Whats worse, Fed never winning RG, or Rafa never winning US open? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Whats worse, Fed never winning RG, or Rafa never winning US open?

2003
05-23-2009, 10:07 AM
If both Federer and Nadal end their careers having never won the fourth slam, a lot of people will say for example Fed can't be the GOAT if he doesn't win F/O for example, or Rafa can't be the GOAT without a US open title.

Is it less important for Rafa as he already holds a hardcourt slam and has won a slam on every surface (clay, HC, Grass)?

Or is it just as bad as Fed not winning RG, as he never won in America and could obviously never perform at the end of the season which is a major problem, and never holds a GS on a true fast hardcourt (like AO used to be)? Plexicushion is only medium speed.

Also if Rafa never wins US open I doubt he will make 3 finals so some could say Fed was closer to winning F/O. What I mean is if Rafa makes more than 3 finals of US open hes too clincial not to win it, so I think Rafa only misses out on US open if he never makes the final.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Rafa, Federer, and Sampras all end up with 14 slams each, and none of them winning all 4 slams. How do you decide the GOAT?

Nathaliia
05-23-2009, 10:08 AM
Wouldn't it be interesting if Rafa, Federer, and Sampras all end up with 14 slams each, and none of them winning all 4 slams. How do you decide the GOAT?
paper stone scissors

Julio
05-23-2009, 10:09 AM
Federer is for me the only one who can be THE goat if he wins Roland Garros.

habibko
05-23-2009, 10:16 AM
Federer doesn't have to win RG to be the GOAT, breaking Sampras's 14 GS record would be enough really.

modern tennis
05-23-2009, 10:34 AM
federer is a poor man's sampras. their slam records are pretty similar. i think nadal will win atleast 3 us opens before he is out, he has just too much determintion to deny him. i think nadal can win 3 of each slam atleast. aussie open surface suits him, obviously the french, and 2 more wimbledons and he has a good chance of beating the slam record.

Bilbo
05-23-2009, 10:38 AM
seems like some people still haven't realized that nadal will win more Grand Slam at the end of his career including the career slam than federer.

l_mac
05-23-2009, 10:43 AM
If both Federer and Nadal end their careers having never won the fourth slam, a lot of people will say for example Fed can't be the GOAT if he doesn't win F/O for example, or Rafa can't be the GOAT without a US open title.

Is it less important for Rafa as he already holds a hardcourt slam and has won a slam on every surface (clay, HC, Grass)?

Or is it just as bad as Fed not winning RG, as he never won in America and could obviously never perform at the end of the season which is a major problem, and never holds a GS on a true fast hardcourt (like AO used to be)? Plexicushion is only medium speed.


You think that Rebound Ace was faster than the plexicushion?

Goldenoldie
05-23-2009, 10:43 AM
Federer's best years are behind him. He could certainly win 1 or 2 more slams, but I think French is beyond him.

Nadal's best years are still to come, and with selective rescheduling he could certainly win one or more US Opens.

Therefore the question is academic, because Nadal most probably WILL win all 4 slams. If he doesn't, then I think it will be probably be regarded as a worse "failure"

GlennMirnyi
05-23-2009, 10:50 AM
Nadull can't be the GOAT, period. Are you dumb?

Matt01
05-23-2009, 11:10 AM
Nadull can't be the GOAT, period.


Why not? Because you find him dull? :rolleyes:

tennisvideos
05-23-2009, 11:16 AM
Wouldn't it be interesting if Rafa, Federer, and Sampras all end up with 14 slams each, and none of them winning all 4 slams. How do you decide the GOAT?

Thats easy ... you stick with Rod Laver. 2 x Calendar Grand Slams - 11 Amatuer GS Singles titles plus 10 Pro GS titles making a total of 21.

Pancho Gonzales had a total of 21 Pro GS titles.

Although IMHO perhaps the GOAT should really be Ken Rosewall. 8 GS Singles titles plus 4 Wimbledon finals and he missed out on playing the Slams for 11 of his peak years!

Won Australian Open 1953 & 1955 (unable to play 1957-1968) won again 1971 & 1972 as 38yo!
French Open Won 1953 (unable to play 1957-1967) then won again 1968
Wimbledon Final 1954, 1956 (unable to play 1957-1667) then final again 1970 & 1974 (finalist at 40yo)!!!!
US Open Won 1956 (unable to play 1957-1967) then won again in 1970 as 36yo!

What could he have achieved in those 11 years? We do know he won the equivilent of 15 Pro Grand Slam singles titles during those 11 years - making a total of what would be 24 equivilent Grand Slam titles. Also, despite not all records being known, he also won at least 132 documented singles titles! :eek: :worship:

tennisvideos
05-23-2009, 11:26 AM
Out of Federer, Sampras and Nadal I rate Federer the greatest (at this stage). The fact he has made 3 successive French finals elevates him IMO beyond Sampras who wasn't able to make a French Final. And it keeps him clear of Nadal for the moment, although Nadal has the potential to surpass his record if he does win USO and wins some more slams.

Vida
05-23-2009, 11:33 AM
FO is more special especially in relation to Wimby, so it is worse not having.

scarecrows
05-23-2009, 11:39 AM
seems like some people still haven't realized that nadal will win more Grand Slam at the end of his career including the career slam than federer.

seems like some people still haven't realized that Nostradamus is reincarnated

Sunset of Age
05-23-2009, 11:43 AM
seems like some people still haven't realized that nadal will win more Grand Slam at the end of his career including the career slam than federer.

You remind me of all the Fed Sillies who claimed Fed would easily rack up 20 GS titles or more. And that was barely 18 months ago. Things can change fast in sports, better enjoy what is going on right at this moment for your favs then make bold predictions for the future. A little more historical perspective on the sport might be helpful in that.

Henry Kaspar
05-23-2009, 11:54 AM
First, to confirm what another poster wrote -- the GOAT of the modern era is obviously Rod Laver. And, yes, a player would need to win all four plus quite a bit more to bypass him.

