2009 French Open

[Don't panic]

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.

I can't predict the future so i don't know what will happen.
Both Nadal and Federer could go on winning for many years (more likely Nadal then Federer) or one of both could decide to retire tomorrow.

if that was to happen (retire tomorrow), it would be certainly arguable that Federer -even without any additional win- is the best ever because, among the only 6 players to have won all 4 Slams, he has won the most, or because of the only two to win 14 Slams, he is is the only one winning all 4 (as Sampras never won Paris).
If you look at total single titles won, he is currently 8th in the all-time standings with 59 wins. Connors and Lendl are probably unreacheable (by Federer) at 109 and 94, by he's likely to pass sampras (fourth) at 64 and maybe even McEnroe who is third at 77. So right now he is not the one with the most titles, nor it is likely that he ever will, but i think we both agree that quality of wins is as or more important that sheer numbers.

As far as Nadal, If he can keep healthy, he might well become the next "greatest ever"; as of now, he is not. But if he does keep winning, we won't have to wait for the end of his career to hail him, just until the point when his achievements will have topped those of federer, sampras and all the other 'greats' of the game. And if -when he does- there is another up-and-coming young gun who will be plying better than him at the time, that should have no effect on the evaluation.
As a matter of fact, Nadal should already be numbered among the very elite, certainly "one of the" best ever. Just not "the", yet.

 

[twoodcc]

I can't predict the future so i don't know what will happen.
Both Nadal and Federer could go on winning for many years (more likely Nadal then Federer) or one of both could decide to retire tomorrow.

if that was to happen (retire tomorrow), it would be certainly arguable that Federer -even without any additional win- is the best ever because, among the only 6 players to have won all 4 Slams, he has won the most, or because of the only two to win 14 Slams, he is is the only one winning all 4 (as Sampras never won Paris).
If you look at total single titles won, he is currently 8th in the all-time standings with 59 wins. Connors and Lendl are probably unreacheable (by Federer) at 109 and 94, by he's likely to pass sampras (fourth) at 64 and maybe even McEnroe who is third at 77. So right now he is not the one with the most titles, nor it is likely that he ever will, but i think we both agree that quality of wins is as or more important that sheer numbers.

As far as Nadal, If he can keep healthy, he might well become the next "greatest ever"; as of now, he is not. But if he does keep winning, we won't have to wait for the end of his career to hail him, just until the point when his achievements will have topped those of federer, sampras and all the other 'greats' of the game. And if -when he does- there is another up-and-coming young gun who will be plying better than him at the time, that should have no effect on the evaluation.
As a matter of fact, Nadal should already be numbered among the very elite, certainly "one of the" best ever. Just not "the", yet.

nice post

but i think you still do not see what i'm trying to say.

i agree with what you are saying, except that if you look at the percentage of slams that they won (out of those that they've played). or, compare federer at nadal's age to nadal. that would give you a guage on how nadal really compares to federer.

but i think the next 3-4 slams should give us a good idea on the subject. especially the next 2, with nadal knees. if he even shows at wimbledon.

 

[Don't panic]

nice post

but i think you still do not see what i'm trying to say.

i agree with what you are saying, except that if you look at the percentage of slams that they won (out of those that they've played). or, compare federer at nadal's age to nadal. that would give you a guage on how nadal really compares to federer.

but i think the next 3-4 slams should give us a good idea on the subject. especially the next 2, with nadal knees. if he even shows at wimbledon.

ok let's try this

W/L record at grand slam events:

Nadal 90-15 (.857)
Federer 175-26 (.871)


and, btw, Borg 141-16 (.898!)

if anything, the onus is on rafa to keep up the pace, the others have already done it

 

[Qwertylizer]

ok let's try this

W/L record at grand slam events:

Nadal 90-15 (.857)
Federer 175-26 (.871)


and, btw, Borg 141-16 (.898!)

if anything, the onus is on rafa to keep up the pace, the other have already done it

Yes, and Rafa is only 23 years old. (Federer 27) He has much time to break all the records.

 

[Don't panic]

Yes, and Rafa is only 23 years old. (Federer 27) He has much time to break all the records.

that, i agree with.
and when he does, he should (and would) be considered the greatest ever

 

[takao]

Yes, and Rafa is only 23 years old. (Federer 27) He has much time to break all the records.

with the small problem that staying the top clay player who does everything through physical strenght/stamina gets harder and ahrder with age ... not only because of injuries but also because there is always a younger player coming along.. history/statistics has always preferred the all-round players

also don't forget that federer still has much time left to increase those record further.. he said afaik that he wants to win the Olympic gold medal for men in 2012 and thats 3 years down the line .. and there is still the possibility that he just keeps on playing after that

 

[twoodcc]

ok let's try this

W/L record at grand slam events:

Nadal 90-15 (.857)
Federer 175-26 (.871)


and, btw, Borg 141-16 (.898!)

if anything, the onus is on rafa to keep up the pace, the others have already done it

now we're getting somewhere

now, can we get the stats of percentage of those slams won?

 

[Don't panic]

now we're getting somewhere

now, can we get the stats of percentage of those slams won?

it's right there. Federer has a better record than nadal at the slams, so far.

 

[twoodcc]

it's right there. Federer has a better record than nadal at the slams, so far.

but i mean won the slam, not just wins at the slam. titles / slams played in

 

[Don't panic]

but i mean won the slam, not just wins at the slam. titles / slams played in

boy, are you lazy or what?

I actually think that the W/L is much more indicative, as a slam final is already an achievement by itself, and obviously better than an early exit.
Anyways, if you lose a game at a tennis tourney you're out, so L= slams not won.

federer 14/(14+26)=35%
nadal 6/(6+15)=28%
i guess you'll have to think something else?

clearly they're both freakin' impressive, but again borg trumps them both in this stat, his efficiency was just absurd. You would have a better argument with him, (or Lever, Connors, Sampras) based on achievements (for now), or with McEnroe based on talent (for ever)

 

[Johns12]

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

You just can't use this logic. James Blake is 3 and 2 against Nadal. Does that make him better than Nadal?

 

[twoodcc]

boy, are you lazy or what?

I actually think that the W/L is much more indicative, as a slam final is already an achievement by itself, and obviously better than an early exit.
Anyways, if you lose a game at a tennis tourney you're out, so L= slams not won.

federer 14/(14+26)=35%
nadal 6/(6+15)=28%
i guess you'll have to think something else?

clearly they're both freakin' impressive, but again borg trumps them both in this stat, his efficiency was just absurd. You would have a better argument with him, (or Lever, Connors, Sampras) based on achievements (for now), or with McEnroe based on talent (for ever)

sorry, i missed this post.

thanks for the stats though. and of course, i can think of something else! i wonder how federers numbers in this stat changed after nadal started showing up? considering he beat federer in 5 slam title matches, correct?

You just can't use this logic. James Blake is 3 and 2 against Nadal. Does that make him better than Nadal?

well, if it was like 20-12, and the played in several slam title matches, then my answer would be "yes". but since it's not, then the answer is "no"

 

[Johns12]

well, if it was like 20-12, and the played in several slam title matches, then my answer would be "yes". but since it's not, then the answer is "no"

I understand your perspective, but from where I sit, it has more to do with the body of work. Blake has a very poor track record which is why he is not better than Nadal, even though he has a winning record against him. At this time, Federer's body of work is better. Time will tell if Nadal can match or beat it.

 

[ecstasy]

Time will tell if Nadal can match or beat it.

In addition to his chronic knee injuries.

Uncle Toni won't let loose the fact that Nadal has had this knee injury for quite a while, which will to continue to harm him as time goes by. He just won't let the press believe it.