Who is the best COMPETITOR in mens tennis [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who is the best COMPETITOR in mens tennis

zcess81
10-22-2007, 11:28 AM
Well, what do you all think?

BlueSwan
10-22-2007, 11:29 AM
Marcelo Rios

scarecrows
10-22-2007, 11:31 AM
Puerta

zcess81
10-22-2007, 11:34 AM
Marcelo Rios

I meant in today's mens game.

madmanfool
10-22-2007, 11:34 AM
Gaudio

CmonAussie
10-22-2007, 11:39 AM
**
Ferrer
Nadal
Hewitt
...
in that order.

garad
10-22-2007, 11:42 AM
The answer is easy: the one who's the most succesful player.
Unless you offer me your definition of 'competitor'

player2k0
10-22-2007, 11:46 AM
definitely Federer

bokehlicious
10-22-2007, 11:47 AM
Safin

zcess81
10-22-2007, 11:50 AM
The answer is easy: the one who's the most succesful player.
Unless you offer me your definition of 'competitor'

To me the BEST COMPETITOR is the one who NEVER GIVES UP, even when he's down 2-0 sets down, and finds a way to win when things get tough (i.e when their natural talent is not there on the day and they are forced to compete).

In other words, the best competitor is NOT THE ONE THAT PLAYS MAGNIFICENT GAME AND BEATS EVERY OPPONENT EASILY. That just means that he's much better tennis player than the opponent. But when someone is having a bad day, is down, BUT STILL finds a way to win, now that's a good competitor.

bokehlicious
10-22-2007, 11:58 AM
To me the BEST COMPETITOR is the one who NEVER GIVES UP, even when he's down 2-0 sets down, and finds a way to win when things get tough (i.e when their natural talent is not there on the day and they are forced to compete).

In other words, the best competitor is NOT THE ONE THAT PLAYS MAGNIFICENT GAME AND BEATS EVERY OPPONENT EASILY. That just means that he's much better tennis player than the opponent. But when someone is having a bad day, is down, BUT STILL finds a way to win, now that's a good competitor.

Why include Federer in the poll then? :confused: he wins 99% of his matches because his opponents bend over him instead of fighting :shrug:

zcess81
10-22-2007, 12:01 PM
Personally I voted for Nadal. Federer is no doubt the better player, but when he's down he tightens up, starts producing a lot UE, and often loses very tight matches. Now I know he won 12 slams, but in all slams I think he was forced to play only 2 tight 5 set matches (and he lost on and won one). Up until now in slams Federer was just SO MUCH better than the opposition...he rarely had to truly compete.

Consider the following scenarios:

a.) It's Wimbledon final, Federer is 2-0 sets down.

b.) It's French Open final and Nadal is 2-0 sets down.

Which of the two is more likely to have a comeback??

zcess81
10-22-2007, 12:03 PM
Why include Federer in the poll then? :confused: he wins 99% of his matches because his opponents bend over him instead of fighting :shrug:

I agree with you. I don't think he's the best competitor. 99% of the time like you said his opponents bend over and he easily wins. BUT 1% of the time when opponents give him REAL test he tightens up and quite often loses the match. I just wanted to know what everyone else thinks.

Xristos
10-22-2007, 12:06 PM
Volandri.

bokehlicious
10-22-2007, 12:09 PM
Up until now in slams Federer was just SO MUCH better than the opposition...he rarely had to truly compete.


:rolleyes: you cannot be serious... How can someone dominate an international sport the way Fed does without truly competing? :confused:

If he wasn't a true competitor he would still be a slamless wasted talent with temper issues...

Bobby
10-22-2007, 12:10 PM
I think Wimbledon 07 final pretty much proved that Federer is a great competitor. I think it's nearly impossible to name the best competitor. It could be Nadal, it could be Capdeville or it could be some guy playing challengers whom most of us have never heard of. The best competitor could be someone ranked 677 who is not that talented but delivers when he has a chance.

zcess81
10-22-2007, 12:16 PM
:rolleyes: you cannot be serious... How can someone dominate an international sport the way Fed does without truly competing? :confused:

If he wasn't a true competitor he would still be a slamless wasted talent with temper issues...

