Tennis Thread 2014

Count Orduck said:
He won the French Open because an injured Nadal lost in crazy fashion to Robin feckin' Soderling. The stars aligned for Federer that year, otherwise Rafa would have done 10 in a row in Paris by now.



Head-to-head tallies
  • Grand Slam matches: Nadal, 10–1
    • Australian Open: Nadal, 3–0
    • French Open: Nadal, 5–0
    • Wimbledon: Federer, 2–1
    • US Open: Have not met
  • Grand Slam finals: Nadal, 6–2
How many more times does Nadal have to beat Federer to be considered better? I like Federer, I much prefer him to Nadal, but their rivalry is so one-sided it's practically not even a rivalry.
Click to expand...
Nadal is better on direct matches, but on overall I don't think it. FFS, he has only 5 GS that aren't called French Open, compared to Federer's 10 GS that aren't called Wimbledon.

Other stats:
Nadal has 20 finals compared to Fed's 25. He has 23 semi finals compared to Federer's 35. He has 27 quarter finals compared to Federer's 42.

Unless you discount everything expect head to head then Federer was simply the better player.
 
Not sure if you've ever seen Nalbandian play at his best. Not to mention Safin. What exactly sets Murray apart?
 
Sam said:
What do you reckon's happened to Nadal on grass btw? I'm a big Nadal fan, but his record at Wimbledon recently hasn't been good. Just a coincidence? Or is there more to it?
Click to expand...
He doesn't play much warmup tournaments, he comes tired after an extremely tiring claycourt season where he reaches pretty much every final and then he crazy big hitters like Rusol and Kyrgios who just have the matches of their lives. It's bizarre because he'd reached 5 Wimbledon finals in a row before this run!
 
Such a large number of Nadal's slams will be from the one tournament where he's so far beyond anyone. I think being so dominant on that one surface will keep him from ever being recognized as GOAT.
 
wr8_utd said:
He doesn't play much warmup tournaments, he comes tired after an extremely tiring claycourt season where he reaches pretty much every final and then he crazy big hitters like Rusol and Kyrgios who just have the matches of their lives. It's bizarre because he'd reached 5 Wimbledon finals in a row before this run!
Click to expand...

Hopefully the change of schedule next year will help him. Not that I'm bias or anything. Honest. :angel:
 
wr8_utd said:
If they both end up on the same number of Slams, Nadal has every right to be GOAT himself. He has an embarrassingly good record against the current "GOAT" and has beaten Federer at Wimbledon whereas Fed doesn't come close to beating Rafa on the clay. Infact Fed has a losing record vs Nadal even in Hard court Slams. Also Nadal came into an era where Fed was at his peak and then he had to deal with Djoko and Murray as well. Federer had a fairly relaxed few years with Roddick being his chief "rival". So I see no reason why Fed should be GOAT over Nadal if they end up on the same Slams.
Click to expand...

Revan said:
Nadal is better on direct matches, but on overall I don't think it. FFS, he has only 5 GS that aren't called French Open, compared to Federer's 10 GS that aren't called Wimbledon.

Other stats:
Nadal has 20 finals compared to Fed's 25. He has 23 semi finals compared to Federer's 35. He has 27 quarter finals compared to Federer's 42.

Unless you discount everything expect head to head then Federer was simply the better player.
Click to expand...

Add to that Federer's record as leading the list on both general and consecutive list (the second is something that I can't think of ever getting surprassed). Murray doesn't even need to be compared with them, the likes of Roddick, Hewitt and Safin has been as good (if not better) than Murray. Djokovic yes, he has easily been the third best player of this decade.
 
Piratesoup said:
Not sure if you've ever seen Nalbandian play at his best. Not to mention Safin. What exactly sets Murray apart?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't agree about Nalbandian, but Safin and Hewitt were IMO better than Murray.
 
Sam said:
What do you reckon's happened to Nadal on grass btw? I'm a big Nadal fan, but his record at Wimbledon recently hasn't been good. Just a coincidence? Or is there more to it?
Click to expand...

