The Official Tennis Thread

[Liu Kang]

What about women's top 5?

I'm a try just for fun :
1. Serena (dominance on two decades and two generations, soon to have the most major W)
2. Graf (Record of GS titles + calendar golden slam in '88 which is unprecedented)
3. Navratilova (Legendary rivalry with both Evert and Graf, career grand slam, whole lot of GS titles)
4. Evert (Reigning champ before Navratilova took over, great rivalry with her, 3 or 4th all time in weeks at #1)
5. Seles (maybe debatable but I believe that because her getting stabbed, it prevented her to have more slams and also because her game is the blueprint of the post-2000 era (grunts included) and also because she was to Graf what Nadal is to Fed in -shockingly- almost every aspects of the comparison (lefty, strategy to hammer the the 1h backhand heavy spin, baseliner against attacker, fury vs elegance and even grunts !)

 

[Liu Kang]

[...]
The main debate we have here is about Rafa since he's not even on my list and you have him 3rd.

Lets get something squared away off the top. Rafa is not the undisputed King of Clay. He's the king of the French Open. Guillermo Vilas has more clay court tournament championships. Nadal is sitting at 46 and Vilas has 49. Thomas Muster has 40 clay court titles and he played in the toughest era in tennis history. 1985-1999. He literally couldnt have come around at a tougher time and he still managed to get to the #1 singles ranking. He had terrible luck with injuries (hit by drunk driver as he approached his prime and tore ligaments). Im not gonna give him flack for Davis Cup either since he carried Austria and beat Agassi and Chang back to back in the same Cup. He was a beast. 3-1 vs Agassi on Clay..He was a failure in GS's though.

Vilas has more overall wins by nearly 200 compared to Nadal(4th best all time). He has by far more match wins on clay as well...and only four less overall tournament titles. He's got 4 GS titles and 40 runner ups overall. Nadal broke his record of consecutive clay court matches won but he is still behind him overall. Rafa gets much deserved credit for all the French Open titles, and that could outweigh the accomplishments of Vilas and certainly does to Muster..but, in terms of pure skill, debatable. This provides some context to my opinion of Nadal..how many legit other clay court specialists did he have to deal with in this run of his? Ferrer? Close to 0. Nadal was the best but he didn't have the comp that Vilas or Muster had. FWIW, Vilas has wins over at least 4 of the all time top 10 clay tournament champions (2 titles vs Nastase on clay, beat Borg on grass, Connors on carpet so he wasnt a one trick pony either) and Vilas has a better W-L than Nadal in year end Masters tournaments and Muster has a better W-L% in Finals appearances (80% on 40 titles vs 69% on 66 titles (when that rare top competition shows up nowadays)).

On the other hand, Vilas played 17 years and Nadal is in his 14th year. Nadal needs 3 more clay championships to tie him and 4 to beat him and he probably will get those, but we thought the same about Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus at one point too. Rafa is absolutely dominant on clay and in the French Open particularly..but if an argument can be made that Vilas > Nadal on clay then Nadal isnt touching my top 5

Ill stop there for now..but Im not sure Id even put Nadal over Connors or Lendl all-time either. Will wait for rebuttal and subsequent discussion with Borg and Johnny Mac.

I'll have to debunk that claim that Vilas is better than Nadal, nonsense

First, there is no specialists in our era because of surfaces having been kinda "uniformed" for the public to enjoy more rallies. Both era were different. Specialists today doesn't mean nothing really or simply an inclination or a preference to a surface. Who would you put as "grass specialist" when talking about the top ? Mahut ? To me, specialization is impossible and only all-rounders prevail. As a matter of fact, the top 5 is only guys that can reach finals on every surfaces. You talk about Ferru but he has as much semis in the French than he has in the USO or in the AO. And his greatest victory is on indoor at Paris !

