Assuming RAFA wins USO 09,,would he or FED get more acclaim for>career SLAM<? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Assuming RAFA wins USO 09,,would he or FED get more acclaim for>career SLAM<?

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 10:30 AM
~~~
Hypothetical::
assuming Rafa wins USO 09, so both Nadal & Federer manage to complete the `career slam` in the same year,, which one would get more acclaim and be remembered more in the history books??

Career Slams in the Open Era:

1. Rod Laver 1969 [*also calendar slam]
...30 year gap
2. Andre Agassi 1999 [completes with FO win]
...10 year gap
3. Roger Federer 2009 [completes with FO win]
...4 month gap
4. Rafael Nadal 2009 [completes with USO win]

Mimi
06-10-2009, 10:31 AM
no.1:wavey:

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 10:35 AM
no.1:wavey:

:wavey:
actually i was thinking Rafa might get more acclaim, because he would have achieved the `career slam` at a younger age and much faster [than either Fed or Agassi];)

Goldenoldie
06-10-2009, 10:43 AM
In the unlikely event of Nadal winning US Open 2009 or any other year his would be the better performance, because only one slam is played on clay (Nadal>Federer) and the others on grass/hard (Federer>Nadal)
All hypothetical, theoretical and problematical.

Certinfy
06-10-2009, 10:43 AM
To me it will easily be Federer, as it took him years and years of trying hard to get the FO.

Sinerra
06-10-2009, 10:52 AM
I think Nadal, because he was the last one to achieve it.

If someone is close to winning a career slam again (lets say 10 years from now) people would say "Nadal was the last one to complete a career slam" just like they keep saying that Agassi was the last one. I think people will talk about the last one the most

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 11:06 AM
I think Nadal, because he was the last one to achieve it.

If someone is close to winning a career slam again (lets say 10 years from now) people would say "Nadal was the last one to complete a career slam" just like they keep saying that Agassi was the last one. I think people will talk about the last one the most


:cool:
good point there;)
...
Yeah i don`t think we`ll ever see Murray or Djokovic getting close to winning all 4.. the next list of future champs also don`t look like their going to be able to dominate on all surfaces,, so if Nadal manages to pull it off then it will probably be a long time before someone else equals the achievement..

Still i think it would be awesome if Nadal won USO 09,, because 2009 would forever be remembered as the only year in which 2 career slams were completed:angel::devil:

jonathancrane
06-10-2009, 11:08 AM
It depends on the tard

vamosinator
06-10-2009, 11:15 AM
Nadal if he has to beat some decent talent on the way :o

RonE
06-10-2009, 11:23 AM
It depends on the tard

:lol: :yeah:

That's exactly right. I think they would both be monumental achievements but there is such a large degree of subjectivity that goes with this it is impossible to say who has earned it more.

A_Skywalker
06-10-2009, 11:29 AM
I think Federer's achievement statistically will be better cause he has 14 GSs and won the other 3 more than 1 times. However Rafa has enough time to win them too many more times.

born_on_clay
06-10-2009, 11:54 AM
Rafa because he's younger and he's got more of tennis career ahead of him and will be able to win a Calendar Grand Slam

theprodigy
06-10-2009, 12:59 PM
Aren't all career slams equal in the eyes of everyone today? :confused: Except Laver's of course.

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 01:15 PM
Aren't all career slams equal in the eyes of everyone today? :confused: Except Laver's of course.

***Probably, but if Fed & Rafa complete both their career slams in the same year [2009], thereby becoming just the 3rd & 4th men in the Open Era to do so,, 2009 will be remembered as a unique year in tennis history:cool::angel:

Everko
06-10-2009, 01:25 PM
Rafa. He did it quicklier and is better overall on the surfaces.

Arkulari
06-10-2009, 01:39 PM
both of them and 2009 will pass to history as the year in which two of the greatest players won their calendar grand slam :yeah:

Henry Kaspar
06-10-2009, 01:56 PM
~~~
Hypothetical::
assuming Rafa wins USO 09, so both Nadal & Federer manage to complete the `career slam` in the same year,, which one would get more acclaim and be remembered more in the history books??

Career Slams in the Open Era:

1. Rod Laver 1969 [*also calendar slam]
...30 year gap
2. Andre Agassi 1999 [completes with FO win]
...10 year gap
3. Roger Federer 2009 [completes with FO win]
...4 month gap
4. Rafael Nadal 2009 [completes with USO win]



As things stand now Federer will be more remembered, even if he had not won RG and Nadal completes a career slam this year.

However, if Nadal moves into 10+ slam territory people will probably speak of the "Federer-Nadal-era" 30 years down the road. But this because of their joint domination of the game, not because of career slams.

