With Rafa Nadal's win at the US Open, a great case can be made for him being the greatest tennis player of all time. He's won 13 majors, and on all surfaces (something Sampras never did, and why I always thought Agassi was better than Pete). He's 27 and can win a few more titles to catch up to Roger (although I wouldn't count out Roger until he retires). Most telling is head to head - Rafa dominates almost everyone in the top 40. He has a winning record against ALL of them (including Roger, Djokovic, Murray, et al). Even more telling to me - he's a baseliner. When Agassi was at his peak, that was overlooked in a fast game of serve-and-volley players, yet Agassi was a master (and also one of my favorite players). Rafa fits that mold. It's controversial, perhaps even a thread already here...what say you?
As Carillo said yesterday, he's taken part in some of the best matches ever played, with his '08 Wimbledon final against Federer being the best match my causal fan eyes have ever seen . (We were getting dressed to go out with the game playing in the background. I kept saying "one more minute" . . . we stayed home.) [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1yfWb0-jqQ]Federer vs Nadal Wimbledon 2008 Highlights [HQ] - YouTube[/ame] Nadal is all heart. There's no such thing as a point or game you throw away, in his view. What could be more exciting to watch?
I don't think he is yet. For me it will depend more on him passing Fed in # of majors, and seeing how long his body will hold up. If he continues playing the way he has, I think you can make a case for it. What made Fed so great is how consistent he was for so long. He was never out due to injury. Never lost early. He was always there at the end of the majors. Until recently that is. IMO Fed is done. I don't think his ego can take him going out early in majors. Unless there is a huge turn around in his game, I don't see him going on much longer.
Yes, I think that's fair. Although Laver will never have the number of slams, yet his consistency across all surfaces at the time more than covers for the total number. Fed has won on all surfaces, for me that's the holy grail (just short of a season grand slam). Nadal has won on all surfaces, but if he adds another Wimbledon title, it's really hard to argue against him. I'd rather see him pick up another grass court victory than 3-4 more French Open titls. Probably, but never count him out. I still remember Connors at the US Open in 1991, at 39 years old...that was epic! I could see Fed doing something similar.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32EWNGHBctI]Hit for Haiti - Federer wants Agassi to Serve at 113 mph , Agassi serves 114 mph - YouTube[/ame]
I am not counting him out because of talent or determination. There are quite a few guys that are 30+ and playing the best tennis of their careers. I have just seen how hard Fed is taking the early losses, and he has clearly lost confidence. I just don't think he will be happy hanging around the 10-15 in the world ranking. If anyone can prove me wrong, it is Fed. What sticks in my mind is when Roddick retired. He was still one of the top male players. But he realized that even though he was competitive, he couldn't beat the top guys. He didn't want to be out there if he didn't have a realistic shot at winning tournaments. I think Fed will have a similar mentality.
