Tennis Volume 6

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

My feeling is that Federer at his best was the best ever, but his form was on its way down as Nadals was on the rise.  Though obviously Federer has enjoyed an indian summer and beaten Nadal regularly over last few years. 

I just read a quick summary and there are a few things that stand out. First, the record is so slanted towards Nadal because he smoked Feds on clay courts, while Feds has a slight head to head lead on hard and grass courts. There's also some speculation that Feds wasn't 100% when Nadal rattled off eight straight against him. You take those eight matches out and they're tied. And most importantly, Nadal's style of play took advantage of a weakness in Feds' game. I agree that Feds is probably the best ever, but I enjoyed watching Nadal's game more.

[Jeor]

We'll never have a firm conclusion, as there are good points to both sides, but for me, Federer is the best of all time and Nadal's a very close second. Djokovic is pretty close too.

It's a very simplistic way to look at it, but consider the Grand Slams. Nadal has won 1 Australian, 2 Wimbledon, 3 US and 10 French. Federer's breakdown is 5 Australian, 1 French, 8 Wimbledon and 5 US. People bag him for only getting the one French Open, but you have to consider that he was also runner-up four times, all to Nadal. If Nadal weren't there, Federer would probably have had 5 French as well and was more than capable of beating anyone else on clay.

In Grand Slams, Federer was basically only stopped by one person (Nadal) and that was normally in French Open finals when he'd already beaten everyone else. Whereas Nadal has been beaten by a few different people in Australian/Wimbledon/US Opens, and often much earlier than the final.

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly. Federer's game is so graceful.

Federer always looks very light on his feet, and he doesn't visibly look to expend huge amounts of energy. He doesn't even grunt. Whereas Nadal (and even Djokovic) you can often hear the strain and them putting their whole bodies into every shot. Both are exciting styles to watch but personally I prefer Federer's.

[baxus]

In every single sport there is I enjoy seeing an athlete give maximum effort over displaying talent or grace or whatever, so I prefer Nadal and Djokovic over Federer.

Personal preferences aside, I do think that Federer is the GOAT of men's tennis.

[Which Tyler]

I think that if tennis were only played on clay, Rafa would be the undisputed GOAT.

As it is, tennis is played on many different surfaces*; and as it is Roger is the GOAT.

As mentioned above, on clay, Roger beats everyone who isn't Rafa. On any other surface, Roger beats everyone.

On clay, Rafa beats everyone. On any other surface, Rafa beats most people most of the time.

If you count Olympics and tour finals as broadly equal to grand slams, then Roger is even further ahead (6x TFs Vs 1x Olympics).

Alternatively if you just look at their record away from the slams, then Rogers on 76 Vs 64.

 

IIRC, the only stat where Rafa actually beats Roger is win percentage.

 

 

* Albeit that clay dominates the season, scewing the records away from the Grand Slams

[Mladen]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

We'll never have a firm conclusion, as there are good points to both sides, but for me, Federer is the best of all time and Nadal's a very close second. Djokovic is pretty close too.

I do believe that Federer is undoubtedly GOAT, not just because of his performances but also due to the fact that I can't remember an athlete who impacted his/her sport in the way Federer did with tennis. Djokovic and Nadal have the better score against him, but we should not forget the age factor as well as the fact that the three of them are considered to be in all-time Top 5.

44 minutes ago, baxus said:

In every single sport there is I enjoy seeing an athlete give maximum effort over displaying talent or grace or whatever, so I prefer Nadal and Djokovic over Federer.

Well, it is something you can relate to, "if you try enough, you can succeed". The fact there is something more, something unattainable, something that Federer so often displays, that can be a bit unnerving. Or at least annoying

 

[Calibandar]

On 1/23/2018 at 5:46 PM, Tywin et al. said:

I’m no tennis expert, but it’s always been my understanding that women peak in their teens to early twenties and fade in their mid-twenties and men peak in their early to mid-twenties and fade in their late twenties. Maybe father time has just caught up with him, because peak Novak was as good as I’ve ever seen, but he looks off now. I just think Feds, Nadal, Serena and Venus have distorted our expectations of longevity for tennis players (and it’s happening in other sports too, with Brady in football and LeBron in basketball).

I think with Djokovic is really the injury to his elbow that he's been dealing with for nearly a year.

I don't see signs that he is broken down or done, it's far too premature to write him off.

Remember, it's this same injury that kept him sidelined since Summer last year, we have not seen him play when fully fit yet.

Nadal is another story. We always knew that his style of play demanded so much of him that he would wear down much faster than some others. He actually had a great 2017 after some years of great physical difficulty. However the thing with him is that is often something else that plagues him, then it's his knees, then it's his leg, then it's an arm. He is dealing with several things. And in spite of that he still manages to play incredible tennis, tennis that is below Federer level brilliance but still top 3 in the world.

In general top level tennis players are definitely capable of playing well into their early 30's and usually around age 33 or so the decline has firmly set in, also due to the many miles on the legs by that point.