Second, the competition Nadal had was better and I just need one name : Federer aka The GOAT. Had Nadal not existed Federer would have had 5 or more French Open but Nadal put the beats on him 4 times in the final and prevent him that luxury. You already know where I'm going with this because the second best clay player in that era simply is Federer. And the third best was Djokovic whose game was always difficult for Nadal (remember the epic matches in Hamburg '08 or Madrid '09 ?). In 07 and 08, he lost to Nadal in the semis of the French, in 09 he was also losing to Nadal in semis or finals of Masters1000 tourneys on clay. In 12 and 14 he again lost to Nadal in the final of the French. Djokovic has countless finals on the Major clay tourneys and even more semis that make him unarguably the 3rd best on that surfaces since he came up.

So yeah, 7 years ago, Djokovic was ranked #3 already (we often forget) and was already problem on clay and he still is. When it's all said and done, Federer will be ranked at #1 and Djokovic will be top 5 (if he keeps up with his current form obviously, we can never know but I believe he could easily reach the 14 mark in GS titles and get a French ; and if he does, he will secure that spot and Laver should have to go). So Nadal competition is better than Vilas : Federer > Borg, Djokovic will > Connors, Gerulatis, Nastase or whoever else.

So to end it all :
- Nadal has a career grand slam + numerous Davis Cups + an Olympics title + two finals in the YEC. Reached the finals of every grand slam at least thrice which proves him to be a far better player than Vilas ever was. That doesn't mean Vilas was a one trick pony. But if we hold against Nadal his over-representation of clay tourney in his resume, what is to be said of Vilas or Muster ? The former won 50 of his 62 titles and the latter won 40 oh his 44 titles on clay ! Nadal's ratio is lower (or less high lol) than both.
- And let's be real for a second, Vilas has more titles and more Ws on clay because he was a stat padder. His 1977 season where he won 16 tourneys was full of shytty ones and that's even the main reason he didn't finish at the #1 spot. I mean the very fact he won twice more tournaments than Connors and didn't even end up #1 is proof enough that all the ones he won were worth shyt. And also he only won that French Open because Borg didn't have the right to participate. We both know how it would have ended up if he did

Your turn, gentleman

 

[superunknown23]

I'm a try just for fun :
1. Serena (dominance on two decades and two generations, soon to have the most major W)
2. Graf (Record of GS titles + calendar golden slam in '88 which is unprecedented)
3. Navratilova (Legendary rivalry with both Evert and Graf, career grand slam, whole lot of GS titles)
4. Evert (Reigning champ before Navratilova took over, great rivalry with her, 3 or 4th all time in weeks at #1)
5. Seles (maybe debatable but I believe that because her getting stabbed, it prevented her to have more slams and also because her game is the blueprint of the post-2000 era (grunts included) and also because she was to Graf what Nadal is to Fed in -shockingly- almost every aspects of the comparison (lefty, strategy to hammer the the 1h backhand heavy spin, baseliner against attacker, fury vs elegance and even grunts !)

Seles owned Graf everywhere, except on grass... And Graf won the majority of her slams after that stabbing without any true rival (Arantxa Sanchez? lol).
Graf deserves a huge asterisk there.

 

[Liu Kang]

Seles owned Graf everywhere, except on grass... And Graf won the majority of her slams after that stabbing without any true rival (Arantxa Sanchez? lol).
Graf deserves a huge asterisk there.

Oh but I'm not saying otherwise and that's also why I made the comparison with Nadal / Federer which is extremely ressembling IMO.
The fact remain that Graf won her titles and her record and did so without cheating We will never know what could have happened but it's not Graf's fault some loony decided to stab her rival. We can't make her accountable for that. She won fair and square against the (weakened indeed) competition because Seles was the clear #1 in the early 90s. But it's also to be noted that Graf did win that '88 Grand Slam way before Seles was stabbed and she also won half of her GS titles before that event too.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I'll have to debunk that claim that Vilas is better than Nadal, nonsense

First, there is no specialists in our era because of surfaces having been kinda "uniformed" for the public to enjoy more rallies. Both era were different. Specialists today doesn't mean nothing really or simply an inclination or a preference to a surface. Who would you put as "grass specialist" when talking about the top ? Mahut ? To me, specialization is impossible and only all-rounders prevail. As a matter of fact, the top 5 is only guys that can reach finals on every surfaces. You talk about Ferru but he has as much semis in the French than he has in the USO or in the AO. And his greatest victory is on indoor at Paris !