By truly competing I mean he almost never had to fight back and win WHEN THE OPPONENT WAS DOMINATING THE MATCH. Of course Federer competes, he does it all the time. He saves game points, set points...HE DOES NOT LET YOU GET AHEAD OF HIM. That's cempeting too...DEFINITELY. More often than not he controls the match. 99% of the time he is just superior to everyone else. But look at what happents when someone gives him true resistance...lost to canas twice, lost to djokovic, lost to nadal quite a few times, lost to nalbandian quite a few times. And every time someone GETS AHEAD OF HIM he starts producing UE and loses the match. I wonder if federer would be federer is there was more than 1 player (Nadal) who can consistently give him run for the money.

bokehlicious
10-22-2007, 12:24 PM
By truly competing I mean he never had to fight back and win WHEN THE OPPONENT WAS DOMINATING THE MATCH. Of course Federer competes, he does it all the time. He saves game points, set points...HE DOES NOT LET YOU GET AHEAD OF HIM. That's cempeting too...DEFINITELY. More often than not he controls the match. 99% of the time he is just superior to everyone else. But look at what happents when someone gives him true resistance...lost to canas twice, lost to djokovic, lost to nadal quite a few times, lost to nalbandian quite a few times. And every times someone GETS AHEAD OF HIM he starts producing UE and loses the match. I wonder if federer would be federer is there was more than 1 player (Nadal) who can consistently give him run for the money.

:rolleyes:

How about Nadal on clay? How many times did the field give him a run for his money since 2005?

zcess81
10-22-2007, 12:33 PM
:rolleyes:

How about Nadal on clay? How many times did the field give him a run for his money since 2005?

That's my point exactly. Clay is his best surface so he almost NEVER has to play 5 set matches. But look how well he COMPETES at WIMBLEDON, which is not his favorite surface. He knows it's not his best surface...he was 2-0 against Youzhny and Soderling...and he found a way to win. He never gives up no matter what surface he's playing. Now many would say clay is not federer's best surface, which it is not, but you have to remember that federer IS EXCELLENT clay court player, and if not for nadal he would be dominating clay court season too.

Nadal is not the best on grass (even without federer), but he finds a way to win and never gives up. That's why he was in the finals 2 years running. And in the final he gave federer run for the money even though federer is THE BEST PLAYER ON GRASS.

bossboss
10-22-2007, 12:35 PM
this came be easily directed to who came back from 0-2 in Grand slams 5 setters ..or who is got the best 5 setters record .
never quit attitude , or Never say die. I rate Hewitt high in th ranks 2-3 years ago . Nowadays can't name one from the top of my head

zcess81
10-22-2007, 12:41 PM
this came be easily directed to who came back from 0-2 in Grand slams 5 setters ..or who is got the best 5 setters record .
never quit attitude , or Never say die. I rate Hewitt high in th ranks 2-3 years ago . Nowadays can't name one from the top of my head

I agree with that. The best competitor isn't necessarily the best player on tour. Hewitt is definitely one of THE BEST COMPETITORS OUT THERE (for me it's between him and nadal).

bokehlicious
10-22-2007, 12:50 PM
That's my point exactly. Clay is his best surface so he almost NEVER has to play 5 set matches. But look how well he COMPETES at WIMBLEDON, which is not his favorite surface. He knows it's not his best surface...he was 2-0 against Youzhny and Soderling...and he found a way to win. He never gives up no matter what surface he's playing. Now many would say clay is not federer's best surface, which it is not, but you have to remember that federer IS EXCELLENT clay court player, and if not for nadal he would be dominating clay court season too.

Nadal is not the best on grass (even without federer), but he finds a way to win and never gives up. That's why he was in the finals 2 years running. And in the final he gave federer run for the money even though federer is THE BEST PLAYER ON GRASS.

These days Wimbledon grass plays almost as slow as clay courts so Nadal is definitely one of the best there... How many times did he come back on fast hardcourts while being outplayed? If he was the true competitor you describe he would be able to pull off huge comebacks there too, instead of that he comes up with injury excuses most of the time...

zcess81
10-22-2007, 12:58 PM
These days Wimbledon grass plays almost as slow as clay courts so Nadal is definitely one of the best there... How many times did he come back on fast hardcourts while being outplayed? If he was the true competitor you describe he would be able to pull off huge comebacks there too, instead of that he comes up with injury excuses most of the time...

It is true, he did not have much success on hard courts in grand slams. He did however beat federer on fast courts on several occasions and really pushed him in Miami some time ago (5 set match). While he may not be THE BEST COMPETITOR in some people's eyes, I would definitely put him above federer. Just my opinion.

lazyman
10-22-2007, 12:58 PM
That's my point exactly. Clay is his best surface so he almost NEVER has to play 5 set matches. But look how well he COMPETES at WIMBLEDON, which is not his favorite surface. He knows it's not his best surface...he was 2-0 against Youzhny and Soderling...and he found a way to win. He never gives up no matter what surface he's playing. Now many would say clay is not federer's best surface, which it is not, but you have to remember that federer IS EXCELLENT clay court player, and if not for nadal he would be dominating clay court season too.

