his 2+ wins at each Slam, and is #1 for all of 2014 and 2015 and passes 200 weeks. But as you pointed out, with Rafa you just never know. He could tweak his knee at the WTF and pout his way to a round robin loss, lose in the SF at AO and get upset by Djokovic at the FO and be facing Wimbledon at age 28 with the same Slam count.

You know what? Despite being a Roger fan I want Rafa to continue to excel. I hate the thought of an ATP tour with Roger dwindling away and Rafa huffing and puffing with injuries. I just don't find "Djokurray" as evocative or exciting to watch, and have little hopes that my favorite young guns, Grigor Dimitrov and Jerzy Janowicz, will be anything more than second tier players like Berdych and Tsonga. I want to get every year we can out of Rafa and Roger because when they're gone, they're gone, and there's no one on the horizon like them.

 

[Kieran]

Gonna try a silver bullet next time. Don't go far!

It's good of Kramer to include him in his "21 best players of all time." If he scanned the game now, he'd probably stretch it to 22.

It seems from your post that Hoad won whenever his priorities suited him. It's a bit like today's players. The old pro tour is murky, and making a straight comparison between their slams and today's is difficult. I think most of the time, they were more interested in hard cash, and the bigger the match, the harder the cash...

 

[Kieran]

You know what? Despite being a Roger fan I want Rafa to continue to excel. I hate the thought of an ATP tour with Roger dwindling away and Rafa huffing and puffing with injuries. I just don't find "Djokurray" as evocative or exciting to watch, and have little hopes that my favorite young guns, Grigor Dimitrov and Jerzy Janowicz, will be anything more than second tier players like Berdych and Tsonga. I want to get every year we can out of Rafa and Roger because when they're gone, they're gone, and there's no one on the horizon like them.

This is the bit I agree with.

Murray-Djoker matches are not so exciting to me, but I bet they are to their fans. Last Wimbledon, Murray put on a hat and I couldn't tell which player was which. "Take off a danged hat, somebody!" I screamed at the telly. The missus will back me up. Their matches are interminable. Rafa and Roger provide a great contrast, in so many ways: style, temperament, reaction to things. But I fear old Wodger is not gonna be making too many GS finals as he is now. I'd love to see them have a last hurrah in a big match some place, maybe next Wimbledon (no matter who wins!), but it's getting harder and harder to predict...

 

[El Dude]

I'm hoping for one more Final as well. Actually, I'm hoping for more but I think the most we can reasonably hope for is one, sort of like Pete's 2002 US Open.

If I were to script it I'd have Rafa and Roger face each other in the final at Wimbledon, with Roger just narrowly winning and then announcing his immediate retirement while being handed his trophy.

But the truth is, I have a hard time imagining Roger ever beating Rafa again on any surface.

 

[huntingyou]

Talking about Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewell and even Laver in the same sentence with Sampras, Federer and now Rafa it's an insult to intelligence and lazy approach to discussing the topic at hand.

You don't compare the telegraph to the telephone, there is no comparison. Bringing up names before the open era, an era marked by country club tennis and a very selective pool of people it's blasphemous.

Take a look at who played basketball in the 1930s and 1940s........take a look a now. In tennis, technology, academia, nutrition, talent pool, accessibility, athlete evolution and the evolution of the game itself has pushed the boundaries to a whole new territory that makes any comparison impossible since it's not even the same sport.

I don't know if Laver was born in this era; could he even mustered top 20? his body and mind was never submitted to the demands tennis place today on the modern athlete.

So please, stop the nonsense ………..when we are talking about GOAT, we are clearly talking about Federer and the only player that at the moment could challenge his spot at the top of the mountain. Nadal already left Sampras in the dust; if you can’t play on clay you can’t play tennis to its fullest capacity. Clay it’s the traditional surface and preferred surface for the rest of the world outside US. Enough said!

 

[Jelenafan]

Talking about Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewell and even Laver in the same sentence with Sampras, Federer and now Rafa it's an insult to intelligence and lazy approach to discussing the topic at hand.

You don't compare the telegraph to the telephone, there is no comparison. Bringing up names before the open era, an era marked by country club tennis and a very selective pool of people it's blasphemous.

Take a look at who played basketball in the 1930s and 1940s........take a look a now. In tennis, technology, academia, nutrition, talent pool, accessibility, athlete evolution and the evolution of the game itself has pushed the boundaries to a whole new territory that makes any comparison impossible since it's not even the same sport.

I don't know if Laver was born in this era; could he even mustered top 20? his body and mind was never submitted to the demands tennis place today on the modern athlete.

So please, stop the nonsense ………..when we are talking about GOAT, we are clearly talking about Federer and the only player that at the moment could challenge his spot at the top of the mountain. Nadal already left Sampras in the dust; if you can’t play on clay you can’t play tennis to its fullest capacity. Clay it’s the traditional surface and preferred surface for the rest of the world outside US. Enough said!

If every generation is bigger, stronger, faster then there is no need for any debate. The future always wins.
However in any sport talks about a GOAT one can presume there is no absolute but dominance within an era is compared to dominance in another era. The players literally cannot play each other.

