will have as many Wimbledon titles as Djokovic, Becker and McEnroe?
And Nadal has just one AO title? Loser!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Australian Open | Wimbledon | US Open | FO | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Djokovic (6) | Sampras (7) | Connors (5) | Nadal (10) | ||||
| 2. Federer (5) | Federer (7) | Sampras (5) | Borg (6) | ||||
| 3. Agassi (4) | Borg (5) | Federer (5) | Wilander (3) | ||||
| 4. Wilander (3) | Becker (3) | McEnroe (4) | Lendl (3) | ||||
| 5. Becker (2) | Djokovic (3) | Lendl (3) | Kuerten (3) | ||||
| 6. Courier (2) | McEnroe (3) | Agassi (2) | Courier (2) | ||||
| 7. Edberg (2) | Laver (2) | Djokovic (2) | Bruguera (2) | ||||
| 8. Kriek (2) | Newcombe (2) | Edberg (2) | Kodes (2) | ||||
| 9. Newcombe (2) | Connors (2) | Nadal (2) | |||||
| 10. Sampras (2) | Edberg (2) | Rafter (2) | |||||
| 11. Vilas (2) | Murray (2) | ||||||
| 12. Lendl (2) | Nadal (2) | ||||||
| 13. Rosewall (2) |
Will look better if Federer is No. 1 slot in W and USO as it is a tie anyway. Why is he lower down?
Posted by: Vr | 06/20/2017 at 06:31 PM
I'm guessing it was put in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER to eliminate claims of player-bias:
Wimby: Sampras did it before Federer did...
USO: Connors did it first, then Sampras, then Federer...
Posted by: Gary Moser | 06/21/2017 at 07:15 AM
Federer is 1 slam away from being No 1 at W, 1 slam away from being No 1 at USO, and 1 slam away from being Co No 1 at AO. Also, not counting FO, only Djokovic and Edberg are even miltiple same-slam winners. In my view this puts Federer so far ahead of competition that even a remote comparison is not possible. Fans worldwide agree. Which is why I simply cannot even begin to understand some current and former tennis greats talking about Nadal as the best ever??!!
Posted by: Veglia | 06/21/2017 at 11:06 AM
To understand current and former greats...
With all due respect, recollecting their opinions (which happen, in the time course, to be rather...mercurial, let's say so), I am afraid to conclude that sometimes they simply look like bandwagonners. No matter Federer, Nadal or Djokovic are spoken of - all they need is a next impressive and more or less prolonged streak, and voila! you have a renewed goat.
I can understand them in a sense. If they want to be still 'present', there is no way except reacting to the present, i.e. praise the current winner. We, poor mortals, are then in a better position, no?
Posted by: Leon | 06/21/2017 at 02:10 PM
If Roger had played someone other than Nadal in each of the four FO Finals he lost to Nadal,
it is not a CERTAINTY that Roger would have won any of those four, let alone all of them, to add to his lone 2009 title.
But it's POSSIBLE that it took the unquestioned greatest clay-courter of all time, in his personal cathedral,
to prevent Roger from having a QUINTUPLE-CAREER-SLAM.
Using the same type of "projection":
Djokovic winning all of his Slam Finals versus Nadal would give him a TRIPLE.
Nadal winning all of his Slam Finals against either Djokovic or Wawrinka or Federer would give him a DOUBLE.
Nobody else -- not even Agassi -- ends up with more than a SINGLE, no matter which individual rival you take away...
Posted by: Gary Moser | 06/21/2017 at 02:14 PM
Again, I am impressed by your ability to find a new, not so obvious but so convincing argument!
Posted by: Leon | 06/21/2017 at 02:30 PM
Yup, Gary never fails to impress!!!
Posted by: Veglia | 06/21/2017 at 07:37 PM
Thanks, L & V!
Posted by: Gary Moser | 06/21/2017 at 09:35 PM
Add my appreciation too. There's often a nugget that makes me go Whoa!
Posted by: Alpha | 06/21/2017 at 10:13 PM