If Nadal were to retire today, where does he rank on your all time greats list [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Nadal were to retire today, where does he rank on your all time greats list

SetSampras
05-25-2011, 01:04 AM
If Nadal were to retire today, judging by what he has accomplished in his career thus far, where does he rank in terms of the all time greats? Top 20 of all time in terms of career achivements?
Is he in the top tier or 2nd tier?

BULLZ1LLA
05-25-2011, 01:10 AM
(I think Rafa would be the greatest 25-year-old in history. How many weeks has Rafa got at number one? I think it's 100 this week, or is it 99? :-----)

r2473
05-25-2011, 01:16 AM
Rafa is retiring today?

You mean just from FO '11 or is he retiring from tennis.

I was saying myself after Rome that he should retire.

I'd say he's about 27th. Just behind Tilden.

Corey Feldman
05-25-2011, 01:17 AM
11th, just behind 10th place Sampras

BULLZ1LLA
05-25-2011, 01:29 AM
(What kind of idiot retires at age 25 while being defending champion of 3 of the 4 slams? I mean I've heard of hypotheticals, but this is a waste of time :-----)

barahmasa
05-25-2011, 01:29 AM
Top 10 definitly, maybe even top 5 but some traditionalists would argue about that :hatoff:

Ibracadabra
05-25-2011, 01:30 AM
Top 5, give it 30 years or so and he'll have the folklore status of borg retiring young.

Jaz
05-25-2011, 01:33 AM
Behind Borg

Johnny Groove
05-25-2011, 01:33 AM
10-15ish of all time.

Top 7ish of Open era.

green25814
05-25-2011, 01:36 AM
He'd be somewhere in the top ten for sure. Difficult to really place though, and this hypothetical is fairly useless anyway.

BULLZ1LLA
05-25-2011, 01:37 AM
(WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY AHEAD of Agassi :-----)

tests
05-25-2011, 02:03 AM
i do not know where he would rank... but i will say that nadal would own sampras in almost all courts except fast wimbledon (slow grass sampras would get *****) and fast uso.

tests
05-25-2011, 02:04 AM
(WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY AHEAD of Agassi :-----)


i will take nadal over agassi as well

Pirata.
05-25-2011, 02:46 AM
Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer are top 4 for sure, I don't think anyone would dispute that other than a few deluded tards. Maybe Tilden, but I don't know whether he should count or now.

Rafa is mixed in with Wilander, McEnroe, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, maybe Rosewall and Fred Perry. Maybe throw in Becker and Edberg at the lower part of the list.

Lestat
05-25-2011, 02:50 AM
long life to the king of clay.

tests
05-25-2011, 02:52 AM
Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer are top 4 for sure, I don't think anyone would dispute that other than a few deluded tards. Maybe Tilden, but I don't know whether he should count or now.

Rafa is mixed in with Wilander, McEnroe, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, maybe Rosewall and Fred Perry. Maybe throw in Becker and Edberg at the lower part of the list.


nadal is DEFINITELY > becker/edberg

Roadmap
05-25-2011, 02:58 AM
In the all time list of moonballers Nadull is number 1

DipSet
05-25-2011, 03:01 AM
I don't know doggie, I'm new to this tennis thing.

Nadal is alright. He got the game going. 56th ever? Ye, that's about right.

shiaben
05-25-2011, 03:01 AM
2nd after Federer. And if he doesn't place at all, then I'll definitely say, he's the #1 rival to a tennis champion, of all time.

shiaben
05-25-2011, 03:15 AM
LOL Coach K is watching this game.

BULLZ1LLA
05-25-2011, 03:39 AM
(Don't forget, Rafa owns the record ALREADY for Masters Titles, he also has the Golden Career Grand Slam, and is the only player ever to win Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open in the same year on 3 different surfaces :-----)