Second, not winning the US Open is probably a little less of a "stain" than not winning the French, as not winning the French points to some lack of surface versatility, while not winning the US Open just shows that a player somehow seems to be regulalary out of form in late August (maybe he can't cope with sultry humidity that is typical for NYC at this time of the year).

This said, things also depend on by how much a player falls short. Federer, after all, reached the RG final 3 times, always losing to the same opponent, who happens to be one of the two best clay court players of the modern era. Borg reached the US Open even 4 times, losing to McEnroe (twice) and Connors (twice), often in nailbiters. Thus, Federer and Borg were top notch competitive in their "weak" slam.

Sampras, by contrast, was largely a no-show at RG. Which is why I rank him at #4 in the modern era, behind Laver, Federer and Borg.

delpiero7
05-23-2009, 11:57 AM
Seeing as according to 90% of people on here every GS is now played on varying colours of clay, Federer need not worry about winning on red clay to be confirmed as the GOAT, seeing as he's already won loads of slams on green and blue clay.

tennisvideos
05-23-2009, 12:00 PM
First, to confirm what another poster wrote -- the GOAT of the modern era is obviously Rod Laver. And, yes, a player would need to win all four plus quite a bit more to bypass him.

Second, not winning the US Open is probably a little less of a "stain" than not winning the French, as not winning the French points to some lack of surface versatility, while not winning the US Open just shows that a player somehow seems to be regulalary out of form in late August (maybe he can't cope with sultry humidity that is typical for NYC at this time of the year).

This said, things also depend on by how much a player falls short. Federer, after all, reached the RG final 3 times, always losing to the same opponent, who happens to be one of the two best clay court players of the modern era. Borg reached the US Open even 4 times, losing to McEnroe (twice) and Connors (twice), often in nailbiters. Thus, Federer and Borg were top notch competitive in their "weak" slam.

Sampras, by contrast, was largely a no-show at RG. Which is why I rank him at #4 in the modern era, behind Laver, Federer and Borg.

Very well put and I largely agree with everything you said there.

Commander Data
05-23-2009, 12:13 PM
seems like some people still haven't realized that nadal will win more Grand Slam at the end of his career including the career slam than federer.

IMO that is a dumb comment to make, since in tennis winning Slams was, is and never will be a certainty.,

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 12:20 PM
funny how everyone was complaining about Plexicushion cause it was too similar to DecoTurf in speed, then Nadal won and all of a sudden it's slower than Rebound Ace.

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 12:22 PM
Wouldn't it be interesting if Rafa, Federer, and Sampras all end up with 14 slams each, and none of them winning all 4 slams. How do you decide the GOAT?

ask Rod Laver.

scoobs
05-23-2009, 12:22 PM
funny how everyone was complaining about Plexicushion cause it was too similar to DecoTurf in speed, then Nadal won and all of a sudden it's slower than Rebound Ace.
As I recall they were complaining about the plexicushion as soon as it came into use.

I remember Djokovic and Jankovic at the Hopman Cup last year both commenting it was very slow.

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 12:26 PM
As I recall they were complaining about the plexicushion as soon as it came into use.

I remember Djokovic and Jankovic at the Hopman Cup last year both commenting it was very slow.

slow is one thing, but slower than Rebound Ace? they must be on crack.

scarecrows
05-23-2009, 12:26 PM
Plexicushion can come in various speeds, sometimes it can be just a bit faster than clay, sometimes really really fast

A_Skywalker
05-23-2009, 12:43 PM
It is equal, not winning one of the Grand Slams. It doesnt matter which, you cant put more weight on one of the GSs.

Macbrother
05-23-2009, 12:46 PM
First, to confirm what another poster wrote -- the GOAT of the modern era is obviously Rod Laver. And, yes, a player would need to win all four plus quite a bit more to bypass him.



There is nothing obvious about it. This is the opinion held by you, and some others, and that's it. Furthermore, what a player would supposedly have to win in order to surpass him is also up for debate. Tying someone to an achievement which is inherently infinitely more difficult to achieve today for a variety of reasons is just a bit shortsighted. He is arguably the best of his era (some very strong arguments to be made for Rosewall) and he's definitely a candidate, for sure. There's nothing obvious about the GOAT debate, however.

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 12:51 PM
an achievement which is inherently infinitely more difficult to achieve today...

No.

There's nothing obvious about the GOAT debate, however.

There is for many of us.

MacTheKnife
05-23-2009, 12:54 PM
There is nothing obvious about it. This is the opinion held by you, and some others, and that's it. Furthermore, what a player would supposedly have to win in order to surpass him is also up for debate. Tying someone to an achievement which is inherently infinitely more difficult to achieve today for a variety of reasons is just a bit shortsighted. He is arguably the best of his era (some very strong arguments to be made for Rosewall) and he's definitely a candidate, for sure. There's nothing obvious about the GOAT debate, however.

I agree with this. Although I have Laver in my top two, to pick out one guy as GOAT is simply opinion and really, IMO, a stretch. I do agree that lackluster performances at the FO is more of a problem than similar performances at the USO. But even that is purely opinion. Look at Borg, 4 lost finals in the USO, and he's still GOAT, or right up there, in the eyes of many. While Sampras only made one SF in Paris and we know how he's viewed.

bizzle
05-23-2009, 12:57 PM
Nadal has YEARS left to win the USO, which I think he will eventually - maybe even this year.
Time is running out for Federer to win the French, maybe only two real shots left before he is overtaken by the youngsters and retires.

MacTheKnife
05-23-2009, 01:07 PM
Déjà vu -- seems we've had this discussion once.. or was it a million times. :banghead:

heya
05-23-2009, 01:08 PM
Nadal has YEARS left to win the USO, which I think he will eventually - maybe even this year.
Time is running out for Federer to win the French, maybe only two real shots left before he is overtaken by the youngsters and retires.Federer has been given free walkovers and the most ass-kissing by Roddick and Nalbandian. Look at the downward spiral of the Davis Cup organization's darling James Blake, the biggest Federer troll. The worst spinal scoliosis victim in the tennis world. Probably, because no one, in their right mind, would risk spinal damage/death after greedily playing for money.

its.like.that
05-23-2009, 01:10 PM
US Open is by far the worst and least important of the slams.

