Who is greater: Rafter or Roddick? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who is greater: Rafter or Roddick?

lleytonfan!
07-16-2009, 03:44 AM
Rafter has 2 slams to Roddick's 1, but Roddick has 27 titles to 11. Rafter has 2 Masters, Roddick 4.

I have to say Roddick.

CmonAussie
07-16-2009, 03:48 AM
...
I think Roddick is a better player~~ though Rafter is more popular!
Greatness = Roddick
Remembered = Rafter (except in America)

BigJohn
07-16-2009, 04:00 AM
Roddick. Top ten since 02, ranked #1 one year.

mistercrabs
07-16-2009, 04:20 AM
Roddick. Top ten since 02, ranked #1 one year.

This helps demonstrate how the arguments that Sampras played in a stronger era are nonsensical. Proponents would suggest that Rafter's the stronger player because he won more Grand Slams, but it's simply that lesser players like Rafter had the opportunity to win slams because the top players weren't as consistent.

oranges
07-16-2009, 04:59 AM
Rafter by a couple of light years

leng jai
07-16-2009, 05:14 AM
This helps demonstrate how the arguments that Sampras played in a stronger era are nonsensical. Proponents would suggest that Rafter's the stronger player because he won more Grand Slams, but it's simply that lesser players like Rafter had the opportunity to win slams because the top players weren't as consistent.

By top players you mean just Nadull and Fedclown...

JolánGagó
07-16-2009, 08:36 AM
Roddick and not even close. Rafter an overrated flash in the pan.

Certinfy
07-16-2009, 08:40 AM
Imo Roddick.

Manon
07-16-2009, 10:04 AM
This helps demonstrate how the arguments that Sampras played in a stronger era are nonsensical. Proponents would suggest that Rafter's the stronger player because he won more Grand Slams, but it's simply that lesser players like Rafter had the opportunity to win slams because the top players weren't as consistent.

Hi Kitinov, bad day?

sheva07
07-16-2009, 10:14 AM
Ducky of course.

JimmyV
07-16-2009, 11:06 AM
Roddick.

rocketassist
07-16-2009, 11:32 AM
Rafter played in a stronger era, plus won 2 USOs to Roddick's 1, while both have lost more than once in the Wimbledon final.

Roddick's been at no 1 longer.. I'd say it's tied.

Black Adam
07-16-2009, 11:56 AM
Roddick

Black Adam
07-16-2009, 11:57 AM
Rafter played in a stronger era, plus won 2 USOs to Roddick's 1, while both have lost more than once in the Wimbledon final.

Roddick's been at no 1 longer.. I'd say it's tied.
If you are to believe MTF, this era with the "GOAT", is the strongest era ever.

BlueSwan
07-16-2009, 12:10 PM
I voted "equal", but that was with my head under my arm. Now that my head is back in place I say that Roddick definitely takes it. Rafter was a very very good volleyer and had a decent serve, but he was a mug from the back of the court. Roddick is often critizised for his lack of baseline game, but his baseline game is lightyears ahead of Rafters.

Having said that, I personally prefer Rafter - he was a bit of a favourite of mine at a time.

vamosinator
07-16-2009, 12:13 PM
Rafter was playing in a far tougher era, and that is why he wasn't ranked as high as Roddick has been for long portions. Rafter would have hurt Federer/Nadal more than Roddick, no doubt. Even on clay, Rafter was a threat (in a great claycourt era too).

Commander Data
07-16-2009, 12:19 PM
Rafter was playing in a far tougher era, and that is why he wasn't ranked as high as Roddick has been for long portions. Rafter would have hurt Federer/Nadal more than Roddick, no doubt. Even on clay, Rafter was a threat (in a great claycourt era too).

For once i agree with you :o. Rafter would have been more dangerous then Roddick.

vamosinator
07-16-2009, 12:52 PM
I can't imagine Roddick beating Agassi in TWO wimbledon semi-finals, and that is Roddick's best surface.

Ivanatis
07-16-2009, 12:58 PM
these threads really get boring:o

Mateya
07-16-2009, 01:01 PM
Roddick :)

Except one slam less, every other stat is in his favour.

He had a better, richer carrer as a whole. And it's not over yet of course...

Crazy Girl
07-16-2009, 01:06 PM
these threads really get boring:oHey Beautiful Deck!!!

:bigwave::bigwave::bigwave::bigwave::bigwave:

There's your Crazy Girl here!!!

So, .....no more boring....just amusing!

vamosinator
07-16-2009, 01:08 PM
At their best Rafter way better. Rafter actually beat Sampras at the US Open (in 1998) and beat Agassi twice at Wimbledon. I don't imagine Roddick doing that to Sampras/Agassi.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 01:13 PM
For once i agree with you :o. Rafter would have been more dangerous then Roddick.

I've actually been agreeing with him a lot lately too, scary.
But not this time. I have to give the edge to Roddick for two reasons.
One, his performance on clay is much better than Pat's, almost double the wins. I do agree that Rafter's era was stronger, but Roddick's serve on the 90s grass would have been a force to be reckoned with.
For me, edge Roddick.

vamosinator
07-16-2009, 01:26 PM
What was Roddick's best result at Roland Garros? Rafter made the Semi.

Rafter has DOUBLE the slams that Roddick has.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 01:28 PM
What was Roddick's best result at Roland Garros? Rafter made the Semi.

This year quarters for Roddick. I just can't base a guys whole career on one tournament. Roddick has about 6 clay titles to Rater's 0, and he doubles his clay wins.

rocketassist
07-16-2009, 03:34 PM
Roddick is one of those players who I think would still do well in the 90s because of his game.

thrust
07-16-2009, 04:29 PM
Rafter played in a stronger era, plus won 2 USOs to Roddick's 1, while both have lost more than once in the Wimbledon final.

Roddick's been at no 1 longer.. I'd say it's tied.

I agree.

Burrow
07-16-2009, 04:38 PM
2slams > 1slam

Burrow
07-16-2009, 04:42 PM
This year quarters for Roddick. I just can't base a guys whole career on one tournament. Roddick has about 6 clay titles to Rater's 0, and he doubles his clay wins.

He made the 4th round.

Warrior
07-16-2009, 05:19 PM
Pat made it to SF of every slam. He could've been even better. Unlike Roddick he had a major injury.

oranges
07-16-2009, 05:24 PM
Would people voting for Roddick genuinely take either his game or career results so far over Rafter?

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 05:30 PM
He made the 4th round.

Yep, my mistake. Thanks..:yeah:

duong
07-16-2009, 05:32 PM
Would people voting for Roddick genuinely take either his game or career results so far over Rafter?

Both : Rafter's game was far far more beautiful but Roddick's level and regular carreer are better.

If there had not been Federer :rolleyes:

Actually I would be more interested in a poll between the two Pats Rafter and Cash.

Unfortunately Pat Cash had a short carreer but he was so talented :cool:

Ace2008
07-16-2009, 05:34 PM
Can you show us a picture of Rafter's wife.
If she is fug, then Roddick

oranges
07-16-2009, 05:36 PM
Both : Rafter's game was far far more beautiful but Roddick's level and regular carreer are better.

If there had not been Federer :rolleyes:

Actually I would be more interested in a poll between the two Pats Rafter and Cash.

Unfortunately Pat Cash had a short carreer but he was so talented :cool:

How is Roddick's level better?

It's obviously a personal opinion, but I have my doubts that, if given a choice, almost a half would chose longevity in the top 10 over a slam title.

Cash is a no contest either IMO.

duong
07-16-2009, 05:37 PM
At their best Rafter way better. Rafter actually beat Sampras at the US Open (in 1998) and beat Agassi twice at Wimbledon. I don't imagine Roddick doing that to Sampras/Agassi.

I can easily imagine this.

Sampras was a declining player in 1998, just as Federer now.

And Agassi was not a grass court specialist even though everything about he won Wimbledon and so on ...

Roddick had exactly the game to beat him on grass because his serve was huge to keep his serve and his baseline game was good enough to break Agassi sometimes ... which not many players could do in that time, their baseline game being not good enough.

duong
07-16-2009, 05:42 PM
It's obviously a personal opinion

Yes, just like yours :shrug:

but I have my doubts that, if given a choice, almost a half would chose longevity in the top 10 over a slam title.

Come on, statistics are not everything and Roddick is far better than a "regular top-10" :shrug:


Cash is a no contest either IMO.

