Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="MadDogRevival, post: 2548522, member: 8028"] It's unfair to compare Nadal to Federer. Clay court tennis is hugely different than grass/solid surface. Hugely. Sampras never won at the French, and most people have him top 5 all time on grass/hard surface. Nadal contends for best ever on clay. Beyond that, he's a top 10ish all time grass/hard surface player, with time left. Federer is alien. Clearly best ever grass/hard surface, and took the time to win the French once just to prove he could do it - doesn't seem too far fetched that he could have won more if he had devoted more time to clay, perhaps at the expense of other titles. His ageless recent wins are remarkable, particularly when you consider that, a few years ago, the oldest Wimbledon winner was 31. That's insane. Because of his longevity and spread out wins, he's the best ever, and it's not close. It's like Brady and the next QB. Best ever, all around, at his prime, was probably Borg. Dude retired at 26, having 6 French and 5 Wimbledon, only played in Australia once, and made 5 U.S. open finals 3 of the last 4 years he played. He just got bored with tennis. In the last 4 years of his career, he only lost 5 matches in French/Wimbledon/US Open play, and only failed to make the finals in those 4 years one time. Australia was on grass then, so it's completely possible the guy could have had a 4 year stretch where he won 11 or 12 majors and made the final in the other 4 or 5. Unreal. [/QUOTE]