Always followed by a wiping his nose and face, one of nastiest OCD habits in sports history.So gald that scowling butt picker didn't win another major.
Seemed pretty clear he was sandbagging to goad Wawrinka.Can't believe this many people still credit Nadal and Serena's "injuries" each and every time they struggle. Some people in this thread actually typing about how amazing it is a man could run such and such a shot down and stretch for it like that, while simultaneously applauding him for gutting it out. Guts or not, you don't go balls to the wall with real back injuries.
You guys must have been outraged at the injustice at the ending of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Unbelievable. Somebody wake up Raider Nation.
Warwrinka in total meltdown mode.
How'd this turn out?Like I said chance for an all-timer. What more could you ask for going in?
:swingandamiss:Can't believe this many people still credit Nadal and Serena's "injuries" each and every time they struggle. Some people in this thread actually typing about how amazing it is a man could run such and such a shot down and stretch for it like that, while simultaneously applauding him for gutting it out. Guts or not, you don't go balls to the wall with real back injuries.
You guys must have been outraged at the injustice at the ending of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Nadal's combo of walking during points, hitting 70 mph 1st serves, and lobbing shots from the baseline actually got a set off of Wawrinka. Then after Warwinka got up a break in the 4th he immediately got broken back in the next game.Unbelievable. Somebody wake up Raider Nation.
Warwrinka in total meltdown mode.How'd this turn out?Like I said chance for an all-timer. What more could you ask for going in?
I know.... just messing around. I kept it on, but only listened.Nadal's combo of walking during points, hitting 70 mph 1st serves, and lobbing shots from the baseline actually got a set off of Wawrinka. Then after Warwinka got up a break in the 4th he immediately got broken back in the next game.Unbelievable. Somebody wake up Raider Nation.
Warwrinka in total meltdown mode.How'd this turn out?Like I said chance for an all-timer. What more could you ask for going in?
Ugly match with terrible tennis after Nadal's injury but good drama.
Not really. Get used to more of this. He plays like his life depends on it, and his body won't allow it for much longer.Bad luck for Nadal!
And he's only 27, wow. Although he could win at least two more on the clay in his sleep.Not really. Get used to more of this. He plays like his life depends on it, and his body won't allow it for much longer.Bad luck for Nadal!
I'm a huge Federer guy. The way he dominated the tour like none other for 4 SOLID YEARS of being #1 and racking up 3 majors a year in 3 different years... And winning 13 of his majors AFTER NADAL won his first major are nothing short of brilliant to me. His game was also incredible to watch. Like tennis porn.Zam - sure you've answered at some point but I don't recall. Why do you dislike nadal? I happen to really enjoy watching all four of the "best" guys from recent years. Different styles, really enjoyable.
Your memory is hazy. Sorry. While I agree Sampras is in the discussion for GOAT, I strongly disagree with the two bolded phrases above.Interesting how age comes into play for Federer but no one needs excuses for Sampras.
Pete Sampras ruled during a much better time in tennis and NO ONE owned him...at any age/level/surface...Head to Head the guy just whooped @zz.
Look it up...I don't even put Federer over Sampras for GOAT...
OK...I'll definitely have to concede French Open...that was a bit of a stretch...but let's look at some of the names you threw out there:Your memory is hazy. Sorry. While I agree Sampras is in the discussion for GOAT, I strongly disagree with the two bolded phrases above.Interesting how age comes into play for Federer but no one needs excuses for Sampras.
Pete Sampras ruled during a much better time in tennis and NO ONE owned him...at any age/level/surface...Head to Head the guy just whooped @zz.
Look it up...I don't even put Federer over Sampras for GOAT...
First, no one mentions Sampras' age because he was widely considered the GOAT when he left the game. He had the most slams, and no one around at the time was gonna take that record from him.