I think his injury problems have plagued him after the long clay court season and even when Nadal was winning wimbledon titles, he was always susceptible to losing to big serve merchants, whereas Federer and Djokovic win more free points on their first serve, Federer particularly. It's just one of those things. grass has never suited Nadal's game. It's a pretty crap surface in honesty, but it's more interesting than hard court and it's very iconic so let it be.
 
Piratesoup said:
Not sure if you've ever seen Nalbandian play at his best. Not to mention Safin. What exactly sets Murray apart?
Click to expand...

Safin was great on hard courts but what did he ever do on clay or grass? His ability should have warranted more than 2 slams, but it was always mental with him. Nalbandian is one of the best players never to win a slam. More my point was the fact you include Ferrer, Hewitt and Roddick, but not a chance any of them are in Murray's league in terms of pure tennis ability.
 
You could just as well turn the "weak era" argument around: How many slams would Djokovic and Murray have if they had to play against a Federer their own age? How come Berdych never made it into the top rankings when the weak Federer era was still playing? Etc. etc.
 
Piratesoup said:
You could just as well turn the "weak era" argument around: How many slams would Djokovic and Murray have if they had to play against a Federer their own age? How come Berdych never made it into the top rankings when the weak Federer era was still playing? Etc. etc.
Click to expand...

It's without doubt true that the current crop is stronger at the very top of the game than it was in Federer's very dominant patch.
 
John Mcenroe who for me is the best tennis pundit out there has said last year that Nadal (before his second US Open) should be in the conversation for being the GOAT.

Ridiculous number of slams + Olympics + Davis Cups + favorable H2Hs against the best players of his era + competitive on all surfaces + absolute domination on clay for 10 years.

Not sure how anyone can argue otherwise.
 
Sixpence said:
Safin was great on hard courts but what did he ever do on clay or grass? His ability should have warranted more than 2 slams, but it was always mental with him. Nalbandian is one of the best players never to win a slam. More my point was the fact you include Ferrer, Hewitt and Roddick, but not a chance any of them are in Murray's league in terms of pure tennis ability.
Click to expand...

Roddick still is underrated and until the end frequently troubled the high rankers of today. Ferrero the same. I didn't include Ferrer, because while those guys were playing he never had the impact he has today (or had until 1 or 2 years ago). Hewitt was an incredible player before injuries struck him. I'd take him in his prime over Murray in his prime any day.
 
Not saying that today's era is weaker. I just don't like these "generation comparisons" in general. Just saying that nobody knows how things would have developed were it not for Federer. A lot of people might have called it the greatest generation because so many players of similarly high quality were competing. The very top is probably stronger today, but overall the quality is not as high in my opinion, i.e. top 10-25. It's all water under the bridge anyway, no point in arguing any further.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
John Mcenroe who for me is the best tennis pundit out there has said last year that Nadal (before his second US Open) should be in the conversation for being the GOAT.

Ridiculous number of slams + Olympics + Davis Cups + favorable H2Hs against the best players of his era + competitive on all surfaces + absolute domination on clay for 10 years.

Not sure how anyone can argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

McEnroe has a big hard on for Nadal though, he called him the greatest volleyer of all time a few weeks back, which is absolute nonsense. Agassi also thinks Nadal is the best ever though, as do Djokovic and Murray.
 
It would be interesting to see but the number of GS isn't the only thing that will determine who will be regarded as the GOAT. Margaret Court has 2 GS more than Steffi Graff but Graff is regarded the GOAT because she was good at all surfaces while Court was a court specialist (as Navratilova was a grass specialist). I think that if Nadal surprasses the number of GS that Fed won (something like 18 in general but 11-12 on clay) then that can be hold against him.
 
Piratesoup said:
Roddick still is underrated and until the end frequently troubled the high rankers of today. Ferrero the same. I didn't include Ferrer, because while those guys were playing he never had the impact he has today (or had until 1 or 2 years ago). Hewitt was an incredible player before injuries struck him. I'd take him in his prime over Murray in his prime any day.
Click to expand...

