Nadal needs to be included in future GOAT arguments [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal needs to be included in future GOAT arguments

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-19-2010, 10:34 AM
GOAT doesn't mean most silverware won

GOAT means player who would win if you got the best players of every era, gave them equal equipment, put them at their peaks and had a giant melee battle

nadal would beat EVERYONE IN HISTORY ON CLAY

its time to recognise

periodically updated everytime Nadal wins a slam

FO 05- not put in GOAT argument
FO 06- not put in GOAT argument
FO- 07- put into clay GOAT argument
FO WIM- 08- discussed as a potential federer GOAT killer
AO 09- before the injury, was finally given legitiment merit as a GOAT CONTENDER,

madrid 2009- IW 2010= written off in GOAT argument because of injury, but was the most consistent player at the masters events in 2009

FO 2010- wins the FO & 3 masters- clay court GOAT status all but assured

WIM 2010- another win takes Rafa to 8 slams- leader in master events- at this point Federer's position as clear GOAT is in SERIOUS JEPORDY (as of 4th July Nadal is on course to be recognised as the greatest player of all time)

jonas
03-19-2010, 10:39 AM
Clay-GOAT-discussion, sure. Even though Borg is ahead right now. On other surfaces - nah.

Castafiore
03-19-2010, 10:42 AM
Another MTF trolling & baiting thread, brought to you by tennis-hero.

madmax
03-19-2010, 10:44 AM
Whenever this moonballing clown wins a string of matches againt choking mugs, all these nuthugging clowns come out of their dark basements and gloat endlessly together:haha: The better question would be - does anyone remember the last time Nadull won a match against TOP 5 opponent? Now that is a relevant topic for discussion LOL

orangehat
03-19-2010, 10:49 AM
:spit:

If I were at my best I would be richer than Bill Gates - or the new Mexican guy for that matter:

:rolleyes:

Machiavelli
03-19-2010, 10:54 AM
:bigwave:

Castafiore
03-19-2010, 10:54 AM
Whenever this moonballing clown wins a string of matches againt choking mugs, all these nuthugging clowns come out of their dark basements and gloat endlessly together:haha: The better question would be - does anyone remember tha last time Nadull won a match against TOP 5 opponent? Now that is a relevant topic for discussion LOL
You didn't steal your username, did you?

Baiting mission succeeded, tennis-hero. Like moths to a flame
:yeah:

rocketassist
03-19-2010, 12:37 PM
This fucking moron suggested today's players are better on grass than Sampras' time. :haha:

born_on_clay
03-19-2010, 12:42 PM
Federer is GOAT, accept it !
Rafa is amongst the best players in history and probably the best ever on clay but there is no need of GOAT discussion when we all know who it is :)

Foxy
03-19-2010, 12:45 PM
This fucking moron suggested today's players are better on grass than Sampras' time. :haha:

I am an ex-Sampras fan. But do you really think tennis is not progressing and evolving? Of course the new generation will beat the old generation if they play and assume they are at equal age.

rocketassist
03-19-2010, 12:49 PM
I am an ex-Sampras fan. But do you really think tennis is not progressing and evolving? Of course the new generation will beat the old generation if they play and assume they are at equal age.

Not always. Slower grass though, unless they both played on a grass speed in between the two it's hard to define.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Not always. Slower grass though, unless they both played on a grass speed in between the two it's hard to define.

piss off wanker

i didn't ask you to post did i

i know Isner sucks, but that doesn't mean every american is a big dumb gorilla like him

even roddick has more options than a serve

anyway, if you have nothing positive to contribute i ask that you refrai from posting in future

ktnxbye

marcRD
03-19-2010, 01:21 PM
Are you really 28 years old?

spanish_army
03-19-2010, 01:34 PM
GOAT doesn't mean most silverware won

GOAT means player who would win if you got the best players of every era, gave them equal equipment, put them at their peaks and had a giant melee battle

nadal would beat EVERYONE IN HISTORY ON CLAY

its time to recognise

periodically updated everytime Nadal wins a slam

FO 05- not put in GOAT argument
FO 06- not put in GOAT argument
FO- 07- put into clay GOAT argument
FO WIM- 08- discussed as a potential federer GOAT killer
AO 09- before the injury, was finally given legitiment merit as a GOAT CONTENDER,

madrid 2009- IW 2010= written off in GOAT argument because of injury, but was the most consistent player at the masters events in 2009

Toatally agree, Nadal on clay is the GOAT. He can destroy to Federer and Borg playing together.

In grass is a super player.

On hard... 1 Australian Open, 2 Indian Wells, 1 Madrid, 2 Toronto, 2 1/2 US Open...

Must I remind us what is the H2H against Fedex???

Nadal is the GOAT.

bokehlicious
03-19-2010, 01:36 PM
Toatally agree, Nadal on clay is the GOAT. He can destroy to Federer and Borg playing together.

In grass is a super player.

On hard... 1 Australian Open, 2 Indian Wells, 1 Madrid, 2 Toronto, 2 1/2 US Open...

Must I remind us what is the H2H against Fedex???

Nadal is the GOAT.

Bamos! :rocker2:

marcRD
03-19-2010, 01:37 PM
text

Are you really 27 years old?

Roddickominator
03-19-2010, 01:39 PM
Nadal is definitely on the short list as far as clay GOAT. And he gets plenty of credit for being Federer's only true rival.

But he's not even Top 20 on hardcourts....and while he's one of the few good players on the new, higher-bouncing and slower grass....he'd have struggled mightily on old grass. Especially without the upgrade in string technology.

Har-Tru
03-19-2010, 01:39 PM
First a pig, now a goat?

spanish_army
03-19-2010, 01:45 PM
Are you really 27 years old?

Although I'm 27 I've seen playing to tennis players such as Boris Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, Federer, Rafter, Ivanisevic... and all present Top10.

Because of this I have a contrasted opinion.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-19-2010, 01:58 PM
Am i really so pathetic i will try to put down the topic creator by asking their age in a negative derogatory manner to suggest my displeasure with their views

yes you are marc, however its ok, take your mouth out of Fedeerers lap and you can also enjoy tennis


Toatally agree, Nadal on clay is the GOAT. He can destroy to Federer and Borg playing together.

In grass is a super player.

On hard... 1 Australian Open, 2 Indian Wells, 1 Madrid, 2 Toronto, 2 1/2 US Open...

Must I remind us what is the H2H against Fedex???

Nadal is the GOAT.

love u :angel:

marcRD
03-19-2010, 02:06 PM
Although I'm 27 I've seen playing to tennis players such as Boris Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, Federer, Rafter, Ivanisevic... and all present Top10.

Because of this I have a contrasted opinion.

Change that to biased. You are spanish and love Nadal, you have the biased opinion that Nadal is the GOAT.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-19-2010, 02:12 PM
Change that to biased. You are spanish and love Nadal, you have the biased opinion that Nadal is the GOAT.

is that a sweden flag?

sweden norway, denmark iceland- whats the difference really

however, you never hear a swede say a bad word against borg

even though he retired when the going got tough, still fan worship up the ass

ok, so loving borg is one thing, he didnt completly suck, but MATS WILANDER?

that loser was the worst talentless pusher ever

if he wasn't swedish even the swedes would hate him

Acer
03-19-2010, 02:12 PM
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/9458/gopheryell.jpg

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-19-2010, 02:15 PM
^ needs more white surrender flag ;)

marcRD
03-19-2010, 02:21 PM
is that a sweden flag?

sweden norway, denmark iceland- whats the difference really

however, you never hear a swede say a bad word against borg

even though he retired when the going got tough, still fan worship up the ass

ok, so loving borg is one thing, he didnt completly suck, but MATS WILANDER?

that loser was the worst talentless pusher ever

if he wasn't swedish even the swedes would hate him

I wrote this about Wilnder some weeks ago:



I would have Wilander as one of those who simply found space left empty by the great in his era (Lendl). Lendl may have been on the same level of consistency as Federer and Sampras but he was nowhere near as great as neither player. Wilander was a player that prob would win many slams on clay in any era but those other slams that made him a legend could only have been won in an era without a true dominant force. Wilander would probably not win slams on hardcourt/grass in Federer's era and a maximum of one in Sampras era (Australian open).

I also wrote a long time ago about how Borg doesnt deserve to be a GOAT candidate because he ran away from competition just when someone came to really challenge him.

I am quite objective about my country, I was debating with Rrainer about how foreigners overrate Sweden as a country. We really are not that great.

marcRD
03-19-2010, 02:22 PM
^ needs more white surrender flag ;)

These french surrender jokes are so silly, only people who know nothing about history would joke about french warhistory. Try to change France to Italy and it becomes alot more funny.

FedFan
03-19-2010, 02:23 PM
Nadal has not done enough to be considered goat, not by a mile until now.

Why bring up such questions at all? Because he has had a lucky draw (as usual) in Indian Wells and has beaten some crappy players on a slow high bouncing hard court?

Wake me up, when he is able to beat the top ten players regularly again.

Acer
03-19-2010, 02:25 PM
^ needs more white surrender flag ;)

Thick AND irrelevant. Hardly a shocker though ;)

Jaz
03-19-2010, 03:50 PM
This is a hilarious thread.

Nadal and his 1 hardcourt grandslam .... Somehow GOAT?

Just what in the world was going through the OP's head....

barbadosan
03-19-2010, 04:05 PM
Federer____________________Nadal

1 FO_______________________4 FO
6 Wimby____________________1 Wimby
4 AO_______________________1 AO
5 USO______________________0 USO

<scratches head> What was the subject of this discussion again?

