Other Sports: Page 196 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One more in the Tolly

Other Sports

Klaus

Somewhere in-between maybe? Bloke's arguably the greatest clay court player of all time, during a time when clay court experts are few and far between, but he's never been a skillful player on pair with the true greats. He can't use a racket the way Federer does. I think he ranks clearly behind a lot of the old timers.

FEBravo

Nadal is clearly one of the best players to have ever played. Yes, he won the majority of his titles on clay, but did manage to re-invent himself and adapt his game to win all the other majors. I'm a big Federer fan, but Nadal at his best was a legit threat on all surfaces. He did benefit from the other surfaces slowing down, but that's not a stick to beat him with. If anything, it's his injuries (although not unrelated to his punishing style of play) that have prevented him from winning a couple more. Also a classy guy by all accounts. I found it difficult to root against him, although I hated him when he used to own Federer.

Sicario

Guys, Nadal is an all time great. Minimum in the top 5 players of all time. Mentally he is prob the best 'clutch shot' player of all time. To do what he did in 2008 was simply incredible. He was like the first player in over 25 years to win the French Open and Wimbledon back to back (and Queens inbetween). Incredible achievement given due to the gruelling schedule and minimal rest time between both tournaments. Anyway, this is just one example, the way he found a way to win the US Open (his least favourite tournament) speak volumes about his versatility. I'm not going to lie, I love the guy. Warrior on the court, gentleman off it.

However, Federer's win today cemented his status as The GOAT.

Claudius

Fair arguments. Do you guys ever stop to think that in these days you are enjoying

three of the 5 winningest men's tennis players of all time
the greatest female tennis player of all time
the two greatest footballers ever

i don't really watch other sports so i can't comment on the state of quality there, but i feel privileged

Sicario

100 per cent. But I thought that in the mid 90s too (real Ronaldo, Steffi Graff, Pete Sampras).

Rex

Claiming Cronaldo is the second best player ever - I find that offensive.

MistaT

Claudius wrote:
Fair arguments. Do you guys ever stop to think that in these days you are enjoying

three of the 5 winningest men's tennis players of all time

the greatest female tennis player of all time

the two greatest footballers ever

i don't really watch other sports so i can't comment on the state of quality there, but i feel privileged

Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin will be top ten hockey players, possibly higher
Lebron James will be a top 5 basketball player

jones

Rex wrote:
Claiming Cronaldo is the second best player ever - I find that offensive.

Agree. As a goalscorer he's up there with the very best but his overall game is lacking.

In boxing I've witnessed most of Mayweather's career who is among the greatest ever. Also following Lomachenko who's at the beginning of his career but who barring injuries will certainly finish up there as well

Sicario

Rex wrote:
Claiming Cronaldo is the second best player ever - I find that offensive.

C Ronaldo? Brazilian Ronaldo I was talking about.

--

Claudius wrote:
flobaba wrote:
Congrats Serena!

she's very goaty.
i loved the sisters' speeches. they're very lovable. i'm struggling to understand why they were so reviled when they first started. actually, i have some ideas.

Do go on, sir...

Tony Montana

flobaba wrote:
Claudius wrote:
she's very goaty.
i loved the sisters' speeches. they're very lovable. i'm struggling to understand why they were so reviled when they first started. actually, i have some ideas.

Do go on, sir...

They're hated now by some people.

I know Ricky1985 hates Serena.

invisibleman18

Nadal is certainly one of the all-time greats. Yes his total is padded out by being the best on clay, but not sure why being the greatest on one particular surface should count against him when it’s not like that’s the only slam he ever won. He's 1 of only 8 players to have won all 4 slams (players like Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker didn’t manage to) and won both Wimbledon and the US Open twice so he’s never only been a clay courter. And in fact if he'd won last night he would have become only the 3rd man to have won each slam more than once - the two who have done it being Laver and Emerson. Would have loved him to close the gap with Federer to 17-15 and then have a real shot at trying to catch him. At 18-14 now it’s too large.

Claudius wrote:
Fair arguments. Do you guys ever stop to think that in these days you are enjoying

three of the 5 winningest men's tennis players of all time

the greatest female tennis player of all time

Yeah, feel privileged to have been able to see them all play live too.

Klaus

invisibleman18 wrote:
Nadal is certainly one of the all-time greats. Yes his total is padded out by being the best on clay, but not sure why being the greatest on one particular surface should count against him when it’s not like that’s the only slam he ever won.

