tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post2909997979013257444..comments2024-03-11T15:46:13.155-04:00Comments on In The Arena: Ruminations About Competition: Federer and Nadal as Non-Religious ExperienceDavid Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-22022694451605522042014-07-12T05:22:20.429-04:002014-07-12T05:22:20.429-04:00late:
Jumping in a couple years late on this grea...late:<br /><br />Jumping in a couple years late on this great post, but it is interesting to check out in retrospect. I love Wallace and I love Nadal.<br /><br />(A) Nadal-Federer now 23-10. <br /><br />(B) Nadal is back, better, balanced (even if still just behind Djokovic right now).<br /><br />(C) The original argument looks like it got off track. I thought the point was something like this: (1) there's a good argument Federer is/was an overall more accomplished player than Nadal. (2) There's an okay argument that Federer is/was the best player ever (compared with say Borg), but (3) he seems to have a unique problem in that he has a Nemesis (Nadal) who is really specifically great at beating him - what should we make of that/how should we factor that in (it also felt very unsatisfying to just say that Nadal was better than him). <br /><br />Maybe it's a sort of an elemental thing. A raging fire might consume more in its path than a flooding river (or anything else), but the fire will never consume the river. I think there was a master Go player who had the same problem - he had one unique opponent who could beat him handily yet that same opponent was overall less able to defeat the other player sin the community. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-37567505905923770862014-03-14T14:02:39.432-04:002014-03-14T14:02:39.432-04:00found the correction
warm regards,
carlos
Correc...found the correction<br />warm regards,<br />carlos<br /><br /><br />Correction: Aug. 27, 2006<br /><br />An article in PLAY magazine last Sunday about the tennis player Roger Federer referred incompletely to a point between Federer and Andre Agassi in the 2005 United States Open final and incorrectly described Agassi’s position on the final shot of the point. There was an exchange of groundstrokes in the middle of the point that was not described. And Agassi remained at the baseline on Federer’s winning shot; he did not go to the net.Carlos Ramoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12900937252791509411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-60328534225368356702014-03-11T04:21:32.489-04:002014-03-11T04:21:32.489-04:00thank you david. I read the article (and his torna...thank you david. I read the article (and his tornado alley piece and the one about michael joyce too) with great pleasure. <br />I just had trouble identifying this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDwG5rJVtdc)<br />as the 'moment' point he describes.<br /><br />I guess he just tries to prove what an experience Federer is to him. Greatest of all time is too much to prove.<br /><br />thanks for exchange and for your blog,<br /><br />carlos (sam was an old alias) <br /> Carlos Ramoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12900937252791509411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-29169432800947823442014-03-10T16:16:50.166-04:002014-03-10T16:16:50.166-04:00Sam:
When I click on the NYT story link now, the ...Sam:<br /><br />When I click on the NYT story link now, the appended correction no longer appears. At the time, literary critics opined that Wallace's inaccuracy did not detract from the overall value of the piece. I think that a non-fiction journalist's first responsibility is to be accurate and that any inaccuracy inevitably detracts from the value of a piece.<br /><br />Wallace offered very poetic descriptions of Federer's game but Wallace did not prove that watching Federer is a "religious experience" or that Federer is indisputably the greatest tennis player of all-time.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-37252880663006855612014-03-10T12:32:01.143-04:002014-03-10T12:32:01.143-04:00excuse me for appearing out of the blue here, but ...excuse me for appearing out of the blue here, but I'm curious about that point in the 2005 us open final that david foster Wallace described as one of those Federer moments. is it really in that set, first or third game with federer serving? I can't see anything remotely like what he describes. an appended correction is mentioned here up above. is that point somewhere else or did he just embellish it so much that it's just remotely based on what occurred. that would surprise me. thank you anyway.<br />carlosCarlos Ramoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12900937252791509411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-58942326149943093062012-06-11T15:53:50.389-04:002012-06-11T15:53:50.389-04:00Andy:
No matter how one frames the discussion, it...Andy:<br /><br />No matter how one frames the discussion, it is not logical to say that a player who has been dominated head to head by his greatest rival is clearly the greatest player of all-time, yet many people have been saying exactly that about Federer for the past several years. <br /><br />Nadal has also "succeeded" on each surface and he owns a career Grand Slam just like Federer does. Nadal beat Federer on Federer's favorite Grand Slam surface but Federer has never come close to beating Nadal at the French Open. <br /><br />More significantly, Nadal has achieved more at a younger age than any Open Era player other than Borg yet there is no rush to crown Nadal as the greatest player ever the way that people rushed to crown Federer. It made sense around 1980 for people to say that Borg was arguably the greatest player ever--he was completely dominating both grass and clay at the same time in a way that no one else has done before or since. Federer never did that and almost as soon as Nadal showed up on the scene Nadal kept beating Federer like a drum.<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion regarding the comparison of the Nadal-Federer rivalry to the Navratilova-Evert rivalry but all your numbers prove, at most, is that Federer is the premier grass court player of his era and that Nadal is the premier clay court player of his era. Why should Federer's grass court dominance be more highly valued than Nadal's even greater clay court dominance? Nadal has beaten Federer on Federer's "turf" but Federer has not done likewise. It just makes no sense to call Federer the greatest player of all time when he is not even clearly the dominant player of the post-Sampras era. <br /><br />The definition of "dominance" can vary from sport to sport; an MLB team that wins 100 games in a 162 game season (.617) is considered dominant but an NFL team that wins that percentage (10 games in a 16 game season) might not even get a Wild Card berth. However, in a one on one head to head rivalry in sports like tennis or chess someone who beats his rival two thirds of the time is dominating that matchup. In chess, a 2/3 winning ratio is roughly equivalent to a rating difference of 150 points, which is nearly a full rating class level; that is very significant.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-3068962656308521042012-06-11T11:16:37.735-04:002012-06-11T11:16:37.735-04:00From the outset, I will say that I agree with you ...From the outset, I will say that I agree with you that Fed should not necessarily be considered the unequivocal and unquestionable GOAT. It's worthy of questions. There are other candidates, with Borg and Laver being the top two in my view. However, I don't think Sampras can be a candidate given his mediocre results on clay. Secondly, I acknowledge that we can’t just look at the number 16 but rather must look at the historical context of Borg and Laver’s numbers. Thirdly, I admit that the “Nadal problem” is indeed a big problem for Fed in this type of discussion. The difference we have is in the weight we place on the problem. I don't think it is big enough to make Fed ineligible for the GOAT title. Nor do I see it as a problem big enough to say Nadal is “greater than him.” (*Nadal just won his 7th FO – certainly he's very much moving into the GOAT discussion.)<br /><br />Okay, here are some of the main problems with your comments.<br /><br />1. You say things like “Nadal has dominated that rivalry and I cannot think of a similar one sided rivalry between two contenders for best player of their era in which the loser of that rivalry is still considered to be the greater player.” My answer to this is, even if you're right about your sports history point, that it has never happened before in history shouldn’t lead us to automatically conclude that the 18-10 and 8-2 stats mean Nadal is “greater” than Fed. Just as Borg and Laver’s end results have their own unique factors that must be looked at with a historical perspective, the uniqueness of the historical period of Fed-Nadal has to be looked at. And the unique peak here actually is in 2006, when Fed only lost 5 times, 4 of the losses being to Nadal. In analyzing what produced that result, we can’t just look only at the losses to Rafa, but must look at Fed’s ability to succeed on each surface, including clay. Let’s say hypothetically, for example, that in his career Fed was only “fairly good” on clay (good enough to make a couple of FO finals, win a few clay titles) but not good enough to make half the finals that he managed to make in reality. In other words, cut 12-2 to 6-1. Then, the overall head to head is a relatively close 12-9 for Rafa and Fed still goes down in history as a solid all-surface player. In fact, he goes down in history better than he does in reality. This is the uniqueness of the situation. The reality is that Fed’s very good results on clay have actually hurt him in discussions like this one! <br /><br />2. You often refer to Navratilova-Evert, saying things like “I don't buy the excuses that are offered for Nadal's head to head dominance over Federer. Evert and Navratilova each had their respective favorite surfaces, Evert dominated Navratilova at first but the lasting impression--the verdict of history--largely revolves around Navratilova's overall head to head advantage over Evert (and that 43-37 lead is not nearly as decisive as Nadal's 18-10 lead).” But where is the obvious qualification about the percentage of the matches that were played on clay? Here are the results between Navratilova-Evert (Hard: Navratilova 9-7; Clay: Evert 11–3; Grass Navratilova 10–5; Carpet: Navratilova 21-14). In other words, only 14 out of their 80 matches were played on clay. That’s 17.5%. Compare that with Fed-Nadal where 14 out of 28 matches were played on clay. That’s 50%. Huge difference in my opinion! <br /><br />3. You use words like “dominate” a lot to describe Fed-Nadal. But is this really a fair description given that Fed leads on all non-clay surfaces and clearly has a very solid command of one particular surface (indoor hard)? Moreover, even forgetting that point, is it really “domination”? I mean, if you beat me 2 times out of every 3 chess matches are you “dominating” me? Domination on clay? Sure. Domination overall? I don’t think so. <br /> <br />Other points later.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-78763968732079115302012-06-10T10:30:14.250-04:002012-06-10T10:30:14.250-04:00i expect nadal to win the french open. this is hi...i expect nadal to win the french open. this is his favourite surface. if he doesn't, it would be disappointingtennisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-3299826480458635462012-04-30T17:31:18.072-04:002012-04-30T17:31:18.072-04:00Boyer:
You belittled the significance of Nadal...Boyer:<br /><br />You belittled the significance of Nadal's clay court dominance but the clay court season is much more important than you realize. Here is an interesting quote from <a href="http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/04/Other/FedEx-Reliability-Career-Clay-Court-Record.aspx" rel="nofollow">an article at the official ATP site</a>:<br /><br />"Thomas Muster, who's big-ripping, dual-winged baseline aggression was the forerunner of today’s clay-court game, says simply, 'Playing on clay, in my mind, was the greatest test in tennis.'<br /><br />And there’s no greater test on clay than the European clay-court swing. With three ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments - the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters, the Internazionali BNL d'Italia, the Mutua Madrid Open - and Roland Garros as the highlights, this stretch can determine a player's success or failure for the whole year.<br /><br />Gustavo Kuerten, a three-time titlist in Paris, who compiled a 181-78 record on clay courts including 14 titles, told ATPWorldTour.com, 'In my opinion the heart has a direct link with the clay. You have to get involved and practice for hours.'"David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-88057306704609825192012-04-24T16:03:11.034-04:002012-04-24T16:03:11.034-04:00Daniel Song 39:
By completing a career Grand Slam...Daniel Song 39:<br /><br />By completing a career Grand Slam, winning 10 Slams total and dominating Federer head to head Nadal has already made a good case to be ranked at least equal to Sampras. Why should Sampras' 14 Slam wins in 52 appearances be considered more impressive than Nadal's 10 Slam wins in only 31 appearances? <br /><br />Borg appeared in 27 Grand Slam singles tournaments, amassing 11 wins and 16 trips to the Finals; his winning percentage and his Finals percentage are both unparalleled, as is his simultaneous dominance of the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg retired as the career modern leader in both French Open and Wimbledon titles (i.e., not counting the era in which Wimbledon champions were automatically seeded into the next year's Finals), a feat that is unlikely to be matched again.<br /><br />Federer has appeared in 51 Grand Slam singles events, amassing 16 wins and 23 trips to the Finals, a record that is much less dominant than Borg's--and Federer is not being "punished" for playing longer than Borg: Federer's winning percentages never matched Borg's at any stage of his career.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-55873689001810780212012-04-24T10:26:07.534-04:002012-04-24T10:26:07.534-04:00I think what the stats show is that Nadal's pe...I think what the stats show is that Nadal's peak and career accomplishments are very similar to Sampras' and it's very conceivable that he will end his career with similar career accomplishments.<br /><br />As for Djokovic I think he'll top out at 7-8 slams, though catching Nadal's total is also a real possibility.<br /><br />Borg's prime was almost as dominant as Federer's and had he won a couple of US Opens and added another 2-3 years to his prime, he would probably be considered the greatest tennis player ever. Alas, that did not happen.DanielSong39noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-10241347350808864812012-04-23T15:40:26.433-04:002012-04-23T15:40:26.433-04:00Daniel Song 39:
Tennis record keeping was sporadi...Daniel Song 39:<br /><br />Tennis record keeping was sporadic and inconsistent until fairly recently, so I am not sure what your source is for Borg's non-Grand Slam performances during 1978-80 but I'll assume that your numbers are accurate or at least pretty close.<br /><br />Borg's record during 1978-80 included an unprecedented run of three straight years during which he won both the French Open and Wimbledon, a feat of simultaneous slow surface/fast surface dominance that may never again be matched. Borg made the Finals of seven of the nine Grand Slams that he entered during that time, with his worst result being a QF loss to hard serving Roscoe Tanner at the U.S. Open in 1979. Borg's other two Slam losses were in the 1978 U.S. Open Finals (Connors) and a five set loss in the 1980 U.S. Open Finals (McEnroe).