Is Nadal the weakest of the 10+ slam winners?

by eraldeen Fri 21 Oct 2011, 4:49 pm

First topic message reminder :

Out of this group is Nadal the player with the weakest resume?

Federer
Sampras
Emerson
Laver
Borg
Tilden
Nadal

by banbrotam Sat 22 Oct 2011, 7:28 pm

emancipator wrote:Banbro,

At least get your facts straight.

Federer won the FO and Nadal was playing, not as you stated 'given that he won the French without his great nemisis entering as opposed to Nadal who's won all four with Fed actually entering'.

Nadal entered and looked as good as ever until Soderling played the match of his life and kicked his big butt.

I should have made it clear, but in fairness I thought it would be obvious what I was saying. When Tenez dismisses Nadal's 'Slam' because it's now (apparently) "easier" because of the courts etc (the fact similar courts makes it easier for everyone to get better, doesn't seem to register with Tenez, but never mind!!) we have to ask, in the interest of fairness, as to whether Fed's completion of the Slam was even easier given that he didn't meet Nadal to win

Personally, I think that it's poppycock from Tenez of course both Slams are valid as it would be if Nole achieved one by beating players outside the Top 100 to do it. But Tenez, is good at this he gets us 'arguing' even though we both know what a disrespective fan of the game he is

emancipator

by legendkillar Sat 22 Oct 2011, 7:34 pm

I for one will cut Tenez some slack. Everyone knows his views on Nadal and it is like poking a stick at zoo animal for a reaction.

I don't agree with his views on fitness because it for makes tennis too simplistic to merit success to the fittest. It is merely one factor of many that a pro tennis player needs nowadays.

To go to his views on players like Dolgo, Davydenko, Nalbandian. He is saying that these players have great shot making abillities, but sometimes it is not reflected in rankings, so to use rankings to discredit a players ability is even more un-wise and short sighted. My example would be of this is Gasquet a better shot maker than Fish? Yes. Does the rankings reflect the abilities? No.

For me the greatest players of the game are Federer, Nadal, Laver closely followed by Rosewall, Borg, Sampras

by banbrotam Sat 22 Oct 2011, 7:52 pm

legendkillar wrote:I for one will cut Tenez some slack. Everyone knows his views on Nadal and it is like poking a stick at zoo animal for a reaction.

I don't agree with his views on fitness because it for makes tennis too simplistic to merit success to the fittest. It is merely one factor of many that a pro tennis player needs nowadays.

To go to his views on players like Dolgo, Davydenko, Nalbandian. He is saying that these players have great shot making abillities, but sometimes it is not reflected in rankings, so to use rankings to discredit a players ability is even more un-wise and short sighted. My example would be of this is Gasquet a better shot maker than Fish? Yes. Does the rankings reflect the abilities? No.

For me the greatest players of the game are Federer, Nadal, Laver closely followed by Rosewall, Borg, Sampras

But nobodies disputing that, so this is yet another occasion where Tenez goes up a blind alley. The article (not Tenez) appears to be another dissing of Nadal, a bandwagon that Tenez jumps on even and if it stops, keeps it going!!

It suits Tenez's purposes to relegate the argument to 'shot making', because then he can denigrate Nadal a bit more. However, the point is that even with the great talents of Tsonga and Nalbandian - the Top 4 actually has the four most highly skilled players within it, i.e. here the rankings are correct. But this doesn't mean that Tsonga often doesn't look more skillful than Murray, I pointed out that Tsonga could have a whitewash record against Murray if he applied himself for more than one hours play - but of course Tenez ignores this as it doesn't suit his 'finger pointing' purposes

by legendkillar Sat 22 Oct 2011, 7:56 pm

I don't actually rate Tsonga as a shot maker to be honest. If he applied some defence he could be. But for my liking too one-dimensional.

I don't like the Nadal bashing, but pressing the issue will stir things up more. If no-one agrees with it, shouldn't be too much of a problem

by Tenez Sat 22 Oct 2011, 8:22 pm

emancipator wrote:Without sounding like a Tenez clone.

Why would you be scared of that? It's getting ridiculous that everybody knows that Nadal is a physical player but it's a taboo matter nowadays as saying it might scare people off.

by Guest Sat 22 Oct 2011, 8:25 pm

Tenez wrote:
emancipator wrote:Without sounding like a Tenez clone.

Why would you be scared of that? It's getting ridiculous that everybody knows that Nadal is a physical player but it's a taboo matter nowadays as saying it might scare people off.

Sorry tenez, you're right. That wasn't fair.

by wow Sat 22 Oct 2011, 8:40 pm

Interestingly this post has turned into Tenez bashing laughing

Let's rename the post, Is tenez the strongest nadal basher?
I remember spaghettihans, jewel and delpotro owns the moonballer, they were worse than tenez, trust me.

by Tenez Sat 22 Oct 2011, 8:41 pm

legendkillar wrote:I for one will cut Tenez some slack. Everyone knows his views on Nadal and it is like poking a stick at zoo animal for a reaction.