It shouldn't count against him, but I definitely think it's something to consider when you try to evaluate how a player ranks against his peers, never mind the long rail of historic greats. Winning the French Open a whooping 9 times when there are basically no other clay court experts (as well as how clay courts are generally perceived within the game compared to grass and hard courts) may say more about the real status of the French Open. Nadal has won other grand slams too because he's still an excellent player, but his achievements are a lot more human outside of the FO. His most impressive feat to date was probably the Wimbledon final in 2008, at the top of his game. That's one of the few times I have really bought the idea of him as the world's best tennis player though.

jones

invisibleman18 wrote:
Nadal is certainly one of the all-time greats. Yes his total is padded out by being the best on clay, but not sure why being the greatest on one particular surface should count against him when it’s not like that’s the only slam he ever won. He's 1 of only 8 players to have won all 4 slams (players like Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker didn’t manage to) and won both Wimbledon and the US Open twice so he’s never only been a clay courter. And in fact if he'd won last night he would have become only the 3rd man to have won each slam more than once - the two who have done it being Laver and Emerson. Would have loved him to close the gap with Federer to 17-15 and then have a real shot at trying to catch him. At 18-14 now it’s too large.

Good post. I think on the contrary being so dominant on one particular surface is an even bigger feat if you look at how poor the world's very best looked playing against him. Remember reading after about 07 he won something like 80+ consecutive matches on clay, with second best Federer on hard court coming in at around 60.

He's won the French Open a couple of times without dropping a single set and it's not like other win streaks where the player in question had no serious opposition. There's also the fact that he dominates Federer H2H (even discounting Roland Garros - for whatever reason - he's still far ahead), and of course he won the greatest tennis match ever in 08 - genuinely can't see a case that Nadal isn't one of the greatest ever.

Rohit

flobaba wrote:
Claudius wrote:
she's very goaty.
i loved the sisters' speeches. they're very lovable. i'm struggling to understand why they were so reviled when they first started. actually, i have some ideas.

Do go on, sir...

I have always liked Serena although I hate to think she is better than Graf. I always disliked their outspoken father though.

Rohit

Nadal was a top athlete and a true tennis great despite his dominance on one surface. He has won 66% of his matches with Federer, and leads the head to head even if their matches on clay aren't considered. If not for dodgy knees, he would have won more slams.

Qwiss

Serena is very likeable IMO. I think its a pity she doesn't have the competition up against her that Federer has as she'd probably still have won nearly as much anyway. Federer just seems more impressive because he's had 2 or 3 great players to challenge him.

Rohit

Qwiss! wrote:
Federer just seems more impressive because he's had 2 or 3 great players to challenge him.

Federer had won 12 slams between 2003 and 2007 by the age of 26. Nadal was 21 then, had 3 French Opens to his name and Djokovic had no slams and had only turned 20. Federer himself didn't have much competition those 5 years. Agassi at the fag end of his career, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin the only grand slam winners if I recall correctly.

Federer won 5 slams between 2008 and 2012 between him turning 27 and 31, with Nadal and Djokovic realizing their serious talent. Federer didn't always have the players to challenge him and when they emerged he didn't win as much although his challengers were younger.

jones

Rohit wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
Federer just seems more impressive because he's had 2 or 3 great players to challenge him.

Federer had won 12 slams between 2003 and 2007 by the age of 26. Nadal was 21 then, had 3 French Opens to his name and Djokovic had no slams and had only turned 20. Federer himself didn't have much competition those 5 years. Agassi at the fag end of his career, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin the only grand slam winners if I recall correctly.

Federer won 5 slams between 2008 and 2012 between him turning 27 and 31, with Nadal and Djokovic realizing their serious talent. Federer didn't always have the players to challenge him and when they emerged he didn't win as much although his challengers were younger.

Good post, I don't like Federer but I'll still conceded that he's a mercurial player but I agree that his competition wasn't as strong as it's made out to be. The likes of Hewitt and Roddick are a good notch below the current top players, Safin was a wasted talent.

All said and done I think there's little between him and Nadal, barring injuries Nole might still overtake both. Many talented contenders around like Del Potro Nishi or Ranoic but they either lack consistency or are consistently injured.

Bold Tone

You guys are forgetting how good Federer was when he was younger.
He won his first major in 2003, just 2 years before Nadal won his so it's a bit disingenuous to say the competition was weak as they played against the same guys.
I thought Nadal was physically stronger and mentally tougher but always preferred Federer's skill that manifest itself in beautiful strokes and grace on the court.
I rate Nadal as a close second but i'm of the opinion that he would never have won as much on the quicker surfaces if the ATP hadn't artificially slowed them down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/sports/tennis/04grass.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/please-support-us/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fentertainment%2Farchive%2F2011%2F06%2Fserve-and-volley-the-classic-tennis-strategy-you-wont-see-at-wimbledon%2F240706%2F#seen

« Previous Page Next Page »