by CK » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:12 pm
by Media Park » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:03 pm
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by GWW » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:06 pm
by cripple » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:30 pm
by Jim05 » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:50 pm
by Strawb » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:58 pm
by Moe » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:25 pm
by Grahaml » Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:49 pm
by smac » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:08 am
by GWW » Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:12 am
by Dirko » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:58 am
Grahaml wrote:Nadal is not the best ever, and never will be. He may be a dominating type of player and certainly does give his opponent very little, but I don't see him beating the Federer from 2004-2005. Federer back then was a far superior player to what we see now, make no mistake. But in my mind, the only way to call someone the "greatest of all time" is to compare how they would go in other eras. Nadal on grass with wooden raquets would not be able to compete. Federer would still be a massive tournament threat.
It will never be possible to compare properly with the changes in equipment, for example, how will we ever know how Laver would go with a modern raquet on hardcourt all the time? But from what I have seen with Sampras, Agassi, Nadal and Federer (the only ones of the possible cantidates I've seen enough of) Federer has the best all-round game, was the most dominant at his best and would be the most likely to be the #1 in any era. So he gets my vote without question.
by Pat Malone » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:36 am
by bayman » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:59 am
by Swamp Donkey » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:04 pm
by Johno6 » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:42 pm
by Booney » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:44 pm
by valleys07 » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:48 pm
by OnSong » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:07 pm
by RustyCage » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:12 pm
Grahaml wrote:Nadal is not the best ever, and never will be. He may be a dominating type of player and certainly does give his opponent very little, but I don't see him beating the Federer from 2004-2005. Federer back then was a far superior player to what we see now, make no mistake. But in my mind, the only way to call someone the "greatest of all time" is to compare how they would go in other eras. Nadal on grass with wooden raquets would not be able to compete. Federer would still be a massive tournament threat.
It will never be possible to compare properly with the changes in equipment, for example, how will we ever know how Laver would go with a modern raquet on hardcourt all the time? But from what I have seen with Sampras, Agassi, Nadal and Federer (the only ones of the possible cantidates I've seen enough of) Federer has the best all-round game, was the most dominant at his best and would be the most likely to be the #1 in any era. So he gets my vote without question.
by pigskin » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:36 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |