Where Does Murray Stand On The Scale Of Greatness?

First topic message reminder :

Following the comments on the article by CAS "Can Murray become great without a slam"

https://www.606v2.com/t33050-can-murray-become-a-great-without-a-slam

It appears we are living in an era of greatness inflation. If we don't want to run out of positive adjectives to describe Roger and Rafa the scale needs to be re-calibrated. We need to get back to old fashioned and realistic definitions of greatness.

So if Nadal and Federer are "great". The likes of McEnroe and Becker are "very good" and Djokovic is "good". How can Murray be described?



(Obviously this scale is for professional tennis players. It's still OK for motivation reasons to describe five year old beginners as "great" if they get the ball over the net more than three times.)

Meh get back to me when Murray's won the longest match in Olympics history, much more of an unique achievement IMO.

reckoner wrote:Meh get back to me when Murray's won the longest match in Olympics history, much more of an unique achievement IMO.

I can tell you are being sarcastic Reckoner
You know fully well Tsonga's 'unique' achievement does not put him above Murray.

I see your underlying point though, that we shouldn't use the word 'great' too often as it gets devalued and leads to silly situations.

This was my tier/league thing with 5 examples for each league:
Premier League: Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg etc.
Championship: Wilander, Agassi, Djokovic, Lendl, Becker etc.
League 1: Roddick, Murray, Safin, Hewitt, Kuerten etc.
League 2: Del Potro, Muster, Stich, Chang, Cash etc.
Conference: Soderling, Tsonga, T.Martin, Pioline, Medvedev etc.

So we have two discussions: one about from which league we call 'great' and the other which league Andy is in. Clearly according to Calidonian Craig anyone from League 1 is great, and Murray is in League 1.
I disagree, I think the level above, anyone from the Championship is great, but Murray is in League 1.

Hawkeye probably thinks, from what I have observed of her posts, that anyone from the Premier League is great and Murray should be in League 2.
I do however understand your concern that we can't use the word great too freely.

Indeed, IMBL. I'd put Nadal in the Championship until he improves his slam count, or defends a non clay slam personally...

I prefer the pyramid scheme:

The top you have Federer, Graff and Navratilova

Middle: Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Laver, Court, Williams, King, Evert

Then the rest.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I prefer the pyramid scheme:

The top you have Federer, Graff and Navratilova

Middle: Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Laver, Court, Williams, King, Evert

Then the rest.

I don't see how that helps us answer the Andy Murray question, on which part is he?

Also as Emancipator said it is very difficult to do gender comparisons. Graff and Federer are 5 slams apart yet they are in the same pile. Yet Sampras and Fed are only 2 apart, Nadal 3 behind Sampras.
Court has won 7 more Slams than Federer, in singles. I don't think your multi-gender pyramid works, and I don't think it solves the 'where is Murray' problem here either.

reckoner wrote:Indeed, IMBL. I'd put Nadal in the Championship until he improves his slam count, or defends a non clay slam personally...

No. Don't be silly.

Federer has never defended a clay-court Grand Slam.
If there were two slams in a year on clay, rather than two Hard Court slams; then Nadal would have more slams than Federer.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I prefer the pyramid scheme:

The top you have Federer, Graff and Navratilova

Middle: Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Laver, Court, Williams, King, Evert

Then the rest.

I don't see how that helps us answer the Andy Murray question, on which part is he?

Also as Emancipator said it is very difficult to do gender comparisons. Graff and Federer are 5 slams apart yet they are in the same pile. Yet Sampras and Fed are only 2 apart, Nadal 3 behind Sampras.
Court has won 7 more Slams than Federer, in singles. I don't think your multi-gender pyramid works, and I don't think it solves the 'where is Murray' problem here either.

Erm Federer and Sampras are 3 Slams apart and also career achievements are vastly different.

Murray is not on the pyramid.

Court for me won many AO's when there was hardly the global competition there is nowadays. Players from other countries didn't play in it. She is a great, but not in the same league as the other 3.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I prefer the pyramid scheme:

The top you have Federer, Graff and Navratilova

Middle: Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Laver, Court, Williams, King, Evert

Then the rest.

I don't see how that helps us answer the Andy Murray question, on which part is he?

