[jon13009]

Nadal will be the greatest player ever if.....His knees hold up.

[k13]

Nadal when on his game cannot be beat. Guys only beat him if he is injured

I watched Murray beat him pretty easily couple weeks ago. He was not injured.

He can still be beat by the right players on the right surface.

[jjgold]

Yes when he is healthy no one has ever played tennis better

I think now at least people are starting to think he might be as good as Fed already

[LostBankroll]

Nadal is all JUICED up. That Spaniard could serve a marble 100 mph if it wasnt for the JUGO!

[TeamTT]

Congrads to Nadal, no doubt he's a great player and has achieved heaps this year.. I think he is currently in the top 5, but to say he is the greatest ever, he'll have to defend alot more slams in the next few years.... Could be done... Letz hope not... Hope Feds record stands for a very long time

[Boner_18]

No way this guy catches up to Fed in terms of total GS's, weeks at #1 or consecutive GS semi-finals. Also, his knees will need replacing... Who knows if at will be the end or only the beginning.

[Slainte]

He will be the best ever if he wins The Grand Slam and has more Grand Slam titles than Federer. Now he is not even in top 5 all time players.

[HauntingTheHoly]

On a boxing forum a I frequent, people are always having these all time great (ATG) discussions. Everyone is used to common misunderstanding regarding what "ATG" actually means. Does it mean "head to head" or "resume" - a very important distinction. So one guy will claim Muhammed Ali was the greatest heavyweight of all time and another will claim Lennox Lewis was and begin describing how a Lewis vs. Ali fight would go. They're both right, of course. Ali's resume was the best, Lewis is the best head to head. Some people try to argue that second point, but ask yourself "Who in history would the bookies make a FAVORITE against a prime Lennox Lewis?" That said, I personally prefer using resume against Lewis and I don't have him near the top. For other fighters, I will weight their head-to-head ability more, though.

All of this applies perfectly to Tennis, since it's a one-on-one sport. Fed is the best considering resume, but Nadal clearly owns him. How big is his head-to-head lead?

Who would the bookies make a favorite on clay against a prime Nadal?

[TT22]

Nadal has a lot more to win, before he can be said the best.

[lunchbawks]

Murray is getting better every day.

Nadal barely beat out the #3, it's not always total dominance.

[SBR Lou]

Rafa sure recovered from his multiple injuries quickly and is now stronger than ever, and hitting career high fast serves.

Makes you wonder? Have you seen how big his arms have gotten?

Full disclosure - I'm a Federer fan.

[EaglesPhan36]

Shame on you Lou. Rafa's guns have always been ripped. He is not noticeably bigger IMO. Don't be a hater.

How come you don't bring up Djokovic being noticeably lighter this season as making you think about the probability of meth usage?

[BettingWizard]

Murray is getting better every day.

Nadal barely beat out the #3, it's not always total dominance.

murray has been "getting better every day" for 3 years now. No slams.

Just another overhyped player like Roddick is/was

At least Djo has a slam where he beat Fed when he was good.

[excellence]

I think that Nadal have the stuff to beat all the records and will have more grand slams titles that Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal has knees problems because he was participating each tournament and never got rest, in the first time he was 100% healty for the US Open and he won, I think that the success of Rafael Nadal to make him the best ever is he just play the 4 Grand Slams and some important tournaments and pass the rest of the tournament like he did this year and so I believe that the stragedy for the coming years and so I really believe that he can be the best ever because he is a very strong player but the mental part of him kills all the players in the atp tour.

[Team Ramrod]

no way nadal best of all time. he played shit competion and tennis sucks now anyways so who cares.

[JW Cash]

Borg is the greatest of all time followed by Sampras.....then McEnroe

[venice2222]

His window is closing. He has maybe 2-3 years left on those knees.

[compaqDikk]

sir?

[kingsr]

sir?

Yes Miss?

[Ace_of_Spades]

Nope, Federer is, and will win the AO and gain his number 1 ranking back this year.

[kingsr]

I hope you're right Ace a spades!

[Ace_of_Spades]

I wanted the Fed/Nadal final, i won't get it. So i would really like to see Federer win the AO. Djoko is going to be a really big test for Federer, i can't wait.

[Killer_Demo]

Pete Sampras is the greatest of all time...

[jjgold]

Story not over
Nadal was hurt today

[crustyme]

djokovic is your champ.

[WileOut]

Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed. Nadal uses full western grip on forehand and produces the heaviest ball (most topspin, kicks up high out of sweet spot). Back in the 90's Thomas Muster used the full western and was number 1 in the world for a brief time. Nadal combines the heaviest ball of all time with being a top 3 quickest player of all time, along with being unshakable, and pinpoint accuracy. 90% of the tour use semi-western grip which gives the ability to hit topspin shots that also travel faster. This is what Federer thrives on. These shots penetrate and you are more likely to hit a winner but unless you have power like Del Potro, Fed is fast enough to track these down and they are right in his sweet spot. Feds backhand especially is vulnerable to Nadal's high kicking ball. This is also why Fed is so successful at Wimbledon. Shots there don't kick up as much as hard courts giving him even lower balls to hit. Fed likes a flatter ball which is what you get at Wimbledon. This fact about Wimbledon is what makes Nadal's success there so astounding. Western grippers are usually clay court specialists yet he has been able to win at Wimbledon and even beat fed there. Nadal is just a bad matchup for Fed. Joker cannot produce a heavy ball like Nadal can so Fed is going to beat him most of the time. I agree, Nadal is one of the best ever. So is Fed. But that is usually the case. You usually have 2 or more of the best of all time playing in the same era. Sampras and Agassi. McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors was a very potent mix of talent in the late 70's and 80's.

