2009 French Open

[arkitect]

the Aussie open was back in January. i was talking about the last couple months i feel like his game has fallen off.

After the Australian Open 2009 he has won Davis Cup; Indian Wells; Monte Carlo; Barcelona; Rome… How many more does he have to win for you to consider him to be playing well.

It is his knees again… since Rotterdam. Nothing to do with "game form" if the guy can't run he can't play well enough…

Defending champion Rafael Nadal has pulled out of the Aegon Championship at Queen's next week with a knee injury.

The world number one, and reigning Wimbledon champion, has been advised to rest by doctors.

"I've been having problems in the past months with my knees, that's no secret," said the Spaniard. "I need to recover and get ready for Wimbledon."

Link

 

[BROCK22]

watched Federer a couple of nights ago.

 

[clevin]

Rafa is a powerful player, his playing style needs more power than that of Federers.

So all the health problems and longevity problems of Rafa are all fair games.

Now let the debate begin.

Greatest of All Time?

 

[Johns12]

Also, let's not forget that Federer had mono last year.

 

[Don't panic]

Rafa is a powerful player, his playing style needs more power than that of Federers.

So all the health problems and longevity problems of Rafa are all fair games.

Now let the debate begin.

Greatest of All Time?

i'd say yes.

 

[twoodcc]

Rafa is a powerful player, his playing style needs more power than that of Federers.

So all the health problems and longevity problems of Rafa are all fair games.

Now let the debate begin.

Greatest of All Time?

how can he be the "greatest", when he can't beat nadal?

 

[clevin]

how can he be the "greatest", when he can't beat nadal?

Greatest dosn't imply invincible. Does it?

 

[arkitect]

Rafa is a powerful player, his playing style needs more power than that of Federers.

So all the health problems and longevity problems of Rafa are all fair games.

I must admit, the rationale behind your argument here escapes me…
You mean, he deserves to be handicapped by problems?
Because that is what "All fair game" implies.
What next? Playing with one hand tied behind his back?

 

[twoodcc]

Greatest dosn't imply invincible. Does it?

but how can you be the greatest, if there's someone better than you?

 

[takao]

but how can you be the greatest, if there's someone better than you?

last time i checked nadal didn't win every single game against federer ... actually afaik without the games on clay the statistic is in favour of federer even between the two

 

[Johns12]

last time i checked nadal didn't win every single game against federer ... actually afaik without the games on clay the statistic is in favour of federer even between the two

This is correct. Nadal has also never won, or gotten to the finals of the US Open.

 

[RayStar]

I wish Nadal and Federer had met in the final however they will meet somewhere in the finals real soon. Federer was so happy the French Open 2009.

 

[Don't panic]

but how can you be the greatest, if there's someone better than you?

Any "greatest of all time" moniker as to be implied along a stretch of time.

over the stretch of his career (not yet finished) federer is one of only 6 players in history to have won the (career) grand Slam, and the one with most titles (14, with Sampras, who never won Roland Garros).
And he's likely not done yet.
so, how is he not the greatest?

and right NOW, he actually is the best, as there is no one better then him, since he just won the most recent important tournament.

Most would agree that Nadal is obviously the best player of the last year, but he just lost to soderling, so how can he be the best if there is someone better then him ? If you don't allow for stretches, the 'best' is whoever won the last tournament.

Jokes aside, i think currently a healthy Nadal is superior to Federer, but by a very narrow margin, and things could change come Wimbledon and the US Opens.

the problem with Rafa is that his game is so much based on physical prowess and athleticism, that the moment that is not top (like now), he cannot fully compensate with technique. Such moments are bound to happen in anyone's career, so his is likely to be shorter than federer's (at least at the very top level) and with more frequent 'pauses'. I think that is what was meant with the "it's fair game' comment, that if one's game is so based on power/athleticism, drops are to be expected.
Serena is the same kind of player. Easily the best when in form, but cannot maintain it for extended periods.

that said, if Federer and Nadal produce another similar Wimbledon final, I don't care who wins

 

[twoodcc]

and right NOW, he actually is the best, as there is no one better then him, since he just won the most recent important tournament.

last time i checked, Nadal was #1 in the world

 

[John Jacob]

Huh, I have seen Windows, Mac and Linux fanboys... But Federer and Nadal fanboys? That's a first!

