The Official Tennis Thread

[Boycey]

Greatest person of all-time IMHO 

[Milltown Row2]

All I've pointed out is he's better on clay than other courts.

Equal now on grand slams

[Angelo]

All I've pointed out is he's better on clay than other courts.

Equal now on grand slams

Federer is better on grass than other courts.

Djokovic is better on hard than other courts.

The tennis calendar in terms of slams discriminate against a clay court player so it's remarkable what Nadal has done in terms of injuries, in terms of the calendar.

He has the golden slam.
He has the 5 Davis Cup wins.
He has the superior head to head record in slams against both Djokovic and Federer.

He is the GOAT, there's no metric that puts Federer ahead of him now, the last one that could be argued was relinquished today.

And in context, Federer is no 3. Djokovic could still end up top of the pile but it looks very likely Federer will stay at 3 in the all time rankings.

[Milltown Row2]

Take that up with the tennis association..


In terms of slams you have 2 hard court 1 clay and one grass.

If there's was no clay he'll have only won 7

[Angelo]

Take that up with the tennis association..


In terms of slams you have 2 hard court 1 clay and one grass.

If there's was no clay he'll have only won 7

And if there were 2 clay slams he could have won 32......

As it is, with the calendar discriminating against him he is already the greatest, with the injuries, he has reached that number in 12 less attempts than Federer, 2 and a half years younger than Federer, with a better head to head record than Federer, with the golden slam, with the 5 Davis Cups......

And that's without even adding the context of the fact that Federer won the bulk of his slams when tennis was in a much weaker era......

There is no metric left to put Federer as the greatest anymore.

[Milltown Row2]

Take that up with the tennis association..


In terms of slams you have 2 hard court 1 clay and one grass.

If there's was no clay he'll have only won 7

And if there were 2 clay slams he could have won 32......

As it is, with the calendar discriminating against him he is already the greatest, with the injuries, he has reached that number in 12 less attempts than Federer, 2 and a half years younger than Federer, with a better head to head record than Federer, with the golden slam, with the 5 Davis Cups......

And that's without even adding the context of the fact that Federer won the bulk of his slams when tennis was in a much weaker era......

There is no metric left to put Federer as the greatest anymore.

It is what it is, there are 2 yard court and one grass and one clay! Ffs lad that's what it is, he knew that growing up but decided to dedicate himself to one surface! no one has made do that only him

[Estimator]

Take that up with the tennis association..


In terms of slams you have 2 hard court 1 clay and one grass.

If there's was no clay he'll have only won 7

And if there were 2 clay slams he could have won 32......

As it is, with the calendar discriminating against him he is already the greatest, with the injuries, he has reached that number in 12 less attempts than Federer, 2 and a half years younger than Federer, with a better head to head record than Federer, with the golden slam, with the 5 Davis Cups......

And that's without even adding the context of the fact that Federer won the bulk of his slams when tennis was in a much weaker era......

There is no metric left to put Federer as the greatest anymore.

You're a big fan of that particular argument.

It's the same thing on multiple threads with the general gist being:

"The level of competition wasn't as high as it was before or after which is why X won their specific competition(s)

Ref: This thread, not the first time you've brought this particular argument up regarding RF, Rafa + ND

Ref: Golf Thread - McIlroy Majors

Ref: Messi/Ronaldo thread - Nedved/Shevchenko

[Angelo]

Take that up with the tennis association..


In terms of slams you have 2 hard court 1 clay and one grass.

If there's was no clay he'll have only won 7

And if there were 2 clay slams he could have won 32......

As it is, with the calendar discriminating against him he is already the greatest, with the injuries, he has reached that number in 12 less attempts than Federer, 2 and a half years younger than Federer, with a better head to head record than Federer, with the golden slam, with the 5 Davis Cups......

And that's without even adding the context of the fact that Federer won the bulk of his slams when tennis was in a much weaker era......

There is no metric left to put Federer as the greatest anymore.

It is what it is, there are 2 yard court and one grass and one clay! Ffs lad that's what it is, he knew that growing up but decided to dedicate himself to one surface! no one has made do that only him

Yes, it is what it is and it's a disadvantage to Nadal and he's still came out on top of the pile and there no longer exists a metric for the Fedheads to be able to dispute that Nadal is the greatest.

Dry your eyes. Today was the day that Nadal established himself as the GOAT.

[Milltown Row2]

He's level with Roger, and dominant on one surface, I've known that. You were upping Novak today for some reason, even when I showed you the stats!!

Bizarre but you would like a second clay slam and obviously a second grass?

[Angelo]

He's level with Roger, and dominant on one surface, I've known that. You were upping Novak today for some reason, even when I showed you the stats!!

Bizarre but you would like a second clay slam and obviously a second grass?

Dominant on one surface?

Nadal is the ONLY one of the big three to have won MULTIPLE SLAMS on all three surfaces.

I think grass and hard courts play an awful lot closer to each other than clay, both grass and hard courts - everything comes off the serve. Could you honestly see Kevin Anderson, Mark Phillipoussis or Marin Cilic in a RG final? Not a chance. Clay takes a more variable type of game, it takes more craft to make a winning point - not just bludgeoning the ball as hard as you can. You could see it Nadal's play today, Djokovic just didn't know what way it was going to come back at him.

