McEnroe- "Nadal the greatest player that ever lived"

[va-mos]

http://rafaelnadalfans.com/2013/06/25/j ... edon-loss/

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived. If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have. I have always said Roger Federer to me was the greatest player that ever lived, certainly the most beautiful player. But I’m going to tell you right here and now there’s a definite argument, I’m starting to lean toward Rafa.” -- John McEnroe

[El Turco]

maybe if roland garros was the only court in the world

[va-mos]

The only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year.
The only man in world history to win slams for 9 years in a row.
The only man in world history to win a slam title 8 times (and it only took 9 attempts).
The only man in world history to beat TWO world number ones 20 times (Nadal leads Djokovic 20-15, Nadal leads Federer 20-10).
The only man in world history to win 24 masters titles.

Nadal has done a good job to win 12 slam titles despite 2 of the 4 slams each year being played on his weakest surface (hardcourt - the unnatural surface that none of the slams were played on during Laver's dominant days).

Can you imagine the media hype when Nadal ties Sampras' 14 slam titles? The countdown will be on for 17 and Federer will probably still be on the tour.

[Doctor MJ]

Pretty weird statement for McEnroe to make. "starting to lean toward Rafa"? In the last 3 years, hasn't won any majors except the one on clay, he didn't win the Olympics, he still hasn't won a World Tour Final. The implications of a "starting to lean" statement is that things have shifted in that direction in the recent future, but it's pretty hard for me to imagine who truly leaned the other way before and now leans toward Nadal.

To be perfectly honest, as ridiculous as I think the argument was for Nadal as GOAT based on head-to-head matchups almost entirely, it was clear the argument was getting traction...before Djokovic blew past Nadal. Nadal now will likely go down as the guy who was always the second best guy because his clay court supremacy meant between clay and the actual #1, there wasn't any other oxygen left in the room. Nadal's GOAT candidacy now is almost certainly going to get determined largely the way everyone else's has: Number of majors.

[Doctor MJ]

Nadal has done a good job to win 12 slam titles despite 2 of the 4 slams each year being played on his weakest surface (hardcourt - the unnatural surface that none of the slams were played on during Laver's dominant days).

Interesting perspective given that Nadal on hard court isn't terribly different from Nadal on grass, and grass was the original dominant surface. From the perspective of Americans - and I know our opinion isn't everything - clay is simply a bizarre surface. It's like choosing to play basketball on ice - impressive if you can do it, but why do it when it's entirely possible to build a surface that actually supports normal movement better?

Not saying that makes the clay somehow to be dismissed though. It's part of season, so it counts, and thus Nadal goes from being a historical footnote to one of the all-time greats.

Can you imagine the media hype when Nadal ties Sampras' 14 slam titles? The countdown will be on for 17 and Federer will probably still be on the tour.

Here you seem a bit delusional. If Nadal hits 14 two years from now, there will not be a ridiculous amount of hype. People won't say it's impossible for Nadal to break Federer's record, but people are not going to be in the midst of an incredible hyping for someone who pops out once per year and does something impressive, when it will take another 4 years of that to actually break the record in question.

Of course if Nadal storms back and takes #1 in the world again that will be a different story. That would also, however, be a rather historical comeback:

Has any man ever at age 28 re-gained the #1 after having relinquished it for 3 years?
Has any man ever at age 28 won more than 1 major in a year after having not done so the 3 previous years?

The statement that says essentially that if Nadal has a completely unprecedented historical comeback then there will be hype, kinda goes without saying. Putting yourself out there and saying he'll do it is certainly the type of thing we see in sports, what's strange about your posts is that you talk as if your bold prediction isn't a prediction at all, simply an inevitability...but for the most part, your inevitabilities don't seem to happen.

[Turk Nowitzki]

You're using far too much logic directed at a poster who has no capacity for it.

[va-mos]

MJ, I read your first sentence,

Interesting perspective given that Nadal on hard court isn't terribly different from Nadal on grass, and grass was the original dominant surface.

and it told me not to read any further.

2 Wimbledon titles and a US Open and AO title looks close to you, but Nadal made 5 straight Wimbledon finals (2006, 2007, 2008, DNP 2009, 2010, 2011), despite having only 5 grasscourt matches under his belt prior to 2006. He was bordering on grasscourt prodigy (he was only 20 years old in 2006).

If the Australian Open was a grasscourt event (as it was many years ago) then you can add a couple more slam titles to Nadal's tally. You can also revise Nadal's health in 2009 and 2012, as they were the only 2 years Nadal made the AO final. 2009, Nadal lost at Roland Garros and skipped Wimbledon. 2012, Nadal took all of February off only to fall apart at Miami (actually he said he regretted playing Indian Wells too) and withdraw after his QF and then took painkillers all the way until Wimbledon. The AO has done most of the damage to Nadal's career.

So if the AO was on grass, it would have helped his slam tally in more ways than one. And I haven't even mentioned the 2011 AO when Nadal was playing for his 4th slam title in a row but pulled a muscle vs Ferrer (or 2010 AO when Nadal retired from QF vs Murray). We are very fortunate that Nadal didn't play the AO this year.

