Total number of Slams won, all time list - Page 4 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

Reply

Old 07-12-2013, 11:48 AM   #46
country flag Sophocles
Registered User
 
Sophocles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Age: 40
Posts: 8,930
Sophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond reputeSophocles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by densuprun View Post
I know that some injustices are made in the process but we cannot look at every slam played and try to estimate somehow what the strength of that slam was compared to the total strength of the players living at that time.
Well, you say that, but.... For example, even in the early years of the Open Era there were big variations in the weight of slams, sometimes of the same slam from year to year, depending on political machinations and the splits between different tours. Although it would be extremely laborious, it would be possible to go through each "slam" and weight it according to the entry of top players at the time, giving a "base" weighting of 1 to, say, all 4 slams from 1985 or so onwards - basically from the time the Australian Open regained relative parity. If I remember correctly, there was a poster called "Echoes" who attempted this somewhere in the Archives section, and there's another poster whose name I forget with a very interesting recent thread evaluating all the big tournaments year-by-year through the Open Era. Either might be a good starting point.
__________________
"There is no such thing as 'the world'." - Enoch Powell.
Sophocles is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 07-12-2013, 12:51 PM   #47
country flag thrust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,960
thrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbadosan View Post
My God! The logic! Because 2 players weren't at their peak, it proves the period before them was weak! Using that "argument" you could take the absence of any two decent players to prove that another era was "weak". Funny though how at the time when Fed began to win majors and it was thought that he'd probably win "a few majors", there was no contemporaneous talk about it being a weak era. Only when it began to look as if - gasp - he might actually mount a real assault on the Holy Grail of 14 slams that was supposed to last for decades, if not centuries, that we began to hear from certain quarters about this "weak era". And so the mantra began.

Poor Einstein, we didn't even realise it wasn't that he was a genius - it was that the scientists of his era were lamebrains. lol
Logic? You honestly believe that post 02 Agassi, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt were as consistantly as good as near or peak Nadal or Novak? You may prefer the game of the those players, but to imply that they were in the same league as Nadal and Novak, is totally illogical. Once these two reached their peak, 25 YO Federer's slam count fell dramatically. Federer is is tier one all time great, but between 03-07, he was competing against tier 3 greats, at best. Nadal is very close to being a tier one great, Novak is a solid tier two great. What makes Nadal so great was his ability, at a young age to dominate Federer. True, many of Rafa's wins are on clay, but Roger grew up on clay too and has no excuse to lose so consistantly to Rafa on that surface. A good portion of Rafa's wins on clay was due to his mental toughness as well as his physical abilities.
thrust is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 01:05 PM   #48
country flag densuprun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 45
densuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond reputedensuprun has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophocles View Post
Well, you say that, but.... For example, even in the early years of the Open Era there were big variations in the weight of slams, sometimes of the same slam from year to year, depending on political machinations and the splits between different tours. Although it would be extremely laborious, it would be possible to go through each "slam" and weight it according to the entry of top players at the time, giving a "base" weighting of 1 to, say, all 4 slams from 1985 or so onwards - basically from the time the Australian Open regained relative parity. If I remember correctly, there was a poster called "Echoes" who attempted this somewhere in the Archives section, and there's another poster whose name I forget with a very interesting recent thread evaluating all the big tournaments year-by-year through the Open Era. Either might be a good starting point.
Interesting.

I guess in principle one could estimate the competition strength of each slam by looking at, say, which of the top 10 players were participating, giving 10 points for #1 and 1 point for #10. Then, a slam strength would be estimated as the sum of these points divided by 55 (which is the sum of numbers from 1 to 10, that is, the maximum possible strength of a tournament). Then, the estimate of the tournament strength would vary from slam to slam even in the modern era.

If you happen to know a good single source of data on the participation of top 10, I could try to give it a shot. Digging through a website of each slam is not an option whether we are talking about Open era only or the full history of tennis slams. And I am not interested in Open era by itself at all. What is interesting is to try to compare the number of slams that would be won by the top players if they were playing under the same general conditions (same number of slams available, similar strength of the tour).