Mountaindewslave
05-25-2011, 03:46 AM
some of these lists / placements of Nadal are outlandish. If he stopped right now he would 100% be top 10, maybe barely under top 5. He holds the best records of all time on a particular surface (clay), has the career grand slam, the olympics, the record number of 1000 titles, like a previous poster mentioned, is the only player to win the US OPEN, WIMBLEDON, ROLAND GARROS, all in the same year and on different surfaces... it is ridiculous some of the people he has been compared to? Lendl close to Nadal? Insane. the only players I could understand ranking above Nadal are some of the oldies, Sampras, Federer, (Agassi arguably), Borg, Conners. That's about it. People saying that if Nadal retired now would be top 20 something are insane, he should be around 7th or 8th best of all time, although it would be crazy for him to retire young; he's adjusted his game too much to help make it less physical at this point to make it all for nothing. %7/8

swebright
05-25-2011, 04:06 AM
Fed is higher than Borg and Sampras.
Rafa is in top 10 right now, will likely surpass Borg and Sampras to be in top 5 when he retires. Possibly just behind Fed since I don't think he will win 16 slams like Fed.

paseo
05-25-2011, 04:09 AM
Higher than Samras, lower than Federer.

hipolymer
05-25-2011, 04:09 AM
I would say he would be in top 5.

Pirata.
05-25-2011, 04:39 AM
nadal is DEFINITELY > becker/edberg

That's why I said the lower part of the list, after those guys ;)

Pirata.
05-25-2011, 04:41 AM
(Don't forget, Rafa owns the record ALREADY for Masters Titles, he also has the Golden Career Grand Slam, and is the only player ever to win Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open in the same year on 3 different surfaces :-----)

I'm sure if there were grass/indoor Masters, Federer would probably have a pretty sizable record on his best surfaces too.

:o

stewietennis
05-25-2011, 04:46 AM
I'm sure if there were grass/indoor Masters, Federer would probably have a pretty sizable record on his best surfaces too.

:o

And if there were two majors on clay, Rafa would have close to 15 majors.

But there's not. They have to work with what's available. ;)

Roddickominator
05-25-2011, 04:54 AM
Definitely not in the top tier. He did dominate clay, but that is a bottom tier surface so it doesn't really mean much. Pretty close to Top 20 though.

DipSet
05-25-2011, 04:56 AM
Definitely not in the top tier. He did dominate clay, but that is a bottom tier surface so it doesn't really mean much. Pretty close to Top 20 though.

You got skillz. I agree with Roddickominator. We the best!

atennisfan
05-25-2011, 05:04 AM
Maybe #5, 6 or 7. No higher than 5 and no lower than 8.

Marc23
05-25-2011, 05:12 AM
(Don't forget, Rafa owns the record ALREADY for Masters Titles, he also has the Golden Career Grand Slam, and is the only player ever to win Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open in the same year on 3 different surfaces :-----)

Plus Olympic singles champion,unlike many others...

fast_clay
05-25-2011, 05:18 AM
on the same line as michael stich and richard krajicek... he really did well to match these guys... overachieved

SheepleBuster
05-25-2011, 05:19 AM
If Nadal were to retire today, judging by what he has accomplished in his career thus far, where does he rank in terms of the all time greats? Top 20 of all time in terms of career achivements?
Is he in the top tier or 2nd tier?

skill wise? Top 5. But do I rank him there? No. he is disqualified for obvious reasons. Don't make me spell it out. :devil:

Mimi
05-25-2011, 05:32 AM
1. Roger
2. Pete
3. Laver
4. Borg
5. Emerson/Tiden
6. Rafa :cheerleader:

fast_clay
05-25-2011, 05:44 AM
1. RodGOAT
2. Rosewall
3. Sampras
4. Borg
..
..
..

64. Hewitt
..
..
86. Some n00b
87. Nadal

stewietennis
05-25-2011, 05:44 AM
Even in terms of just Majors won, I would rank Nadal no higher than Number 6.

Still, in over 130 years of tennis and over 40 years of Open Era tennis, for a 24 year old to be considered 6th best player ever is quite an achievement.

Haelfix
05-25-2011, 05:55 AM
Definitely top 10. Probably somewhere around 5 or 6 depending on how many of the great oldies you include.

I'd put him below Fed/Laver/Sampras/Borg/Tilden, superior to Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Emerson. Probably in the Ken Rosewall/Gonzalez/Hoad area.

delpiero7
05-25-2011, 06:09 AM
Nice to see a lot of the guys who dislike Nadal actually post a serious answer to this question.