But Roger came along, grabbed more Grand Slams, and he's in the discussion and has been for years. People defend Roger for his age today because he's still in the game (and playing fairly well), and Nadal fans keep talkin' smack. We'll see if having Edberg in his camp makes a difference as the year progresses. Personally, I'd like to see Murray take a few more, and Roger to claim a couple more. Novak will absolutely grab a few more.
RE: any surface, Pete never won The French Open. Not once. He wasn't particularly bad on clay, but the surface wasn't conducive to his style of play.
His reign came after the great 80s, which I still maintain had the finest Top Ten in the Open Era.
Sampras' rise came from '88 - '92. He was young when he started (16) and dismissed a few veterans (Mac, Agassi, Lendl, etc.) in smaller tourneys here and there, but he in fact did get owned on a fairly regular basis from those same vets (incl. Becker, Chang, Edberg) as some of their careers were waning. And near the end of those four years, he got his first slam (U.S. Open)—crushing everything in his path. That path included Muster, Lendl, and Mac—hardly young turks—before whipping Agassi. Granted, there were multi-Slam winners in his victories, and Fed didn't have to face that at this stage of his career, so he's got that going for him.
Then in '93, as older players were retiring or on their way down (Lendl/Edberg/Wilander/Stich), he started to dominate the tour, with only Agassi, Courier, and occasional blips of Becker's greatness getting in his way. Particularly at Wimbledon, which belonged to him and him alone. But even during this reign, he was still getting trouble regularly from the likes of Ivanisevic, Todd Martin, Patrick Rafter, Krajicek, etc. until the sun set on his career and he was losing to new up & comers such as Hewitt, Safin, etc. And on clay, throughout his career, he was getting it with his pants on from Brugera, Yevgeny, etc.
Yes, Sampras had a low loss record, but much of that was because for several years, he didn't enter nearly as many tourneys as the other guys.
Now, I don't know how Federer, Sampras, or Rafa would've done head-to-head, but I can assure you, when Todd Martin, Richard Krajicek, and Patrick Rafter are the biggest opponents (Agassi was injured a lot in the 90s), it was NOT a much better time in tennis. Most tennis commentators/coaches/players/fans would absolutely agree with me—especially in an era with the likes of Rafa, Novak, and Murray.
As the great Ivan Lendl said: "In my time, playing against the 200th rank was a glorified warm-up. But now, if you don't pay attention, the 200th player can and will beat you. It's much tougher today."
All fair points.OK...I'll definitely have to concede French Open...that was a bit of a stretch...but let's look at some of the names you threw out there:Your memory is hazy. Sorry. While I agree Sampras is in the discussion for GOAT, I strongly disagree with the two bolded phrases above.Interesting how age comes into play for Federer but no one needs excuses for Sampras.
Pete Sampras ruled during a much better time in tennis and NO ONE owned him...at any age/level/surface...Head to Head the guy just whooped @zz.
Look it up...I don't even put Federer over Sampras for GOAT...
First, no one mentions Sampras' age because he was widely considered the GOAT when he left the game. He had the most slams, and no one around at the time was gonna take that record from him.
But Roger came along, grabbed more Grand Slams, and he's in the discussion and has been for years. People defend Roger for his age today because he's still in the game (and playing fairly well), and Nadal fans keep talkin' smack. We'll see if having Edberg in his camp makes a difference as the year progresses. Personally, I'd like to see Murray take a few more, and Roger to claim a couple more. Novak will absolutely grab a few more.
RE: any surface, Pete never won The French Open. Not once. He wasn't particularly bad on clay, but the surface wasn't conducive to his style of play.
His reign came after the great 80s, which I still maintain had the finest Top Ten in the Open Era.
Sampras' rise came from '88 - '92. He was young when he started (16) and dismissed a few veterans (Mac, Agassi, Lendl, etc.) in smaller tourneys here and there, but he in fact did get owned on a fairly regular basis from those same vets (incl. Becker, Chang, Edberg) as some of their careers were waning. And near the end of those four years, he got his first slam (U.S. Open)—crushing everything in his path. That path included Muster, Lendl, and Mac—hardly young turks—before whipping Agassi. Granted, there were multi-Slam winners in his victories, and Fed didn't have to face that at this stage of his career, so he's got that going for him.
