RM - tennis question for you...

[tarun262]

I am a huge tennis fan and believe Roger in the GOAT by a mile - I know folks will say Nadal is better because of H2H, etc but that's a different topic. Question is what defines a better player/career:

RF has virtually every record except H2H versus Nadal. He's 5 years older and most of his losses to Nadal came when he was in his late 20s and beyond which in tennis years is ancient. However, he's been a model of health and a Top 3 player for virtually 10+ years now and not looking to slow down either. Like I said, he has all the records, a family, is healthy and seems to really love the game. Furthermore, he has had success on every single type of surface.

Nadal on the other hand - the man is falling apart. When he plays at his best he is unstoppable but incredibly inconsistent. He has made his entire claim to fame from really one Grand Slam and really one surface - French Open and Clay respectively - take that away and he's average at best. He's owned Roger and is relentless. However, the game is a grind for him and he's pretty much been falling apart since he was 25.

Which one would you rather? Personally I say Fed. Clearly if Nadal could have figured out how to stay healthy, he would have shattered every Fed record but at the end of the day being an amazing athlete is not just about potential but consistency, longevity, and the ability to play at a sustained high level as you get surrounded by youth. Incredible to think that at 33 years old RF has made it to the Finals in 8 of his 12 tournaments (66%) and won 3 of them (25%). Came within a few points from winning 3 more as well. This might be his most impressive performance yet.

Also, Novak may end his career as potentially a Top 5 player when all is said and done or better. He's incredibly fit, a health freak and I can see him playing at a high level of tennis for another 3-4 years and potentially win another 6-8 Slams.

This post was edited on 8/19 12:38 AM by tarun262

 

[Reality Man]

My thoughts. I have had this discussion before. For the record...I am a huge Nadal fan and don't believe any of the drug attacks..just envy.

Remember..there have been other tennis players banned for drug use...so its hard not to get caught. 2 guys I know of (Canas & Odesnik) were both caught so if Nadal is doing it..somebody figure out his recipe.


Lets leave off Borg, Djokovic, Sampras, McEnroe, Laver, etc. Lets just discuss Nadal vs. Federer.


Federer is the most complete player of all time IMO. The most beautiful and technically sound player. Just a joy to watch. An artist. Just the fact that he can play at this level after 15 years on the tour speaks volumes. Year in and year out. Didn't he just play his 1000th match on the tour. Wow.

I believe (Nadal fan speaking) that Federer historically is a better player than Nadal. His record on all surfaces speaks to that fact. Just because an opponent has your number and in this case its about matchups...the high forehand to the Fed backhand is usually the difference plus the mental fortitude of Nadal which is in Fed's head.

Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time. I think Nadal's claim to fame is showed the world that maybe Fed isn't the greatest player of all time. Fed was running up most of his grand slams before the arrival of Nadal and Djokovic. Fed fans will tell you about the victory of Sampras at Wimbledon (6-4 in the 5th) but the fact is Fed lost to Henman in the next round. Wasn't like Sampras ever lost at Wimbledon. Got beat the first 3 years he played at Wimbly in the 1st round plus losses against Krajicek. Was going down to Philipousis in the semis one year before he got injured and was almost down to 2 sets to Igor.

So beating Sampras shouldn't be some resume defining moment in a career. I don't think Fed is necessarily the GOAT and I think Nadal and Djokovic have proven that. Fed is about .500 against Djokovic and its hard to make the case that you can be the GOAT if your main rival beat the crap out of you the last 6 years of your career.

Fed...best all around player...Yes. Best all surface player? Doesn't necessarily translate to GOAT. I think that still goes to Laver.


Reality Man


P.S. Could McEnroe stake a claim of GOAT for a short period of time. Beat Borg and Connors and Lendl and then is the GOAT doubles player of all time. Too bad he walked away from the game.

Navratilova is the GOAT on the womens side. Sorry Serena.

 

[Reality Man]

Here is the strongest argument I can make for Federer being

the GOAT.


No other player pushed the level of tennis higher than Fed. He forced the rest of the tour to raise their game.