Nadal is not the best on grass (even without federer), but he finds a way to win and never gives up. That's why he was in the finals 2 years running. And in the final he gave federer run for the money even though federer is THE BEST PLAYER ON GRASS.

doesnt competitor mean who plays the best. not who can try the hardest. u should of asked who the best fighter or battler is.

jasmin
10-22-2007, 01:26 PM
yeah Federer was tight at the wimby and us open and he still won. What a competitor.

garad
10-22-2007, 01:38 PM
By truly competing I mean he almost never had to fight back and win WHEN THE OPPONENT WAS DOMINATING THE MATCH. Of course Federer competes, he does it all the time. He saves game points, set points...HE DOES NOT LET YOU GET AHEAD OF HIM. That's cempeting too...DEFINITELY. More often than not he controls the match. 99% of the time he is just superior to everyone else. But look at what happents when someone gives him true resistance...lost to canas twice, lost to djokovic, lost to nadal quite a few times, lost to nalbandian quite a few times. And every time someone GETS AHEAD OF HIM he starts producing UE and loses the match. I wonder if federer would be federer is there was more than 1 player (Nadal) who can consistently give him run for the money.

The think is that many players have resisted him in the last four years but he still won those matches. The problem with yours and similar theories is that to truly resist Federer, you have to beat him. This is delusional.

On the other hand, not every time he is superiour to his opponent he wins, see second Canas match in spring or Nadal in Rome 2006.

RagingLamb
10-22-2007, 02:32 PM
Nadal

theDreamer
10-22-2007, 03:27 PM
By truly competing I mean he almost never had to fight back and win WHEN THE OPPONENT WAS DOMINATING THE MATCH. Of course Federer competes, he does it all the time. He saves game points, set points...HE DOES NOT LET YOU GET AHEAD OF HIM. That's cempeting too...DEFINITELY. More often than not he controls the match. 99% of the time he is just superior to everyone else. But look at what happents when someone gives him true resistance...lost to canas twice, lost to djokovic, lost to nadal quite a few times, lost to nalbandian quite a few times. And every time someone GETS AHEAD OF HIM he starts producing UE and loses the match. I wonder if federer would be federer is there was more than 1 player (Nadal) who can consistently give him run for the money.

This is rubbish. You mentioned pretty much most of the people he's lost to in the last few years.
Seems like you'll only agree that he's in contention as the best competitor if he didn't lose these
(relatively few) matches i.e. if he'd won ALL his matches!
What did he do at wimbledon, if not compete (and beating your supposed tip to be the best competitor in 5 sets). At hamburg, he could easily have lost that match in straight sets if he hadn't held a crucial game at the beginning of the 2nd.
And if he wasn't such a great competitor, why have most of his greatest loses always gone the full number of sets - surely he would have lost a few more of his matches in straights?

World Beater
10-22-2007, 04:51 PM
nadal is a great competitor at RG. And this year he put up a nice fight at wimbledon.

but he's been a mental midget at the other slams.

Federer is a competitor everywhere. His game is nowhere near as good or as solid as nadal on clay, but he still makes a match of it.

nadal plays great defense and tries hard, yells vamos and suddenly he's the best competitor. There is always a bias towards players who scream and play excellent defense. Somehow they are better competitors than those that are quiet but play excellent offense.

ReturnWinner
10-22-2007, 04:54 PM
nadal is a great competitor at RG. And this year he put up a nice fight at wimbledon.

but he's been a mental midget at the other slams.

Federer is a competitor everywhere. His game is nowhere near as good or as solid as nadal on clay, but he still makes a match of it.

nadal plays great defense and tries hard, yells vamos and suddenly he's the best competitor. There is always a bias towards players who scream and play excellent defense. Somehow they are better competitors than those that are quiet but play excellent offense.

that is true, many think players kinda like Nadal or Hewitt are the best competitors /mental strenght players by their kind of game and antics but Federer for example is as strong as those guys

Caio_Brasil
10-22-2007, 04:58 PM
Monaco

Mechlan
10-22-2007, 05:01 PM
By truly competing I mean he almost never had to fight back and win WHEN THE OPPONENT WAS DOMINATING THE MATCH. Of course Federer competes, he does it all the time. He saves game points, set points...HE DOES NOT LET YOU GET AHEAD OF HIM. That's cempeting too...DEFINITELY. More often than not he controls the match. 99% of the time he is just superior to everyone else. But look at what happents when someone gives him true resistance...lost to canas twice, lost to djokovic, lost to nadal quite a few times, lost to nalbandian quite a few times. And every time someone GETS AHEAD OF HIM he starts producing UE and loses the match. I wonder if federer would be federer is there was more than 1 player (Nadal) who can consistently give him run for the money.