I don't agree with his views on fitness because it for makes tennis too simplistic to merit success to the fittest. It is merely one factor of many that a pro tennis player needs nowadays.

Don't be afraid to "cut me some slack". That's the purpose of a tennis forum. To exchange views...or even better learn about the game.

Now I hope you understand that any parameter (be it talent, fitness, power etc...) pushed to the extreme can win you slams. Imagine someone without much fitness but so talented that he can hit any ball purely flat generating pace power and precision. This player coudl win a slam without having to run or hardly. LIke someone like Karlo could on a good day get through any player in a slam based on winning serves only. Likewise, someone able to retrieve any ball and engage in long rallies coudl win a slam despite not having the best shots or talent.

Of course what we have out there are players having a bit of everything but with more strength in one area than the others. NOt too difficult to understand. Besides, it;s no news that all players are working extremely hard to get that fitness able to compete with the top players. They all talk about it....without exception and what I am saying is simply no different. I honestly think it's absurd to deny that the top 4, especially the top 3 are physically above the rest. Only serious fans would want to see their superiority down to other factors.

It's a kind of denying the obvious...but for some reasons I get teh "slack for it".

by break_in_the_fifth Sat 22 Oct 2011, 8:46 pm

I don't think the top 4 have ever been so dominant over the rest of the field. I'm not sure its all down to it being the best top 4 ever though there could be some argument for it if djokovic gets close to Nadal's slam count then there'd be 3 all time great players at the same time... so its difficult to say.

by Tenez Sat 22 Oct 2011, 8:49 pm

wow wrote:Interestingly this post has turned into Tenez bashing
Let's rename the post, Is tenez the strongest nadal basher?
I remember spaghettihans, jewel and delpotro owns the moonballer, they were worse than tenez, trust me.

Those guys were right in many ways but unlike them, I explain the strengthes and weaknesses of players. I don;t simply state "this guy is crap". That's why I think I can be some of the fans' worse ennemies. I simply say what makes such and such player good or weak whereas many simply rely on the ranking and the higher the ranking the better at everyting the player becomes...that's simply plain wrong.

I am also very critical of Monfils game...but that's ok...not many care or notice but were Monfils a top 2 or 3 players, I would be relentless as well as I don;t think he does the game much justice, even if he is a spectacular player and sometimes can even be entertaining.

by wow Sat 22 Oct 2011, 8:54 pm

I agree with you tenez however you do need to comment on other things as well and just not anti nadal stuff. You very well know that even I am not a Nadal fan but we cannot deny that he has won 10 slams and on 3 different surfaces. He is the second most successful player of his generation so I think he does deserve due some credit. I too agree that nadal did make the game boring and turned it into senseless baseline bashing but this is what it is.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sat 22 Oct 2011, 8:57 pm

Not particularly a tennis fan but this struck me as a very odd thread.

It's a bit like asking what is the worst team to have won the premiership / old first div at least ten times. Or who is the worst test batsmen to have scored at least 20 test centuries..... Or who is the weakest climber to have reached the summit of Mount Everest? Erm

by Tenez Sat 22 Oct 2011, 9:04 pm

wow wrote:I agree with you tenez however you do need to comment on other things as well and just not anti nadal stuff. You very well know that even I am not a Nadal fan but we cannot deny that he has won 10 slams and on 3 different surfaces. He is the second most successful player of his generation so I think he does deserve due some credit. I too agree that nadal did make the game boring and turned it into senseless baseline bashing but this is what it is.

There is something about Nadal's game that simply I can't quite praise. It would be like praising a banker because he made a fortune. Not my style. I like to see hard work and talent combined.

Regarding commenting on other matters. I am constantly commenting on everythng here but some posters tend to bring Nadal in, even when I don't as proved many times in the last few threads I posted. And yuo may notice that unlike lots of posters, including Murray and Nadal fans, I gove a lot of credit to players outside the top 4 and, much more than the nadal and Murray fans would do.

The thing is that it's currently a dead tennis period so the main subjects (NAdal/Federer/Murray/ Djoko) come up. especially as Murray and Nadal were the last to make the news.

by **laverfan** Sat 22 Oct 2011, 9:21 pm

Tenez wrote:I honestly think it's absurd to deny that the top 4, especially the top 3 are physically above the rest.

Current ATP rankings are 1 - Djokovic, 2 - Nadal, 3 - Murray, 4 - Federer. Did you mean this or Nadal, Federer, Djokovic? Wink

Tenez wrote:Only serious fans would want to see their superiority down to other factors.

What factors? Erm

Tenez wrote:I simply say what makes such and such player good or weak whereas many simply rely on the ranking and the higher the ranking the better at everything the player becomes

What makes Nadal a GOAT candidate?

Is it the emancipator version... or the Tenez version... or the Lydian version?

