French Open | Roland Garros 2011 discussion

[j127]

Federer is the greatest of all time for now. Nadal could surpass him if he continues to win more majors.

[Slava]

Does anyone think that Nadal will have a tough time winning 6 more majors in another 4 years of his career barring major injuries?

The comparisons are very much valid since Nadal has so single handedly dominated the head to head games and other than that brief struggle against Del Potro there hasn't really been a player that gave him much to worry about.

[Ong_dynasty]

Federer is the greatest of all time for now. Nadal could surpass him if he continues to win more majors.

But as I said earlier, how can player x be the best player when he is getting his A$$ handed to him by plyaer y.?
By saying all that, I still dont rank Nadal number 1.

[BULLZ1LLA]

(I personally have never valued head2heads. I value SLAM HEAD2HEADS. Although I think Rafa leads everybody in h2h and slam h2h, except for Davydenko who leads Rafa 6-4 h2h, although they've never met in a slam. It was unlucky for Rafa that Davyenko didn't reach the 3rd round of Roland Garros this year, as they would have met. And Del Potro is 1-1 in slams vs Rafa. Rafa leads 5-3 overall, not that it matters)

[Ong_dynasty]

^^ Oh I agree to a certain extent if it was similar to Davydenko's record.
But it is 17-8 and I think 6-2 in Slam finals. I mean that is not a small difference where you can just push to the side.
As I say, how can you say this player is better when this other player is literally abusing him..
I cannot think of any other individual sport in which the G.O.A.T was consistently being abused by another compeitor.
The thing with Rafa is you look at a guy who is considered the best in Clay (or second at the very least), has beaten of who people consider the best player in grass of all time in grass and has beaten the best player in hard courts in who people consider the best player of all time (same player ofcourse). He has literally climbed every obstacle you can ask of him.
While federer? him not being able to overcome Nadal in Roland Garros (4 times) is a big dent in his resume in my opinion.
I just have a problem with a G.O.A.T with such a a glaring hole (same with Sampras and his inability to win in Clay).
I am also not the biggest fan of people considering a player G.O.A.T just solely based on majors.
In my opinion, if / when Nadal gets to around 12 Majors. The argument can be made.

[BULLZ1LLA]

^^ Oh I agree to a certain extent if it was similar to Davydenko's record.
But it is 17-8 and I think 6-2 in Slam finals. I mean that is not a small difference where you can just push to the side.
As I say, how can you say this player is better when this other player is literally abusing him..
I cannot think of any other individual sport in which the G.O.A.T was consistently being abused by another compeitor.
The thing with Rafa is you look at a guy who is considered the best in Clay (or second at the very least), has beaten of who people consider the best player in grass of all time in grass and has beaten the best player in hard courts in who people consider the best player of all time (same player ofcourse). He has literally climbed every obstacle you can ask of him.
While federer? him not being able to overcome Nadal in Roland Garros (4 times) is a big dent in his resume in my opinion.
I just have a problem with a G.O.A.T with such a a glaring hole (same with Sampras and his inability to win in Clay).
I am also not the biggest fan of people considering a player G.O.A.T just solely based on majors.
In my opinion, if / when Nadal gets to around 12 Majors. The argument can be made.

(Yeah like I said I don't value the h2h at all. I value the slam h2h, 7-2 Rafa leads Federer, and 1-0 Rafa leads Djokovic.

I've never considered Federer the best grasscourter ever. That title belongs to Sampras, easily. Sampras has more Wimbledons but most importantly he played in the tougher grasscourt era, by far. And because I saw Sampras in his prime, and I saw Federer in his prime, I know Sampras' prime was better, because his 2nd serve was better, volleys were more consistent, and his flat forehand was more destructive. Sampras' best form on grass was better than Federer's best form on grass. Also, apart from Rafa, I've never seen a player handle pressure better than Sampras. So that's another area Sampras would hurt Federer on grass, in the tie-breakers etc.

I can't really analyze the "GOAT" debate, because I didn't even see Laver play, and more importantly we never saw Laver play against Sampras or Nadal or Federer.

But I know Rafa is better at tennis than Federer. And I think Rafa will retire with a list of achievements greater than Federer's list)

[Doctor MJ]

I agree that Nadal is still quite far away from the discussion (I think when he gets to around 12, then the discussions can start).
But I am really starting to question Federer as being G.O.A.T and i think this article sums it up perfectly

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?w=1 ... 3771&i=TOP

I just do not like giving the title just because he has the most majors.

I just don't see the argument.

Federer has made 5 finals at the French, and lost to Nadal in a 6th. We're literaly talking about a guy who may be a 6-time winner at his weakest major if he didn't face the single greatest clay court player in history. He has a fantastic case as the 3rd best clay courter of the open era. Again, that's on his weakest surface.

His hard court dominance surpasses all others, his grass is right up there with the best. Who can compete with that kind of dominance?

I'm with you that you shouldn't just go by # of majors, but no matter how you look at it, you have to go back to pre-open periods to find someone who can even be in the debate with Federer's dominance.

