how can.................

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:36 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/13426475.stm

found this piece interesting, like all other such comparisons comparing is difficult as tennis has seen large strides in technology since borgs day. not a borg fan personally, walked away when the going got tough.

it has set me thinking though, whenever a tournament is on they always refer to federer as the greatest ever etc. now i know he has won more slams than anyone, but he cannot beat nadal and therefore by default cannot be the greatest ever surely if he isnt the best in his own era now? their head to head record in slam finals now is 6-2 to the spaniard. feds only two wins were on grass before nadal had fully acclimatised to the surface.

all that said fed really should beat him on the grass at wimbledon, i think there is a barney/taylor comparison in play.

Post by **The Ginge Reaper** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:45 am

randall wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/13426475.stm

found this piece interesting, like all other such comparisons comparing is difficult as tennis has seen large strides in technology since borgs day. not a borg fan personally, walked away when the going got tough.

it has set me thinking though, whenever a tournament is on they always refer to federer as the greatest ever etc. now i know he has won more slams than anyone, but he cannot beat nadal and therefore by default cannot be the greatest ever surely if he isnt the best in his own era now? their head to head record in slam finals now is 6-2 to the spaniard. feds only two wins were on grass before nadal had fully acclimatised to the surface.

all that said fed really should beat him on the grass at wimbledon, i think there is a barney/taylor comparison in play.

Nadal will overtake Fed in terms of Major wins soon enough, Federer only holds a 16-10 (?) lead at the moment, at the end of 2009 it was 15-6 so the gap has been closing during 2010 and 2011.

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:51 am

over a career if nadal stays fit, and thats a big if i think he will overhaul federers total.

a 6-2 grand slam final head to head is enough for me to decide if not this would

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Hea ... 4&oId=N409

he cannot be the greatest ever!

that humping in the 08 paris final must really have stung.

Post by **gazman** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:20 pm

Federer is a majestic player and is a hell of an all rounder accumilating the highest total of slams to date. But Nadal does seem to have his number, though in my opinion doesn't play the game with quite the same finess as Federer does. Is he the best of all time? going by slam count alone then yes, but as Randall has said, hes possibly not even the best player of his era, and personally I reckon Sampras in his pomp would have had the edge over Federer on the grass and hard courts. If Nadal stays fit I can see him adding at least another 5-6 French opens, but for him to gain the tag of greatest ever he needs to add more of the other slams to his tally. If he manages to surpass Federer's total with mainly clay then he'll get the best ever clay courter, but imo couldn't be the greatest ever even if he holds the most slams.

Post by **Knots & crosses** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:27 pm

Meh. Sampras was dull as fuck.

Agassi was better.

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:32 pm

nadals record now stands at 6 french, 2 wimbledon and 1 each of the others. you couldnt make an arguement for him being the best ever on that basis alone as its 60% on one surface. sampras never won the french so by the arguement of winning on all services he couldnt be considered either.

supermac was always my favourite. he would have won the aussie open when it was on grass if he could just have been bothered to travel and should have won the french at least once, two sets to nil up on lendl in 84???

Post by **Knots & crosses** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:47 pm

Vast majority of the Swiss bitches titles are from one tournament, so that must rule him out.

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:04 pm

Knots & crosses wrote:Vast majority of the Swiss bitches titles are from one tournament, so that must rule him out.

but he has beaten "the greatest player of all time" on his best two surfaces in the last three grand slam finals they have played each other.

Post by **Knots & crosses** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:18 pm

randall wrote:
Knots & crosses wrote:Vast majority of the Swiss bitches titles are from one tournament, so that must rule him out.

but he has beaten "the greatest player of all time" on his best two surfaces in the last three grand slam finals they have played each other.

And has still won the vast majority of his slams in one tournament, thus meaning he doesn't count, according to you.

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:34 pm

does the fact he beats the "best player of all time" on a regular basis make that fact redundant though?

Post by **Knots & crosses** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:37 pm

randall wrote:does the fact he beats the "best player of all time" on a regular basis make that fact redundant though?

No. It still means he won the vast majority in one tourney, thus completely devaluing his claim.

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:12 pm

can fed be the best of all time when he cannot beat nadal on any surface in a slam final?

Post by **Knots & crosses** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:13 pm

randall wrote:can fed be the best of all time when he cannot beat nadal on any surface in a slam final?

Yes.

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:39 pm

Knots & crosses wrote:
randall wrote:can fed be the best of all time when he cannot beat nadal on any surface in a slam final?
Yes.

i struggle to see how?

castle is talking some right bollocks at the minute. wants to bring in tie breaks at 4-4 in sets.

Post by **DrZoidberg** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:43 pm

i have dislikes for both nadal and federer, fortunately for rafa though, my dislike for gayfed eclipses my dislike for the arse picking spaniard by some distance.

Post by **Knots & crosses** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:47 pm

randall wrote:
Knots & crosses wrote:
randall wrote:can fed be the best of all time when he cannot beat nadal on any surface in a slam final?
Yes.

i struggle to see how?

castle is talking some right bollocks at the minute. wants to bring in tie breaks at 4-4 in sets.

Well, beating him twice at Wimbledon suggests otherwise.

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:50 pm

i struggle to see how?

castle is talking some right bollocks at the minute. wants to bring in tie breaks at 4-4 in sets.[/quote]

Well, beating him twice at Wimbledon suggests otherwise.[/quote]

since nadal came of age though it has been one way traffic.

that said i would still expect federer to beat him on grass or hard court given the pace of the game, he just doesnt get the job done.

Post by **Knots & crosses** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:53 pm

Oh, so you're changing your tune now!!

Post by **Randall** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:56 pm

Knots & crosses wrote:Oh, so you're changing your tune now!!

not really, its the same as i expressed in the op. nadal is in feds head the way taylor is in barneys. in the clutch at 3-3 in the fifth the demons come out in feds head it seems to me.

i still dont believe he can be the best ever when he isnt the best in his era now!

at least he hasnt done a borg and ran away from the challenge.

Post by **welsh** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:58 pm

Knots & crosses wrote:Meh. Sampras was dull as fuck.

Agassi was better.

Totally Agree here Agassi turned tennis around by being able to beat the boring serve&volley players from the base line.

how can.................

how can.................

Re: how can.................

Re: how can.................

Re: how can.................

how can.................

Re: how can.................

how can.................

Re: how can.................

how can.................

Re: how can.................

how can.................

Re: how can.................

how can.................

Re: how can.................

Re: how can.................

how can.................

Re: how can.................

how can.................

Re: how can.................

Re: how can.................