Why this is the very best of times in men's tennis [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why this is the very best of times in men's tennis

luvbadboys
11-18-2002, 04:42 PM
I just realized that Hewitt played and beat Safin, Federer and Ferrero one after the other.

We now have at least 5 players (Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Ferrero, Gonzalez, Paradorn) who are all in the same age group and they'l be fighting it out for the next 5 years. I believe that whoever dominates in the next 5 years should be more highly regarded than Sampras was in his heyday. because Sampras never had to face that many contemporaries who were as good as he was. Sampras had Becker, Andre and Pat but the four of them were never at their peak together. Becker retired, Andre was in and out of the game because of his love life and Pat came unto the scene late in Sampras's career. I am not saying that Sampras is not the best player of all time. I believe he is. I am simply saying that we would have had a better measure of his greatness had he been forced to meet Boris, Pat and Andre on a regular basis. Should any of the 5 players listed above dominate the game the way Sampras did for 6-7 years, that player in my mind will be a better player than Sampras whether or not he wins 14 slams.

This is a theory in progress but let me know what you think.

Jorge
11-18-2002, 04:47 PM
what about Carlitos Moyà?? hewitt can't beat him :p

now, being serious, if Lleyton is the best "right now" is because his mental strength IMO, but technically is not the "very best".
BTW you forgot to mention Nalbandián, Gaudio, Malisse, Roddick, etc.

luvbadboys
11-18-2002, 04:52 PM
I'm referring to guys in the same age bracket. Moya is 26 which means in 2/3 years while the other are starting to hit their prime Moya wil be on his way out. I was not referring to just Lleyton but 5 other players who I believe can fominate the game. I said if ANY ONE of them does it. I did not mention those others because as of today only Sfain, Hewitt and Ferrero have made to the masters cup morethan once and given that Federer made the semis during his first appearance i'm sure we'll see more of him.

Jorge
11-18-2002, 04:59 PM
and after to talk about Moyà i said
now, being serious...;)

Nalbandián has reached a Grand Slam final, Gaudio has had excellent performances, Malisse too, Roddick is top ten, they will be together with the others that you has mentioned and another ones for a long while.

and IMO the best tennis player ever is Bjorn Borg:cool:

wongqks
11-18-2002, 05:04 PM
Men tennis is very exciting right now, with leeydon Marat Juan etc. slugging it out, I think in a couple of years time when those players become household names, we will see a lot of rtivalry and men tennis will hit the all time high, now I just hope women tennis an keep that pace up as well and tennis as a whole will blosoom into even more global sport

luvbadboys
11-18-2002, 05:11 PM
JorgeI am not dismissing those players ability to win majors, however I don't think they'll be able to CONSISTENTLY reach the last stages of tournements for the next 5/6 years. Malisse in particular is a streaky player. As for Roddick he has a losing record against the guys I listed. Anyway the jury's still out on him.

Jorge
11-18-2002, 05:35 PM
luvbadboys, i respect your opinion but i prefer to be historian instead a prophet :cool: let's see what says the future

Ma. Estefania
11-18-2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by luvbadboys
however I don't think they'll be able to CONSISTENTLY reach the last stages of tournements for the next 5/6 years.

Yes, in this moment I agree with you luvbadboys; but I just hope that this can change and there could be more contenders each time, and including these guys that Jorge named before.;)

Chloe le Bopper
11-19-2002, 12:27 AM
Yes, watch out for the argies ;) They are coming :D Along with a certain guy from Chile, who you already mentioned :o And more I don't know about I'm sure.

BUT, you forgot one HAAS!!! *sputter* *blasphemy*

how dare you :sad: ;)

Ace Tracker
11-19-2002, 02:23 AM
I wonder if Haas is hungry enough...Sure, the talent is there (one of the most beautiful groundstrokes in the tour), but I havent seen the desire yet....

Chloe le Bopper
11-19-2002, 02:47 AM
No, but I haven't seen a lot of that from Marat either, and his name is here.

