Is Nadal the weakest of the 10+ slam winners?

First topic message reminder :

Out of this group is Nadal the player with the weakest resume?

Federer
Sampras
Emerson
Laver
Borg
Tilden
Nadal

If I remember correctly they built FMeadows from scratch.


"The next largest court is Louis Armstrong Stadium, opened in 1978, extensively renovated from the original Singer Bowl." wiki

Connors beat Borg 8 times and 7 of those occasions were in the US...including on US clay.

Borg had no other venue in the world where he would feel so much hostility than in the US as this is where his biggest rival(s) were from at the time.

I am not saying it explains everything but it's fair to say, it's the main reason.

Tenez wrote:If I remember correctly they built FMeadows from scratch.


"The next largest court is Louis Armstrong Stadium, opened in 1978, extensively renovated from the original Singer Bowl." wiki

Yes, I believe so. I remember Peter Flaming talking about the relocation of the US Open to Flushing Medow in 1978. He said the decision to move the Open from clay to the hard courts was taken under the pressure of the US Tennis federation, who wanted to see an American win the tournament. He also said that Connors and Mac both petitioned for the change of surface.

And Federer has testified that a few times. "If you can handle the US crowd, you can handle everything".

Kraji lost a key match v Sampras having points for 2 sets to love in the USO 2000. Nalby lost also to Roddick having one or 2 MPs, Connors won tons of matches he shoudl have lost thanks to the crowd...including versus other americans.

One cannot be prepared to play under such crowd...it affects the players one way or another. We can how it affects a whole team playing away, so imagine a single individual against 20k people.

Anyone who saw Federer v Agassi in 2005 can see how much a crowd can attempt to influence a match. That was a test of fortitude if I have ever seen one. The crowd were electric that night.

legendkillar wrote:Anyone who saw Federer v Agassi in 2005 can see how much a crowd can attempt to influence a match. That was a test of fortitude if I have ever seen one. The crowd were electric that night.

Very true! Maybe worse was the semi the previous year also v Agassi when a windy storm got into the mix. This is why I think Federer is actually one of the mentally strongest player...but not "in the never die" attitude that Wilander, Connors or even Nadal had but in blocking out the whole surrounding and finding himself playing as clam as a swiss alpine lake in the middle of the jungle that is New York's Arthur ash stadium.

I can see how the USTA would want to change away from clay to hard, as clay would benefit the European players more (despite it not being the same type of clay).

But the USTA had been looking for a new venue for some time and I would think a larger stadium was more of a financial and long-term growth decision, rather than a conscious effort to prevent Borg, or any other foreign players, winning the USO.
The Singer Bowl was already there and not used, so I guess it made financial sense to take it over rather than build completely from scratch.

The fact that Borg couldn't handle the USO environment (either at Forest Hills or at Flushing) was probably more of a welcome side-effect for them. There have been enough foreign champions there to suggest Borg was a little weaker than others in this respect. Or maybe the floodlights really were also an issue for him, as someone suggested previously.

JuliusHMarx wrote:But the USTA had been looking for a new venue for some time and I would think a larger stadium was more of a financial and long-term growth decision, rather than a conscious effort to prevent Borg, or any other foreign players, winning the USO.
.

But it can easily be argued that it was tennis increasing popularity that accelerated the decision to get a bigger stadium..and that was done to the new kid in town: Borg. If you have a look at the previous final Connors v Borg at Forest Hill, it was completely crammed already.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Anyone who saw Federer v Agassi in 2005 can see how much a crowd can attempt to influence a match. That was a test of fortitude if I have ever seen one. The crowd were electric that night.

Very true! Maybe worse was the semi the previous year also v Agassi when a windy storm got into the mix. This is why I think Federer is actually one of the mentally strongest player...but not "in the never die" attitude that Wilander, Connors or even Nadal had but in blocking out the whole surrounding and finding himself playing as clam as a swiss alpine lake in the middle of the jungle that is New York's Arthur ash stadium.

Even when Agassi was facing the down the barrel, the crowd were still behind him. Federer was ice cool and only showed any expression when he was in command, especially when he took the 3rd set. There seems to be a 'them and us' mentality in the states. Look at Donald Young at this years US Open. Granted he played good tennis, but Wawrinka and Chela folded I think partially to the crowd influence.

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:But the USTA had been looking for a new venue for some time and I would think a larger stadium was more of a financial and long-term growth decision, rather than a conscious effort to prevent Borg, or any other foreign players, winning the USO.
.

But it can easily be argued that it was tennis increasing popularity that accelerated the decision to get a bigger stadium..and that was done to the new kid in town: Borg. If you have a look at the previous final Connors v Borg at Forest Hill, it was completely crammed already.

It can also easily be argued that Connors vs Borg was crammed because of the popularity of Connors, especially in the US, and it being a USO final.
It's also possible that USO finals sold out before either Borg or Connors showed up. I don't buy into the idea that tennis in the US suddenly became popular after Borg won his first Wimbledon.

Was anyone on the forum in the States following tennis, 1973 onwards?

Connors was not very famous then and certainly not a reason to attract more people into tennis. You need two to tango and Connors beating an old rosewall or even being beaten by Manual Orantes the following year in 75 was not going to make tennis more popular.

One needs a phenomenal player. Borg was one then. Look even in the US, Federer made a lot to increase popularity there...more than Roddick, and I would not be surprised even if Rafa with his single USO had more influence in the audience than Roddick, Fish and Blake combined....even if they woudl of course support their own if faced v Federer or Nadal.

I don't think nationality brings the crowd in, It polarises a crowd in my view but doesn't make the numbers as much as a phenomenal player.

The crowd increases in number to see a phenomenal player win...or lose.

Tenez wrote:Connors was not very famous then and certainly not a reason to attract more people into tennis. You need two to tango and Connors beating an old rosewall or even being beaten by Manual Orantes the following year in 75 was not going to make tennis more popular.

One needs a phenomenal player. Borg was one then. Look even in the US, Federer made a lot to increase popularity there...more than Roddick, and I would not be surprised even if Rafa with his single USO had more influence in the audience than Roddick, Fish and Blake combined....even if they woudl of course support their own if faced v Federer or Nadal.

I don't think nationality brings the crowd in, It polarises a crowd in my view but doesn't make the numbers as much as a phenomenal player.

The crowd increases in number to see a phenomenal player win...or lose.

In 1976, Connors, an American, the World No1 since 1974 and USO winner 1974, finalist 1975, who played the Vegas matches in 1975, televised nationally live from Ceasar's Palace, was not very famous in the US? Compared to Borg who had who 2 FO and one Wimby and had yet to reach No 1?
It was a different picture in Europe, of course, but in the US, in 1976? I very much doubt it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:Connors was not very famous then and certainly not a reason to attract more people into tennis. You need two to tango and Connors beating an old rosewall or even being beaten by Manual Orantes the following year in 75 was not going to make tennis more popular.

One needs a phenomenal player. Borg was one then. Look even in the US, Federer made a lot to increase popularity there...more than Roddick, and I would not be surprised even if Rafa with his single USO had more influence in the audience than Roddick, Fish and Blake combined....even if they woudl of course support their own if faced v Federer or Nadal.

I don't think nationality brings the crowd in, It polarises a crowd in my view but doesn't make the numbers as much as a phenomenal player.

The crowd increases in number to see a phenomenal player win...or lose.

In 1976, Connors, an American, the World No1 since 1974 and USO winner 1974, finalist 1975, who played the Vegas matches in 1975, televised nationally live from Ceasar's Palace, was not very famous in the US? Compared to Borg who had who 2 FO and one Wimby and had yet to reach No 1?
It was a different picture in Europe, of course, but in the US, in 1976? I very much doubt it.

I think also some consideration needs to Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King who around this time were winning Slam titles. The impact especially of Ashe winning Slams given his race would have made a big impact in the US and help bring it to the forefront of their attention. Connors would have been I imagined the new poster boy for tennis not just for the US but Globally too.

JuliusHMarx wrote:In 1976, Connors, an American, the World No1 since 1974 and USO winner 1974, finalist 1975, who played the Vegas matches in 1975, televised nationally live from Ceasar's Palace, was not very famous in the US? Compared to Borg who had who 2 FO and one Wimby and had yet to reach No 1?
It was a different picture in Europe, of course, but in the US, in 1976? I very much doubt it.

He certainly was famous amongst the tennis fans. But a phenomenal player brings a new crowd to the game. Borg was that phenomenon, and so are Federer and Nadal now. They are those who extend the popularity beyond the usual tennis fans.

Tiger also put the golf back on the map. Much more than Fred Couples did, despite having a great record too.

Connors really became a big name when Borg attracted the non-tennis fans into watching the game. I'd like to know what was the audience for Orantes/Connors's final but I doubt it would break the roof.

Quite right LK, in terms of turning tennis into 'news' Ashe and King (esp. the Battle of the Sexes) would have given tennis some headlines.
Connors made the cover of Time magazine in April 1975 (as did Bobby Riggs in '73 after beating Margaret Court). This clearly shows he would have brought new crowds into the game and extended tennis' popularity well beyond the usual tennis fans, (and before Borg really came to prominance), albeit mainly in the US.
Connors may not have been as good as Borg, but his personality, his controversial nature and the way he played the game was huge in terms of popularising the sport 1974 - 1976, probably more than any other player in those years. He brought tennis to the masses, made it far less preceived of as an elistist sport.
Borg's influence in tennis' popularity was more from '77 onwards, and was a different kind of influence - among which was all those screaming teenage girls at Wimbledon.

King/Riggs was a circus and symptomatic of the era, not good for tennis at all.

Ashe, well I never really "got" the fuss about Ashe as he wasn't a particularly great player and I've never had an attitude toward colour. However, with hindsight I do realise why a guilty nation like the US would now revere him - kind of a penance. I do remember my Dad being made up he beat Connors at Wimbledon, that was fun to see.