Definitely not in the top tier. He did dominate clay, but that is a bottom tier surface so it doesn't really mean much. Pretty close to Top 20 though.

Are you samjones is disguise? :devil:

xdrewitdajx
05-25-2011, 09:19 AM
Plus Olympic singles champion,unlike many others...

that's what the "golden" part means

born_on_clay
05-25-2011, 09:24 AM
clay GOAT
3rd ot the ovarall GOAT's list

Foxy
05-25-2011, 09:24 AM
TOP1 for sure

ApproachShot
05-25-2011, 09:27 AM
5th, after Federer, Sampras, Laver and Borg.

careergrandslam
05-25-2011, 09:50 AM
1.federer
2.laver
3.sampras
4.borg
5.nadal

BlueSwan
05-25-2011, 10:04 AM
Open era players only: #5 - Behind Federer, Borg, Laver and Sampras. Ahead of everyone else.

tests
05-25-2011, 10:39 AM
1.federer
2.laver
3.sampras
4.borg
5.nadal


my list is similar

TennisOnWood
05-25-2011, 10:52 AM
And why do you all think he is better then Ivan Lendl?

vn01
05-25-2011, 11:15 AM
8th in the Open era. After Federer, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe and Borg

atennisfan
05-25-2011, 11:16 AM
And why do you all think he is better then Ivan Lendl?

one word: wimbledon

TennisOnWood
05-25-2011, 11:18 AM
8th in the Open era. After Federer, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe and Borg

Yeah.. this is very safe to say. Behind them and in front of Bum Bum Becker and Edberg

TennisOnWood
05-25-2011, 11:21 AM
one word: wimbledon

And what are we going to do about Indoor tennis (Rafa is useless) or with fact that Ivan won almost 30 titles on 3 surfaces (Rafa would never do anything on Carpet)

Great player from Golden era of tennis played in fast Wimbldon finals and won Queens with his baseline game

No way Rafa is greater player then Ivan.. not yet

DipSet
05-25-2011, 11:23 AM
1. Andre Agassi
2. Fereder
3. Corrado Barazzutti
4. Juan Ignacio Chela
5. Sampras
6. Nadal
7. Djordjovic

That's the eagles nest, you fly in there you get your tits touched, no homo

vn01
05-25-2011, 11:24 AM
Yeah.. this is very safe to say. Behind them and in front of Bum Bum Becker and Edberg

and in front of wilander ;)

Mungo
05-25-2011, 11:27 AM
Pointless thread 'cos he's not close to retirement. He's greater than anyone at his age, clowns.

TennisOnWood
05-25-2011, 11:28 AM
and in front of wilander ;)

IMO, Wilander goes behind Boris and Stefan.. he achieved amazing things at the age of 24 but after 1988. season he just wasn't the same

TennisOnWood
05-25-2011, 11:31 AM
Pointless thread 'cos he's not close to retirement. He's greater than anyone at his age, clowns.

Bjorn Borg.. you can check what he done before 25th birthday

Action Jackson
05-25-2011, 11:33 AM
And what are we going to do about Indoor tennis (Rafa is useless) or with fact that Ivan won almost 30 titles on 3 surfaces (Rafa would never do anything on Carpet)

Great player from Golden era of tennis played in fast Wimbldon finals and won Queens with his baseline game

No way Rafa is greater player then Ivan.. not yet

Not ever.

sexybeast
05-25-2011, 12:06 PM
I feel he is knocking at the door of Bjorn Borg's spot, but I feel like he wont get there. Or maybe that is just wishful thinking.

Lendl and Nadal are very close ofcourse, it depends alot on what you personaly value. With Lendl you have longevity and consistensy wgile Nadal so far has more grand slams and the career slam.

helvet empire
05-25-2011, 12:12 PM
Pointless thread 'cos he's not close to retirement. He's greater than anyone at his age, clowns.

but his results from now on will be just as if he had retired:devil::cool:

Action Jackson
05-25-2011, 12:29 PM
I feel he is knocking at the door of Bjorn Borg's spot, but I feel like he wont get there. Or maybe that is just wishful thinking.

Lendl and Nadal are very close ofcourse, it depends alot on what you personaly value. With Lendl you have longevity and consistensy wgile Nadal so far has more grand slams and the career slam.