Also as Emancipator said it is very difficult to do gender comparisons. Graff and Federer are 5 slams apart yet they are in the same pile. Yet Sampras and Fed are only 2 apart, Nadal 3 behind Sampras.
Court has won 7 more Slams than Federer, in singles. I don't think your multi-gender pyramid works, and I don't think it solves the 'where is Murray' problem here either.

Erm Federer and Sampras are 3 Slams apart and also career achievements are vastly different.

Murray is not on the pyramid.

Court for me won many AO's when there was hardly the global competition there is nowadays. Players from other countries didn't play in it. She is a great, but not in the same league as the other 3.

So you're saying that even though Court won more Slam titles than Federer they are valued less as she was playing in a weaker era.
I have seen the same thing said about Federer. 'Wee Kiera' etc. (People are also saying this era is weak too, rather than golden: https://www.606v2.com/t32885-to-the-last-remaining-golden-era-adherents).

Edit: Apologies LKV2, I misread your post

Also I am now convinced that if Australian Open was clay rather than HC Nadal would have the most slam titles in the men's game.

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:Indeed, IMBL. I'd put Nadal in the Championship until he improves his slam count, or defends a non clay slam personally...

No. Don't be silly.

Federer has never defended a clay-court Grand Slam.
If there were two slams in a year on clay, rather than two Hard Court slams; then Nadal would have more slams than Federer.

Specious argument - I tire of your foolishness.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I prefer the pyramid scheme:

The top you have Federer, Graff and Navratilova

Middle: Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Laver, Court, Williams, King, Evert

Then the rest.

I don't see how that helps us answer the Andy Murray question, on which part is he?

Also as Emancipator said it is very difficult to do gender comparisons. Graff and Federer are 5 slams apart yet they are in the same pile. Yet Sampras and Fed are only 2 apart, Nadal 3 behind Sampras.
Court has won 7 more Slams than Federer, in singles. I don't think your multi-gender pyramid works, and I don't think it solves the 'where is Murray' problem here either.

Erm Federer and Sampras are 3 Slams apart and also career achievements are vastly different.

Murray is not on the pyramid.

Court for me won many AO's when there was hardly the global competition there is nowadays. Players from other countries didn't play in it. She is a great, but not in the same league as the other 3.

So you're saying that even though Court won more Slam titles than Federer they are valued less as she was playing in a weaker era.
I have seen the same thing said about Federer. 'Wee Kiera' etc. (People are also saying this era is weak too, rather than golden: https://www.606v2.com/t32885-to-the-last-remaining-golden-era-adherents).

Also I am now convinced that if Australian Open was clay rather than HC Nadal would have the most slam titles in the men's game.

Where did I say weak era?

I said if you read carefully that most of the worlds players did not travel to participate in the Australian Open

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:Indeed, IMBL. I'd put Nadal in the Championship until he improves his slam count, or defends a non clay slam personally...

No. Don't be silly.

Federer has never defended a clay-court Grand Slam.
If there were two slams in a year on clay, rather than two Hard Court slams; then Nadal would have more slams than Federer.

Specious argument - I tire of your foolishness.

Think about it.
Could Fed have won the AO in 2006, 2007, 2010 if it was on clay and Nadal was there? I don't think he would have won any of those 3.
I think Nadal would have replicated the 7 titles won at FO- he's very difficult to beat BO5 on clay.

Anyway this is another discussion for another day, I don't want to disrupt Hawkeye's thread

Edit: btw My apologies Legendkiller, I misread your post

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:Indeed, IMBL. I'd put Nadal in the Championship until he improves his slam count, or defends a non clay slam personally...

No. Don't be silly.

Federer has never defended a clay-court Grand Slam.
If there were two slams in a year on clay, rather than two Hard Court slams; then Nadal would have more slams than Federer.

Specious argument - I tire of your foolishness.

Think about it.
Could Fed have won the AO in 2006, 2007, 2010 if it was on clay and Nadal was there? I don't think he would have won any of those 3.
I think Nadal would have replicated the 7 titles won at FO- he's very difficult to beat BO5 on clay.

