US Open

David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
Probably some of the most astounding rallies ever, even if not the greatest match.

Pretty hard to say Rafa isn't in contention for greatest ever now. I won't argue he's there now, but at 27, he has a pretty darn good shot at it.
 
The wife has been watching it. I caught the ladies final yesterday. Missed most of this one, but she watched and couldn't get over nadal picking his butt.
 
There were some good moments. It wasn't anywhere close to their French Open semifinal, but as a final, it didn't disappoint. J-Mac and the gang never seen to comment on how unbelievably hard they hit that ball for those 50+-stroke rallies.
 
Weird how Federer was the greatest ever when Sampras still owned weeks at #1 and had a better Barclays record. :) One might also bring up things like Olympic gold and Davis Cup titles.

Nadal owns Djoko 22-17, BTW. Meanwhile, Nadal still owns Federer 22-10. John always raised a good point -- how can you be the GOAT if you're owned? Especially when an esteemed colleague says:

Barry_Green said:
you've got to win all the time against all comers.
Click to expand...
 
I already said I wouldn't call him the greatest ever yet. I only said he's in contention, and he's got time to clinch it.

Anyway, I don't think I know of anyone who takes Barclays as seriously as you do. :) If you look at any retrospectives of the records of the greats, it almost never even gets mentioned. It's just not taken into that much account when the merits of possible greatest evers are discussed. That's not to discount it; it's just not really in anyone's mind when they rate the greats.
 
If Nadal wins 4-5 more majors, and I think you'd agree that is certainly easily possible, then you're not going to be able to bump him off the short list.
 
Greatest of all time is an interesting concept, but of course impossible to prove. There's a number of players who could make that claim in tennis history. Not least is Rod Laver. I'm just sayin' the dude won two grand slams. Two. 1962 as an amateur, and 1969 as a pro. The only other player to win a grand slam is Don Budge way back in 1938. None of today's players have done it. None.

Now, it's true that he might not stack up physically with today's players. He'd be smaller, not as strong, but maybe just as quick, or quicker. But that's making the assumption that he'd be playing with modern equipment. I wonder what Nadal and Djokovic would play like given Laver's equipment. I'm talking small wooden rackets. Actual gut strings. Older slower and white tennis balls. And courts that were actual grass, and not perfectly smooth like Wimbeldon is today. Back in the era of actual bad bounces. Actual chalk lines. And bad shoes. No tie-breakers. Etc.

I mean, I wonder how well Nadal could play against Laver when his first serve speed would be limited to less than, say, 115 mph, and instead of being able to consistently put the ball withing 6 inches of the line, he could only place the ball within a foot or worse. And when three of the majors were played on bumpy and very fast grass, not just one. Back when there was more to the game than raw power.

And it's not like Laver didn't have anyone to play against. He played against a bunch of great players. Ken Rosewall anyone? Roy Emerson? I mean, come on -- Roy Emerson? John Newcome? Arthur Ashe? But all these guys, even Emerson, where playing for #2 behind Laver.

You can argue Nadal vs. Djokovic all you want. I'm just saying -- two grand slams. Two. If there's a GOAT, and I'm not saying there is, my vote is Rod Laver.
 
Barry_Green said:
True, but incomplete. You're comparing pre-Open era, against post-Open era. Those aren't the same.
Click to expand...

True they aren't the same. Which is what makes Laver's accomplishment so much more interesting. His first slam was in the amateur era, and his second was in the open era. IIRC, amateur tennis ended spring of 1968, and the French Open in 1968 was the first slam tourney played in the open era. Laver won Wimbeldon that year, then ran the table in 1969, against all comers.

So Laver beat the best on both sides of the divide. Like a drum.

What makes a Grand Slam interesting to me is that it has to be done in a calendar year. To do it, a player has to be able to beat his peers basically at will. It can't be just that they put a hot streak together and won four big tourneys in a row. It's four must-win tourneys in a row. It's a major display of dominance. Which is why it's so rare.
 
On the women's side, Steffi Graf has always been my go-to as the unquestioned #1 of all time

It's hard to say, because it's all down to luck and tragedy. Had Seles never been stabbed, who knows what would have been. I am convinced she would have dominated Graf long term, but of course, after that outrage, she never recovered, so how can you prove that. The only thing is that watching Seles at her best and Graf at her best, I think Seles clearly had the edge, though Graf always had tremendous consistency... perhaps the most consistent woman player. But we'll never know. Lucky for Graf, tragic for Seles.

More importantly, I think there is more room on the women's side for future greats. I think Barry makes a decent stab at arguing that Fed's record might never be surpassed (though as Yogi Berra said, "it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future"), but it feels like we haven't seen the best from women as yet, by a long shot... I can see much better coming along. Serena is getting old, and we'll see better - much better in the future, is my prediction.
 
And it's not like she's slowing down, the margin between her and second place is growing (and that second place is no slouch, it's frickin' Victoria Azarenka fer cryin' out loud!)

I don't know. I'm not knocking Azarenka, but I think Serena got lucky in that there are no totally off the charts players to compete as there are on the men's side at the moment. At any given time, there can be a talent abundance or talent desert. I'm guessing Barry would disagree, but I think it's thin on the women's side at the moment, and has been thin for a number of years. I mean, Sharapova really should not have been as high as she was, and that only happened because the field is weak. My take. Serena is undoubtedly very, very good - she is physically perhaps the strongest that I can recollect, even including Navratilova, but I always thought she didn't have the precision to go along with all that power, nor is she as psychologically resilient or unflappable. I think that had we had better women players, someone would have outplayed her by mixing up the game a lot more - a female McEnroe, if you will. But that's all speculation in increasingly rarified air with little oxygen, so I could be totally wrong here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top