 

[clevin]

but how can you be the greatest, if there's someone better than you?

better?

nonono, you misused the status, you need to remember Federer played longer than Nadal, started years earlier, and their peak time is not completely overlap each other.

This head to head status can not over-written the fact that Federer has much more achievements. Because above reason. Most tennis players just play for about 8-10 years. and Federer turned pro 3 years earlier than nadal. Thats 30% of his career.

Not to mention we have no idea how long he will be keep playing, and how long Nadal will be keep playing.

The only way Nadal can be better is to look at his career, which is far from over yet. or is it?

I must admit, the rationale behind your argument here escapes me…
You mean, he deserves to be handicapped by problems?
Because that is what "All fair game" implies.
What next? Playing with one hand tied behind his back?

There is nothing about the question beyond any reasonable person,
Nadal playes a game that need more strength, need more power, that puts more strain on his health, his knees, his arms, his back, the longer of the game, the more power he needs. and more risk to get injured.

He doesn't need to intentionally get injured, which seems to be your suggestions, which is absurd and dumb. Its just a natural law that he has higher risk to be injured and might not last as long as a player who uses less strength and more techniques.

 

[Don't panic]

last time i checked, Nadal was #1 in the world

so? that is just an collection of results in an arbitrary stretch of 12 months.
If you extend the stretch to 5 years he is not, if want to be "current" and you reduce it to 1 month, he is not.

maybe you should re-read my post. i clearly state that I think he (nadal) has been the best player in the last year, even if he has nothing to show for it in the last month, as federer won the last two tournaments they participated in (madrid and paris).

but current ranking and career ranking have nothing to do with each other. Nadal might well end up to be the 'greatest of all time' if he can keep it up like the last two years, but right now he is not yet there, there are several players that are 'better' than him (Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Connors to name a few)

 

[twoodcc]

better?

nonono, you misused the status, you need to remember Federer played longer than Nadal, started years earlier, and their peak time is not completely overlap each other.

This head to head status can not over-written the fact that Federer has much more achievements. Because above reason. Most tennis players just play for about 8-10 years. and Federer turned pro 3 years earlier than nadal. Thats 30% of his career.

Not to mention we have no idea how long he will be keep playing, and how long Nadal will be keep playing.

The only way Nadal can be better is to look at his career, which is far from over yet. or is it?

my point is that you can't say federer is the greatest, until nadal's career is over. since they have played quite a bit against each other, and nadal has beat federer more than federer has beat nadal, there is an argument that nadal could be better

so? that is just an collection of results in an arbitrary stretch of 12 months.
If you extend the stretch to 5 years he is not, if want to be "current" and you reduce it to 1 month, he is not.

maybe you should re-read my post. i clearly state that I think he (nadal) has been the best player in the last year, even if he has nothing to show for it in the last month, as federer won the last two tournaments they participated in (madrid and paris).

but current ranking and career ranking have nothing to do with each other.

what about months where there are no grand slam tournaments?

 

[clevin]

my point is that you can't say federer is the greatest, until nadal's career is over. since they have played quite a bit against each other, and nadal has beat federer more than federer has beat nadal, there is an argument that nadal could be better

well, thats a point, but not a good one.

people have been arguing greatest of all time all the time, there is nothing wrong with that.

We can't predict future, that shouldn't stop people from judging from what they have.

There are people arguing Pete or Rod is the greatest of all time as well, just haven't see Nadal getting attraction yet.

If everybody is afraid what future star might emerge, thus preserve this crown indefinitely, this just becomes a impossible topic.

I think its reasonable to regard "greatest of all time" as "greatest of all time as of today".

 

[Don't panic]

my point is that you can't say federer is the greatest, until nadal's career is over. since they have played quite a bit against each other, and nadal has beat federer more than federer has beat nadal, there is an argument that nadal could be better

yes, he could become better but he is not yet, career-wise

what about months where there are no grand slam tournaments?

what about them?

 

[twoodcc]

well, thats a point, but not a good one.

people have been arguing greatest of all time all the time, there is nothing wrong with that.

We can't predict future, that shouldn't stop people from judging from what they have.

There are people arguing Pete or Rod is the greatest of all time as well, just haven't see Nadal getting attraction yet.

