*Official* Tennis Thread

[sachin200]

Jono,

For Rafa to be considered a better player than Roger he doesn't have to necessarily beat Roger in GS count but certainly has to win more non-French GS (preferably more HC slams) because thats where he is least comfortable and he faces most competition

[Jono]

That's obvious because for him to beat Novak over the next few years he would obviously have to win those tournaments.

But let's not pretend winning the French is easy ffs. Also winning the French and Wimbledon in the same year is inbelievably difficult, and he's done this twice.

[vcs]

TBH, I don't think Federer is done either, in terms of winning Majors. I like the way he keeps getting to finals/semifinals and gives himself opportunities. Even though beating Djokovic and losing to Nadal in a final adds nothing much to his legacy (which shows how much he has accomplished), if nothing else, it should boost his confidence. Physically he looks only half a step slower than he was in his prime. Even though he can't produce those ridiculous runs of untouchable form anymore like the glory days of '05-'07, he can still crank it up from time to time. Provided he times it right, he will have opportunities to add to his tally.

[Jono]

Yeah its all well and good to have this debate cos its fun and interesting but it will continue to be aimless until 2015 or so.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by vcs

They have met, what, 15 times out of 25 on clay? Let Nadal get close to 16 Slams and then we'll talk.. sure he's on track but he hasn't done it yet.

you are just discounting all results on clay as if they don't matter....it is a legit tennis-playing surface and the results matter...when nadal used to be not much more than a clay court specialist in the early years of his career, that argument would have some weight but not now...and i am not saying he is the GOAT, i am saying the 8-17 stat works significantly in his favor even now and given federer is well past his prime and nadal is still in his, the stat is going to get even more lop-sided going forward...and yes i agree that 6 additional slams is a big deal but nadal isn't done yet (and hopefully neither is federer)...hey i don't like it any more than you do but i can't ignore the growing reality either...

[vcs]

Originally Posted by Anil

you are just discounting all results on clay as if they don't matter....it is a legit tennis-playing surface and the results matter...when nadal used to be not much more than a clay court specialist in the early years of his career, that argument would have some weight but not now...and i am not saying he is the GOAT, i am saying the 8-17 stat works significantly in his favor even now and given federer is well past his prime and nadal is still in his, the stat is going to get even more lop-sided going forward...and yes i agree that 6 additional slams is a big deal but nadal isn't done yet (and hopefully neither is federer)...hey i don't like it any more than you do but i can't ignore the growing reality either...

That's all I'm saying. Things can change very quickly in this sport. Federer had 12 Slams by the end of 2007, and only 4 more in 3 and a half years since then.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Anil

you are just discounting all results on clay as if they don't matter....it is a legit tennis-playing surface and the results matter...when nadal used to be not much more than a clay court specialist in the early years of his career, that argument would have some weight but not now...and i am not saying he is the GOAT, i am saying the 8-17 stat works significantly in his favor even now and given federer is well past his prime and nadal is still in his, the stat is going to get even more lop-sided going forward...and yes i agree that 6 additional slams is a big deal but nadal isn't done yet (and hopefully neither is federer)...hey i don't like it any more than you do but i can't ignore the growing reality either...

This is a good point, and is an annoying aspect of the debate. Almost half the overall tennis season is on clay when you include the Latin American swing. Not only is it a legitimate tennis surface, it is a surface that has much much more tennis played on it than grass (and I am a guy who stresses the importance of Wimbledon during debates a lot).

And by the way, their head-to-head record outside of clay is Federer 6 wins and Nadal 5 wins. So its very even outside of clay, and when you include clay, Nadal is dominant.

Earlier in this thread I said that at this current time Federer still has had the greater career, but when we're discussing head-to-head, it is very stupid to discount clay. And even when you discount clay, it is very very close.

Fact is Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in a best of 5 sets match since 2007. That is a long time between drinks.

[vcs]

Of course it shouldn't be discounted, Federer is a very good clay-court player. But it is fair to point out that their meetings are skewed towards that surface, as opposed to say, fast HCs.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by vcs

Of course it shouldn't be discounted, Federer is a very good clay-court player. But it is fair to point out that their meetings are skewed towards that surface, as opposed to say, fast HCs.

dude, on hard courts, it is now 4-4 and on grass feds is 2-1, hardly anything to separate them on other surfaces...of course feds is better on both surfaces but not by much and nadal is so incredibly ahead on clay...

[vcs]

Fed is ahead on both surfaces because he has won many more titles and Slams, not because of the head-to-head. That is all that ultimately matters. It's not his fault he makes more finals on clay than Rafa does on other surfaces.

[Jono]

Yeah but we were just talking head-to-head.

Of course when discussing overall Slams on other surfaces Fed is ahead, whether you take into account head-to-head or not.

But again, we'll see where we are in 3-4 years time I guess.

[vcs]

Yeah head-to-head Nadal's game definitely gives Federer more trouble regardless of surface than the other way around. But then there are more guys capable of beating Nadal off clay as well, compared to Federer (though he loses an awful lot of random matches these days at Masters Series events).

[Anil]

Originally Posted by nick-o

Sorry to respond to an old post, but I think there were quite a few people suggesting the Fed was up there close to top three of all time on clay -- but I don't think it computes.

This list was on the BBC today

Originally Posted by BBC
OPEN ERA CLAY-COURT TITLES

45 - Guillermo Vilas
40 - Thomas Muster
32* - Rafael Nadal
30 - Bjorn Borg, Manuel Orantes
28 - Ivan Lendl, Ilie Nastase
21 - Jose-Luis Clerc
20 - Mats Wilander
16 - Andres Gomez, Carlos Moya
* still active

I just don't see how Federer can be thought of as top-three on clay.

that shows why you can't just rely on simplistic stats...vilas was a great clay courter and has 13 more titles than nadal, does that mean he was better than nadal is now? of course it's not even close...and carlos moya, jose-luis clerc, manuel orantes and andres gomez don't even belong in a list of the greatest clay-courters....and he is definitely better than the likes of vilas, nastase, courier, bruguera, ferrero and agassi on the surface...in my opinion the only people who can be compared to federer (outside of nadal and borg who are clearly better) are lendl, wilander, kuerten and to a certain extent muster...having watched all of these players in action, i think federer at his best on clay beats all of them at their best...the toughest to beat being of course lendl...

[Anil]

Originally Posted by vcs

Fed is ahead on both surfaces because he has won many more titles and Slams, not because of the head-to-head. That is all that ultimately matters. It's not his fault he makes more finals on clay than Rafa does on other surfaces.

the difference is that nadal is catching up fast on other surfaces and was very dominant in winning both wimbledon and the open last year...but we will see where we are in another 3 years or so, the picture will be much more clear, meanwhile nadal clearly belongs in a discussion of the greatest tennis players ever...

[ohtani's jacket]

Federer making the French Open final this year was an accomplishment in itself. The fact that he lost is not earth shatteringly significant. You have to respect the fact that he keeps competing. I don't think he can win another title if he has to go through Djockovic and Nadal to do it, but he's still playing at a high level.