Lleyton_
03-19-2010, 04:06 PM
Your post in another thread makes more sense now :lol:

Orka_n
03-19-2010, 05:16 PM
periodically updated everytime Nadal wins a slam

FO 05- not put in GOAT argument
FO 06- not put in GOAT argument
FO- 07- put into clay GOAT argument
FO WIM- 08- discussed as a potential federer GOAT killer
AO 09- before the injury, was finally given legitiment merit as a GOAT CONTENDER,

madrid 2009- IW 2010= written off in GOAT argument because of injury, but was the most consistent player at the masters events in 2009Won't be any more updates then.

Seriously calling Nadull the Goat :haha: :haha:

Arkulari
03-19-2010, 05:19 PM
tennis-hero delivers another baiting thread :worship:

dodo
03-19-2010, 06:58 PM
GOAT doesn't mean most silverware won

GOAT means player who would win if you got the best players of every era, gave them equal equipment, put them at their peaks and had a giant melee battle

nadal would beat EVERYONE IN HISTORY ON CLAY

its time to recognise

periodically updated everytime Nadal wins a slam

FO 05- not put in GOAT argument
FO 06- not put in GOAT argument
FO- 07- put into clay GOAT argument
FO WIM- 08- discussed as a potential federer GOAT killer
AO 09- before the injury, was finally given legitiment merit as a GOAT CONTENDER,

madrid 2009- IW 2010= written off in GOAT argument because of injury, but was the most consistent player at the masters events in 2009

http://visual.merriam-webster.com/images/house/do-it-yourself/carpentry-miscellaneous-material/tool-box.jpg

slicekick
03-19-2010, 08:37 PM
GOAT doesn't mean most silverware won

GOAT means player who would win if you got the best players of every era, gave them equal equipment, put them at their peaks and had a giant melee battle

nadal would beat EVERYONE IN HISTORY ON CLAY

its time to recognise

periodically updated everytime Nadal wins a slam

FO 05- not put in GOAT argument
FO 06- not put in GOAT argument
FO- 07- put into clay GOAT argument
FO WIM- 08- discussed as a potential federer GOAT killer
AO 09- before the injury, was finally given legitiment merit as a GOAT CONTENDER,

madrid 2009- IW 2010= written off in GOAT argument because of injury, but was the most consistent player at the masters events in 2009

:spit::spit::spit: It's too early to make your campaign for the ACC 2010.210020
By the way, if you kept going on with such qualtity threads, you 'll be for sure one of the strongest contenders of this contest:umbrella::p, you 'll be famously in good company with big names like Start Da Game and SetSampras for me:cool:

Quakes
03-19-2010, 08:46 PM
I'm not a Nadal fan. I respect him greatly as a person, and I find his professionalism and spirit most admirable, but I'm not a fan of his playing style.

And yet I agree with OP. Nadal's right to be included in GOAT arguments should be somewhere between Borg's and Agassi's. But here it's not THE Greatest Of All Time, instead it's ONE OF THE Greatest Of All Time. If you want to pick one single player, I'm pretty sure you have to pick among Fed, Sampras, and Laver for the Open Era.

Corey Feldman
03-19-2010, 08:47 PM
i need to scratch my left nut

luie
03-19-2010, 11:24 PM
Because he got lucky with the draw & is playing birdbrain,isner,El legenda ,this discussion comes up,he!he! so typical of nadull fan,hey but at least its a step-up from celebrating an exho win like start da game &co.

Action Jackson
03-20-2010, 12:09 AM
tennis-hero is a fisherman.

thrust
03-20-2010, 02:24 AM
I am an ex-Sampras fan. But do you really think tennis is not progressing and evolving? Of course the new generation will beat the old generation if they play and assume they are at equal age.

If Pete was in his prime form today, he would be every bit as good as Roger on grass or hard courts. My all-time favorite, Rosewall at 5-7 or Laver at 5-9, would have a rough time with today's much bigger top players. Pete, Connors, Lendl, Mac, Becker, Edberg, Borg or Andre though are big and talented enough to be every bit as good and better than most of today's top players, including Roger and Rafa.

Fiberlight1
03-20-2010, 02:29 AM
Whenever this moonballing clown wins a string of matches againt choking mugs, all these nuthugging clowns come out of their dark basements and gloat endlessly together:haha: The better question would be - does anyone remember the last time Nadull won a match against TOP 5 opponent? Now that is a relevant topic for discussion LOL

A better question would be--when has Madmax not commented on a thread related to Rafael Nadal?

I think you have a secret man-crush on the guy..

ballbasher101
03-20-2010, 02:39 AM
MTF never ceases to amaze. Right now Nadal is far from a Goat contender,in the future maybe but right now no way.

Forehander
03-20-2010, 02:48 AM
lol tennis-hero at it again. Nadal is by far the greatest clay courter of all time. Not yet on the other surfaces though. He's still young and if his knees can uphold he can still achieve more.

Arkulari
03-20-2010, 02:50 AM
:lol:

JolánGagó
03-20-2010, 05:17 AM
i need to scratch my left nut

stop stealing my lines you pipe blower.

leng jai
03-20-2010, 05:42 AM
i need to scratch my left nut

Good to see I satisfied your right nut's itch.

HKz
03-20-2010, 05:49 AM
Whenever this moonballing clown wins a string of matches againt choking mugs, all these nuthugging clowns come out of their dark basements and gloat endlessly together:haha: The better question would be - does anyone remember the last time Nadull won a match against TOP 5 opponent? Now that is a relevant topic for discussion LOL

The only top 10 player he has been since June, was Tsonga which was 7/6, 7/6.

Haelfix
03-20-2010, 05:51 AM
Nadal, Borg and maybe someone like Lendl or Kuerten are the short list for clay GOATs. I'd put Nadal on top in so far as I think he'd beat all of them easily, but his accomplishments are still not in the Borg territory yet.

But in terms of all around ability, then no he is not even in the same plane as Sampras/Laver/Borg/Federer yet, hes one or two rungs down still.

HKz
03-20-2010, 06:05 AM
Nadal, Borg and maybe someone like Lendl or Kuerten are the short list for clay GOATs. I'd put Nadal on top in so far as I think he'd beat all of them easily, but his accomplishments are still not in the Borg territory yet.

But in terms of all around ability, then no he is not even in the same plane as Sampras/Laver/Borg/Federer yet, hes one or two rungs down still.

Kuerten and Borg had excellent backhands, which is the exact type of players Nadal has had trouble with. It is all speculation whether or not if he would have come out on top against them, but looking at the players he has had trouble with especially as of late (Davydenko/Djokovic/Murray/Del Potro/Soderling/Nalbandian) he clearly has difficulty employing his strategy against players with at least solid backhands.

Kuerten was arguably a better player than Gaudio, and Gaudio is 3:3 head to head with Rafael. Sure, his wins came when Nadal was a new kid of the ATP tour scene, but I think it still shows that Kuerten would of given Nadal quite a lot of trouble. Borg on the other hand would be difficult to tell how his matches would have been with Nadal since racket technology is totally different, however his game would of matched up well I believe.

lessthanjake
03-20-2010, 06:33 AM
Nadal belongs in the discussion of the player with the greatest peak. HOWEVER, the GOAT is not the same as that. The GOAT is also about consistency over a long period of time. As such, Nadal cannot yet be considered in the GOAT discussion. That could change, of course, because Nadal isn't even close to done.

Fiberlight1
03-20-2010, 01:46 PM
Kuerten and Borg had excellent backhands, which is the exact type of players Nadal has had trouble with. It is all speculation whether or not if he would have come out on top against them, but looking at the players he has had trouble with especially as of late (Davydenko/Djokovic/Murray/Del Potro/Soderling/Nalbandian) he clearly has difficulty employing his strategy against players with at least solid backhands.

Kuerten was arguably a better player than Gaudio, and Gaudio is 3:3 head to head with Rafael. Sure, his wins came when Nadal was a new kid of the ATP tour scene, but I think it still shows that Kuerten would of given Nadal quite a lot of trouble. Borg on the other hand would be difficult to tell how his matches would have been with Nadal since racket technology is totally different, however his game would of matched up well I believe.

I don't want to turn this into a Nadal vs everyone thread but, I think you're spot on with the Borg backhand assessment. However, if we're talking about today's clay, I don't think Gastavo would stand a chance simply because of his one hand backhand. It would be Federer all over again.. and I think it was Martina N who said that it would be impossible to beat Nadal at RG with a one-handed backhand.. His spin is too strong for those one handers, with less control to hit. The players that you mentioned all employ two handers.. more power (sometimes) and certainly more control against the spin. However, on HCs I think it's anyone's guess.

HKz
03-20-2010, 06:29 PM
I don't want to turn this into a Nadal vs everyone thread but, I think you're spot on with the Borg backhand assessment. However, if we're talking about today's clay, I don't think Gastavo would stand a chance simply because of his one hand backhand. It would be Federer all over again.. and I think it was Martina N who said that it would be impossible to beat Nadal at RG with a one-handed backhand.. His spin is too strong for those one handers, with less control to hit. The players that you mentioned all employ two handers.. more power (sometimes) and certainly more control against the spin. However, on HCs I think it's anyone's guess.