<br /><br />During Federer's 2004-06 run he claimed two of three Australian titles (Borg did not play in that event during his prime and only appeared there once during his entire career) but was not quite as dominant as Borg overall. Federer lost in straight sets to Kuerten in the 2004 French Open third round (Kuerten was three years removed from the last of his three Grand Slam titles), he lost to Safin in five sets in the 2005 Australian semis and he lost to Nadal in the 2005 French semis.<br /><br />Keep in mind that many commentators are asserting that Federer should be considered the greatest player of the Open Era, if not all-time, by a wide margin. Even a superficial glance at the statistics you listed suggests that, at the very least, Borg's prime is certainly comparable with Federer's--and when you consider that Borg displayed multi-surface dominance while facing down two top 10 all-time players (Connors, McEnroe) while Federer padded his GS totals with Australian Open wins but struggled against the only top 10 all-time player he faced (Nadal) it becomes even more clear that the case to rank Federer ahead of Borg is very shaky.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-70983960035474013172012-04-22T16:57:24.317-04:002012-04-22T16:57:24.317-04:00FYI, here is the peak period for some of the all-t...FYI, here is the peak period for some of the all-time greats:<br /><br />Borg 1978-80<br />6 of 9 Grand Slams<br />2 of 3 Year-end championships<br />224-19 record<br />31 tournaments (of 50)<br /><br />Federer 2004-06<br />8 of 12 Grand Slams<br />2 of 3 Year-end championships<br />247-15 record<br />34 tournaments (of 49)<br /><br />Nadal 2008-10<br />6 of 12 Grand Slams<br />1 Final appearance in Year-end championships<br />1 Gold Medal<br />219-35 record<br />20 tournaments (of 55)<br /><br />Sampras 1993-95<br />6 of 12 Grand Slams<br />1 Year-end Championship<br />234-44 record<br />23 tournaments (of 67)<br /><br />When it comes to peak value I'd have to go with Federer slightly over Borg. Nadal's peak looks fairly similar to Sampras.<br /><br />Good win for Nadal today though. He'll be odds-on to win the French Open and it would be a major disappointment if he did not win. I wouldn't count out Djokovic, however.DanielSong39noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-32687492232255248412012-04-20T16:16:42.892-04:002012-04-20T16:16:42.892-04:00Anonymous:
You also explicitly stated, "If t...Anonymous:<br /><br />You also explicitly stated, "If that's the case, should Nadal even be in the running for greatest ever when he's essentially the inverse-Sampras?" I understand the larger point that you are attempting to make by citing Nadal's record in minor events held on "fast" surfaces but Nadal beat Federer in the Wimbledon Final, won another Wimbledon and also captured the U.S. Open title, so any assertion that Nadal is the "inverse-Sampras" strikes me as incorrect, if not tendentious.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-91426086634393036582012-04-19T18:58:42.810-04:002012-04-19T18:58:42.810-04:00Just a couple of closing points, because I hope th...Just a couple of closing points, because I hope that I'm sending the right message:<br /><br />I didn't claim that Nadal is as impotent on fast surfaces as Sampras was on slow surfaces. In fact, I explicitly stated: "Sampras did indeed have less success on the slowest surfaces than Nadal did on the fastest, but the concept is similar."<br /><br />Secondly, I would argue that "Federer's turf" is actually indoor courts (on which he's 4-0 head to head with Nadal). They seem to split grass/hard (i.e. the "medium speed" courts) fairly evenly, with Nadal having an edge on the slower hard courts like Miami and Australia. In that category, Federer does hold a "direct" edge over Nadal aside from just longevity. The fact that there is no indoor slam is one that Federer must lament, much as Nadal might lament the fact that there is only one clay slam.<br /><br />Nadal has a part of his game that is not even top ten material for his generation and hardly top 50 for all time (as stated before, not as bad as Sampras on clay).<br /><br />I'm not questioning that Nadal would have the advantage over Federer in a direct match at any of the Slams. I'm also not suggesting Federer be "ranked ahead" of Nadal for his victories at Paris Masters or World Tour Finals. This isn't a question of Federer vs. Nadal for me. This is a question of whether Nadal is even in contention for the title of greatest overall player.<br /><br />Based on demonstrated ability across a full spectrum, Nadal has not shown that he's is capable of being dominant under any conditions. For the question of the greatest <b> Slam player </b> of this generation, you have a strong argument for Nadal. But for the greatest <b> overall </b> player, he doesn't yet deserve consideration, rendering the head to head rather irrelevant to this particular point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-70727237413264656002012-04-19T18:02:22.961-04:002012-04-19T18:02:22.961-04:00Anonymous:
Thank you for the clarification of wha...Anonymous:<br /><br />Thank you for the clarification of what you meant regarding fast and slow surfaces but I still do not agree with your contention that Nadal is as "impotent" on fast surfaces as Sampras was on slow surfaces. Sampras was never a threat at all at the French, even during the span when he was annually the number one ranked player in the world. Nadal already holds the career Grand Slam and has won two Wimbledon titles, with one of those victories coming against the player who so many are touting as the greatest of all-time.<br /><br />I am not saying that the indoor hard court tournaments are unimportant but I can't rank Federer ahead of Nadal because of Federer's triumphs in Bangkok and other such events. Those events are not more important than Grand Slam events or than Nadal's head to head dominance of Federer, which is especially pronounced in Grand Slams. Putting it another way, Nadal beat Federer on "Federer's turf" (at Wimbledon) but Federer has not beaten Nadal on "Nadal's turf" (at the French Open). That is quite telling. The only edge that Federer has over Nadal is that Federer is older/more durable, so he has amassed more total wins, more weeks at #1, etc. This is what I mean when I say that Federer is Emmitt Smith; Smith holds the NFL career rushing record and he deserves praise for that but few people consider Smith to be the greatest running back of all-time because Jim Brown rushed for more yards per game and more yards per attempt while also winning more rushing titles. This is analogous to Nadal winning a higher percentage of Grand Slams even though Federer has won more total Grand Slams, with the added twist being that we have seen Nadal and Federer face each other head to head, something that Brown and Smith would have never done even if they played in the same era.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-40199340096669146092012-04-19T16:41:13.392-04:002012-04-19T16:41:13.392-04:00I'm not questioning Borg's place. Really, ...I'm not questioning Borg's place. Really, I don't know enough about Borg to discuss that issue and the generation was so different then that it's difficult to compare. My primary interest is in understanding why you consider Nadal a legitimate contender for greatest of this generation.<br /><br />One difference in our opinions may come down to the weight we place on Grand Slams. Slightly ironic, since many die-hard Federer fans tout 16-10 a little too frequently for my tastes. Personally, I think the Grand slam record between them is quite even already, since Australia, US, and Wimbledon are all clustered relatively closely in terms of style-of-play, with France being somewhat of an outlier. As a result, going on the number of titles alone clearly favors those whose styles are closer to them. As I have said before: for me, dominance on the full range of styles far outweighs dominance of those four tournaments. If we disagree on that fundamental point, then we will certainly disagree on the Federer-Nadal debate.<br /><br />However, just to be clear, I suppose I made a mistake in my wording, since courts being "fast enough" is certainly subjective in nature. If you'll allow me to rephrase one last time:<br /><br />What I meant by "inverse-Sampras" is that Sampras was quite impotent on the <b> slowest </b> surfaces while Nadal is fairly weak on the <b> fastest </b>. (I use the words "fastest" and "slowest" because they refer to qualities of surfaces that are objectively measurable, so there's none of the subjectivity of "fast enough" vs "slow enough" anymore.) Sampras did indeed have less success on the slowest surfaces than Nadal did on the fastest, but the concept is similar. <br /><br />I had hoped to do this without too many stats, because they are deceiving, but I think this difference is stark enough that the take-home message is rather undeniable.<br /><br />Nadal ranks 46th for all time win-loss on indoor matches (a relatively atrocious 52-29). In perspective, here are the active players that rank above Nadal in this regard: Federer, Murray, Soderling, Roddick, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Djokovic, Hewitt, Monfils, Baghdatis, and Haas. That puts him at a mere 12th for his own generation.<br /><br />For comparison, Federer ranks 13th on all time win-loss for clay, with Nadal as the only active player above him. A clear 2nd for his generation due to having the misfortune of overlapping with one of the two far-and-away greatest clay-courters of all time. (Also, just for fun, Sampras is all the way down at 81 all time.)<br /><br />So, worded in a more exact way, then:<br /><br />What do you have to say about Nadal's apparent lack of ability to dominate (or at least come close to dominating) on <b> the full spectrum </b> of surfaces?<br /><br />If you don't consider the full spectrum important and only care about the region covered by the four slams, then that's that. Personally, though, I find it difficult to ignore the fact that about a fifth of tournaments are played on indoor hard courts, making it an integral part of tennis. As a result, I can't consider Nadal a legitimate contender for greatest of this generation as of yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-1015120818848472582012-04-19T15:39:05.079-04:002012-04-19T15:39:05.079-04:00Anonymous:
Nadal has won two Wimbledons, one U.S....Anonymous:<br /><br />Nadal has won two Wimbledons, one U.S. Open and one Australian, thus completing a career Grand Slam with wins on "fast" surfaces. You are the one who has decided that the "fast" surfaces are either no longer "fast" or are not "fast" enough for your taste. Nadal has won 10 Slams overall out of 31 appearances, while Federer has won 16 out of 51. Thus far, Nadal has been slightly more dominant than Federer in Grand Slam play--and Nadal has been completely dominant head to head versus Federer. It is very strange for anyone to suggest that Federer is clearly greater than Nadal; the subject can be debated but that is not what usually seems to happen: people tend to state definitively that Federer is the greatest Open Era player or even the greatest player of all-time (apparently they have never heard of Laver and other pre-Open Era greats). <br /><br />There is no similarity between Nadal and Sampras; Sampras never even made it to the French Open Finals once, while Nadal has completed a career Grand Slam. <br /><br />Borg's simultaneous Wimbledon/French dominance is unparalleled in the Open Era. Perhaps Laver could have accomplished something similar in his time were it not for the rules restricting his participation in those events during his prime years. If Borg had won the U.S. Open then he would have also played in the Australian to complete the career Slam and then his Open Era primacy would be beyond dispute but even as his record stands it is tough to argue that Federer, Nadal or anyone else has simultaneously been as versatile and as dominant as Borg, who won at least one Slam for eight straight years and who is the only Open Era player who beat eight Grand Slam champions in Grand Slam Finals. Borg faced off against two all-time greats (Connors and McEnroe) in their primes, while Federer has only faced one all-time great (Nadal, with the jury still being out on Djokovic--who, in any case, emerged when Federer was no longer the number one player) and has been less than successful against his main rival. <br /><br />Federer's durability and longevity earn him a place in the conversation but I cannot rank him above Borg and it is difficult to rank him ahead of Nadal, particularly if Nadal is able to add a few more Grand Slam titles to his resume while maintaining a better Grand Slam winning percentage than Federer (Nadal is ahead of Federer's pace but we obviously don't know if Nadal will maintain his current pace).David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-72548720797534339322012-04-19T13:04:28.004-04:002012-04-19T13:04:28.004-04:00Given your criteria, I'll agree with Borg, but...Given your criteria, I'll agree with Borg, but what do you have to say about Nadal's apparent lack of ability to play on fast surfaces (I don't have data for this, but it seems quite clear that from an objective, empirical measurement, Wimbledon grass would no longer be considered a "fast" surface), as opposed Federer's demonstrated proficiency on all surfaces, having been dominant on all but clay and second best on clay?<br /><br />It seems much of your admiration of Borg was his ability to dominate on both very fast and very slow surfaces (something I share), so it seems like your primary criterion is this sort of versatility. <br /><br />If it's fair to point out Sampras's absolute ineffectiveness on clay, shouldn't it also be necessary to hold Nadal up to similar consideration? If that's the case, should Nadal even be in the running for greatest ever when he's essentially the inverse-Sampras?<br /><br />The key point of your argument is "Nadal has dominated that rivalry and I cannot think of a similar one sided rivalry between two contenders for best player of their era in which the loser of that rivalry is still considered to be the greater player." The validity of that point has been argued many times, so I won't go into it here. It just seems that, by your own criterion, the more fundamental assumption that Nadal is a contender is false.<br /><br />Head-to-head is heavily based on match up. There's a reason Djokovic consistently has much more trouble against Federer than against Nadal. Nadal just happens to have a near perfect game to counter Federer, and that high up in the game, even small advantages make huge differences. In that sense, many would agree that it should only be used as a final "tie-breaker" type thing, so if you consider them both true contenders, then I'll agree that overall it's a point I can't definitively refute.<br /><br />So really, it boils down to just one question: How can you defend Nadal as a legitimate contender when he's shown no signs of even near-dominance on fast surfaces?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-30993574625628131882012-04-19T05:47:33.223-04:002012-04-19T05:47:33.223-04:00Anonymous:
You certainly offered a detailed and t...Anonymous:<br /><br />You certainly offered a detailed and thoughtful appraisal of Federer and Nadal. <br /><br />My various articles about Borg, Federer and Nadal have made it pretty clear what criteria I consider when ranking tennis players--and those articles have also made it clear that the significant differences between various eras make it very difficult to compare players from different eras.