You think Lendl wouldn't have 3 Wimbledons with the grass today and you think Nadal would win one on fast low bouncing grass? Can't compare when court conditions are the same.

He isn't close to Lendl or to Borg.

Sophocles
05-25-2011, 12:37 PM
10-15ish of all time.

Top 7ish of Open era.

Groove on the money as usual.

Best way to think of it is to list who's greater than him. Laver, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, Rosewall, Tilden are all CLEARLY greater than him. Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Hewitt, Nastase, Newcombe, Hoad, Von Cramm, Borotra, Lacoste, Vines are all clearly inferior to him. Then you have a group in the middle who are on a par - Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Budge, Agassi, Kramer, Cochet, Perry perhaps. Some of these you might place above him, some below, depending on what you value most.

MaxPower
05-25-2011, 01:04 PM
He is not on it. My all time list always stops one spot before him. If he's the true 11th i cut me list at 10. If he's 7th i cut my list at 6. Sorry Nadal you have to become the GOAT because then i can't cut the list anymore. :devil:

Lopez
05-25-2011, 01:13 PM
I'd say he's on the "second tier", pretty much on par with Agassi, behind JMac, Connors and Lendl (Open era).

mark73
05-25-2011, 01:14 PM
Groove on the money as usual.

Best way to think of it is to list who's greater than him. Laver, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, Rosewall, Tilden are all CLEARLY greater than him. Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Hewitt, Nastase, Newcombe, Hoad, Von Cramm, Borotra, Lacoste, Vines are all clearly inferior to him. Then you have a group in the middle who are on a par - Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Budge, Agassi, Cochet, Perry perhaps. Some of these you might place above him, some below, depending on what you value most.

Tilden from the prehistoric era is better than nadal? Maybe you mean more accomplished?? Who knows, this is MTF.

Becker is the GOAT for me because I value diving on grass above anything. :p

ExcaliburII
05-25-2011, 01:17 PM
How can you mention Hewitt in this thread? Guy achieved nothing

mark73
05-25-2011, 01:17 PM
He is not on it. My all time list always stops one spot before him. If he's the true 11th i cut me list at 10. If he's 7th i cut my list at 6. Sorry Nadal you have to become the GOAT because then i can't cut the list anymore. :devil:

You still could at number one. Just declare it a GOATless list. :p

tyruk14
05-25-2011, 02:04 PM
Rafael Nadal is surely the greatest soccer player of all time, no?

Sophocles
05-25-2011, 02:09 PM
How can you mention Hewitt in this thread? Guy achieved nothing

People have mentioned Emerson.

Sophocles
05-25-2011, 02:10 PM
Tilden from the prehistoric era is better than nadal? Maybe you mean more accomplished?? Who knows, this is MTF.

Becker is the GOAT for me because I value diving on grass above anything. :p

I mean greater.

barbadosan
05-25-2011, 02:11 PM
Plus Olympic singles champion,unlike many others...

Do you mean the many others who played those many years when tennis had been taken off the Olympics schedule? and of course, it could be again

sexybeast
05-25-2011, 02:18 PM
You think Lendl wouldn't have 3 Wimbledons with the grass today and you think Nadal would win one on fast low bouncing grass? Can't compare when court conditions are the same.

He isn't close to Lendl or to Borg.

No, I dont think Lendl would get 3 Wimbledons in Federer's era, he wouldnt really win more than 1 set against Federer on any kind of grass 2003-2009.

A better question would be if Lendl could win Wimbledon with Nadal's draw 2010, no serve and volleyers or allcourters, just baseliners, pushers and ballbashers on slow grass. If we look at Lendl's record at the slow grasscourts in Australian Open 83-87 it doesnt look very good, he couldnt even defeat Wilander there twice. Lendl moved bad on grass so it doesnt really matter that much if it was slow or fast grass, but he did improve at the end of his career when he got to Wimbledon finals. Maybe with the right timing he could get 1 Wimbledon in this era, but that is pure speculation.