Anyway this is another discussion for another day, I don't want to disrupt Hawkeye's thread

Edit: btw My apologies Legendkiller, I misread your post

Yeah he could have. Can Nadal continue to be considered premier league while losing to people outside the top 100?

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:Indeed, IMBL. I'd put Nadal in the Championship until he improves his slam count, or defends a non clay slam personally...

No. Don't be silly.

Federer has never defended a clay-court Grand Slam.
If there were two slams in a year on clay, rather than two Hard Court slams; then Nadal would have more slams than Federer.

Specious argument - I tire of your foolishness.

Think about it.
Could Fed have won the AO in 2006, 2007, 2010 if it was on clay and Nadal was there? I don't think he would have won any of those 3.
I think Nadal would have replicated the 7 titles won at FO- he's very difficult to beat BO5 on clay.

Anyway this is another discussion for another day, I don't want to disrupt Hawkeye's thread

Edit: btw My apologies Legendkiller, I misread your post

Yeah he could have. Can Nadal continue to be considered premier league while losing to people outside the top 100?

Yes.
Federer lost twice to Canas in 2007. Nadal lost to Dodig last year too, Garcia Lopez before that. Plus Rosol played a blinder this year Wimbledon. He served average two aces a game, he did not play like someone who was ranked 101.
btw do you really believe Federer could win a clay slam title BO5 if he met Nadal.

OK we are really off-topic now
Apologies Hawkeye.

Anyway as we can see from the debate the 'League' places can vary from person to person. Reckoner thinks Nadal should not be Premier League. I think Nadal should.
Hawkeye does not think Murray should be League 1. CC does etc.

I think your idea of leagues is bit pointless in tennis. Personally I don't see the need to classify players in this childish top trumps way.

reckoner wrote:I think your idea of leagues is bit pointless in tennis. Personally I don't see the need to classify players in this childish top trumps way.

It's essentially another way of the 'Is Murray great' thing. Is he in the 'league' of the guys who have won a slam or not.

You can see why there would be legitimate reasons for Nadal not to be considered in the same bracket as Federer. For me it would purely be down to lack of weeks in comparison to others around him as number 1 player. He has won HC titles and Slams and yes he may not have the same consistency off Clay that he does on it, but for me the number 1 year end ranking is a massive thing for me and that's why I don't put him alongside Federer.

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:I think your idea of leagues is bit pointless in tennis. Personally I don't see the need to classify players in this childish top trumps way.

It's essentially another way of the 'Is Murray great' thing. Is he in the 'league' of the guys who have won a slam or not.

Well - to my mind Murray's a great player but he isn't one of the greats. The distinction is pretty clear to my mind, however his career isn't over so it's a bit silly to write reams about it at this point.

reckoner wrote:...
Well - to my mind Murray's a great player but he isn't one of the greats. The distinction is pretty clear to my mind, however his career isn't over so it's a bit silly to write reams about it at this point.

Agree with that - Murray is a great tennis player, but not (yet?) even in discussions as a Great of the game. If the next 3 or 4 years of his career are as successful as the last 3 or 4, plus he converts a couple of slam finals into slam titles, then we can start to seriously consider his status within the game.

I certainly agree with the argument that even if he was to retire tomorrow, he's shown himself to be a better player than several who have won a single slam, and probably on a par with some guys who've won a couple of slams. Indeed, there is a strong case to argue that Andy is the GOATWAST - Greatest of all Time Without a Slam Title

legendkillarV2 wrote:You can see why there would be legitimate reasons for Nadal not to be considered in the same bracket as Federer. For me it would purely be down to lack of weeks in comparison to others around him as number 1 player. He has won HC titles and Slams and yes he may not have the same consistency off Clay that he does on it, but for me the number 1 year end ranking is a massive thing for me and that's why I don't put him alongside Federer.

He didn't get as many weeks at number one because he was playing the same time as Federer, who dominated 3 out of the 4 slams for a long while. If AO was clay (instead of HC) he would have more weeks at number one, certainly he would be closer to Federer on points.
Also Sampras has more weeks at number one than Nadal, ok. Let's say Sampras also played alongside Federer, would he get so many weeks at number 1? No, definitely not.

reckoner wrote:...
Well - to my mind Murray's a great player but he isn't one of the greats. The distinction is pretty clear to my mind, however his career isn't over so it's a bit silly to write reams about it at this point.

dummy_half wrote:
Agree with that - Murray is a great tennis player, but not (yet?) even in discussions as a Great of the game. If the next 3 or 4 years of his career are as successful as the last 3 or 4, plus he converts a couple of slam finals into slam titles, then we can start to seriously consider his status within the game.