Nadal is a very strong competitor, maybe the best, but you don't give Federer nearly enough credit. The statement "every time someone GETS AHEAD OF HIM he starts producing UE and loses the match" is a joke. He was down a break in the final set against Djokovic in Montreal and fought back, down a break against Safin in AO final set and fought back, down 2 breaks against Nalbandian in TMC final set and fought back, and though he lost those matches, he fought like hell before going down. And these are just the well-known matches he lost, there are lots of occasions he's come back and won close matches which are summarily dismissed as "just another Federer win". Federer is not inhuman. He is beatable and the days he is beatable he is most likely not playing his best tennis for whatever reason. That coupled with a very good opponent STILL makes it a very tough proposition for anyone to beat him. Now you combine all that with the fact that yes, he does choke matches (everyone does) and that yes, surface does play a role, because it's much easier to have the belief and fight on your favorite surface as opposed to your worst, and it becomes a very very difficult question answering who is actually the best competitor out there..

theDreamer
10-22-2007, 05:51 PM
nadal is a great competitor at RG. And this year he put up a nice fight at wimbledon.

but he's been a mental midget at the other slams.

Federer is a competitor everywhere. His game is nowhere near as good or as solid as nadal on clay, but he still makes a match of it.

nadal plays great defense and tries hard, yells vamos and suddenly he's the best competitor. There is always a bias towards players who scream and play excellent defense. Somehow they are better competitors than those that are quiet but play excellent offense.

You know, that's exactly what I was thinking - Isn't it funny how the best "competitors"
are the defensive players?

madmanfool
10-22-2007, 05:52 PM
Monaco

Did you see his match against Gonzalez in Madrid?..it might change your mind

enqvistfan
10-22-2007, 06:55 PM
In this list, I'd pick up Nadal, but González is a real competitor and a great fighter, he gives 100 % on the court.

MatchFederer
10-22-2007, 08:24 PM
The winner here is Nadal overall, followed by Djokovic overall. However, in the GS events, Federer is either no.1 or 2 with Nadal.

leng jai
10-22-2007, 09:46 PM
Murray is clearly not one of them...

Allure
10-22-2007, 09:51 PM
Richard Gasquet and Marat Safin of course. ;)

l_mac
10-22-2007, 09:56 PM
Federer, because he wins the most.

Sjengster
10-22-2007, 10:34 PM
This thread reminds me of that argument earlier in the year following Canas' straight-set loss to Davydenko at RG; a poster said that he couldn't possibly be construed as having real mental toughness when he never changed his defensive game and it cost him. There then followed a debate about whether someone like Canas or someone like Sampras was mentally stronger, the former because he had to win matches by hustling and scrambling without any huge weapons, the latter because he took risks on big points e.g. going for second serve aces. There are convincing points on both sides, it simply depends upon your prejudices.

People have said for a long time how mentality affects game, but the reverse is equally true - someone's style of play has a direct bearing on their mental attitude, you only have to look at a player like Blake to see that, or conversely a player like Ferrer. I don't think Federer has the best type of game for always managing to make incredible comebacks, for fighting back from impossible situations, as he's not and never will be the consistent, error-free baseliner like Ferrer or Davydenko. You have to put him in the top three competitors at least in the game today, though, it stands to reason that by winning so many matches over the last four years he's also had to win so many close matches, more than a lot of players ranked below him.

Sjengster
10-22-2007, 10:39 PM
The "everyone bends over for him" theory regarding Federer's matches often fails to hold up to close scrutiny, moreover. Wawrinka suggested in an interview that many players often played above their normal level when facing him, trying that little bit harder, and while he is hardly an unbiased source there is evidence to back him up. Look at Ginepri, his match last week against Federer in Madrid must have been the best tennis he's played in months. There's a huge target on Federer's back every time he walks out on court over the course of a year, and yes, you sometimes get matches like that 1 and 1 cakewalk against Fognini in Montreal this year but they're still the exception rather than the rule.

Alonsofz
10-22-2007, 11:17 PM
Roddick

AnitaOlea
10-22-2007, 11:30 PM
Massu, I know he has lost a lot but he never gives up, I think that's why his matches are soo long... He might not be an spectacular player as nadal or federer but he's a great competitor..

TMJordan
10-23-2007, 03:03 AM
It's gotta be Davydenko.

World Beater
10-23-2007, 05:12 AM
There is also a difference between being a great competitor and being "clutch".

Lendl was a tremendous competitor but he wasn't known for producing his best when it counted.

Federer to me is a fantastic competitor. It has required players at the top of their games to take him down, and he almost never goes down in straight sets. Its always a fight regardless of how federer is playing. The exceptions being volandri and canas this the past few years.

freeandlonely
10-23-2007, 08:09 AM
Federer, Nadal