[sawan66278]

I remember in 1986 where Lendl had an incredibly dominant year...almost like Fed's...He won the French and Wimbledon, was in the finals of Wimbledon, and the semis of the Australian...

Becker won Wimbledon over Lendl, and had beaten him two of three times..

Both won a huge number of tourneys, and at the year end championships, Bud Collins stated that while Lendl ended the year at #1, if Becker beat him in the finals, he would BECOME #1...

What if Nadal and Fed both make it to the finals of the year-end championships, and Nadal beat Fed...would the same arguement apply? Any opinions?

 

[uNIVERSE mAN]

No.

 

[trulliscorpion]

Not really, it's a different case. Back then it was much more balanced than now.. not only Roger never loses in finals, but also Nadal can't really beat him off clay (and still, roughly).

 

[R.Federer]

Bud Collins stated that while Lendl ended the year at #1, if Becker beat him in the finals, he would BECOME #1...

What if Nadal and Fed both make it to the finals of the year-end championships, and Nadal beat Fed...would the same arguement apply? Any opinions?

Do you mean in the sense of points - if rafa beats Roge then he will get more points to BECOME No.1? Or you mean figurative sense, that it would be like he is No.1 because he beat Roge in the final match of the year?

In the points sense I think it has been shown that unless Roge is retired from all matches until T.M.C and rafa is winning two more T.M.S, then rafa cannot "Become" No.1 in the points race.

 

[Dirk]

Nadal wouldn't have enough points if he did win the Cup. Cup will be indoors and it's faster than China so unless Nadal is in the easy group then it likely won't happen and he won't beat Roger indoors.

 

[sawan66278]

I think it would mean #1 in the figurative sense...Nadal would have beaten Roger twice...almost three times!!!! And on one of the biggest stages...I know Roger's record is incredible, but the players in the top ten were light years ahead of the present top ten in achievement and ability...

 

[R.Federer]

I think it would mean #1 in the figurative sense...Nadal would have beaten Roger twice...almost three times!!!! And on one of the biggest stages...I know Roger's record is incredible, but the players in the top ten were light years ahead of the present top ten in achievement and ability...

The year agassi wins the French open and is finalist at Wimbledon (1999) he is No.1, Pete beat him at the final of the T.M.C but no one said "This means Pete is No.1 for the year" even though he beat No.1 and was H2H for the year 3-1 against andre. andre finish the year No.1 literal and figurative

 

[Jimena]

The year agassi wins the French open and is finalist at Wimbledon (1999) he is No.1, Pete beat him at the final of the T.M.C but no one said "This means Pete is No.1 for the year" even though he beat No.1 and was H2H for the year 3-1 against andre. andre finish the year No.1 literal and figurative

Yeah, but I still thought Pete was the better player of the two, and his back injury probably cost him the year end #1 and a real shot at another US Open crown.

So maybe it's not who ends #1, but who is the better player. At this point, I think the results point to Fed being the better player. He's had better results in three of the four GS, and his titles have come in bigger events against better opposition. Who knows what's going to happen until the YEC. But regardless of who ends #1, Fed is in my mind the better player and one match at the YEC is not going to really change that.

 

[Doris Loeffel]

Remember 2003?? Even though Roger won the TMC and had more titles than Roddick he "only" finished no. 2 but was by many considered the better player.....

...but I doubt that'll apply for Raffa if he wins TMC as Roger still has a better overall record and so far won one Slam and one TMS more than Raffa.

 

[TennisGrandSlam]

I remember in 1986 where Lendl had an incredibly dominant year...almost like Fed's...He won the French and Wimbledon, was in the finals of Wimbledon, and the semis of the Australian...

Becker won Wimbledon over Lendl, and had beaten him two of three times..

Both won a huge number of tourneys, and at the year end championships, Bud Collins stated that while Lendl ended the year at #1, if Becker beat him in the finals, he would BECOME #1...

What if Nadal and Fed both make it to the finals of the year-end championships, and Nadal beat Fed...would the same arguement apply? Any opinions?

Federer = Sampras

Nadal = Muster




Now, both Federer and Nadal have 10 Single Titles




ATP Men Single Tiltes (2005):


Hard
Grass
Clay



Roger Federer :

Doha
Rotterdam
Dubai
ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
ATP Masters Series Miami
ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Halle
Wimbledon
ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
US Open





Rafael Nadal :

Costa Do Sauipe
Acapulco
ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo
Barcelona
ATP Masters Series Rome
Roland Garros
Bastad
Stuttgart
ATP Masters Series Canada
Beijing

 

[Castafiore]

Cute: huge letters, bright colors.

Anybody else tired of comparisons like Federer=Sampras, Nadal=Muster?