Second, the competition Nadal had was better and I just need one name : Federer aka The GOAT. Had Nadal not existed Federer would have had 5 or more French Open but Nadal put the beats on him 4 times in the final and prevent him that luxury. You already know where I'm going with this because the second best clay player in that era simply is Federer. And the third best was Djokovic whose game was always difficult for Nadal (remember the epic matches in Hamburg '08 or Madrid '09 ?). In 07 and 08, he lost to Nadal in the semis of the French, in 09 he was also losing to Nadal in semis or finals of Masters1000 tourneys on clay. In 12 and 14 he again lost to Nadal in the final of the French. Djokovic has countless finals on the Major clay tourneys and even more semis that make him unarguably the 3rd best on that surfaces since he came up.

So yeah, 7 years ago, Djokovic was ranked #3 already (we often forget) and was already problem on clay and he still is. When it's all said and done, Federer will be ranked at #1 and Djokovic will be top 5 (if he keeps up with his current form obviously, we can never know but I believe he could easily reach the 14 mark in GS titles and get a French ; and if he does, he will secure that spot and Laver should have to go). So Nadal competition is better than Vilas : Federer > Borg, Djokovic will > Connors, Gerulatis, Nastase or whoever else.

So to end it all :
- Nadal has a career grand slam + numerous Davis Cups + an Olympics title + two finals in the YEC. Reached the finals of every grand slam at least thrice which proves him to be a far better player than Vilas ever was. That doesn't mean Vilas was a one trick pony. But if we hold against Nadal his over-representation of clay tourney in his resume, what is to be said of Vilas or Muster ? The former won 50 of his 62 titles and the latter won 40 oh his 44 titles on clay ! Nadal's ratio is lower (or less high lol) than both.
- And let's be real for a second, Vilas has more titles and more Ws on clay because he was a stat padder. His 1977 season where he won 16 tourneys was full of shytty ones and that's even the main reason he didn't finish at the #1 spot. I mean the very fact he won twice more tournaments than Connors and didn't even end up #1 is proof enough that all the ones he won were worth shyt. And also he only won that French Open because Borg didn't have the right to participate. We both know how it would have ended up if he did

Your turn, gentleman

Excellent response. I will address your points.
Perhaps you slightly misread the aim of my arrows

I said he is not the "Undisputed" King of Clay...and "if an argument can be made that Vilas > Nadal on Clay"...I never said Vilas > Nadal. I was pointing out that Nadal's claim to fame, in my estimation, is overrated and overstated. I wanted to go right at Nadal's overall strength in comparison to peripheral clay court kings so then analyzing him against Johnny Mac and Borg (and perhaps Laver if it goes there) become a cake walk.

• Specialization isn't impossible at all. At the very least, there are surfaces that do not play to a player's strengths so they place worse (the negative as opposed to the positive). I know what you're getting at with how the ATP tour has changed the surfaces but I wouldnt go that far. If nothing else, there are less specialists because there is more uniformity in the players' games themselves than the surfaces.
  
• Ferrer is 40-13 at the French Open, 303-117 on Clay in total. Both are his most wins and highest win%. You just dont look at him like that because hes Sharapova status vs Nadal' Serena on Clay..but he's 4-4 off Clay vs Nadal. What does that suggest?
• Sure, Nadal had Federer. Alright. Is there the depth there? The top end guys affect the GS's and the depth affect the lesser tournaments. Do you really want me to list some of Nadal's tournament victories? I think not. And Vilas' not getting the 1 rank was actually disputed by his country and recognized by the ATP that he shouldve been ranked 1 for at least 5 weeks but there was some sort of complication in timing which didn't enable Vilas to be ranked 1.
  