Roddick isn't underrated. Roddick's biggest weapon by far was his serve and Federer used to have a read on it. Roddick never had a plan b so lost to Federer every time. You can't point to a player whose major weapon is/was his serve and compare them with guys like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and yes, even Murray.
 
There are so many ways you can turn this argument though, for example, if not for Nadal being around, Federer would have 5 or 6 French Open titles to add to all his others.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
Roddick isn't underrated. Roddick's biggest weapon by far was his serve and Federer used to have a read on it. Roddick never had a plan b so lost to Federer every time. You can't point to a player whose major weapon is/was his serve and compare them with guys like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and yes, even Murray.
Click to expand...

I basically agree but Roddick thoroughly deserved to beat Federer in 2009, he lost his serve once in 5 sets and lost the match. Roddick was amazing in 2009 under the guidance of Stefanki.
 
Sixpence said:
There are so many ways you can turn this argument though, for example, if not for Nadal being around, Federer would have 5 or 6 French Open titles to add to all his others.
Click to expand...

Hence my point: No matter the slam titles, the way Federer played sets him apart for me. Even if he had lost a leg after his 8th slam or so, I'd still consider him the greatest player of all time. Don't hate on me now, guys, it's just my opinion.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
Roddick isn't underrated. Roddick's biggest weapon by far was his serve and Federer used to have a read on it. Roddick never had a plan b so lost to Federer every time. You can't point to a player whose major weapon is/was his serve and compare them with guys like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and yes, even Murray.
Click to expand...
Still losing against Federer's on his prime (especially on Wimbledon and that on three finals) aren't a shame. The 2009 final is still one of the best tennis matches I have ever seen and he gave a real match to Fed on Wimbledon, something that was very hard to get achieved back then.
 
Sixpence said:
McEnroe has a big hard on for Nadal though, he called him the greatest volleyer of all time a few weeks back, which is absolute nonsense. Agassi also thinks Nadal is the best ever though, as do Djokovic and Murray.
Click to expand...

yeah, Mcenroe's opinion on Nadal is about as valid as Andrew Castles. Castle regularly sounds like he's in tears when Nadal gets beaten.
 
Revan said:
Fed has won French Open. Also, if I am not mistaken Federer has a much better record on reaching semis than Nadal.

I really think that even Nadal gets 18, still Federer wil be regarded as the best ever. On other things (like leading on ATP, both on general and consecutively) or reaching semis, quarters etc, Federer is better than everyone else. And finally, he has a much better distribution than Nadal. Nadal will go down as the best clay court tennis player but Fed will go down as the overall greatest. He's like an upgrade of Samprass.
Click to expand...

I know he has won it once. You said that the reason he hasnt win is because he is against the best ever on clay, nadal. My point was that he hadnt won any even before nadal or against a 17/18 year old nadal at his peak. He is obviously not that good on clay.

How can you be the best ever, if there is another player in your own era who is better than you?
 
Revan said:
Still losing against Federer's on his prime (especially on Wimbledon and that on three finals) aren't a shame. The 2009 final is still one of the best tennis matches I have ever seen and he gave a real match to Fed on Wimbledon, something that was very hard to get achieved back then.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was awful. Probably the worst 5 setter I've ever watched.
 
MJJ said:
I know he has won it once. You said that the reason he hasnt win is because he is against the best ever on clay, nadal. My point was that he hadnt won any even before nadal or against a 17/18 year old nadal at his peak. He is obviously not that good on clay.

How can you be the best ever, if there is another player in your own era who is better than you?
Click to expand...
I think that is possible. United was the best team in England in 2008-2009 despite that Liverpool wiped the floor with us.

Also, Nadal's game is extremely suited to Federer's game and it also helps that most of the matches have been on clay.
 
Nadal leads Federer on clay and hard courts both. He leads him in Slam finals. He leads him at RG, at the Aussie Open and is just 1-2 down at Wimbledon where Federer is far far far superior to Nadal. Nadal has beaten Federer just far too many times to not be in consideration for GOAT. Infact Rafa has a winning record against everyone in entire mens draw! (except maybe Kyrgios now)
 
Revan said:
It was like playing two robots who weren't ever making mistakes (from what I remember).
Click to expand...

