Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Master of Past and Present

2017 Tennis - Djokovic out, Murray out, Predictability out

Recommended Posts

I just fapped to the result of this match. Really hard

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much respect for Rafa gutting it out. That shows not only his competitive nature but also the respect he has for the game and toward Wawrinka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So gald that scowling butt picker didn't win another major.

Always followed by a wiping his nose and face, one of nastiest OCD habits in sports history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Seemed pretty clear he was sandbagging to goad Wawrinka.

Nice try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. Somebody wake up Raider Nation.

Warwrinka in total meltdown mode.

Like I said chance for an all-timer. What more could you ask for going in?

How'd this turn out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad that Federer is basically done... Young man's game.

I think RF has the best clothing line out of any tennis player, I don't even think its debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:swingandamiss:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. Somebody wake up Raider Nation.

Warwrinka in total meltdown mode.

Like I said chance for an all-timer. What more could you ask for going in?

How'd this turn out?

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.

Ugly match with terrible tennis after Nadal's injury but good drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. Somebody wake up Raider Nation.

Warwrinka in total meltdown mode.

Like I said chance for an all-timer. What more could you ask for going in?

How'd this turn out?

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.

Ugly match with terrible tennis after Nadal's injury but good drama.

I know.... just messing around. ;) I kept it on, but only listened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:cry: Bad luck for Nadal! :cry:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:cry: Bad luck for Nadal! :cry:

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.

And he's only 27, wow. Although he could win at least two more on the clay in his sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. money. awesome post.

but....everyone knows the Fed dominated a weak era of tennis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Your memory is hazy. Sorry. While I agree Sampras is in the discussion for GOAT, I strongly disagree with the two bolded phrases above.

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."

Edited by Kumerica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Your memory is hazy. Sorry. While I agree Sampras is in the discussion for GOAT, I strongly disagree with the two bolded phrases above.

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."

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:

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.

Edited by tdoss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Your memory is hazy. Sorry. While I agree Sampras is in the discussion for GOAT, I strongly disagree with the two bolded phrases above.

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."

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:

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.

All fair points.

Re: his records against those guys you listed—yeah, he had a winning record, and most of 'em were on their downshifts. Similarly, Pete and Andre were in decline when Roger made his way up. And he did beat them both. Andre with some regularity.

And I agree we are no longer in Fed's reign. As such, there ARE 3 different guys smacking him all around the court now. But those are primarily the only ones who get a piece of him with any consistency.

But Sampras' "reign" truly ended after his 28th birthday. After that, he lost to a 19-year-old Federer (at Wimbledon ('01)), among MANY others (Safin, Hewitt, Basti, Mathieu), and injuries and skipped tourneys led to only two more slams for him, in '00 and '02. During that last U.S. Open win in '02, he was seeded 17th in the tourney. He was 31, and met a 32-year-old Agassi in the final. Now, those two in particular, were like our Connors/McEnroe, but Pete was losing to a lot of scrubs, too.

Head to head, I think Federer would still win. He's a more complete player on any surface, and Pete's serve-and-volley style of play isn't as effective in this era, even on his beloved Wimbledon grass. There are a bunch of analysts that have used stats to determine a winner, and they all pretty much choose Roger as well. Hell, even Sampras said Federer's the GOAT. Maybe he was just being nice, though . . . he was supporting Rafa as possibly the best before Stan took him down.

But back to the debate, I just wanted to disagree on the strength of tennis eras, and that Sampras was some huge force owning everyone in his path. If that were true, he would hold the record. And no one can convince me that Todd Martin was a more fearsome opponent than Hewitt, Roddick, Rafa, or others Roger faced when he won is first four slams.

As for who the GOAT is, it doesn't matter what anyone says. It'll always be Lendl to me.

Edited by Kumerica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Bad luck? Are you serious? Federer knocked his girlfriend up and had to marry her!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chick hot.

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.

Not so sure anymore. Did some more research and discovered a whole lot of body hair and mannish facial features. Bummer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

and Federer has better hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 tennis being an individual sport probably has a lot to do with it. Nobody hesitates to mention people like Bill Russell and Johnny Unitas when talking about all-time greats, but what you said about Sampras et al applies to those guys too.

Edited by Moe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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. :shrug:

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?

Edited by Moe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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. :shrug:

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?