Well if you notice, Kuerten stood back a bit further behind the baseline than Roger. The problem with Federer is that he is too stubborn to stand a little bit further from the baseline during rallies and will only adjust when he is forced to retrieve a ball.

Gasquet and Wawrinka, while they obviously haven't beaten Nadal, haven't done bad handling Nadal's spin with their one handers. They use a different grip first of all, in my opinion one that is suited for clay/higher bounces, and they are willing to stay back a bit. If I remember correctly, Wawrinka showed some excellent backhand skills against Nadal in Stuttgart, which again if I remember correctly, was their only clay meeting.

Again we wouldn't know for sure, but Kuerten handled high balls quite well in my opinion. I always thought Kuerten along with Gaudio had the best one handed backhands on clay. Lendl had a very powerful backhand as his career progressed, but I thought it became more suited for hardcourts than on clay.

Ironically however, Federer and Lendl are 2 of the 4 holders of the "4 French Open finals in the row" statistic. :p Don't argue with me on this one, I'm just being silly.

JolánGagó
03-20-2010, 06:32 PM
Kuerten was arguably a better player than Gaudio, and Gaudio is 3:3 head to head with Rafael. Sure, his wins came when Nadal was a new kid of the ATP tour scene, but I think it still shows that Kuerten would of given Nadal quite a lot of trouble.

:haha:

MTF brilliant reasoning at its very top :spit:

Mjau!
05-19-2010, 03:28 AM
He's already the GOATW - Greatest Of All Time Wasters (sorry Nole)!

@Sweet Cleopatra
05-19-2010, 03:34 AM
Nadal is the GOAT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-0-gdQEvcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47YOTmyw2qQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONmvPgC9l-U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1MyD3WZZIM

orangehat
05-19-2010, 03:37 AM
Politicans would be ashamed when it comes to competing on polarized opinions when they see this:rolls:

@Sweet Cleopatra
05-19-2010, 03:37 AM
does anyone remember the last time Nadull won a match against TOP 5 opponent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnCboa4DNns ;)

Sophocles
05-19-2010, 08:58 AM
Delete.

Johnny Groove
05-19-2010, 03:53 PM
He needs at least 10 slams.

Mats68
05-19-2010, 04:09 PM
He needs at least 10 slams.

I agree: to be included in GOAT arguments as a serious contender you need at least 10 slams, including a career slam. That's why in my opinion Sampras cannot be considered the GOAT (apart from the fact that someone with no backhand doesn't deserve to be the GOAT).

However, I wonder why the fact that Nadal at 23 has won more slams than Federer had at 23 is never brought into the discussion...

CyBorg
05-19-2010, 04:11 PM
Let's see him not disappear after Wimbledon first.

Sophocles
05-19-2010, 04:14 PM
However, I wonder why the fact that Nadal at 23 has won more slams than Federer had at 23 is never brought into the discussion...

Perhaps because it is of substantially less than zero importance.

Persimmon
05-19-2010, 04:15 PM
Hmm. To me the GOATs all won 10+ slams

Tilden
Laver
Borg
Emerson
Sampras
Federer

Har-Tru
05-19-2010, 04:51 PM
Hmm. To me the GOATs all won 10+ slams

Tilden
Laver
Borg
Emerson
Sampras
Federer

Emerson? Really?

Billups85
05-19-2010, 07:12 PM
Nadal belongs in the discussion of the player with the greatest peak. HOWEVER, the GOAT is not the same as that. The GOAT is also about consistency over a long period of time. As such, Nadal cannot yet be considered in the GOAT discussion. That could change, of course, because Nadal isn't even close to done.



Then, why is not Connors in the GOAT discussion?

Everko
05-19-2010, 07:14 PM
Let's see him not disappear after Wimbledon first.

:rolleyes:

Being elite=disappear?

Persimmon
05-19-2010, 07:16 PM
Emerson? Really?

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp78/tonaiden/E223627F8DAF42E489219DE74276868E-1.jpg

Silvester
05-19-2010, 07:52 PM
However, I wonder why the fact that Nadal at 23 has won more slams than Federer had at 23 is never brought into the discussion...

Federer was a late bloomer and look what he turned into. Nadal's career could be over by the time he's 25 for all we know. Untill we see what Nadal does long-term theres no reason to bring it up, who knows, maybe Fed will win another 4 slams and reach 20 and nadal will win 1 more.
Federer is GOAT right now, but that doesn't mean he can't be passed one day, be it by Nadal, or by someone else.

rocketassist
05-19-2010, 10:37 PM
This douche of a thread starter NEVER watched tennis before 2005.

SetSampras
05-19-2010, 10:56 PM
Nadal? GOAT? Come now!! I like the guy but he isn't GOAT candidate material.. yet.. ! He is barely top 20 of all time.. How could he be included in GOAT arguments.


Sorry.. Not enough domination.. Not even longevity at #1.. INjured every season.. Not enough slams.. Nope. No GOAT contender there.


Lets see him play an entire season first before we categorize him as a GOAT contender.. Seriously.. Hes among the best to play the game as in.. Top 20.. But not GOAT candidacy material. At least his resume isn't

rocketassist
05-19-2010, 11:07 PM
Federer, Sampras, Laver, Emerson, Rosewall, Gonzales, Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg are all greater than Rafa.

So he'd be 14th. I'd have him even with Courier though as I thought Courier played tougher opposition to win his GS titles.

SetSampras
05-19-2010, 11:22 PM
The thing is though... With Rafa back in full force he STILL might get to that top plateau of GOAT candidacy... He does have a nice resume.. Has won 3 of the 4 slams.. has the masters record now.. So thats a big coo for him.. He just doesn't have that long term domination of number 1 and that longevity on top.


If he could have stayed in form and healthy and not go down for most of 2009, who knows what his resume would look like now. He needs more time on top as #1 and needs more slams

Har-Tru
05-19-2010, 11:33 PM
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp78/tonaiden/E223627F8DAF42E489219DE74276868E-1.jpg

Have you ever heard about the parallel professional and amateur tours before the Open Era? Emerson is not debatable as candidate for GOAT, he won his slams while Laver, Rosewall et al. were banned from taking part in them.

andylovesaustin
05-20-2010, 12:01 AM
I would say.. greatest clay court player................... Yes!

And since Rafa has won AO and Wimby, I'd say he's in contention for the top 10 for sure, if not higher.

I was SO hoping he'd win the calendar-year Grand Slam. To me, it's like the Grand Slam in men's tennis is like the Triple Crown in horse racing!

I'm not so "hyped" about multiple grand slam wins... like say Pete who never damn won the French--or even came close!:( :armed:

To me, the GOAT has to diverse on all surfaces. I do think the has to be dominant.. but I don't think the GOAT has to be dominant over a long period of time necessarily. I think the GOAT could be sort of like a shooting star--winning all the majors in one year. It's such a rare feat.. :shrug: And then having "career" dominance as well.

I just don't think a player can be called the GOAT if he/she hasn't shown he/she can win--or come very close to winning on a surface upon which he/she is not comfortable. So for all of Pete's success... he was a "fast" or medium fast court specialist--just like Nadal is a clay court specialist. At least, Nadal won Wimby and the AO with his game. :shrug:

In the modern era, Roger has come the closest by winning all the majors including the French and then making it to the finals of the French numerous times outside of his "dominance" as far as years at #1 and other events.

ShotmaKer
05-20-2010, 12:45 AM
Have you ever heard about the parallel professional and amateur tours before the Open Era? Emerson is not debatable as candidate for GOAT, he won his slams while Laver, Rosewall et al. were banned from taking part in them.

Needless to say he got pwned big time, and just and stopped winning Slams altogether, when the latter were allowed to play in Slams again. So yeah, he's not close to be GOAT material.

Clay Death
05-20-2010, 04:13 AM
mods:

go ahead and drag this thread outside and have a very large farm animal shit all over it.

paseo
05-20-2010, 05:04 AM
No. Not yet, at least.

Fiberlight1
05-20-2010, 05:42 AM
Nadal? GOAT? Come now!! I like the guy but he isn't GOAT candidate material.. yet.. ! He is barely top 20 of all time.. How could he be included in GOAT arguments.


Sorry.. Not enough domination.. Not even longevity at #1.. INjured every season.. Not enough slams.. Nope. No GOAT contender there.


Lets see him play an entire season first before we categorize him as a GOAT contender.. Seriously.. Hes among the best to play the game as in.. Top 20.. But not GOAT candidacy material. At least his resume isn't

Barely top twenty? I'd say he's closer to top ten.. Clay records, master series.. three grand slams on different surfaces.

HarryMan
05-20-2010, 07:39 AM
On clay -- very soon.

Overall -- not sure but not impossible. He will need to win a few multiple slam title (and a career slam first) before we include him in that list. He is young though and it is important for him to stay healthy for the next 3-5 years for this to happen.

Billups85
05-20-2010, 07:45 AM
On clay -- very soon.

Overall -- not sure but not impossible. He will need to win a few multiple slam title (and a career slam first) before we include him in that list. He is young though and it is important for him to stay healthy for the next 3-5 years for this to happen.


Yep, like Borg or Sampras :rolleyes:

Persimmon
05-20-2010, 05:33 PM
Have you ever heard about the parallel professional and amateur tours before the Open Era? Emerson is not debatable as candidate for GOAT, he won his slams while Laver, Rosewall et al. were banned from taking part in them.