I don't know what it means but in my opinion, Cash was more talented. Unfortunately his carreer ended shortly, but at 23 years old, he had won Wimbledon and been semifinalist (lost to the greatest McEnroe), been twice in the final of Melbourne (twice lost in 5 sets to Edberg and Wilander -8/6 final set on hardcourt the year Wilander won 3 slams- after beating the number 1 Lendl twice) and done the semifinals in US Open (lost 7/6 in 5th set TB to Lendl, when he was only 19 years old).

He was the only player beating Lendl in slams in 1987 (Melbourne semifinal and Wimbledon final).

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 05:51 PM
How is Roddick's level better?

It's obviously a personal opinion, but I have my doubts that, if given a choice, almost a half would chose longevity in the top 10 over a slam title.

Cash is a no contest either IMO.

When you dig into it, it's not even close really. Just dig into the facts. It's not worth it to me to retype all that stuff. But simply stated, Roddick has been at the top longer (top 10 7 yrs and counting), has more than double the titles, far more match wins, and is still at the top, top 5 even.
As good as Rafter was he had one really good year (98). When you get right down to it, he's just liked a lot better.

R.Federer
07-16-2009, 06:19 PM
When all is said and done, people remember slam results. Even Masters series don't count that much. People have to go back and look up how many non-slam tournaments a player won, because that is just not as relevant in judging careers. Anyway, Roddick can still catch Rafter with slams, but until then it would have to be Rafter IMO :shrug:

Some don't remember, but Masters series (previously Super 9s) did not have the stringent playing commitments in Rafter's time that they have now.

oranges
07-16-2009, 06:27 PM
Well, I certainly like him better, but that's not the reason that, if I could choose, I would pick his career results. One more slam is one more slam. I'd say it basically boils down whether you'd take a better peak over longevity. (BTW, Rafter hardly had one good year, as far as going deep in slams in concerned, he's had his couple of years just as Roddick.)

Yes, just like yours :shrug:

That's what I meant, people will have different preferences. ;) And my question was not about statistics, it was meant as a personal one. Suppose you're a player, would you choose for yourself Roddick's or Rafter's game to compete with the field and whose career would you rather end up with.

dam0dred
07-16-2009, 06:36 PM
Rafter by a couple of light years

More like a couple thousand light years.

Roddick versus Rafter, are you kidding? It's like comparing Spam to prime rib.

R.Federer
07-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Rafter has 2 slams to Roddick's 1, but Roddick has 27 titles to 11. Rafter has 2 Masters, Roddick 4.

I have to say Roddick.


When slam results are equal across players, then it makes sense to look "down the list" and see which player has better results in other things.

Otherwise by your count, Novak is better than Rafter! :confused: (1 slam, 4 masters including a YEC, and 13 career titles).

Nichele Hull
07-16-2009, 06:48 PM
Roddick is in the top ten only because of his serve. If Rafter had the groundstokes of a Karlovic then he should even been at a slam final.

duong
07-16-2009, 06:57 PM
Suppose you're a player, would you choose for yourself Roddick's or Rafter's game to compete with the field and whose career would you rather end up with.

IF you mean that, of course it's better to have 2 slams than having only one slam and having lost so often in a final or semifinals (and most of the time against the same "executioner" :sad: ).

Of course Roddick has been very unlucky :sad: and his position has clearly something unpleasant.

Also Rafter had a game which pleased more people than Roddick, and he was not laughed at the way the poor Roddick has been.

Then yes if you mean that, in the end of the carreer, it's better to be in Roddick's shoes than to be in Rafter's :lol:

But well, the question here is "who is the greater player ?" and then you have to try to be more objective.

My preferrence clearly goes to Rafter, by very far, BUT if you try to imagine what carreer they would both have had in similar conditions, Roddick is better imo, quite clearly.

Also when I read about "strong era" about Rafter, I'm sorry but I really don't think that in 1998, the era was stronger than now.

I rather think clearly the opposite.

The era between 1990 and 1995 was great, yes,
but after 1997, no I think it was a poor period.

Well yes, 2003 was also very poor.

But yet Roddick's carreer extended far longer than 2003.

Unfortunately, he did not win slams and be number 1 thereafter.

But that's more bad luck than anything.

I don't like reading 2>1 or 15>14 : that's really very little way of thinking.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 06:58 PM
When slam results are equal across players, then it makes sense to look "down the list" and see which player has better results in other things.

Otherwise by your count, Novak is better than Rafter! :confused: (1 slam, 4 masters including a YEC, and 13 career titles).

Not saying it's right, but I always try to look at a players complete body of work, not just results in one or two areas. If you do just look at one or two areas, then you continue to get into conflicts when evaluating players.
Example of Fed-Nadal. Half seem to want to look at total slams, and the other half wants to look at h2h.
Can's have it both ways. Either look at a players entire body of work, or just one area, but make it consistent. It's all a friggin opinion anyway.

What I'm thinking of doing is starting a thread: "Which - Who Is Better Thread is the Best".
This is getting out of control.

duong
07-16-2009, 07:01 PM
Otherwise by your count, Novak is better than Rafter! :confused: (1 slam, 4 masters including a YEC, and 13 career titles).

Novak has clearly started a carreer to be far better than Rafter.

Except if he's injured as Cash was.

R.Federer
07-16-2009, 07:08 PM
Not saying it's right, but I always try to look at a players complete body of work, not just results in one or two areas. If you do just look at one or two areas, then you continue to get into conflicts when evaluating players.
Example of Fed-Nadal. Half seem to want to look at total slams, and the other half wants to look at h2h.
Can's have it both ways. Either look at a players entire body of work, or just one area, but make it consistent. It's all a friggin opinion anyway.

Yes that is correct, but then the whole thread is baseless seeing as Andy is still playing and can improve his career results while Rafter will not.

But, to answer the question "Up to this point, whose career is greater", it is hard to look beyond slams IMO. That is what they are remembered by typically. I have never heard a commentator or read a sportspiece say, for example, "Todd Martin, winner of Memphis and Queens in 1994" but rather something on the lines of "Todd Martin, two-time Grand Slam finalist " -- because that is the standout statistic for his career.


What I'm thinking of doing is starting a thread: "Which - Who Is Better Thread is the Best".
This is getting out of control.
I have a vote for that!

oranges
07-16-2009, 07:21 PM
Novak has clearly started a carreer to be far better than Rafter.

Except if he's injured as Cash was.

Or if he continues playing like he has been for some time now.
Rafter was hardly lacking in talent. Comments like this make it sound as if anyone with potential is on top of their games for almost a decade, when in reality most of those who actually manage to make the best of it have a couple of years. Some have it earlier, some later, some maintain it longer, some don't. There are no givens either way.

Black Adam
07-16-2009, 07:25 PM
Roddick is in the top ten only because of his serve. If Rafter had the groundstokes of a Karlovic then he should even been at a slam final.
The fact is Roddick has that serve like it or not. Besides Roddick actually has better groundies than Rafter could ever hope to have. See the part in bold and I doubt you know anything at all about Rafter or his career acheivements:rolleyes:

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 07:29 PM
Yes that is correct, but then the whole thread is baseless seeing as Andy is still playing and can improve his career results while Rafter will not.

But, to answer the question "Up to this point, whose career is greater", it is hard to look beyond slams IMO. That is what they are remembered by typically. I have never heard a commentator or read a sportspiece say, for example, "Todd Martin, winner of Memphis and Queens in 1994" but rather something on the lines of "Todd Martin, two-time Grand Slam finalist " -- because that is the standout statistic for his career.


I have a vote for that!

That's true and is one of the reasons I rarely agree with commentators. They are singularly focused and rarely look past the flash. There primary job is to pump the tournament and build up the players in it. Even Mac is hilarious with some of the crap he says. You know what he's doing and we all know the sport needs the PR, at least in this country anyway.

oranges
07-16-2009, 07:31 PM
IF you mean that, of course it's better to have 2 slams than having only one slam and having lost so often in a final or semifinals (and most of the time against the same "executioner" :sad: ).


That was the question :D And I'm not buying the poor to play in Federer era theory. There's hardly a player who hasn't had an opponent of that caliber on their path. Neither am I buying the theory that beating Sampras at the USO was somehow easier than at the very least for Roddick to win this Wimbledon final. As said, Roddick still has time to get the edge result-wise. I'd still pick Rafter's game to compete with either his or Roddick's generation, though.

