On clay, grass, hardcourt…rebound ace? Also in slightly different eras. Edberg for instance, only shined once Borg and later Lendl dissapeared.

How many of the names you mention have won a grand slam of titles?

It is one thing to reach the finals of a major, another to actually win it and in the process you play whoever they put in front of you. To win so many majors and be dominant for o long you have to be great.

Borg
Connors
Lendl
Becker
Gerulitis (spell)
Guillermo Villas
Stephan Edberg
Mats Wilander

He won 4 US Opens and 3 Wimbledon.
I don’t even know who are those guys who won few Majors since 2002, they certainly left no impression, they are irrelevant in tennis terms except they made Federr career easier.
Federer has not been a match for Nadal since July 2007, regardless what the trash talk specialist McEnro says in the best interests of commercialism, remember, he gets paid for his hassle

Argumnt is simple, who were those guys that Federer excelled against to win Majors?

Thomas Johannson??
Albert Costa??
Lleyton Hewitt (won a single major in 2001)
Pete Sampras (retired in 2002 after the US Open)
(Andre Agassi (was on the down hill in 2002 onward)
Juan Carlos Ferrero ??
Andy Roddick (won 1 major in 2003)
Gaston Gaudio ??
Marat Safin a violent drunk
Novak Djokovic (won a single major in 2008)

Nadal won all his 4 Major’s encounters against Federer since he lost at the Wimbledon final in 2007 and in 5 sets, not bad for a clay court specialist.
But you are entitled for your opinion

Thank F uk for the fact you do NOT select the team. It would battle to beat it’s way out of a paper bag never mind anything else.

Stick to the funny baby talk, you good at it!

Burger would hardly make my team let alone be the dubious ridiculous captain he is, sooner he gets out the system better for WP Stormers, urger is no captain h’e one huge noose around the Stormers neck, get him out before he chokes the entire team to death.

Major wins (Jack v Tiger): 18 – 14
2nd Place in a Major: 19-5
Top 3 in a major: 46-3

Jack wins hands down, and even if Tiger ends up getting past the 18 wins mark, he’ll never come close to the other two stats. He just doesn’t have what it takes IMO.

Federer was uncontested between those years because it was his prime years. It makes no sense to argue that exceptional sportsmen like him, Woods, Kelly Slater (surfing), Valentino Rossi , Lance Armstrong (stage road cycling)only dominated because they had no opposition, professional sport is far too competetive for that- they totally dominated because they were on another level.

Nadal is also exceptional and if he can stay injury free might even become the greatest ever in the eyes of experts like MacEnroe and Sampras.

The fact that Nadal got the better of Federer on most occasions does not mean he is a better player- its overall results in tournaments that count.

An example in this regard is Wayne Ferreira who has won 6 times out of 13 in direct encounters against Sampras but overall cannot even be mentioned in the same breath as Pete.

Thomas Johannson
Albert Costa
Lleyton Hewitt
Pete Sampras (remember him?)
Andre Agassi (also him?)
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Andy Roddick
Gaston Gaudio
Marat Safin
Novak Djokovic
Nadal (5)
Federer (12)

Far more won between 2002 and 2008 when 10 other players won than than the top 2 won than say, 2005 – 2010 when only 3 other players won other than the top 2.

So really, the period you refer to has a much wider variety than since. Federer won his forst slam in 2003. Nadal in 2005. So yes, Nadal is on the rise and Fed is less dominant but after winning 16 slams you’d think that was likely.

If you look at 2009 – 2010 Nadal has 4, Fed has 3.
2007 – 2008 Fed 4, Rafa 3.

It’s really just the French that Rafa has dominated, as Roger has done Wimbledon.

I don’t see anything to really support your statement personally.

Both great players Roger has been there done that, Rafa has 7 slams to go before equalling Roger. He may yet, but that remains to be seen.

It’s like the Tiger vs Nicklaus debate. Jack’s score is already posted, 18 to Tiger’s 14. Time will tell..

@gunther(gunther)-123:

It’s like comparing the 1995 RWC Boks to that of 2007 RWC winners: The 1995 Boks won against Aussies, The Frogs and the ABs, the 2007 won against the Poms twice and against the Argies.

He’s got a Seffrican mommy – that’s why he’s getting behind the Boks.

@poppa69(poppa69)-153:

Good luck to the Blues. Both our teams have tough conferences to endure.

When I took one of my few trips to Newlands in 2009, the home side lost – against the Blues.

And same again in 2010, this time the Brumbies got the better of the Stormers courtesy of an intercept try. Thank you, Brok.

Going to stay away from Newlands this year.

Going to be one hell of a tournie.

so another what if season for me…

double points for beating teams ranked no higher then 5th… talk about winning the lottery

the slide afterwards was just as quick too I beleieve

and of course this tennis oke knows a good side when he sees one, I mean. I always consult the Swiss when I need assistance in rugby matters

Pops, what do you think of the Blues chances this year? Particularly heading the NZ conference.
Saders still the team to beat, I reckon. They’ve been recruiting like crazy.

But the rankings will change after the WC.

They did last time – it’s a knockout remember.

This tennis oke knows a good side when he sees one.

its nice to know there is support out there for the 3rd ranked team in world rugby…

Yes, and nice to see Roger Federer supporting the Boks.

Champions back Champions.