Jeez you are right. I shouldn't have included Emerson, what was I thinking?:o I just started writing all the players that won 10 or more slams without reflecting on the fact that Emerson played in a super mug era:o Still, 12 slams is like wow:angel:

Everko
05-20-2010, 06:34 PM
mods:

go ahead and drag this thread outside and have a very large farm animal shit all over it.

http://static.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/farm-animal-pictures-breeders-babies/miniature-donkey-pictures-breeders-babies/pictures/miniature-donkey-0015.jpg

Clay Death
05-20-2010, 06:36 PM
http://static.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/farm-animal-pictures-breeders-babies/miniature-donkey-pictures-breeders-babies/pictures/miniature-donkey-0015.jpg



what up everko old friend.

a thread like this just gives the federereeeeeeesians--especially the clueless ones-- an opportunity to slam the clay warrior for no reason at all.

Billups85
05-20-2010, 07:20 PM
Federer, Sampras, Laver, Emerson, Rosewall, Gonzales, Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg are all greater than Rafa.

So he'd be 14th. I'd have him even with Courier though as I thought Courier played tougher opposition to win his GS titles.

No way Becker is greater than Nadal. Wilander and Edberg are entirely arguable because:

a) Wilander only won 33 titles, whereas Nadal has 38 and counting at 23.
b) Edberg didn't win Grand Slams on all surfaces

Gonzales? :spit:

Where is Agassi? :rolleyes:

If Federer is the GOAT, there is no tougher opposition to win a GS, no? :wavey:

Mjau!
05-20-2010, 08:29 PM
Becker and Nadal both have 6 slams but Becker has many additional slam finals and most importantly, he's also one of the greatest indoor players of all time. I'd say that makes him greater, for now.

Bazooka
05-20-2010, 08:55 PM
No fucking way. Not sure what you mean by "future" GOAT arguments, but certainly in the actual moment he isn't close to Federer in at least two key areas: slams and weeks. If he gets close, then other arguments may be considered, like his clay achievements, etc.

rocketassist
05-20-2010, 08:56 PM
No way Becker is greater than Nadal. Wilander and Edberg are entirely arguable because:

a) Wilander only won 33 titles, whereas Nadal has 38 and counting at 23.
b) Edberg didn't win Grand Slams on all surfaces

Gonzales? :spit:

Where is Agassi? :rolleyes:

If Federer is the GOAT, there is no tougher opposition to win a GS, no? :wavey:

I shouldn't have forgotten Agassi- Nadal is 15th.

Pancho Gonzales, ever heard of the man?

Wilander won slams on all four surfaces including decoturf and rebound ace, Nadal has done it on three. Plus Becker already mentioned. Golden era. Very tough to win majors. So many great players.

Comparing Edberg to Nadal is fucking heresy in my eyes.

TennisOnWood
05-20-2010, 09:00 PM
Becker and Nadal both have 6 slams but Becker has many additional slam finals and most importantly, he's also one of the greatest indoor players of all time. I'd say that makes him greater, for now.

Yeah... with no single bloody clay title :worship:

Rafa doesn't like to play indoors but he at least managed to win something

TennisOnWood
05-20-2010, 09:01 PM
No way Becker is greater than Nadal. Wilander and Edberg are entirely arguable because:

a) Wilander only won 33 titles, whereas Nadal has 38 and counting at 23.
b) Edberg didn't win Grand Slams on all surfaces

Gonzales? :spit:

Where is Agassi? :rolleyes:

If Federer is the GOAT, there is no tougher opposition to win a GS, no? :wavey:

39 actually :p

rocketassist
05-20-2010, 09:04 PM
Yeah... with no single bloody clay title :worship:

Rafa doesn't like to play indoors but he at least managed to win something

Yeah, even though Becker went the distance on clay and had to battle warriors like Muster on his worst surface, while Nadal's sole title on his worst involved beating legends like Ginepri, Boredo and Ljubicic.

Billups85
05-20-2010, 09:11 PM
Becker and Nadal both have 6 slams but Becker has many additional slam finals and most importantly, he's also one of the greatest indoor players of all time. I'd say that makes him greater, for now.


Really?

What about his 0 titles on clay?

Arkulari
05-20-2010, 09:11 PM
Really?

What about his 0 titles on clay?

this

rocketassist
05-20-2010, 09:16 PM
Yep, shame Becker never got the chance to win titles on homogenized clay.

Mjau!
05-20-2010, 09:17 PM
Really?

What about his 0 titles on clay?

What about Rafa's 0 YEC? :wavey:

Billups85
05-20-2010, 09:25 PM
What about Rafa's 0 YEC? :wavey:

That's only one specific tournament. I'm talking about a whole surface. Becker was a great player but he wasn't as complete as Nadal is.

Mjau!
05-20-2010, 10:01 PM
That's only one specific tournament. I'm talking about a whole surface. Becker was a great player but he wasn't as complete as Nadal is.

Nadal has what, 1 indoor title? At best he's slightly more complete than Boris who was better on 3/4 surfaces (yes, I'm counting indoors as a "surface")

Billups85
05-20-2010, 10:14 PM
Comparing Edberg to Nadal is fucking heresy in my eyes.

Both Rafa and Edberg have 6 GS (Nadal on all surfaces, Edberg failed on clay). Plus, the beginning of the Masters Series Era coincided with Edbergs peak (become world's #1 on August 1990, and several GS finals), however he just won 4 MS whereas Nadal has 18. Heresy? Sure? :rolleyes:

Matt01
05-20-2010, 10:19 PM
Yeah, even though Becker went the distance on clay and had to battle warriors like Muster on his worst surface, while Nadal's sole title on his worst involved beating legends like Ginepri, Boredo and Ljubicic.


These excuses are fascinating :D

SetSampras
05-20-2010, 10:29 PM
Barely top twenty? I'd say he's closer to top ten.. Clay records, master series.. three grand slams on different surfaces.



So you got Nadal above Mac, Lendl, Connors etc? God I hope not.. These guys are legit top 10ers and Nadal hasnt the career of those guys. If Agassi isn't above those guys.. Nadal sure as hell isnt

oranges
05-20-2010, 10:43 PM
That's only one specific tournament. I'm talking about a whole surface. Becker was a great player but he wasn't as complete as Nadal is.

For fucks sake, the guy played numerous masters finals on clay, more RG semis than Nadal can boast at USO, etc, etc. He was hardly a stranger to clay.

federernadalfan
05-20-2010, 11:00 PM
he could be included in clay goat arguments currently
but not overall goat arguments, at least not yet

Billups85
05-20-2010, 11:20 PM
For fucks sake, the guy played numerous masters finals on clay, more RG semis than Nadal can boast at USO, etc, etc. He was hardly a stranger to clay.

0 titles means you are a complete loser on that surface.

People say Sampras was a mug on clay, but at least he managed to win a couple of titles (including a MS).

rocketassist
05-20-2010, 11:48 PM
Both Rafa and Edberg have 6 GS (Nadal on all surfaces, Edberg failed on clay). Plus, the beginning of the Masters Series Era coincided with Edbergs peak (become world's #1 on August 1990, and several GS finals), however he just won 4 MS whereas Nadal has 18. Heresy? Sure? :rolleyes:

Better on grass- Edberg. Better on hard/indoors- Edberg. Better on clay- Nadal.

If I had the time and wasn't going on holiday tomorrow morning I will explain why Edberg's slam draws were much harder and why his slams were more impressive, but I don't.

oranges
05-21-2010, 12:31 AM
0 titles means you are a complete loser on that surface.

People say Sampras was a mug on clay, but at least he managed to win a couple of titles (including a MS).

:retard: No, it means there are players better than you on the surface, hence you don't manage to win those finals. Needless to say, masters finals or RG semi are far more of an accomplishment than any number of MM titles

Fanboyism without bounds :rocker2:

Billups85
05-21-2010, 06:56 AM
:retard: No, it means there are players better than you on the surface, hence you don't manage to win those finals. Needless to say, masters finals or RG semi are far more of an accomplishment than any number of MM titles

Fanboyism without bounds :rocker2:

He wasn't even able to win the MM tournaments. Fanboyism is trying to defend Becker's performance on clay by emphasizing semifinals or finals instead of titles. For God sake! 0 titles in 15 years.

oranges
05-21-2010, 07:10 AM
He wasn't even able to win the MM tournaments. Fanboyism is trying to defend Becker's performance on clay by emphasizing semifinals or finals instead of titles. For God sake! 0 titles in 15 years.

I'm not a Becker a fan, I intensely disliked him for the most part of his career :lol: That doesn't change the fact it's painful to read clueless comments. The guy could play on clay, there were just better claycourters, specialist claycourters I might add, that's it.

Be honest now, how many times have you actually seen him play anywhere, let alone on clay. Should it not be an indication you're in no position to comment on his proficiency on a surface? No? Still not getting a clue why it's just a fanboysih rant? So be it.

Billups85
05-21-2010, 11:10 AM
The guy could play on clay, there were just better claycourters, specialist claycourters I might add, that's it.

How many? 100 or what? He could play on clay, but he always managed to choke on every single tournament during 15 years.

No need to mention that your attempt to compare Becker on clay vs Nadal on hard (forgot to mention AO?) is just ridiculous.

