Jump to content

Tennis Volume 8: Is a FedEx delivery coming?


Jeor

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

That a lot of people won't watch a match between an unranked player and someone ranked in the 30's. There was no star power.

Ah, think we are thinking about different games. You clearly weren’t referring to the epic match between the best clay court player ever and the best all round player of all time, which was the subject of the most recent posts above. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ah, think we are thinking about different games. You clearly weren’t referring to the epic match between the best clay court player ever and the best all round player of all time, which was the subject of the most recent posts above. 
 

 

Novak is the best hard court player, but he's not the best ever. Feds and Nadal gave it to him when they were in their primes. He's done most of his catching up after the two were long past over the hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Novak is the best hard court player, but he's not the best ever. Feds and Nadal gave it to him when they were in their primes. He's done most of his catching up after the two were long past over the hill.

Well no. Federer ruled the roost before Nadal reached his prime. After that Nadal dominated him. Djokovic in turn is only 1 year younger than Nadal, and has a positive win record against him. It’s close between these two great rivals, but Novak clearly the GOAT. Federer is a distant third.

By way of example Novak won 3 Grand Slams in 2011, beating Nadal in two of those finals. Nadal was 25 at the time and defending champion in both tournaments - so in his prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. And it's kinda ridiculous to call a GOAT a player, who still won less majors than two other players. 

BTW, there was clearly something wrong with Nadal in the final set, especially after he changed his socks. My guess is he scraped his foot, which is a minor injury, but you just can't run at 100% with it. He wasn't fully himself, if he was, he wouldn't have lost six games in a row on Philippe-Chatrier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are clearly the three best ever and each has dominated a different surface. All future men's potential greats will be compared to these three, probably for the next generation.

And in some alternative universe Andy Murray has won his 35th GS title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

They are clearly the three best ever and each has dominated a different surface. All future men's potential greats will be compared to these three, probably for the next generation.

And in some alternative universe Andy Murray has won his 35th GS title.

Such a shame that Murray got injured when he did. He was amazing that year and clearly the no 1. He would have likely won a few more titles to increase his GS slam more in line with his talent. And made the other 3 work more and provided more excitement. 3 slams and 2 Olympic titles (and one Davis Cup almost alone) isn't a great return for how good he was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Such a shame that Murray got injured when he did. He was amazing that year and clearly the no 1. He would have likely won a few more titles to increase his GS slam more in line with his talent. And made the other 3 work more and provided more excitement. 3 slams and 2 Olympic titles (and one Davis Cup almost alone) isn't a great return for how good he was. 

Talent aside, he doesn’t have the mental strength of the Big 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Talent aside, he doesn’t have the mental strength of the Big 3.

He showed that he did by winning gold at the London games and following it up with a win at Wimbledon. He just wasn't as good as the three best players ever. If they didn't exist he would probably have the GS record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 8:14 PM, BigFatCoward said:

He has won about 16 grand slams since Federer turned 30.  They never competed against each other at their best. 

Since when is 30 old in modern sports? Also, if we're to diminish GS title won after Federer turned 30, why not do the same with the titles Federer's won before Nadal and Djokovic came into their prime? Even if we do agree to consider age of 30 as some point break, Federer still managed  to win 4 (in almost 10 years), Nadal won 6 (in 5 years) and Djokovic won 7 (in 4 years).

Fact is that they have an overlap of almost 15 seasons at the very top of men's tennis and each of them had a period when they were the best. That doesn't mean that any single period should be dismissed as less important when talking about who is the greatest of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, baxus said:

Since when is 30 old in modern sports? Also, if we're to diminish GS title won after Federer turned 30, why not do the same with the titles Federer's won before Nadal and Djokovic came into their prime? Even if we do agree to consider age of 30 as some point break, Federer still managed  to win 4 (in almost 10 years), Nadal won 6 (in 5 years) and Djokovic won 7 (in 4 years).

Fact is that they have an overlap of almost 15 seasons at the very top of men's tennis and each of them had a period when they were the best. That doesn't mean that any single period should be dismissed as less important when talking about who is the greatest of all time.

So in my view Novak has a reasonable shot at ending on 24/25 - thus achieving the undisputed Grand Slam lead among both men and women. Rafa can probably reach 22. Federer will not win another major title, and will end on 20.

There is no way to dispute the GOAT status if that’s the final tally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, baxus said:

That's speculation. We'll have to wait for the three of them to retire and talk about it then.

:blink: Of course it is speculation. It is a forecast of potential future occurrences, so by default cannot be factual. Any one of them could get a career ending injury tomorrow.

That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it, or try and reasonably extrapolate the most likely outcome.

The most likely outcome at this point is that more major titles are a bridge too far for Federer, that Nadal will still be the favourite at Roland Garros for the next couple of years and that Djokovic will be a strong contender at all four majors for the next two to three years - winning some and losing some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...