If in 20 years due to racket technology and genetics say the 200 th ranked tennis player in the world is physically superior to Federer today, it doesn't take away from Federer's dominance and greatness today. Just because that 200 th ranked player could beat Roger it doesn't change the fact he's the 200 th ranked player within his era.

One might as well argue that giving Rod Lavers today's rackets and physical conditioning regimens he could beat anyone. Or transport Roger back to the 60's with a wood racket. Too many different variables unknown.

 

[shawnbm]

What? After so many years watching Pete approach Borg and Laver and then Emerson, and then surpassing them, some want to say the number of slams does not count? There has to be some criteria in separating the greats of the game. If Rafa equals Roger in major titles, then he would deserve to be called as great a player as Federer--although I doubt he will ever reach 300 weeks at number one be as dominant as Roger ever was in one year (although this year is the closest we have seen Rafa dominate like Roger did from 2004-2007, oddly enough). I really don't care because both have been two titans of the game and have elevated the sport tremendously. I do think Rafa has to win more slams, and he likely will. As of now, he and Roger are tied with 13 slams each since 2005. That is an amazing statistic over nine years. Their top playing days have largely overlapped one another, even with the ebbs and flows, knee and mono issues, the beast that was Nole in 2011 and 2012, etc.

 

[Mog]

This is a masterclass post Masterclass.
Really enjoyed your input on the issue.
The quotes from Roger and Rafa says it all.
Both are great players of this era and we are lucky to witness their super performances.
I will wait until both retires and compare their achievements. Rafa has to surpasses Roger's 17 slams record and he is the only one who has a chance to break that.If Rafa fails to break Roger's 17 slams record then it might take perhaps much longer time to do that. I don't see anyone now other than Rafa to get there.

 

[Mog]

What? After so many years watching Pete approach Borg and Laver and then Emerson, and then surpassing them, some want to say the number of slams does not count? There has to be some criteria in separating the greats of the game. If Rafa equals Roger in major titles, then he would deserve to be called as great a player as Federer--although I doubt he will ever reach 300 weeks at number one be as dominant as Roger ever was in one year (although this year is the closest we have seen Rafa dominate like Roger did from 2004-2007, oddly enough). I really don't care because both have been two titans of the game and have elevated the sport tremendously. I do think Rafa has to win more slams, and he likely will. As of now, he and Roger are tied with 13 slams each since 2005. That is an amazing statistic over nine years. Their top playing days have largely overlapped one another, even with the ebbs and flows, knee and mono issues, the beast that was Nole in 2011 and 2012, etc.

Excellent post shawnbm. Completely agree with this.

 

[Mog]

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.

Good post tented.
Agree that it is possible for Rafa to get there but as you said it is to be done in next 2 years and then very difficult. From the recent group Rafa is the only one who has a chance.
It is only 4 slams difference but it is much harder than it seems in my opinion.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Talking about Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewell and even Laver in the same sentence with Sampras, Federer and now Rafa it's an insult to intelligence and lazy approach to discussing the topic at hand.

You don't compare the telegraph to the telephone, there is no comparison. Bringing up names before the open era, an era marked by country club tennis and a very selective pool of people it's blasphemous.

Take a look at who played basketball in the 1930s and 1940s........take a look a now. In tennis, technology, academia, nutrition, talent pool, accessibility, athlete evolution and the evolution of the game itself has pushed the boundaries to a whole new territory that makes any comparison impossible since it's not even the same sport.

I don't know if Laver was born in this era; could he even mustered top 20? his body and mind was never submitted to the demands tennis place today on the modern athlete.

So please, stop the nonsense ………..when we are talking about GOAT, we are clearly talking about Federer and the only player that at the moment could challenge his spot at the top of the mountain. Nadal already left Sampras in the dust; if you can’t play on clay you can’t play tennis to its fullest capacity. Clay it’s the traditional surface and preferred surface for the rest of the world outside US. Enough said!

Telephone IS better than telegraph, but does that make Graham Bell or Antonio Meucci a better scientist than Pavel Schilling ? Or Newton? They worked with what they had in their time. That's why the term GOAT is problematic. Greatest in ones own era is a better gauge IMHO.

 

[ClayDeath]

I can appreciate what general masterclass is saying. he says it what he says only because he cares about this forum.

both he and I have shown a great deal of care and concern for this forum. we have also managed to bring this forum to the attention of many others.


we have both seen how things can get out of hand at mtf. normal discussions are allowed to degenerate to bitter attacks and insults time and again.


I think for the most part the discussions here are being healthy and productive. don't let player loyalties get in the way of your friendship with people you have known for years and years.

nadal and roger are not hurting for fans. in fact they have about 1.5 billion fans around the world.


this just shows people are passionate about the sport.


general masterclass is to be commended for his work here.

 

[britbox]

Telephone IS better than telegraph, but does that make Graham Bell or Antonio Meucci a better scientist than Pavel Schilling ? Or Newton? They worked with what they had in their time. That's why the term GOAT is problematic. Greatest in ones own era is a better gauge IMHO.

True. I'm guessing Saddam Hussein's tanks would have blown away Hannibal's elephants, but it doesn't make him a better historical general.