I think accomplishments account for something. How much, is where all the disagreements come in. That's the fun in arguing, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is so different today—from the racquets and the surfaces to the technology and the rules. Imagine if players back then got to "challenge" a line call. Games, sets, matches, championships, legacies may have been different. Nope, many were dealing with the dreaded Cyclops machine. Or with the call of the linesman before that.

Wide-body racquets made of composites or graphite decreased the weight and increased the sweet spot. The wooden racquets of old could never deliver the power we take for granted today.

Even the grass strains they use on the Wimbledon lawn have made the court harder, which makes them bounce higher and slower; so even Wimbledon, where serve & volleyers once reigned supreme, now favor the baseline hitters.

If we're not counting Grand Slams, but everything, than John McEnroe (through November 2013), is the winningest player ever, with the most overall titles. Nadal will be a cyborg by the time he's on the senior tour.

Edited by Kumerica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lendl was an absolute emotionless machine...guy was unbelievable.

Jimmy Connors will forever be my favorite player ever.

I think Nadal brings the sort of game, competition and determination that I've not seen since Connors days.

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.

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.

Honestly, I wished there were one major that still made everyone use wooden rackets. I think Wimbledon would be fantastic with wooden rackets.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Kumerica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by mon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a dominant clay season for Nadal with loses to Almagro, Ferrer, and Djokovic with only 1 Master 1000 win. Almagro and Ferrer ended up in his quarter and of course Djokovic would be a possible final opponent. Obviously moving to best of 5 makes it that much harder to dethrone the king but Nadal just hasn't been the same since losing in Australia. Seems that losing his chance to complete his second career slam took a toll on him much like losing the French on Djokovic trying to complete his career slam has hurt him at Wimbledon.

Djokovic has been nursing an injury this spring but just beat Nadal in the Italian Open final. Hard to pick against a guy with 8 wins in 9 years but with this being Djokovic's biggest goal and Nadal somewhat slumping, I'm taking Djokovic. He was up a break in the 5th last year against a rolling Nadal, think he can take down a less than stellar one then. Besides Tsonga, not sure I see a guy who can stop him from making the finals.

Looking forward to the start, less sure about this two weeks than have been in quite some time. Maybe reading too much into the lead up tournies but Nadal looks extremely vulnerable. He beat Nishikori for the Madrid title but was beat down in set 1 and Nishikori retired in the 3rd injured and clearly played better before he couldn't move anymore. Before losing to Djokovic at the Italian, he was taken to 3 sets by Simon, Murray, and Youzhny.

And looking at Paris weather, it looks to be cool and rainy so he won't get his super high bouncing ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nadal may have had his worst clay season since he began... really he shouldn't have even won the masters 1000 tournament he did win if Nishikori hadn't suffered that in-match injury that he never recovered from.

But Nadal's draw lightened up considerably within the first few days, and really I see little to keep him out of the final.

I personally think that this is the year that if Djoker does make the final that he can beat Ralph (after all last year's match was incredibly hard fought and could have gone either way).

But I think the chances Ralph makes the final are higher than Nole's... and if there is anyone on the other side of the net besides Nole, then I think Ralph wins again... who's going to stop him? Murray? Elderer w/ 4 freakin' kids? Ferru?

My rankings:

1a - Nole

1b - Ralph

The field.. there's always a chance for a Wawrinka type of moment at this tournament... but since that moment already happened, I'm guessing one of those two win.

I hope it's Nole or the field... but I've come accustomed to being disappointed by this tournament for 8 of the last 9 years.

As an aside... I just really hate clay tennis altogether. Too long... seems impossible to hit winner sometimes. .. And that's not really a Federer thing.. the guy is arguably the 4th or 5th best clay player EVER... it's just that I don't dig the dirt... I don't watch much of the clay season.... it's criminal that clay season is so long and grass season is so short.

Edited by Dentist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last 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.

she is dead to me after cutting her #### off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fed bounced before the quarters. Yikes.

Raonic playing well but will get stomped by Joker.

Bouchard rolling. Will be top 10 before the end of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

I really don't like his chances for any tournaments this summer... partially due to age and declining form, largely due to those kids... I mean has a father of 4 ever won a slam?

Despite last year's shocking loss, I still think Wimbledon represents his best chance of a deep run considering there aren't really any of the top players that currently excel on grass.. Nadal has really declined on grass.. Djoker isn't fantastic on it... and Murray still seems to be recovering... although if healthy he probably represents the strongest contender to defend.

He should've beaten Gulbis.... but even if he had beaten him, I suspect Byrdych would have beaten him today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.