US OPEN 2010

[Ong_dynasty]

^^
Oh I agree with regards to Federer V Sampras. I have always rated Federer higher way before he broke the GS record (partly because of Sampras inability to do anything on French or Clay for that matter).
As I said earlier, I did not mean to discredit Federer, but highlight Nadal's achievements. I remember how even before Nadal won the U.S open, people still questioned his game in Hard Courts even though he was won in the Australian Open and is was always there and thereabouts in Hard Courts. Which for me did not make sense to me personally.
What I am saying is that (ofcourse as a career Federer has the edge) but if you want to talk about peaks, I think Nadal's peak is better and his achievements are currently greater (compared to a Federer with 9 GS) since:
-He had to go through the "best player of all time" from the very beginning of his career
-Had to beat the "best player of all time" in his surface to win the GS.

Where me and Doctor MJ disagree is based on the realism of Nadal overthroning Federer.
I personally think it is quite likely.
I also do not believe he requires to beat Federer's 16 (ofcourse he needs to get close) to be considered better because;
-of the Wimbledon and French double (he has done more times)
-better H2H
-and had to go through Federer

[oberyn3]

^^

Where me and Doctor MJ disagree is based on the realism of Nadal overthroning Federer.
I personally think it is quite likely.
I also do not believe he requires to beat Federer's 16 (ofcourse he needs to get close) to be considered better because;
-of the Wimbledon and French double (he has done more times)
-better H2H
-and had to go through Federer

I think Nadal's got an excellent chance of ending up being regarded as the greatest player of this era.

[Ong_dynasty]

Well if its this era, doesnt that mean greatest of all time?

[oberyn3]

Well if its this era, doesnt that mean greatest of all time?

I don't believe in a "greatest of all time", for the same reason I don't believe one can say that a particular era's competition is "stronger" or "weaker" than another.

Is Nadal greater than Borg? They've never played each other. Nadal has never played Laver''s competition and vice versa. How can I say one guy is "greater" than the other?

I can look within an era and make a (still admittedly subjective) judgment that, given a similar set of opponents and circumstances, one guy achieved more than one of his own contemporaries, but I don't think one can really do that across eras.

Just my $.02.

ETA: Also, one amusing anecdote. Martina Navratilova once said that it was pretty funny that she was being hailed as the Greatest of All Time when she won her 6th Wimbledon title. When she won her 9th Wimbledon title years later, she found that she'd been downgraded in status.

Ditto the idea that, per John McEnroe, for example, Laver was the G.O.A.T. 20 years ago. Sampras was the G.O.A.T. in 2002. Federer's been the G.O.A.T. for the last couple of years, but he (Fed) might be replaced as G.O.A.T. by Nadal. It's an interesting definition of "all-time" to say the least.

[Doctor MJ]

^^

Where me and Doctor MJ disagree is based on the realism of Nadal overthroning Federer.
I personally think it is quite likely.
I also do not believe he requires to beat Federer's 16 (ofcourse he needs to get close) to be considered better because;
-of the Wimbledon and French double (he has done more times)
-better H2H
-and had to go through Federer

I think Nadal's got an excellent chance of ending up being regarded as the greatest player of this era.

I actually agree that Nadal has a good chance of becoming the best player of this era - and I don't have a problem GOAT debates, if he usurps Fed, he'll be my GOAT.

I definitely have different criteria than ong though. The foundation of my rankings are based on actual tournament performance, and then adjusting using my perception of that player and his competition. So Player A with less raw accomplishment can surpass Player B with more, if I simply believe Player A to be a superior player based on the idea that that if they played at the same time, Player A would have accomplished more.

Since Fed & Nadal though have had their eras overlap quite a bit though, Nadal's going to have to get pretty dang close to Fed's accomplishments in order for him to really have a case for me.

[Ong_dynasty]

^^
I kind of agree with what you are saying.
I giving Nadal the same benefit of the doubt as I gave Federer even before he beat Sampras. Because at that time I considered Federer a more complete player / could win on Clay (even though he has not at the time). I think if/when Nadal reaches around 14 GS, the argument can start being made.

with re: to oberyn3's message,
I see where you are coming from, but at the same time think that is why the discussion is fun. There is a great deal of subjectivity involved:).

[Doctor MJ]

^^
I kind of agree with what you are saying.
I giving Nadal the same benefit of the doubt as I gave Federer even before he beat Sampras. Because at that time I considered Federer a more complete player / could win on Clay (even though he has not at the time). I think if/when Nadal reaches around 14 GS, the argument can start being made.

with re: to oberyn3's message,
I see where you are coming from, but at the same time think that is why the discussion is fun. There is a great deal of subjectivity involved:).

I'll have to evaluate it as time goes by. Partly because I'm not just going by # majors won, but also deep major performances, as well as other important tournaments and overall W-L records to some degree.

I'll echo your response to oberyn here. I understand being unsatisfied with the subjectivity of cross-era comparisons, but personally I find it fun.