The True Scale of Greatness

Right as there seems to be some extreme measures that equates achievement or greatness I decided to devise a scale which measures true greatness. For me the measures are:

- To have been ranked number 1 in the world
- To have won 2 of the calendar Slams 5 times or more in the Open Era
- To have won the end of year championships
- To have won more than 10 Slams

Step forward:

Roger Federer, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, Serena Williams.

Hmmm .....

Well lkv2 .... the Forum's pretty quiet these days, but in times past you would have needed to be ready & protected with your tin hat after an article like this .....

Personally I'm mulling it over, but meanwhile I wish you luck .......

I am more than ready for the accusations of being a short sighted wum

Nah, the true measure of greatness is to have won less slams, including in 3 out of the 4 majors, spent less time at No 1, with less YE No 1s than your nearest rival and to not have won the WTF. As long as you have a +ve H2H and didn't win your slams in the weak era which ended (on clay) in June 2005 and ended (on other surfaces) in July 2008.
I can't help myself.

How dare ye ruin my scale :p

Guess what JHM - I just happen to qualify on virtually* all your criteria.

Finally .... the recognition I deserve

*(except perhaps that in my case it's not so much a question of "less Slams", the harsh truth being I don't actually have any. Although there's still time.......... )

The True Scale of Greatness
by Henman Bill Today at 12:22 pm

.Right as there seems to be some extreme measures that equates achievement or greatness I decided to devise a scale which measures true greatness. For me the measures are:

- To have won all the slams at least once
- To have a winning head to head against major rivals
- To have won the Olympics and Davis Cup
- To have taken 2 sets off Lukas Rosol, even when Rosol was at the peak of his powers
- To have won Monte Carlo at least 6 or 7 times

Step forward:

Rafa!!!!

The Real Scale:

-To have won more than 10 Slams
-To have a positive Head2head against all your major rivals.
-To have won Davis Cup
-To have won Olympic Singles Gold Medal
-To have completed the Career Grand Slam
-To have 20+ Top level ATP Masters titles (Masters 1000 or WTF)

You left out 'single-handedly' after 'To have won Davis Cup'

My scale of greatness was far truer than everybody else's.

In your opinion

imbl it seems to me that you are saying nadal's achievements (as he fits said criteria) are the greatest. That sounds like what an avid fan would say would it not?

legendkillarV2 wrote:In your opinion

Yes

LuvSports! wrote:imbl it seems to me that you are saying nadal's achievements (as he fits said criteria) are the greatest. That sounds like what an avid fan would say would it not?

Nadal fits my criteria?

Oh yes he does, apologies LS I didn't realise that.

LuvSports! wrote:imbl it seems to me that you are saying nadal's achievements (as he fits said criteria) are the greatest. That sounds like what an avid fan would say would it not?

Thought IMBL did say end of year masters title and Nadal doesn't fit the 'entire' criteria

It Must Be Love wrote:Oh yes he does...

Oh no he doesn't!

He's behind you!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:imbl it seems to me that you are saying nadal's achievements (as he fits said criteria) are the greatest. That sounds like what an avid fan would say would it not?

Thought IMBL did say end of year masters title and Nadal doesn't fit the 'entire' criteria

I said 20+ top level Masters Titles needed to be won altogether. (ie the addition of Masters 1000 and WTF titles have to be >20.
Not sure if Nadal has done that or not.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:imbl it seems to me that you are saying nadal's achievements (as he fits said criteria) are the greatest. That sounds like what an avid fan would say would it not?

Thought IMBL did say end of year masters title and Nadal doesn't fit the 'entire' criteria

I said 20+ top level Masters Titles needed to be won altogether. (ie the addition of Masters 1000 and WTF titles have to be >20.
Not sure if Nadal has done that or not.

I see you ameneded the point which originally said "including WTF"

Now all I can say is in true HE fashion Pffffffffttttttttttt

Yes I was saying WTF was included as one of those in the 'top level Masters.

How about "to have a stunning career even if we subtract any one surface".

That rules out the specialists masquerading as greats.

bogbrush wrote:How about "to have a stunning career even if we subtract any one surface".

That rules out the specialists masquerading as greats.