:)

I have faith he will come around, eventually - even if only by accident for a couple weeks :cool:

Lee
11-19-2002, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by luvbadboys
I just realized that Hewitt played and beat Safin, Federer and Ferrero one after the other.

We now have at least 5 players (Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Ferrero, Gonzalez, Paradorn) who are all in the same age group and they'l be fighting it out for the next 5 years. I believe that whoever dominates in the next 5 years should be more highly regarded than Sampras was in his heyday. because Sampras never had to face that many contemporaries who were as good as he was. Sampras had Becker, Andre and Pat but the four of them were never at their peak together. Becker retired, Andre was in and out of the game because of his love life and Pat came unto the scene late in Sampras's career. I am not saying that Sampras is not the best player of all time. I believe he is. I am simply saying that we would have had a better measure of his greatness had he been forced to meet Boris, Pat and Andre on a regular basis. Should any of the 5 players listed above dominate the game the way Sampras did for 6-7 years, that player in my mind will be a better player than Sampras whether or not he wins 14 slams.

This is a theory in progress but let me know what you think.

There are also Goran, Courier, Edberg during Sampras peak time and many more. It's just because Sampras was so dominating that ppl didn't notice there are great players during his prime time. I still can't understand why ppl keep on doubting how great Sampras was even he kept winning slams when ppl think he could not do it anymore. If you want to say whoever player on your list is a great player, you are free to do so but please don't try to step on the achievement of other players to make the one you like look good.

Last year's USO, Sampras defeat Rafter, Agassi & Safin to reach the final while all 3 players are still at their peak and all are ex-champion in USO.

luvbadboys
11-19-2002, 04:52 AM
I know think Edberg retired early in Sampras's career and Courier was at his peak during the 2/3 years after Sampras won his first USO. During that time Sampras was going through his sophomore slump. My point is that At no point during the 90s did you have more than 2 possible rivals to Sampras who were at their peak. I can say that this not the case right now. In deference to the other posters who feel I've left some names out, there are 20 players in the same age bracket who are all healthy talented and fit. If Sampras had to face 20 players regularly on the tour who were his equal in talent and fitness in his age bracket his story would have been different.

Lee
11-19-2002, 04:58 AM
If everyone kept on ignoring all the other talent players during Sampras era just because Sampras won most of the tourny, I have nothing to say.

Or ppl keep on believing Sampras won because his opponents were in a slump, suddenly their talent was gone or got injuried, I have nothing to say either.

BTW, if Hewitt use the same type of tennis racquet as Sampras or JMac used, I doubt he will have any ace or win as many games.

Also, Sampras fitness was always a problem for him because of the generic disease he had. He actually has a handicap against his opponents.

Ma. Estefania
11-19-2002, 08:34 PM
Watch out to Feña Gonzalez!

Chloe le Bopper
11-19-2002, 11:29 PM
The reason Sampras had less close rivals then Hewitt, is because Sampras was simply mentally, and in some ways technically - head and shoulders above the rest.

Thus, the players that were also great during that time, tend to be overlooked.

Unlike right now, when you have a jumble of players who are about the same level, and one who is just a bit mentally tougher atm.

Sampras at his best, made Agassi at his best - look ordinary. Comparisons with him are quite useless.

Lee
11-20-2002, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Rebecca
The reason Sampras had less close rivals then Hewitt, is because Sampras was simply mentally, and in some ways technically - head and shoulders above the rest.

Thus, the players that were also great during that time, tend to be overlooked.

Unlike right now, when you have a jumble of players who are about the same level, and one who is just a bit mentally tougher atm.

Sampras at his best, made Agassi at his best - look ordinary. Comparisons with him are quite useless.

Bravo Becca! :bounce:

luvbadboys
11-20-2002, 06:42 AM
Yes Becca but the point remains Sampras did not have to face 20 Agassis/Beckers in peak form on the tour regularly whereas that is not the case today. Fernando may have to go through Paradorn, Lleyton, Marat and Roger to win a title. Each of the guys in the the top 20 who are the same age have to face each other constantly and they are all superbly talented. I mean if everyone agrees that there is greater depth in men's tennis right now then before doesn't it logically follow that the player (Lleyton for now and whoever else in the future) who dominates now is that much better then the player who dominated over a weak field? If not, why?