If there is no single source of data on top 10 (or, at least, top 4) participation in slams, I may try to do the calculation just for 3 or 6 top players (Fed, Rosewall, Laver; Sampras, Tilden, Gonzales) who may potentially turn out to be #1.

I wonder if there are top 10 lists for 1927-67 that would combine both Pro and Amateur players?

Last edited by densuprun : 07-12-2013 at 01:10 PM.
densuprun is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 01:35 PM   #49
country flag luie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 44
Posts: 3,515
luie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Logic? You honestly believe that post 02 Agassi, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt were as consistantly as good as near or peak Nadal or Novak? You may prefer the game of the those players, but to imply that they were in the same league as Nadal and Novak, is totally illogical. Once these two reached their peak, 25 YO Federer's slam count fell dramatically. Federer is is tier one all time great, but between 03-07, he was competing against tier 3 greats, at best. Nadal is very close to being a tier one great, Novak is a solid tier two great. What makes Nadal so great was his ability, at a young age to dominate Federer. True, many of Rafa's wins are on clay, but Roger grew up on clay too and has no excuse to lose so consistantly to Rafa on that surface. A good portion of Rafa's wins on clay was due to his mental toughness as well as his physical abilities.
Feds competition. Post 2002 Agassi/roddick/Safin/ Hewitt.
Are Feds Prime Rivals.
However nadull career trajectory shows he is part of Feds era.
05-07 won clay Slams only. 11-13 Clay slam only.
He hit his absolute Peak in 08. However in 2008 he didn't make any HC Finals .
So nadull in essence beat fed in HC slam when fed was 27 years old AO 09.
Nadull did edge fed at Wimby 08.
In short Nadull only beat Prime fed 21-26 years 1 time in off clay slams. So nadull hitting his Prime did no more greater Damage to federer than Prime Safin n nalbandian.

The reality on the ground is what more experts are interested in not revisionist history. Or general statements.
Novak is and all time great but his era (gluten free) 2011 Novak was apart from a brief period at the beginning of 08 playing at a tier 3 level.
Novak game revert back. During Feds Absolute Prime in 2007 Novak only lost at slams to fedal.
In 2008 AO he beat fed . After that his career went down hill, with losses at slams to Roddick/haas/Safin/melzer/kohli/tsonga.
So Feds older Prime rivals where beating Novak n Mugs.
So no Novak only cost Prime fed 1 slam.
Only Lendl in the open era won more slams Post 26 years .
Sampras, Borg,nadull,Mc Enroe ,wilander, Becker etc where Done by 26 years.
Dominating post 26 is an exception rather than the rule Regardless of competition.

Nadull won most of his slams beat fed on clay. Fed grew up on clay so it's legit what does that mean?
Ferrer grew up on clay and he is owned by Nadull. Murray spent time in Spain yet he is useless on dirt compared to elsewhere .
You go by age and Game Strenghts and weakness.
Nadull game is suited to slower high bouncing surfaces. Fed faster lower bouncing surfaces.
__________________
The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.

Last edited by luie : 07-12-2013 at 01:38 PM.
luie is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 01:54 PM   #50
country flag LordFederer
Registered User
 
LordFederer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Age: 23
Posts: 27
LordFederer is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by luie View Post
Feds competition. Post 2002 Agassi/roddick/Safin/ Hewitt.
Are Feds Prime Rivals.
However nadull career trajectory shows he is part of Feds era.
05-07 won clay Slams only. 11-13 Clay slam only.
He hit his absolute Peak in 08. However in 2008 he didn't make any HC Finals .
So nadull in essence beat fed in HC slam when fed was 27 years old AO 09.
Nadull did edge fed at Wimby 08.
In short Nadull only beat Prime fed 21-26 years 1 time in off clay slams. So nadull hitting his Prime did no more greater Damage to federer than Prime Safin n nalbandian.