It was more like 2 people just serving really really well. That's why I don't much love matches on grasscourts. Dominated by aces and extremely short points. Isner Mahut was never ending but it was absolutely rubbish in terms of quality.
 
Sixpence said:
There are so many ways you can turn this argument though, for example, if not for Nadal being around, Federer would have 5 or 6 French Open titles to add to all his others.
Click to expand...

Federer didnt win a lot of french open before nadal though or even against a baby nadal.

Revan said:
I think that is possible. United was the best team in England in 2008-2009 despite that Liverpool wiped the floor with us.

Also, Nadal's game is extremely suited to Federer's game and it also helps that most of the matches have been on clay.
Click to expand...

In a one-off match, yes. No one has a better head to head record against nadal provided he has played against them a few matches. Thats where your example falls off.

Nadal has beaten him on grass and hard courts as well. As someone posted earlier, for all of their career nadal has dominated federer.
 
Revan said:
Still losing against Federer's on his prime (especially on Wimbledon and that on three finals) aren't a shame. The 2009 final is still one of the best tennis matches I have ever seen and he gave a real match to Fed on Wimbledon, something that was very hard to get achieved back then.
Click to expand...

"He could have gotten that title. That's what I said about him in 2009. He deserves this title as well. In my mind, he IS a Wimbledon champion."

- Roger Federer

just beautiful :drool:
 
I am so, so pleased Federer lost that one. Djokovic deserved that.
 
Speaking just about slams - the reason Nadal will not likely get the same respect as Federer in terms of all time slams, is because Clay, despite being central to Tennis - has long been looked down upon. It has to do with negative perceptions of how primarily European players in the 80, 90s, and 2000, could "hide away" from the main ATP tour events by playing just Euro clay events, but still accrue massive amounts of tour points to show up in the top 10, despite spending considerable time ducking the more prominent events. In fact, the likes of Carlos Moya, Gustavo Kuerten, Juan Carlos Ferrera, Thomas Muster, and the indefatigable Marcelo Rios all made it to number one between the mid 90s and early 2000s, just by racking up massive points on clay. Rafa is really one of the first Spanish players to break out of that mold and win slams on other surfaces, but still has to deal with the residual stigma of being the latest Spanish clay court specialist who despite winning slams on other surfaces, buttered his bread primarily at the French Open.
 
If Nadal wins the Aus open again he has the strongest claim to be best of all time regardless of how many slams Federer has.
 
akash02 said:
If Nadal wins the Aus open again he has the strongest claim to be best of all time regardless of how many slams Federer has.
Click to expand...

Why would it matter. He's already won it and even if he won it again, would still be two behind Federer.
 
Well played djokovic. Once he went 2 sets to 1 up, he was always going to have the edge and federer was just hanging in and grinding games out. Federer did great to take it to 5. He needed that 3rd set to win the match.

Also, I don't know why so many here think nadal will find it so hard to overtake federers gs record. I think he'll end up with 18 at least.
 
Raoul said:
Why would it matter. He's already won it and even if he won it again, would still be two behind Federer.
Click to expand...

Winning every grandslam at least twice is a bit special no? Nobody else has done it apart from Laver in the Open era.
 
Skills said:
Winning every grandslam at least twice is a bit special no? Nobody else has done it apart from Laver in the Open era.
Click to expand...

It would be nice, but its not really a discussed metric among most people who evaluate GOAT candidates. The total amount of slams is usually the gold standard here. Plus the Aussie is a distant last in terms of perceived luster.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Djokovic beats Federer.

And obviously the topic of conversation is Nadal. :lol:
Click to expand...
Came into this thread to read the reactions during and after the final and could not help but laugh.

Roger is probably the GOAT but his fans have a massive chip on their shoulder when it comes to Nadal. NQAT.

Nadal unquestionably belongs in GOAT discussion even if he comes after Federer. I have also been hearing for about 4 years now that his body won't hold up and he will fall away any time.

Anyway, I am glad Djoko won. Lost too many finals recently and had a feeling he would not recover after another GS loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.