Matt01
05-21-2010, 11:29 AM
Beckers results on clay really speak for itself.
He won all the other Slams but didn't make a single final at RG and won ZERO titles on that surface :o

Sophocles
05-21-2010, 11:35 AM
Becker, Nadal, Edberg are roughly equal at this point. I'd probably put them in the order Edberg (2 year-end No. 1 rankings), Nadal, Becker, but there's not a lot in it. Wilander is perhaps *just* ahead of them. All 4 are significantly behind Connors, Lendl, Mac, Agassi, let alone Borg, Sampras, & Federer, & I'm restricting that just to the Open Era. Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Gonzales, Budge, Kramer are all superior as well, & Cochet, Lacoste, Perry, Vines, & Hoad far from obviously inferior. Of course, I am expecting Nadal to reach the Mac-Connors-Lendl-Agassi tier before too long. Even so, we shouldn't get too excited by the Masters record: both Mac & Lendl won over 20 of the equivalent A.T.P. tournaments in their day.

tennis2tennis
05-21-2010, 02:02 PM
you need a couple of years as world number 1 dominating. his meltdowns in the US open is a constant anticlimax....and learn to defend his GS outside of RG!

Billups85
05-21-2010, 03:11 PM
Becker, Nadal, Edberg are roughly equal at this point. I'd probably put them in the order Edberg (2 year-end No. 1 rankings), Nadal, Becker, but there's not a lot in it. Wilander is perhaps *just* ahead of them. All 4 are significantly behind Connors, Lendl, Mac, Agassi, let alone Borg, Sampras, & Federer, & I'm restricting that just to the Open Era. Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Gonzales, Budge, Kramer are all superior as well, & Cochet, Lacoste, Perry, Vines, & Hoad far from obviously inferior. Of course, I am expecting Nadal to reach the Mac-Connors-Lendl-Agassi tier before too long. Even so, we shouldn't get too excited by the Masters record: both Mac & Lendl won over 20 of the equivalent A.T.P. tournaments in their day.

Does it really worth that much? In my opinion, one week as worlds #1 has the same value on January than on April or at the end of the year. I mean, has Roddick a better resume just because his 13 weeks as a #1 coincided with the end of the year?

Sophocles
05-21-2010, 03:32 PM
Does it really worth that much? In my opinion, one week as worlds #1 has the same value on January than on April or at the end of the year. I mean, has Roddick a better resume just because his 13 weeks as a #1 coincided with the end of the year?

This has been discussed a lot, & your view is perfectly respectable. Personally though, I think there is something special about being the best player of a particular calendar year, or season. Tennis is after all divided into annual seasons.

Regardless of that, Edberg had significantly more weeks at No. 1 than either Nadal or Becker.

Mjau!
05-21-2010, 03:54 PM
The difference between Becker on clay and Nadal indoors is too small to be significant when evaluating their respective careers. For me, Boris simply achieved more. I'd take 6 slams and true greatness indoors over 6 slams and 1 AMS indoors anyday. Nadal's one trump card is that Becker was never as great on any surface as Rafa is on clay, but he was arguably better on the othe 3 surfaces.

Sophocles
05-21-2010, 04:20 PM
The difference between Becker on clay and Nadal indoors is too small to be significant when evaluating their respective careers. For me, Boris simply achieved more. I'd take 6 slams and true greatness indoors over 6 slams and 1 AMS indoors anyday. Nadal's one trump card is that Becker was never as great on any surface as Rafa is on clay, but he was arguably better on the othe 3 surfaces.

Why are 6 slams & true greatness indoors better than 6 slams & true greatness on clay?

Matt01
05-21-2010, 04:27 PM
The difference between Becker on clay and Nadal indoors is too small to be significant when evaluating their respective careers. For me, Boris simply achieved more. I'd take 6 slams and true greatness indoors over 6 slams and 1 AMS indoors anyday. Nadal's one trump card is that Becker was never as great on any surface as Rafa is on clay, but he was arguably better on the othe 3 surfaces.


1. You cannot really compare "clay" and "indoors" because the first one is a surface and the 2nd one is not.

2. It's moot to compare Becker's and Nadal's career achievement when one these player's career has ended and the other player's career has not.

Billups85
05-21-2010, 05:14 PM
Why are 6 slams & true greatness indoors better than 6 slams & true greatness on clay?

Hard to understand, specially because Mjau has admitted that Rafa is better on clay than Boris ever was indoors.

Bobby
05-21-2010, 07:40 PM
Hard to understand, specially because Mjau has admitted that Rafa is better on clay than Boris ever was indoors.

Yes but Becker performed very well in the closet of a restaurant in London. Surely that must count for at least three clay titles. Seriously though, you can't compare things that aren't comparable. You can find arguments for and against as much as you like and the discussion never ends. Comparing Becker and Nadal is just pointless, too many variables to consider. Different era, different surfaces and so on.

MrChopin
05-21-2010, 08:25 PM
what up everko old friend.

a thread like this just gives the federereeeeeeesians--especially the clueless ones-- an opportunity to slam the clay warrior for no reason at all.

You forgot to invite him to the castle.

Mjau!
05-21-2010, 08:34 PM
Why are 6 slams & true greatness indoors better than 6 slams & true greatness on clay?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because Boris being one of the greatest ever indoors/on carpet doesn't show up in the slam count while Rafa's greatness on clay does? :rolleyes:

star
05-21-2010, 08:57 PM
I don't care about GOAT status. I've never supported a player for that reason, and I tend to think that all the players I've supported have been pretty great. Patrick Rafter will never rate with the GOATS, but for a brief while he was perfection at the net. Edberg also won't ever be in discussions about the GOAT, but he gave me so much pleasure to watch. That's the way it is with Nadal. Nothing can ever take away the sheer joy he delivers on the court.

CyBorg
05-21-2010, 09:50 PM
I'd go with Nadal over Becker too.

They are somewhat close. Both have one year in which they were considered players of the year - Becker in 1989 and Nadal in 2008. Both, of course, have six majors.

However, Nadal has held #1 longer than Becker. Becker was never first overall for an extended period of time. Never a year-end #1.

I agree with those who point out Becker's lack of a clay court title, although he was a better clay court player than given credit. Made semis at the French I think more than once. And I remember him as a masters series finalist on clay.

I also tend to prefer players who have great stretches rather than just big tournament wins. I like to see guys who are consistently dominant. Nadal is more consistently dominant. Like in 2008 - dominant clay stretch followed by a Wimbledon win. Becker was more hit-and-miss. Great tournament here, bad tournament there.

So, Nadal should get the edge, but it's not a big one yet. Becker, after all, had some masterful davis cup efforts to his credit - ones in which he willed his country to victory like very few players in history.

Myrre
05-21-2010, 10:14 PM
Personally I think there's a lot to dislike about the way Nadal behaves on court.

Lopez
05-21-2010, 10:50 PM
What I find weird is that Nadal has won 3 of the 4 different Slams at least once, as have Edberg and Becker. Granted, Nadal has won on three different surfaces, but if you look at it more closely, so have Edberg and Becker. The Australian Open harcourts are a different animal from the US Open hardcourts and they are definitely not the same surface.

Somehow it's held against Becker and Edberg that they didn't fare well in one Slam but Nadal is given a free pass since "he's already won on HC". That's unfair. We should look at the performances in each Slam. Edberg made a RG final and a few QF. Becker made 3 RG SF and 1 QF. Nadal has made 1 USO QS and 2 SF. It's safe to say that both Edberg and Becker have a better record so far in their weakest Slam than Nadal. I expect Rafa to reverse this however.

Commander Data
05-21-2010, 11:52 PM
Federer > Sampras, Borg, Laver
Nadal >> Federer
Nadal = GOAT Q.E.D.

Matt01
05-22-2010, 11:38 AM
Federer > Sampras, Borg, Laver
Nadal >> Federer
Nadal = GOAT Q.E.D.


+1000

Love you, Commander. :kiss:

barbadosan
05-22-2010, 11:41 AM
LOL. I think Commander has been froghopped :P

Commander Data
05-22-2010, 12:37 PM
LOL. I think Commander has been froghopped :P

lol.

Life is sooo much easier when you are a hopping frog :shrug:

Billups85
06-06-2010, 08:01 PM
The difference between Becker on clay and Nadal indoors is too small to be significant when evaluating their respective careers. For me, Boris simply achieved more. I'd take 6 slams and true greatness indoors over 6 slams and 1 AMS indoors anyday. Nadal's one trump card is that Becker was never as great on any surface as Rafa is on clay, but he was arguably better on the othe 3 surfaces.

Is Becker still over Nadal? :wavey:

Nadal is clearly over Becker, Edberg and Wilander in the historic or GOAT ranking. Next stop, McEnroe.

rocketassist
06-06-2010, 08:21 PM
Is Becker still over Nadal? :wavey:

Nadal is clearly over Becker, Edberg and Wilander in the historic or GOAT ranking. Next stop, McEnroe.

Not when the quality of opposition still pales compared to Becker and Edberg's, he isn't.

Johnny Groove
06-06-2010, 08:24 PM
In my opinion, Nadal has now moved into the #9 slot in the Open Era.

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
8. Wilander
9. Nadal

Edberg and Becker are #10 and #11.

Billups85
06-06-2010, 08:38 PM
In my opinion, Nadal has now moved into the #9 slot in the Open Era.

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
8. Wilander
9. Nadal

Edberg and Becker are #10 and #11.

Wilander never regained the #1 spot and won only 33 titles in his career. Why do you put it over Rafa?

rocketassist
06-06-2010, 08:44 PM
Wilander won AO on grass and hard, USO on decoturf and RG on clay. Underrated champ.

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 08:44 PM
Why would Nadal be behind Wilander?