Arkulari
07-16-2009, 07:32 PM
Patrick :D

duong
07-16-2009, 07:38 PM
Or if he continues playing like he has been for some time now.
Rafter was hardly lacking in talent. Comments like this make it sound as if anyone with potential is on top of their games for almost a decade, when in reality most of those who actually manage to make the best of it have a couple of years. Some have it earlier, some later, some maintain it longer, some don't. There are no givens either way.

Some players had very good results when they were young but stopped (Chang, Medvedev, Arias...)

... but never when these young results were really great, with one slam victory and several slam semifinals, that stopped

... except injury (Cash is one clear example for that).

Djokovic has made so many slam semifinals in a row, but there is Federer and Nadal :rolleyes: ... and also not a very good physical resistance.

I mean it's clear in my mind that Djokovic, like Murray (both of them will be only 22 years old in several months), is something else : he has everything ... except injury.

oranges
07-16-2009, 07:42 PM
^^ And you seriously don't see anyone in decades past who seemingly had it all, but there were other Federers and Nadals to stand in their way.

duong
07-16-2009, 07:45 PM
That was the question :D

Not at all, the question is "who is greater ?"

I explained what I thought about how to answer such question in my post.

Sincerely speaking, Rafter is not far from Roddick in my personal hierarchy.

In my hierarchy Roddick is the leader of that group in that order (this was written way before this thread) :

Roddick Hewitt Safin Rafter Cash Gerulaitis Chang Kafelnikov Stich Ivanisevic

duong
07-16-2009, 07:47 PM
^^ And you seriously don't see anyone in decades past who seemingly had it all, but there were other Federers and Nadals to stand in their way.

Who do you think of ?

I may be stupid but I'm very serious :shrug:

Who made so many slam semifinals in a row at such a young age and lost only to "very big players" like Federer and Nadal ?

As for the reality of what will happen in the future, I'm very confident for Murray and Djokovic.

Unfortunately Djokovic has that physical problem when the weather is hot, that's the problem I can see for him.

But I already have a clear vision that among younger near generations (between 1988 and 1990), only Del Potro is a potential great (I mean "real great").

Federer is getting old, Nadal is the only big one ... but knee problems.

Generation 1991 has Dimitrov, that's all.

The next greats seem to be in generation 1992.

That makes many years after Murray and Djokovic.

duong
07-16-2009, 07:59 PM
Neither am I buying the theory that beating Sampras at the USO was somehow easier than at the very least for Roddick to win this Wimbledon final.

not easier but that's a fact that Roddick was very very near to winning that Wimbledon final.

That's quite similar imo :shrug: and it was in a slam final, not semifinal. And Federer had played greatly to reach that final.

Mjau!
07-16-2009, 08:02 PM
Meh, no one will remember how many minor tournaments or even AMS-shields Roddick has captured. They both played in an era where it really is all about the slams and on that stage, Patrick is simply more decorated than the american. Not only has he captured twice as many slams (sounds better than 1 more ;)), but he has wins over Sampras and Agassi while Roddick's heaviest win is probably Nalbandian.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 08:05 PM
^^ And you seriously don't see anyone in decades past who seemingly had it all, but there were other Federers and Nadals to stand in their way.

I'll answer your question. Yes, but then you have to get into the "if" game and I really hate doing that. Over the years, there were many players that "if" only they'd played at a different time they "most likely" would have had better results.

There have also been countless "flashes in the pan" that were one or two season wonders that just quickly faded away. I intentionally won't name names here just to avoid some stupid debate on who they are. I know you've been watching tennis long enough to know as well as anybody who they were. We have several right now that I strongly suspect will follow that same path.

oranges
07-16-2009, 08:07 PM
Not at all, the question is "who is greater ?"

I explained what I thought about how to answer such question in my post.

Sincerely speaking, Rafter is not far from Roddick in my personal hierarchy.

In my hierarchy Roddick is the leader of that group in that order (this was written way before this thread) :

Roddick Hewitt Safin Rafter Cash Gerulaitis Chang Kafelnikov Stich Ivanisevic

Roddick has a slam less than Safin and has been unable to beat that dreaded Federer in a slam, unlike the one you rank lower. Again, it comes down only to longevity/consistency, but not game-wise and result-wise IMO. Greater for me means combination of potency of the game/ability to beat just about anyone when on top of their game and results actually achieved. A lot of the other guys ranked lower also had more success against the greatest of their time in slams, but apparently you think that only Roddick faced extremely tough opposition. :shrug:

Burrow
07-16-2009, 08:10 PM
Who do you think of ?

I may be stupid but I'm very serious :shrug:

Who made so many slam semifinals in a row at such a young age and lost only to "very big players" like Federer and Nadal ?

As for the reality of what will happen in the future, I'm very confident for Murray and Djokovic.

Unfortunately Djokovic has that physical problem when the weather is hot, that's the problem I can see for him.

But I already have a clear vision that among younger near generations (between 1988 and 1990), only Del Potro is a potential great (I mean "real great").

Federer is getting old, Nadal is the only big one ... but knee problems.

Generation 1991 has Dimitrov, that's all.

The next greats seem to be in generation 1992.

That makes many years after Murray and Djokovic.

:haha:

duong
07-16-2009, 08:11 PM
I'll answer your question. Yes, but then you have to get into the "if" game and I really hate doing that. Over the years, there were many players that "if" only they'd played at a different time they "most likely" would have had better results.

There have also been countless "flashes in the pan" that were one or two season wonders that just quickly faded away. I intentionally won't name names here just to avoid some stupid debate on who they are. I know you've been watching tennis long enough to know as well as anybody who they were. We have several right now that I strongly suspect will follow that same path.

I'm curious but who ?

I mean in my eyes Chang or Medvedev or Ivanisevic didn't have results similar to Djokovic when they were young at all.

Who else ? Cash had more similar results, but I really don't see any other one :shrug:

oranges
07-16-2009, 08:12 PM
not easier but that's a fact that Roddick was very very near to winning that Wimbledon final.

That's quite similar imo :shrug: and it was in a slam final, not semifinal. And Federer had played greatly to reach that final.

It's not similar if one won and the other one lost. Ask Roddick ;) Does it matter if it's semi or final? You have to beat a multiple champion of the tournament either way, in Rafter's case in his home slam.

duong
07-16-2009, 08:15 PM
Roddick has a slam less than Safin and has been unable to beat that dreaded Federer in a slam, unlike the one you rank lower. Again, it comes down only to longevity/consistency, but not game-wise and result-wise IMO.

Greater for me means combination of potency of the game/ability to beat just about anyone when on top of their game and results actually achieved. A lot of the other guys ranked lower also had more success against the greatest of their time in slams, but apparently you think that only Roddick faced extremely tough opposition. :shrug:

In my eyes, Roddick faced tougher opposition than Safin to win slams, yes.

Only Gerulaitis in my mind was as annihilated by very tough opposition as Roddick and prevented to have such great performmances in the list I gave.

Ivanisevic as well ... but in only one tournament : Wimbledon. Ivanisevic was not great at all elsewhere.

That's my opinion :shrug:

duong
07-16-2009, 08:17 PM
It's not similar if one won and the other one lost.

I know I always face that "0/1" argument when I face tennis fans :shrug:

Does it matter if it's semi or final?

My point was that Federer's way to the final proves that he was in great form. And also that you know, it's more difficult to beat such a great in a final than in a semifinal.

oranges
07-16-2009, 08:19 PM
In my eyes, Roddick faced tougher opposition than Safin to win slams, yes.


I really have to start working, but I have to ask, HOW? Safin actually beat Federer playing his A game, even if we are to discount the fact that the second one came to Sampras, who won Wimbledon that year and not many managed to make him look past his prime.

duong
07-16-2009, 08:23 PM
Meh, no one will remember

are we obliged to rely on basic people's simple memories or can we have a more "in-depth" discussion between "in-depth" tennis fans ?

I mean I know I've always had that answer about "prestige" and "what people will remember".

But I'm not interested in the medias' headlines : they know nothing about tennis and are very basic indeed.

Once again, 15>14 or 2>1 is not the level of the topic I'm interested in.

I tried to do better. My result may be wrong but at least I tried.

duong
07-16-2009, 08:25 PM
I really have to start working, but I have to ask, HOW? Safin actually beat Federer playing his A game

you're right for this one in 2005.

But I meant that Roddick has been prevented from winning by a "very great opposition" several times. It's not Thomas Johansson.

Yes Safin played very great sometimes, and especially to win his two slams, no doubt ... but 2 is not so different from 1 in my eyes when the other one reached so many finals against a "ver great"

... and being regular is also important in my eyes.