Where is that "like" button when you need it the most?

bogbrush wrote:How about "to have a stunning career even if we subtract any one surface".

That rules out the specialists masquerading as greats.

This is easy and should be kept simple. To achieve peak ratings on the scale of greatness a player must have.

1) Won each of the slams at least once
2) Won at least one slam seven times or more


When sorting out great players you need some tough criteria to sort the wheat from the chaff.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

I am more than ready for the accusations of being a short sighted wum

Be careful what you wish for

Bogbrush,

The number of slams won on worst playing surface:
Nadal - 2 (hard-court)
Federer - 1 (clay)
Djokovic -0 (clay)
Borg -0 (hard court)
Sampras -0 (clay)

For those who think Nadal is useless on grass,
Here is a little reminder with a link of umm... the greatest match in tennis history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9N0jSusuSw

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/634099-the-open-era-the-20-greatest-grand-slam-matches-of-all-time/page/21
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/2305019/Wimbledon-2008-John-McEnroe-hails-Rafael-Nadal-victory-as-greatest-final-ever.html

As per countless debates on such themes, this will all end in tears.

Must dash, I need to watch some paint dry ........

lags72 wrote:As per countless debates on such themes, this will all end in tears.

Must dash, I need to watch some paint dry ........

Lags, I think the point is everyone has their own opinion on this issue.
What 'scale of greatness' to use is individual, comparing eras and records considering all the circumstances changing constantly is very difficult- and to some extent we over-simplify things in order to reach certain conclusions.

Of course some will believe that Rafael Nadal has a place as one of the greats of the game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOE5ofdtVOU
Others will believe he is rubbish and a useless player etc.

My Dad is Bigger than your Dad

Well fair enough, I've no quibble with those specific you points you make IMBL (5.31pm) but in essence I'd say H-n has summed it up fairly neatly.

Although ..... before I get back to my paint-watching I do feel I should ask, on behalf of Djoko, that you give him back the coveted, hard-earned Wimbledon trophy you appear to be denying him ( ) at 5.04. I'm pretty sure it was played on grass when he won it.

Mind you ..... there are whispered rumours of SW19's manicured lawns being dug-up by vandals and replaced by that weird red stuff ..... ......

lags72 wrote:Well fair enough, I've no quibble with those specific you points you make IMBL (5.31pm) but in essence I'd say H-n has summed it up fairly neatly.

Although ..... before I get back to my paint-watching I do feel I should ask, on behalf of Djoko, that you give him back the coveted, hard-earned Wimbledon trophy you appear to be denying him ( ) at 5.04. I'm pretty sure it was played on grass when he won it.

Mind you ..... there are whispered rumours of SW19's manicured lawns being dug-up by vandals and replaced by that weird red stuff ..... ......

Are you sure I understand that Murray and Federer have insisted it should be blue. However I understand that Rosol has put in an appeal

I meant clay, not grass

i always thought djoko was stronger on clay than grass (I know he hasn't won the french but he has to beat the goat of clay fcol!), each to their own i guess.

Others will believe he is rubbish and a useless player etc. .
------------------------------------------------------
IMBL... "others" cant have any knowledge of tennis or anything between their ears then can they.

LuvSports! wrote:i always thought djoko was stronger on clay than grass (I know he hasn't won the french but he has to beat the goat of clay fcol!), each to their own i guess.

I was doing it in terms of slam wins.
But you make a fair point I suppose.
Djokovic has been slightly unlucky so far in that front, he's faced and been beaten by Nadal 3 times, but the only time he had a chance and was playing well enough he lost to an inspired Federer.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Others will believe he is rubbish and a useless player etc. .
------------------------------------------------------
IMBL... "others" cant have any knowledge of tennis or anything between their ears then can they.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion I suppose

Give it up whatever you think of Nadal how can am 11 GS champion be rubbish are you joking me ????

Well some also believe that on December 21st the world will end, everyone is entitled to their opinion

Tell me that this whole thread is a send up after the week Ive had its the only thing that makes sense

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush,

The number of slams won on worst playing surface:
Nadal - 2 (hard-court)
Federer - 1 (clay)
Djokovic -0 (clay)
Borg -0 (hard court)
Sampras -0 (clay)

Or alternatively you could read the point properly and subtract the best Slam, giving;

Nadal - 4 Slams
Federer - 10 Slams

Ooh er!