Anyone who wants to see Lendl on slow grass should just search for his matches in Australian Open, here you have an absolute beatdown against teenager Wilander in the 83 final:

Q2WIBU6i-Ac

timafi
05-25-2011, 02:32 PM
16 > 14>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>9

Corey Feldman
05-25-2011, 02:38 PM
How can you mention Hewitt in this thread? Guy achieved nothingWon Wimbledon which makes it 100% more than any Argie ever achieved that really counts

ExcaliburII
05-25-2011, 02:39 PM
Won Wimbledon which makes it 100% more than any Argie ever achieved that really counts

Vilas is 10x Hewitt for tennis history.

Vilas is 1000x more than any scot has ever achieved in real tennis :)

Corey Feldman
05-25-2011, 02:42 PM
Vilas was a cheat who only won on clay

and he never won Wimbledon which as we all know is 10000x bigger than any the other 3 slams

ExcaliburII
05-25-2011, 02:44 PM
:lol: When did Vilas cheat?
And Wimbledon is not 1000x bigger than RG or USO.
Deal with the facts you loser.

Commander Data
05-25-2011, 02:44 PM
Titles↓ Players↓
16 Roger Federer
14 Pete Sampras
12 Roy Emerson
11 Rod Laver, Björn Borg
10 Bill Tilden
9 Rafael Nadal

he is 7th on the list which is about right.

sexybeast
05-25-2011, 03:13 PM
Titles↓ Players↓
16 Roger Federer
14 Pete Sampras
12 Roy Emerson
11 Rod Laver, Björn Borg
10 Bill Tilden
9 Rafael Nadal

he is 7th on the list which is about right.

Those slam counts are too simplistic to be solely the deciding factor to count greatness.

Emerson is not greater than Laver no matter how you look at it.

My list would be something like this:

(Criteria for 1st tier is atleast 4 years as nr1, atleast 10 pro/open era slams)

1st tier:
1.Federer/Laver
3.Sampras/Gonzales/Tilden
6.Borg/Rosewall

(Criteria for 2nd tier: atleast 2 years as nr1, minimum 7 slams)

2nd tier:

8.Nadal/Lendl
10.Mcenroe
11.Agassi/Connors

Agassi has only 1 year as nr1, but career golden slam should make up for that.

Also somewhere in the 2nd tier list I should include: Budge, Perry, Cochet and Lacoste

I just dont know where...

(Criteria 3rd tier: 1 year as nr 1, atleast 5 slams)

3rd tier:

Edberg, , Becker, Vines, Kramer, Wilander....

(Criteria: atleast 3 slams, 1 year as nr1 counts as 1 slam)

4th tier:

Kuerten, Courier, Segura, Hoad, Nastasse, Vilas, Newcombe, Santana, Emerson, Djokovic (?) and so on...

5th tier:

Safin, Roddick, Kafelnikov, Ashe, Hewitt, Rafter and many more 1-2 slam winners who could play on more than 1 surfaces and with many years in top 5 and many titles and 5-10 grand slam SFs and so on.

I must say Djokovic really still is 5th tier, I just know he will be 4th tier very, very soon.


Also: I think Budge could be 1st tier, I cant really decide on Budge.

Johnny Groove
05-25-2011, 03:17 PM
Groove on the money as usual.

Best way to think of it is to list who's greater than him. Laver, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, Rosewall, Tilden are all CLEARLY greater than him. Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Hewitt, Nastase, Newcombe, Hoad, Von Cramm, Borotra, Lacoste, Vines are all clearly inferior to him. Then you have a group in the middle who are on a par - Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Budge, Agassi, Kramer, Cochet, Perry perhaps. Some of these you might place above him, some below, depending on what you value most.

Some good points here.

Personally, as a Nadal fan:

Open Era:

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Borg

5. Connors
6. Lendl
7. Nadal
8. Agassi

Or something like this. 1-4 one could argue until Jesus comes back and 5-8 the same. Should Nadal win RG here, he'd surely jump to 5th, and a Wimbledon title would tie him with Borg.

As for Ever:

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Tilden
6. Budge
7. Borg
8. Rosewall
9. Connors
10. Lendl
11. Nadal
12. Agassi
13. Emerson
14. Perry
15. Mcenroe

rocketassist
05-25-2011, 03:18 PM
Open Era about joint seventh behind Fed, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Lendl and possibly Connors. Equal with Mac and Agassi.

