T1B

Not The Beatles.







Rafael Nadal wins his 9th French Open.

How the hell can any human being win 9 titles at the French??

Absolutely SICK!

Major props to that guy.


Surpassed Bjorn Borg a couple of years back as the best dirt player of all time, imo -- and now he's tied P. Sampras for 2nd spot on the all-time Grand Slam win list with 14.

Federer has 17 Slams and is 33 years old.
I guess he could theoretically notch another one before he retires, but it's getting doubtful.

Nadal is 28 and has a good 2-4 years left.
He has a realistic shot at passing Roger.


Greatest player of all-time?

If he passes Federer, he'll have a case.

Right now it's hard to keep him out of the top 10.

To get to 18, he probably needs to win a few more on other surfaces.

The best ever was an Aussie.

He's won the Aussie, US. Open, and Wimbly, so it can be done.

Btw, in a hypothetical Nadal v. Laver dealie...

Laver beats Nadal on hard courts, grass, and indoors.
Nadal beats Laver on clay.

Not necessarily if they palyed in the same era (training, conditioning, equipment, etc.). Laver won the calendar year slam twice, so he was good on all surfaces. I saw him play. He was incredible.

Nadal's record at the French is unparalleled, but he needs a bit more balance on his resume.

Goober wrote:Not necessarily if they palyed in the same era (training, conditioning, equipment, etc.). Laver won the calendar year slam twice, so he was good on all surfaces. I saw him play. He was incredible.

Nadal's record at the French is unparalleled, but he needs a bit more balance on his resume.

I saw Laver, too -- but it was at the end of his career and it was just an exhibition match against a very young Bjorn Borg.

Laver was great on every surface, no doubt.

I'd just give Nadal the edge vs. Laver on clay, based on him being the greatest clay court player ever.
His record on dirt can't be denied.


It's interesting to note that while Federer is considered the greatest player of this generation, Nadal owns him.
Rafael leads him 23-10 head to head.
And Nadal is 9-6 vs. Roger on hard courts.

But what Roger Federer has done is own the biggest stages -- Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.
The French is still regarded a notch below those two, by most people.

I think you're right that Nadal needs to claim a few more U.S. Opens and/or Wimbledons if he is going to have a case for being the greatest ever.
Despite having a career slam (winning each major at least once), I think most people downgrade him slightly because they still view him as being "just" a phenomenal dirt baller.

Now it's 11.

R. Nadal won his 11th French Open today.

Sck x infinity.


He has now claimed 17 majors.
Federer has 20.

Raf Nadal leads Federer head-to-head 23-15.


Nadal is by far the greatest clay court player of all time.
A case can be made that he is the greatest player ever, period.

Thiem has beaten him on clay twice in the last two years but Roland Garros is Rafa's hood.

He is 86-2 lifetime at the French. Only Robin Soderling (2009) and Novak Djokovic (2015) have beaten Nadal at the French. Unheard of.

L45B wrote:Unheard of.

Absolutely.

Borg won 6 French Opens and that was considered insane.

Guys like Wilander and Kuerten won 3 times and are considered legends of Roland Garros.


11?

pffft....

Simply unreal.

Dude is still not really even struggling to win this tournament (to Spray's point, he only lost one set this year) despite being 32 years old.

He's been prone to injuries but one has to believe he will win a 12th, maybe more before it's all said and done.

The only other three to hoist the cup during his reign-- Federer (2009), Wawrinka (2015) & Djokovic (won when Rafa did not play, 2016). Other than the one hiccup to Djokovic in '15, Rafa owns these guys on the terre battue.

Softball Bat wrote:Now it's 11.

R. Nadal won his 11th French Open today.

Sck x infinity.


He has now claimed 17 majors.
Federer has 20.

Raf Nadal leads Federer head-to-head 23-15.


Nadal is by far the greatest clay court player of all time.
A case can be made that he is the greatest player ever, period.

So Federer has beaten Nadal the last 5 times they've played. Nadal the greatest player ever? No. The greatest clay court player? Absolutely. Not sure why, but his game doesn't seem to translate as well to other surfaces. Take away the French and Federer leads head-to-head 13-10. The two main reasons Nadal will not catch Federer? Number one, he's a bit injury-prone, and number two, Roger is apparently not done winning majors.

Goober wrote:Take away the French and Federer leads head-to-head 13-10.

Yes, but why would you take away the French?

It counts.
It is a major championship.


I would place Roger ahead of Rafa on an all-time list.
I'm just saying that a case can be made for Nadal as the best ever.


This was my post at Stucknut about one year ago...

poptart wrote:Top 10 male tennis champions of the last 50 years, imo

10. Mats Wilander - 7 slam titles, B. Becker and S. Edberg were considered for this spot
9. A. Agassi - Sampras' top rival, 8 slam wins, career slam
8. J. Connors - the Pete Rose of tennis, electric
7. I. Lendl - 8 straight U.S. Open finals
6. J. McEnroe - gifted, high-strung artist, greatest doubles player ever
5. N. Djokovic - racked up 12 grand slam titles, career slam
4. B. Borg - 5 straight Wimbledon wins, 6 French titles
3. R. Nadal - leads Federer head-to-head, 10 French titles, career slam
2. P. Sampras - dominant, 7 Wimbledon and 5 U.S. Open titles - zero French finals
1. R. Federer - most slams, career slam, best all-around player, imo



Rod Laver won the grand slam in 1969 and clearly would be ranked ahead of some (most, or even all) on this list, but he was really a part of the era before 1969 -- with Emerson, Rosewall, etc.

I wouldn't take away the French. I was just illustrating that Nadal's record is heavily dependent on that one tournament. And Laver may still be the best ever.

He was the No. 1 ranked professional from 1964 to 1970, spanning four years before and three years after the start of the Open Era in 1968. He also was the No. 1 ranked amateur in 1961–62.

Laver's 200 singles titles are the most in tennis history. This included his all-time men's record of 10 or more titles per year for seven consecutive years (1964–70). He excelled on all of the court surfaces of his time: grass, clay, hard, carpet, and wood/parquet.

Laver won 11 Grand Slam singles titles, though he was banned from playing those tournaments for the five years prior to the Open Era. Laver is the only player to twice achieve the calendar-year Grand Slam, in 1962 and 1969, and the latter remains the only time a man has done so in the Open Era. He also won eight Pro Slam titles, including the "pro Grand Slam" in 1967, and he contributed to five Davis Cup titles for Australia during an age when Davis Cup was deemed as significant as the Grand Slams.

So he won the calendar year slam twice, and was not allowed to play those tournaments for 5 years in between. Had he been allowed to, Federer might be #2 still.

Goober McTuber wrote:I saw him play. He was incredible.

Of course you saw Laver play. You probably saw Bill Tilden too.

I saw Rod Laver play live one time.
In Galesburg Illinois, of all places.
An exhibition match vs. Bjorn Borg in the mid-'70s.
Laver was old and Bjorn was in his prime.


Laver is probably #1 or #2 all-time, imo.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I saw him play. He was incredible.

Of course you saw Laver play.

Laver was at the peak of his game while I was still in high school. That makes me 65. And only one of us is a FLF, shorty. Your point?

FLF =

Fat
Little
Fuck

?

L45B wrote:

Haha