Now imagine if I read the rest of your post and had to explain every sentence to you like you were a 2-year-old. I'd be wasting a lot of time/lifetimes

[Doctor MJ]

MJ, I read your first sentence,

...
Now imagine if I read the rest of your post and had to explain every sentence to you like you were a 2-year-old. I'd be wasting a lot of time/lifetimes

Wouldn't want you to have to do that.

[oberyn3]

Don't know why anyone would take McEnroe seriously on this issue. He used to call Laver the GOAT. Then he switched to Sampras. Then it was Federer. And I mean he started saying Federer back in 2004.

Now he wavers between Federer and Nadal, though, depending on what mood he's in, he'll still throw Laver in the mix. He also said words to the effect that if Djokovic had won/wins the French, Djokovic would, arguably, be the GOAT.

All of which is to say is that Johnny Mac is, at best, a prisoner of the moment or, at worst, just spouting this stuff to get attention.

[EH15]

Nadal can barely beat Djokovic on clay now. He'll never win another slam off clay as long as Nole is healthy.

[Hero]

There's no argument for Rafa being GOAT right now. I'm wondering if Novak has enough juice to surpass him rather than Rafa being the GOAT. Like c'mon...

Greatest on clay, sure.

For that one quote, you can find thousands saying Roger is the greatest anyways.

[Ong_dynasty]

I would put him in the top 5 maybe 4.

For me what he has done more impressive than anybody in this era has done is win the French / Wimbledon double by going through the best player in Grass. He has also won that now twice.

That double is the most impressive thing in Tennis.

For me, (and im a homer) to consider him the greatest he needs to get to maybe 14 / 15 minimum with another French / Wimbledon double. then you can start talking. At the moment 5 grand slams different is still quite big.

And DoctorMJ, he wond Gold in 08

[Ong_dynasty]

Nadal can barely beat Djokovic on clay now. He'll never win another slam off clay as long as Nole is healthy.

Lol ofcourse he can. The top 4 always seems to struggle against one another differently due to styles.

Rafa is good against Murray and Federer but struggles against Djoker
Federer is good against Djoker and Murray but struggles agaisnt Nadal

and so on and so forth.

[Doctor MJ]

For me, (and im a homer) to consider him the greatest he needs to get to maybe 14 / 15 minimum with another French / Wimbledon double. then you can start talking. At the moment 5 grand slams different is still quite big.

Hehe, well respect for calling yourself a homer, but I still marvel at saying that Nadal needs to get within 2-3 majors to get in the conversation. If Nadal doesn't tie Federer's record, it's hard for me to see him taken seriously as a challenger.

People would have tried to ride the head-to-head record to support Nadal as GOAT despite far less actual success, but then Djokovic took over. Unless Rafa re-ups and dominates Djokovic (and Murray) again, he's going to be a guy who was only the best player in the world for a brief window between primes of other guys, and he'll only hold on to the head-to-head edge over Djokovic if he successfully loses reliably before having to play Djokovic.

And DoctorMJ, he wond Gold in 08

Not sure why this is in response to me. It's certainly a feather in his cap.

[Hero]

Even if Nadal gets equal in the number of grandslams, I will still consider Fed better. There's more to tennis than just those. There's weeks at number 1. There's how many finals, semi finals, quarter finals. How many total wins.

He's by far the best clay court player ever though, nobody even in the same zip code as him.

[SharoneWright]

2 straight Masters hard court wins for Nadal - including victories against Djokovic in Mtl and Fed in Cinci. Not too shab.

[Doctor MJ]

2 straight Masters hard court wins for Nadal - including victories against Djokovic in Mtl and Fed in Cinci. Not too shab.

No doubt. If Rafa keeps this up through the end of the season he'll have completely changed expectations for the near future.

[Griff83]

Even if Nadal gets equal in the number of grandslams, I will still consider Fed better. There's more to tennis than just those. There's weeks at number 1. There's how many finals, semi finals, quarter finals. How many total wins.

He's by far the best clay court player ever though, nobody even in the same zip code as him.

If Nadal matchs Fed's slam # total it would be laughable to still rank Federer ahead.

Nadal at the age of 27 already has won 26 masters 1000 titles compared to 21 of Fed.
Add in Nadal has a embaressingly lopsided H2H against FED.

Fed also padded his nice resume against a much softer field compared to what Rafa has (Novak, Roger, Murray) vs the likes of Roddick, Hewitt etc.

Right now Nadal doesnt have the case against Roger but if he reachs 17 slams it would be ludacris to still rank Federer ahead of him.

[Doctor MJ]

If Nadal matchs Fed's slam # total it would be laughable to still rank Federer ahead.

Nadal at the age of 27 already has won 26 masters 1000 titles compared to 21 of Fed.
Add in Nadal has a embaressingly lopsided H2H against FED.

Fed also padded his nice resume against a much softer field compared to what Rafa has (Novak, Roger, Murray) vs the likes of Roddick, Hewitt etc.

Right now Nadal doesnt have the case against Roger but if he reachs 17 slams it would be ludacris to still rank Federer ahead of him.