The reality on the ground is what more experts are interested in not revisionist history. Or general statements.
Novak is and all time great but his era (gluten free) 2011 Novak was apart from a brief period at the beginning of 08 playing at a tier 3 level.
Novak game revert back. During Feds Absolute Prime in 2007 Novak only lost at slams to fedal.
In 2008 AO he beat fed . After that his career went down hill, with losses at slams to Roddick/haas/Safin/melzer/kohli/tsonga.
So Feds older Prime rivals where beating Novak n Mugs.
So no Novak only cost Prime fed 1 slam.
Only Lendl in the open era won more slams Post 26 years .
Sampras, Borg,nadull,Mc Enroe ,wilander, Becker etc where Done by 26 years.
Dominating post 26 is an exception rather than the rule Regardless of competition.

Nadull won most of his slams beat fed on clay. Fed grew up on clay so it's legit what does that mean?
Ferrer grew up on clay and he is owned by Nadull. Murray spent time in Spain yet he is useless on dirt compared to elsewhere .
You go by age and Game Strenghts and weakness.
Nadull game is suited to slower high bouncing surfaces. Fed faster lower bouncing surfaces.
I agree with you about 26 being the prime age - as we can see with Murray now - but comparing Lendl and Sampras, they both won 4 after 26. Lendl was pretty much "done" after 26-27 but managed to get two quick AOs before 30. Sampras won the Us Open at 31, after losing to Hewitt the year before in the final.
LordFederer is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 02:11 PM   #51
country flag luie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 44
Posts: 3,515
luie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordFederer View Post
I agree with you about 26 being the prime age - as we can see with Murray now - but comparing Lendl and Sampras, they both won 4 after 26. Lendl was pretty much "done" after 26-27 but managed to get two quick AOs before 30. Sampras won the Us Open at 31, after losing to Hewitt the year before in the final.
Sampras n Lendl are ATG and GOAT contenders ,for those 2 being done is pretty much winning multiple slams on your least favorite surface.
Sampras Post 1997 won on Grass and of course USO 2002 against his favorite whipping boy Agassi.
Lendl won 2 AO but it was depleted slam as compared to the others at the time .
Agassi most Prolific slam was AO and he didn't bother to show up there until 1995.
Pre open era Players Prime was 26 still playing great tennis Gonzalez/laver/ Rosewall however as discussed the tour was fragmented could be a possible reason.
What is factual is in the open era post 26/27 . Generally you are declining regardless of what is happening around you.
__________________
The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.
luie is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 08:27 PM   #52
country flag thrust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,960
thrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by luie View Post
Feds competition. Post 2002 Agassi/roddick/Safin/ Hewitt.
Are Feds Prime Rivals.
However nadull career trajectory shows he is part of Feds era.
05-07 won clay Slams only. 11-13 Clay slam only.
He hit his absolute Peak in 08. However in 2008 he didn't make any HC Finals .
So nadull in essence beat fed in HC slam when fed was 27 years old AO 09.
Nadull did edge fed at Wimby 08.
In short Nadull only beat Prime fed 21-26 years 1 time in off clay slams. So nadull hitting his Prime did no more greater Damage to federer than Prime Safin n nalbandian.

The reality on the ground is what more experts are interested in not revisionist history. Or general statements.
Novak is and all time great but his era (gluten free) 2011 Novak was apart from a brief period at the beginning of 08 playing at a tier 3 level.
Novak game revert back. During Feds Absolute Prime in 2007 Novak only lost at slams to fedal.
In 2008 AO he beat fed . After that his career went down hill, with losses at slams to Roddick/haas/Safin/melzer/kohli/tsonga.
So Feds older Prime rivals where beating Novak n Mugs.
So no Novak only cost Prime fed 1 slam.
Only Lendl in the open era won more slams Post 26 years .
Sampras, Borg,nadull,Mc Enroe ,wilander, Becker etc where Done by 26 years.
Dominating post 26 is an exception rather than the rule Regardless of competition.