Safin is more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, yes, nobody will contest that.

BUT ... I consider (and I'm not alone for that : I've seen a poll here) that his carreer is not as good.

Burrow
07-16-2009, 08:25 PM
Safin> Roddick

AO 04 Quarter final :)

Burrow
07-16-2009, 08:26 PM
you're right for this one in 2005.

And Safin played very great sometimes ... but being regular is also important in my eyes.

Safin is more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, yes, nobody will contest that.

BUT ... I consider (and I'm not alone for that : I've seen a poll here) that his carreer is not as good.

You talked about Cash having injuries, what about Safin?

Sapeod
07-16-2009, 08:32 PM
Why on earth is Safin being discussed in this thread :haha: :topic:

oranges
07-16-2009, 08:47 PM
you're right for this one in 2005.

And Safin played very great sometimes ... but being regular is also important in my eyes.

Safin is more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, yes, nobody will contest that.

BUT ... I consider (and I'm not alone for that : I've seen a poll here) that his carreer is not as good.

Like I said, people will evaluate achievements differently. I'm one of those who'll take slams titles over anything else, including multiple finals. Next in line is the quality of the wins and overall game. If the two are at odds for whatever reason, I have no trouble granting one better results, but the other one edge game-wise. Bottom line is, Safin is not JUST more talented. He won double (;)) the Roddick's slams and he beat two players with double digit slam counts for it. So far, Roddick loses both contests in my book and you lose the "winning slams in the full-blown Federer era is mission impossible" argument. If you think having more finals, TMS titles, longer top 10 ranking or whatever else carries more weight, so be it, but it's a bit contradictory if at the same time you'd personally rather have the other, because in the final analysis whenever there are elements that cannot really be compared, it comes down to personal preference. Having a more erratic career with far greater flashes versus a pretty consistent one with a long time at the top and a slam to show for it is one such case.

duong
07-16-2009, 09:06 PM
Having a more erratic career with far greater flashes versus a pretty consistent one with a long time at the top and a slam to show for it is one such case.

it's not only that (and actually I'm used to fighting against people who insist on players with a very long longevity : I mean some didn't have because they chose not to have longevity, they were not worse tennis players for that in my opinion),

it's also that 16-14 and 14-16 are not so different imo.

I mean, if Roddick wins a slam in the near future, without facing Federer, will all of his carreer be reconsidered ?

For some maybe (he will have "double slams" :lol:)
For me no.

Once again 2>1 and 15>14 is far too simple for me. We can do far better.

oranges
07-16-2009, 10:14 PM
I mean, if Roddick wins a slam in the near future, without facing Federer, will all of his carreer be reconsidered ?
Doubtful, but he'll get there result-wise and has better results further down the line already.
For some maybe (he will have "double slams" :lol:)

It was a joke, but in many ways the difference IS that huge.
Once again 2>1 and 15>14 is far too simple for me. We can do far better.
We can Rafter's game > Roddick's game, Safin's game > Roddick's game :lol: That's why they managed to win slams over the likes of Sampras and Federer, among others.

duong
07-16-2009, 11:05 PM
We can Rafter's game > Roddick's game, Safin's game > Roddick's game :lol: That's why they managed to win slams over the likes of Sampras and Federer, among others.

That's a good argument imo, but even if I consider that Rafter's game and even Safin's game are far more pleasant and elegant than Roddick's one, I'm not so sure that they are better, especially for Rafter.

I mean on one match, yes, I have to agree that Safin's top level was better than Roddick's.
For Rafter I'm more doubtful.
Roddick's level in Wimbledon final was quite huge, even if Federer was a bit slow in that match (but Sampras was not his best either in 1998 against Rafter)

But anyway, you don't judge on one match : regularity is still very important to mark a champion because many players can play few huge matches.

Pea
07-16-2009, 11:07 PM
Rafter. End of!

habibko
07-17-2009, 12:02 AM
This helps demonstrate how the arguments that Sampras played in a stronger era are nonsensical. Proponents would suggest that Rafter's the stronger player because he won more Grand Slams, but it's simply that lesser players like Rafter had the opportunity to win slams because the top players weren't as consistent.

agreed, had Roddick played in the time frame Rafter played in (or simply avoided Federer) , we would be looking at a multiple slam champion in Roddick right now, no less than 4-6 slams.

Burrow
07-17-2009, 12:02 AM
That's a good argument imo, but even if I consider that Rafter's game and even Safin's game are far more pleasant and elegant than Roddick's one, I'm not so sure that they are better, especially for Rafter.

Anyway, regularity is still very important to mark a champion because many players can play few huge matches.

HA!

Safin going toe to toe with Roddick 2005 and before, he would match him in all areas and clearly excel off the ground and at the net.

FairWeatherFan
07-17-2009, 12:47 AM
I voted "equal", but that was with my head under my arm. Now that my head is back in place I say that Roddick definitely takes it. Rafter was a very very good volleyer and had a decent serve, but he was a mug from the back of the court. Roddick is often critizised for his lack of baseline game, but his baseline game is lightyears ahead of Rafters.

Poor observation. Rafter played primarily from the net, whilst Roddick plays primarily from the back of the court. Rafter's baseline game was directed to his getting to the net, and in that it, at his peak, worked very well.

I would have to go with Roddick simply due to the longetivity of his excellent results, though IMO peak Rafter > peak Roddick.

Though, of course, Rafter is a far nicer person and had a much more attractive game.

heya
07-17-2009, 04:40 AM
Roddick said he didn't expect to be good at all and was satisfied just to show up this Wimbledon.
He'd rather pleasure the family, media and other players with his 'ATP opponent cheerleading and advertising'.
He had a bad attitude and never cared to work hard. Do you really think he wants to look good and great?!

Why are you seriously talking about his so-called career? It's not like his family and "pals" cared.

Listen to the radio link at the very end of his chat. He refused to answer the bad attitude question.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/AUSTIN-TX/KHFI-FM/What%20Year%20Andy%20Roddick%208%20%287-10-09%29.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=AUSTIN-TX&NG_FORMAT=chr&SITE_ID=820&STATION_ID=KHFI-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Bobby_Bones_Show&PCAST_CAT=Bobby_Bones_Show&PCAST_TITLE=Bobby_Bones_Show_Podcast

He's allowed to say "not many players are lucky to be in a final."
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/AUSTIN-TX/KHFI-FM/Andy%20Roddick%20Interview%2010%20%287-10-09%29.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=AUSTIN-TX&NG_FORMAT=chr&SITE_ID=820&STATION_ID=KHFI-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Bobby_Bones_Show&PCAST_CAT=Bobby_Bones_Show&PCAST_TITLE=Bobby_Bones_Show_Podcast

Mimi
07-17-2009, 05:01 AM
Roddick said he didn't expect to be good at all and was satisfied just to show up this Wimbledon.
He'd rather pleasure the family, media and other players with his 'ATP opponent cheerleading and advertising'.
He had a bad attitude and never cared to work hard. Do you really think he wants to look good and great?!

Why are you seriously talking about his so-called career? It's not like his family and "pals" cared.

Listen to the radio link at the very end of his chat. He refused to answer the bad attitude question.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/AUSTIN-TX/KHFI-FM/What%20Year%20Andy%20Roddick%208%20%287-10-09%29.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=AUSTIN-TX&NG_FORMAT=chr&SITE_ID=820&STATION_ID=KHFI-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Bobby_Bones_Show&PCAST_CAT=Bobby_Bones_Show&PCAST_TITLE=Bobby_Bones_Show_Podcast

He's allowed to say "not many players are lucky to be in a final."
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/AUSTIN-TX/KHFI-FM/Andy%20Roddick%20Interview%2010%20%287-10-09%29.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=AUSTIN-TX&NG_FORMAT=chr&SITE_ID=820&STATION_ID=KHFI-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Bobby_Bones_Show&PCAST_CAT=Bobby_Bones_Show&PCAST_TITLE=Bobby_Bones_Show_Podcast

heya at her best :lol:

vamosinator
07-17-2009, 05:54 AM
agreed, had Roddick played in the time frame Rafter played in (or simply avoided Federer) , we would be looking at a multiple slam champion in Roddick right now, no less than 4-6 slams.

How would Roddick (or Federer for that matter) ever beat Agassi/Sampras/Goran/Becker/Courier? Just Agassi and Sampras alone would have prevented Roddick even winning one slam probably.