<br /><br />I rank Borg as the greatest Open Era player because his simultaneous dominance of both Wimbledon and the French Open is unmatched; he beat the grass court specialists and the clay court specialists, retiring as the modern era leader at both events: Nadal has tied his French Open mark and Sampras and Federer both broke his Wimbledon mark but no one has come close to simultaneously holding both marks or to winning both events three years in a row. Sampras was far too one dimensional to be compared to Borg. Federer is obviously much better on clay than Sampras was but Federer's overall Grand Slam winning percentage does not match Borg's and Federer has a contemporary rival who has repeatedly made him look silly. Nadal's clay dominance is similar to Borg's but he has not dominated grass the way that Borg did. Djokovic has not accomplished nearly enough overall (or for a long enough period of time) to be in this discussion just yet.<br /><br />I don't buy the excuses that are offered for Nadal's head to head dominance over Federer. Evert and Navratilova each had their respective favorite surfaces, Evert dominated Navratilova at first but the lasting impression--the verdict of history--largely revolves around Navratilova's overall head to head advantage over Evert (and that 43-37 lead is not nearly as decisive as Nadal's 18-10 lead). Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon but Federer has never beaten Nadal at the French. If Federer had advanced further at Wimbledon in 2010 he probably would have lost to Nadal. If you are unwilling to indulge in hypothetical speculation about Borg's career then you must apply that same standard to the Nadal-Federer rivalry. Nadal has dominated that rivalry and I cannot think of a similar one sided rivalry between two contenders for best player of their era in which the loser of that rivalry is still considered to be the greater player. <br /><br />I think that if Borg, Federer, Nadal and Sampras competed against each other at the same time under the same rules with each player at his absolute peak that Sampras clearly would not win anything on clay, that Borg would hold a slight advantage over Nadal on clay (Borg was a more consistently accurate shotmaker than Nadal) and that Borg's mental toughness/endurance would enable him to more than hold his own against Federer and Sampras on grass. This really is very much a fantasy enterprise, though, because these players used different equipment, played under different rules, had different training conditions, etc. It would not really be possible to even all of those things out even if we could accomplish the fantastic feat of using a time machine to get them all in the same place at the same time in their respective primes. <br /><br />So, opinion about what might happen head to head (other than with Nadal-Federer, which we have seen 28 times) is just opinion but Borg's winning percentages and simultaneous multi-surface dominance are facts. You can also throw in Borg's Davis Cup dominance.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-65227564940594039372012-04-18T23:55:44.729-04:002012-04-18T23:55:44.729-04:00Also, I would like to discuss the aforementioned c...Also, I would like to discuss the aforementioned comment about "Federer-proofing." While I highly doubt that anything was done with the express goal of hampering Federer's performance, there is no doubt that recent changes in court conditions, particularly at the majors, have harmed him while giving an advantage to players like Nadal and Djokovic. Just looking at the comparisons of ball bounces and speed at Wimbledon before and after the change in surface material makes it clear. Similar, though less drastic, changes were made at the US and Australian opens, with the overall theme always being: higher bounce, slower speed.<br /><br />I won't use this in support of Federer or against Nadal/Djokovic, because one might argue that this is simply the evolution of the game. Personally, though I find it quite sad. The true challenge of completing the career slam was winning on four very different types of surfaces, and thus being dominant with four different styles of play, whether it's baseline grinding on slow clay, serve-and-volley on fast traditional grass, or all-court offense-defense transitions on hard courts. The Nadal's ineffectiveness on a fast court (and, conversely, the effectiveness of Federer's) shows through clearly during the indoor season, the last bastion of fast-surface tennis. I have little doubt that if Wimbledon were played on traditional grass, neither Nadal nor Djokovic would have a title there. It is this glaring hole in Nadal's abilities as a tennis player that cement Federer's place in my mind as the greatest tennis player of his time.<br /><br />Finally, since you seem to put so much emphasis on it, I won't neglect to mention the head-to-head. Nadal dominates on clay, leads on outdoor hard. Federer dominates on indoor hard, leads on grass. Looking at it this way, i would argue that they're pretty even. The reason for the higher number of meetings on clay over the other surfaces is because, for a very long time, Federer was clearly the second best clay player, while Nadal was further down on the ladder for the other courts. Due to their consistent rankings, they wouldn't meet until semis at the earliest, so Federer would often make it to clay court semis, while Nadal would usually be knocked out before on other courts. In a weird way, it supports the idea that Federer is the more "complete" candidate for greatest of all time.<br /><br />But we're all getting ahead of ourselves. Both Federer and Nadal still have a few years left in their careers, and now with Djokovic entering the equation, the question of dominance will get a lot messier.