Another argument. No one has ever dominated the sport over a 3 year period of time. Djokovic had that recent great year along with McEnroe. Fed dominated tennis the same way Tiger dominated golf.

Its true. Don't make me get the numbers from that period. Fed was King Kong during that period.

By the way..it sure looks like Fed is having a better overall career than Tiger which is saying something.



Reality Man

 

[tarun262]

Re: Here is the strongest argument I can make for Federer being

Not sure about the Nadal/drugs thing you were alluding to - he's a classy and clean dude IMHO. He's a great player and I agree the best Clay Court player of all time.

As for your Fed arguements - I tend to disagree with a few things. Every player has had near misses including Sampras but Fed has 9 Wimbledon Finals - 9!!! In an era that is far more competitive. Fed has won .850 of his grass court matches and by March or so next year will have 1000 wins (not matches, wins!). That's longevity. As for his H2H record - don't forget Novak is 6 years younger and in his prime Fed owned Novak. Nadal is 5 years younger and in his prime he did very well against him except on Clay. Murray - same thing, 6 years younger. Fed has owned every other player including all the up-and-comers that are so called the future (look at Raonic). Fed in his prime versus Nadal or Novak in his prime would have been a different story though.

In general it's always hard to compare generations - Sampras was on his way out when Fed came so who knows how they would have matched up? Or Laver, etc. However, in our generation (last 20 years) nobody has even come close to being as good as this guy.

One other thing I disagree with is your analogy of Fed versus Tiger. Tiger is more like Nadal now - remember Nadal was dominant for a 2 year stretch (until Fed reclaimed the #1 ranking). Tiger then battled tons of injuries like Nadal. Fed has been so consistent for a dozen years.

I was super athletic in my 20s and 30s - ran a few marathons, played hoops almost daily, etc but my body just started to fall apart and those things that I loved were not enjoyable anymore at all. My problem was I went hard at everything - ran too hard, played lights out, etc and it took a toll on my back. I envy Fed who is able to take care of his body and really keep enjoying and loving his profession versus Nadal.

I anticipate Nadal will win the next 2 French Opens (nobody is even close to him when he is on unfortunately). I don't think he wins another Slam besides that. I also expect Fed will play and retire right after the Rio Olympics (he will be 35). Honestly, at this rate the dude can play until he's 38 and likely still be a Top 10 player. Fed is like Sampras and Agassi mixed into one in that regard.

The saddest thing though is once Fed is gone and Nadal and Novak are likely gone a year or 2 after, there is not much left in terms of dominant players in tennis unless someone emerges soon (Grigor maybe?).

 

[Reality Man]

Fed compared to Tiger because of his period of dominance..

not style of play.


Let me play the devils advocate on Fed. Fed dominated when the tour wasn't strong...Roddick..Kafelnikov..Moya?...Fernando Gonzales. You get the point.


I am not saying Federer isn't arguably the GOAT but I don't think it is clear cut. You can clearly make a case for Fed as GOAT but not Nadal IMO because of his dominance on one surface and lack of consistency on other surfaces. Beating Fed doesn't guarantee you the GOAT.

Back to your Wimbledon example. Fed was 'this close' to losing to Roddick and yes he made 9 wimbly finals but Nadal has been in 9 FO finals.

I don't necessarily consider longevity as a major factor in the GOAT although there is something to be said for longevity. I look at the entire body of work...achievements on all surfaces and head to head competition against the best of your era.

Fed is a victim somewhat of his early tenure..no Nadal or Djokovic and your argument that Fed was a victim of not being in his prime is a weak point. Fed is winning now and being in your late 20's with experience should be an advantage.

The obstacle for Fed fans to claim GOAT is very simple.

Can you be the GOAT when your head to head is about .500 against Djokovic and your main rival clearly got the best of you. Doesn't mean FED isn't great or isn't the GOAT...it just means its not clear cut. I think Laver takes the prize.

By the way...I think a hot serving Sampras beats everyone. I'll take a great server over a great baseliner on grass and hard courts.




Reality Man


P.S. Good discussion.

 

[tarun262]

Re: Fed compared to Tiger because of his period of dominance..

