Who is the greatest Tennis player of all time?

[Raghav_12]

You may be right about the leftie thing being subject to more scrutiny but imo, there is a leftie advantage in how the mechanics of tennis works. Also, the number of gs winners in last 40-50 years is disroportionately high. Such disproportionality sustained over such a long period, albeit due to only a handful of individuals drives the conclusion that: A) tennis is an elitist sport, with only the top 1% players usually winning 99% of grand slams and B) on similar skill levels, lefties dominate. If a & b are taken in conjunction only and never seperately it explains why federer loses to nadal or connors had a winning rwcprd vs nastase but federer and nastase being otherwise dominant against other lefties. Also, if you agree that the matchup of nadal vs federer produces a contest between nadals best shot dieectly matched to federers worst as the dominant form of rallies, its then logically impossible to not see rhis as a factor to thwir lopsided head to head. So, if two players inherently matchup as ones best shot vs thw others worst shot, how can u use it as a factor to qhos better ? Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

But isn't it true as well that Federer's forehand, which is one of the best in history, goes to Nadal's backhand which is very poor considering the standards of tennis at that level? So Nadal should also struggle there.

[Muloghonto]

But isn't it true as well that Federer's forehand' date=' which is one of the best in history, goes to Nadal's backhand which is very poor considering the standards of tennis at that level? So Nadal should also struggle there.[/quote'] Err Nadal's double handed backhand is far stronger than Federer's backhand and its hard to pin a backhand player with a double handed backhand because you cannot do something as easy as a 'high bouncer on the single handed backhand'. So the matchup is not neutral.

[Raghav_12]

Err Nadal's double handed backhand is far stronger than Federer's backhand and its hard to pin a backhand player with a double handed backhand because you cannot do something as easy as a 'high bouncer on the single handed backhand'. So the matchup is not neutral.

No. I don't agree with that. I have always felt that Nadal's backhand is very weak. It always falls very short allowing opponents to step in and take control of points. Djokovic has always attacked his backhand relentlessly with positive results. At times he is forced to use backhand slice extensively just as defensive option. My guess is that Federer is always more likely to pull off a backhand winner than Nadal, even though Federer uses single hand backhand.

[Raghav_12]

No. I don't agree with that. I have always felt that Nadal's backhand is very weak. It always falls very short allowing opponents to step in and take control of points. Djokovic has always attacked his backhand relentlessly with positive results. At times he is forced to use backhand slice extensively just as defensive option. My guess is that Federer is always more likely to pull off a backhand winner than Nadal' date=' even though Federer uses single hand backhand.[/quote'] Yes.. there are many who believes that Nadal's backhand is one of the worst or probably worst among all multi-slam winners. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/archive/index.php/t-397237.html

[zep1706]

You may be right about the leftie thing being subject to more scrutiny but imo, there is a leftie advantage in how the mechanics of tennis works. Also, the number of gs winners in last 40-50 years is disroportionately high. Such disproportionality sustained over such a long period, albeit due to only a handful of individuals drives the conclusion that: A) tennis is an elitist sport, with only the top 1% players usually winning 99% of grand slams and B) on similar skill levels, lefties dominate.

Not backed up by statistics as I have already showed on my last post and how the grand slam winning percentage is not a true criterion. Don't try to sell your opinion as fact. Proof of point B?

If a & b are taken in conjunction only and never seperately it explains why federer loses to nadal or connors had a winning rwcprd vs nastase but federer and nastase being otherwise dominant against other lefties.

Grade A bullcrap. Leave Nadal and Federer out of this and let's see. 1. You are wrong. Nastase has a winning record against Connors 15-12. Source: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N008&oId=C044 2. Lendl has winning record against both Connors and McEnroe by 22-13 and 21-15. 3. Borg and McEnroe are tied at 7-7. So in all those three cases the opposite of what you said is actually true. Game Set Match!

Also, if you agree that the matchup of nadal vs federer produces a contest between nadals best shot dieectly matched to federers worst as the dominant form of rallies, its then logically impossible to not see rhis as a factor to thwir lopsided head to head. So, if two players inherently matchup as ones best shot vs thw others worst shot, how can u use it as a factor to qhos better ? Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

Tennis is a game of match ups so obviously there is a match up issue. For example someone like Djokovic matches up better against Nadal than Federer. That is pretty well known. But it is not the end of everything. There are many other factors why Nadal dominated Federer and it is Federer's failure that he couldn't take advantage of Nadal's weaknesses. It is not as simplistic as you made it sound. Yes the single handed backhand is one of the factors but it is not the only one. Let me give you a list of things-- 1) Mental aspect. Nadal owns Federer mentally. No matter what Federer strategizes before a match, he can't execute that throughout the course of a match consistently. Nadal on the other hand always raises his game a notch when he sees Federer on the other side of the net. 2) Djokovic has shown how one can attack Nadal on the FH wing with his own inside out FH to draw him out of the court consistently until he gets a short reply to pounce on. Federer despite having a great FH was never able to do that. 3) A similar tactic to attack Nadal on the BH side using angled crosscourt FH. Nadal ususally defends crosscourt and so eventually you will get one ball that you can attack. Federer failed to do that too. Djokovic use it effectively. 4) Federer's reluctance to run around his BH to hit FH. Nadal himself does that all the time to protect his BH. I have noticed many times that Federer could have attacked Nadal using that tactic but he decided to play safe and defend using his BH, which obviously doesn't work against Nadal. 5) Serve wide to Nadal's BH on the deuce court and come to the net to finish the point. Federer hardly used that tried and tested tactic. So there are many things that Federer could have done differently to take Nadal out of his comfort zone. So stop finding excuses, man up and admit that it is indeed a blot on Federer's greatness the way he was owned by Nadal. That won't make him a lesser player. No one is perfect. There always one or a set of reasons if a player dominates another, those reasons should not be used as excuses. In any case I have proved with example that your left handed theory cannot be generalized. In fact those examples revealed the opposite.

[zep1706]

Yes.. there are many who believes that Nadal's backhand is one of the worst or probably worst among all multi-slam winners. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/archive/index.php/t-397237.html

I don't think Nadal's BH is so poor. Those forums (MTF, TT etc.) are infested by butthhurt Fedtards, who got an everlasting grudge against Nadal and their only job is to b!tch about Nadal all day. Don't take them seriously. Nadal's BH is a little inconsistent as an offensive weapon. On some days when he's feeling confident he can blast winners off that wing but sometimes he can also make a lot of UEs. But as a defensive shot his BH is pretty good. He defends better from the BH wing and attacks batter from the FH wing in general.

[Raghav_12]

Not backed up by statistics as I have already showed on my last post and how the grand slam winning percentage is not a true criterion. Don't try to sell your opinion as fact. Proof of point B? Grade A bullcrap. Leave Nadal and Federer out of this and let's see. 1. You are wrong. Nastase has a winning record against Connors 15-12. Source: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N008&oId=C044 2. Lendl has winning record against both Connors and McEnroe by 22-13 and 21-15. 3. Borg and McEnroe are tied at 7-7. So in all those three cases the opposite of what you said is actually true. Game Set Match! Tennis is a game of match ups so obviously there is a match up issue. For example someone like Djokovic matches up better against Nadal than Federer. That is pretty well known. But it is not the end of everything. There are many other factors why Nadal dominated Federer and it is Federer's failure that he couldn't take advantage of Nadal's weaknesses. It is not as simplistic as you made it sound. Yes the single handed backhand is one of the factors but it is not the only one. Let me give you a list of things-- 1) Mental aspect. Nadal owns Federer mentally. No matter what Federer strategizes before a match, he can't execute that throughout the course of a match consistently. Nadal on the other hand always raises his game a notch when he sees Federer on the other side of the net. 2) Djokovic has shown how one can attack Nadal on the FH wing with his own inside out FH to draw him out of the court consistently until he gets a short reply to pounce on. Federer despite having a great FH was never able to do that. 3) A similar tactic to attack Nadal on the BH side using angled crosscourt FH. Nadal ususally defends crosscourt and so eventually you will get one ball that you can attack. Federer failed to do that too. Djokovic use it effectively. 4) Federer's reluctance to run around his BH to hit FH. Nadal himself does that all the time to protect his BH. I have noticed many times that Federer could have attacked Nadal using that tactic but he decided to play safe and defend using his BH, which obviously doesn't work against Nadal. 5) Serve wide to Nadal's BH on the deuce court and come to the net to finish the point. Federer hardly used that tried and tested tactic. So there are many things that Federer could have done differently to take Nadal out of his comfort zone. So stop finding excuses, man up and admit that it is indeed a blot on Federer's greatness the way he was owned by Nadal. That won't make him a lesser player. No one is perfect. There always one or a set of reasons if a player dominates another, those reasons should not be used as excuses. In any case I have proved with example that your left handed theory cannot be generalized. In fact those examples revealed the opposite.

Excellent Analysis :hatsoff:

[Yoda-esque]

The real test for Nadal begins now,Federer too started showing his vulnerability around the same age. So we will see if Nadal dominates now,he has been beaten easily the last few times by Djokovic,so interesting times ahead.

[Raghav_12]

The real test for Nadal begins now,Federer too started showing his vulnerability around the same age. So we will see if Nadal dominates now,he has been beaten easily the last few times by Djokovic,so interesting times ahead.