I certainly agree with the argument that even if he was to retire tomorrow, he's shown himself to be a better player than several who have won a single slam, and probably on a par with some guys who've won a couple of slams. Indeed, there is a strong case to argue that Andy is the GOATWAST - Greatest of all Time Without a Slam Title

I think both of you are spot on here
He still has a long way to go

Feels like this discussion is getting a bit cyclical (pardon the Wiggins pun).

lydian wrote:Feels like this discussion is getting a bit cyclical (pardon the Wiggins pun).

Can't argue with that.

But it was pretty cyclical after the first 20 posts or so.

And there's been another hundred since then ..........

Oh how I look forward to another hawkeye article about Murray's accomplishments, it'll be like deja vu all over again.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:You can see why there would be legitimate reasons for Nadal not to be considered in the same bracket as Federer. For me it would purely be down to lack of weeks in comparison to others around him as number 1 player. He has won HC titles and Slams and yes he may not have the same consistency off Clay that he does on it, but for me the number 1 year end ranking is a massive thing for me and that's why I don't put him alongside Federer.

He didn't get as many weeks at number one because he was playing the same time as Federer, who dominated 3 out of the 4 slams for a long while. If AO was clay (instead of HC) he would have more weeks at number one, certainly he would be closer to Federer on points.
Also Sampras has more weeks at number one than Nadal, ok. Let's say Sampras also played alongside Federer, would he get so many weeks at number 1? No, definitely not.

Federer hasn't won 3 Slams in a year since 2007!!!

How do you quantify the last 5 years???

If Nadal is a great then for me he needs more weeks at no.1 to be in the same league as Federer. 102 weeks and 7th on the all time list. Sorry he needs more time as a no.1 player in the world.

I said for a long while, not from 2008 as we all know.
Personally I think ranking and 'weeks at a certain ranking' is over-rated. Nadal doesn't really care about rankings- normally he plays the Masters/tournaments before a Slam for match practice rather than full-on trying to win (apart from clay on which he can move and slide and hence less stress on his body compared to HC).
If Nadal played 50 tournaments the year like David Ferrer (or Wozniacki in the WTA tour) he may have had a higher ranking, who knows?

And why haven't you included Sampras in you argument then. He is only a few weeks behind Federer in weeks held. Why isn't he in the top of your pyramid? Why? Federer is now number 1 by 75 points. If Federer hadn't won the Basel final he wouldn't have been number 1. How can Basel make such a big difference? It never did in my eyes. Federer was always better than Sampras, irrelevant of Basel or this overrated 'weeks at number 1'.

And lastly I believe that Nadal would have won more slams than Federer, and had the most weeks at number 1 if we had two slams on clay rather than Hard Court. Nadal moves well on clay, and he moves worst on hard court. These slower hard courts these days benefit Nadal's main rival, Djokovic the most; he is fitter than Nadal and moves better on HC. On clay we can have fast balls like last year but Nadal moves so well the surface he negates it.
We currently have an unfair proportion of Slams and Masters on Hard Court rather than clay. Even Nadal moves better on grass than Hard Court (HC is also very bad for causing player injuries).
If it was shifted so it was clay which had 2 Slams and 6 Masters, Nadal would hold the record for longest at number 1, and have the most slams.

Your argument about if more Slams on Clay is weakening Nadal as a player if you are to specify that what stops Nadal winning more Slams.

Sampras is not on the top pyramid due to the absence of a French Open title. Look at the names. Federer, Graff, Navratilova. Now look at their stats. They tick all the right boxes. Career Slams, dominance at 2 or more Slams, sustained no.1 rankings. Breaking records for Slam final appearances, semi's and quarter finals.

Nadal had stellar years in 2008 and 2010 granted, and I know injuries haven't helped, but you can't just put Nadal's position down to not enough events being on Clay. It's like saying if more events were on Grass Roger would have stacks of titles.