If everybody is afraid what future star might emerge, thus preserve this crown indefinitely, this just becomes a impossible topic.

I think its reasonable to regard "greatest of all time" as "greatest of all time as of today".

but you are contradicting yourself. right now, Nadal is better than federer. Nadal has won 3 of the last 5 grand slam events.

what about them?

so who is better in March? or greatest in March? according to your logic, no one b/c there are no grand slam events?

 

[Abstract]

so who is better in March? or greatest in March? according to your logic, no one b/c there are no grand slam events?

No, that wasn't his logic.

The "best" player is the person who is currently winning majors, and the last winner was Federer. He won because he played better than anybody else during the tournament. Nobody is expecting these players to play major tournaments every day of the year to determine who's best. I agree that right now, Federer is the best. How could he not be? He won the last major, and Nadal is currently hurt.

With regards to the "Best player of all time", perhaps it's the person who has the most achievements during their career, and neither Federer or Nadal's careers are over. However, you don't even need to wait until Federer retires to say that he has earned the most achievements ever.

Or perhaps "Best player of all time" refers to the best player people have ever seen. It could consist of a player's performance over a 6 month span of a player's career, and disregards what that player has done throughout his career. After all, this is how you'd judge sprinters, isn't it? The greatest sprinter of all time is the one who had the fastest time in the 100 metres. It's not the runner who has the most 1st place wins over their career. Perhaps tennis should be the same way.

Best women's tennis player I've ever seen was Serena Williams over an 18 months stretch where she won everything. That's not true anymore, but it was certainly the most dominating play I've ever seen in women's tennis. In men's tennis, I think Federer's play over a number of years was the best I had ever seen.

 

[Don't panic]

but you are contradicting yourself. right now, Nadal is better than federer. Nadal has won 3 of the last 5 grand slam events.

so who is better in March? or greatest in March? according to your logic, no one b/c there are no grand slam events?

it's your logic, actually, but you are clearly not in the business of even trying to understand what other people are saying, unless it confirms your pre-conceived opinion.
but whatever floats your boat, dude.

for me, as long as i keep getting great shows, whoever puts them on, i am a happy camper.

 

[twoodcc]

No, that wasn't his logic.

The "best" player is the person who is currently winning majors, and the last winner was Federer. He won because he played better than anybody else during the tournament. Nobody is expecting these players to play major tournaments every day of the year to determine who's best. I agree that right now, Federer is the best. How could he not be? He won the last major, and Nadal is currently hurt.

With regards to the "Best player of all time", perhaps it's the person who has the most achievements during their career, and neither Federer or Nadal's careers are over. However, you don't even need to wait until Federer retires to say that he has earned the most achievements ever.

Or perhaps "Best player of all time" refers to the best player people have ever seen. It could consist of a player's performance over a 6 month span of a player's career, and disregards what that player has done throughout his career. After all, this is how you'd judge sprinters, isn't it? The greatest sprinter of all time is the one who had the fastest time in the 100 metres. It's not the runner who has the most 1st place wins over their career. Perhaps tennis should be the same way.

Best women's tennis player I've ever seen was Serena Williams over an 18 months stretch where she won everything. That's not true anymore, but it was certainly the most dominating play I've ever seen in women's tennis. In men's tennis, I think Federer's play over a number of years was the best I had ever seen.

you are right, both careers are not over. and Federer is only tied with the most grand slam titles, not the most.

but if you want to look at just that aspect, then i believe you should consider how many grand slam events they've been in, compared to how many they've won. that would be a better indication

it's your logic, actually, but you are clearly not in the business of even trying to understand what other people are saying, unless it confirms your pre-conceived opinion.
but whatever floats your boat, dude.

for me, as long as i keep getting great shows, whoever puts them on, i am a happy camper.

i directly quoted you.

i do understand what you are saying, or trying to say. i don't think you understand me though.

i'm not trying to say that nadal is the greatest. i am just saying that it is too early to call federer the greatest at this point. he very well could be. but i really believe that he got to a very high level, with not much competition to stand up to him. until nadal.

 

[arkitect]

He doesn't need to intentionally get injured, which seems to be your suggestions, which is absurd and dumb.

Clevin…
Read what I wrote c a r e f u l l y and maybe s l o w l y and then try to understand it — before calling me "dumb".