In one phrase: career slams are overrated.

zcess81
06-10-2009, 02:01 PM
Nadal if he has to beat some decent talent on the way :o

You think 5-10 years from now people are gonna remember how a particular GS was won? Nobody will care...pwople remember the winner not the circumstances. Rafa can get 4 walkovers and beat no.100 in the final and 5 years from now nobody will care...only the winner is remembered:)

FedFan_2007
06-10-2009, 02:14 PM
C'Mon Aussie, stop being like theRafa :retard:

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 02:52 PM
As things stand now Federer will be more remembered, even if he had not won RG and Nadal completes a career slam this year.

However, if Nadal moves into 10+ slam territory people will probably speak of the "Federer-Nadal-era" 30 years down the road. But this because of their joint domination of the game, not because of career slams.

In one phrase: career slams are overrated.


:cool:
Always value your posts Henry;)

However, your last line left me curious~ what do you mean "career slams are overrated"?
Which do you consider more impressive: Agassi winning 8 slams [including career slam], or Connors 8 slams [failed to win FO]:confused:

TennisGrandSlam
06-10-2009, 03:14 PM
Beside Fedcow, Rafa need to ask if Djokovic, Murray, A-Rod, JMDP allow him to win :D

dam0dred
06-10-2009, 03:15 PM
Only retarded fanboys would even attempt to claim one was more impressive than the other. This thread is a great example of how stupid this place can be.

FedFan_2007
06-10-2009, 03:19 PM
Beside Fedcow, Rafa need to ask if Djokovic, Murray, A-Rod, JMDP allow him to win :D

That's GOAT Fedcow to you sir. :devil:

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 03:21 PM
Only retarded fanboys would even attempt to claim one was more impressive than the other. This thread is a great example of how stupid this place can be.


:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Read the thread title again you fruitcake!
I`m not claiming one is more impressive over the other, the question is "which would get more acclaim (from the media, peers, tennis historians, reputation etc.)";)

Boris Franz Ecker
06-10-2009, 03:26 PM
if nadal wins it, the career slam nonsense should be history. Would be the 7th player, most of them didn't know that they won a career slam. There are much more exclusive features.

One should forget it and concentrate on the reald grand slam.

Angle Queen
06-10-2009, 03:27 PM
I think Nadal, because he was the last one to achieve it.

If someone is close to winning a career slam again (lets say 10 years from now) people would say "Nadal was the last one to complete a career slam" just like they keep saying that Agassi was the last one. I think people will talk about the last one the mostEh...I don't think so. Up until now, there have only been two on the mens side in the Open Era. Any fan or commentator will be able to name all four (Laver, Agassi, Federer and Nadal...assuming he does it). IMHO, they only speak so often of Agassi now...because he's just so recently retired and still very much a part of the tennis scene...not necessarily because he was the "last" to do it.

As things stand now Federer will be more remembered, even if he had not won RG and Nadal completes a career slam this year.

However, if Nadal moves into 10+ slam territory people will probably speak of the "Federer-Nadal-era" 30 years down the road. But this because of their joint domination of the game, not because of career slams.

In one phrase: career slams are overrated.Agree on the first two statements...not so much on the last. I, too, used to think that way, but now having seen one of the greats struggle and ultimately complete it, I can't help but think it's truly a milestone. And when you consider how many "great" players have not achieved it...well, it makes it that much more honorable.

marcRD
06-10-2009, 03:32 PM
This thread has so far been:

I think Rafa winning career grandslam would be more impressive because I am a Rafatard.

I disagree, Federer winning a career slam is much more impressive. You know why? Because I am a Fedtard.

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 03:36 PM
This thread has so far been:

I think Rafa winning career grandslam would be more impressive because I am a Rafatard.

I disagree, Federer winning a career slam is much more impressive. You know why? Because I am a Fedtard.


:wavey:
Well i guess you didn`t read any of my posts then did you marcRD..!?

marcRD
06-10-2009, 03:43 PM
:wavey:
Well i guess you didn`t read any of my posts then did you marcRD..!?

Well, I think it is strange how many threads we have about Rafa winning USOPEN+14 slams the day Federer got both. He still got a long way to go.

Federer got to 3 Roland garros finals before finaly getting the trophy, there was a sense of justice and payoff from all years of hardwork to get there. Very much like the Wimbledon Rafa got 2008. Rafa and USOPEN has no relation, there is nothing there. He never even lost against the eventual champion of the tournament. If he wins there it would be a major surprise but no one would feel "he finaly got it", there would be no 10 minutes standing ovation like in the French Open.

Ofcourse a career slam is a career slam and I see nothing lesser in any career slam anyone has won so far.