As a player Nadal is superb, but for someone who owns some pretty amazing H2H statistics against his rivals I more than anyone am surprised that he has not occupied the no.1 spot longer than he has.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
As a player Nadal is superb, but for someone who owns some pretty amazing H2H statistics against his rivals I more than anyone am surprised that he has not occupied the no.1 spot longer than he has.

Because the majority of the year is played on a surface which he can't move on. Even grass suits him better than HC.
I also believe that a slow HC is the WORST for injuries. I remember a very good post from Laverfan a few months ago on this. In the WTF last year it was ravaged by injuries- throughout the year the continuous play on slow HC had taken their toll. Clay is a natural surface.

IMBL - I have to go with lkv2 here on the matter of weeks spent at Number One. It's a particularly salient factor in relation to legacy in the sport. Always has been, always will be.

7th in the all-time list with 102 weeks is not where Rafa would wish to end his career ; but of course that's unlikely to be the case as he has several good years ahead of him in which to accumulate more. This is the simple thrust of lkv2's argument in saying that "he needs more time as no. 1 player in the world"

Talking of what might have happened if more Slams were played on clay is a dangerous road to explore. 'Ifs' 'woulds' and 'maybes' never sound convincing as part of a logical argument and when compared to known facts. We are where we are.

The ATP calendar offers lots of tournaments on clay where clay specialists can accumulate many many points, should they choose to contest them. In fact as many as 23 clay tournaments in 2012 alone (although admittedly a few would inevitably clash timing-wise). Contrast that to a surface like grass where there are just 6 official tournaments throughout the entire season. It's hard to imagine how many points top grass players past & present would accumulate if they had more opportunities on their favoured surface. Not the least the guy with the best grass stats of all time, and currently Number One (at least until a certain Novak Djokovic snatches it back from him some time soon .... ) But then as I've said that would all be conjecture and so better to deal with the reality of where things are, and enjoy any future developments as & when they come.

Thanks lags

This is no criticism of Nadal or his achievements. He needs more time as the no.1 player in world. He has some pretty amazing stats and records no question, but I think if he could just get back to no.1 player in the world and have a couple of YE no.1 rankings then I would have no problem putting him at the top of the pyramid.

He still has time on his side so it's not like it is an impossible task. As you said for greats at the very top, they have had years where they were dominant in the rankings.

Lags and LK Interesting points.
Oh and btw; I forgot that Nadal has the highest W/L percentage out of all the players.
In my eyes that is more important than the 'weeks at number 1.'
As Lags said there are actually quite a few clay tournaments- which are 250s. If Nadal played all of these he would accumulate many many points. Would it mean he is a better player? No. Would it be good for his body? No.

IMBL,

The number 1 ranking is very important. It defines the players. I know we could go down the road and say well Nadal beat Federer more times than Federer beat him and they could come back with well Nadal was a great no.2.

Nadal can win off Clay. He has proven that and has the titles to prove so. I would very much like a player of Nadal's calibre to be at the top of greatness and not be looked back on 'As a great clay courter' I am sure his supporters would want more US Open and Australian Open titles.

Take Roger's climb back to number 1. Some would argue yes he was fortunate at Wimbledon with no Nadal. Fortunate at Madrid as there was no Nadal or Djokovic. Fortunate at Indian Wells where there was no Nadal or Djokovic. The whole point is though with such a small window of opportunity, Federer has taken full advantage. Last year he spoke of his desire to get back to number 1 and many on here scoffed at such a claim and here we are nearly a year later and he has achieved that goal. Maybe Nadal needs an inspirational statement to get himself back to the top of the game. As Federer has proven it takes small steps, like he did in last year's Asian swing building to a target that is reachable.

Nadal has said time and again rankings don't matter to him. http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Nadal-Doesnt-Care-About-New-Ranking-articolo4211.html

I also remember an interview when he said that when he first reached number one in 2008 he was very happy, but after that he was indifferent to his ranking.
In-fact if not anything I think Nadal's preferred ranking is number 2. Before a match against the number 1 I think he likes piling on the pressure and saying 'he is the big favourite, for sure' and seeing himself as a great fighting underdog.