What did Wilander ever do that was so much more impressive than Nadal?

Nadal should also be rated ahead of Agassi. Just consider how great Nadal has been:

- completely dominates a surface; Agassi was never the best player on any surface
- has won a major for six consecutive years ('05-'10) unlike the notoriously inconsistent Agassi
- won the French/Wimbledon double
- won two majors without dropping a set

The only thing Andre has on Nadal is the longevity, which, if one thinks about it, shouldn't work in his favour because it points to how long Agassi needed to win his eight majors.

Nadal is, quite simply, more dominant than Agassi.

TennisOnWood
06-06-2010, 08:46 PM
In my opinion, Nadal has now moved into the #9 slot in the Open Era.

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
8. Wilander
9. Nadal

Edberg and Becker are #10 and #11.

Yes.. this first 9 players are safe now and really not sure about Becker or Edberg. I'm with German at place number 10

TennisOnWood
06-06-2010, 08:47 PM
Why would Nadal be behind Wilander?

What did Wilander ever do that was so much more impressive than Nadal?

Nadal should also be rated ahead of Agassi. Just consider how great Nadal has been:

- completely dominates a surface; Agassi was never the best player on any surface
- has won a major for six consecutive years ('05-'10) unlike the notoriously inconsistent Agassi
- won the French/Wimbledon double
- won two majors without dropping a set

The only thing Andre has on Nadal is the longevity, which, if one thinks about it, shouldn't work in his favour because it points to how long Agassi needed to win his eight majors.

Nadal is, quite simply, more dominant than Agassi.

And above all beating his Masters achievements

He is really not that far behind Andre.. if he is at all

rocketassist
06-06-2010, 08:48 PM
Why would Nadal be behind Wilander?

What did Wilander ever do that was so much more impressive than Nadal?

Nadal should also be rated ahead of Agassi. Just consider how great Nadal has been:

- completely dominates a surface; Agassi was never the best player on any surface
- has won a major for six consecutive years ('05-'10) unlike the notoriously inconsistent Agassi
- won the French/Wimbledon double
- won two majors without dropping a set

The only thing Andre has on Nadal is the longevity, which, if one thinks about it, shouldn't work in his favour because it points to how long Agassi needed to win his eight majors.

Nadal is, quite simply, more dominant than Agassi.

Agassi did the career GS on non-homogenized surfaces. You know, when grass was super quick, and clay was full of strong third world dirtballers.

He's also had many more weeks at number one than Nadal has.

Come on, you're better than that. Agassi was the best player on hardcourts certainly late 90s early 00s, well Rebound Ace, as his AO titles showed (and 1999 USO)

Johnny Groove
06-06-2010, 08:50 PM
Wilander never regained the #1 spot and won only 33 titles in his career. Why do you put it over Rafa?

Wilander reached 2 more slam finals than Nadal as well as...

Wilander won AO on grass and hard, USO on decoturf and RG on clay. Underrated champ.

...this. Wilander also win 3 slams in one year.

Why would Nadal be behind Wilander?

What did Wilander ever do that was so much more impressive than Nadal?

Nadal should also be rated ahead of Agassi. Just consider how great Nadal has been:

- completely dominates a surface; Agassi was never the best player on any surface
- has won a major for six consecutive years ('05-'10) unlike the notoriously inconsistent Agassi
- won the French/Wimbledon double
- won two majors without dropping a set

The only thing Andre has on Nadal is the longevity, which, if one thinks about it, shouldn't work in his favour because it points to how long Agassi needed to win his eight majors.

Nadal is, quite simply, more dominant than Agassi.

I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not, but I'll assume you are being serious.

Agassi has one more slam title than Nadal and Andre won all 4. Not to mention 5 more slam finals than Nadal, 20 more career titles than Nadal, as well as a TMC, and more weeks at #1.

Nadal is the #2 clay courter of all time, but Andre's career slam still trumps, I think.

Roamed
06-06-2010, 08:50 PM
Why would Nadal be behind Wilander?

What did Wilander ever do that was so much more impressive than Nadal?

Nadal should also be rated ahead of Agassi. Just consider how great Nadal has been:

- completely dominates a surface; Agassi was never the best player on any surface
- has won a major for six consecutive years ('05-'10) unlike the notoriously inconsistent Agassi
- won the French/Wimbledon double
- won two majors without dropping a set

The only thing Andre has on Nadal is the longevity, which, if one thinks about it, shouldn't work in his favour because it points to how long Agassi needed to win his eight majors.

Nadal is, quite simply, more dominant than Agassi.

Career slam.

Rafa will still have chances to get the US Open in the future though.

And when you say 'won a major for six consecutive years' you mean...?

samanosuke
06-06-2010, 08:51 PM
God isn't ballbasher

Johnny Groove
06-06-2010, 08:53 PM
Also, Nadal just turned 24.

If he wins Wimbledon or the USO, he'll pull even with Lendl, Connors, and Agassi at 8. Another slam and he's certainly #4 after Fed, Sampras, and Borg.

rocketassist
06-06-2010, 08:55 PM
Also, Nadal just turned 24.

If he wins Wimbledon or the USO, he'll pull even with Lendl, Connors, and Agassi at 8. Another slam and he's certainly #4 after Fed, Sampras, and Borg.

If his next slam is a USO, then probably yeah. If not, then he'd definitely still be behind Lendl- 270 weeks at the top- a truly dominant monster of the mid to late 80s.

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 09:01 PM
Agassi did the career GS on non-homogenized surfaces. You know, when grass was super quick, and clay was full of strong third world dirtballers.

That's a condition that will always come handy to someone who will want to argue against Nadal - the so-called homogenization. So even if Nadal keeps winning majors and gets into double digits some will still choose to pretend that this carries any real weight and rate him down.

But it's a specious argument. If one really chooses to employ it then one, by the same token, has to go back to the 50s and downgrade Kramer and Gonzales for playing little clay and tons of grass.

As for the career grand slam, I think it's an overrated accomplishment that, for a time, bolstered an argument that Agassi was better than Federer - before Federer finally won the French.

He's also had many more weeks at number one than Nadal has.

In cumulative, this is true. However Agassi was never a consistent #1. In peak/prime terms, I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that Nadal's consistent position as world 1 and 2 in the same era as the highly dominant Federer is much more impressive.

In Agassi's time, he shared #1 with the likes of Rios and Moya in an era of parity.

Come on, you're better than that. Agassi was the best player on hardcourts certainly late 90s early 00s, well Rebound Ace, as his AO titles showed (and 1999 USO)

Agassi was never the world's best hardcourt player - at his best he was, at most, Sampras's equal on hardcourts; most of the time overshadowed. Now compare this to Nadal who has dominated a surface to an extent probably unseen since Bjorn Borg. That is definitely enough to raise him above Agassi. Easily, in my opinion.

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 09:03 PM
And when you say 'won a major for six consecutive years' you mean...?

I mean what you just said.

Sapeod
06-06-2010, 09:10 PM
Why is Emerson not included on that list? :confused: He's won 12 GS ffs :rolleyes:
Oh and no, Nadal shouldn't be in any GOAT arguments :wavey: Wait until he wins atleast 12 slams first ;) :D

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 09:16 PM
I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not, but I'll assume you are being serious.

Agassi has one more slam title than Nadal and Andre won all 4. Not to mention 5 more slam finals than Nadal, 20 more career titles than Nadal, as well as a TMC, and more weeks at #1.

Nadal is the #2 clay courter of all time, but Andre's career slam still trumps, I think.

I didn't realize I was saying anything outrageous to suggest that I was "taking the piss".

I suppose it comes down to how much one values the so-called 'career slam' and the majors count.

The majors count, in my opinion, is a superficial way to understand the respective greatness of players. It's a cumulative assessment that does not attempt to delve into what's really important - how great a player was in his prime; and for how long he was great in his prime. Nadal has a far move consistent and dominant prime than Agassi. The only thing that Agassi has on Nadal is longevity, but his career is filled with half-baked seasons and spotty play. Ultimately it's up to you whether you choose 8 majors over almost 20 years or 7 majors over 5+. I choose the latter. Easily. It's just logical to any person who is smart enough to think beyond the mere quantitative.

The Career Slam is kind of like hitting for the cycle in baseball. An odd accomplishment. To bring up a hypothetical, what would you rather have - player a with a career grand slam, winning one in each; or player b with eight total majors, four in one venue and four in another?

Do you also think that Agassi is better than Borg, who won at only two majors? What about Borg before 1980?

Obviously Borg was better. Borg was better before he even turned 23. This career slam nonsense should stop and is a byproduct of a particular mentality that was spread by the American media years ago in order to sell the Agassi commodity.

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 09:18 PM
Why is Emerson not included on that list? :confused: He's won 12 GS ffs :rolleyes:

Not sure if this is sarcasm, but all of Emerson's accomplishments were as an amateur.

Sapeod
06-06-2010, 09:24 PM
Not sure if this is sarcasm, but all of Emerson's accomplishments were as an amateur.
Oh, ok.
And also, why the hell isn't Laver on the list? Seriously???? :rolleyes:
Even if most of his titles were when he was an amateur too, he won all of the GS in the same year, twice!

rocketassist
06-06-2010, 09:39 PM
I didn't realize I was saying anything outrageous to suggest that I was "taking the piss".

I suppose it comes down to how much one values the so-called 'career slam' and the majors count.