Tenez wrote:There is something about Nadal's game that simply I can't quite praise. It would be like praising a banker because he made a fortune. Not my style. I like to see hard work and talent combined.

Innuendo again? Erm

BTW, why is a banker not allowed to be a millionaire/billionaire?

Have you heard of a Wall Street trader/investor (not a banker) Warren Buffet?

"In June 2006, he announced a plan to give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Not particularly a tennis fan but this struck me as a very odd thread.

It's a bit like asking what is the worst team to have won the premiership / old first div at least ten times. Or who is the worst test batsmen to have scored at least 20 test centuries..... Or who is the weakest climber to have reached the summit of Mount Everest?

Please excuse the mess this thread is in. It is looking for the 'worst' of the 'best'. Wink

by legendkillar Sat 22 Oct 2011, 9:24 pm

I think the thing with today's game yes the conds demand that fitness is a strong requirement for the tennis player, but also shot making abilities are more of a requirement now than ever. Look at Nadal who is now searching for something else in his game because Djokovic has his number, like he has with Federer. Nadal will need to incorporate risk into his game much more if he is to overcome Djokovic. Look at Federer, has looked the only one to really trouble and undo Djokovic.

by Tenez Sat 22 Oct 2011, 10:22 pm

legendkillar wrote:Look at Nadal who is now searching for something else in his game because Djokovic has his number, like he has with Federer. Nadal will need to incorporate risk into his game much more if he is to overcome Djokovic. Look at Federer, has looked the only one to really trouble and undo Djokovic.

Disagree on the first sentence. The difference is that though Federer hasa neg, H2H, it's essentially due to clay and secondly, even on clay we get teh feeling that Fed can beat Nadal cause there is this feeling that the match is in Federer's racquet.

There is a very different sentiment when Nadal meets Djoko. We know the latter is doomed as soon as the ball is in play. losing 9 of the last 11 matches with serious excuses for Djoko on his 2 losses. It's clearly a one way traffic.

If Nadal incorporate risks and wins, then I will admit without hesitating that I was wrong and that Nadal's talent was comparable with the top 3. But I know Nadal will not incorporate risk cause he simply can't and worse it will play in all his opponents favours.

If you think Nadal can play like Federer (or similarly) to beat Djoko, then I am afraid, you don't quite grasp Nadal's game, nor Federer's for that matter.

by legendkillar Sat 22 Oct 2011, 10:49 pm

Firstly I didnt say that Nadal can play like Federer. Nadal needs to take the ball on earlier. He plays defensive against Djokovic, Federer and to an extent Murray. Nadal has taken the ball early against other opponents. Wimbledon 2010 and French Open 2010 is evidence of this. If you think Nadal can't do this, then certainly it is you that can't grasp the dynamics of his game.

by **laverfan** Sat 22 Oct 2011, 11:57 pm

Tenez wrote:The difference is that though Federer has a neg, H2H, it's essentially due to clay and secondly, even on clay we get the feeling that Fed can beat Nadal cause there is this feeling that the match is in Federer's racquet.

After Rome 2006, in RG 06 Federer was up a set, that too a bread stick. He got breadsticked 6-1 in the second set. This is not the fifth set. How and why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lia1v4riTsI

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Sun 23 Oct 2011, 8:34 am

laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:The difference is that though Federer has a neg, H2H, it's essentially due to clay and secondly, even on clay we get the feeling that Fed can beat Nadal cause there is this feeling that the match is in Federer's racquet.

After Rome 2006, in RG 06 Federer was up a set, that too a bread stick. He got breadsticked 6-1 in the second set. This is not the fifth set. How and why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lia1v4riTsI

How and why?

Well. Lets see.

1. Tenez already answered this: "The difference is that though Federer has a neg, H2H, it's essentially due to clay". Nadal's game and playing style is suited for clay more than Federer's. Clay or slow surfaces doesn't reward shot makers as much. A low risk solid percentage play is more rewarded. A 3m behind the baseline retrieving with great stamina and lung capacity to play long rallys is more rewarding. Shots are easier to retrieve, strings make it easier to pass the incoming vollyer. This puts the shotmakers to go for more, closer to the lines. On big points this could be a very very vital difference. Continuously hitting shots is more difficult than running and retrieving. Arm gets tired much easily than legs. A shot's follow-through isn't easy to handle for the shotmaker as well, it puts the shotmaker out of position to play the next ball if it gets retrieved. Continuously doing it is very very difficult, that why it often ends in an error because shotmaking is more riskier than retrieving.

2. the second set: This video is just high-lights package. So it didn't show the many unforced errors. Federer committed many errors in the 2nd set.