And as for Nadal, I do know he is a great clay-courter. In-fact he is the greatest clay-courter of all time. I also know he is a great player on other surfaces too. As you say he has proved he can win the big tournaments, in-fact he has won every single Grand Slam he can possibly win at-least once. But that doesn't change what I believe; that if there were two clay Slams rather than HC, Nadal would have had the highest number of slams.

It Must Be Love wrote: ..........................................................
...............Oh and btw; I forgot that Nadal has the highest W/L percentage out of all the players.
................

Yep, I was conscious of that, and it's an impressive record to have for sure.

I suspect you mean out of all active players, because Rafa is still marginally behind Borg, largely because Borg won more career titles (64 vs 50).

But this in itself is yet another example of why, ultimately, the truly meaningful comparisons can only be made when players are done playing. Nadal - like any other player - will inevitably suffer proportionately more losses as he grows older and his W/L ratio and hence placing in the 'stats table' could in turn suffer as a result.

I find it remarkable to think that Borg accumulated so many titles even though he had retired at an age younger than Nadal currently is. In fact the exact same number of titles as Sampras, and only ten or so fewer than Federer who has already been on the tour a good few years more than Borg was.

Anyway I seem to have well & truly hijacked an Andy Murray thread (which I myself said yesterday had already run its course) so I'm outta here

I think the last post should go to IMBL

I think you should start a 'Road back to number 1' for Nadal like BB did for Federer

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think the last post should go to IMBL

I think you should start a 'Road back to number 1' for Nadal like BB did for Federer

Now Nadal is injured. His knees are going. Let's see if he can get back to full fitness.

And anyway these days even when he does play he can't even get past Round 2. How does someone who can't get past R2 of major tournaments (Halle, Wimbledon etc.) get to number one? No chance.

Because of faith and a little self belief IBML?

The last time he came back from injury, he had his best year to date.

Never say never.

I keep hearing that Nadals problems aren't his knees anyway. He'll be back.

I hope so anyway, there is so little depth to the game these days that with Federer 31 in a week the game would be in danger of having nobody of note. Juan the Weaponless would start to eye a top 5 position, at which point the sport has to be considered officially suspended.

Back to Murray. I would say Andy is in a similar position to TeamGB were in the medals table. If he were to win a slam or two he'd automatically leapfrog a number of players on the one or two slam winners on the list owing to his substantial set of other achievements outwith slam wins. By that I mean GB had no golds but a few other medals and as soon as they won gold their other medal wins enabled a leap up the table.

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal has said time and again rankings don't matter to him. http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Nadal-Doesnt-Care-About-New-Ranking-articolo4211.html

I also remember an interview when he said that when he first reached number one in 2008 he was very happy, but after that he was indifferent to his ranking.
In-fact if not anything I think Nadal's preferred ranking is number 2. Before a match against the number 1 I think he likes piling on the pressure and saying 'he is the big favourite, for sure' and seeing himself as a great fighting underdog.

And as for Nadal, I do know he is a great clay-courter. In-fact he is the greatest clay-courter of all time. I also know he is a great player on other surfaces too. As you say he has proved he can win the big tournaments, in-fact he has won every single Grand Slam he can possibly win at-least once. But that doesn't change what I believe; that if there were two clay Slams rather than HC, Nadal would have had the highest number of slams.

A few points:

1. Nadal cannot set the criteria by which we regard the best ever by saying that No. 1 is not important to him - and I don't think he does or is trying to. Federer and Djoko hardly chase points - they play sensible schedules and they play to win on all surfaces and they have the attitude that the ranking will follow the quality of tennis - which I think is really Nadal's attitude too. I do think that time spent at No. 1 is an important part of the overall measurment of a player - these days the ranking is very heavily weighed towards success in bigger tournaments, there is a very limited contribution to be made by lesser tournaments - 4 ATP 500's and 2 ATP 250's (probably winning 30 matches) gets you less points than a Slam win and a Masters final (11 wins). Nadal has a very good 'banker' each year of 3 Clay Masters, Barcelona, and RG from which it is possible to pick up 5,500 points. The ranking evens out a pretty fair look at how the players have fared over the previous 12 months on all surfaces in all conditions - it's a marathon not a sprint. Fed is No. 1, but only by 75 points, and that's just about right at the moment. Fed, Djoko, and Nadal have all picked up a similar number of points since January 2012 - the y/e No. 1 will be the player who has the best overall record between now and November which would be fair it seems to me - anyone who wins the USO would probably have a huge advantage, but if that's the only thing of note he does between now and November it's not as impressive as if he can go far in a few other tournaments.