Bargearse
07-17-2009, 05:59 AM
I find it difficult comparing these 2 players because their styles are different. Rafter with the serve/volley and Roddick now only beginning to volley well late in his career. In times past, Roddick didn't seem to know what he was doing out there but Rafter always had his game plan. I think Roddick's hygiene is a bit better than Rafter's was. :lol:

duong
07-17-2009, 07:37 AM
agreed, had Roddick played in the time frame Rafter played in (or simply avoided Federer) , we would be looking at a multiple slam champion in Roddick right now, no less than 4-6 slams.

in the beginning of the 90s no, but in the end of the 90s, yes.

R.Federer
07-17-2009, 01:08 PM
I guess some posters disagree about how important slams are in a career. But players are very well aware of the importance of that in how they will be remembered, and that is why they make it such a critical part of their goals. Not for the cash, or ranking points (those are good no doubt).

If winning a slam is Roddick's own biggest goal, why would that be the case, if his career is not going to be judged by that? He can win a heap of small titles. In their own (or their camp's words):


"By no means is he satisfied, because the whole gig when he hired me is we've got to win a Slam," said Roddick's coach, Larry Stefanki. "I said, 'That's what I'm here for.' Winning a Slam is what it's all about. Coming in second is like kissing your sister. And he knows that he's already won one. Nothing is going to suffice. Even if you get to the final, it won't do."


You're not going to win unless you put yourself in the quarters and the semis of majors," John Roddick said. "You have to keep putting yourself in the position and that's his big goal, more so than trying to finish No. 1."

Burrow
07-17-2009, 01:13 PM
Funny how some people here think Roddick would win 6 slams in the nineties, if he can't win 2 slams in this shitty era, then he wouldn't win one in the nineties. I just don't see how he would do better in the nineties barring his serve.

Burrow
07-17-2009, 01:15 PM
agreed, had Roddick played in the time frame Rafter played in (or simply avoided Federer) , we would be looking at a multiple slam champion in Roddick right now, no less than 4-6 slams.

You talk some smack, you do. You wouldn't be saying any of this if he hadn't reached the Wimbledon final.

Commander Data
07-17-2009, 01:23 PM
How would Roddick (or Federer for that matter) ever beat Agassi/Sampras/Goran/Becker/Courier? Just Agassi and Sampras alone would have prevented Roddick even winning one slam probably.

Huh?!!

It is not like Federer has never beaten them....these are the two best from the group, so that gives you also a hint for the other 3. Goran and Becker...:rolleyes: Fed would not have any problem with them. He would have the clear upper hand from the basline. when has fed ever struggled against a player he owned from the basline?...

JolánGagó
07-17-2009, 01:27 PM
How would Roddick (or Federer for that matter) ever beat Agassi/Sampras/Goran/Becker/Courier?

FFS "Goran" doesn't belong in the same line with the others, not even in the same paragraph.

rocketassist
07-17-2009, 01:33 PM
Funny how some people here think Roddick would win 6 slams in the nineties, if he can't win 2 slams in this shitty era, then he wouldn't win one in the nineties. I just don't see how he would do better in the nineties barring his serve.

He has the chance now with Fed past his prime and hardcourt legends Nadal, Murray and Fakervic around to actually win another one, no excuses if he can't do it in this weak era.

Burrow
07-17-2009, 01:39 PM
Well you mentioned the 4 guys that could be in with a shout to win a slam, there is basically no other, or there has been no other for some time now. And those 4 guys barring one, on hard court, are hardly legends. If he can't win one in this era, he wouldn't have a chance in the nineties. If he was playing like he did in 2003/2004, he would have a chance(to win one now), but not with the way he plays now.

rocketassist
07-17-2009, 01:42 PM
Well you mentioned the 4 guys that could be in with a shout to win a slam, there is basically no other, or there has been no other for some time now. And those 4 guys barring one, on hard court, are hardly legends. If he can't win one in this era, he wouldn't have a chance in the nineties. If he was playing like he did in 2003/2004, he would have a chance, but not with the way he plays now.

That's what I meant :lol: Legends was sarcasm, and Federer's shaky groundstrokes these days make him far from invincible.

Prime Safin would have loved this era.

leng jai
07-17-2009, 02:06 PM
Unbelievable that some clowns can say Rafter had easier competition than the Duck.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 03:23 PM
This is so obviously Roddick...

One slam versus two is a negligible difference, just as 15 compared to 14 is. Roddick is not a one slam wonder like Johansson, he just keeps losing in finals to Federer. Overall, though, he is the more accomplished player, who is far more consistent.

- Rafter only made the quarterfinals of a slam 7 times. Roddick has made the quarterfinals 17 times!

- Pat Rafter only made the 2nd week of a slam tournament 13 times in his entire career! Andy Roddick has ALREADY made the 2nd week of a slam 19 times. This is despite the fact that Rafter competed in 35 slam tournaments compared to Roddick's 33. I think it is safe to say that Roddick will end up with 20 or 21 2nd week appearances after the next 2 slams.

- Rafter has made at least the quarterfinals of a 1000/Super 9 tournament 13 times. Roddick has done that 29 times. Roddick has competed in 7 more 1000/Super 9 tournaments, but those numbers are not even close, despite the fact that top players skipped those tournaments far more than they do now, making it easier to do well.

- Rafter has made at least the semifinals of a 1000/Super 9 tournament 9 times. Roddick has done that 15 times.

- Rafter has won 11 titles overall all of which were on grass or hard courts. Roddick has won 27 titles, with titles on every single surface (17 hard, 5 clay, 4 grass, and 1 carpet).

- Rafter never made it beyond the Round Robin portion of the Masters Championship. Roddick made the semifinals 3 times.

- Rafter finished in the top 10 in the world 3 times. Roddick has done so 7 years in a row.


__________________________________

It is just absurd to say that since Rafter has 2 slam titles to Roddick's 1 that he is a better player. Slams are the most important thing, but one more slam win does NOT make up for significantly lesser results in all other types of tournaments throughout one's career.

oranges
07-17-2009, 03:26 PM
I take it zero vs one slam is negligible as well :lol: Ten years in top 10 is also better than 3 weeks as No1 :lol: More QF is better than semis on all surfaces :lol: This generation is goooood.

JolánGagó
07-17-2009, 03:27 PM
Not even a random mountain ape casually following tennis in between typhoons would consider Rafter's career better than Roddick's.

Nuff said about who populate this shithole MTF :o

MacTheKnife
07-17-2009, 03:28 PM
^^^Exactly. What this boils down to is we like Rafter > Roddick.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 03:34 PM
I take it zero vs no slams is negligible as well :lol: Ten years in top 10 is also better than 3 weeks as No1 :lol: More QF is better than semis on all surfaces :lol: This generation is goooood.

You are being foolish. Roddick has been a better player his entire career. He has made 5 slam finals. He just happened to have won only one. If he were a one slam wonder then the difference between 1 slam and 2 would be greater. Winning 2 slams would show the ability to repeat that high level of performance more than once. However, Roddick has shown many times that he can play at a level that is high enough to win slams. He just frequently runs into Federer, who is not only far better than him, but also a terrible individual matchup.

As you childishly pointed out, consistency is not everything. But it's not a matter of Rafter having a far greater peak, and Roddick being more consistent. Their peaks are similar, but Roddick has sustained himself at or near that level for WAY longer. Hence he is a better player.

oranges
07-17-2009, 03:39 PM
You are being foolish. Roddick has been a better player his entire career.

No he hasn't, he's just been at the top longer. He can only dream of ever playing on Rafter's top level. It's evident result-wise in 2>1, among other things. I've just taken your arguments a step further, that's all, nothing foolish in it :lol:

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 03:56 PM
No he hasn't, he's just been at the top longer. He can only dream of ever playing on Rafter's top level. It's evident result-wise in 2>1, among other things. I've just taken your arguments a step further, that's all, nothing foolish in it :lol:


2>1 is such a foolish argument. 1>0 but Thomas Johansson is NOT > Nalbandian or Murray or Coria or Davydenko or Corretja or Rios or Martin or Philipoussis or Henman or Pioline or Mecir. Why? Because all those players had better overall careers than Johansson. It is the same with Rafter and Roddick.

JolánGagó
07-17-2009, 04:14 PM
2>1 is such a foolish argument. 1>0 but Thomas Johansson is NOT > Nalbandian or Murray or Coria or Davydenko or Corretja or Rios or Martin or Philipoussis or Henman or Pioline or Mecir. Why? Because all those players had better overall careers than Johansson. It is the same with Rafter and Roddick.