3. Listen to the commentary from 5:32. You'll get the answer why Federer lost the 2nd set 1-6.

About the feeling that match is in Federer's racquet. It's not exactly I would put, but largely. Federer himself said once that on grass its more on his racquet, so I won't take its as much even clay. But its largely up to Federer's shots. If he gets them right, he will win. If he misses like he did in the RG2006 2nd set which you brought out, he loses. Thats why it is more on Federer's racquet even on clay. But the percentage will be different. The percentage will be less compared to grass or hard courts. Lets say some arbitrary assumption like if on grass or hard its about 70% on his racquet, the on clay it would be say 55-65% ( depending on the who is he playing). Even on RG2011 He had the first set was on his racquet when he unfortunately missed a drop shot. That 1 point I think was the turning point of the match. Even in this RG2006 the same happened. In first set Federer didn't miss, so he easily won it. 2nd set, he missed a lot hence lost it. So it was on Federer's racquet.

Tennis is a tough game physically and mentally. A missed shot hurts the confidence far more than a missed ball trying to retrieve a shot. One point can change the course of the entire match, and they often do as any tennis fan would have seen.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 23 Oct 2011, 10:41 am

Okay let us totally disregard clay for Roger's sheer benefit and what are we left with?

Grass head to head:-

Federer 2 Nadal 1

All pretty close encounters with Fed winning in four and five setters so no walk-overs with Nadal winning an epic five setter in the Wimbledon 2008 Final so a pretty close call on that surface.

Hard court head to head:-

Federer 4 Nadal 4

So you see between the pair on surfaces other than clay it is mightily close between the pair so I don't grasp the efforts of trying to talk down Nadal's achievements or trying to put it down to being purely a physical thing.

by **laverfan** Sun 23 Oct 2011, 10:51 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Clay or slow surfaces doesn't reward shot makers as much. A low risk solid percentage play is more rewarded.

Please watch this link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_zgFt12tJc

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:A 3m behind the baseline retrieving with great stamina and lung capacity to play long rallys is more rewarding. Shots are easier to retrieve, strings make it easier to pass the incoming volleyer. This puts the shotmakers to go for more, closer to the lines. On big points this could be a very very vital difference. Continuously hitting shots is more difficult than running and retrieving. Arm gets tired much easily than legs. A shot's follow-through isn't easy to handle for the shotmaker as well, it puts the shotmaker out of position to play the next ball if it gets retrieved. Continuously doing it is very very difficult, that why it often ends in an error because shotmaking is more riskier than retrieving.

Yet, the same playing style worked in Rome 06 and was rewarded with MPs, IIRC. It also tells me that if such observations are correct and self-evident, a once-in-a-century genius would have figured it out (with help from his coaching staff, of course) over his career from 1998-2011 and adapted. This piece of logic leads me to believe that the ability to adapt to a surface is not there. Is that what you are implying?

Watch the third set on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mRsdp-A-Zo

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:But its largely up to Federer's shots. If he gets them right, he will win. If he misses like he did in the RG2006 2nd set which you brought out, he loses.

Should that not be the difference between a genius and a journeyman? Erm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Thats why it is more on Federer's racquet even on clay. But the percentage will be different. The percentage will be less compared to grass or hard courts. Lets say some arbitrary assumption like if on grass or hard its about 70% on his racquet, the on clay it would be say 55-65% ( depending on the who is he playing).

It took Nadal from 2005-2008 to get a measure of Federer and beat him on grass, but Federer (using the simple and obvious self-evident truths that you provide) has yet to beat Nadal on RG clay (despite faster balls, dryer courts) and beating the beast Djokovic (67-3 2011 W/L) in the previous match. Very interesting! Erm

Federer does say in one of his interviews that he grew up on European clay. Wink

Edit: I know about Federer's Mononucleosis in 2008. Wink

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Even on RG2011 He had the first set was on his racquet when he unfortunately missed a drop shot. That 1 point I think was the turning point of the match. Even in this RG2006 the same happened. In first set Federer didn't miss, so he easily won it. 2nd set, he missed a lot hence lost it. So it was on Federer's racquet.

RG2011, Federer misses a drop shot on Nadal's serve not on his own, yet manages to lose the next two services games on his own serve and five-games-in-a-row? Erm

~~[quote="Tenez"]~~ - Edit: Pardon the Freudian slip.
Whistle

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Tennis is a tough game physically and mentally. A missed shot hurts the confidence far more than a missed ball trying to retrieve a shot. One point can change the course of the entire match, and they often do as any tennis fan would have seen.

Yet, Federer came back from his tough losses and managed to win matches, for example after losing to Del Potro USO 2009, he won AO 2010.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So you see between the pair on surfaces other than clay it is mightily close between the pair so I don't grasp the efforts of trying to talk down Nadal's achievements or trying to put it down to being purely a physical thing.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Sun 23 Oct 2011, 12:35 pm

CC,

This h2h is actually another topic different from the OP and done to death already on earlier 606.

