Second most Grand Slams won
Oympic gold medals in both singles and doubles
4 Davis Cups won
Most ATP 1000 won
Only player to win 10 times the same tournament
Winning record against the other Big Four
*Lost matchup with Nadal
Won 15 slams (2nd most all time), pretty straightforward.
Second most Grand Slams won
Oympic gold medals in both singles and doubles
4 Davis Cups won
Most ATP 1000 won
Only player to win 10 times the same tournament
Winning record against the other Big Four
Watching tennis is about as fun as watching nascar or golf.
Becker shared more than a decade with Sampras, Wilander like 7 or 8 years.
And lol at the US Open and the Australian Open being more prestigious than Roland Garros. Self centered much?
The Australian Open is by far the least prestigious one, Wimbledon is clearly the most prestigious one and Roland Garros is on par with the US open, with most of the Europeans and South Americans preferring the French tournament.
And about Nadal, he's a 15 times Grand Slam champion, having won at least one time each major, capping all that of with several Davis Cups and Olympic Gold in both singles and doubles. There's really no argument to be made about him not being the second greatest player of all-time.
golf is the lowest on the totem pole. you can just play your own game. the other players dont affect your score. the only variable is the breeze. it's challenging to be sure, but it's an individual craft. it's akin to playing an individual game at an arcade like pinball, taking turns, and seeing who records the best score, rather than playing a game like street fighter where you are directly competing
at least in tennis and nascar you have adversaries on the same field trying to screw with your plans
Son read amb's post agin, he said literally the same thing tbh
lol yeah.
But then I don't get his point. Only the players that win Wimbledon matter?
Becker was way over the hill by the Sampras hit his prime, and Wilander more so.
That's what I just said. I even said French/US then Australian. What were you reading?
Only 10 of those 15 came from the same tournament. He's great, if it wasn't for Federer, he'd be the greatest ever, but there's Federer, and Nadal never got to dominate his own era.
Come to think of it, does it have anything to do with Nadal speaking Spanish? I mean, if Messi spoke Italian, I am sure you will have Ronaldo above him.
Do you guys really think that Rafa over Djoker is a given? I personally think Djoker is right up there with Rafa and Pete.
Yeah....it's one up from bowling in that regard.
The only variable from an opponent is if you're in contention and you need to decide whether to take some risks or play it safe.
I must've watched 5/6th of this match last night, and I somehow managed to miss this exchange. I saw something in the comments and just figured it was historical context
I don't remember Wilander. He must've been before my time, like in the 70's.
Mostly late 80s early 90s. I think he made #1 for like a few weeks between Lendl and edberg but I may have been wrong. Flash in the pan guy.
No, I actually sport hate Nadal because I'm a Fed fan. I was also a huge Sampras fan and an Agassi hater but I don't let personal bias get in the way of irrefutable facts, tbh.
This guy calls Wilander a "flash in the pan" guy when he is a former number one guy and a three times GS champion but then talks up one hit wonders like Rod and Ivanisevic. Weren't you supposed to be old? You should be backing Wilander up, tbh.
Also lol at saying "10 of Nadal GS came at Roland Garros" when 7 of Sampras GS came on Wimbledon. At least Nadal was able to win at least a major on every surface.
It speaks to Nadal's playing style. He is at a great advantage when he can slide and use that sort of athleticism that he possesses. The discrepancy is telling. That's why him winning two gold medals on the hard courts is something of an anomaly. I guess in 08 he was maybe the best in the world, and he just got a bit of luck in 16.
So what does it say about Sampras style that he won 7 of his 14 GS on grass, and was never good enough to win on clay?
I always forget, are the Olympics B of 3 or 5?
Best of 3, the final is best of 5. Like the old Masters series.
It says that he's damn good. Grass is the "neutral" / "natural" playing surface for tennis. Clay is slippery and thereby "unnatural" and hard courts artificially increase the speed of the ball. When this is understood, that's part of what makes Wimbledon so great.
Clary is slippery but Wimbledon is "natural"?
Any scrub with a good serve has a chance on grass (specially in previous eras, before they slowed down the courts). You actually have to play tennis to win on clay.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)