If you aren't afraid of nutty flaming PMs calling you a full of shit SOB ask her who's career is better: Roddick's or "Goran"'s...

:haha:

mitalidas
07-17-2009, 04:16 PM
2>1 is such a foolish argument. 1>0 but Thomas Johansson is NOT > Nalbandian or Murray or Coria or Davydenko or Corretja or Rios or Martin or Philipoussis or Henman or Pioline or Mecir. Why? Because all those players had better overall careers than Johansson. It is the same with Rafter and Roddick.

2>1 may be a generically inapplicable argument, but Roddick v/s Rafter is far away from comparing Tojo v/s Rios. Thomas Johansson had 1 very great result followed by other relatively mediocre results, while Rios who did not have that one great result but had many very good (TMS) results and was Number 1.

Rafter v/s Roddick is closer, but the majority of Roddick's additional titles over Rafter's are not stellar ones. He has 4 Masters, Rafter has 2. They have both shown up as Number 1. They have both played slam finals that they have lost and won. Roddick is not done, but if he only racks up small tourney titles in the next coming years, he is not going to be viewed as having had a better career than Rafter's.
Why is it, otherwise, that his goal is to win another slam? You think it's the points?

vamosinator
07-17-2009, 04:23 PM
Becker, Goran, Agassi and Sampras would all defeat Roddick at Wimbledon, and Wimbledon is Roddick's main hope for a slam. Sampras and Agassi would kill him at the US Open more than Federer did. I also don't like Federer's chances of ever beating prime Sampras at Wimbledon.

JolánGagó
07-17-2009, 04:27 PM
Becker, Goran, Agassi and Sampras would all defeat Roddick at Wimbledon, and Wimbledon is Roddick's main hope for a slam. Sampras and Agassi would kill him at the US Open more than Federer did. I also don't like Federer's chances of ever beating prime Sampras at Wimbledon.

Useless BS from "B" to ".".

oranges
07-17-2009, 04:29 PM
2>1 is such a foolish argument. 1>0 but Thomas Johansson is NOT > Nalbandian or Murray or Coria or Davydenko or Corretja or Rios or Martin or Philipoussis or Henman or Pioline or Mecir. Why? Because all those players had better overall careers than Johansson. It is the same with Rafter and Roddick.

As far as results go, he is. Each and every one of those mentioned would give those other results for that slam win. Your second point works better affirming mine why the two from the OP are galaxies away.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 05:15 PM
As far as results go, he is. Each and every one of those mentioned would give those other results for that slam win. Your second point works better affirming mine why the two from the OP are galaxies away.

I truly doubt those players would give that away. For one thing, I'm sure they made a ton more money than Johansson by doing better overall. Secondly, those are more respected players than Johansson DESPITE his slam win.

Everyone wants to win a slam, but it is foolish and presumptuous of you to state that they would all happily take a lame career that had a random slam win over very very good careers without a slam win. You don't know that. They made more money and have more respect in the tennis world than Johansson. Why would they trade that in for his career?


EDIT: For instance, Tim Henman made 4.5 million dollars more playing tennis than Thomas Johansson did. I would absolutely trade Johansson's lone slam win for 4.5 million dollars. What's more, Henman is more famous and a FAR more respected player in tennis history than Johansson. Let's be realistic. There is very little chance Henman would trade 4.5 million dollars, fame, and a boatload of respect just to have won a lone slam title.

oranges
07-17-2009, 05:49 PM
Whatever, are we to pretend Rafter had a mediocre career so that you can have a point? Or that Roddick wouldn't give all those QF and even finals for another slam? Or that there's nothing disputable in the logic that good but not brilliant results can make up for more brilliant ones. But since Roddick is on par with Becker for you, just unlucky to be born when he was, poor Patrick stands no chance.

TheMightyFed
07-17-2009, 06:07 PM
In my book Rafter is, because he could defeat the best players in slams, and he defended the US Open, which is a huge achievement. Plus in his style of play he had no glaring weaknesses. Roddick is not lucky to run into Federer but still he has one huge weapon (the serve) and is not that great in some departments, namely movement, backhand and approach shots (can I say atrocious in the latter: too many crosscourt kamikaze runs, ugly timing). I was impressed to see the improvements in the backhand lately but still I think Rafter was a more complete player, because besides his great S&V game he had a solid baseline game and nice return.
Personnality wise, I like Rod's humor in press conference but he's a jerk with umpires. Rafter was a great bloke everywhere.

MacTheKnife
07-17-2009, 06:10 PM
Whatever, are we to pretend Rafter had a mediocre career so that you can have a point? Or that Roddick wouldn't give all those QF and even finals for another slam? Or that there's nothing disputable in the logic that good but not brilliant results can make up for more brilliant ones. But since Roddick is on par with Becker for you, just unlucky to be born when he was, poor Patrick stands no chance.

I don't think those are the choices, one of these guys is great and one sucks. I don't think anybody said that. The question was who is greater ? (I took that to mean over all career) To me, it clearly shows Roddick with the better overall career. At no point did I think that meant Rafter sucked. I did not think of it as an either or situation.
I just don't put as much emphasis on a one slam difference. There are a multitude of factors that can drive a one slam difference between two guys.
It may be the deciding factor or it may not be. In this case, imo, it wasn't. Just to many other factors to figure in.

But like I said, I don't think Rafter sucked or did not have a great career.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 06:30 PM
Whatever, are we to pretend Rafter had a mediocre career so that you can have a point? Or that Roddick wouldn't give all those QF and even finals for another slam? Or that there's nothing disputable in the logic that good but not brilliant results can make up for more brilliant ones. But since Roddick is on par with Becker for you, just unlucky to be born when he was, poor Patrick stands no chance.

Rafter didn't have a mediocre career, but Roddick was also better than Henman. I wasn't equating Johansson/Henman to Rafter/Roddick as if they are equal pairs of players. Rather I was pointing out the HUGE flaws in using solely number of slams won to judge how great a player is. Given that there are obvious flaws in the sole use of slams won (especially when the difference between players is only one slam), and every other metric puts Roddick ahead, I would say Roddick is the clearly superior player.

And yes, it is possible that Roddick would give up a bunch of quarterfinals for another slam win. I dont know. Neither do you. The fact is that Roddick has had a better career than Rafter.

He has consistently made it to high rounds at slams in a way that Rafter did not. He has won way more tournaments, and done it over every surface (something Rafter failed to do). He has been highly ranked for much longer and much more consistently than Rafter. He was year-end #1 which Rafter never was, and was #1 for slightly longer than Rafter. He won more Masters Series tournaments than Rafter, and was much more consistent in such tournaments than Rafter when he didn't win. He has made 5.4 million dollars more than Rafter (I realize prize money is a bit higher now, but the difference is too large for that to be the main reason). Roddick has been a way better Davis Cup performer (31-11 compared to 18-10 in singles) and lead his country to a Davis Cup title, something Rafter never did.

All Rafter has over Roddick is 2 slams compared to 1. That's a big deal, certainly, but doesnt even come close to making up for all the stuff that Roddick has over Rafter.

mitalidas
07-17-2009, 06:37 PM
Let's be realistic. There is very little chance Henman would trade 4.5 million dollars, fame, and a boatload of respect just to have won a lone slam title.

I don't think this is the case at all. Especially for Henman.

oranges
07-17-2009, 06:39 PM
I don't think those are the choices, one of these guys is great and one sucks. I don't think anybody said that. The question was who is greater ? (I took that to mean over all career) To me, it clearly shows Roddick with the better overall career. At no point did I think that meant Rafter sucked. I did not think of it as an either or situation.
I just don't put as much emphasis on a one slam difference. There are a multitude of factors that can drive a one slam difference between two guys.
It may be the deciding factor or it may not be. In this case, imo, it wasn't. Just to many other factors to figure in.

But like I said, I don't think Rafter sucked or did not have a great career.

I didn't say that anyone sucked either. I do think they are a different category of player altogether and the difference in slam wins is just a consequence. Rafter simply had more to his game. He hasn't been on top of his game as long, but when he was he had more impressive results. That's the deciding factor for me.

MacTheKnife
07-17-2009, 06:45 PM
I didn't say that anyone sucked either. I do think they are a different category of player altogether and the difference in slam wins is just a consequence. Rafter simply had more to his game. He hasn't been on top of his game as long, but when he was he had more impressive results. That's the deciding factor for me.