The majors count, in my opinion, is a superficial way to understand the respective greatness of players. It's a cumulative assessment that does not attempt to delve into what's really important - how great a player was in his prime; and for how long he was great in his prime. Nadal has a far move consistent and dominant prime than Agassi. The only thing that Agassi has on Nadal is longevity, but his career is filled with half-baked seasons and spotty play. Ultimately it's up to you whether you choose 8 majors over almost 20 years or 7 majors over 5+. I choose the latter. Easily. It's just logical to any person who is smart enough to think beyond the mere quantitative.

The Career Slam is kind of like hitting for the cycle in baseball. An odd accomplishment. To bring up a hypothetical, what would you rather have - player a with a career grand slam, winning one in each; or player b with eight total majors, four in one venue and four in another?

Do you also think that Agassi is better than Borg, who won at only two majors? What about Borg before 1980?

Obviously Borg was better. Borg was better before he even turned 23. This career slam nonsense should stop and is a byproduct of a particular mentality that was spread by the American media years ago in order to sell the Agassi commodity.

Agassi has the career slam and still one more slam than Nadal. That for me makes him ahead of him.

Nadal hasn't been good enough to get to number one for that long. And that's not cause of Federer, as he matches up well with him and wins a lot of their matches, but because he's not good enough against a big flat two handed hitter on a faster surface.

When Agassi was number one, yes there may have been parity, but it was still strong parity. Below Fedal it's not very strong, hence WTA clones like Del Potro winning a slam, but in 98-99 clay, grass and hard all featured. Whoever was the consistent over all three got to the top and Agassi got to the top. 101 weeks at number one beats 46 weeks at number one.

Yeah Agassi is loved and overhyped by the Yanks, I agree. If the two men matched up though, Andre would probably win most of their matches except on the clay.

Johnny Groove
06-06-2010, 09:39 PM
I didn't realize I was saying anything outrageous to suggest that I was "taking the piss".

I guess perhaps my recollection of some venomous posts of yours towards Nadal in the past. As a long-term fan of the guy, and with how much hate he gets on this site, surely you can understand my skepticism. My apologies.

I suppose it comes down to how much one values the so-called 'career slam' and the majors count.

The majors count, in my opinion, is a superficial way to understand the respective greatness of players. It's a cumulative assessment that does not attempt to delve into what's really important - how great a player was in his prime; and for how long he was great in his prime. Nadal has a far move consistent and dominant prime than Agassi. The only thing that Agassi has on Nadal is longevity, but his career is filled with half-baked seasons and spotty play. Ultimately it's up to you whether you choose 8 majors over almost 20 years or 7 majors over 5+. I choose the latter. Easily. It's just logical to any person who is smart enough to think beyond the mere quantitative.

The Career Slam is kind of like hitting for the cycle in baseball. An odd accomplishment. To bring up a hypothetical, what would you rather have - player a with a career grand slam, winning one in each; or player b with eight total majors, four in one venue and four in another?

Do you also think that Agassi is better than Borg, who won at only two majors? What about Borg before 1980?

Obviously Borg was better. Borg was better before he even turned 23. This career slam nonsense should stop and is a byproduct of a particular mentality that was spread by the American media years ago in order to sell the Agassi commodity.

My view is that the career slam and total slam count is more impressive, while you feel that the true measure of a player is how good he is in his prime and prime length. Fair enough.

Achieving the career slam is definitely not the same as hitting for the cycle in baseball, an achievement that can happen on any given day. It's more akin to a pitcher amassing 100 wins for two different teams, an achievement that requires consistent excellence at more than one venue.

How many players in the history of the game have won the career slam?

Fred Perry, Don Budge, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Andre Agassi, and Roger Federer, certainly more than an "odd accomplishment".

As for Borg being greater than Agassi, no way. Even before 1980. Borg dominated the game and won RG and Wimbledon and made 4 USO finals. Agassi can't touch that.

Now, what I find impressive about Agassi is his longevity. The fact that Andre's career would rollercoaster from winning slams and being #1 to playing challengers and back to #1 again. The guy played 20 seasons, the fact that he was even able to play that many years is impressive in itself.

You saw how tough it was for Nadal to come back from RG 2009 to now. Imagine if he went down to #150 in the rankings. How difficult would it be to return to the top after that?

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 09:42 PM
Agassi has the career slam and still one more slam than Nadal. That for me makes him ahead of him.

Nadal hasn't been good enough to get to number one for that long. And that's not cause of Federer, as he matches up well with him and wins a lot of their matches, but because he's not good enough against a big flat two handed hitter on a faster surface.

When Agassi was number one, yes there may have been parity, but it was still strong parity. Below Fedal it's not very strong, hence WTA clones like Del Potro winning a slam, but in 98-99 clay, grass and hard all featured. Whoever was the consistent over all three got to the top and Agassi got to the top. 101 weeks at number one beats 46 weeks at number one.

Yeah Agassi is loved and overhyped by the Yanks, I agree. If the two men matched up though, Andre would probably win most of their matches except on the clay.

Nadal, if anything, has been good enough to be #1 ever since 2005. If you look at his atp point totals then you'll see that even as #2 he had better totals than many #1s in history. And, obviously, those totals would rise if Federer was not in the equation. Now, I don't want to go down that hypothetical. The point is that Nadal is probably the best #2 the sport has seen in decades.

Agassi was a maddeningly inconsistent player. I remember when he got hot and won those three majors between RG and Aussie in 99-00. He followed that up by not winning a title for a whole year.

That's just the kind of player he was. It's up to you. I take Rafa.

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 09:53 PM
I guess perhaps my recollection of some venomous posts of yours towards Nadal in the past. As a long-term fan of the guy, and with how much hate he gets on this site, surely you can understand my skepticism. My apologies.

I will slam anyone as long as I find it to be deserved. No favorites. :)

My view is that the career slam and total slam count is more impressive, while you feel that the true measure of a player is how good he is in his prime and prime length. Fair enough.

Achieving the career slam is definitely not the same as hitting for the cycle in baseball, an achievement that can happen on any given day. It's more akin to a pitcher amassing 100 wins for two different teams, an achievement that requires consistent excellence at more than one venue.

It's somewhat comparable. It points to a kind of innate curiosity that people have in satisfying an appetitive sense of completeness. Winning all the majors in a slam feels complete. Getting every type of hit in a cycle feels complete.

But it's not necessarily the great accomplishment. If anything, it's something that manifests out of some degree of good luck.

How many players in the history of the game have won the career slam?

Fred Perry, Don Budge, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Andre Agassi, and Roger Federer, certainly more than an "odd accomplishment".

As for Borg being greater than Agassi, no way. Even before 1980. Borg dominated the game and won RG and Wimbledon and made 4 USO finals. Agassi can't touch that.

Well, yeah. And if you look at some of the percentages you will see that some of Rafa's years are not that far removed from Borg's. Sure Borg had a better career (at least we know that to be true now), but Nadal shares many of those traits of dominance. The same kind of week-to-week dominance. And we know that he's now won Wimbledon and the Australian.

The one thing that has dragged Nadal down has been his tendency to wane after the middle of the summer.

The career grand slam has eluded great players for reasons largely tied to circumstances and bad luck. For Borg it was definitely circumstances (AO status) and bad luck (US Open). Players like Pancho Gonzales , Jack Kramer and others I'm not sure even ever played the Australian - or barely at all.

The career grand slam is an odd curio and Agassi, for some reason (largely tied in to his versatility), managed to scrape it through. Is it really that much of a tiebreaker? I really don't think so. Maybe if Nadal still hadn't won that hardcourt major, but he now has...

Now, what I find impressive about Agassi is his longevity. The fact that Andre's career would rollercoaster from winning slams and being #1 to playing challengers and back to #1 again. The guy played 20 seasons, the fact that he was even able to play that many years is impressive in itself.

You saw how tough it was for Nadal to come back from RG 2009 to now. Imagine if he went down to #150 in the rankings. How difficult would it be to return to the top after that?

Sure, but don't forget that Agassi dropped that low, because he stopped trying and did coke.

rocketassist
06-06-2010, 09:59 PM
Nadal, if anything, has been good enough to be #1 ever since 2005. If you look at his atp point totals then you'll see that even as #2 he had better totals than many #1s in history. And, obviously, those totals would rise if Federer was not in the equation. Now, I don't want to go down that hypothetical. The point is that Nadal is probably the best #2 the sport has seen in decades.

Agassi was a maddeningly inconsistent player. I remember when he got hot and won those three majors between RG and Aussie in 99-00. He followed that up by not winning a title for a whole year.

That's just the kind of player he was. It's up to you. I take Rafa.

If he kept losing in finals to the great man Fed like Agassi did Sampras I'd see your point, but he doesn't, he loses in hardcourt slams to many big hitting slamless non-factors (in Open Era ratings anyway) so he doesn't get through to face Roger, therefore doesn't get the chance to beat him and dominate the men's game.

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 10:11 PM
If he kept losing in finals to the great man Fed like Agassi did Sampras I'd see your point, but he doesn't, he loses in hardcourt slams to many big hitting slamless non-factors (in Open Era ratings anyway) so he doesn't get through to face Roger, therefore doesn't get the chance to beat him and dominate the men's game.

Oh, Agassi faced tons of mediocrities in his time. His 99 RG draw is widely known to be a joke, something often brought up on this board. And many of his Aussie Open opponents definitely don't inspire awe (Schuttler, Clement).

In majors finals, Nadal has faced Federer possibly a record amount of times, when it comes to close rivals. Someone can probably check in on that. It may be an open era record.

rocketassist
06-06-2010, 10:14 PM
Oh, Agassi faced tons of mediocrities in his time. His 99 RG draw is widely known to be a joke, something often brought up on this board. And many of his Aussie Open opponents definitely don't inspire awe (Schuttler, Clement).

In majors finals, Nadal has faced Federer possibly a record amount of times, when it comes to close rivals. Someone can probably check in on that. It may be an open era record.

Perhaps, but Schuettler was Nadal's Wimbledon SF opponent and also reached the final of Monte Carlo. He's nothing amazing, but his results suggest a guy who did quite well and was a top ten player for a while.

Agree on Clement though. Nothing special. Grosjean should have made that final. Now he was an underachieving talent for sure.

99 RG draw wasn't great yes, but neither was this Nadal one, or most of his titles in Paris. 2005 was his first slam, and his hardest RG draw, when he was at his least experienced. Now that was a fucking impressive victory.

CyBorg
06-06-2010, 10:18 PM
Perhaps, but Schuettler was Nadal's Wimbledon SF opponent and also reached the final of Monte Carlo. He's nothing amazing, but his results suggest a guy who did quite well and was a top ten player for a while.

Agree on Clement though. Nothing special. Grosjean should have made that final. Now he was an underachieving talent for sure.

99 RG draw wasn't great yes, but neither was this Nadal one, or most of his titles in Paris. 2005 was his first slam, and his hardest RG draw, when he was at his least experienced. Now that was a fucking impressive victory.

Yeah. Every era has its clowns, as they say.

Billups85
06-06-2010, 10:22 PM
Oh, Agassi faced tons of mediocrities in his time. His 99 RG draw is widely known to be a joke, something often brought up on this board. And many of his Aussie Open opponents definitely don't inspire awe (Schuttler, Clement).

In majors finals, Nadal has faced Federer possibly a record amount of times, when it comes to close rivals. Someone can probably check in on that. It may be an open era record.

7 Fedal finals. And yep, it's a record.

Jimnik
06-07-2010, 02:16 AM
ClayGOAT. Nothing more, nothing less.

ogre
06-07-2010, 03:59 AM
If Nadal retires at this point in his career then to portray him as the greatest of all time would be crazy. If rederer retires this year the same does not apply.

Perhaps Nadal will achieve enough in his career to be considered greatest. At the same age Federer has not achieved as much as Nadal has. There is still time for Nadal to improve and earn that title. But surely it is to speculate if he has the ability to earn the title rather than to claim he has already earned such a title.

There could be a junior right now who has more raw talent than either federer, nadal or any other player in history. But you have to earn the title over a career and prove yourself. If you ask if Nadal could one day prove to be the greatest I would agree. But at this time, with so few weeks at #1 etc such a claim is at best premature.

tangerine_dream
07-02-2010, 10:25 PM
Let's see what Sunday brings.

Sapeod
07-02-2010, 10:33 PM
He has a few more slams, maybe when he reaches 11 (if he does that is) then he start to be included. He definately will become the clay GOAT.

rocketassist
07-03-2010, 12:10 AM
I can actually see him winning three or four Wimbledons now and dominating here seeing as Fed is getting old.

leng jai
07-03-2010, 12:12 AM
The Nadull haters saying he was finished after this years AO were so delusional its not funny.

Persimmon
07-03-2010, 12:15 AM
Only players that have won 10 or more slams should.

thrust
07-03-2010, 12:24 AM
Perhaps, but Schuettler was Nadal's Wimbledon SF opponent and also reached the final of Monte Carlo. He's nothing amazing, but his results suggest a guy who did quite well and was a top ten player for a while.

Agree on Clement though. Nothing special. Grosjean should have made that final. Now he was an underachieving talent for sure.

99 RG draw wasn't great yes, but neither was this Nadal one, or most of his titles in Paris. 2005 was his first slam, and his hardest RG draw, when he was at his least experienced. Now that was a fucking impressive victory.

Unless I am missing something, in all the Nadal FO wins, all the top players participated. He beat Federer in three of those 4 finals, post 05. It is not his fault Roger lost before the finals this year, which saved him another Slam final defeat by Rafa. So to dismiss Rafa's FO wins post 05, is unfair and inaccurate.

thrust
07-03-2010, 12:29 AM
Only players that have won 10 or more slams should.

Except for: Rosewall and Gonzalez, who lost many more years playing Slams than Laver did. Emerson has more Slam wins than Ken or Poncho, but was not nearly as good as they were.

zeluvaa
07-03-2010, 12:51 AM
The argument of Nadal being GOAT can only be valid when he reaches Federer's/Sampras's level of achievement, which btw I don't see him reaching. I think he may win around 12 slams or so, but that is in the future, so discussion of his inclusion at this point is redundant.

rafa_maniac
07-03-2010, 01:49 AM
Nowhere close to GOAT status yet, but a viable tier 2 contender if he wins another Wimbledon crown on Sunday I'd say, his 8th Slam and all but insuring his 2nd YE#1.

HarryMan
07-03-2010, 01:54 AM
For what I thought this kid will achieve when I first saw him play in 05, he has proved me all wrong. I really never thought Nadal could last this long with such a brutal game. Not only has he turned 24 now, he has done so, winning 7 slam titles, and back to being the best player in the world again. I won't comment on him anymore till his career is over because it is almost impossible to measure his physical possibilities.

He is an all time great already and each slam that he adds to his resume will only make him even greater.

Billups85
07-04-2010, 03:56 PM
The difference between Becker on clay and Nadal indoors is too small to be significant when evaluating their respective careers. For me, Boris simply achieved more. I'd take 6 slams and true greatness indoors over 6 slams and 1 AMS indoors anyday. Nadal's one trump card is that Becker was never as great on any surface as Rafa is on clay, but he was arguably better on the othe 3 surfaces.

:wavey:

Do you still prefer Boris over Nadal? 3 GS outside clay isn't enough?

IMO, with this Wimbledon Nadal overtakes Agassi. Ties with Connors and still way behind Lendl and close to McEnroe.

M4RC
07-04-2010, 04:24 PM
Why are 6 slams & true greatness indoors better than 6 slams & true greatness on clay?

Because he is a hata so it's NID.

Clay has 1 slam and indoors has 0 slams. Clay >>>>>>>>>> Indoors by a mile in the world of tennis.

Also Nadal's clay GOATness >>>>>> Becker's indoors greatness. Nadal > Becker even for a hata.

Johnny Groove
07-04-2010, 04:27 PM
Another slam win for Nadal, but be wary of predicting him to win everything, now.

He is still injury prone and the knees could go at any moment. This could be his last slam or he could win 5 more.

TennisOnWood
07-04-2010, 04:31 PM
Looking good so far...

8 Grand Slam titles :

Borg - Wimbledon 1979 (20) 23 - 8420
Nadal - Wimbledon 2010 (25) 24 - 8785
Federer - Wimbledon 2006 (29) 24 - 9089
Sampras - US Open 1996 (30) 25 - 9147
Lendl - Australian 1990 (41) 29 - 10907
Connors - US Open 1983 (36) 31 - 11320
Agassi - Australian 2003 (50) 32 - 11948

8th Tournament won / total Slams needed / age / days

johnny_dhk
07-04-2010, 05:04 PM
Rafael Nadal is the greatest sportsman of all time. Period.

Filo V.
07-04-2010, 05:22 PM
Rafa is one really serious knee/foot injury from a serious career crisis, so it's hard to full back him to do accomplishments great enough for the GOAT. With that said, if he can stay healthy, he has Olympics Gold, 3 Davis Cups, most MS titles, multiple Wimbledon+French back-to-backs now. He needs to win the US Open once or twice and another AO, and maybe another F+W back to back. Also it would be nice if he won all of the MS events, some of the ones on hard court like Miami, Paris and Cincinnati. But he's getting there, and he's getting better, and his H2H against what many consider the best player to ever play is on his side. IF he can continue to improve and stay healthy, he has a definite chance at GOAT status, but it remains to be seen if that will happen. In any case, he has had an amazing career and is still one of the top 10 players we have ever seen, and we should all cherish his greatness.

Aloevera
07-04-2010, 05:28 PM
Positive H2H against all players but not a single WTF? Ahem.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-04-2010, 06:05 PM
i made this thread at a time when everyone was writing off nadal and hating on him

at this time now, everyone is on the nada bandwagon, its crazy- one single loss and everyone acts like its a disaster

Roger isn't content at 16 slams and Rafa isn't content at 8

lets love them both, yeah

i dont like rafa's play style but i repsect it- i dont like some of the things he does on court but i admire his clutch game as being the best today

he is a legitimate GOAT contender

roger rafa and gasquet all legitimate GOAT contenders (but only gasquet has universal GOAT status)

M4RC
07-04-2010, 06:23 PM
Positive H2H against all players but not a single WTF? Ahem.

You can give WTF all the importance you want but the players couldn't care less about it when compared to a GS (and its schedule is the worst ever, too).

Aloevera
07-04-2010, 06:28 PM
You can give WTF all the importance you want but the players couldn't care less about it when compared to a GS (and its schedule is the worst ever, too).

Neither are other tournaments other than GS. :)

The schedule is the worst ever? Yet other greats can do it...

nanoman
07-04-2010, 07:04 PM
Patience guys. He's not yet there, he is a potential undisputed GOAT, but need 12+ Slams to be included in the GOAT discussion.