Johnny Groove
05-25-2011, 03:29 PM
Nah, Johnny Mac is overrated I think. A great player, sure, but only 7 slams and was never the same after losing to Lendl in 85 USO, Brad Gilbert in Masters and then the 6 months break.

Mac was only good from 79 to 85 or so.

After that legendary 1984 year, he had nothing left to do in the game :shrug:

sexybeast
05-25-2011, 03:36 PM
Nah, Johnny Mac is overrated I think. A great player, sure, but only 7 slams and was never the same after losing to Lendl in 85 USO, Brad Gilbert in Masters and then the 6 months break.

Mac was only good from 79 to 85 or so.

After that legendary 1984 year, he had nothing left to do in the game :shrug:

I cant have Mcenroe lower than Connors, he was always a better player than Connors and a more dominating force than both Agassi and Connors. Unlike Connors/Agassi he really felt like the greatest player in the world for more than one year. Also he gets + for doubles skills and remember that unlike lets say Agassi he didnt play the Australian Open at the time, he would win atleast 2-3 slams more if he played Australian Open on grass at that time.

3 years as nr1 and 3 master cups, 7 Wimbledon/Usopen titles in a time when there only were 3 slams that counted, this all counts more than Agassi's and Connors longevity.

Johnny Groove
05-25-2011, 03:44 PM
I cant have Mcenroe lower than Connors, he was always a better player than Connors and a more dominating force than both Agassi and Connors. Unlike Connors/Agassi he really felt like the greatest player in the world for more than one year. Also he gets + for doubles skills and remember that unlike lets say Agassi he didnt play the Australian Open at the time, he would win atleast 2-3 slams more if he played Australian Open on grass at that time.

3 years as nr1 and 3 master cups, 7 Wimbledon/Usopen titles in a time when there only were 3 slams that counted, this all counts more than Agassi's and Connors longevity.

Well, different criteria for different folks.

Mac did own Connors, 20-14 H2H overall, but personally I place longevity, more time as #1 despite the 70's screwy rankings, and an extra slam for Connors above a 6 year stretch for Johnny Mac :shrug:

This is another thing we can argue over until Jesus comes back, and even then Jesus would have his own opinion :p

sexybeast
05-25-2011, 04:00 PM
Well, different criteria for different folks.

Mac did own Connors, 20-14 H2H overall, but personally I place longevity, more time as #1 despite the 70's screwy rankings, and an extra slam for Connors above a 6 year stretch for Johnny Mac :shrug:

This is another thing we can argue over until Jesus comes back, and even then Jesus would have his own opinion :p

Yes, it is just different criterias. I understand your reasoning and you understand my point of view and both point of views are valid. Only thing I would argue against is taking into consideration the 70s ranking, it was a total screwup and many of those years Connors somehow ended nr1 the real nr1 was either Borg or Mcenroe. Connors was the nr1 74, 76 and 82, Mcenroe was 81,83,84 and Borg 77-80.

I would say Connors was always the third wheel either behind Mcnroe, Borg or behind Mcenroe, Lendl. But he just stayed there and stubbornly waited for his moment.

Also, I dont like to take into considerations the weakness of different eras but 74 was very, very weak and Connors defeated +40 years old Rosewall in both finals in Wimbledon and Usopen. Connors also had 1 Australian open title at that time which wasnt one of the big 4 titles, master cup was much more important at that time.

So we have:

Mcenroe with 7 Wimbledon/Usopen and Connors with 7 Wimbledon/Usopen. Mcenroe with 3 years as nr1 and Connors with 3 years as nr1. Connors with 1 Australian Open pre 90s and 1 master cup against Mcenroe with 0 Australian Opens (in 0 attempts) and 3 master cups.