Jorge
11-20-2002, 06:49 AM
and i forgot to mention Haas, Grosjean, Chela, Robredo, Paul-Henri Mathieu, and many more

luvbadboys
11-20-2002, 07:08 AM
Jorge if you go back a couple of messages you'll see that for that I've enlarged the number of players who may be considered competive mostly because I felt that the discussion was going off-topic. Whether there are 5-10 or 10-20 players who are equally capable of reaching yr-end #1 (although I doubt it) is not relevant to the the point I'm trying to make. which is that there are more equally talented player in the same age bracket playing against each other now then there were in the 90s. As such who ever does get yr-end #1 has got to be better than Sampras.

If you want to start a discussion about which of the players in the 19 to 24 group actually has a realitic chance of reaching yr-end #1 we need to start another thread. Then you and I can go at it there. ;)

Jorge
11-20-2002, 07:12 AM
i don't want to go back a couple of messages, i don't want to start a byzantine discussion with you, i just added some players that i consider great players and that, i think, they will be reaching the top spots soon. I haven't your posts in my mind when i post mine.

Open that thread if you want, i don't mind, but i won't be there because i don't find it relevant to me.;)

luvbadboys
11-20-2002, 07:24 AM
OK then....

Experimentee
11-20-2002, 10:50 AM
If Sampras only won because he didnt have competition how do oyu explain him winning Slams now, after all those player you mentioned were already on the tour? He did have a lot of good players in his time, but he was just too far above them to lose consistently.
It gets so old when everyone hypes up the young players just to put down the older ones...then they have to resort to making excuses like the so called greater depth when the young players dont match Pete or Andres achievements.

Lee
11-20-2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by luvbadboys
Yes Becca but the point remains Sampras did not have to face 20 Agassis/Beckers in peak form on the tour regularly whereas that is not the case today. Fernando may have to go through Paradorn, Lleyton, Marat and Roger to win a title. Each of the guys in the the top 20 who are the same age have to face each other constantly and they are all superbly talented. I mean if everyone agrees that there is greater depth in men's tennis right now then before doesn't it logically follow that the player (Lleyton for now and whoever else in the future) who dominates now is that much better then the player who dominated over a weak field? If not, why?

Luvbadboys, you keep on saying the young guys on your list will be like Agassis/Beckers, then, we need more than 10 GS a year so that these guys can win as many as GS Agassis/Becker did. Also, there need to be 3 players being #1 and 4 players being #2, etc in the ranking system. You keep on forgetting these guys have potential, but so far did nothing or very little to compare themselves to what Agassis/Beckers achieved. In Sampras era, there are also many guys have the potential but never being an achievers and so ppl forget about them.

Sjengster
07-04-2005, 04:46 PM
*bump*

An interesting first post in this thread, considering the discussion of Federer's lack of rivals at the moment. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and obviously some predictions about players proved to be way off the mark, but what are people's opinions now?

vincayou
07-04-2005, 06:23 PM
It's a bit scary to read that. It reminds everyone that it's very hard to predict the future even in 3 years.

rofe
07-04-2005, 09:05 PM
Thanks for bumping the thread. Good to know what some people were thinking in these forums three years ago. Those predictions were not too bad except for Paradorn though I can see why Paradorn was included. Around that time, it was a major feat by a Thai player to reach the dizzying heights of the top 50 I think and I remember expecting more from him.

Chloe le Bopper
07-04-2005, 09:07 PM
That was way too much Pete love. I might have to delete those posts and pretend that they never happened.

Chloe le Bopper
07-04-2005, 09:09 PM
While I still slip regularly, I have gotten much better with punctuation. Jesus, that post is embarassing in so many ways. Not that I disagree with the initial point, mind you.

rofe
07-04-2005, 09:09 PM
That was way too much Pete love. I might have to delete those posts and pretend that they never happened.

As opposed to your Nadal love now? :D

Tennis Fool
07-04-2005, 09:51 PM
I wonder what happened to Luvbadboys. She was a good poster. Disappeared after MTF opened.

lucashg
07-04-2005, 09:55 PM
Is this thread being rescued from where?

BTW, it's nice to see who all the big prospects of the game were back then when I didn't even care one bit for tennis. Schrichaphan and Malisse didn't live up to the hype, it seems. They have such beatiful games it's a pity.

Chloe le Bopper
07-05-2005, 02:48 AM
As opposed to your Nadal love now? :D
Honey, you have no idea how little sense this makes.

rofe
07-05-2005, 03:27 AM
Honey, you have no idea how little sense this makes.

It does, if you look at it in the right context. Unfortunately for you, that is a big leap in intelligence and no amount of badrepping me will change that. You little girl you. :hug:

Chloe le Bopper
07-05-2005, 03:32 AM
You registered in May 2005. I posted that in 2002. You HAVE no context.

Look, if oyu ask nicely I'm willing to throw you a bone and explain why your snip was just all kinds of stupid.

rofe
07-05-2005, 03:45 AM
You registered in May 2005. I posted that in 2002. You HAVE no context.

Look, if oyu ask nicely I'm willing to throw you a bone and explain why your snip was just all kinds of stupid.

Sigh. I will throw you a bone instead. It was meant to be in jest. See the smiley face after the remark? No, you can't see it since in your adolescent mind, you can only see it your way. It is really tiresome for me to have an adult conversation with you so I will make it easier on myself and put you on my ignore list. I hope you understand what that means and do the same.

disturb3d
07-05-2005, 03:57 AM
I just realized that Hewitt played and beat Safin, Federer and Ferrero one after the other.I don't understand the reason for this statement. Was it a recent event?

sawan66278
07-05-2005, 03:58 AM
I do not believe this is the best time in men's tennis...For example, look at the year end top 10 in 1987...Now that is a top ten...Daveydenko? COME ON...Here is the year end top ten for 1987 alone:

1 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Wilander, Mats (SWE)
4 Connors, Jimmy (USA)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Mecir, Miloslav (TCH)
7 Cash, Pat (AUS)
8 Noah, Yannick (FRA)
9 Mayotte, Tim (USA)
10 McEnroe, John (USA)


I believe that's 46 grand slam title among the players in that top ten!!!!!

And just look at the top ten in 1992:

1 Courier, Jim (USA)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Sampras, Pete (USA)
4 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Chang, Michael (USA)
7 Korda, Petr (TCH)
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA)
9 Agassi, Andre (USA)
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED)

That's 48 grand slam titles in the top 10!!!!!!!

And here's 1997:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE USA 4865
2 CHANG, MICHAEL USA 3597
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY RUS 3564
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN CRO 3492
5 MUSTER, THOMAS AUT 3166
6 BECKER, BORIS GER 2983
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD NED 2380
8 AGASSI, ANDRE USA 2364
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS SWE 2191
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE RSA 2149.

Even here, 34 grand slam titles!!!!!

2005 top ten:

1 Federer, Roger SUI 0 6980 6980 0 645 21
2 Hewitt, Lleyton AUS 0 3840 3640 200 250 20
3 Nadal, Rafael ESP 0 3635 3600 35 2860 26
4 Roddick, Andy USA 0 3590 3590 0 -65 21
5 Safin, Marat RUS 0 3265 3195 70 205 23
6 Agassi, Andre USA 0 2275 2275 0 175 19
7 Davydenko, Nikolay RUS 0 2115 2085 30 1030 31
8 Canas, Guillermo ARG 0 2070 2075 -5 475 21
9 Johansson, Thomas SWE 13 1688 1313 375 675 27
10 Nalbandian, David

Hmm....let's see...20 grand slam titles between them...