So I'd say Federer not winning RG would be worse (only for him though ;), nobody else could give a sh*t).

MacTheKnife
05-23-2009, 01:15 PM
US Open is by far the worst and least important of the slams.

So I'd say Federer not winning RG would be worse (only for him though ;), nobody else could give a sh*t).

Do you really think that?? Below AO.. interesting.

Boris Franz Ecker
05-23-2009, 01:30 PM
Not really a problem, missing the 2rd or 3rd tournament. Missing the 1st would be.
Career slam is nothing special as it was only invented some years ago and until mid-1980ies top players didn't care for. The real Grand Slam would be.

Boris Franz Ecker
05-23-2009, 01:31 PM
Career slam is nothing special as it was only invented some years ago and until mid-1980ies top players didn't care for. The real Grand Slam would be.

To correct it: until late 90ies, top players didn't even know what this career slam thing is.

Boris Franz Ecker
05-23-2009, 01:34 PM
It is equal, not winning one of the Grand Slams. It doesnt matter which, you cant put more weight on one of the GSs.

You can't. That is right.

Federer and Nadal can. And they did.

Some fans cry because of that, but they are only fans.

MacTheKnife
05-23-2009, 01:39 PM
To correct it: until late 90ies, top players didn't even know what this career slam thing is.

Well that's not true. Although, I will give you that the AO has been the slam that over the years was in and out with the players. Most of the top players didn't bother to go down there for years due to the travel and timing.

Matt01
05-23-2009, 01:49 PM
US Open is by far the worst and least important of the slams.


I'm big fan of Nadal but this is crap. All Slams are practically equally important nowadays. And the more you won of them on different surfaces, the better.

pica_pica
05-23-2009, 01:56 PM
Equally bad, given the assumption that all slams are equal.

modern tennis
05-23-2009, 03:41 PM
funny how everyone was complaining about Plexicushion cause it was too similar to DecoTurf in speed, then Nadal won and all of a sudden it's slower than Rebound Ace.

when nadal wins us open, they will say every surface is slow, before they said he couldnt win wimbledon, then nadal won it and everyone says its too slow, then it was nadal cant win a hard court slam, then he won aussie open and then it was its too slow. media and haters keep giving nadal extra targets and motivation to excel, and nadal comes across to me as a guy that loves a challenge and prove people wrong. i saw nadal in that match against federer in 2004 miami, and he was not intimidated by federer at all, he was actually bullying federer corner to corner as a 17 year old.
mark my words, nadal will win atleast 1 us open, maybe 3 in total, he will have 3 aussie opens in total and 3 wimbledons in total along with many french open titles, and his tally might be around 15 maybe 16. he has an incredible ability to go on amazing streaks, so he could grab a bunch of slams quickly to move up that list.

Sunset of Age
05-23-2009, 03:44 PM
mark my words, nadal will win atleast 1 us open, maybe 3 in total, he will have 3 aussie opens in total and 3 wimbledons in total along with many french open titles, and his tally might be around 15 maybe 16. he has an incredible ability to go on amazing streaks, so he could grab a bunch of slams quickly to move up that list.

Nostradamus #2. :worship:

Sapeod
05-23-2009, 03:44 PM
Federer not winning the French Open. It will be good for tennis if Nadal never wins the US Open.

modern tennis
05-23-2009, 03:56 PM
US Open is by far the worst and least important of the slams.

So I'd say Federer not winning RG would be worse (only for him though ;), nobody else could give a sh*t).

wimbledon is most important due to it being the oldest slam in the country that invented the sport due to its prestige and its grass.
french open is 2nd most important due it being able to tell who the best slow court players are and its clay.
us open is 3rd most important due to it being a glitz and glamour party and high profile slam with many celebrities and its played on hard.
aussie open is a poor mans us open, its just for mugs.

TennisViewer531
05-23-2009, 05:09 PM
Good question. What's probably worse would be Fed not winning RG. There are two hardcourt grand slams so Nadal can always say he already won a hardcourt grandslam.

justsumma
05-23-2009, 05:15 PM
Nadull violating tennis is the worst.

Certinfy
05-23-2009, 05:17 PM
After last years French Open i can't even think of the French Open as a GS any more.

Noleta
05-23-2009, 05:26 PM
Can't choose between the two:scratch:maybe Nadal,he changed the cliche of spaniards only being good on clay:)

Henry Kaspar
05-23-2009, 05:45 PM
There is nothing obvious about it. This is the opinion held by you, and some others, and that's it.

Well for me it is obvious, and as you dispute this I wonder how you back it up. For you there must be another player in the modern era whose achievements one could reasonably consider more outstanding than Laver's.

Who and why?

born_on_clay
05-23-2009, 05:54 PM
The truth is Nadal will win US Open
Federer won't make a final at RG any more :D

Ther is nothing to discuss any more

Kip
05-23-2009, 05:55 PM
Fed never winning RG.

GlennMirnyi
05-23-2009, 06:31 PM
Do you really think that?? Below AO.. interesting.

He's just anti-US. Of course the USO is the most important GS at this moment in time.

Why not? Because you find him dull? :rolleyes:

Because he's a moonballer.

seems like some people still haven't realized that Nostradamus is reincarnated

Yep.

Mint Chip
05-23-2009, 07:08 PM
If Nadal won the U.S. open this year or next year I will never watch tennis again. If Federer never wins the French then thats too bad

Henry Kaspar
05-23-2009, 07:26 PM
If Nadal won the U.S. open this year or next year I will never watch tennis again.

What a loss.

Roddickominator
05-23-2009, 07:28 PM
The US Open is a much more important tournament than RG....so Nadal not winning it would be a much bigger deal than Fed not winning RG.

Henry Kaspar
05-23-2009, 07:32 PM
The US Open is a much more important tournament than RG....

Why?

In my view they are roughly equal in importance -- half a notch behind Wimbledon, half a notch above the AO.