2. If Nadal prefers being No. 2 to No. 1 that rather diminishes the idea of the mentally strong legend, and it undermines the suggestion that he doesn't care about ranking. Either he cares and prefers to be in the less pressurised world of underdog or he doesn't care about ranking full stop - he can't not care and prefer to be No. 2. Somebody's trying to have it both ways (and I don't necessarily think it's Nadal, more his apologists). There is a difference in attitude I'll grant, Federer obviously loves being No. 1 in a way that Nadal did not embrace quite the same. I think Djoko likes being No. 1 too.

3. I rather agree that HC is bad for them and there's something of a preponderance of it, but it is the greatest leveller of surfaces and if you are going to go down the "woulda-coulda" route re surfaces, what about if someone had not invented luxilon strings and they still all played with gut, or if instead of swaping HC for clay they played on more lightening fast grass or carpet or speeded up HC surfaces to relieve the pressure by shortening matches and reducing attritional rallies?

4. What we have is what we have - Nadal has achieved great things and there's more to come. Federer has achieved greater things in terms of titles won, but he is older and the H2H vs. Nadal counts against him a bit in the overall balance. Trying to talk up Nadal by saying what might have been unnecessarily diminishes his record by ignoring the excellence, even the brilliance, of what is.

I personally dont think tennis should be about finding levellers but rather specialists. There is too much HC....6/9 Masters and 2/4 slams are HC - and loads of ATP250/500s. HC is bad for the body...its why Muster ended up specialising on clay more because he was told to keep his knees off HC after the injury he got in 1989.

Also...if he have HC then it should be fast...slowing it down to clay speed is only pouring insult onto the literal injury.

re: No.1 - had Novak not had the PurplePatch 2011 then Nadal would have been #1 for best part of 2 years on the trot I suspect. I dont think he has an issue with being #1, I think he has an issue staying strong through calendar years due to his focus on the April-July part of the calendar. More than anything, his style of play is not like Federer's he has to accept that injuries will come his way and 2-3 month gaps for recvoery are the price he pays for the style he pursues.

lydian wrote:I personally dont think tennis should be about finding levellers but rather specialists. There is too much HC....6/9 Masters and 2/4 slams are HC - and loads of ATP250/500s. HC is bad for the body...its why Muster ended up specialising on clay more because he was told to keep his knees off HC after the injury he got in 1989.

Also...if he have HC then it should be fast...slowing it down to clay speed is only pouring insult onto the literal injury.

I dont think he has an issue with being #1, I think he has an issue staying strong through calendar years due to his focus on the April-July part of the calendar. More than anything, his style of play is not like Federer's he has to accept that injuries will come his way and 2-3 month gaps for recvoery are the price he pays for the style he pursues.

I agree with all of that:

a. We aren't going to see a divergence of tennis conditions though because tennis buys into the 'star system' whereby you need to have guys known outside tennis to bring the punters and TV $$$ in, and that's only going to happen if they are winning, or at least in finals, throughout the year.

b. What you say about Nadal's calendar is so true - I've said it a million times, but he's never managed to be a genuine threat at all 4 slams in a year yet. A good Aus Open performance usually spells trouble later on in the year - see 2009 and 2012 - his best years at the slams have been when he has been knocked out of the Aus Open by a player who he is quite capable of beating when on his best form - 2008, 2010, and 2011.

c. I agree he would have been No. 1 during 2011 but for Djoko, but Fed would have been No. 1 in 2008 but for Nadal - it's kind of a meaningless thing to say I suggest.

barrystar wrote:

2. Either he cares and prefers to be in the less pressurised world of underdog or he doesn't care about ranking full stop - he can't not care and prefer to be No. 2. Somebody's trying to have it both ways (and I don't necessarily think it's Nadal, more his apologists). There is a difference in attitude I'll grant, Federer obviously loves being No. 1 in a way that Nadal did not embrace quite the same. I think Djoko likes being No. 1 too.