Mcenroe with more red clay titles and 1 roland garros final where he almost won, while Connors was banned from RG but really never had the game to win on red clay.

sexybeast
05-25-2011, 04:29 PM
13. Emerson
14. Perry
15. Mcenroe

Your list is good but you cant have Emerson before Mcenroe and perry, Emerson never was nr1 and never won a pro/open era slam.

green25814
05-25-2011, 04:31 PM
IMO winning the golden slam and winning slams on multiple surfaces means a lot less in this current era because the surfaces are all becoming hemogenized.

sexybeast
05-25-2011, 04:37 PM
1 Master cup to Nadal's resume would be more important than an olympic gold. Master cup is the 5th biggest title and should count alot, it is the only big tournament played indoors and the culmination of 2-3 months indoor season. It has been a big tournament for longer than the Australian Open. Nadal's master series record is quite impressive and should count for something but Lendl's 5 master cups is greater, master series has not been around for more than 2 decades.

Roadmap
05-25-2011, 04:59 PM
The last time I checked ATP stood for assosiation of TENNIS proffesionals not assosiation of MOONBALLER proffesionals. Nadull shouldn't be allowed to take part in these tennis tournaments. On the subject of great tennis players however, it is incredible that Agassi was reaching slam finals from 1989 to 2005. A great player but his record could have been incredible if he had more commitment at certain stages of his career and also turned up to the Australian open earlier than 1995. NO 1 Roger Federer. NO 2 Pete Sampras. NO 3 Andre Agassi in my opinion.

peribsen
05-25-2011, 05:00 PM
Those slam counts are too simplistic to be solely the deciding factor to count greatness.

Emerson is not greater than Laver no matter how you look at it.

My list would be something like this:

(Criteria for 1st tier is atleast 4 years as nr1, atleast 10 pro/open era slams)

1st tier:
1.Federer/Laver
3.Sampras/Gonzales/Tilden
6.Borg/Rosewall

(Criteria for 2nd tier: atleast 2 years as nr1, minimum 7 slams)

2nd tier:

8.Nadal/Lendl
10.Mcenroe
11.Agassi/Connors

Also somewhere in the 2nd tier list I should include: Budge, Perry, Cochet and Lacoste

Also: I think Budge could be 1st tier, I cant really decide on Budge.

The above mostly coincides with how I see it.

So Rafa is somewhere between 8 and 10, sharing those places with Lendl and Budge. I don't mind if you put him back a couple of places, he's for sure among the top 12 ever. Not bad, not bad at all. One hell of a run.

I've always loved to read the rankings backwards, that is not starting at the top (Fed 16, etc, till you get to guys with 1 slam) but starting from the bottom and working your way up. I find it really does wonders for ones capacity to perceive the huge difficulty involved in getting anywhere even near to a decent place in the list, leave alone the very top. And then you always have to keep in mind that about 99% of players who have ever held a rackett in the world stage don't even make the bottom of the list...

That's the main reason why, whatever happens now, noone will ever take away the smile Rafa has put on my face!!

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-25-2011, 05:01 PM
federer 1st
sampras 2nd joint
laver 2nd joint
borg 3rd

nadal top 20

sexybeast
05-25-2011, 05:32 PM
If Nadal wins 1 more slam and gets another year as nr1 he is 1st tier with my criteria, his career slam should count as one nr1 year.

fast_clay
05-25-2011, 11:41 PM
emmo's records are easily questionable sorry...

as are players with physician's by the name of dr fuentes

Roadmap
05-26-2011, 12:01 AM
If Nadal wins 1 more slam and gets another year as nr1 he is 1st tier with my criteria, his career slam should count as one nr1 year.

If Nadull wins one more slam, he's still a moonballer

acionescu
05-26-2011, 12:03 AM
Gu?

Orka_n
05-26-2011, 12:08 AM
Gu?lol. Who knows.

Roadmap
05-26-2011, 12:28 AM
If nadal were to retire today? Well, I can dream.:D

wee
05-26-2011, 09:46 AM
He'd be somewhere in the top ten for sure. Difficult to really place though, and this hypothetical is fairly useless anyway.

abraxas21
05-26-2011, 09:54 AM
If Nadull wins one more slam, he's still a moonballer

:lol:

Q: What would you call a player who's broken all tennis records and plays like nadal?

A: a moonballer

Josh23
05-30-2011, 04:26 PM
He'd be for sure in the top 10. NO DOUBT. Nobody plays like this anymore - - > http://www.olympic.org/tennis

abraxas21
10-15-2011, 06:01 AM
he doesn't

shiaben
10-15-2011, 06:11 AM
Top 5 material.