So, I guess I'd ask, who are thinking has a case over Federer for GOAT?

[BULLZ1LLA]

I agree that Nadal is still quite far away from the discussion (I think when he gets to around 12, then the discussions can start).
But I am really starting to question Federer as being G.O.A.T and i think this article sums it up perfectly

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?w=1 ... 3771&i=TOP

I just do not like giving the title just because he has the most majors.

I just don't see the argument.

Federer has made 5 finals at the French, and lost to Nadal in a 6th. We're literaly talking about a guy who may be a 6-time winner at his weakest major if he didn't face the single greatest clay court player in history. He has a fantastic case as the 3rd best clay courter of the open era. Again, that's on his weakest surface.

His hard court dominance surpasses all others, his grass is right up there with the best. Who can compete with that kind of dominance?

I'm with you that you shouldn't just go by # of majors, but no matter how you look at it, you have to go back to pre-open periods to find someone who can even be in the debate with Federer's dominance.

So, I guess I'd ask, who are thinking has a case over Federer for GOAT?

(And if Federer didn't exist then Rafa would be going for his 5th Wimbledon this year and would currently have 290 weeks at number one. Amazing, isn't it?)

[Doctor MJ]

(And if Federer didn't exist then Rafa would be going for his 5th Wimbledon this year and would currently have 290 weeks at number one. Amazing, isn't it?)

Completely, and I get frustrated when people say "Well that's because they didn't have the depth of competition they 90s did". When you're losing to guys before the quarters half the time, it's not because of superior competition, it's because you aren't as good.

[Ong_dynasty]

As much as I criticise Federer ( I am unsure if you can say criticise if I just have calling him g.o.a.t, but still call him one of the best players I have ever seen).
I think we have to appreciate the current era that we have (or to be exact we had a few years ago), because I do not think or it will be very difficult to find an era of two better players competing at their primes the way Nadal and Federer did.

With regards to Bullzilla's comments of Sampras being better at grass.
I think that depends on which era of grass, as we all know the courts have slowed so I think it would have been harder for Federer to dominate at that time and at the same time it would be harder for Sampras to dominate at this era of grass.

[Doctor MJ]

As much as I criticise Federer ( I am unsure if you can say criticise if I just have calling him g.o.a.t, but still call him one of the best players I have ever seen).
I think we have to appreciate the current era that we have (or to be exact we had a few years ago), because I do not think or it will be very difficult to find an era of two better players competing at their primes the way Nadal and Federer did.

With regards to Bullzilla's comments of Sampras being better at grass.
I think that depends on which era of grass, as we all know the courts have slowed so I think it would have been harder for Federer to dominate at that time and at the same time it would be harder for Sampras to dominate at this era of grass.

I actually think Sampras might be one of the most fortunate "born at the right time" people in tennis history. He played at the time when the serve was most dominant in all of history...despite the fact players served significantly slower than today. As a result he was able to dominate with an offensive game even while lacking the all around game to be a threat on clay. If Sampras plays in the wooden racket era, he's probably not as successful, if he plays in the current era with slower courts and better prepared returners he's probably not as successful.

And to be clear, this isn't meant as a knock on the 90s: I think Agassi could have succeeded in any era, and would have challenged Sampras even in their era if he'd simply been able to stay mentally with it all the time.

So while it is absolutely correct to mention that Sampras on grass was the only thing of the previous era to surpass the kind of dominance we see from Federer and Nadal, even that comes with more questions that Fed & Rafa's dominance does.

[BULLZ1LLA]

(To be fair, no player today has the 2nd serve of Sampras. And as the saying goes 'you are only as good as your 2nd serve' and Sampras had the greatest 2nd serve in history by far. And it wasn't about speed, it was more about him going for the outer edge of the line. It was almost as if he didn't believe he could miss his 1st serve twice, so he went for another 1st serve. He was serving 2nd serve aces on breakpoints and in tie-breakers like it was nothing. Also, I wouldn't say the serve dominated the 90s.

Rusedski never won a slam. Goran didn't win a slam until after the 90s, and it was only ONE slam. Krajicek only won ONE slam. Scud won no slams. Agassi had a tame serve, and he won 1999 French Open, made final of 1999 Wimbledon, won 1999 US Open, won 2000 Australian Open. And the only other dominant stretches during the 90s were by Sampras. Courier won 4 slams - 2 AO, 2RG, but he wasn't among the 10 best servers in the game. Rafter had a good serve but not an ace-dominant serve and he won 2 US Opens. Guga had a good serve but wasn't in the class of the greatest servers of the 90s either, he won a couple of slams. Moya won a slam, and Kafelnikov won 2 slams [including Australian Open], these guys had good serves but not among the best serves on tour. Rios, not a big serve, but was ranked number one. Edberg won 3 slams in the 90s, all 1990-92. Becker won 3 slams in the 90s. So the most dominant slam players of the 90s were:

Sampras
Agassi
Courier
Becker
Edberg
Rafter
Kafelnikov
Guga
Juan Carlos Ferrero
[and Rios should get a mention, since has ranked number one and regularly top 10]
[also Chang was obviously ranked number 2 for a long, long time]

That is not a list of the biggest servers. Biggest servers of the 90s would be:
Goran
Rusedski
Scud
Krajicek
Sampras
Rosset
Martin
Arthurs
Stich
Wheaton
Magnus Larrson
Kenneth Carlsen
Becker though he was slowing down.