So 3/4 of the tennis season is suited to a certain type of player and 3/4 of the tennis season is not suited to Nadal's game. Remember when they said Nadal was one dimensional clay court player who would never win outside of clay? I do, he now has seven slams on grass and hard courts, he has had to adapt his game again, again and again all throughout his career. He has the same amount of slam titles on grass and hard courts as McEnroe has won in totality, more non-clay slams than the likes of Becker and Edberg have in totality.

So dominant on one one surfrace? Not a hope.

Only three players have won more non-clay slams in the modern era than Nadal, three - and that's apparently Nadal's weakness. His weakness is something only three players in the modern era has bettered.

And after all this, top of the pile.

I was edging for Novak today, the conditions, indoor, slower court, lower bounce, heavier balls,  and Nadal had played very little tennis coming into it and Nadal devoured him.

The only player with the golden slam along with Agassi.

The only player with multiple slams on all sufaces.

5x Davis Cup winner and superior head to head records in slams with Djokovic and Nadal.

He is the GOAT, no metric contests it.

For some reason you are attempting to run down clay court tennis.

[Milltown Row2]

I'm not running down clay court, you said he's being discriminated against ffs! Catch yourself on, these are the grand slams, if there was extra grass and clay would he be on top?

He's level on grand slams so he's joint GOAT.

Forget all that other stuff please . Slams are what counts and if you want to develop a Tyrone clay court championship into a grand slam then no doubt it will be a cracker, until then stop with the stupid math, he knew this growing up, but decided to craft his ability to clay!

I thought he was free money at 4/6 to be fair

[Capt Pat]

Wimbledon is the big one isn't it? Roland Garros is simply not nearly as important except in Spain. Nadal is the greatest Spaniard so.

[Angelo]

I'm not running down clay court, you said he's being discriminated against ffs! Catch yourself on, these are the grand slams, if there was extra grass and clay would he be on top?

He's level on grand slams so he's joint GOAT.

Forget all that other stuff please . Slams are what counts and if you want to develop a Tyrone clay court championship into a grand slam then no doubt it will be a cracker, until then stop with the stupid math, he knew this growing up, but decided to craft his ability to clay!

I thought he was free money at 4/6 to be fair

You brought into it his dominance on one court and I merely pointed out that the calendar actually discriminates against clay court players as it only has the one slam. If there was extra grass and clay he would be undoubtedly on top, he has 15 slams on grass and clay, Federer has 9, Djokovic has 7.

Slams are exactly what counts and Nadal has 20 of them and he didn't pick up 12 of them against duffers like Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Phillippousis and a few promising kids who had yet to reach their prime.

And you still seem to be painting him as a one dimensional clay courter, since Nadal won his first non-clay slam in 2008, he has won nearly as many non-clay slams as Federer has.

There are only 3 players in the past 30 years who have won more non-clay titles in the past 40 years - Federer, Djokovic, Sampras.

Sampras was a one dimensional serve bot who never came close to winning a RG title, Agassi was a greater player than him.

Federer and Djokovic are two of the best ever but Federer is a distant third behind Djokovic and Nadal. Federer was dominant when his main competition were guys like Naldbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Phillippousis, Sadin, Gonzalez, Bagdathis, Nalbandian - guys who started to slide down the rankings when the next generation came along.

If the likes of Berdych and Tsonga were 5/6 years younger they would have been multiple slam winners in that time.

You keep ignoring context. Nadal has achieved greatness far quicker than Federer, has overcame the odds, has done it in a tougher era in less attempts and has the superior slam H2H with his two main adversaries.

Djokovic could yet overtake Nadal but time is running out for all. I don't see Federer adding to things. He had a 6 year drought at one point before he had an Indian summer but turns 40 next year and is after a long layoff with injury. If Nadal stays fit and healthy you could potentially see him win another RG or two.

I think the competition is too tough for Nadal on hard courts now, I don't think he can do a few 5 setters in a hard court tournament, his knees aren't up for it. Wimbledon probably represents his best chance outside of that. After a barren spell at Wimbledon he has done well in the last couple of tournaments and should have beaten Djokovic in 2018. None of the next gen have shown up at Wimbledon next.

Federer went from 12 slams in 18 attempts pre Nadal-Djokovic prime to 8 in 45 Nadal-Djokovic prime. Why do you think that was?

[Angelo]

Wimbledon is the big one isn't it? Roland Garros is simply not nearly as important except in Spain. Nadal is the greatest Spaniard so.

Wimbledon is the big one for anglophiles like yourself I'd say. It's the one for the big serving giraffes like Kevin Anderson, Richard Kraijcek, John Isner, Goran Ivanisevic, Mark Philllopoussis, Sampras etc where you just hammer aces all day long.

Roland Garros generally is the one for the mercurial European players with the craft and talent.

[Capt Pat]

Wimbledon is the big one isn't it? Roland Garros is simply not nearly as important except in Spain. Nadal is the greatest Spaniard

Wimbledon is the big one for anglophiles like yourself I'd say. It's the one for the big serving giraffes like Kevin Anderson, Richard Kraijcek, John Isner, Goran Ivanisevic, Mark Philllopoussis, Sampras etc where you just hammer aces all day long.

Roland Garros generally is the one for the mercurial European players with the craft and talent.

Federer though is not like a lot of the players you just named. He can do it all. He is exceptional.