So a few things:

Regarding the use of Masters titles. 1st off, it makes no sense to use those as a tiebreaker after the majors without first looking at the WTF which is a much bigger deal than any Masters. Federer has won it 6 times, Nadal has never won it. If we froze time right now, that would easily be enough to overwhelm the importance of Nadal's Masters edge without taking anything else into consideration.

2nd, Masters tournaments are a bit disproportionately clay relative to clay's ratio among the majors which gives Nadal an advantage on this front. While I understand the inclination to "play it where it lies" relative to surfaces and I don't entirely disagree, I don't recall very many people trying to use the same argument for Agassi over Sampras. The Majors aren't just slightly more important than the Masters - they are vastly more important and hence the Masters would only come into play not only well behind the number of Major titles a player has won, but also well behind deep runs within Majors. You might dispute that, but every player is looking to peak at Majors, and it's long been considered normal to blow off Masters to varying degrees once you are past your "infinite energy" youth. In basketball terms: Save your energy for the playoffs. If one player has a huge edge not only in Major wins but finals and semi-finals, that says he's much better able to play at world class levels when things matter most to him.

On that note, the reason why Federer is so far ahead of Nadal from a Majors perspective isn't just based on his 17-12 edge in wins. It's also based on his 24-17 edge in finals, and 33-20 edge in semi-finals. And as I say this, consider what this says about Federer's supposed "softer field". Despite the fact that Federer clearly peaked around 2006, and Nadal clearly had reached his peak by 2008, Federer has reached more Major semi-finals from 2008 on than Nadal has. That's astonishing.

Finally the Head-to-Head which has been the real argument Rafa supporters have used for long before it made any sense. The bottom line: It will never make sense to choose a method of comparison where one player gains an advantage by essentially forfeiting the matches he's most likely to lose. Meaning, Federer would not have the overall results edge he has if Nadal were constantly meeting him on the big stage and stopping him. He has the edge because Nadal would lose early (except on clay, where they played a ridiculous majority of their matches during their shared prime) and avoid facing Federer at all.

Now, one can argue that Federer was lucky. That Nadal's matchup advantage would have let him beat Federer if he could have just gotten to Federer...but we can't know that, and why would it matter anyway? It surely would have mattered had Nadal done it, but he didn't. He lost. Federer won. That's that.

Undoubtedly the fixation on the head-to-head among the mainstream caught on from a perspective of "who was better at their best?". We still care about McEnroe's peak even as his career lags well behind that, so if Nadal has a higher peak than Federer, of course that's a big deal...but that's not really what head-to-head tells us.

To the extent that Nadal has the matchup advantage, and the ability to win disproportionately against Federer while being less effective against the rest of the world, it comes down to a set of weapons. Federer has a more complete arsenal, but Nadal has such an extreme top spin stroke that against he can keep Federer away from his wheelhouse more effectively than others...something which would go away if Federer were just a little bit taller.

None of this is an excuse for Federer. If Nadal ends up with a greater career than Federer, it matters not how he does it...but shooting Jesse James does not make you Jesse James.

[oberyn3]

Even if the 2 had the same number of slams, I’d give the clear edge to Federer, for the same reason I would unquestionably rank Ivan Lendl ahead of Andre Agassi despite their both having 8 slams and Agassi even having the “career slam”. Lendl won more tournaments, spent significantly more time at #1, and stayed consistently at the to of the game for a longer period. (Agassi’s longevity, while impressive in its own way, was more of a roller coaster ride than one will find of any other all-time great). It’s kind of similar with Federer vs. Nadal. Federer just has the edge over Nadal in too many areas. I would only urge that people demonstrate some consistency on this. That is, please don’t rate Agassi ahead of Lendl then turn around and rattle off semi-final streaks, consistency, performance against the field etc. when ranking Federer ahead of Nadal. I’ve actually encountered people who do this.

Honestly, I think the head-to-head started off more as a “knock” against Federer. Nadal die-hards have morphed it into something else as the years have passed, but in no way do I think it somehow elevates Nadal’s career to the point where it makes him the more accomplished guy. I think Nadal fans give it too much weight in that regard. It’s not the professional days of the pre-Open era when guys played year-round “tours” against each other. In the modern era, you’re judged based upon your performance against the field as a whole. In that regard, it’s not really even close between the two guys at this point.

To be fair, though, I do think that, on some level, Federer supporters are too quick to give Fed what amounts to a complete pass on it. To me, it’s not about whatever their head-to-head is at the moment it’s that Federer, knowing Nadal was pretty much the one way guy standing his way, was unable to really find a way to prevail consistently in the big matches. For example, if Federer wins Wimbledon 2008 and Australia 2009 not even the most ardent Nadal fan would mention the head-to-head. Those were two 5-setters, off of clay, in which Federer couldn’t get the job done. Ditto if Federer wins just one of their French Open finals (2006 he won the first set easily and had his chances to force a fifth set).

In the same vein, if Djokovic had beaten Nadal at the French Open, no one would really care how the overall head-to-head stood because it would mean that, on the sport’s biggest stages, Djokovic had prevailed.

As always, I don't think there is such a thing as a G.O.A.T., but if someone tells me they think it's Federer, I'm not going to question their choice.