First of all, you can only start comparing when Federer AND Nadal had their career and are enjoying their retirement.
Secondly, Federer is the first Federer and Nadal is the first Nadal.

 

[TennisGrandSlam]

I remember in 1986 where Lendl had an incredibly dominant year...almost like Fed's...He won the French and Wimbledon, was in the finals of Wimbledon, and the semis of the Australian...

Becker won Wimbledon over Lendl, and had beaten him two of three times..

Both won a huge number of tourneys, and at the year end championships, Bud Collins stated that while Lendl ended the year at #1, if Becker beat him in the finals, he would BECOME #1...

What if Nadal and Fed both make it to the finals of the year-end championships, and Nadal beat Fed...would the same arguement apply? Any opinions?

Lendl - Roland Garros, US Open

Becker - Wimbledon

Also, Australian Open was not held in 1986

 

[vincayou]

Nadal's result this year in slams were not good enough to be number one. Outside RG : 4th round (or is it quarter?), 2nd round, 3rd round.

 

[1sun]

this a stupid question. roger has 2 slams this year, nadal one with shit results in the others. roger is no1 by a mile, hes won bigger and better tournies than nadal, so to say if nadal beats roger in the cup he would be the best in world is just utter shite.
nadals time will come but it aint now.

 

[1sun]

Nadal's result this year in slams were not good enough to be number one. Outside RG : 4th round (or is it quarter?), 2nd round, 3rd round.

4th

 

[ExpectedWinner]

There is nothing to discuss here. It all comes down to numbers at the end of the year. Very simple. I have no idea who Collins is. But he sounded like an idiot 19 years ago.

 

[PamV]

I remember in 1986 where Lendl had an incredibly dominant year...almost like Fed's...He won the French and Wimbledon, was in the finals of Wimbledon, and the semis of the Australian...

Becker won Wimbledon over Lendl, and had beaten him two of three times..

Both won a huge number of tourneys, and at the year end championships, Bud Collins stated that while Lendl ended the year at #1, if Becker beat him in the finals, he would BECOME #1...

What if Nadal and Fed both make it to the finals of the year-end championships, and Nadal beat Fed...would the same arguement apply? Any opinions?

It would be a question of their point tally by the year end. As it stands now Nadal would have to also win Madrid and Paris and the TMC to get close to Roger's point tally. The TMC by itself doesn't determine who is #1. Remember back in 2003 when Roger won the TMC but Roddick was the year end #1. In their case their points were alot closer and both had won one major.

In any case, I think currently Roger is 2,500 points ahead of Nadal. So what does that tell you?

 

[PamV]

Nadal wouldn't have enough points if he did win the Cup. Cup will be indoors and it's faster than China so unless Nadal is in the easy group then it likely won't happen and he won't beat Roger indoors.

You bring up the possibility of Nadal being in the easy group. That has been one thing that crossed my mind too. It seems likely they would split up the two teams this way:

A: Federer, Hewitt, Agassi, Davydenko

B: Nadal, Roddick, Coria, Safin (or Gaudio)

Group A would have the toughest group of hard court players. We don't even know if Safin can participate and even if he does he would not be playing well. If Roddick is still lacking confidence this would really open the door for Nadal in group B.

Even so as it stands Federer is 2,500 points ahead so Nadal could not catch up. I can't see Nadal winning Madrid and Paris unless no top 10 players other than Coria show up.

 

[jtipson]

You bring up the possibility of Nadal being in the easy group. That has been one thing that crossed my mind too. It seems likely they would split up the two teams this way:

A: Federer, Hewitt, Agassi, Davydenko

B: Nadal, Roddick, Coria, Safin (or Gaudio)

Federer and Nadal will no doubt be in different groups as the top two players, but after that they draw them randomly in pairs, based on the rankings, and put one into either group.

Even so as it stands Federer is 2,500 points ahead so Nadal could not catch up. I can't see Nadal winning Madrid and Paris unless no top 10 players other than Coria show up.

He could catch up, mathematically. But in practical terms, unlikely.

 

[sawan66278]

Bud Collins is one of the most "respected" sports writers in the history of tennis...I agree with you...his statement about Lendl and Becker was ridiculous...I still remember after Lendl lost Wimbledon to Cash in '87, he asked Lendl about his efforts, and Lendl said he would die trying...and Collins asked him which would come first

Anyway, didn't Edberg win the Australian in 1986...I thought the Australian was canceled in 1987...my memory fades me...

All I am suggesting is that Fed, while dominant on so many levels, is like Lendl in 1986...and Nadal is like Becker in that year...both Fed and Lendl were dealing with young 18/19 years as their primary challenges to the the throne...

Just think...if there were no Becker, Lendl would have most likely won Wimbledon...one would wonder where his place in history would be after that...