Nadull won most of his slams beat fed on clay. Fed grew up on clay so it's legit what does that mean?
Ferrer grew up on clay and he is owned by Nadull. Murray spent time in Spain yet he is useless on dirt compared to elsewhere .
You go by age and Game Strenghts and weakness.
Nadull game is suited to slower high bouncing surfaces. Fed faster lower bouncing surfaces.
First of all, Federer has been a very great player from 03-12. His style of game has allowed him to play great tennis till this year. He did win Wimbledon and Madrid last year, among other tournaments, so he was hardly in severe decline. He also reached the Olympics finals last year. Noone equates Ferrer with Nadal on any surface. Federer was a great clay court player, but Nadal was better, much of which is due to mental toughness. Novak reached his peak in 11. When Roddick and Hewitt were beating Novak he was younger, and less experienced than they were. Now Novak has 6 slams, Roddick still has only 1, Hewitt 2. Laver won 5 slams, in the open era, after age 29. Rosewall won 4 slams after turning 33,in 68, when the open era began. I do not deny Roger's greatness, but he was a little lucky in his main competition 03-07. Had Nadal and Novak been at their best at that time perhaps Roger would still have won all those slams. Most likely, not, though he certainly would have won some of them, especially on grass.
thrust is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 09:09 PM   #53
country flag luie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 44
Posts: 3,515
luie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
First of all, Federer has been a very great player from 03-12. His style of game has allowed him to play great tennis till this year. He did win Wimbledon and Madrid last year, among other tournaments, so he was hardly in severe decline. He also reached the Olympics finals last year. Noone equates Ferrer with Nadal on any surface. Federer was a great clay court player, but Nadal was better, much of which is due to mental toughness. Novak reached his peak in 11. When Roddick and Hewitt were beating Novak he was younger, and less experienced than they were. Now Novak has 6 slams, Roddick still has only 1, Hewitt 2. Laver won 5 slams, in the open era, after age 29. Rosewall won 4 slams after turning 33,in 68, when the open era began. I do not deny Roger's greatness, but he was a little lucky in his main competition 03-07. Had Nadal and Novak been at their best at that time perhaps Roger would still have won all those slams. Most likely, not, though he certainly would have won some of them, especially on grass.
Yes federer played at a high level generally from 03-12. He is a GOAT contender but no one else in the OPEN era accomplished the same level Post 27.
You bring up players from the Pre Open era. The competition was split and you only had to play 4rds to win a Pro slam .
The courts were faster and the was no HC SLAM to injure the human body. Skill had a lot to do with results. That's why laver won the GS at 31 years and rosewall competing at slams from 34/35 years. They didn't have much mileage .
Today's game is stamina / physical based. If it was skill based fed would destroy nadull n Novak.
Especially if in the early open era they predominantly played on fast low bouncing grass.
Name any player who performed better post 26/27 than pre. With adequate mileage .
It's a different game althogether.
A few random wins by a great player 30 year old don't make it his Prime.
No where close.

Fed is good on Clay even great by some standards but its his weakest slam by Game not Nadull only
Before nadull even came in the Picture fed was losing on clay.
In 2003 fed lost to Luis horna in the 3rd rd. later that month he won Wimby.
In 2004 fed won 3 slams but lost to No hip guga in the 4rd.
From 2005 onwards with the decline of fererro/guardio/ coria etc the Clay era became weak and fedal took full advantage of it.

Novak era as we both agree Started in 2011. I mention Novaks loses as a response to you saying that when fed turned 25 years Novak and nadull stoped him which is false.
Fed was like29/30. Tell me which player plays great at 30 than before.
You say if Novak hit his Prime earlier he would stop fed. Where only in Austrailia and it will be close. They are split at RG but fed wasn't winning there anywhere.
Wimby fed wins
USO fed wins . 3-2 to fed. I don't see Prime fed losing to Many Match points against Novak.
AO Novak would be a real battle with Novak winning a few more.
However Nalbsndian n Safin beat fed at the AO also during his Prime. So is Prime Novak joining them or replacing them.
Career wise Novak would affect fed that much.
Yes Novak has 6 slams , that's his body of work. That started in 2011 not before his level Pre gluten free was that good apart from USO.
He had the same amount of slams than roddick until 2011.
Maybe the competition got weaker with fedal declining that he came to his own.

Nadull entered his Prime earlier. He only started making slams on HC in 2011.
If he had cost fed a slam here and there fed will get it back when he lost in the 1st or 2rd of Wimby.
Was absent from the tour resting his body etc etc.
In short nadull has not the all surface game to always be at the business end of slams.
I can't say who will we replace nadull with because he is Feds rival.
__________________
The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.

Last edited by luie : 07-12-2013 at 09:16 PM.
luie is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 09:22 PM   #54
country flag luie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 44
Posts: 3,515
luie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
First of all, Federer has been a very great player from 03-12. His style of game has allowed him to play great tennis till this year. He did win Wimbledon and Madrid last year, among other tournaments, so he was hardly in severe decline. He also reached the Olympics finals last year. Noone equates Ferrer with Nadal on any surface. Federer was a great clay court player, but Nadal was better, much of which is due to mental toughness. Novak reached his peak in 11. When Roddick and Hewitt were beating Novak he was younger, and less experienced than they were. Now Novak has 6 slams, Roddick still has only 1, Hewitt 2. Laver won 5 slams, in the open era, after age 29. Rosewall won 4 slams after turning 33,in 68, when the open era began. I do not deny Roger's greatness, but he was a little lucky in his main competition 03-07. Had Nadal and Novak been at their best at that time perhaps Roger would still have won all those slams. Most likely, not, though he certainly would have won some of them, especially on grass.
Yes federer played at a high level generally from 03-12. He is a GOAT contender but no one else in the OPEN era accomplished the same level Post 27.
You bring up players from the Pre Open era. The competition was split and you only had to play 4rds to win a Pro slam .
The courts were faster and the was no HC to injure the human body. Skill had a lot to do with results. That's why laver won the GS at 31 years and rosewall competing at slams from 34/35 years. They didn't have much mileage .
Today's game is stamina / physical based. If it was skill based fed would destroy nadull n Novak.
Especially if in the early open era they predominantly played on fast low bouncing grass.
Name any player who performed better post 26/27 than pre. With adequate mileage .
It's a different game althogether.
A few random with by a great player 30 year old don't make it his Prime.
No where close.

Fed is good on Clay even great by some standards but its his weakest slam by Game not Nadull.
Before nadull even came in the Picture fed was losing on clay.
In 2003 fed lost to Luis horna in the 3rd rd. later that month he won Wimby.
In 2004 fed won 3 slams but lost to No hip gigs in the 4rd.
From 2005 onwards with the decline of fererro/guardio/ coria etc the Clay era became weak and fed took full advantage of it.

Novak era as we both agree Started in 2011. I mention Novaks loses as a response to you saying that when fed turned 25 years Novak and nadull stoped him which is false.
Fed was like29/30. Tell me which player plays great at 30 than before.
You say if Novak hit his Prime earlier he would stop fed. Where only in Austrailia and it will be close. They are split at RG but fed wasn't winning there anywhere.
Wimby fed wins
USO fed wins . 3-2 to fed. I don't see Prime fed losing to Many Match points against Novak.
AO Novak would be a real battle with Novak winning a few more.
However Nalbsndian n Safin beat fed at the AO also during his Prime. So is Prime Novak joining them or replacing them.
Career wise Novak wouldnt affect fed that much.
Yes Novak has 6 slams , that's his body of work. That started in 2011 not before his level Pre gluten free wasn't that good apart from USO.
He had the same amount of slams than roddick until 2011.
Maybe the competition got weaker with fedal declining that he came to his own.

Nadull entered his Prime earlier. He only started making slams on HC in 2009
If he had cost fed a slam here and there fed will get it back when he lost in the 1st or 2rd of Wimby.
Was absent from the tour resting his body etc etc.
In short nadull has not the all surface game to always be at the business end of slams.
I can't say who will we replace nadull with because he is Feds rival.
__________________
The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.

Last edited by luie : 07-12-2013 at 09:25 PM.
luie is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 10:41 PM   #55
country flag thrust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,960
thrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond reputethrust has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Much is made as to how much more physical today's game is compared to the 60's. That is true, however, rackets are much larger and and lighter than wooden rackets. Often the pros played one night stands, traveling from city to city by car. They played in poorly lit arenas on hard wood floors covered by carpet. They did not travel with coaches, physical trainers or sports psychologists and could not afford to stay in first rate hotels. So, IMO, it all evens out in the end. Great players of each era deserve the acclaim they get from their fans and fans of different eras.
thrust is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios