yoda Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yes Agassi is a great player, as good as McEnroe. Sampras and Federer are all together in different league. I agree that the clay field was quite open in the 1990s but that doesn't make it a bogus surface. You are trying to shift the goalpost like a typical insecure Fed fan. For me in the open era, TierI : Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal Tier II: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi Tier III: Becker, Edberg, Wilaner, Djokovic (will go to Tier II eventually) I agree with your tiering in general, all of them are ATGs BTW, don't matter Tier 1, 2 or 3. Now back to clay, can you reason as to why top players who supposedly have an all round game struggled on that surface? I am sure there is something beyond pure tennis skills which the surface demands. :winky: Also, can you explain why Nadal who has won 9 slams in clay has managed only 5 between the remaining 3? I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suraj Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yes Agassi is a great player, as good as McEnroe. Sampras and Federer are all together in different league. I agree that the clay field was quite open in the 1990s but that doesn't make it a bogus surface. You are trying to shift the goalpost like a typical insecure Fed fan. For me in the open era, TierI : Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal Tier II: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi Tier III: Becker, Edberg, Wilaner, Djokovic (will go to Tier II eventually) Sampras doesn't belong in Tier 1: How can any player who decides to give up even try winning on a surface that he is weak at belong in Tier 1?? Lendl could not conquer Wimbledon but atleast he kept trying till the end of his career unlike Sampras who chickened out of French open Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Lendl could not conquer Wimbledon but atleast he kept trying till the end of his career unlike Sampras who chickened out of French open He played 14 Wimbledons and 13 french opens. :sherlock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I agree with your tiering in general' date=' all of them are ATGs BTW, don't matter Tier 1, 2 or 3.[/quote'] I would reserve the term all time great only for the tier I players, tier II and III are greats. I am not quite sure what you are trying to suggest. Clay requires both physical ability and racquet skills. How is that a bad thing? You may be the most talented batsman in the world but if you don't have the endurance to last for a long time you would get nowhere. Clay favors ground game more than serve, that is the beauty of the surface and the game in general. If you are not strong from both the wings and physically fit you can not win Roland Garros. Grass offers a different dynamics, hard courts depending on their nature vary a lot too. I am not quite sure how that makes clay a bogus surface. That only shows your own bias. That can be easily explained. On clay he is the best player ever. When he plays his best he is basically unbeatable. On hard and grass let's look at the losses he has suffered in GS finals. Wimbledon 2006- Federer Wimbledon 2007- Federer Wimbledon 2011- Djokovic US open 2011- Djokovic Australian Open 2012- Djokovic Australian Open 2014- Wawrinka So 5 of his 6 defeats are against other two great players. Let's now look at his wins Wimbledon 2008 - Federer Australian Open 2009- Federer Wimbledon 2010- Berdych US open 2010 -- Djokovic US open 2013 - Djokovic. So 9 of his 11 non clay slam finals have been against two other great players and he has won 4 of them and lost 5. If he was playing those against Baghdatis, Philippoussis, Hewitt, Roddick or 35 year old Agassi etc he would have won a lot of more of those. So it also depends on the opponent you are competing with. The same can be said about Federer's clay record. He is a great clay player but has only 1 RG title to show for it, which he won when Nadal was not there. But he got really lucky on other surfaces, so that evened out for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I don't have a problem when people don't consider him as the best. But, the constant names calling, undermining every acheivement of his, calling him cheat , making all kinds of non sensical jibes is what I hate. I am a huge Rafa fan but that doesn't mean I undermine Roger. Heck what have we even achieved in our lives compared to these folks? It's like these folks have a problem with accepting whatever Rafa has achieved. Absolutely. It is pretty understandable if someone considers Federer greater than Nadal. I wouldn't argue against it generally. But when someone equates him with a one slam wonder like Chang or brings out a list of excuses to discredit him, there is definitely a problem. And if that doesn't work then the name calling and baseless accusations start. I have actually learned to laugh it off these days. Nadal is widely considered as one of the greatest players ever by almost all experts and former players now so it hardly matters what a few butthurt internet warriors have to say. :haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Sampras doesn't belong in Tier 1: How can any player who decides to give up even try winning on a surface that he is weak at belong in Tier 1?? Lendl could not conquer Wimbledon but atleast he kept trying till the end of his career unlike Sampras who chickened out of French open Sampras has outstanding