Monte Carlo Rolex Masters 2017, Monaco, ATP Masters 1000

[El Dude]

Fiero, you're judging Rafa's GOAT credentials by how he's playing at 30 years old?

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, you're judging Rafa's GOAT credentials by how he's playing at 30 years old?

Are you kidding? Go look at his past; always going to the limits with players I've never even heard of! Are we watching the same era? Some German kid by the name of Brands had him down a set and 0-3 in 2nd set TB in the 1st round of the FO in his prime; 2013! He's always going long and it's more than a little pathetic! That's why he's breaking down faster than the Trump Admin.! Now that Nadal's really lost it, he's dropping consecutive matches to his pigeon who's even OLDER! uzzled :nono :angel: :cover

 

[El Dude]

No, I'm not kidding. Certainly every part of a player's career should have some impact on his overall greatness, including his 30s. But I just wouldn't definite or judge Rafa solely or mainly on how he's doing now.

Actually, this may be the difference in how you and I judge players, historically speaking. I look at their overall accomplishments as a kind of "heap" - but I don't subtract for poor performance or down years. You seem to do so. Look at Mats Wilander. A brilliant player through 1988. But if we take your approach, everything after that should take away from his brilliance. I don't see it that way. Rather, I see him as a player who had a relatively short period of greatness (about 7 years), and then some years of mediocrity - but the latter years don't take away from the earlier years, they just don't add much to it. Or we can look at Lleyton Hewitt, who was a true elite player for a few years, but for most of his career he was a third or fourth tier player. I judge his overall greatness on his merits, but don't penalize for his later years. He just doesn't get much credit for them.

And don't forget that before the Open Era, players would have play random tournaments into their 40s and even 50s. Or look at Jack Nicklaus in golf. He was done as a great player in the early 80s (although won one more Masters in 1986) - and is generally considered the GOAT of golf - but continued playing a few tournaments a year for another 15+ years, as late as 1999, only rarely going deep. Do we lessen his greatness because he kept playing when he was well past his prime? I don't think so. His latter years might not add anything to his greatness, but they shouldn't take anything away, in my opinion.

And so it is with tennis players. Rafa cannot damage in any way the accomplishments he already has, which set him apart as one of the four greatest players of the Open Era - along with Pete, Roger, and Novak, and one of the ten greatest all time. As I've said before, the "GOAT" is better understood as a "herd," not a single animal, and certainly Rafa belongs in that herd.

 

[Carol]

It was a good win by Rafa playing against a player who said before the match " this could be my oportunity" and of course he tried his best and everything he knows but not enough against Nadal even that for this one was his first match on clay and not playing his best.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is exactly the philosophy advocated in the article in the OP of the "Most Dominant Player"
thread. I can bump it up for you folks if needed.

Basically, the greatness is defined by how long one was dominant and how dominant one was when he was dominant.

 

[El Dude]

GS&M, I can basically agree with that - except I think ALL accomplishments should be counted. Hewitt is a good example. He had only two great years, 2001-02, and then was still very good for a few years after, but was pretty much done as a top player by 2006, but he still won a half dozen or so minor tournaments that add a tiny bit to his overall record.

So I think greatness is a combination of peak dominance and career accomplishments/longevity, with an emphasis on the former over the latter. But both matter.

 

[Fiero425]

This is exactly the philosophy advocated in the article in the OP of the "Most Dominant Player"
thread. I can bump it up for you folks if needed.

Basically, the greatness is defined by how long one was dominant and how dominant one was when he was dominant.

Longevity wouldn't do it for me or Connors would be "THE GOAT!" His old wrinkled arse was fending off kids who weren't born when he was playing in his prime! :nono :angel: :cover

 

[the AntiPusher]

Nadalbhas historically taken too damn long too often with inferior players. It weakens him over the course of his career. He should've closed out this guy in straight sets instead of battling for two hours and twenty minutes. It's not like he hasn't had enough match practice; nobody has played more matches than Nadal this year at this level. He needs to conserve energy and move these guys off the court faster, especially since he'll be thirty one years old in a month!

He's old, brother, old players struggle - fact!

But he never used to struggle against players like this, on clay. 4, 5 years ago, this one would be done as a 6-0, 6-2, maybe. But Rafa isn't the same player, which is understandable, given his years, but also, because of this, players stick with him longer now, expecting him to slip. And he did today. Several times...

Very true.,I actually expected Rafa to loose the way he played in the final two sets. Rafa's game hasn't transferred from the hardcourt to the clay yet. He doesn't have much time to correct this because Sasha Zverev is playing very well and is in form.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Hell I hope Rafa is not going to wear Pink to RG this year,remember the last time he wore Pink....enough said.

 

[El Dude]

Fiero, it isn't either/or. Any definition of greatness, or ranking of greats, must include as much information as possible, but the key is how to properly weigh them.

My "player skyscrapers" approach is a very simple visual approach that, I think, combines simplicity and some degree of comprehensiveness, and uses the measurement that the ATP itself uses: points. It gives credit for every title won, and every Slam result of QF or later, yet differentiating the two with darker and lighter colors - and all roughly equivalent to ATP point values (one square is equal to 250 points, or an ATP 250 title; there are one or two "fudges," like I give two blocks for a Slam QF, even though it is 360 points).

Anyhow, we're getting way off track. But I'll reiterate my basic point: you don't subtract a down year or mediocre performance from a player's greatness, it just doesn't add much if anything to it. Take Roger's 2013; by your logic, that should diminish his greatness. I see it otherwise, that it just doesn't add anything. But one thing it does do is add texture and variance, as you can see in the skyscraper. It tells a story.