[Doc JS]

Borg is the greatest of all time followed by Sampras.....then McEnroe

Maybe it's your youth...

But any list that doesn't include Rod Laver isn't worth discussing...

Doc

[WileOut]

Borg is the greatest of all time followed by Sampras.....then McEnroe

Laver did not play in an era that Borg did with so many great players to contend with. Yes Laver was one of the greatest but hard to measure because the competition was nowhere close to what it was in the 80's.

I think Sampras, Fed and Nadal are maybe the 3 best ever. I would have loved to see Sampras in his prime against Fed and Nadal. Something tells me Sampras may be the best ever, but he was terrible on clay so that makes it tough to call him the best. Connors and McEnroe are right there, but they played in the most competitive tennis era ever, who knows how many they would have won.

Thinking about it, I think Nadal may be the best ever. People don't like him because he picks his underwear instead of wearing boxers (wtf is up with that anyway).

Becker was really good too, so was Edberg. But Borg was maybe the best. I don't know it's so hard to call.

[WileOut]

Borg never won the US Open or the Australian though. Strange. He only played the Australian Open once. He lost in the finals of the US Open 3 times.

Borg was the first to use topspin as the primary shot type, something that everyone does now. He also used a 2 handed backhand which he sort of pioneered for modern day players.

[MartinBlank]

Pete Sampras is the greatest of all time...

Sampras never won the French.

If you are a Tennis fan----you are watching perhaps the two greatest players of all-time right now, Federer and Nadal.

Both have won on all 4 surfaces, each has a career grand slam.

Sampras isn't even in the conversation without winning the French.

[WileOut]

Sampras never won the French.

If you are a Tennis fan----you are watching perhaps the two greatest players of all-time right now, Federer and Nadal.

Both have won on all 4 surfaces, each has a career grand slam.

Sampras isn't even in the conversation without winning the French.

Gotta disagree here. Some guys just don't do well on clay. The vast majority of the tennis is played on hard courts and grass. When you talk about greatest of all time, the career slam comes into the discussion, but when you look at how Sampras dominated the way he did on surfaces other than clay, he has to be considered to be one of the greatest of all time. When you are brought up on fast hard courts your whole life, to transition to clay is very hard for some. If you relied on the best serve of all time like sampras did, clay messes up your game. Career slam is a very rare accomplishment but when you are so dominant on all other surfaces, a guy like Sampras has to be considered in the GOAT talk. Take Agassi. He has a career slam. But Sampras was head and shoulders better than Agassi as a tennis player. No comparison, Andre will admit that.

I played competitive tournament tennis. I was also the MVP on my high school tennis team as a freshman, a big high school and we played the best schools in the south. I was at least twice as good on hard courts than even the "hard clay" because that is what I was use to. I hit hard, relatively flater shots and needed court speed to be effective.

Americans play on hard courts or the "hard" clay (non red clay) usually. Many Europeans are brought up on only clay.

To me, the most unreal accomplishment of all time is Nadal winning Wimbledon twice. For a guy who uses a full western grip, clay court specialist type, you are not supposed to get past the first round on grass.

[FourLengthsClear]

Gotta disagree here. Some guys just don't do well on clay. The vast majority of the tennis is played on hard courts and grass. When you talk about greatest of all time, the career slam comes into the discussion, but when you look at how Sampras dominated the way he did on surfaces other than clay, he has to be considered to be one of the greatest of all time. When you are brought up on fast hard courts your whole life, to transition to clay is very hard for some. If you relied on the best serve of all time like sampras did, clay messes up your game. Career slam is a very rare accomplishment but when you are so dominant on all other surfaces, a guy like Sampras has to be considered in the GOAT talk. Take Agassi. He has a career slam. But Sampras was head and shoulders better than Agassi as a tennis player. No comparison, Andre will admit that.

I played competitive tournament tennis. I was also the MVP on my high school tennis team as a freshman, a big high school and we played the best schools in the south. I was at least twice as good on hard courts than even the "hard clay" because that is what I was use to. I hit hard, relatively flater shots and needed court speed to be effective.

Americans play on hard courts or the "hard" clay (non red clay) usually. Many Europeans are brought up on only clay.

To me, the most unreal accomplishment of all time is Nadal winning Wimbledon twice. For a guy who uses a full western grip, clay court specialist type, you are not supposed to get past the first round on grass.

I agree with most of what you say. Comparing tennis from era to era is not easy. The equipment used nowadays is so much more advanced, for example.

Sampras was a brilliant player, as were Borg, McEnroe and Laver before him.

With that said, I just think you have to watch the 2008 Wimbledon final to recognise the Federer and Nadal are on a different plain to anything that has gone before.

The standard of tennis during that match was astounding. IMHO more than one torch was passed when Federer beat Sampras, as a teenager, at Wimbledon in 2001.

[pavyracer]

Great post JJ.

[jjgold]

I am still alive with this thread although he has to win today!!

[Ingram$]

only if he wins today