achievements outside clay that puts him in tier I. If you are going to make further divisions in that tier than he wouldn't occupy the top slot. Borg also did not win on hard courts but he finds a place there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos_rafa Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I have heard everything today. Sampras isn't a Tier-I champ, Chang is a nobody and ofcourse Nadal is a cheat. Also, if certain greats can't win on a surface then the surface is at fault and not the player!!! Heck should we nullify all tests in India as Ponting couldn't score here? Utter BS. These are all double standards which sadly a guy like Federer won't retort to but his blind bhakats would. You don't like a player it's fine but stop bringing up these arguments. And just to clarify, Rafa and Federer are H2H on hard courts also. Also, Rafa's best match in wimbledon 2008 was against Federer. Was that something Roger could ever achieve? Beating Rafa on his favourite surface at his prime? Not suggesting that Rafa is GOAT infact I would still vote for Roger but the mindset here is cringeworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 How on earth somebody compare a GS win against Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Bagdathis even at 50% of the GS win achieved against Djokovic, Federer and Murray. This debate is losing it's significance now and with one or 2 more GS wins from Rafa will cease to exist. Whatever theory you come up with - single handed backhand, left hand-right hand difference, Clay - Grass difference, ultimately truth would remain that Federer couldn't stand in front of Nadal and Federer's GS are much-much cheaper than Nadal's grand slams. This debate should have stopped in 2008 when Nadal still developing as a player at age of 22 comprehensively defeated a Federer at age of 26- a peak age of a tennis player- on a surface that was favourite of Federer. On the other hand Federer had lost to Nadal in straight sets in French open final with last set reading scoreline of 6-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 He has won fewer slams at Wimbledon/Australian/US Open than Tier III players namely Edberg and Becker. How about that for the GOAT. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Not adding to any conspiracy theories but after lance Armstrong, never say never....nadal is too freakish of a physical specimen, so the doubts are substantiated. Anyways u are not a thief until you are caught. ..if nadal wins yet again on grass and wins the Olympics in 2016 ....he will be automatically the g.o.a.t.....his record on hard courts is nothing to write home about, so these 2 wins will seal the deal for everyone I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 How on earth somebody compare a GS win against Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Bagdathis even at 50% of the GS win achieved against Djokovic, Federer and Murray. This debate is losing it's significance now and with one or 2 more GS wins from Rafa will cease to exist. Whatever theory you come up with - single handed backhand, left hand-right hand difference, Clay - Grass difference, ultimately truth would remain that Federer couldn't stand in front of Nadal and Federer's GS are much-much cheaper than Nadal's grand slams. This debate should have stopped in 2008 when Nadal still developing as a player at age of 22 comprehensively defeated a Federer at age of 26- a peak age of a tennis player- on a surface that was favourite of Federer. On the other hand Federer had lost to Nadal in straight sets in French open final with last set reading scoreline of 6-0. Horseshyte. Federer has beaten more world #1s than nadal has at gs. Also, safin was inconsistent but when he did show up, he was a way, way better hard court player than nadal or murray. Just a shade behind djokovic. Imo, nadals gs are cheaper because depth is lacking in tennis today. Currently mens tennis is like how womens tennis used to be: nobody can beat the top 4, only the top 10 can beat each other and nobody outside top 30 beats a guy in the top 30s. If anything, tennis has been easier on the gs winning candidates in the last 3-4 years because players hardly ever get knocked out b4 the qf. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Horseshyte. Federer has beaten more world #1s than nadal has at gs. Also, safin was inconsistent but when he did show up, he was a way, way better hard court player than nadal or murray. Just a shade behind djokovic. Imo, nadals gs are cheaper because depth is lacking in tennis today. Currently mens tennis is like how womens tennis used to be: nobody can beat the top 4, only the top 10 can beat each other and nobody outside top 30 beats a guy in the top 30s. If anything, tennis has been easier on the gs winning candidates in the last 3-4 years because players hardly ever get knocked out b4 the qf. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 lol.. how many times Federer got knocked out before QF until last year? So quality of tennis must be extremely poor. Right? I am not saying that, just extending your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidhoni Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Keep it clean and feel free to report any individual attacks :icflove: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 lol.. how many times Federer got knocked out before QF until last year? So quality of tennis must be extremely poor. Right? I am not saying that' date=' just extending your logic.