With all these "who's better than" threads, I've thought of starting a thread "How Do You Evaluate Players".
It's obvious that most of us take a different approach. It might be interesting to see what thought process people use to arrive at the conclusion that one guy is better than the other.

oranges
07-17-2009, 06:47 PM
All Rafter has over Roddick is 2 slams compared to 1. That's a big deal, certainly, but doesnt even come close to making up for all the stuff that Roddick has over Rafter.

No, he also has the fact that no one was really unbeatable for him and anyone arguing his case feels no need to make caveats if only he played in another era. Look for the reason behind that and you'll have your answer why he's another class.

mitalidas
07-17-2009, 06:50 PM
Let's be realistic. There is very little chance Henman would trade 4.5 million dollars, fame, and a boatload of respect just to have won a lone slam title.

Here is Henman looking back after retirement.


The closest that Henman came to winning Wimbledon was in 2001, with that three-day, rain-hit semi-final against Goran Ivanisevic. "If I could go back and change one match then it would be the one against Goran in 2001 and I would ask it not to rain. But that's tricky. I'm disappointed that I lost that match and I'm disappointed perhaps that I didn't win Wimbledon, but at the end of the day, I don't really have regrets," he said.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 07:30 PM
I don't think this is the case at all. Especially for Henman.

Henman might have traded everything in to win WIMBLEDON. I don't know, but it is possible. But that is a different issue because it has more to do with the fact that his home country would worship him if he had done that, since the Brits desperately want one of their own to win Wimbledon. Do you think he would've traded for a US/Australian Open title? I don't.

No, he also has the fact that no one was really unbeatable for him and anyone arguing his case feels no need to make caveats if only he played in another era. Look for the reason behind that and you'll have your answer why he's another class.

The reason behind that? Maybe that Rafter's prime didn't coincide with anyone playing even close to the level that Federer has played during Roddick's prime years. Rafter's prime was 1997-2001.

During that period, Sampras was obviously still playing, but he was a rung below the player he had been; he wasnt even number 1 (or 2) in the world during 1999-2001. Even if you think Sampras was as good as Federer overall, you cannot say that 1997-2001 Sampras was better than 2004-2009 Federer. Agassi played pretty well during this period, but he was ranked 122, 6, 1, 6, and 3 respectively during those 5 years. Hardly dominant, and certainly not that consistent.

During the 1997-2001 prime of Rafter's career, the following other players hit number 1 in the world: Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov, Safin, Kuerten, and Hewitt. Those are all solid players, but honestly they are not unbeatable by any top 10 level player. And those were the NUMBER ONE players! THAT is why no one was unbeatable for Rafter in his prime.

oranges
07-17-2009, 07:40 PM
The reason behind that? Maybe that Rafter's prime didn't coincide with anyone playing even close to the level that Federer has played during Roddick's prime years. Rafter's prime was 1997-2001.


But of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that he had more weapons to beat those guys and less weaknesses than Roddick. Luckily for him, it only coincided with Sampras and those other mugs that can't compare to today's era. :lol: Why on earth do I bother?

Rosa Luxembourg
07-17-2009, 07:45 PM
Pat.Miss him. Will never miss Roddick.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 07:55 PM
But of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that he had more weapons to beat those guys and less weaknesses than Roddick. Luckily for him, it only coincided with Sampras and those other mugs that can't compare to today's era. :lol: Why on earth do I bother?

From 1997-2001, there was no player playing EXTREMELY well. That is not to say that there weren't a lot of very good players. There were. But there was no one playing at GOAT level. The best player playing in that timeframe was Sampras, but he was a notch below the player he had been.

This is not a matter of which era was better. I personally think the 1997-2003 era was slightly weak. I think most would agree, but that is not really the point. I am not comparing eras. Comparing eras involves talking about depth and how many very good players there were. You said that no single player was unbeatable for Rafter at his best. This fact is only affected by whether there was ONE player who was playing EXTREMELY well, not whether the era as a whole was good. Thus those are two different issues.

Let me illustrate this. Let's say the pro tour consisted of Roger Federer, Andy Roddick, and 200 8 year old girls. This would be a weak era of tennis of course, but there would still be a player that is unbeatable for Roddick.

On the other hand, let's say the pro tour consisted of Andy Roddick, and 200 Andy Murray clones. This would be a strong era of tennis, but there would not be a player that Roddick could not beat.

Therefore, the two things are different. The fact is that no one was playing at a godly level from 1997-2001. Federer WAS playing at godly level the last bunch of years. This is why Roddick had a player he couldnt really beat and Rafter didnt.

Havok
07-17-2009, 10:42 PM
Well I wasn't watching tennis when Rafter was around and playing his best tennis. I've heard plenty of him and before reading about some of his career stats in this thread, I would have easily voted for Rafter.

Once I saw how paltry his records are against Roddick's, it is obvious to me and should be to all that Roddick definitely has the better career; he isn't even finished with the Tour just yet on top of all that. An extra Slam does not automatically make you a greater player, just like Roddick has a better career than Safin and one can argue that Hewitt and Roddick are fairly equal in terms of who had the better career.

I mean seriously a guy with 11 total titles (2 Slams, 2 TMS events) is being voted for better career over somebody with 27 total titles (1 Slam, 4 TMS events, won on all surfaces). MTF never ceases to amaze me.:retard:

BigJohn
07-17-2009, 10:50 PM
Well I wasn't watching tennis when Rafter was around and playing his best tennis. I've heard plenty of him and before reading about some of his career stats in this thread, I would have easily voted for Rafter.

Once I saw how paltry his records are against Roddick's, it is obvious to me and should be to all that Roddick definitely has the better career; he isn't even finished with the Tour just yet on top of all that. An extra Slam does not automatically make you a greater player, just like Roddick has a better career than Safin and one can argue that Hewitt and Roddick are fairly equal in terms of who had the better career.

I mean seriously a guy with 11 total titles (2 Slams, 2 TMS events) is being voted for better career over somebody with 27 total titles (1 Slam, 4 TMS events, won on all surfaces). MTF never ceases to amaze me.:retard:

The pro-Rafter vote gets boosted by the rugged-aussie-hunk factor.

MacTheKnife
07-17-2009, 10:55 PM
The pro-Rafter vote gets boosted by the rugged-aussie-hunk factor.

Exactly..:rolleyes:

Har-Tru
07-17-2009, 10:58 PM
Like them both, can't decide.

leng jai
07-18-2009, 12:06 AM
Exactly..:rolleyes:

Or fact that his game was infinitely better and he didn't act like an absolute douche on court.

We don't all have to measure greatness purely on results, and even then Roddick had the luxury of not having his career cut short by injury.

Burrow
07-18-2009, 12:27 AM
Well I wasn't watching tennis when Rafter was around and playing his best tennis. I've heard plenty of him and before reading about some of his career stats in this thread, I would have easily voted for Rafter.

Once I saw how paltry his records are against Roddick's, it is obvious to me and should be to all that Roddick definitely has the better career; he isn't even finished with the Tour just yet on top of all that. An extra Slam does not automatically make you a greater player, just like Roddick has a better career than Safin and one can argue that Hewitt and Roddick are fairly equal in terms of who had the better career.

I mean seriously a guy with 11 total titles (2 Slams, 2 TMS events) is being voted for better career over somebody with 27 total titles (1 Slam, 4 TMS events, won on all surfaces). MTF never ceases to amaze me.:retard:

Roddick better career than Safin :haha:

2slams 5masters series by the age of 25 on the dot. Roddick hasn't won as many significant titles and he will be 27 soon without any injuries.

He will never be recognized as a man who could beat anybody. Who cares how many international series he has?

leng jai
07-18-2009, 12:28 AM
Safin had a far better career than Roddick, no contest.

MacTheKnife
07-18-2009, 12:51 AM
Or fact that his game was infinitely better and he didn't act like an absolute douche on court.

We don't all have to measure greatness purely on results, and even then Roddick had the luxury of not having his career cut short by injury.

That is obvious based on the posts in all the "Who is Better/Greater" threads. In most cases it's not really clear which player is better, then it generally boils down to a popularity contest.

Burrow
07-18-2009, 12:54 AM
Here it's clear, 2 slams > 1 slam...

heya
07-18-2009, 01:03 AM
He has the chance now with Fed past his prime and hardcourt legends Nadal, Murray and Fakervic around to actually win another one, no excuses if he can't do it in this weak era.

It doesn't matter that he's funnier, more talented, handsome, sexier and smarter than the other clowns. He won't retire because the money pleases his friends + relatives. He won't quit now because his brother was very disappointed about his own injury + failed tennis results.

He can be rich enough to golf with the idiot radio host; he was desperately bored with staying in a room and practicing on the court for 3 hours. $200 per golf hit session. Impressive for the "mom Blanche's hard worker".

His real fans didn't like his cancellation due to "his unprepared body". He didn't like being criticised...he'd rather receive pity from retarded little girls and his genius mother. I remember in '07, his useless coach brother laughing at him from the bench, but now he cares so much for his little Andy. LOL :worship: :o

After years of Roddick's excuses and distractions, his idiot fans still think he's a loser who should stay the way he is.

Embarrassing, clueless girls who post endlessly to him (thinking he gets loving help with bullshit ass-kissing):

http://twitter.com/reen426 http://twitter.com/lizzieva

Horatius
07-18-2009, 01:10 AM
It doesn't matter that he's funnier, more talented, handsome, sexier and smarter than the other clowns. He won't retire because the money pleases his friends + relatives. He won't quit now because his brother was very disappointed about his own injury + failed tennis results.

He can be rich enough to golf with the idiot radio host; he was desperately bored with staying in a room and practicing on the court for 3 hours. $200 per golf hit session. Impressive for the "mom Blanche's hard worker".

His real fans didn't like his cancellation due to "his unprepared body". He didn't like being criticised...he'd rather receive pity from retarded little girls and his genius mother. I remember in '07, his useless coach brother laughing at him from the bench, but now he cares so much for his little Andy. LOL :worship: :o

After years of Roddick's excuses and distractions, his idiot fans still think he's a loser who should stay the way he is.

Embarrassing, clueless girls who post endlessly to him (thinking he gets loving help with bullshit ass-kissing):

http://twitter.com/reen426 http://twitter.com/lizzieva

I'm suprised that you keep forgetting his poker success also:wavey::angel:

Havok
07-18-2009, 01:32 AM
Roddick better career than Safin :haha:

2slams 5masters series by the age of 25 on the dot. Roddick hasn't won as many significant titles and he will be 27 soon without any injuries.

He will never be recognized as a man who could beat anybody. Who cares how many international series he has?
Safin has one more Slam and one more TMS event. He was relevant for only a few years and has a total of 15 titles. Apart from his 2 Slam wins, he made it t two other finals in Slams. He was a huge waste of talent and I would rather have one less Slam and TMS event for an additional 12 titles and being relevant to the ATP Tour for 7 consecutive years and counting.

Don't be ridiculous.:o

habibko
07-18-2009, 01:53 AM
You talk some smack, you do. You wouldn't be saying any of this if he hadn't reached the Wimbledon final.

wrong, I said before (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=8089402#post8089402) that he would have won more slams if he avoided Federer, this is nothing new anyway, we all know he would have done that.

R.Federer
07-18-2009, 04:41 AM
I mean seriously a guy with 11 total titles (2 Slams, 2 TMS events) is being voted for better career over somebody with 27 total titles (1 Slam, 4 TMS events, won on all surfaces). MTF never ceases to amaze me.:retard:

Great, this is even funnier!

By that standard of judging, you have effectively said that Novak Djokovic has already had a better career than Patrick Rafter since Novak has more titles than Rafter, also has that lone slam like Andy Roddick and has more Masters series than either Roddick or Rafter, and includes a Masters Cup shield in his haul :lol:

R.Federer
07-18-2009, 04:50 AM
An extra Slam does not automatically make you a greater player, just like Roddick has a better career than Safin and one can argue that Hewitt and Roddick are fairly equal in terms of who had the better career.


So now, with equal number of career single titles, the same number of Masters series (and which include 2 Season ending cups), and MORE Grand Slam titles, Hewitt is "fairly equal to Roddick"? Why, because he had one less losing slam final? :lol:

Hewitt was the Number 1 player for almost 2 years, and was the youngest person to hold it. Andy held it for 3 months. What makes you say they are "fairly equal"?

I think you do need to take your blinkers off at some point. You can be a fan of a person without being blind to a few facts, or perhaps explain yourself, or it seems to get lost as delusional! :)

vamosinator
07-18-2009, 05:30 AM
It doesn't matter that he's funnier, more talented, handsome, sexier and smarter than the other clowns. He won't retire because the money pleases his friends + relatives. He won't quit now because his brother was very disappointed about his own injury + failed tennis results.

He can be rich enough to golf with the idiot radio host; he was desperately bored with staying in a room and practicing on the court for 3 hours. $200 per golf hit session. Impressive for the "mom Blanche's hard worker".

His real fans didn't like his cancellation due to "his unprepared body". He didn't like being criticised...he'd rather receive pity from retarded little girls and his genius mother. I remember in '07, his useless coach brother laughing at him from the bench, but now he cares so much for his little Andy. LOL :worship: :o

After years of Roddick's excuses and distractions, his idiot fans still think he's a loser who should stay the way he is.

Embarrassing, clueless girls who post endlessly to him (thinking he gets loving help with bullshit ass-kissing):

http://twitter.com/reen426 http://twitter.com/lizzieva

LOL@twitter

leng jai
07-18-2009, 05:51 AM
That is obvious based on the posts in all the "Who is Better/Greater" threads. In most cases it's not really clear which player is better, then it generally boils down to a popularity contest.

The threads are pretty pointless but do generate some decent discussion.

Vida
07-18-2009, 09:10 AM
rafter:)

Xristos
07-18-2009, 11:11 AM
2 Slams > 1.

opeth84
07-18-2009, 12:06 PM
Rafter... Nicer Game, Nicer Guy :)

It's a complicated question though really, cuz if Roddick were to win another slam then i don't think Rafters results would match up that well.

The game has changed now though. Im not saying it's better but it's equally inaccurate to say that it's worse.

oranges
07-18-2009, 12:07 PM
That is obvious based on the posts in all the "Who is Better/Greater" threads. In most cases it's not really clear which player is better, then it generally boils down to a popularity contest.

Greater -> better game, better top notch results. Everything else is just a bonus (or not in some cases, Rafter is not the only one where the comparison doesn't hold water).

Mateya
07-18-2009, 12:42 PM
2 Slams > 1.

I hate when people are so onedimensional. :rolleyes:

So Costa, Gaudio and Johansson (with fluke 1 slam) are greater players than Henman or Nalbandian? :rolls: :sobbing:

Burrow
07-18-2009, 12:51 PM
I hate when people are so onedimensional. :rolleyes:

So Costa, Gaudio and Johansson (with fluke 1 slam) are greater players than Henman or Nalbandian? :rolls: :sobbing:

Of course, especially Costa and Johansson.

Burrow
07-18-2009, 12:54 PM
Rafter... Nicer Game, Nicer Guy :)

It's a complicated question though really, cuz if Roddick were to win another slam then i don't think Rafters results would match up that well.

The game has changed now though. Im not saying it's better but it's equally inaccurate to say that it's worse.

How does this make it complicated? I could say, in a discussion about whoever "but if he wins this" "if he does this", HE HASN'T AND NEVER WILL.

Simple enough?

peribsen
07-18-2009, 12:59 PM
Well, if you have a bath tub with a known volume of water and you submerge each player in it, you only have to measure how much the level of water rises and you can calculate each player's mass.

Of course, a mathematician would rather have it that, if you imagine Rafter and Roddick as perfect spheres... but no need to go into that.

R.Federer
07-18-2009, 01:15 PM
^ Okay, so we have it then. Irakli and Daveed N. are the greatest of all players :p

Max Power
07-18-2009, 05:35 PM
Obviously if one believes that assessment of an elite tennis player's career should essentially boil down to nothing but a straight, unfiltered Slam count, Rafter is better. If one considers more or less any other major criteria for achievement, though, Roddick has clearly had the superior career.

Matt01
07-18-2009, 07:22 PM
Rafter has won more Slams and had the better game, so the answer is obvious.

I hate when people are so onedimensional. :rolleyes:

So Costa, Gaudio and Johansson (with fluke 1 slam) are greater players than Henman or Nalbandian? :rolls: :sobbing:


Are you comparing Costa, Gaudio and Johansson with Rafter? :retard:

lessthanjake
07-19-2009, 02:14 AM
Other results than just slams matter. It's that simple. Just like the ATP ranking system gives the most weight to slams and less weight to other tournaments, so should our ranking of players.

ORGASMATRON
07-19-2009, 02:19 AM
rafter. why? cos he won more slams. lol.

Rafa = Fed Killa
07-19-2009, 05:02 PM
Rafter could beat the best in GS.

Roddick cant.

Enough said.