• Djokovic will be > Connors, but don't sleep on Connors accomplishments...and as of now..idk about putting Novak over him quite yet. And since we can assume that Nadal is near the end of the road, then you might have to swing that > to < unless 1. Nadal regains form so these few years wont be considered his end and 2. That Djokovic does enough to surpass Connors in the same time period. Essentially Novak has to sweep the next GS's but lose to Nadal on Clay in the French Finals the next swing around..yet that would be more evidence of clay dependence because his reduced form only allows success on clay. His surface performance is like a bell-curve. clay at both ends of the spectrum and everything at the peak. Further, we are talking Vilas and Clay vs Nadal on Clay..not Vilas vs Nadal. Vilas' competition on clay > Nadal's. Look at Nastase's career on clay. At this point Borg, Vidas, McEnroe, Nastase, Connors and the depth behind them > the overall field of Nadal's comp.
  
• Further, you missed my point about Vilas and Muster in general. Take away clay from them and what then? No longer Kings.That does not mean that they'd be jobbers but instead good (Muster)-great(Vilas) players in skill alone without near the accolades and success. Nadal would have MORE accolades and success than them, but no where near enough to talk top 5 all time let alone top 3, just as the disproportionate success on clay drops Muster and Vilas in all-time ranks. That drop makes him a clay specialist essentially like them, just at the top of the totem pole due to lack of top level clay comp at the FO, depth in lesser tourneys and having more success on other surfaces.
  
• Can't wait to talk about Nadal's skill-set.

*I dont assign a negative connotation to clay court specialist, its more of a trickle down label into overall skill-set as a tennis player in general in my comparisons, which I will expound on later*

edit* just to add to fukkery, subtract FOs and Muster is neck and neck on clay vs better comp and Vilas is unreachable. Muster was beating/competing with Lendl on clay before he got bodied and was still very good on clay after he got bodied. His career trajectory on clay was similar or better than Nadal's on clay (as you alluded to with his increased % compared to other surfaces and the argument could be made that Muster wouldve far and away been considered the modern king of clay to this day (he already was labeled that during his) and got to #1 ranking 5 years after ligament tears regardless. Im not Johnny Cochran though and dont plan on trying that case

 

[Ari Gold Bawse]

 

[CASHAPP]

I really hate the fact that Serena has a white boyfriend(her coach) so disappointing :aiccmon:

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

As for the ladies:

1a. Serena
1b. Navratilova
3. Graf
4. Court
5. Evert

check out this list by "experts" in 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time

Tennis Channel’s 100 Greatest of all Time rankings were decided by an international committee of players, journalists, coaches, historians and industry representatives. Participants hailed from six continents and included the International Tennis Hall of Fame. During the 2011 voting and selection process, the series’ producers spent several months taping interviews and collecting footage before editing the individual episodes this winter. In all, the entire project has taken about a year to prepare.

Obviously a bunch of old-heads making those rankings. That list mixed women and men, ill separate them:

Their top 15 for guys:
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Borg
6. Budge
7. Agassi
8. Johnny Mac
9. Connors
10. Tilden
11. Emerson
12. Lendl
13. Rosewall
14. Becker
15. Edberg

sidenotes: They have Vilas right behind Novak (remember this is 2012, voted on in 2011), Muster right behind Roddikk and above Orantes and Cash. Questionable. No way in hell is Guga 55th all time women and men. but meh.

Women (terrible list):

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Evert
5. King
6. Serena
7. Seles
8. Venus
9. Leglen
10. Henin
11. Connolly
12. Wills
13. Hingis
14. Goolagong
15. Bueno (then Gibson right behind her)

They have Graf as 3rd best all time and Navrat at 4, ahead of everyone but Fed and Laver

 

[malbaker86]

1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Pete
4. Borg
5. Laver

I truly believe once it's all said and done, Novak will be 3rd (or 2nd) on most list.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Pete
4. Borg
5. Laver

I truly believe once it's all said and done, Novak will be 3rd (or 2nd) on most list.

Perhaps. I mean, whos coming up behind him that seem like remotely close competition? That, if anything, will keep ardent old-school tennis people from putting him above Fed/Laver and perhaps Pete. We might be coming into one of the worst talent pools there have been in a while. Most of the young guys have either been injured a bit or outright disappointments.

FWIW, the more I closely analyze Laver, the more I consider moving him up. I was watching matches last night when he was near retirement but still very good and he's a beast. Saw a bit of him vs Borg and he and Arthur Ashe vs Nastase/Borg in doubles and it was highly entertaining.