If you read my post carefully I did say 'if not anything,'
I actually don't know what Nadal prefers or not, I don't know whether that means I should be labelled an 'apologist.'
I don't think he gives too much importance to number 1; but sometimes I feel he revels being the 'hunter.' I just don't actually know what he thinks truly.
btw I would prefer it if you didn't label me as anything

lydian wrote:I personally dont think tennis should be about finding levellers but rather specialists. There is too much HC....6/9 Masters and 2/4 slams are HC - and loads of ATP250/500s. HC is bad for the body...its why Muster ended up specialising on clay more because he was told to keep his knees off HC after the injury he got in 1989.

Also...if he have HC then it should be fast...slowing it down to clay speed is only pouring insult onto the literal injury.

I agree: less HC and more clay and grass.

It Must Be Love wrote:

barrystar wrote:

2. Either he cares and prefers to be in the less pressurised world of underdog or he doesn't care about ranking full stop - he can't not care and prefer to be No. 2. Somebody's trying to have it both ways (and I don't necessarily think it's Nadal, more his apologists). There is a difference in attitude I'll grant, Federer obviously loves being No. 1 in a way that Nadal did not embrace quite the same. I think Djoko likes being No. 1 too.

If you read my post carefully I did say 'if not anything,'
I actually don't know what Nadal prefers or not, I don't know whether that means I should be labelled an 'apologist.'
I don't think he gives too much importance to number 1; but sometimes I feel he revels being the 'hunter.' I just don't actually know what he thinks truly.
btw I would prefer it if you didn't label me as anything

I'm not labelling you as anything, merely pointing out that the sort of argument I was decrying is the argument of an apologist. If I want to label a person as something, rather than debate what they are saying, I'll do it directly.

barrystar wrote:

I'm not labelling you as anything, merely pointing out that the sort of argument I was decrying is the argument of an apologist. If I want to label a person as something, rather than debate what they are saying, I'll do it directly.

Alright, no worries
But anyway I don't think anyone knows what Nadal really thinks for sure.
He could love the number 1 rankings, but doesn't say so I can only speculate.

Enough said above on the Murray and "greatness" front, but want to make a comment on a poster's comment that Court falls short of the mantle of "great."

Court won 62 Major titles in her career. 24 Singles, 19 Doubles and 19 Mixed - regardless that she played in 60's and 70's, a different "era' of player, and that she won 11 Singles in Australia when very few world class players made the trip, or that 6 of those were against Jan Lehane, to state that Margaret Court was not a "great," and falls short of that mantle, is utterly ludicrous. It makes anything else you say lack any worth of attention. Utter rubbish.

yloponom68 wrote:Enough said above on the Murray and "greatness" front, but want to make a comment on a poster's comment that Court falls short of the mantle of "great."

Court won 62 Major titles in her career. 24 Singles, 19 Doubles and 19 Mixed - regardless that she played in 60's and 70's, a different "era' of player, and that she won 11 Singles in Australia when very few world class players made the trip, or that 6 of those were against Jan Lehane, to state that Margaret Court was not a "great," and falls short of that mantle, is utterly ludicrous. It makes anything else you say lack any worth of attention. Utter rubbish.

Firstly did I say she wasn't great?

No.

I said I didn't rate her in the same category as Federer, Graff or Navratilova.

Learn to read window licker!

yloponom68 wrote:Enough said above on the Murray and "greatness" front, but want to make a comment on a poster's comment that Court falls short of the mantle of "great."

Court won 62 Major titles in her career. 24 Singles, 19 Doubles and 19 Mixed - regardless that she played in 60's and 70's, a different "era' of player, and that she won 11 Singles in Australia when very few world class players made the trip, or that 6 of those were against Jan Lehane, to state that Margaret Court was not a "great," and falls short of that mantle, is utterly ludicrous. It makes anything else you say lack any worth of attention. Utter rubbish.

LK said she was great, just not at the top of his pyramid.

sorry hawkeye.....