PokerLawyer

quote:

---

Oban

---

+1

1954 Bowman, Mickey Mantle. At least that mofo looks the sweetest to me every time I walk down memory lane in my collection. :cheers:

The debate is over. Fed is the man and Rafa knows it.

"During Roland Garros 2010, Nadal answered strikingly when a journalist mentioned the statistic in a question to Nadal. Nadal said "I think this person don't know nothing about tennis." The journalist asked why, and Nadal told the journalist, "so you don't know nothing about tennis." After this Nadal explained his answer further. "You see the titles of him and you see the titles of me? It's no comparison. So that's the answer. Is difficult to compare Roger with me now, because he has 16 Grand Slams; I have 6 (he has since increased that number to 9 after winning at Roland Garros Wimbledon and the US Open in 2010). Masters 1000, yeah, I have more than him (Nadal is Masters Series titles leader by 18, Federer is placed second all-time with 17 titles). But for the rest of the things the records of Roger is very, very almost impossible to improve."

Taken from: LINK

Looking through this, I hadn't taken notice of the fact that Fed was #1 in the world for almost 5 straight years. Got that? 5 straight years. In sum total, today (and I stress that), Rafa is in the rear view mirror and he knows that the GS count is what drives the bus.

quote:

---

broseph, you are missing the point

1. rafa dominates clay and is better on clay than fed. nobody discounts this

2. rafa was not nearly good enough to face fed on hard courts/grass during this era. this hurts rafa's argument

in amazing hypothetical world, they could play an even number of matches on all surfaces, to have a total record. this does not exist, b/c rafa wasn't good enough to face fed at the end of hard/grass tournies, so the sample is skewed. why? fed was good enough to meet rafa late in clay tourneys with regularity.

---

+1

quote:

---

Nadal wasn't a shot in the dark. He was arguably the best teenage tennis player ever and a prodigy that everyone knew about. There's no one like that right now.

---

Way too literal, my friend. What I'm saying is that it doesn't take too long for the next best thing to come along. It isn't inconceivable that a current tour player, floating outside the top 100 in his first or second year, doesn't come into his own. There are a whole lot of variables that could very much deprive Rafa of anymore GS titles or limit them dramatically that nobody sees just yet.

quote:

---

One of the most obnoxious homer statements I've read in a while.

---

But true. Fed's game is as much designed for grass as Rafa's is for clay. Period. That translates into Fed being odds on favorite. Oh, and the fact that when he wins his next one, I'll have to start using the other hand to count them all.

quote:

---

No bc Laver would have more if he'd been allowed to play during his prime, Borg would have more had he played longer, and Sampras has almost as many and against better competitino. Not saying you can't make an argument for Fed but you can make just as good of one for either of them.

---

Yeah, what if, what if, what if. Apples and oranges. I'm talking about GS completed, as the format requires today. No doubt that Borg, Laver, Sampras and a few others on a very short list have a strong case. But, again, and pay attention this time, those hypthetical GS that they could have had or the bunch that Sampras had are all behind Fed in reality.

quote:

---

Right because he didn't just have one of the dominant US Open tournaments on his worse surface.

---

I can't even make sense of this. Because Rafa walked through a tournament on his worst surface, for the first time, he's immortal now? Maybe that's why Fed has been immortal. Go have a look at how many finals in Paris, before ultimately winning the title, Fed appeared in on his worst surface. That's crazy good. Moreover, we all know that on clay, there's rarely a thin field because clay is the great equalizer. Paris can be won be any number of players who have the clay style - Berastegui, Kuerten, Courier, Chang, etc... A player can win in France when he can't win anywhere else. FACT.

My point is that unless and until Rafa shows prolonged dominance on courts other than clay (and, although impressive, a run since 2008 'til now just ain't even close), he is simply a footnote to Fed.

quote:

---

Nadal is a better player now than Federer was then.

---

%1,000 not this.

Nadal is, without question, in the conversation as one of the best ever. That said, GOAT is not defined by a short span of years and an abbreviated period of brilliance. In other words, while Rafa has undeniably plaid superb tennis, he hasn't done it with the longevity that GOAT demands. I.e., unless he starts knocking on the door of the all time grand slam numbers (IMHO he has to get to at least 13 or 14 before this argument has serious merit), his career has just been really good. Not GOAT.

Feds numbers have eclipsed every tennis player to have ever lived. Rafa is a far cry from those numbers....at the moment. When he gets close, and certainly if he passes the GS total of Fed, the conversation takes a much different turn. The GS total represents many years of consistent dominance. At under 10, Rafa's tenure on the tennis throne is just too short to even be mentioned as GOAT.

I do think he is currently the best player on earth, but that can change like the wind. Ranking defines your play and results for the calendar year - not a career. For a couple of seasons, in years past, several players have dominated the tour (on both the women's and men's side). But, to gauge a career, it will be the entire career that gets judged.

The major difference between the two: Rafa has to have the rest of his career play out and win several more majors to be seriously in the conversation as GOAT. Fed could retire tomorrow and he IS the GOAT, without more. Fed has done enough, right now, to be the GOAT if he decided to make choclate in Switzerland and give up tennis. Rafa has to fight for a long time to come to take that away.

quote:

---

Worst Ever:

LINK

---

+1. That's disgusting.

I hear a few names get kicked around, but if you're talking about a revival of the Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Chang era....don't see that happening anytime soon.

quote:

---

I'd like to see another Nadal/Verdasco match

---

A-la Aussie a couple years ago? +1

+1 on the CONGRATS!