[Jeor]

Pity about Chung retiring, but regardless of how it finished up this was really his tournament. He's going to be a great competitor in the future and probably inherit the title of "Best defender" from Djokovic in the coming years.

Fed overwhelming favourite against Cilic, but Cilic has beaten him in a Slam before (in the US Open semi that Cilic eventually won). He's more than capable of putting up a decent fight against Fed.

As for Halep-Wozniacki, I hope Halep wins. She's certainly earnt it with two major epic matches of the Open.  There might be a bit of mileage on those legs though when facing someone like Wozniacki, who prefers the long drawn-out rallies.

[Which Tyler]

Absolutely cracking match, with both suffering from the heat.

Great victory for Caro, and harsh that one of them had to lose.

[Jeor]

Great match, good to see Wozniacki break her duck but I hope Halep gets another chance soon to break hers.

Not sure what to expect tonight. Could be a Fed steamroller of a match but Cilic might make it interesting if his game is on.

[Which Tyler]

It took a while, but Colic seemsmto have woken up now. Too late for the first set, but at least he should be able to make the next 2-3 sets interesting.

 

Really shouldn't be being played indoors though.

[Which Tyler]

Yup, Chilic woke up properly, and posed some genuine problems, and was on top for decent periods there. But that first and last half-hour were just all Federer.

Had he been challenged properly early in the tournie I'd have been confident in his victory, but that match was his first challenge, and I just didn't know if he'd rise to the occasion.

He did, and he did it the hard way. 2 great finals this weekend, worthy of any Grand Slam.

[Mladen]

Number 20... This record will be really, really, REALLY difficult to break.

[Jeor]

Good five-setter, although one always got the feeling that Roger was ultimately in control. Only towards the very end of that 4th set did he look shaky, but once he got the break straight away in the fifth it was hard to see Cilic getting back from that.

I think this Australian Open was one of the better Grand Slam tournaments we've seen in recent years. It's true a lot of seeds did fall early, but we had several classic matches in the women's (three involving Halep, and one involving Wozniacki down 5-1 in the third) and on the men's side we had some breakout stars (Chung, and to a lesser extent Sandgren and Edmunds).

While this meant there weren't quite as many superstar matchups in the quarters and semis, in the end, the finalists were the top two seeds in the women's draw and the 2nd and 6th seed in the men's, so it wasn't exactly a random endgame.

[Jeor]

5 minutes ago, Risto said:

Number 20... This record will be really, really, REALLY difficult to break.

Yep! With Djokovic only on 12, I don't see him breaking that.

Rafa on 16 needs to have at least two really good Grand Slam years to match it, and at his age I just don't see it. I imagine he'll squeeze out another one or two French Opens but on the faster courts I think the younger players will get him. Plus let's not discount the possibility of Fed adding another one or two more with Wimbledon etc on the way.

After that, the next most active male player is Wawrinka on 3.

So unless Rafa has a freakish resurgence, 20 slams is going to stand for a very, very long time.

 

[Mladen]

45 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Yep! With Djokovic only on 12, I don't see him breaking that.

Rafa on 16 needs to have at least two really good Grand Slam years to match it, and at his age I just don't see it. I imagine he'll squeeze out another one or two French Opens but on the faster courts I think the younger players will get him. Plus let's not discount the possibility of Fed adding another one or two more with Wimbledon etc on the way.

After that, the next most active male player is Wawrinka on 3.

So unless Rafa has a freakish resurgence, 20 slams is going to stand for a very, very long time.

I agree with that. To think that Federer has started at the time of Sampras, Agassi and Roddick, moved pass Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, welcomed the likes of Raonic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios and still proving against the new generation like Zverev or Chung, it is truly unbelievable. How many have risen and fallen during his career? 

Now, Djokovic has a lot of issues and it seems no one is certain what those issues are. Is it elbow? Tiredness? Possible retirement plans? For 18 months, he has been a different person, causing a lot of rather hilariously idiotic debates in Serbia. 

Nadal on the other hand is someone who can't go much further down the line. As you said, he can squeeze couple of GS, but I suppose, that would be that. The rest of the gang is simply light years beyond them. 

 

[Jeor]

I think Djokovic is probably a combination of factors. Elbow is definitely a physical thing, but also consider he's got two young kids, he's changed his coaches, and he's had a pretty long gruelling career. It's not surprising that motivation could be a problem. Federer is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to keeping it all together like he has.

[Yukle]

This all assumes that Rafa's achievements will stand the cloud of steroid use that has plagued him his whole career. Tennis is the new cycling in that respect.

[baxus]

Comparing tennis to cycling when it comes to steroid abuse is an insult to cycling.

Cycling actually tries to do something about doping, tests its athletes a lot more seriously and frequently and actually doesn't mind announcing test results and suspending/banning people, no matter how successful and marketable they are.

[Mladen]

Roger Federer reclaims n.1 ATP spot thus becoming the oldest number 1 in history of the sport. A true testament to his greatness. 

[3CityApache]

I loved his tweet: "Apparently I'm the oldest tennis player with a #1 ranking. Somebody might have mentioned that to me already, but I had a hard time hearing".