Sapeod
05-23-2009, 07:38 PM
Why?

In my view they are roughly equal in importance -- half a notch behind Wimbledon, half a notch above the AO.
Right. I always felt like the Aus Open was of least importance. Wimbledon is the most important and the other 2 are the of the same importnace.

meihaditalab
05-23-2009, 07:42 PM
well we all know that Fed is never going to win the French Open and that Rafa is going to win the US this year. so this thread is pretty useless ;) lol

LinkMage
05-23-2009, 07:44 PM
Nadull not winning the USO.

Most year end N°1 players have won the USO.

Roddickominator
05-23-2009, 07:44 PM
Why?

In my view they are roughly equal in importance -- half a notch behind Wimbledon, half a notch above the AO.

Historically I agree. But obviously hard courts are the most competitive in tennis nowadays....therefore making them the best, and most important tournaments. It is hardly a prestigious accomplishment to win tournaments where there is no competition. US Open-AO-Wimbledon-RG

lina_seta
05-23-2009, 07:46 PM
Nadull can't be the GOAT, period. Are you dumb?

exactly.
of course you can win ugly everything, that doesnt make you the best.
i reckon he can probably win all 4, but nadal's type of tennis CANNOT be the GOAT of tennis :mad:
thats just insult... open ur eyes! :eek:

lina_seta
05-23-2009, 07:51 PM
First, to confirm what another poster wrote -- the GOAT of the modern era is obviously Rod Laver. And, yes, a player would need to win all four plus quite a bit more to bypass him.

Second, not winning the US Open is probably a little less of a "stain" than not winning the French, as not winning the French points to some lack of surface versatility, while not winning the US Open just shows that a player somehow seems to be regulalary out of form in late August (maybe he can't cope with sultry humidity that is typical for NYC at this time of the year).

This said, things also depend on by how much a player falls short. Federer, after all, reached the RG final 3 times, always losing to the same opponent, who happens to be one of the two best clay court players of the modern era. Borg reached the US Open even 4 times, losing to McEnroe (twice) and Connors (twice), often in nailbiters. Thus, Federer and Borg were top notch competitive in their "weak" slam.

Sampras, by contrast, was largely a no-show at RG. Which is why I rank him at #4 in the modern era, behind Laver, Federer and Borg.

very wise words
unfortunately people only look at the end result, the winner... and not how close you came to losing or winning it (Fed in FO's, Nadal in AO)

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 07:51 PM
The level of "logic" in this thread is appalling even for MTF.

Henry Kaspar
05-23-2009, 07:59 PM
Historically I agree. But obviously hard courts are the most competitive in tennis nowadays....therefore making them the best, and most important tournaments. It is hardly a prestigious accomplishment to win tournaments where there is no competition. US Open-AO-Wimbledon-RG

Because Nadal is so good, a tournamnet he wins doesn't have value.

Compelling logic indeed...

Matt01
05-23-2009, 08:02 PM
wimbledon is most important due to it being the oldest slam in the country that invented the sport due to its prestige and its grass.
french open is 2nd most important due it being able to tell who the best slow court players are and its clay.
us open is 3rd most important due to it being a glitz and glamour party and high profile slam with many celebrities and its played on hard.
aussie open is a poor mans us open, its just for mugs.


:lol:

Roddickominator
05-23-2009, 08:05 PM
Because Nadal is so good, a tournamnet he wins doesn't have value.

Compelling logic indeed...

He's great, no doubt about it. The fact that a mug on clay like Fed has been the 2nd best on the surface by a large margin for years is more of the problem. Winning something that hardly has competition(in comparison to the other majors) is not all that impressive to me. Maybe you have lower standards....if so that's cool.

Matt01
05-23-2009, 08:09 PM
exactly.
of course you can win ugly everything, that doesnt make you the best.
i reckon he can probably win all 4, but nadal's type of tennis CANNOT be the GOAT of tennis :mad:
thats just insult... open ur eyes! :eek:


Personally, I find Nadal's style of tennis interesting and pleasant to watch, while I don't like Federer's kind of game (because he often tries to keep the rallies as short as possible). :shrug:

And besides, it doesn't matter with which style of tennis you achieve your wins. As long as your are winning, your game can't be that bad. And no one is gonna change his winning style just because some people don't like it :shrug:

Matt01
05-23-2009, 08:11 PM
He's great, no doubt about it. The fact that a mug on clay like Fed has been the 2nd best on the surface by a large margin for years is more of the problem. Winning something that hardly has competition(in comparison to the other majors) is not all that impressive to me. Maybe you have lower standards....if so that's cool.


Fed is no Roddick, he's a very good claycourter and won lots of big clay court tourneys :shrug:

Henry Kaspar
05-23-2009, 08:11 PM
He's great, no doubt about it. The fact that a mug on clay like Fed has been the 2nd best on the surface by a large margin for years is more of the problem.

Alternatively, Federer isn't exactly a clay mug.

Roddickominator
05-23-2009, 08:15 PM
Fed is no Roddick, he's a very good claycourter and won lots of big clay court tourneys :shrug:

Roddick has no idea how to play on clay and is ridiculously bad at it....but even HE could make matches competitive with Fed on the surface if he gave a crap about it. More of a testament to how bad Fed is on the surface....and he's the clear-cut #2 there(except maybe Djokovic now...who certainly has potential).

scarecrows
05-23-2009, 08:33 PM
Personally, I find Nadal's style of tennis interesting and pleasant to watch, while I don't like Federer's kind of game (because he often tries to keep the rallies as short as possible). :shrug:


considering you like WTA you really shouldn't be talking about style of tennis

marcRD
05-23-2009, 08:33 PM
Roddick has no idea how to play on clay and is ridiculously bad at it....but even HE could make matches competitive with Fed on the surface if he gave a crap about it. More of a testament to how bad Fed is on the surface....and he's the clear-cut #2 there(except maybe Djokovic now...who certainly has potential).

Please dont make me laught, Roddick wouldnt be able to play competitive matches against Federer even if you put Federer on a wheelchair. Ofcourse he can win a set against Federer at times because Federer gets so bored he starts to sleep, that doesnt make it a "competitive match".

Burrow
05-23-2009, 08:39 PM
Roddick has no idea how to play on clay and is ridiculously bad at it....but even HE could make matches competitive with Fed on the surface if he gave a crap about it. More of a testament to how bad Fed is on the surface....and he's the clear-cut #2 there(except maybe Djokovic now...who certainly has potential).

Well it must show Nadal is even worse if he couldn't take a set.

Macbrother
05-23-2009, 08:46 PM
No.

Right. There aren't more surfaces to worry about and perfect your game upon, the game hasn't become much more brutally physical (hello 37 year olds winning slams?), and the game is still limited to a relatively priveleged few. Oh wait.

There is for many of us.

Good for those of you. No proclamation of this opinion will make it true, however.

Roddickominator
05-23-2009, 08:49 PM
Please dont make me laught, Roddick wouldnt be able to play competitive matches against Federer even if you put Federer on a wheelchair. Ofcourse he can win a set against Federer at times because Federer gets so bored he starts to sleep, that doesnt make it a "competitive match".

Given the W/L record in their matches, it's easy to be this dismissive of Andy. But you seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of Roddick/Federer matches ARE in fact competitive....even if Fed comes out on top nearly every time.

They both play basically their same hard court games on clay. Roddick just obviously doesn't care about the surface, or about getting better at it....therefore he hardly ever makes it deep enough in a clay tournament to play Fed. If Andy gave a crap....their matches on clay would be pretty similar to what they are on the rest of the surfaces.

Macbrother
05-23-2009, 08:53 PM
Well for me it is obvious, and as you dispute this I wonder how you back it up. For you there must be another player in the modern era whose achievements one could reasonably consider more outstanding than Laver's.

Who and why?

Sampras, Borg, and Federer; the reasons why any of these candidates should be considered has been hashed countless times; but all three did something truly unique and dominated the game in particular ways, I'm sure you know enough about them I don't have to illuminate. Just to clarify I don't think Laver's accomplishments are necessarily lesser or greater than these three, but arguably so, certainly not obvious, particularly if we are strictly talking about open era.

mark73
05-23-2009, 08:58 PM
if the aus open is given a 1 in importance then the us open is a 2 the french a 3 and wimbledon a 3.14. mmmmmmm pie. But seriously today all 4 garand slams bring out the same level of players playing full out. they are all equal. In fact the competition is actually equal at the master series tournaments. Although the master series tourneys often are used as tune ups for the grand slams by the grand slam contenders and thus should be counted somewhat less.
The historical argument is irrelevant, what matters is the importance of the slams today.
I suppose one could argue that the french is more important for federer because he has not won a slam on clay whereas Nadal has won one on hard. On the other hand the courts in the aus open and at the us open are quite different.

luvrafa
05-23-2009, 09:12 PM
Who cares if Fed never wins RG, but Nadal will definitely win USO. If not this year, soon. It's just his time.

mark73
05-23-2009, 09:16 PM
This thread discuses MTF favourite topic THE GOAT..MOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Oh wait thats a cow. Lets look at a sport where there is undisputable evidence that athletes are getting better...track and field. Records are being broken on a continues basis. Therefoe these athletes are getting better over time. Carl lewis would destroy Jesse Owens in there primes. Do you honestly think its diiferent with tennis or other sports? Federer would destroy Laver (even if lavers generation had the same raquet technology). Todays athletes simply train more efficiently and more effectively. THAT BEING SAID im not arguing for a goat. It is abusrd to compare players from different eras. Laver and Federer grew up in different environments and thus had different opportunities. All we can say is each dominated their respective generation. It all depend on the time you are born which you have no control of.

habibko
05-23-2009, 09:29 PM
This thread discuses MTF favourite topic THE GOAT..MOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Oh wait thats a cow. Lets look at a sport where there is undisputable evidence that athletes are getting better...track and field. Records are being broken on a continues basis. Therefoe these athletes are getting better over time. Carl lewis would destroy Jesse Owens in there primes. Do you honestly think its diiferent with tennis or other sports? Federer would destroy Laver (even if lavers generation had the same raquet technology). Todays athletes simply train more efficiently and more effectively. THAT BEING SAID im not arguing for a goat. It is abusrd to compare players from different eras. Laver and Federer grew up in different environments and thus had different opportunities. All we can say is each dominated their respective generation. It all depend on the time you are born which you have no control of.

it's also worth noting that in the times of Laver, 3 slams were played on grass.

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 09:51 PM
This thread discuses MTF favourite topic THE GOAT..MOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Oh wait thats a cow. Lets look at a sport where there is undisputable evidence that athletes are getting better...track and field. Records are being broken on a continues basis. Therefoe these athletes are getting better over time. Carl lewis would destroy Jesse Owens in there primes. Do you honestly think its diiferent with tennis?

Yes.

it's also worth noting that in the times of Laver, 3 slams were played on grass.

What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

GlennMirnyi
05-23-2009, 10:00 PM
This thread discuses MTF favourite topic THE GOAT..MOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Oh wait thats a cow. Lets look at a sport where there is undisputable evidence that athletes are getting better...track and field. Records are being broken on a continues basis. Therefoe these athletes are getting better over time. Carl lewis would destroy Jesse Owens in there primes. Do you honestly think its diiferent with tennis or other sports? Federer would destroy Laver (even if lavers generation had the same raquet technology). Todays athletes simply train more efficiently and more effectively. THAT BEING SAID im not arguing for a goat. It is abusrd to compare players from different eras. Laver and Federer grew up in different environments and thus had different opportunities. All we can say is each dominated their respective generation. It all depend on the time you are born which you have no control of.

Have you ever heard of roids, doping and stuff like that?

Henry Kaspar
05-23-2009, 10:05 PM
Sampras, Borg, and Federer; the reasons why any of these candidates should be considered has been hashed countless times; but all three did something truly unique and dominated the game in particular ways, I'm sure you know enough about them I don't have to illuminate. Just to clarify I don't think Laver's accomplishments are necessarily lesser or greater than these three, but arguably so, certainly not obvious, particularly if we are strictly talking about open era.

If you only talk open era maybe, but this means you compare one-third of Laver with all of Federer or Sampras.

To me personally it's pretty clear that Laver is half a notch even above the three greats you mention: he was the game's #1 for seven consectutive years, and won everything there was to win in 1967 (on the pro-tour) and 1969 [falling short only by a whisker in 1964 and 66].

This hasn't been repeated since.

mark73
05-23-2009, 10:06 PM
In response to har-tru
There's no reason to believe that today's tennis palyers who benefit from the better and more intense training regimes would not be better then yesterdays players. Of couse progress is not continously smooth, but the general trend is forward. In track where you can compare numbers you can see that todays training has created better athletes. Tennis players have access to these improved training methods as well. Also athletes are simply pushing each other to get better all the time. This competition itself will raise the level of play.

GlennMirnyi
05-23-2009, 10:12 PM
In response to har-tru
There's no reason to believe that today's tennis palyers who benefit from the better and more intense training regimes would not be better then yesterdays players. Of couse progress is not continously smooth, but the general trend is forward. In track where you can compare numbers you can see that todays training has created better athletes. Tennis players have access to these improved training methods as well. Also athletes are simply pushing each other to get better all the time. This competition itself will raise the level of play.

Bullshit.

Tennis players today can't tie 70 and 80s players' shoelaces.

And learn to quote.

Henry Kaspar
05-23-2009, 10:24 PM
In response to har-tru
There's no reason to believe that today's tennis palyers who benefit from the better and more intense training regimes would not be better then yesterdays players. Of couse progress is not continously smooth, but the general trend is forward. In track where you can compare numbers you can see that todays training has created better athletes. Tennis players have access to these improved training methods as well. Also athletes are simply pushing each other to get better all the time. This competition itself will raise the level of play.

I think this is pretty clear, plus, racket technology has progressed.

But then, yesterday's players would play differently with today's means as well. The only possible way to compare champions of different episodes is by how far ahead they were relative to their peers.

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 10:26 PM
Right. There aren't more surfaces to worry about and perfect your game upon, the game hasn't become much more brutally physical (hello 37 year olds winning slams?), and the game is still limited to a relatively priveleged few. Oh wait.

Tennis in the 60s limited to a priviledged few? :rolleyes:

Also, no 37-year-old has won a slam. Nor was tennis back then reduced to grass and clay (slams were). Indoor wood was a very common surface in the tour, and hard courts were making their way in. In any case, like today, not all grass and clay courts were the same. About the game being more physical, you might argue that that made the game better, I just don't agree.

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 10:34 PM
In response to har-tru
There's no reason to believe that today's tennis palyers who benefit from the better and more intense training regimes would not be better then yesterdays players. Of couse progress is not continously smooth, but the general trend is forward. In track where you can compare numbers you can see that todays training has created better athletes. Tennis players have access to these improved training methods as well. Also athletes are simply pushing each other to get better all the time. This competition itself will raise the level of play.

Henry Kaspar has already answered you pretty well. I'll just add that while physical conditioning is of course much better today than it was before, that doesn't necessarily make the game of tennis better, like in track and field, where physical conditioning is pretty much it. In fact, it may make the game worse, by taking away the need for creating good shots and winners using technique rather than brute force.

prima donna
05-23-2009, 10:41 PM
About the game being more physical, you might argue that that made the game better, I just don't agree.
Interesting point.

mark73
05-23-2009, 10:57 PM
i stated earlier what henry kasper said......earlier post..take a look.
I was just commenting on improvements in the game not on how we should compare players from a different.
Please read all my posts before repeating what i said

Har-Tru
05-23-2009, 11:11 PM
i stated earlier what henry kasper said......earlier post..take a look.
I was just commenting on improvements in the game not on how we should compare players from a different.
Please read all my posts before repeating what i said

You said that there is no reason to believe today's players aren't better than yesterday's, and I responded to that.

mark73
05-23-2009, 11:20 PM
i need to learn how to quote...I also said that you cant compare todays players to earlier players because of different conditions I SAID THAT

mark73
05-23-2009, 11:24 PM
SO ALTHOUGH TODAYS PLAYERS ARE BETTER THATS NOT HOW YOU COMPARE TODAYS PLAYERS FROM YESTERDAY. yOU LOOK AT HOW THEY DID AGAINST THERE COMPETITORS. sorry caps

leng jai
05-24-2009, 12:19 AM
The worst: The King never revealing his true powers to us.

2003
05-24-2009, 01:19 AM
Have you ever heard of roids, doping and stuff like that?

This shows how truely ignorant you are and you have opened yourself up for defeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10000_metres#World_Record_Progression

In 1965 the world record for 10 000 metres was above 28 minutes.

The current world record for 10 000 metres is 26 minutes 17 seconds, and that was almost 4 years ago.

Even EPO has been rumored to only improve performace by 1-2% TOPS, assuming every single athlete on that list was on it, it doesn't even begin to explain the improvements.

Todays athletes sportswide are clearly far superior to their predicessors. It's a natural progressive improvement cycle.

Lourdes
05-24-2009, 02:26 AM
Nadal never winning the US Open. Federer will never win the French unless Nadal is injured or has retired.

Macbrother
05-24-2009, 02:44 AM
Tennis in the 60s limited to a priviledged few? :rolleyes:

Also, no 37-year-old has won a slam. Nor was tennis back then reduced to grass and clay (slams were). Indoor wood was a very common surface in the tour, and hard courts were making their way in. In any case, like today, not all grass and clay courts were the same. About the game being more physical, you might argue that that made the game better, I just don't agree.

Wow. Do I really have to spell out every minor point to you? "Limited to a relatively privileged few." What percentage of the top 100 was born from affluent, white, and english speaking families in 1969? What percentage is it now? Thank you. If you are seriously arguing about the depth of the top 100 in '69 versus now, I really don't know what to tell you. Pete Sampras, perhaps Wimbledon's greatest champion, bowed out in the 2nd round to 71st ranked George Bastl at the tender age of 31. Would that have EVER happened to Rod Laver in his day? Oh wait.. he won the grand slam when he was 31. So, either Laver can walk on water, or the tour has much more depth overall and the physical toll on a tennis players body is much, much worse. Take a step back, have a bit of perspective, then answer me. My point was never that the game being physical was better for the sport. Only to show that being a 31 year old tennis player now, and a 31 year old then, are two completely different things.

My point about surfaces was strictly to the slams: Three out of four were played on grass. How do you think that would affect Sampras's slam total? Thanks.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me. 38 year olds won slams.

To me personally it's pretty clear that Laver is half a notch even above the three greats you mention: he was the game's #1 for seven consectutive years, and won everything there was to win in 1967 (on the pro-tour) and 1969 [falling short only by a whisker in 1964 and 66].

This hasn't been repeated since.

See above. The physical toll on the body is far, far worse, dominating then, and dominating now, are two different things. No disrespect to Laver at all, he is a legend and worthy GOAT candidate, but placing him above strictly on numbers like length of time is missing out on context. It's like comparing a pitchers ERA from the dead ball era of baseball to now. Simply not a fair comparison, different eras.

gulzhan
05-24-2009, 02:48 AM
paper stone scissors

:lol:

Har-Tru
05-24-2009, 03:56 AM
Wow. Do I really have to spell out every minor point to you? "Limited to a relatively privileged few." What percentage of the top 100 was born from affluent, white, and english speaking families in 1969? What percentage is it now? Thank you. If you are seriously arguing about the depth of the top 100 in '69 versus now, I really don't know what to tell you. Pete Sampras, perhaps Wimbledon's greatest champion, bowed out in the 2nd round to 71st ranked George Bastl at the tender age of 31. Would that have EVER happened to Rod Laver in his day? Oh wait.. he won the grand slam when he was 31. So, either Laver can walk on water, or the tour has much more depth overall and the physical toll on a tennis players body is much, much worse. Take a step back, have a bit of perspective, then answer me. My point was never that the game being physical was better for the sport. Only to show that being a 31 year old tennis player now, and a 31 year old then, are two completely different things.

Why do you write in a forum as if you were talking to your buddies? Look mate, it's almost six o'clock in the morning here and I just want to go to bed, so to sum it up: I don't think tennis is better now than it was forty years ago. I know physically players are fitter, I know it's harder to win slams at an advanced age (not impossible, see Agassi). But tennis wasn't necessarily better. Good night. I mean morning.

Macbrother
05-24-2009, 04:10 AM
Why do you write in a forum as if you were talking to your buddies?

Huh?


Look mate, it's almost six o'clock in the morning here and I just want to go to bed, so to sum it up: I don't think tennis is better now than it was forty years ago. I know physically players are fitter, I know it's harder to win slams at an advanced age (not impossible, see Agassi). But tennis wasn't necessarily better. Good night. I mean morning.

Listen, it's not about players being fitter, or tennis being better. That's a whole different argument, and believe me if you put Laver today with today's training, fitness, nutrition/etc there's no doubt he does well. Champions will find a way in any era.

My point is this: The era in which Laver played, specifically the overall depth of the tour and the physical nature of the game, allowed players like Laver (and Gonzales before him) to dominate longer and more thoroughly than is possible today. So it's not really fair to say Gonzales finished 10 years #1.. Federer had 4, clearly Gonzales is better. The physical beating Federer has to take to maintain such dominance now is so much worse than what it took back then, so it's not a fair comparison. Just the same, it's not fair to say Sampras had 14 slams, Laver had 11, Sampras is better. Context.

Have a nice night.

FedFan_2007
05-24-2009, 06:34 AM
[x] Another useless GOAT thread

Henry Kaspar
05-24-2009, 11:22 AM
See above. The physical toll on the body is far, far worse, dominating then, and dominating now, are two different things. No disrespect to Laver at all, he is a legend and worthy GOAT candidate, but placing him above strictly on numbers like length of time is missing out on context.

Hmmmm..... the body-toll-length-of-career part seems a fair point.

What about Laver's total dominance in 1967 and 69 though? No other player has produced such a year since - no Borg, certainly no Sampras, and not even Federer.

Har-Tru
05-24-2009, 01:53 PM
Huh?



Listen, it's not about players being fitter, or tennis being better. That's a whole different argument, and believe me if you put Laver today with today's training, fitness, nutrition/etc there's no doubt he does well. Champions will find a way in any era.

My point is this: The era in which Laver played, specifically the overall depth of the tour and the physical nature of the game, allowed players like Laver (and Gonzales before him) to dominate longer and more thoroughly than is possible today. So it's not really fair to say Gonzales finished 10 years #1.. Federer had 4, clearly Gonzales is better. The physical beating Federer has to take to maintain such dominance now is so much worse than what it took back then, so it's not a fair comparison. Just the same, it's not fair to say Sampras had 14 slams, Laver had 11, Sampras is better. Context.

Have a nice night.

I get you now. Fair enough, a career could last longer back in the days of old.

NyGeL
05-24-2009, 01:59 PM
Rafa should win USOpen while Federer can live without Roland Garros.

lleytonfan!
05-24-2009, 02:04 PM
Thats easy ... you stick with Rod Laver. 2 x Calendar Grand Slams - 11 Amatuer GS Singles titles plus 10 Pro GS titles making a total of 21.

Pancho Gonzales had a total of 21 Pro GS titles.

Although IMHO perhaps the GOAT should really be Ken Rosewall. 8 GS Singles titles plus 4 Wimbledon finals and he missed out on playing the Slams for 11 of his peak years!

Won Australian Open 1953 & 1955 (unable to play 1957-1968) won again 1971 & 1972 as 38yo!
French Open Won 1953 (unable to play 1957-1967) then won again 1968
Wimbledon Final 1954, 1956 (unable to play 1957-1667) then final again 1970 & 1974 (finalist at 40yo)!!!!
US Open Won 1956 (unable to play 1957-1967) then won again in 1970 as 36yo!

What could he have achieved in those 11 years? We do know he won the equivilent of 15 Pro Grand Slam singles titles during those 11 years - making a total of what would be 24 equivilent Grand Slam titles. Also, despite not all records being known, he also won at least 132 documented singles titles! :eek: :worship:

IMO Laver is the greatest, but apart from that, I completely agree.

Sampras may have 3 more, and Federer 2 (at the moment), but the fact Laver won the Grand Slam twice, three other slams on top of that, and was denied of playing so many years, puts him well ahead in my opinion.

out_here_grindin
09-30-2009, 02:47 PM
Nadal never winning the US Open. Federer will never win the French unless Nadal is injured or has retired.

So are you saying that the only reason Fed hadn't RG was because of Nadal?

rocketassist
09-30-2009, 05:58 PM
Both have happened :confused:

Well rafawon09usopen didnt he

HKz
09-30-2009, 06:10 PM
So are you saying that the only reason Fed hadn't RG was because of Nadal?

Last time I checked, it takes 7 to tango

mandeep
09-30-2009, 06:17 PM
FO open win was epic!

2003
10-01-2009, 03:26 AM
Right. I always felt like the Aus Open was of least importance. Wimbledon is the most important and the other 2 are the of the same importnace.

Don't worry, when Federer wins the AO in 2010 it will return to being the most important :worship:

BAMJ6
10-01-2009, 04:46 AM
Has Nadal even won a USA Tournament in his pro career?

CmonAussie
10-01-2009, 05:09 AM
Has Nadal even won a USA Tournament in his pro career?

...
Indian Wells -- twice [2007 & 2009];)

serveandvolley80
10-01-2009, 05:20 AM
...
Indian Wells -- twice [2007 & 2009];)

Blue clay ;)

BAMJ6
10-01-2009, 05:22 AM
...
Indian Wells -- twice [2007 & 2009];)

Ahh, okay. I wanted to make sure he won tournaments there. How can he win the US Open if he has weak showings in all other American events.

All i see winning American events in the second half of this decade (2004-09) are Americans and Federer

Matt01
10-01-2009, 03:39 PM
Has Nadal even won a USA Tournament in his pro career?


He has but even if he didn't...US tournaments are hardly the measuring stick in tennis.

BAMJ6
10-01-2009, 11:37 PM
He has but even if he didn't...US tournaments are hardly the measuring stick in tennis.

Well it's the measuring stick for winning their specific slam the US Open. If you can't win lesser tournaments on American soil, how can one win the US Open?

I'm not saying winning US tournaments means you can win the US Openm but there's a great reason why Rafter was the only mens player to win his first US tournament in Flushing Meadows

HKz
10-02-2009, 12:24 AM
Well it's the measuring stick for winning their specific slam the US Open. If you can't win lesser tournaments on American soil, how can one win the US Open?

I'm not saying winning US tournaments means you can win the US Openm but there's a great reason why Rafter was the only mens player to win his first US tournament in Flushing Meadows

You do realize why that is the case.... beause the US has very many, if not the most, outdoor hardcourt events on the ATP tour... It is nearly impossible to avoid playing the US hardcourt tournaments and still become a top player. I mean out of the 9 Master Series events, 3 are in the US - Indian Wells, Miami, Cincinnati. All the other MS events are alone in their respective country. And then off the top of my head, all those hardcourt events during the US Open series.

It ISN'T a measuring stick for winning the Open. The only similarity is that they are played on outdoor hardcourts with the coincidence that the Open is in the same country which hosts many hardcourt events. If they were mostly in Canada, we would see the same thing except that obviously the tournaments aren't in the same country as the Grand Slam.

Arkulari
10-02-2009, 12:33 AM
Well it's the measuring stick for winning their specific slam the US Open. If you can't win lesser tournaments on American soil, how can one win the US Open?

I'm not saying winning US tournaments means you can win the US Openm but there's a great reason why Rafter was the only mens player to win his first US tournament in Flushing Meadows

Indian Wells and Miami's surfaces are vastly different from the US Open Series ones, so those don't really count when it comes to the US Open ;)

But it is highly likely that people don't usually win the US Open without winning a tournament in US soil the same year :)

BAMJ6
10-02-2009, 12:56 AM
Indian Wells and Miami's surfaces are vastly different from the US Open Series ones, so those don't really count when it comes to the US Open ;)

But it is highly likely that people don't usually win the US Open without winning a tournament in US soil the same year :)

Or any USA tournament before they win their first US Open.

For non American US Open winners

Del Monte won Washington twics
Fed in TMC Houston
Hewitt in Delray Beach
Safin in Boston
Rafter, none before the Open
Edberg 1984 Olympics

bokehlicious
10-02-2009, 08:29 AM
federer is a poor man's sampras. their slam records are pretty similar. i think nadal will win atleast 3 us opens before he is out, he has just too much determintion to deny him. i think nadal can win 3 of each slam atleast. aussie open surface suits him, obviously the french, and 2 more wimbledons and he has a good chance of beating the slam record.

Spot on :yeah:

:haha: :haha:

BAMJ6
10-03-2009, 12:45 AM
Spot on :yeah:

:haha: :haha:

The only difference between him and Pete is Fed's not American which would've made him like Andre marketingwise

2003
10-03-2009, 01:15 AM
But it is highly likely that people don't usually win the US Open without winning a tournament in US soil the same year :)

If only Roddick hadn't choked against Del Potro :mad: :)

BAMJ6
10-03-2009, 02:23 AM
The thing with non American players in American tournaments is the crowd is very Pro American and we give the best homefield advantage in the sport.

Our players are more used to going to international tournaments and being the bad guys than vice versa that it's nothing to them

That is why Rafter's still the only one to win his first American tournament in Flushing and it will always be.

2003
12-19-2009, 10:23 PM
Blue clay ;)

;) Same as a certain other title he won.