 

[FaTaL]

1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Pete
4. Borg
5. Laver

I truly believe once it's all said and done, Novak will be 3rd (or 2nd) on most list.

u cant have fed over nadal when nadal bends his azz over

 

[malbaker86]

u cant have fed over nadal when nadal bends his azz over

Fed's the GOAT and more accomplished of the two. Rafa needs to win another well two more slams off clay and it REALLY would help if he won a title on indoor hard courts. He's putrid

 

[FaTaL]

Fed's the GOAT and more accomplished of the two. Rafa needs to win another well two more slams off clay and it REALLY would help if he won a title on indoor hard courts. He's putrid

personally i think rafa is done but federer cant be the best with that giant stain on his record

 

[malbaker86]

personally i think rafa is done but federer cant be the best with that giant stain on his record

Rafa better follow the lead of Fed, Murray, and Novak bruh...

Get new coaches and get married bruh

 

[Liu Kang]

[...]

Well, substracting one's victories to prove is overall performance doesn't mean anything ultimately don't you think ? What if we strip Sampras' Ws on grass ? What if we strip's Djoko''s Ws at the Aussie ? What if we strip Borg's Ws at the FO ? What if we do the same with Guga ? What if we strip Connors's titles at the USO or even further on hardcourt ? We could go on and on but we wouldn't be going anywhere, would we ? Facts are there, we can't just tweak how we want and subtract things that we find not fitting.

But let's say we do, welp, how do you rate Borg without clay then ? Only 5 Wimbys ? That's kinda uni-dimensional... If we strip Nadal's FOs, he has 1 AO, 2 Wimbys, 2 USOs, so that makes Nadal a more diverse player no ? So if we strip both of their best surfaces, Nadal > Borg. Do I have a case too ?


About surfaces, I think it's chicken or egg. Is it because the players play the same that they slow the surfaces down ? Or is it because they slowed them down that players play the same ? I don't know honestly. But the fact remains that surfaces do not play a major role as they did before. I mean, Sampras was ass on clay above all after 1996 but come the grass season and he was magnificent ('99 Wimby final against Agassi ). The other end is true, Bruguera was a monster on clay but couldn't play well on grass. Nowadays, every player perform similarly (more or less, we agree) whatever the surface because the game is faster and harder and kinda "uniformized". We can't hold that against players, that's how it is. But the you don't see specialists winning things ? What has Llodra of importance before retiring ? same with Stepanek or Mahut ? Serve & volleyers don't win shyt these days, only all-rounders. Even Federer stopped with the S&V because it's not efficient enough now. Unfortunately.

Spoiler: more to avoid taking too much place lol

And we shall address the stat padding that was doing Vilas. In 1977, he played 140 matches which may be the highest total number ever in the Open era. I'm pretty sure his average during his prime has to be in the 110s. The average number players play in the modern era might be 80 or up to 90. Of course, he'll have better numbers. Breh played 600+ matches on clay against Nadal's 300+ lol. We also gotta remember that Vilas only reach the final of the USO because at the time, it was played on clay ! So yeah, there were more matches on clay so that's why Vilas had more numbers than Nadal there.

And Djokovic is already above Connors of quality alone. Only thing he has better than him is longevity of his career. Since 2011, Nole is above everybody else (well maybe not in 2012) but the consistency he has regardless of the surfaces is the best since Federer's run and he may even be able to best the GOAT in that category. He already has 9 Slams (top 5), he's already top 3 in Masters 1000 titles (behind Nadal and Fed who beat him numerous times when pre-2011), he's already has the most win in the AO, his 2011 year was great and the current one could even be better.

I think we really underestimate the level of the triumvirate that is/was Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. That's why I think the competition Nadal faced was greater because those 3 here (with Murray often, Delpo, Soderling, Ferrer at times) are/were on another planet. The depth is not the same and I'l give you that but the quality is way higher. Those 3 here could legit end up in the top 5 without depending on how the next couple of years occur. Of course, some will have Laver, Borg, Mac above Nole and/or Nadal but stats wise, they will be better.