If you want to talk about it again, kindly start a new topic, then we will see.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 23 Oct 2011, 12:45 pm

We are talking about weakest 10+ slam winners here and so everything must be considered in that including head-to-heads which wasn't originally brought up by me in this topic but by Tenez and later yourself.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Sun 23 Oct 2011, 1:04 pm

laverfan,

Firstly and I've said this before as well. I find it tiring to discuss anything with you. You just don't have a pivot to your points and essentially keep revolving the whole world and then leave the conversation midway. I sometime think you try to play safe in the debates by doing all this. Don't make any clear points, leave it for interpretation, move the topic totally away from what it was with something totally different e.g. Warren Buffet. And then get out.

Please watch this link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_zgFt12tJc

====================

I've watch this match already. What's your point here? You are just being yourself again. Put a mystery-one-line without taking the trouble to write your points. Make your point and then we can talk on that.

It took Nadal from 2005-2008 to get a measure of Federer and beat him on grass, but Federer (using the simple and obvious self-evident truths that you provide) has yet to beat Nadal on RG clay (despite faster balls, dryer courts) and beating the beast Djokovic (67-3 2011 W/L) in the previous match. Very interesting!

==============================

Again, what's your point. If its interesting, start a new thread and we will see.

Federer does say in one of his interviews that he grew up on European clay.
=============================

Even Murray started his career on Spanish clay and for a long time kept saying Clay is his favorite surface. Yet he hasn't seen a clay final in his career till now. Very interesting.

Yet, Federer came back from his tough losses and managed to win matches, for example after losing to Del Potro USO 2009, he won AO 2010.

So?? what your point? If you can't take trouble of typing, I don't have to interpret anything.

by legendkillar Sun 23 Oct 2011, 1:08 pm

ROTLA

will you stop dismissing LF's opinions.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 23 Oct 2011, 1:12 pm

I only hope people would listen to themselves though.

Attempts at denigrating Rafael Nadal I find very odd. After all those denigrating are big Roger Federer fans - a player seen by most to be the greatest player of all-time. So my point is that if Nadal has managed so much success during Federer's career and have such a positive head-to-head against him how on Earth can Fed fans argue for Nadal being the weakest of the players that have won 10+ slams. Doing that only leaves open the question therefore:- Can Fed really hold claim to be the GOAT then?

by legendkillar Sun 23 Oct 2011, 1:14 pm

All you do is moan and complain when someone has your backside handed to you in a civil debate.

LF has been watching tennis since the 60's and as far as I am concerned has the best balanced view, even more so then compared to a hot air, no substance bafoon as yourself ROTLA. All you do is duck the main subject of any thread with petulant arguing over nothing.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Sun 23 Oct 2011, 1:19 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:We are talking about weakest 10+ slam winners here and so everything must be considered in that including head-to-heads which wasn't originally brought up by me in this topic but by Tenez and later yourself.

Really?? Well. I can't reply for Tenez but I think the h2h wasn't the crux of his argument in that. The main point was the difference in how Djo and Nadal's matchup is different from that of Nadal and Fed. I replied to laverfan's how and why Federer lost the sencond set 1-6 in RG2006 finals. But you posted essentially the whole h2h thing. surface wise, who won etc etc. Your whole point was based on h2h and you still deny bringing it up. Well.

The h2h I think should be discussed in another thread. Just a better h2h against one player doesn't make him any better. How is it and why I think so? Start a new threat to talk on this.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 23 Oct 2011, 1:33 pm

As we are here discussing if Nadal is the weakest of the 10+ slam winners various things come into discussing it. I mean it would be a very drab thread if we all just answered yes or no would it not?

And so I'd say firstly it is a ridiculous question to ask in the first place as in how any 10+ slam winner can be even tagged as weak is preposterous. Secondly, in answer to the question orginally asked I say:-

A. How can a player who matches up so favourably on all surfaces with a player seen as the greatest player of all-time be deemed as weak?

B. How can a player with such a positive head-to-head against the afore-mentioned GOAT be mentioned as weak?

C. If those that feel Nadal is the weakest of the 10+ slam winners don't they think that rather disqualifies Federer from the claim to be the greatest player of all time since he has had so much trouble beating the weakest of all 10+ slam winners?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 23 Oct 2011, 2:00 pm

Emerson was pretty weak, although he did alright when he teamed up with Lake and Palmer.

by Positively 4th Street Sun 23 Oct 2011, 5:23 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:I only hope people would listen to themselves though.

Attempts at denigrating Rafael Nadal I find very odd. After all those denigrating are big Roger Federer fans - a player seen by most to be the greatest player of all-time. So my point is that if Nadal has managed so much success during Federer's career and have such a positive head-to-head against him how on Earth can Fed fans argue for Nadal being the weakest of the players that have won 10+ slams. Doing that only leaves open the question therefore:- Can Fed really hold claim to be the GOAT then?

Good points CC. I can't help but feel that a lot of the Nadal criticism is from Federer fans who are bitter about some of his defeats, so bitter that they can't see that Federer and Nadal's careers are so entwined that the criticism reflects badly on Federer too. Their man is at the top of the tree in almost every category but they're more hung up on having a pop at the guy who beat him on some big occasions. They just can't get over it.