Crap.. Nadal owned Federer even when Federer was 26 in 2007 or so. Age is no defense for Federer for his poor records against Nadal. Secondly, you can't compare Nadal and Djoko with age think as they are not even one year apart. This argument is counter-productive for you as when Djokovic can play good tennis at age of 27, what stopped Federer from playing and beating Nadal.

[Yoda-esque]

Crap.. Nadal owned Federer even when Federer was 26 in 2007 or so. Age is no defense for Federer for his poor records against Nadal. Secondly, you can't compare Nadal and Djoko with age think as they are not even one year apart. This argument is counter-productive for you as when Djokovic can play good tennis at age of 27, what stopped Federer from playing and beating Nadal.

No point arguing with you

[Raghav_12]

No point arguing with you

are you suggesting that Nadal started having better H2H against Federer only after Federer turned 28, which happened in 2009 just before US open?

[Yoda-esque]

are you suggesting that Nadal started having better H2H against Federer only after Federer turned 28' date=' which happened in 2009 just before US open?[/quote'] Again,you have comprehension problems.

[zep1706]

The real test for Nadal begins now,Federer too started showing his vulnerability around the same age. So we will see if Nadal dominates now,he has been beaten easily the last few times by Djokovic,so interesting times ahead.

I agree with this assessment. Nadal is not old. He is not even 28 yet and now a days tennis players play quite well at that age. Check the average age of the top 20 players. It would be close to 28-29. But Nadal peaked quite early and he has already had a lot of miles on his body. So yes it would be interesting to see how he fares from now on. I personally think that his recent loss of form has nothing to do with age though. It's a mental thing after a disappointing loss at AO. IMO he would at least win two more slams before he's done but it would be very difficult for him to beat Federer's tally of 17.

[Muloghonto]

Zep, you may be right in the overall leftie advantage thing. However, the game mechanics favouring lefties cannot be overlooked, especially in conjunction with the top echelon, where such 2-3% difference is the difference between winning slams and not. That being said, IMO, Federer is not done yet. If he does indeed stay injury free and retire after 2016 Olympics like he wants to, he may have 1,maybe even 2 more slams in him. Both Novak and Rafa are very beatable by Federer on grass and with Murray and DelPo not being a major factor currently, his only real challenges are from the likes of Berdych, Raonic, Wawrinka and 1 maybe 2 others. Nadal IMo has atleast another two FOs in him, its a question of if he can add OZ/US/Wimbledon to his tally to cross Federer.

[zep1706]

That being said, IMO, Federer is not done yet. If he does indeed stay injury free and retire after 2016 Olympics like he wants to, he may have 1,maybe even 2 more slams in him. Both Novak and Rafa are very beatable by Federer on grass and with Murray and DelPo not being a major factor currently, his only real challenges are from the likes of Berdych, Raonic, Wawrinka and 1 maybe 2 others. Nadal IMo has atleast another two FOs in him, its a question of if he can add OZ/US/Wimbledon to his tally to cross Federer.

Federer's best chances are at Wimbledon. He can beat anyone there. I have a gut feeling that Nadal will win one more Wimbledon although it seems highly unlikely now given his performance in the last two years. I think he will end his career with 15-16 slams.

[Raghav_12]

I agree with this assessment. Nadal is not old. He is not even 28 yet and now a days tennis players play quite well at that age. Check the average age of the top 20 players. It would be close to 28-29. But Nadal peaked quite early and he has already had a lot of miles on his body. So yes it would be interesting to see how he fares from now on. I personally think that his recent loss of form has nothing to do with age though. It's a mental thing after a disappointing loss at AO. IMO he would at least win two more slams before he's done but it would be very difficult for him to beat Federer's tally of 17.

He may have been right in his independent assessment of Nadal. But he is linking his assessment of Nadal with Federer with ulterior motives and that's what I have problem with.

[zep1706]

He may have been right in his independent assessment of Nadal. But he is linking his assessment of Nadal with Federer with ulterior motives and that's what I have problem with.

I don't think there was any ulterior motives lol relax. :--D

[Raghav_12]

I don't think there was any ulterior motives lol relax. :--D

May be you haven't followed his posts much here :cantstop:. He always made a point that Federer's H2H is bad against Nadal because when Nadal came on the scene Federer was too old to compete with him. With this post he is trying to insinuate same thing. Ulterior Motive may sound too serious a word. I'll replace that with "Hidden Agenda". :--D

[Sachin=GOD]

Federer as Religious Experience By DAVID FOSTER WALLACE Published: August 20, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Read this everyone.

[zep1706]

Federer as Religious Experience By DAVID FOSTER WALLACE Published: August 20, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Read this everyone.

Read it about 5-6 years ago. Too bad the writer committed suicide in 2008, would have loved to know his experience of that epic 2008 final.