Hot serving Sampras gets destroyed by someone like Novak who can return the crap out of serves or Murray. I disagree that when Fed played there was no talent (in his prime). Lleyton was there. Roddick was there. Nalbandian was there. Safin was there. Don't forget Roger didn't let either of those guys win anything. I think H2H arguements are overrated - by that token Sampras goes completely out the door. It's all about matchups. Same goes in team sports - some teams just don't match up well against others but it does not take away from what they have accomplished.

I remember watching Roger during his SF streak of 23 of something insane like that and Dicky V. saying it's the most impressive thing he has ever seen - he said it would be equivalent of making to 23 straight Final 4s. What he is has done is mind-boggling. Not sure if you have ever seen him play in person but it's a thing of beauty. I saw them play each other - Nadal just rips the shit out of everything - the dude is super strong, like Tiger. Roger on the other hand does things athletically that I did not think were possible. The best way to watch them play is if you take away the outdoor aspect - Nadal sucks when the roof is covered or it's indoor.

All said and done I expect Roger will end up owning almost all the records there are to be had which is pretty insane to think about. I actually think Novak may lay claim to being better then Nadal when all is said and done as well.

BTW, I know Nadal badly wants Roger's Grand Slam record and I think he can get it. He should think about forgetting about rankings and only play 4-months of the year and only on Clay. I think he would easily win the next 4 French Opens Might not be a bad idea - he would protect his body as well.

Also, not sure if you have seen Dimitrov play - I think that kid will be special.

 

[Reality Man]

Actually you indirectly made the case that Federer was dominant

in his early years by referencing Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. Safin was a player when he was on his game..Hot and cold. Hewitt was a very good player but beating someone once or twice doesn't do it for me like Nadal dominating Fed over a decade.


I would make the claim that Murray was consistently better than any of those above 3 players that are mentioned. Hewitt is the equivalent of Ferrer. Safin is the equivalent of Tsonga and Roddick is the equivalent of Del Potro.


Now to one of the most ridiculous tennis comments I have heard in my lifetime. I respect your opinion but the comment you made about Sampras is really bad. Sampras would get destroyed by Djokovic because Djokovic is a great returner. Is Djokovic significantly better than Agassi as a returner?

Sampras was without a doubt the greatest server of all time because his 2nd serve was lethal. Sampras was among the greatest athletes ever to play the sport of tennis. That running forehand. His backhand was more than fine until he struggled with it late in his career.

You'll appreciate the following as a Fed and tennis fan. What made Sampras so tough to beat was he could hold his serve. Was anyone consistently breaking Sampras during his career? No. What makes you think someone now would break him.

Sampras had his own style. Hold the serve and just try and break once or beat you in the tiebreaker. Lets use a modern day example of someone who is a very poor mans Sampras....wait for it....Isner.

Isner is top 15 in the world and why? Because of his groundstrokes? No. Because of his serve. Look how tough it is to beat a great server and Isner is no Sampras. Sampras would excel in any era. 7 Wimbledon titles just like Fed.

An unlike Fed...he dominated his main rivals. Not saying Fed wasn't a better all around player but a dominant serve and volleyer will more than likely beat a great baseliner.

Question for you. Who are arguably the greatest modern day players?
Answer: Navratilova, Laver, McEnroe.


All lefties but all serve and volleyers.





Reality Man

 

[tarun262]

Re: Actually you indirectly made the case that Federer was dominant

Records speak for themselves. It's like Carr used to say - you should beat the teams you always should. Fed rarely loses (still) to players he should not lose to. Sampras did not have the greatest record against his rivals and in his day there was really only 1 good player (by your analogy) - Agassi, who I think is a Murray maybe.
McEnroe??? Really??? McEnroe??? As the greatest? What about Graf? You seem to have quite the American bias there. Fed would absolutely destroy McEnroe - he was not even the greatest of his own generation. Really dude.
Also, look up service stats across Fed & Sampras - check total number of Aces per match and first serve percentages and services held. BTW, I religiously watched tennis and during the time Sampras played the 2 most lethal serves were Boom Boom Becker and Goran - not Sampras. Check the stats for yourself if you want.

