Do you agree with McEnroe/Wilander on Nadal needing 15 slams to surpass Federer?

[NADAL2005RG]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/new-york-conquered-rafael-nadal-hunts-roger-federers-record/story-fnbe6xeb-1226716399859

John McEnroe and Mats Wilander were among the chorus of respected voices saying that Nadal needed only 15 majors to have forged a more successful career than Federer.

Do you agree with McEnroe and Wilander about 15? I don't. I know none of us are as qualified as them, so I'm not saying I'm right, but I don't agree.

Even if I'm wrong about this, I think Nadal needs 18, just because all the other achievements each player has are too subjective in value. So might as well just go by the total number of slams each have won. Generally speaking, that's how the tennis community has decided on greatness anyway, or basically there has been an emphasis on the Calendar Year Grand Slam being the #1 definition of greatness, the total slams being the #2 definition of greatness, and the Career Grand Slam being the #3 definition of greatness.

Since neither Federer/Nadal have the #1, both have the #3, the difference between them comes down to the #2. So I still think Nadal has to get 18 in order to surpass Federer in history, even though McEnroe's thoughts are valued above all others in the tennis commentary world (and backed up by the very credible Wilander).

Here is another interesting article on the comparison-
http://www.rrstar.com/blogs/matttrowbridge/x1367239983/Rafael-Nadal-passes-Roger-Federe-as-greatest-tennis-player-ever

 

[Jelenafan]

I think it depends on which Majors he gets.

Just some crazy speculation, if he wins the AO, and say another FO. He has 15 but that includes the box set for every Major, something Roger does not have (only 1 FO).

Or another scenario, he wins AO, FO and Wimbledon completing a Rafa slam (admittedly a very difficult maybe impossible feat) but I think his 16 Majors would be enough under those circumstances to convince many.

I think he needs to reach 16 to convince a good size of pundits, but I don't think an absolute number of 18 is needed for serious GOAT cred.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I think it depends on which Majors he gets.

Just some crazy speculation, if he wins the AO, and say another FO. He has 15 but that includes the box set for every Major, something Roger does not have (only 1 FO).

Or another scenario, he wins AO, FO and Wimbledon completing a Rafa slam (admittedly a very difficult maybe impossible feat) but I think his 16 Majors would be enough under those circumstances to convince many.

I think he needs to reach 16 to convince a good size of pundits, but I don't think 18 is needed for serious GOAT cred.

I agree, if Nadal won THE RAFA SLAM, it would represent a very similar value to The Calendar Year Grand Slam, which would overshadow Federer's 17 slams. Just as people forever talk about Laver's Calendar Year Grand Slam, I think people would forever talk about THE RAFA SLAM.

I think there are several ways for Nadal to get "GOAT cred" (including winning each slam twice). But to surpass Federer in history unequivocally in the eyes of majority of the tennis community I'd say 18 slam titles, but now I'd also agree with THE RAFA SLAM (since its value is almost the same as The Calendar Year Grand Slam).

 

[ClayDeath]

and what about pete Sampras? Agassi? borg? becker? rafter?


also brad gilbert? we need to know what all of them are saying.

 

[ClayDeath]

welcome to the forums jelenafan.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

no I don't agree with McEnroe.

 

[zalvar]

I know a lot of us Rafa fans like to say World Tour Finals isn't important. But I actually think he needs to at least win 1 ... for goatness.

Also I agree with Jmac. 15 slams for me is the magic number. He gets that number plus a Tour finals then I think he's in the conversation.

Then he'll have loads of Davis Cups and a gold medal to leverage the number of slams if he does end up with only 15 vs. roger's 17.

 

[britbox]

Last time I checked 17>15 so I think he needs 17 to "pass" Federer. Even though they would be mathematically equal, Nadal's H2H would give him the nod in that scenario.

I also don't value McEnroe's opinion above all others in tennis. He changes his mind every five minutes. (as does Wilander).

 

[Kieran]

I'd never consider Federer to be a greater player than Nadal. He has more achievements and he has greater consistency, but he's older and he's been unaffected by injuries but aside from all this, I watch Rafa and I just see the greatest player of his era. His win against Novak only rubber-stamped that conviction...

 

[brokenshoelace]

but he's older and he's been unaffected by injuries but aside from all this, \

The first part is irrelevant to this conversation, and the second part (injuries) is a testament to his greatness. It didn't happen by pure luck.

 

[Jelenafan]

welcome to the forums jelenafan.

Thanks!

 

[Kieran]

but he's older and he's been unaffected by injuries but aside from all this, \

The first part is irrelevant to this conversation, and the second part (injuries) is a testament to his greatness. It didn't happen by pure luck.

First part is highly relevant given how many slams Roger won before Rafa started. Rafa has won most of his going through Roger and Novak. Non-injuries isn't a testament to greatness unless you're referring to mysterious genetics or something...

 

[masterclass]

C'mon. Get real.

Unfortunately, Wilander and McEnroe are well known cheerleaders when it is suitable and they are told what to say when it comes to these kind of things to drum up more interest in the sport as they are the most visible to the public. But don't worry, they are well paid for their cooperation.