<br /><br />In summary, from what we've seen so far, my opinion is: Nadal is the greatest slow court tennis player (with Djokovic quickly closing in), Sampras is the greatest fast court tennis player (Federer a close second), Federer is the greatest overall tennis player (with Borg in second only because I'm judging on overall career rather than peak ability).<br /><br />Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-41142731567095475052012-04-18T23:55:23.258-04:002012-04-18T23:55:23.258-04:00Just out of curiosity, what is your criterion for ...Just out of curiosity, what is your criterion for "all-time great?"<br /><br />If you're talking about pure ability at the moment of physical and mental peak, then I'd agree with Borg being the top, but if you're talking about the best tennis player over the course of a career, then it becomes a very different discussion. We can speculate endlessly about what Borg might have accomplished had he not retired, but the fact of the matter is that he did. Whether it was a lack of willpower or a lack of mental fortitude, only Borg himself can truly know, but there's no question that those are both fundamental to the game, and thus very important qualities for anyone in contention for the title of all-time-great.<br /><br />Similarly, we can also speculate endlessly about how much more Nadal might have or will have accomplished if it weren't for injuries, but, again, the constitution of a player's body is fundamental to the game. Furthermore, Nadal's playing style is one that lends itself to frequent injuries while Federer's is one that is very light on the body. Injuries are simply the cost of Nadal's style, so there's little justification in trying to use that as an rationalization of any shortcomings (not saying there will be any by the ends of both of their careers, it's just something I hear a lot). <br /><br />I personally believe that the greatest tennis player of all time should be one who has demonstrated the greatest degree of dominance under ALL playing conditions. For this, I would consider there to be five primary categories, in increasing "speed" of court: clay, slow hard (Australian Open), modern grass, fast hard (US Open), indoor hard. <br /><br />Federer was, for about 4-5 years, the unquestioningly dominant player on slow hard, grass, fast hard, and indoor hard courts. What's even more amazing is that even today, at age 30, with Nadal and Djokovic in their primes, he's still the most dominant indoor hard court player. Of course for the last two years Nadal and Djokovic have somewhat overtaken him on the other three surfaces. Now, here's the key point: Federer has also been almost undoubtedly the second best clay court player.<br /><br />Indoor hard courts seem to get overlooked a lot, probably because there's no slam for them, but they are still a large part of tennis (about a fifth). Nadal has yet to even show significant proficiency with this type of court. And, while he's shown signs of dominance on both slow and hard courts, that has, thus far, only been for the last two years (1 win, 1 final for each of the hard court slams). Grass is a little complicated, since he's easily been at least the second best grass player for a long time, though he hasn't quite proven his dominance over the surface to the extent Federer, Sampras, or even Borg have. Clay, on the other hand, is simple: no one will deny he's been the dominant clay player.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-84314109173252126322012-04-09T16:13:54.943-04:002012-04-09T16:13:54.943-04:00Daniel Song 39:
Nadal has already captured 10 Sla...Daniel Song 39:<br /><br />Nadal has already captured 10 Slams and a career Slam while posting a decisive head to head advantage against Federer, so even if Nadal "fades" (which I don't expect him to do) he has secured a high historical ranking.<br /><br />You are right that Austin perhaps "could have" ranked among the greats of her era but injuries prevented her from doing so. Unlike Federer and Nadal, Djokovic's place in history is not secure if injuries or other factors prevent him from winning more Slams; Djokovic has not yet accomplished enough to be ranked as an all-time great.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-51172403939159985572012-04-09T13:56:11.956-04:002012-04-09T13:56:11.956-04:00As for Tracy Austin, she was every bit as good as ...As for Tracy Austin, she was every bit as good as Evert and Navratilova for a very short stretch and it was a shame that injuries/burnout derailed her career. She very well could've been the equal of those two - or at least the equivalent of someone like Billie Jean King or Evonne Goolagong.DanielSong39noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-91815260257535854952012-04-09T13:49:55.909-04:002012-04-09T13:49:55.909-04:00I, too, am interested to see how high Djokovic wil...I, too, am interested to see how high Djokovic will rank among the game's all-time greats by the time it's all said and done. I would also like to see him battle a few different names in his quest to win Grand Slams.<br /><br />While we never know how he will hold up, I believe he is less likely to fade away in the next couple of years than Nadal. Would love to see Andy Murray rise up to the occasion and allow the tennis world transition from the Federer-Nadal rivalry to a Djokovic-Murray rivalry.DanielSong39noreply@blogger.com