 

[tarun262]

Re: Actually you indirectly made the case that Federer was dominant

http://www.si.com/tennis/beyond-baseline/2013/09/27/pete-sampras-roger-federer-rafael-nadal

I think both Agassi & Sampras really do sum it up best. Fed is dominant and super consistent. Nadal, when healthy is unreal.

I also think you can never really compare players of a different generation. People are bigger, stronger, more athletic now. Just look at how many 6-6 guys are playing tennis and can move - that did not happen before. Had Wilt played basketball today there is no way he would be as dominant as he was...Shaq would have given him a run for his money. I think the best you can do is just judge it based on their body of work and records. If Fed with his ability played 20 years ago, he would be insanely good. Raquets are better and lighter now. People have better workouts, etc. Imagine if Lebron played 40 years ago?

Either way sad that the Big 3 (I don't consider Murray a BIG given his complete lack of consistency) era will likely come to a close in the next 12 months.

 

[Reality Man]

I should have said among the greatest modern players..

you do realize that doubles is part of tennis and that McEnroe was both dominant in singles and doubles. Even Borg retired because Johnny Mac was beating him. I don't think McEnroe is the GOAT but clearly was among the all time greats in tennis.

Was better than Borg, Connors and Lendl. Different era.



Now onto an even funnier comment. Igor and Boris had better serves than Sampras? Are you sure? Maybe Igor on grass or had a bigger/faster 1st serve. There is no American bias on my part..just watched all these guys.

You clearly love Fed..that is great but you dismissing Sampras like he couldn't play against Djokovic. Sampras beat em all...he could play athletically with anyone. Do you realize how fast Sampras was on the court. Ask anyone..Sampras has the greatest all around serve ever. His 2nd serve was phenomenal. Let me see if I can get you something or an opinion on that.

Yes..McEnroe was not the GOAT but for a short period of time..you could make the case he was among the best of the best at his peak...for a short period of time. Wasn't he a set away from winning against Lendl at the French. Wasn't he like 82-3 or something..almost won the grand slam not to mention his doubles prowess.




Reality Man

 

[Reality Man]

Here is the 1st link I googled on regarding serves...

please see down the list for 2nd serves.



Reality Man

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/7790

 

[Reality Man]

McEnroe (Not the GOAT) but one of greats of all time...71 doubles titles...

that is 71. 71 doubles titles. I think he won Wimbledon doubles 5 or 6 times while also competing in sinsles.


McEnroe is known for his shot-making artistry and volleying skills; for his rivalries with Open Era at 96.47% (82/3). In 1981, 1983 and 1984 McEnroe was the ITF World Champion for Men's singles. He was also named as the ATP player of the year in 1981, 1983 and 1984. McEnroe is often rated among the greatest tennis players of all time, especially for his touch on the volley

 

[tarun262]

Re: McEnroe (Not the GOAT) but one of greats of all time...71 doubles titles...

Then we should include the Bryan bothers because they dominate doubles like no other. Different era - I am not sure if you watch or listen to tennis anymore. Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe all say so themselves - the Top 3 in this era would spank them. Different game different surface. Connors still holds the longevity record and IMHO is better then McEnroe just for that reason.

I can find you 10 sites that say otherwise on serving, etc and GOATs...every site is an opinion. I'm a fan of tennis - no one particular player. I think Fed is a classy dude and he has elevated tennis for everyone - he has single handedly upped the level of tennis to a whole new notch. Having said that if it were not for injuries Rafa would be the one we would be talking about. But injuries are part of the game.

BTW, I will agree on this McEnroe had better competition in his prime then Sampras did. Also, it's Goran not Igor When Sampras was at his peak, it was really him and Agassi with a little bit of Courier over there - the glory days for American tennis IMHO. Becker & Edberg were on their way out.

This[/URL] is the best article IMHO for the Top 5, whatever that order may be. I don't think McEnroe belongs in the Top 5 - Top 10 yes. I would say Fed, Nadal, Sampras, Laver & Bjorg are really the best of the bunch. I think the next 5 would be McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Novak (?), Agassi (?)