Then in '93, as older players were retiring or on their way down (Lendl/Edberg/Wilander/Stich), he started to dominate the tour, with only Agassi, Courier, and occasional blips of Becker's greatness getting in his way. Particularly at Wimbledon, which belonged to him and him alone. But even during this reign, he was still getting trouble regularly from the likes of Ivanisevic, Todd Martin, Patrick Rafter, Krajicek, etc. until the sun set on his career and he was losing to new up & comers such as Hewitt, Safin, etc. And on clay, throughout his career, he was getting it with his pants on from Brugera, Yevgeny, etc.
Yes, Sampras had a low loss record, but much of that was because for several years, he didn't enter nearly as many tourneys as the other guys.
Now, I don't know how Federer, Sampras, or Rafa would've done head-to-head, but I can assure you, when Todd Martin, Richard Krajicek, and Patrick Rafter are the biggest opponents (Agassi was injured a lot in the 90s), it was NOT a much better time in tennis. Most tennis commentators/coaches/players/fans would absolutely agree with me—especially in an era with the likes of Rafa, Novak, and Murray.
As the great Ivan Lendl said: "In my time, playing against the 200th rank was a glorified warm-up. But now, if you don't pay attention, the 200th player can and will beat you. It's much tougher today."
Mac - Not sure how he owned Sampras...Pete beat him all 3 times they played.
Agassi - Pete was 20-14 versus Andre.
Lendl - Pete was 5-3 versus Ivan.
Becker - Pete was 12-7 versus Boris.
Chang - Pete was 12-8 versus Michael.
Edberg - Pete was 8-6 versus Stefan.
Now, granted...they may have gotten him when he was young and he got them back when they got older...but the point is still the same. Not one of those guys had a winning record versus Pete.
As for the timeframes...I wasn't comparing Pete's time to now...I was comparing Federer's reign to Sampras'. We are no longer in Federer's reign.
The timeframe that Fedentist likes to wax poetic about was when tennis was at one of it's alltime lows. He's playing now...sure...but he's not winning anything, even with someone catching an injury or something freakish happening...he's not winning anymore titles.
My point again was H2H...You look at Sampras' record against everyone and no one owned the guy and he played until he was 31/32 like Federer is now. The same cannot be said about Federer. Even if we say that Federer and Sampras' reigns were completely even as far as competition...how can you ignore the fact that there are 3 different guys out there right now that are smacking him all around the court and have been for quite some time.
Bad luck? Are you serious? Federer knocked his girlfriend up and had to marry her!Sampras was great in his time, but the level of play is just so much better today. He couldn't stay on the court with Nadal, Federer, or Djok if he was in this era. And that's how I rank the GOATs:
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djok
Case for Nadal as GOAT:
He's already got 13 majors with more left in him. And he's had the WORST LUCK of any top player I've ever seen. His injuries have cost him majors. His depression over his parents' split cost him majors and affected him for 1.5 years. The fact that he is in the era with the two other GOATs is unlucky.
Love everything about Nadal except his OCD, and that's only a reason to feel sorry for the guy, not dislike him. Also feel sorry for his bad luck, which he doesn't play on. His passionate play and his humility are admirable. I love that he plays left-handed, as do I. His ball rotation is what, three times the speed of other players? That's amazing. As a tennis player, Nadal is the most inspiring sports idol I've ever had.
I think you create a lot of your own luck in life... Nadal's playing style has always been far more conducive to injury than Federer or Djoker's style. The guy plays like he's broke... admirable.. but it's going to cause injury.. bad luck?Sampras was great in his time, but the level of play is just so much better today. He couldn't stay on the court with Nadal, Federer, or Djok if he was in this era. And that's how I rank the GOATs:
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djok
Case for Nadal as GOAT:
He's already got 13 majors with more left in him. And he's had the WORST LUCK of any top player I've ever seen. His injuries have cost him majors. His depression over his parents' split cost him majors and affected him for 1.5 years. The fact that he is in the era with the two other GOATs is unlucky.
Love everything about Nadal except his OCD, and that's only a reason to feel sorry for the guy, not dislike him. Also feel sorry for his bad luck, which he doesn't play on. His passionate play and his humility are admirable. I love that he plays left-handed, as do I. His ball rotation is what, three times the speed of other players? That's amazing. As a tennis player, Nadal is the most inspiring sports idol I've ever had.
Not so sure anymore. Did some more research and discovered a whole lot of body hair and mannish facial features. Bummer.Yes, yes she is. I thought she had a shot in this one. Got down early, stormed back, gained momentum and then let Lithium Sodium back into the thing. It was a very enjoyable back and forth for a while, but when Na finally captured the first set, she broke the hot girls little back. The second set was nasty.This chick hot.
and Federer has better hair.I'm a huge Federer guy. The way he dominated the tour like none other for 4 SOLID YEARS of being #1 and racking up 3 majors a year in 3 different years... And winning 13 of his majors AFTER NADAL won his first major are nothing short of brilliant to me. His game was also incredible to watch. Like tennis porn.Zam - sure you've answered at some point but I don't recall. Why do you dislike nadal? I happen to really enjoy watching all four of the "best" guys from recent years. Different styles, really enjoyable.
But because this Nadal guy is better on clay than Federer, because he is 5 years younger than Federer.... and because he's trounced the guy since he slid off his prime about 5 years ago now people are saying Nadal is a potential GOAT player and Federer isn't.
And it infuriates me... it's like people forgot what they just saw a few years ago...
Now they claim Federer dominated a "weak era" because since he won all the majors, no one else has any resume worth a crap. Mind you that Nadal was playing during most of this entire run... but Nadal gets a pass because he was "too young to compete" at the time off-clay.. BUT now that Federer is 32 and well past his prime, when Nadal trashes him it sends a "statement" that he is better. GTFO.
You play tennis across an entire tour of people.. not one guy. To take an extreme example... if the Yankees went 150-12 but lost all 12 of those games to the red sox (season series - Sox 12-0) but the Sox went 12-150... and the Yankees won the world series... Are the Sox the better team... i mean they beat the yanks every damn time... it's a definitive no that they aren't better.
Maybe Federer can't play Nadal very well (especially on clay - off clay the H2H is pretty close).. but he destroyed the tour in its entirety for a lot of years... including one of the toughest non-majors to win the World Tour Finals where you only play the top dawgs... Federer won that 6 times to Nadal's 0.
237 straight weeks at #1, 302 weeks overall, 17 majors, 23 straight semifinals, 10 straight finals, another stretch of 8 straight finals.
The guy straight up punked everyone during his prime years other than Nadal ON CLAY... half of their stupid H2H matchups were on clay.
Where was Nadal in a hard court tournament in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 (he won his first french open in 2005.. so he was good enough to ball)
Nadal is 5-6 in finals off clay.
There is 100% no question Nadal is the best clay court tennis player of all-time.. in fact if I had to put my life on the line behind 1 player on 1 surface it would be Nadal on clay. And he's obviously very very very good off-clay.
But even if you took away Federer's pet slam (wimbledon) he still has 10 majors on other surfaces... Nadal has 5 off of his precious clay.... Federer is 16-3 in finals that aren't against Nadal on Clay.
The crazy thing is... it almost would have been better for Federer to lose the match right before Nadal on clay every time and for Federer to retire right after the 2012 USO because then he wouldn't be playing Nadal WAY post-prime and getting pwned while Nadal peaks off-clay.
The bottom line is that this guy has injured the legacy of the best player of all-time and it shouldn't be that way... so I will root for his demise in any way possible... I can't stand his schtick and his fanbase is even worse.
Create your own luck? Only in the sense that if you work hard, good things will happen. So the harder you played, a la Nadal, the more luck you'd have. So basically you're saying he's had EVEN WORSE luck than I already said.Dentist said:I think you create a lot of your own luck in life... Nadal's playing style has always been far more conducive to injury than Federer or Djoker's style. The guy plays like he's broke... admirable.. but it's going to cause injury.. bad luck?mon said:Sampras was great in his time, but the level of play is just so much better today. He couldn't stay on the court with Nadal, Federer, or Djok if he was in this era. And that's how I rank the GOATs:
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djok
Case for Nadal as GOAT:
He's already got 13 majors with more left in him. And he's had the WORST LUCK of any top player I've ever seen. His injuries have cost him majors. His depression over his parents' split cost him majors and affected him for 1.5 years. The fact that he is in the era with the two other GOATs is unlucky.
Love everything about Nadal except his OCD, and that's only a reason to feel sorry for the guy, not dislike him. Also feel sorry for his bad luck, which he doesn't play on. His passionate play and his humility are admirable. I love that he plays left-handed, as do I. His ball rotation is what, three times the speed of other players? That's amazing. As a tennis player, Nadal is the most inspiring sports idol I've ever had.
Was it bad luck that Earl Campbell's style caused for a short career whereas Sweetness and Emmitt Smith had a style that allowed them to play consistently and a lot longer?
I'll tell you what's bad luck... that a lot of the old guys didn't completely realize that slam counting would be the main tool for determining GOAT in the future.. if so they wouldn't have skipped so many Aussie Opens like McEnroe and Borg routinely did.. Agassi to in the first leg of his career.
Borg might not have quit at 26.. Laver would probably have a lot more than 17 slams if the rules had been different.
Now that's some bad luck. Not getting injured when you play an ultra grinding style or because you can't handle it when mommy and daddy split up.
I think it's interesting that you will only consider current players when talking about the greatest of all-time as far as tennis is concerned but you think that Walter Payton and Earl Campbell are the two best running backs ever. You could put Bjorn Borg at the height of his powers in a time machine and he would lose to just about every relevant modern player. That doesn't mean they are "better".Create your own luck? Only in the sense that if you work hard, good things will happen. So the harder you played, a la Nadal, the more luck you'd have. So basically you're saying he's had EVEN WORSE luck than I already said.Dentist said:I think you create a lot of your own luck in life... Nadal's playing style has always been far more conducive to injury than Federer or Djoker's style. The guy plays like he's broke... admirable.. but it's going to cause injury.. bad luck?mon said:Sampras was great in his time, but the level of play is just so much better today. He couldn't stay on the court with Nadal, Federer, or Djok if he was in this era. And that's how I rank the GOATs:
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djok
Case for Nadal as GOAT:
He's already got 13 majors with more left in him. And he's had the WORST LUCK of any top player I've ever seen. His injuries have cost him majors. His depression over his parents' split cost him majors and affected him for 1.5 years. The fact that he is in the era with the two other GOATs is unlucky.
Love everything about Nadal except his OCD, and that's only a reason to feel sorry for the guy, not dislike him. Also feel sorry for his bad luck, which he doesn't play on. His passionate play and his humility are admirable. I love that he plays left-handed, as do I. His ball rotation is what, three times the speed of other players? That's amazing. As a tennis player, Nadal is the most inspiring sports idol I've ever had.
Was it bad luck that Earl Campbell's style caused for a short career whereas Sweetness and Emmitt Smith had a style that allowed them to play consistently and a lot longer?
I'll tell you what's bad luck... that a lot of the old guys didn't completely realize that slam counting would be the main tool for determining GOAT in the future.. if so they wouldn't have skipped so many Aussie Opens like McEnroe and Borg routinely did.. Agassi to in the first leg of his career.
Borg might not have quit at 26.. Laver would probably have a lot more than 17 slams if the rules had been different.
Now that's some bad luck. Not getting injured when you play an ultra grinding style or because you can't handle it when mommy and daddy split up.
And E. Smith's records don't mean a thing as far as GOAT -- I believe Campbell and Payton to be the GOATs, and I lean toward Campbell.
And likewise, slams don't necessarily equate to GOAT. Like I said, Nadal is already GOAT. And those guys like Laver, Mac, and Borg wouldn't be GOAT even if they each won 25 slams -- they weren't near the specimen or phenom the guys playing today are. They even admit that.
Yes, it is interesting that football and tennis are different this way. A couple of reasons for this. One, RBs today aren't generally willing to put themselves through the punishment that the old guys put themselves through (and neither are the coaches). Two, the game is more strategic and more pass-minded and the RB isn't as important.I think it's interesting that you will only consider current players when talking about the greatest of all-time as far as tennis is concerned but you think that Walter Payton and Earl Campbell are the two best running backs ever. You could put Bjorn Borg at the height of his powers in a time machine and he would lose to just about every relevant modern player. That doesn't mean they are "better".Create your own luck? Only in the sense that if you work hard, good things will happen. So the harder you played, a la Nadal, the more luck you'd have. So basically you're saying he's had EVEN WORSE luck than I already said.Dentist said:I think you create a lot of your own luck in life... Nadal's playing style has always been far more conducive to injury than Federer or Djoker's style. The guy plays like he's broke... admirable.. but it's going to cause injury.. bad luck?mon said:Sampras was great in his time, but the level of play is just so much better today. He couldn't stay on the court with Nadal, Federer, or Djok if he was in this era. And that's how I rank the GOATs:
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djok
Case for Nadal as GOAT:
He's already got 13 majors with more left in him. And he's had the WORST LUCK of any top player I've ever seen. His injuries have cost him majors. His depression over his parents' split cost him majors and affected him for 1.5 years. The fact that he is in the era with the two other GOATs is unlucky.
Love everything about Nadal except his OCD, and that's only a reason to feel sorry for the guy, not dislike him. Also feel sorry for his bad luck, which he doesn't play on. His passionate play and his humility are admirable. I love that he plays left-handed, as do I. His ball rotation is what, three times the speed of other players? That's amazing. As a tennis player, Nadal is the most inspiring sports idol I've ever had.
Was it bad luck that Earl Campbell's style caused for a short career whereas Sweetness and Emmitt Smith had a style that allowed them to play consistently and a lot longer?
I'll tell you what's bad luck... that a lot of the old guys didn't completely realize that slam counting would be the main tool for determining GOAT in the future.. if so they wouldn't have skipped so many Aussie Opens like McEnroe and Borg routinely did.. Agassi to in the first leg of his career.
Borg might not have quit at 26.. Laver would probably have a lot more than 17 slams if the rules had been different.
Now that's some bad luck. Not getting injured when you play an ultra grinding style or because you can't handle it when mommy and daddy split up.
And E. Smith's records don't mean a thing as far as GOAT -- I believe Campbell and Payton to be the GOATs, and I lean toward Campbell.
And likewise, slams don't necessarily equate to GOAT. Like I said, Nadal is already GOAT. And those guys like Laver, Mac, and Borg wouldn't be GOAT even if they each won 25 slams -- they weren't near the specimen or phenom the guys playing today are. They even admit that.
So basically you're saying discussing who the GOATs are is pointless. A lot of people feel that way. A lot of people, including myself, enjoy it.I just think your line of reasoning with respect to Sampras (the level of play is just so much better today) and Borg, Laver, and McEnroe (they weren't near the specimen or phenom the guys playing today are) pretty much applies to all sports. Your statements aren't wrong, they're just why comparing across eras directly like that is silly.
I'm not saying it's pointless, and I'm probably coming off as more combative than I mean to. I think the key word in my last sentence there is directly. You just can't do that with tennis. Lleyton Hewitt circa 2001 would destroy Bjorn Borg at his apex. So when we list the greatest players of all-time, do we have to put Hewitt higher?So basically you're saying discussing who the GOATs are is pointless. A lot of people feel that way. A lot of people, including myself, enjoy it.I just think your line of reasoning with respect to Sampras (the level of play is just so much better today) and Borg, Laver, and McEnroe (they weren't near the specimen or phenom the guys playing today are) pretty much applies to all sports. Your statements aren't wrong, they're just why comparing across eras directly like that is silly.
I think accomplishments account for something. How much, is where all the disagreements come in. That's the fun in arguing, I guess.I'm not saying it's pointless, and I'm probably coming off as more combative than I mean to. I think the key word in my last sentence there is directly. You just can't do that with tennis. Lleyton Hewitt circa 2001 would destroy Bjorn Borg at his apex. So when we list the greatest players of all-time, do we have to put Hewitt higher?So basically you're saying discussing who the GOATs are is pointless. A lot of people feel that way. A lot of people, including myself, enjoy it.I just think your line of reasoning with respect to Sampras (the level of play is just so much better today) and Borg, Laver, and McEnroe (they weren't near the specimen or phenom the guys playing today are) pretty much applies to all sports. Your statements aren't wrong, they're just why comparing across eras directly like that is silly.
But if your point is that todays athletes are so much better, the equipment is so much advanced and the technology being better makes those 70's players pale in comparison...I don't buy it.
Better? No. I'd just call it different. To me, it's maybe like comparing NASCAR to Formula 1—both car races, but not the same. We compare Lebron/Kobe to Jordan, but we rarely compare them to earlier players like Dr. J, Hakeem, Wilt, Larry, Russell, Magic, Kareem, etc. because it was so long ago and the games/players were so different then. In fact, the business of the game, the money, is so different that it leads to better conditioned/trained athletes who have a wider range of players and more history/moves to learn from. As for tennis, I'll always prefer the late 70s - late 80s era and its players.
Honestly, I wished there were one major that still made everyone use wooden rackets. I think Wimbledon would be fantastic with wooden rackets.
Agreed.
Lendl was an absolute emotionless machine...guy was unbelievable.
Jimmy Connors will forever be my favorite player ever.
Love that guy.
I think Nadal brings the sort of game, competition and determination that I've not seen since Connors days.
Agreed.
It's tough to compare Greats across generations...I'm just saying if you discount Sampras because the level of play, then you'd have to discount Federer.
Agreed.
But if your point is that todays athletes are so much better, the equipment is so much advanced and the technology being better makes those 70's players pale in comparison...I don't buy it.
Agreed. In order to compare today's players to older players, you have to take into account technology. Putting that aside, a player like McEnroe wouldn't stand a chance against Djok or Nadal -- they're just too strong, and would be even with wooden rackets.
Honestly, I wished there were one major that still made everyone use wooden rackets. I think Wimbledon would be fantastic with wooden rackets.
I'd love to see that.
I think Barry Sanders was the greatest runningback of all time. There were very few players in football who the entire opposing team knew was the only weapon and could not stop him (Marino being another). Imagine that guy behind Emmitt Smith's line...good lord...it's just...damn...seriously take a moment and think about that. Then give him a Dallas defense...and throw in a HOF WR with Michael Irvin.
Sanders was great. If your criteria for greatness is moves and vision, he'd be at the top. Personally my criteria has to include the ability and desire to run over people, but I respect Sanders as a selection for GOAT.
she is dead to me after cutting her #### offLast French Open Halep wasn't a seed and around 57th in the world, now she is 4 and the top seed remaining for the women. Quite the rise.
The dude has 4 kids including 2 infants. No matter how many nannies and elite child care they have, it has to be compromising your sleep some and your mental toughness.Is Federer losing today really a yikes though? If someone told me before the draw came out that Federer was going to lose in the 4th round to a seed I would have thought that sounded about right.