CASE CLOSED!!!!!!

rofe
07-05-2005, 04:15 AM
I do not believe this is the best time in men's tennis...For example, look at the year end top 10 in 1987...Now that is a top ten...Daveydenko? COME ON...Here is the year end top ten for 1987 alone:

1 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Wilander, Mats (SWE)
4 Connors, Jimmy (USA)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Mecir, Miloslav (TCH)
7 Cash, Pat (AUS)
8 Noah, Yannick (FRA)
9 Mayotte, Tim (USA)
10 McEnroe, John (USA)


I believe that's 46 grand slam title among the players in that top ten!!!!!

And just look at the top ten in 1992:

1 Courier, Jim (USA)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Sampras, Pete (USA)
4 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Chang, Michael (USA)
7 Korda, Petr (TCH)
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA)
9 Agassi, Andre (USA)
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED)

That's 48 grand slam titles in the top 10!!!!!!!

And here's 1997:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE USA 4865
2 CHANG, MICHAEL USA 3597
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY RUS 3564
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN CRO 3492
5 MUSTER, THOMAS AUT 3166
6 BECKER, BORIS GER 2983
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD NED 2380
8 AGASSI, ANDRE USA 2364
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS SWE 2191
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE RSA 2149.

Even here, 34 grand slam titles!!!!!

2005 top ten:

1 Federer, Roger SUI 0 6980 6980 0 645 21
2 Hewitt, Lleyton AUS 0 3840 3640 200 250 20
3 Nadal, Rafael ESP 0 3635 3600 35 2860 26
4 Roddick, Andy USA 0 3590 3590 0 -65 21
5 Safin, Marat RUS 0 3265 3195 70 205 23
6 Agassi, Andre USA 0 2275 2275 0 175 19
7 Davydenko, Nikolay RUS 0 2115 2085 30 1030 31
8 Canas, Guillermo ARG 0 2070 2075 -5 475 21
9 Johansson, Thomas SWE 13 1688 1313 375 675 27
10 Nalbandian, David

Hmm....let's see...20 grand slam titles between them...


CASE CLOSED!!!!!!


Hmmm...interesting stat but the paucity of GS titles in 2005 could perhaps be attributed to the overlap of less distinguished players with young guns? Instead of stats every five years maybe a better stat would be the average age of the top ten every five years, followed by GS numbers per age category. That may tilt the balance somewhat towards 2005.

*Viva Chile*
07-05-2005, 04:19 AM
I don't understand the reason for this statement. Was it a recent event?

this thread became of 2002 :p :o

Skyward
07-05-2005, 04:37 AM
1992
1 Courier, Jim (USA)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Sampras, Pete (USA)
4 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Chang, Michael (USA)
7 Korda, Petr (TCH)
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA)
9 Agassi, Andre (USA)
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED)

That's 48 grand slam titles in the top 10!!!!!!!


And here's 1997:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE USA 4865
2 CHANG, MICHAEL USA 3597
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY RUS 3564
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN CRO 3492
5 MUSTER, THOMAS AUT 3166
6 BECKER, BORIS GER 2983
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD NED 2380
8 AGASSI, ANDRE USA 2364
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS SWE 2191
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE RSA 2149.

Even here, 34 grand slam titles!!!!!

2005 top ten:

1 Federer, Roger SUI 0 6980 6980 0 645 21
2 Hewitt, Lleyton AUS 0 3840 3640 200 250 20
3 Nadal, Rafael ESP 0 3635 3600 35 2860 26
4 Roddick, Andy USA 0 3590 3590 0 -65 21
5 Safin, Marat RUS 0 3265 3195 70 205 23
6 Agassi, Andre USA 0 2275 2275 0 175 19
7 Davydenko, Nikolay RUS 0 2115 2085 30 1030 31
8 Canas, Guillermo ARG 0 2070 2075 -5 475 21
9 Johansson, Thomas SWE 13 1688 1313 375 675 27
10 Nalbandian, David

Hmm....let's see...20 grand slam titles between them...


CASE CLOSED!!!!!!

I don't get your math.