Top 10 ranked players today are:
Nadal
Djokovic BIG SERVER
Federer BIG SERVER
Murray
Soderling BIG SERVER
Ferrer
Berdych BIG SERVER
Monfils BIG SERVER
Fish
Roddick BIG SERVER
Del Potro [is top 3 material and only player to beat Nadal and Federer in the same slam] BIG SERVER)

[Ong_dynasty]

I just think when I watch Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.
There games are more complete than Sampras. As I said before, the fact that he was so inept in one of the courts really irks me as being one of the best.

With regards to second serves, it may not get aces and all. But I think Nadals is impressive the way it jumps at right handers is awkward

[BULLZ1LLA]

(Goran won Wimbledon in 2001, he beat Rafter in the Final. Both those guys came to the net at every opportunity. I bet if Rafter continued playing [injury-free] after 2001 he still would have made Wimbledon Finals or Semis. He wouldn't have suddenly dropped out of contention.

Players these days make the excuse that the grass is a different pace and you can't serve-volley anymore. But did any of them even try it? Federer said he stopped serve-volleying because he kept losing to Hewitt with it (Hewitt led 7-2 from 1999-2003, 8 of those meetings were on hardcourt). Hewitt is one of the best at beating serve-volleyers. I saw his head2heads vs all serve-volleyers dating back to the 90s, and he killed everyone, including Sampras. Hewitt triggered Federer to become a baseliner, and of course Federer stayed with it, so much that his volleying is now inconsistent, prompting McEnroe to rate Rafa's volleys as the best in the game ahead of Federer's volleys.

I think if guys like Goran and Rafter (in their prime) were inserted into 2011, they'd still be making Wimbledon Finals and Semis. Even on hardcourt [Rafter's best surface, 2-time US Open winner] I'm sure serve-volleying would work today. Rafter also made the SF of Roland Garros, and according to all reports at this year's Roland Garros, the clay [and use of a certain tennis ball] is by far the fastest it ever has been at Roland Garros, while the 1990s was extremely slow by comparison)

[Doctor MJ]

Bullzilla,

I think you're making some strong points. However, when Ivanisevic arrived on the scene Sports Illustrated did a story on him for his "speed of light" serve and copious aces when he was among the few to break 120 MPH. We now have guys serving in excess of 150 MPH, and those hyperspeed guys aren't as dominant on grass as the 120 MPH guys were. I realize there's more to a serve that raw speed, but it seems pretty safe to say that some things have changed.

[BULLZ1LLA]

(The question being, is it safe to say things have changed enough to prevent Rafter/Sampras from net-charging through the field at Wimbledon 2011? The answer is fairly obvious)

[Doctor MJ]

(The question being, is it safe to say things have changed enough to prevent Rafter/Sampras from net-charging through the field at Wimbledon 2011? The answer is fairly obvious)

Oh I think the question is really: If serve & volley is still the best way to play on grass why don't people do it any more?

[BULLZ1LLA]

(The question being, is it safe to say things have changed enough to prevent Rafter/Sampras from net-charging through the field at Wimbledon 2011? The answer is fairly obvious)

Oh I think the question is really: If serve & volley is still the best way to play on grass why don't people do it any more?

(Probably because they didn't do it in junior tennis. Even Sampras was a 2-handed backhand baseliner for the first half of his junior career and then made the sudden change [and he fell behind the others for a while - hence Agassi got more hype early], but bloomed in time for 1990 US Open. I think coaches don't encourage serve-volley, even in the 90s, so kids grow up as baseliners, and once you enter pro tennis as a baseliner you aren't likely to change)

[Doctor MJ]

(Probably because they didn't do it in junior tennis. Even Sampras was a 2-handed backhand baseliner for the first half of his junior career and then made the sudden change [and he fell behind the others for a while - hence Agassi got more hype early], but bloomed in time for 1990 US Open. I think coaches don't encourage serve-volley, even in the 90s, so kids grow up as baseliners, and once you enter pro tennis as a baseliner you aren't likely to change)

I have a hard time believing that such a prominent strategy could just disappear for no reason.

I will admit that when I was in youth tennis (90s) singles players rarely did serve & volley, but everyone played doubles as well, and in doubles everyone charged the net. So it's not like people weren't learning how to charge or how to volley.

My feeling is that the increased speed of the game, along with the increasing ability to return fast serving, is causing people to believe they simply are too vulnerable when they make the charge. Perhaps they are wrong, but I have a hard time asserting that they are clearly in the wrong.