TennisGrandSlam
06-10-2009, 03:52 PM
If Nadal misses the chane in USO 2009, does it mean that he will finish the slam in 2019? :D:D:D

green25814
06-10-2009, 04:00 PM
Federer, because Rafa has 0.01% chance of winning the US open. In other words he wont. His best oppurtunity was probably last year.

mitalidas
06-10-2009, 04:02 PM
Nadal obviously. He is younger and would have done it faster.

Henry Kaspar
06-10-2009, 04:05 PM
:cool:
Always value your posts Henry;)

However, your last line left me curious~ what do you mean "career slams are overrated"?
Which do you consider more impressive: Agassi winning 8 slams [including career slam], or Connors 8 slams [failed to win FO]:confused:

Good question. On balance I find Connors' career more impressive , because

(i) he dominated the game in 1974/75 as Agassi never did,
(ii) he reached 11 consecutive GS seminfinals in the late 70s/early 80s (and 17 out of 18 from 1974-81), a statistic only surpassed by Federer; and
(iii) he won 8 slams EVEN THOUGH he did not play the Aussie and French Open during much of his prime.

Like Agassi, however, he won slams on hard court, grass and clay. His clay slam was not in Roland Garros but in Forrest Hills, but so what. Plus, the guy he beat in his clay court final was a certain Bjorn Borg, which ranks above Andrei Medvedev in my book.

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 04:05 PM
Well, I think it is strange how many threads we have about Rafa winning USOPEN+14 slams the day Federer got both. He still got a long way to go.

Federer got to 3 Roland garros finals before finaly getting the trophy, there was a sense of justice and payoff from all years of hardwork to get there. Very much like the Wimbledon Rafa got 2008. Rafa and USOPEN has no relation, there is nothing there. He never even lost against the eventual champion of the tournament. If he wins there it would be a major surprise but no one would feel "he finaly got it", there would be no 10 minutes standing ovation like in the French Open.

Ofcourse a career slam is a career slam and I see nothing lesser in any career slam anyone has won so far.

Your points are mostly taken;)
...
Though regardng Rafa & USO,, nobody expected Nadal to win AO this year either [where Rafa had never been beyond the SFs before], Federer, Murray & Djokovic were all favoured ahead of Nadal, but the Spaniard had the last laugh.!!

In my opinion, Federer`s career slam feels very `deserved`, but if Nadal also manages to complete the career slam in 2009 it would seem in some ways more remarkable, considering until 18 months ago many still labelled him a `clay court specialist`! For someone with Rafa`s crazy extreme top-spinning game to win Wimbledon, AO & USO in the space of 15 months would be quite incredible..

Of course Federer elation at finally winning FO,, and the standing ovation he received~ also have a different kind of sentimentality to them:angel:

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 04:09 PM
Good question. On balance I find Connors' career more impressive , because

(i) he dominated the game in 1974/75 as Agassi never did,
(ii) he reached 11 consecutive GS seminfinals in the late 70s/early 80s (and 17 out of 18 from 1974-81), a statistic only surpassed by Federer; and
(iii) he won 8 slams EVEN THOUGH he did not play the Aussie and French Open during much of his prime.

Like Agassi, however, he won slams on hard court, grass and clay. His clay slam was not in Roland Garros but in Forrest Hills, but so what. Plus, the guy he beat in his clay court final was a certain Bjorn Borg, which ranks above Andrei Medvedev in my book.


Okie dokes Mr.Kaspar,
All fair and valid points regarding the Agassi & Connors comparison;)

BTW, when are you going to update your yokozunatennis website~ following the FO results on the mens side??

Henry Kaspar
06-10-2009, 04:10 PM
Okie dokes Mr.Kaspar,
All fair and valid points regarding the Agassi & Connors comparison;)

BTW, when are you going to update your yokozunatennis website~ following the FO results on the mens side??

Thanks. Soon.... ;)

CmonAussie
06-10-2009, 04:16 PM
Thanks. Soon.... ;)

Cheers, as I`ve told you before I really support your idea of classifying tennis players along the Yokozuna, Ozeki etc. ranking system. Sumo terminology seems to fit tennis especially well, it would be awesome if some of the famous tennis commentators [McEnroe, Courier, Newcombe, Stolle etc.] began referring to players as "Yokozuna Nadal", or "Sekiwake Murray":cool:

DDrago2
06-10-2009, 05:11 PM
Nadal will get more acclaim ofcourse. Nadal is a Moral Giant who gets talking even people outside of tennis, where Federer is just a tennis junkie who is afraid of Nadal like a spoiled boy is afraid of a true Man

Burrow
06-10-2009, 05:21 PM
Rafa. He did it quicklier and is better overall on the surfaces.

:lol:

MIMIC
06-10-2009, 05:34 PM
It depends on the tard

:lol: :worship:

Bingo