[/quote'] Federer is at twilight of his career, hes supposed to lose at any stage. How many timea did djokovic, nadal, murray etc fail to make qf in the last 4 yrs ? Tennis in first three rounds are so much easier these days for the top guys. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos_rafa Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Horseshyte. Federer has beaten more world #1s than nadal has at gs. Also, safin was inconsistent but when he did show up, he was a way, way better hard court player than nadal or murray. Just a shade behind djokovic. Imo, nadals gs are cheaper because depth is lacking in tennis today. Currently mens tennis is like how womens tennis used to be: nobody can beat the top 4, only the top 10 can beat each other and nobody outside top 30 beats a guy in the top 30s. If anything, tennis has been easier on the gs winning candidates in the last 3-4 years because players hardly ever get knocked out b4 the qf. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Ok, so what was stopping Safin from turning up day in and day out like Nadal? Mental toughness is one of the most important facet of a sportsman. This is like saying that Rohit Sharma is a much better batsman than Kohli if he shows up. Also, if it is so easy to win slams now, why is it that Murray has only 2? He has been constantly reaching the semis but can't go past Rafa or Djoko. If anything, Federer had it easier before Rafa showed up because there were 1 or 2 slam wonders hovering around whom a player of the class of Federer can easily beat. You can check the former world #1's then: Hewitt, Moya, Safin, Ferrero,Roddick Kuerten( a true clay courtier) etc.. Agassi was old by that time but he did pick his game in the late 90's None of them can match up barring Agassi to Nadal or Djokovic. Federer just steam rolled these guys day in and day out like the 2004 US Open finals. It was when Rafa came into the picture that tennis became so much more competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Ok' date=' so what was stopping Safin from turning up day in and day out like Nadal? Mental toughness is one of the most important facet of a sportsman. This is like saying that Rohit Sharma is a much better batsman than Kohli if he shows up. [/quote'] On the tourneys safin showed up, he played like an atg. He didnt show up in many but that doesnt make beating him in a gs final worthless. In the later stages, yes. The field was much deeper earlier. It wasnt a cakewalk getting into gs semis like its now. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Federer is at twilight of his career, hes supposed to lose at any stage. How many timea did djokovic, nadal, murray etc fail to make qf in the last 4 yrs ? Tennis in first three rounds are so much easier these days for the top guys. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 That's exactly what I am saying. Federer never failed to make a SF for years together. If failure of a senior player to make QF/SF is a criteria of depth or competition of Tennis pool then it must have been extremely poor when Federer was at his peak - which anyways I don't disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos_rafa Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 On the tourneys safin showed up, he played like an atg. He didnt show up in many but that doesnt make beating him in a gs final worthless. In the later stages, yes. The field was much deeper earlier. It wasnt a cakewalk getting into gs semis like its now. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 It does. Coz Safin in GS showed up pretty rarely. He had immense potential but it's of no use if that person can't get his mind right. And he could swing his moods in the middle of a match as well. He was too unpredictable. It seems easy coz these guys have been constantly making it to the final stages. This shows how much on the top these guys have been over the rest. There have been other players who have done well in an odd GS like Gonzalez,Verdasco, Monfils, Baghdatis but they couldn't replicate it further. Now, to win a GS, you have to beat a rafa/djoko/Murray/Federer which automatically proves that it's so much hard to win one now coz these guys have been so much ahead of the curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos_rafa Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 That's exactly what I am saying. Federer never failed to make a SF for years together. If failure of a senior player to make QF/SF is a criteria of depth or competition of Tennis pool then it must have been extremely poor when Federer was at his peak - which anyways I don't disagree with. +1. Muloghonto is placing too much emphasis on reaching semis than actually winning a GS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 That's exactly what I am saying. Federer never failed to make a SF for years together. If failure of a senior player to make QF/SF is a criteria of depth or competition of Tennis pool then it must have been extremely poor when Federer was at his peak - which anyways I don't disagree with. Federer was the only one on that period to make 5-6 gs qf or better on the trot ( he made like 24 in a row ?) Now, you have djokovic, murray, ferrer etc stringing together 5-6 gs qfs in a row. That indicates that the depth is lacking, making it like womens tennis pre 2000s: 4/5 ppl making the qf every single time. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now