Funnily enough, if Nadal had not managed to achieve what he has off clay then he would not get as much stick. So he would be viewed as a better player if he'd been less successful.

by **laverfan** Sun 23 Oct 2011, 6:53 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Laverfan,
Firstly and I've said this before as well. I find it tiring to discuss anything with you. You just don't have a pivot to your points and essentially keep revolving the whole world and then leave the conversation midway. I sometime think you try to play safe in the debates by doing all this. Don't make any clear points, leave it for interpretation, move the topic totally away from what it was with something totally different e.g. Warren Buffet. And then get out.

Please watch this link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_zgFt12tJc

====================

I've watch this match already. What's your point here? You are just being yourself again. Put a mystery-one-line without taking the trouble to write your points. Make your point and then we can talk on that.

The point of the of the link was that a clay match played with aggressive shot-making is rewarding. A player does not have play 3m behind the baseline, have great pair of legs and lung-capacity to win on clay - which seems to be a favourite accusation leveled at a specific player. I would also suggest watching Melzer-Golubev Hamburg final or Federer-Melzer MC to see aggressive shot-making on clay, which wins matches too. Gasquet is considered a relatively physically weak player compared to Nadal (as shown by his career on clay). Gasquet beat Federer in 2005, the year of the 82-3 record, and Federer had 3 match-points. I would also suggest watching the shots that Gasquet used to save those MPs.

Re: Warren Buffet, the reference was to Tenez's statement... "There is something about Nadal's game that simply I can't quite praise. It would be like praising a banker because he made a fortune." . My comment was to illustrate that bankers also work hard for their money but do have philanthropic abilities, and Buffet is donating his money to charity.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:It took Nadal from 2005-2008 to get a measure of Federer and beat him on grass, but Federer (using the simple and obvious self-evident truths that you provide) has yet to beat Nadal on RG clay (despite faster balls, dryer courts) and beating the beast Djokovic (67-3 2011 W/L) in the previous match. Very interesting!

==============================

Again, what's your point. If its interesting, start a new thread and we will see.

The point was that man with 'four lungs' has the tactical nous to beat a one-in-century-genius on his favourite surface - grass, but the reverse attempts - on clay - have been unsuccessful. (Since this was in W 2008, I had explicitly stated regarding Federer's Mono).

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Federer does say in one of his interviews that he grew up on European clay.
=============================

Even Murray started his career on Spanish clay and for a long time kept saying Clay is his favorite surface. Yet he hasn't seen a clay final in his career till now. Very interesting.

See the previous point.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Yet, Federer came back from his tough losses and managed to win matches, for example after losing to Del Potro USO 2009, he won AO 2010.

So?? what your point? If you can't take trouble of typing, I don't have to interpret anything.

Your statement "Tennis is a tough game physically and mentally." applies equally to a 10-slam winner and a 16-slam winner. I was agreeing with you regarding that observation. But if you choose to apply it selectively to one player, but not another, then it is biased.

JuliusHMarx wrote: Emerson was pretty weak, although he did alright when he teamed up with Lake and Palmer.

Are you saying a classically-trained pianist, who could bring Mussorgsky's compositions (Pictures at an Exhibition or at a Market Place) to life, is weak Erm

(but he did try with Powell though Wink

)

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon 24 Oct 2011, 4:21 am

CC,

I didn't post anything which could suggest that I think Nadal is the weakest 10+ slam winner. Till now I've not replied to the OP.

Your points are essentially to Federer's h2h and GOAT debate. This thread isn't exactly to discuss it. You have brought out your points, which is good, so please start a new thread and you'll have good answers to every single one of them. I don't want to hijack this thread which is about Nadal mainly.

On your 3 point in this thread, I assume you don't think Nadal is the weakest 10+ slam winner. You brought Federer's 3 negatives in his his resume, so do you suggest that Federer is the weakest 10+ slam winner? If you think Federer is the weakest 10+ slam winner based on the 3 points you made, then I can continue here. GOAT debate, h2h needs a new thread. You'll have answers to all your questions, I can assure you that.

laverfan,

Thank you for your points. You made them clear to me at least once. But now I don't have energy or inclination to pursue those. Maybe next time we can Smile

by CaledonianCraig Mon 24 Oct 2011, 7:12 am

Well perhaps you should reply to the original poster then and say you don't think it was Nadal to clear up where you stand? Frankly, I never bothered with an answer to the OP as the question really is ridiculous as no 10+ slam winner can be called weak in any shape or form.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon 24 Oct 2011, 8:54 am

Even I do think this whole OP is ridiculous and I don't have to answer that. Its a weird question and doesn't mean anything important.

The author of the post is a new member and looks like he/she is only interested in starting such weird topics. I've read some of his/her posts and they are all very brief and without any reasoning as to why he/she thinks what he/she thinks. Even for this post he/she hasn't even bothered to put his/her own opinion about the 10+ slam winners. Just start a random question that popped in mind, put it as a new thread and then again start thinking what can be my next thread.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 24 Oct 2011, 9:22 am

Agreed rotla. And on that note I'll take my leave of this nonsensical topic. Whistle

by **laverfan** Mon 24 Oct 2011, 1:39 pm

CorporateHumbleBucket summed up the debate very succinctly.

It's a bit like asking what is the worst team to have won the premiership / old first div at least ten times. Or who is the worst test batsmen to have scored at least 20 test centuries..... Or who is the weakest climber to have reached the summit of Mount Everest?

by dummy_half Mon 24 Oct 2011, 2:23 pm

Another complexity is that most of us haven't any first hand knowledge of Tilden, Emerson and Laver. Some of us are too young to really remember Borg and a few even Sampras. Also, the nature of the game has changed hugely even since Borg's day, to become much more a power and athletic game.

However, if you put these issues aside for a moment, how does Nadal stack up by comparison with the others listed?
Won each of the four slam titles, so ahead of Sampras, Borg, Emerson and Tilden on that score.
Won on all surfaces in a single year, so again scores very well.
Competing against another member of the 10+ slams club, so against possibly the strongest cometition. Other than Rafa and Fed, only Emerson and Laver were essentially contemporaries.
Feat achieved in the Open era, so has always had to compete against the strongest opposition - was not the case for Lver, Tilden, Emerson, although the flip side is that Laver would very possibly have won more GS titles had pros been allowed to play the events during his peak years.

OVerall therefore, Rafa is obviously an extrordinarily good tennis player. The others listed are as well, but it's clear to me that Rafa's place in this type of exalted company is entirely merited.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 24 Oct 2011, 2:44 pm

dummy_half wrote:Another complexity is that most of us haven't any first hand knowledge of Tilden, Emerson and Laver. Some of us are too young to really remember Borg and a few even Sampras. Also, the nature of the game has changed hugely even since Borg's day, to become much more a power and athletic game.

That's way people should be more careful before drawing quick conclusion. In the early eighties, although very young, I was already playing the game and could watch at least 2 years of Borg playing at the haighest level.

The fact he didn't win the AO is absolutely irrelevant, as at the time this tournement wasn't even rated as an importent event, let alone a mayor. Borg in fact didn't even bother to travel to Australia, such was his consideration for the AO.

The fact Borg didn't win the UO is fully explained by his inability to play overnight due to serious sight disorders.

Overall I have no doubt Borg has been the strongest player ever to play the game. Had he played in the current decade, the fortunes both of Nadal and Federer would have been dramatically impacted.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 24 Oct 2011, 2:55 pm

JK, although Borg did not like playing under floodlights, I'm unaware of Borg having serious sight disorders - do you have a reference/link?

by dummy_half Mon 24 Oct 2011, 3:09 pm

JK
I wasn't in any way trying to undermine Borg's accomplishments (and from the sounds of it I'm about the same age as you - just old enough to recall watching Borg at Wimbledon). Repeatedly winning the FO and Wimbledon double in the playing conditions of that era was undoubtedly an incredible achievement. The only serious question mark over Borg's legacy really was his retirement at an early age following his difficulties in beating McEnroe.

I actually think that Nadal and Borg can almost be treated as a pair in discussing their status in the game - both were/are exceptionally strong competitors and terrific athletes able to superbly execute a maybe slightly limited gameplan (by comparison with perhaps more naturally gifted contemporaries in McEnroe and Federer). It may be a triumph of efficiency and effectiveness over aesthetics, but none the less extremely admirable.

A football analogy would be that Nadal is Arsenal under George Graham, Federer is Arsenal under Wenger. Both have got the results and titles, but they've gone about it in different ways.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 24 Oct 2011, 4:46 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:JK, although Borg did not like playing under floodlights, I'm unaware of Borg having serious sight disorders - do you have a reference/link?

wrote:"Originally Posted by bjorn23
my uncle managed both borg and rod laver. He said Borg was absolutely crushed when he lost to Roscoe Tanner on har tru clay at the 79 us open. he owned tanner.

He also said Borg couldn't stand playing under those old lights, he had trouble seeing the ball, and also with depth perception.

My uncle also said Lendl wasn't well respected by Borg. His gamesmanship left a lot to be desired, quick serving..."?

There is a hint here. I have heard this story many many times, although I am aware it,s not well known.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 24 Oct 2011, 5:27 pm

dummy_half wrote:JK
I wasn't in any way trying to undermine Borg's accomplishments (and from the sounds of it I'm about the same age as you - just old enough to recall watching Borg at Wimbledon). Repeatedly winning the FO and Wimbledon double in the playing conditions of that era was undoubtedly an incredible achievement. The only serious question mark over Borg's legacy really was his retirement at an early age following his difficulties in beating McEnroe.

I actually think that Nadal and Borg can almost be treated as a pair in discussing their status in the game - both were/are exceptionally strong competitors and terrific athletes able to superbly execute a maybe slightly limited gameplan (by comparison with perhaps more naturally gifted contemporaries in McEnroe and Federer). It may be a triumph of efficiency and effectiveness over aesthetics, but none the less extremely admirable.

A football analogy would be that Nadal is Arsenal under George Graham, Federer is Arsenal under Wenger. Both have got the results and titles, but they've gone about it in different ways.

I disagree with some of the above.

Nadal could not possibly be considered in the same breath as Borg, I personally believe that if the two of them were playing in the same period, Nadal would have struggled to win more than a couple of slams. He is more of a Vilas' peer than a Borg's imo.

As regards to why Borg retired at 26, here's another very common misunderstanding. It wasn't a decision made under the pression of the rivalry with Mac as you seem to believe. Borg was plainly fed up with tennis, at that time. He had already achieved too much wins, money and popularity at such a youn age that he simply couldn't find any further reasons to carry on......

by Tenez Mon 24 Oct 2011, 6:21 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
dummy_half wrote:Another complexity is that most of us haven't any first hand knowledge of Tilden, Emerson and Laver. Some of us are too young to really remember Borg and a few even Sampras. Also, the nature of the game has changed hugely even since Borg's day, to become much more a power and athletic game.

That's way people should be more careful before drawing quick conclusion. In the early eighties, although very young, I was already playing the game and could watch at least 2 years of Borg playing at the haighest level.

The fact he didn't win the AO is absolutely irrelevant, as at the time this tournement wasn't even rated as an importent event, let alone a mayor. Borg in fact didn't even bother to travel to Australia, such was his consideration for the AO.

The fact Borg didn't win the UO is fully explained by his inability to play overnight due to serious sight disorders.

Overall I have no doubt Borg has been the strongest player ever to play the game. Had he played in the current decade, the fortunes both of Nadal and Federer would have been dramatically impacted.

Good points JK but I think more than the light, it was the crowd that really annoyed Borg. Let's not forget that when he started to play and win, tennis was not a big sport and was not used to playing in the big arenas with tons of people against him. It was ok in SW19 and France cause, one, the crowd is usually quieter and two, he never faced a top Brit or French player in the final. In a way he was victim of his own success as he made the game popular but in the US that turned against him cause the crowd in Forest Hill was very close and then they build this huge flushing meadow (again thanks to the increasing popularity of borg and the game) and that certainly must have impressed him like it impressed many after him.

I will always remember Borg watching in his corner for familiar faces with the crowd on his feet supporting Connors or McEnroe. It's important to note that his 4 finals at teh USO were against those 2 (having home crowd).

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 24 Oct 2011, 7:43 pm

Quite a turn around for Connors to have the crowd behind him. I remember reading that when he played Laver (in Vegas maybe, 1974-ish) the crowd booed him and he shouted repeatedly at them to 'f**k off'.
Ironically the increasing popularity of the sport in the States in the 1970s was probably more down to Connors than any other player - sort of a love him, hate him, can't ignore him figure.

by Tenez Mon 24 Oct 2011, 8:06 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:....Ironically the increasing popularity of the sport in the States in the 1970s was probably more down to Connors than any other player - sort of a love him, hate him, can't ignore him figure.

I am not sure about that, Americans are only interested in number ones! and Connors was not as big a name as Borg after 75. Borg was the tennis god then and the man to beat. They built Flushing Meadow and its oversized centre court to help teh American players accomplish just that. Likewise, I am pretty sure Federer drew more interest than Roddick in the US. However, had Roddick been closer to Federer in results, surely, Roddick would have been a huge crowd favourite...like Agassi was v Federer for instance.

by **laverfan** Mon 24 Oct 2011, 8:42 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ironically the increasing popularity of the sport in the States in the 1970s was probably more down to Connors than any other player - sort of a love him, hate him, can't ignore him figure.

Connors-Evert were a pair for quite some time, which infused romance into Tennis, another contributing factor.

by yummymummy Mon 24 Oct 2011, 8:48 pm

Having read or should I say *trawled* through this post

I lost the will to live half way through Is Nadal the weakest of the 10+ slam winners? - Page 2 739524634

Is Nadal the weakest of the 10+ slam winners? - Page 2 739524634

Is THIS what 606v2 has descended to ?

by yummymummy Mon 24 Oct 2011, 8:53 pm

Ansers on a post-card please in no more than 30 phrases.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 25 Oct 2011, 9:14 am

[quote="Tenez] They built Flushing Meadow and its oversized centre court to help teh American players accomplish just that. [/quote]

Didn't Louis Armstrong stadium exist before they started using it for tennis? I think at the time they decided to use it for the USO Borg had only won 3 or 4 GS, at one per year, and was not yet world No. 1, so I'm not convinced they built it as part of a plan to beat Borg.

by Sponsored content