[boogers]

kinda makes him seem out of their league don't it?

He is out of their league. Very few players in history look worthy in comparison.

[Buhweet]

It's a shame that Andy is playing at a time when the two best players that the world has ever seen are still at the top of their games.

I'm sure people will disagree with this but because of the current standard, I believe that Andy is in the top ten most talented players of all time.  Of course you can't call him one of the greatest players because he hasn't won any slams yet.

Talent does not equate greatness. Are you saying "if Andy wins a single Slam, he will go down as one of the top ten greatest players of all time" with his (totally subjective) perceived talent?? What are you into Dude? He is unfocused and carries no consistancy. He is an emotional yoyo. Until he can alter that, he is just one of the talented, also played good tennis group and will never be considered a "Great" tennis player. Does he play great tennis sometimes? Yes. But there are many others who do and did as well.

[Aileen]

Got up at 5 a.m. to see the recording of this wonderful wonderful match and now have to go to work red-eyed from all the tears shed!  Ooof what fabulous tennis and great sportsmanship - they're both BACK!!!

No tears shed but there was plenty of emotion.  When was the last time anyone can remember a GS final that left them with such a feel-good factor?  Djokovic must have been really hurting inside, he wanted that win as badly as Nadal, but Neil Harman's tweet (see previous page) summed the situation up beautifully.  Djoko put a great public face on his defeat, and Nadal was right when he praised his attitude.  Both are truly great sportsmen.

As for GOAT - how can you possibly compare players from different eras?  The game has changed so much, especially I think in the last few years.  Different styles of play, different rackets, different techniques.  Tim Henman admitted recently that he'd be struggling against today's players because their game is so different.  Can't we just accept that Perry was the greatest pre-WW2 player (although we can only take history's word for that) and Laver of the early modern era, Sampras of more recent times, with Federer, until now, that of present era?  We have to wait until Nadal's career is finished before we can properly weigh him against Federer.

It's a shame that Andy is playing at a time when the two best players that the world has ever seen are still at the top of their games.

Some experts believe that Andy still has to reach his peak, which he will do comfortably if he gets the the right coach.  Federer's on his way out.  He's no longer Mr Infallible.  I'm not even convinced he'll win another Slam.  Nadal has reached his peak and could well be fizzling out in a couple of years.  So If Andy is what is known as "a late bloomer", then there's still the possibility of his winning one or more GSs.  Worth remembering that Agassi won 5 of his 8 Slams after the age of 28.

[Aileen]

I think the greats have been there with what they had to work with at the time, in terms of progression (hopefully it's always going to progress)  re rackets, coaching etc. So safe to say, the greats at that time, with all they had to work with were, and still are, the greatest players of 'their time'.  I'm not sure about comparing, due to the progression made - but that is life/sport.  There are world records being broken everywhere in sport constantly, as time goes on, and as new technology/techniques become available.

Would Fed/Nadal have achieved as much with Borg's racket?  It's academic, really.  The bottom line is they are from a different era, using the best tools available, which are available to all players now, so I'm not sure where the difference lies in terms of achievement between the greatest and the rest. 

Interesting point.  These "greats" were all born with the natural ability to play first-class tennis, and, that being the case, would probably have excelled no matter what the era.
 

[Aileen]

Yes, that's my point.  I'm doubtful Andy is going to fall into this category, no matter what the reasons or excuses.  

Oh Elly ...  You never lighten up, do you?  Andy won't become the greatest, but he was born with huge natural ability.  Reckon even when he does win a Slam, you'll still find something to be pessimistic about!  


Anyway, back to topic -

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/14092010/2/tennis-nadal-charms-new-york-crowds-heading-home.html  

[Aileen]

I'm not pessimistic, Aileen, I'm realistic and I really don't see what that has to do with me 'never lightening up' as you put it.  

I wasn't meaning to be offensive, Elly, and I think most of us are realistic, but it seems nothing will convince you that it might just be possible for Andy to win a Slam!

[Aileen]

^ Reckon that's the best attitude to take.  What will be, will be ... etc.  It wouldn't bother me too much, but I'd just hate Andy to become another "nearly man".  Just one Slam would do.

And Nadal's Uncle saying that Rafa still needs to improve ...  Question is, how long are his knees going to hold out - and is Uncle Toni perhaps in danger of pushing him too hard in the pursuit of perfection?

[tennis_girl]

I think Rafa is a great player, but no one is perfect.