Arena Federer/Nadal/Djokovic Era - Essentially Over

the only reason federer can be considered a top five clay court player is because he had to contend with nadal, pretty much without a doubt the greatest clay court player of all-time. if you're going to rank fed as the best grass court player of all-time, then it's only logical that nadal should be given that same benefit of the doubt. not even saying that he's top five on grass, just as i said before that if he wins one more wimbledon the argument could be made.

and top ten in total titles isn't as important a statistic as it once was. let's face it, it's all about the majors now.

 

Except that I don't think Nadal has been as consistently on grass as Fed has on clay. Meaning, Nadal has been more vulnerable to others on grass than Fed has been to others on clay.

But I disagree with about the other titles versus majors. The masters series are very important in terms of competition and ranking points - for the most part, it is all the same people and if you don't do well in them then you can't maintain a good ranking (which is crucial for seeding at the majors, unless you're Serena). But if it is all about the majors then you have to say that Fed is definitely the GOAT at this point. Gotta run.

 

i have been saying that! the debate only becomes fun if nadal gets within one major of fed and if he wins at least a few more that aren't on clay.

 

I believe Nadal has more Masters series titles than does Federer.

Also, Nadal has been a finalist at Wimbledon five times. That's a great record.

 

Roddick over Nadal? Come on-- that is ridiculous.

 

he only means on grass, but it is still ridiculous considering roddick never won wimbledon. and they did meet once on grass in 2008 in the semifinals of queen's. nadal won in straight sets.

as for djokovic, if he were to never win another major i'd probably rank him about even with edberg and becker. 6 majors, none on clay. but he's the number 1 player and has to be considered the favorite at every major but the french for the foreseeable future. i would be surprised if he didn't end up with more than 10 and at least a solid candidate for top 5 all-time.

edit: one thing that i think works against novak is that four of his major wins came at the australian, which for a long time wasn't really considered on the same level as the other majors, and players like mcenroe rarely played.

 

however at the time he won those four, it has been considered at the same level (besides the "prestige" factor, perhaps) on the basis that all the top players have participated. i don't think his australian majors should be in any way discounted - or are you talking from a perception viewpoint?

 

australian tennis at the moment is as bad as its cricket team.

far fry from the recent Rafter, Hewitt, and even the Poo days.

 

i just mean from a historical standpoint, if you're comparing him to someone like connors or mcenroe as opposed to comparing him to contemporaries. those guys could have had a lot more majors if they played the australian more often, connors in particular. i don't personally think it should be a knock on djokovic that four of his wins came there, but i think it could be seen that way.

 

yeah, i guess this is always the difficulty when comparing across different eras, and particularly only using majors won as the metric.

 

not to mention Connors being banned from the french open during his prime years. he could have cleaned up.

 

It wasn't until the late 80s that the Australian was mentioned at the same level as the other 3. Agassi really cleaned up at the Australian Open. I don't think Novak would be looked at worse because of it, the Aussie Open has been a big event for some time now.

 

It's great to see you around here again, Jeff. Your knowledge of tennis history and also your awareness of what's going on at the lower levels is much appreciated. I don't know much about the lower levels right now.

 

Here's something interesting about Wimbledon this year. Nadal could be the 5 seed meaning that there could a Nadal/Djokovic quarterfinal or a Nadal/Federer quarterfinal. That would be very odd.

thanks KW. I was really busy traveling with the clemson tennis team this year but I have been following the pros just as much as I always do.

 

That would be like the Mavericks and Spurs meeting in the Western Conference semifinals back in 2006-- should not happen that way.

 

I'd like to go back in time and tell the announcers at the Federer-Sampras match in 2001 that they were watching the only meeting between two seven time Wimbledon champions. Watching a bit of the match, it's amusing to listen to the British commentators note Federer's poise. One comment about Sampras' potential state of mind, that he was perhaps thinking in the second set: "I know I can do this over five sets, so let's see if he can as well."

Safe to say Federer could do it just fine. Sampras was brilliant, both in that match at times and in general.

One more comment of note about a great Federer passing shot: "You will not see a better pass than this, ever." Wonder what he thought about the unbelievable shot Federer made to save match point in 2008 against Nadal (which I think was much better).

 

I said I could make a case for Roddick over Nadal on grass, but I didn't say it would be a great one ;-) Roddick is an excellent grass court player and is in the top 10 for finals on that surface and has made 3 Wimbledon finals. His game is perfect for it. At the risk of sparking a debate, I think the trend of slowing courts and higher bouncing balls at Wimbledon is relevant here.

KW, Nadal does have more Masters than Fed. I would point out though, relating back to an earlier argument, that 3 are clay, 6 are hard, 0 are grass.

 

edit: i completely misunderstood your post. oops.

 

Wimbledon!

Nadal seeded fifth. Venus out.

DJOKOVIC, Novak (SRB) [1]
MURRAY, Andy (GBR) [2]
FEDERER, Roger (SUI) [3]
FERRER, David (ESP) [4]
NADAL, Rafael (ESP) [5]
TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) [6]
BERDYCH, Tomas (CZE) [7]
DEL POTRO, Juan Martin (ARG) [8]
GASQUET, Richard (FRA) [9]
CILIC, Marin (CRO) [10]

Hopefully Federer will make it to the semis. I'd love to see him in one more Wimbledon final.

 

The draw is out. And it's official. Nadal vs Federer quarterfinal in the cards. Meanwhile there is a Ferrer/Del Potro quarter both of whom play their worst tennis on grass.

 

yeah, if del potro even makes it to the quarter-final it would be the first time. he did look pretty good in the olympics last year though, playing federer in that epic semi.

 

Nadal will likely have to play Isner or Wawrinka in the third round. Wawrinka has his first grass court final tomorrow.