Personally I think the hardest thing to do in any professional sport is to play at an elite level for a long period of time. I think the 3 best at that are Fed, Connors, & Agassi. Tons of players can have 3-5 great years - remember Penny Hardaway?

Who would be your womens? By your arguement really Serena should be up there after Martina? I would say Top 5 would be Serena, Martina, Steffi, Monica Seles, King (in no particular order)



This post was edited on 8/20 2:54 PM by tarun262

 

[tarun262]

Re: McEnroe (Not the GOAT) but one of greats of all time...71 doubles titles...

Oh let's also then include Mixed Doubles - all the players we are discussing come nowhere near the top. Todd Woodbridge would be the best player of the modern era in that case!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_related_tennis_records

 

[Reality Man]

Yes...lets include doubles along with singles. You keep forgetting

to include singles with doubles. But yes..doubles can and should be part of any discussion on the GOAT. Maybe not a significant part but a great doubles player should be given credit along with his/her singles performance. If a player is a great singles player but the other guy is a great singles player but also a great doubles player..shouldn't that factor in as a tiebreaker in certain situations? I think so...just like the level of competition...from Brad Gilbert (who would take Federer in a head to head matchup now on Grass)


Sampras also faced and beat stiffer competition. Aside from Nadal, Federer didn't have to compete against the likes of Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Jim Courier and Andre Agassi. Rafa is the only multi-Slam winner Federer has beaten in his five victories at the Big W. And he rarely has had to play anyone with any kind of robust resume en route to the final. The draws have lined up quite nicely for him.

 

[tarun262]

Re: Yes...lets include doubles along with singles. You keep forgetting

Read my other post - per your logic, Todd W. is the GOAT then - most Grand Slams in the modern day era because then let's take Mixed Doubles too. Can't pick and chose one to make your case - all or nothing.

 

[Reality Man]

I am not stating the GOAT is based solely on number of grand slam

titles. I only use doubles as a supplemental example that can make someone more impressive...as with Navratilova or McEnroe to supplement their greatness in singles.

So all things being equal on the singles end..the doubles would push a player to be considered 'better' because of doubles?


Yes. Have you changed your opinion on Sampras? He could play with anyone in his prime...including the great Fed.

It is tough to pick the GOAT..it could be Fed or Sampras or Laver on the mens side. Each player has their 'warts'...including Federer who was 'owned' by his main rival. Who also is basically .500 against Djokovic. Doesn't necessarily translate to GOAT. Even Tsonga has gotten the better of Federer recently...who I wouldn't remotely put in the same category as Fed.



Reality Man

 

[tarun262]

Re: I am not stating the GOAT is based solely on number of grand slam

Dude Tsonga got his first win against Fed in 4 tries...what are you talking about? Sampras was in a massive funk for a while against some great players. At the end of the day, Fed keeps making it to Finals - at 33 tell me who else had a more impressive season. 8 Finals in 12 tries...that's insane.

 

[Reality Man]

Recently means like last month...The point is not to judge

a player on some 1 match contest otherwise I could start making the case that both Sampras and Fed lost to 2nd tier players in their career grand slams although these guys were great players in their own right.

Sampras to Safin and Hewitt.
Fed to Del Potro and Tsonga.


I am not debating whether Federer had a longer career. WE are debating who is the GOAT and its subject to biases and different eras. Sampras, Laver, Borg, etc...could all make a case.

Federer has his warts to stake the GOAT claim...#1 being his record against Nadal. 8 finals in 12 tries...that is impressive although Nadal as been missing recently as has Del Potro and Murray coming back to 100% from his back surgery. As long as Nadal is out of action...Federer should do pretty well.



Now to a recent conversation with a guy I had last week. We got done playing and somehow he brought up McEnroe and how much he loved watching him play. He then goes on to talk about Sampras. The only 2 guys he brings up. I ask him how he would think Sampras would do against Fed and he thought Sampras would beat him.

I mentioned it would depend on the surface and how each guy is playing. The point is that not acknowledging the greatness of Sampras and his legitimate claim to GOAT is the equivalent of whitewashing the Nadal dominance over Federer.

I don't know who is the GOAT but Laver and Sampras and others could stake a claim.




Reality Man