At the end of 1992

1 Courier-2 GS
2 Edberg-6
3 Sampras-1
4 Ivanisevic-0
5 Becker-5
6 Chang-1
7 Korda-0
8 Lendl- 8
9 Agassi-1
10 Krajicek-0

Total- 24 GS titles



At the beginning of 1997 (it's not the year end ranking because Rafter is missing)

1 Sampras-8 GS
2 Chang-1
3.Kafelnikov-1
4 Ivanisevic-0
5. Muster-1
6.Becker-6
7 Krajicek-1
8 Agassi-3
9 Enqvist-0
10 Ferreira-0

Total 21 GS titles

Are you comparing career totals of top ten in 1992/1997 with the amount of GS won by current top ten? It's not fair. All the guys, except for Johansson and Agassi, are fairly young and definitely not done with winning slams.

Chloe le Bopper
07-05-2005, 04:56 AM
Sigh. I will throw you a bone instead. It was meant to be in jest. See the smiley face after the remark? No, you can't see it since in your adolescent mind, you can only see it your way. It is really tiresome for me to have an adult conversation with you so I will make it easier on myself and put you on my ignore list. I hope you understand what that means and do the same.
One Fedfuck down, 2348309483209 to go.

Shabazza
07-05-2005, 09:36 AM
One Fedfuck down, 2348309483209 to go.
:wavey: Don Quichote

sawan66278
07-05-2005, 01:13 PM
I believe the comparison is fair...career grand slam titles are a fair evaluator of overall talent...If you look at the top ten players in 1987 for example, how many hall of famers (true all time greats) do you have or will have? If you look at the present top ten, there is only player (Federer) who I believe can compare to that top ten...Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, not even close to Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Becker....those are LEGENDS!!!!!!!!

Nadal may eventually get there...but look...Mats even has 7 grand slams!!!!! By the way, on a side note...I almost feel that Chang is as good as Hewitt...what do you think?

Skyward
07-05-2005, 02:15 PM
...what do you think?

I think that the case should be revisited in 7-10 years. :)

Chloe le Bopper
07-05-2005, 02:51 PM
:wavey: Don Quichote
You're going ot have to translate that for me, sweetheart.

Shabazza
07-05-2005, 03:21 PM
You're going ot have to translate that for me, sweetheart.
nah I think you know about Don Quichote and the windmills ;)
it's related to your post and your "crusade" against fedfucks ( :wavey: means hi in this case, not bye) :)

jtipson
07-05-2005, 06:12 PM
I believe the comparison is fair...career grand slam titles are a fair evaluator of overall talent...If you look at the top ten players in 1987 for example, how many hall of famers (true all time greats) do you have or will have? If you look at the present top ten, there is only player (Federer) who I believe can compare to that top ten...Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, not even close to Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Becker....those are LEGENDS!!!!!!!!

Nadal may eventually get there...but look...Mats even has 7 grand slams!!!!! By the way, on a side note...I almost feel that Chang is as good as Hewitt...what do you think?

No, it's not fair at all. You can't take the top ten players from 1992, and count the slams that those guys would win in the future and compare it with the top ten in 2005, and count only the slams these guys have now. The only fair way is to count only the slams the 1992 guys had at the time.

Hall of Fame is no measurement, it's totally subjective. Even Yannick Noah gets in with one slam.

Shabazza
07-05-2005, 06:28 PM
No, it's not fair at all. You can't take the top ten players from 1992, and count the slams that those guys would win in the future and compare it with the top ten in 2005, and count only the slams these guys have now. The only fair way is to count only the slams the 1992 guys had at the time.

Hall of Fame is no measurement, it's totally subjective. Even Yannick Noah gets in with one slam.
:yeah:

sawan66278
07-06-2005, 01:17 AM
Okay...be honest...do you REALLY believe that any other than Federer and perhaps Nadal are of or WILL be of the caliber of Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander, Connors or McEnroe?

While I see your point to a certain extent, you must admit...even in 1987...you had players like Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe who had won the bulk of their slams...

Sorry, but I do believe until Nadal reaches his peak, Federer record is not as impressive as the above players simply because of the quality of the other members of the top 10...