 

[Carol]

I think people likes to dramatize too much. No one of the best players have played well their first match, let's go to give them a chance waiting for the next results
And about Zverev after to beat today the worst Feli that I've seen honesty I have not any doubt Rafa will kick his a£€

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Fiero, you're judging Rafa's GOAT credentials by how he's playing at 30 years old?

Not just that, but on a single match. All players have off days.

Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever, by some margin. It used to be that, even on his off days, he would invariably find a way to win on clay. He's no longer quite that player, but that's hardly surprising.

That being said, I also don't believe that he can be considered GOAT, at least until he matches Fed's 18 GS titles - and I would be surprised if he did. But he is undoubtedly ONE of the greatest to pay the game, even if his style doesn't particularly appeal to me!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Puppet Master]

I think people likes to dramatize too much. No one of the best players have played well their first match, let's go to give them a chance waiting for the next results
And about Zverev after to beat today the worst Feli that I've seen honesty I have not any doubt Rafa will kick his a£€

People love to dramatize, but Rafa truly played hideous tennis today. And Carol, Novak, Andy and god knows who else can play like handicapped for all I care. Rafa needs to focus on his game only. It was warm and sunny during the whole match and he struggled mightily.
What I noticed is that even the shots that were winners kinda looked like shanks. I don't think Nadal hit one clean winner that flew past Edmund because of the sheer pace.
That is a huuuuge problem. Remember, not so long ago, he was capable of hitting winners past Novak on clay without running him to death. Is it timing, is it confidence, is it the loss in power, I don't know. Half of his shots look like shanks sadly...
I need to watch him against Zverev. Knowing Zverev and his game though, I think he is overmatched here. Djokovic/Thiem match is where we should look.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, we had three upsets of seeded players so far: Tsonga, Grigor and RBA.

So much for Grigor being a tough opponent for Rafa in QF claimed by some folks.

I am actually surprised that RBA lost.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is exactly the philosophy advocated in the article in the OP of the "Most Dominant Player"
thread. I can bump it up for you folks if needed.

Basically, the greatness is defined by how long one was dominant and how dominant one was when he was dominant.

Longevity wouldn't do it for me or Connors would be "THE GOAT!" His old wrinkled arse was fending off kids who weren't born when he was playing in his prime! :nono :angel: :cover

Read it carefully. I am not talking about longevity per se (i.e., not talking about how long the player was playing). I am talking about how long the player remained as a dominant force.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

GS&M, I can basically agree with that - except I think ALL accomplishments should be counted. Hewitt is a good example. He had only two great years, 2001-02, and then was still very good for a few years after, but was pretty much done as a top player by 2006, but he still won a half dozen or so minor tournaments that add a tiny bit to his overall record.

So I think greatness is a combination of peak dominance and career accomplishments/longevity, with an emphasis on the former over the latter. But both matter.

Everything matters when evaluating a player. However, when you are looking for GOAT, I suppose peak dominance plays a greater role than mere career accomplishments. Suppose a player played for
30 years from 15 to 45 and won twenty GS during that period where the twenty were uniformly distributed like say one GS every 1.5 years and the player was never really dominant at any point of time, I would not call them GOAT.

 

[Fiero425]

This is exactly the philosophy advocated in the article in the OP of the "Most Dominant Player"
thread. I can bump it up for you folks if needed.

Basically, the greatness is defined by how long one was dominant and how dominant one was when he was dominant.

Longevity wouldn't do it for me or Connors would be "THE GOAT!" His old wrinkled arse was fending off kids who weren't born when he was playing in his prime! :nono :angel: :cover

Read it carefully. I am not talking about longevity per se (i.e., not talking about how long the player was playing). I am talking about how long the player remained as a dominant force.

It was a joke! Besides, Federer's about to break all records being at the top of his game at such an advanced age! I say he's had a rejuvenation, but it still doesn't take away from how weak this era of players have been! The gutlessness of it all has been detailed in several rants here and elsewhere! :angel: :eyepop :ras:

 

[Front242]

Or maybe he's simply just better ? Ever ponder that instead of calling them all gutless?

 

[Moxie]

Hell I hope Rafa is not going to wear Pink to RG this year,remember the last time he wore Pink....enough said.

For the record, he's wearing purple at the moment. So funny that everyone still feels that the Pink is his kryptonite.

 

[Carol]

I think people likes to dramatize too much. No one of the best players have played well their first match, let's go to give them a chance waiting for the next results
And about Zverev after to beat today the worst Feli that I've seen honesty I have not any doubt Rafa will kick his a£€

People love to dramatize, but Rafa truly played hideous tennis today. And Carol, Novak, Andy and god knows who else can play like handicapped for all I care. Rafa needs to focus on his game only. It was warm and sunny during the whole match and he struggled mightily.
What I noticed is that even the shots that were winners kinda looked like shanks. I don't think Nadal hit one clean winner that flew past Edmund because of the sheer pace.
That is a huuuuge problem. Remember, not so long ago, he was capable of hitting winners past Novak on clay without running him to death. Is it timing, is it confidence, is it the loss in power, I don't know. Half of his shots look like shanks sadly...
I need to watch him against Zverev. Knowing Zverev and his game though, I think he is overmatched here. Djokovic/Thiem match is where we should look.

Watching the replay the first set Rafa has played pretty well but later like he has showed us this year he started to play "like Verdasco" getting some trouble by himself and that's why he lost in the AO, Acapulco, IW and Miami, why? his head and I think it's time to restore it.