Interesting facts-

A breakdown of the players Federer has had to face in Grand Slam Finals:

41%- Players not even ranked in the top 4 at the time.
-Of the 10 wins against top 4 players, 40% were against players 21 and under (very young to be playing a Grand Slam Final!)

Altogether:
-Only 35% of his Grand Slam Final opponents were above the age of 21 and in the top 4 at the time.
-Without Andy Roddick (who relied largely on his serve), only 17.5% of Grand Slam Finals Federer played were against top 4 players above the age of 21.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush,

The number of slams won on worst playing surface:
Nadal - 2 (hard-court)
Federer - 1 (clay)
Djokovic -0 (clay)
Borg -0 (hard court)
Sampras -0 (clay)

Or alternatively you could read the point properly and subtract the best Slam, giving;

Nadal - 4 Slams
Federer - 10 Slams

Ooh er!

What then are you trying to prove ?? that Federer is the GOAT.... JHC have we not established that already ???
Yawn !!!!!

It Must Be Love wrote:Interesting facts-

A breakdown of the players Federer has had to face in Grand Slam Finals:

41%- Players not even ranked in the top 4 at the time.
-Of the 10 wins against top 4 players, 40% were against players 21 and under (very young to be playing a Grand Slam Final!)

Altogether:
-Only 35% of his Grand Slam Final opponents were above the age of 21 and in the top 4 at the time.
-Without Andy Roddick (who relied largely on his serve), only 17.5% of Grand Slam Finals Federer played were against top 4 players above the age of 21.

going at it like a true fan would .

Well Im sure that LK would tell you that this is what the thread was intended for

sorry but anyone who genuinely thinks Nadal isn't a great is deluding themselves. You may not like him, his tennis, his routine, etc. but to say he isn't one of the tennis greats is just ridiculous.

Personally my list of greats has Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Borg on the men's side, Williams (S), Graf, Navratilova, Evert on the women's.

sorted

LK done this thread out of boredom and well I was annoyed with the threads downgrading of Slams in a bid to glorify one individual and be-little the achievements of many other fantastic players past and present

I may even bring out the wooden racquet debate!

In all seriousness it is a quiet time for the tennis world and I would imagine many are wishing for the Australian Open to commence already so we don't have paint drying quality threads such as this .

Heroic posting by MFC.

LuvSports! wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Interesting facts-

A breakdown of the players Federer has had to face in Grand Slam Finals:

41%- Players not even ranked in the top 4 at the time.
-Of the 10 wins against top 4 players, 40% were against players 21 and under (very young to be playing a Grand Slam Final!)

Altogether:
-Only 35% of his Grand Slam Final opponents were above the age of 21 and in the top 4 at the time.
-Without Andy Roddick (who relied largely on his serve), only 17.5% of Grand Slam Finals Federer played were against top 4 players above the age of 21.

going at it like a true fan would .

They are just some unbiased stats I happened to stumble across.
Are you surprised by them? Compare that to the break down of Nadal's slam opponents:
-Only 27% not in top 4 (and one of these he actually beat the number one seed in the semi-final, so really 18%!)
-None of the players were 21 or under (so all mature enough to play massive events like Grand Slam Finals)
-None of them were against Andy Roddick. Read of that as you will.

So altogether:
-For Nadal 73% (8 out of 11) of the players he faced in Grand Slam events were in the top 4 and above the age of 21. Of these 8 victories, he had to face Federer 7 times (including 1 semi).
-For Federer 35% (6 out of 17) of the players he faced in Grand Slam events were in the top 4 and above the age of 21. Of these 6, 3 were against Andy Roddick (2009 not included as A-Rod was not in the top 4 for that).

Not heroic .. factual . It goes against the grain for some but life is like that ennit

It was a thread intended as
"We have not come to bury Federer but to praise him"
Glorify his name once more lest we all forget.

And I thought it was the season of Goodwill to all men (including Nadal)