They have little or zero credibility when talking about things like this. They blow the way the wind is blowing.

Now ask them questions about general tennis tactics and technical parts of the game and I'll listen as long as they are not referring to specific players.

But their GOAT type discussions are pointless and only used to increase their audience by inciting the masses, composed mostly of fans (fanatics) and detractors.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Kieran]

It's true, masterclass, and it's strange with a lot of tennis greats: they bend with the prevailing wind. I suppose it shows that commentators get as carried away as the rest of us, but because of this it makes them less reliable. This is why I love Johnny Giles! Look him up. Never falls for hype and cuts a Plato-sized sword through so-called greatness.

In fact, in Ireland we have a catchphrase from it: "he's a good player but not a great player." It isn't hairsplitting, it's reason. Of course, this catchphrase is very flexible: "that's a good bus, but not a great bus."

And so on...

 

[brokenshoelace]

but he's older and he's been unaffected by injuries but aside from all this, \

The first part is irrelevant to this conversation, and the second part (injuries) is a testament to his greatness. It didn't happen by pure luck.

First part is highly relevant given how many slams Roger won before Rafa started. Rafa has won most of his going through Roger and Novak. Non-injuries isn't a testament to greatness unless you're referring to mysterious genetics or something...

Okay, the first part is relevant in an "I'll wait for both of them to finish their careers" kind of way. If that's what you mean, sure.

Staying injury free while managing to stay on top of the rankings for four years, playing every tournament, winning most of them, and going deep in all of them is a HUGE testament to greatness. Here is a player who has developed such an effortless style that year after year, he's staying injury free while playing unprecedented tennis on such a demanding tour? When every single player was demanding for the tour to be shortened, Roger Federer was making it look easy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

C'mon. Get real.

Unfortunately, Wilander and McEnroe are well known cheerleaders when it is suitable and they are told what to say when it comes to these kind of things to drum up more interest in the sport as they are the most visible to the public. But don't worry, they are well paid for their cooperation.

They have little or zero credibility when talking about things like this. They blow the way the wind is blowing.

Now ask them questions about general tennis tactics and technical parts of the game and I'll listen as long as they are not referring to specific players.

But their GOAT type discussions are pointless and only used to increase their audience by inciting the masses, composed mostly of fans (fanatics) and detractors.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Agreed, in full.

 

[Kieran]

Okay, the first part is relevant in an "I'll wait for both of them to finish their careers" kind of way. If that's what you mean, sure.

In a way, but not only. I don't think Rafa will win 17 majors and I don't he'll have to, to be considered a greater player than Roger...

 

[masterclass]

It's true, masterclass, and it's strange with a lot of tennis greats: they bend with the prevailing wind. I suppose it shows that commentators get as carried away as the rest of us, but because of this it makes them less reliable. This is why I love Johnny Giles! Look him up. Never falls for hype and cuts a Plato-sized sword through so-called greatness.

In fact, in Ireland we have a catchphrase from it: "he's a good player but not a great player." It isn't hairsplitting, it's reason. Of course, this catchphrase is very flexible: "that's a good bus, but not a great bus."

And so on...

Interesting. I didn't know about Johnny Giles. Thanks!

There are a still a few tennis greats that are much more reluctant to get involved in these kinds of discussion, especially when the players are from different or even overlapping generations. When asked, they usually say that it is very difficult to compare players and try to instead discuss each player on their own merits.

I enjoyed hearing a Laver or a Rosewall, or when he was still alive, an Arthur Ashe for example, discuss their particular generation and what it was like to play against certain players.

This is much more respectable and I should say that journalists would be more respectable if they used a similar approach. Sadly, serious journalism over the years has taken a big hit in this regard.

Many entities have drifted toward this form of sensationalist tabloid journalism in an effort to make more and more money. The idealism and respectability has been lost in the cloud of windfall profits, and it will continue to be so as long as the majority of the public buys into it.

For what it's worth, here is ol' faithful John McEnroe at work after Wimbledon 2009, trying to painfully extract answers from 3 tennis legends regarding the GOAT question.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYcDfw68vO4[/video]

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[masterclass]

After Borg talked about winning and losing, I would have loved it if McEnroe asked Mr. Laver and Borg about their 1975 World Championship Tennis Finals thrilling semifinal match on carpet where the almost 19 year old Borg came so close to losing to almost 37 year old Laver (Borg won the 4th set tiebreaker to tie the match) but outlasted him in 5 sets.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Kieran]

For what it's worth, here is ol' faithful John McEnroe at work after Wimbledon 2009, trying to painfully extract answers from 3 tennis legends regarding the GOAT question.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYcDfw68vO4[/video]

Respectfully,
masterclass

Yeah, that was shameful. Had they demurred, imagine his embarrassment. Plus, the suspicion that he'd flip flop and agree with them. There's an element of snake oil selling in Mac, trying to promote the sport in ways that are suspect. Just commentate! I like Mac but sometimes I think he's working off commission...