Jump to content

Tennis the 9th: Medical times out and teenage superstars


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Serena's single best ability was her best of all time serve. Pointing out just how much it was faster than Graff's seems like a fair comparison point to show just how much the game has changed in the generation after Graff's excellence.  

And yet it doesn't prove that she would beat her at all, slower servers are beating much faster ones constantly on both women's and men's tour, there is so much more to tennis than just serve, even if we can agree Serena's serve in her prime was the best in history.

BTW, I don't know why you seem to dismiss Henin example, it's a very relevant one IMO, as Justine's serve was definitely NOT a lethal weapon. Their H2H is just 8-6 for Serena, but in grand slams Henin leads 4-3, having defeated Serena in London, New York and twice in Paris. I don't see why Steffi wouldn't, as we can also agree (I think) she was a much better tennis player than Henin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baxus said:

Weren't you the one who lumped Serena up with the "Big 3"?

Yes, because of their importance to the sport. Is there any debate to that?

Quote

Katie Ledecky is a great swimmer, no doubt. Still, she's nowhere near as popular Phelps was nor was her impact on the sport comparable to his. I'm not even sure she'd compare favourably to Lochte or Dressel. Once again, a phenomenal swimmer, phenomenal athlete, very important in the sport, just not really in the same category as Phelps.

I'm using Ledecky as comparison point. She's a forgettable name. Serena is very different, at least here in the US. I've always been sincere when I've asked you what's your perspective of Joker as a Serbian tennis fan who isn't afraid to be honest, good or bad. And  I greatly appreciate it. And in turn I'm trying to give you the same perspective from here.

Quote

The greats aren't greats just because they could hit the ball in a specific way, but because they could adapt to their opponent's style of play, find his weaknesses and exploit them. Or do you think they just go out on the court and say "oh, I'm #1 ranked player in the world and he's #24, so I'm winning without a problem"?

Did you miss the part where Serena is also considered one of the best returners and having among the best lateral speed to defend? 

Quote

First of all, I'd be very reluctant to use NBA as an example of a sport that has clearly advanced over the years. 

And this is why you're so wrong. Curry and the Warriors changed the math in very short order. Right in front of your eyes. Why are you lying to yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Serenas serve isn't even the fastest as pointed out above. And Graffs forehand is without doubt the greatest weapon in tennis history. Certainly better than Serenas serve. 

Never heard anyone under the age of 50 argue this point.

Quote

It's irrelevant how much you watched Graff. To understand someone's greatness you have to have been around when they were in their prime so you understand their aura and the inevitability of their win. Everybody says Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest, I can't really comment based on a few videos as I wasn't there to judge. 

Make it 70. You're just being an old man arguing back in my day at this point bro. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

And this is why you're so wrong. Curry and the Warriors changed the math in very short order. Right in front of your eyes. Why are you lying to yourself?

 

Even as a total outsider surely it's way too soon to tell if what's happening now is a permanent change/improvement in efficiency (Lomu-in-Rugby style) or a  shorter-term change in the metagame based on trying to replicate an unreplicable talent (say, total football in the aftermath of Cruyff's Barcelona). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did you miss the part where Serena is also considered one of the best returners and having among the best lateral speed to defend? 

Did you miss the part where this "one of the best returners and having among the best lateral speed to defend" was knocked out 27 times in the first week of a GS tournament? She's definitely not this unbeatable titan you're trying (and failing miserably) to paint her as.

She's a great player, one of the best in history, there's a case for claiming she's the best but it's not a given.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

And this is why you're so wrong. Curry and the Warriors changed the math in very short order. Right in front of your eyes. Why are you lying to yourself?

Even if we do ignore massive rule changes that allowed Curry and the Warriors to do that and say that you're right, that still has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, and that's whether or not Serena should be lumped in with the "Big 3".

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Never heard anyone under the age of 50 argue this point.

What does this have to do with anything? Maybe you should pay more attention to what older people are saying, might learn something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

 

Even as a total outsider surely it's way too soon to tell if what's happening now is a permanent change/improvement in efficiency (Lomu-in-Rugby style) or a  shorter-term change in the metagame based on trying to replicate an unreplicable talent (say, total football in the aftermath of Cruyff's Barcelona). 

What makes you say that when so many of the younger women cite Serena as their inspiration? You can in real time point to a shift, and to a player that caused it, and in women's tennis Sarena is it. Idk why so many of you feel dead set on fighting this when I literally gave you the best, most digestible stat to show how the game has changed. The difference in service speed between Graf and Serena is not a rounding error, it's rather large, and Serena is universally considered the best server. 

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Did you miss the part where this "one of the best returners and having among the best lateral speed to defend" was knocked out 27 times in the first week of a GS tournament? She's definitely not this unbeatable titan you're trying (and failing miserably) to paint her as.

And? That's tennis? I really like Halep, but she also loses as a top 10 seed in the first round of majors. Even as the top seed. Serena has played forever and in case you forgot, has played a lot injured. Shocking that someone who has won 23 slams has also lost a lot. That happens more on the women's side, especially in the now third decade of the era of the three cyborgs, though finally one of them isn't trying anymore. 

Quote

Even if we do ignore massive rule changes that allowed Curry and the Warriors to do that and say that you're right, that still has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, and that's whether or not Serena should be lumped in with the "Big 3".

Massive rule changes? What are you even talking about. Literally nothing changed. 

Quote

What does this have to do with anything? Maybe you should pay more attention to what older people are saying, might learn something.

Right, because the few generations that preceded you and me have done such a great job. Oh, wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow tennis much but as someone who grew up during Graf's dominance it definitely doesn't seem like Serena matched that (perhaps because she was too injury prone, but that's part and parcel whenever evaluating GOATs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who was a huge Graf fan well she likely wouldn’t hold those records if a deranged fan of hers hadn’t stabbed Seles and destroyed her career. I think with that in mind Serena played in a significantly stronger era of womens tennis than Steffi did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the matter of greatness when comparing to another era I think you have to split out some things. Generally I think it’s fair to say that the athlete from the older era should be able to apply their mindset and work ethic to the tools/methods available to the newer era. I don’t think tennis is so far so dominated by genetic freaks that top players from thirty years ago would be disqualified.
 

Steffi at 5’9” and quite athletic certainly would be able to likely benefit from todays tech and training and likely would add velocity to her serve. I just think Serena is better because of better quality of play in her era (Martina was in decline already by the time Graf got good and Seles I already mentioned.)

There are certainly sports where greats would just be hopeless today. Most of these sports are from a time when segregation was a thing. Ruth certainly today he would be a middling player at best. Any distance/track runners where they were won by a bunch of white dudes. But when you don’t have that and say just go back to the eighties most* top players I think would still be top today but there are a few I have doubts about. Larry Bird in nba, Gretzky in hockey, some slow plodding nfl/baseball types. Even in something like golf now everyone needs to weight train and work on their explosiveness. All I really think modern sports has cut out are the small subset of oddities that succeeded with bad bodies. There just isn’t room in modern sports for unathletic players anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

But when you don’t have that and say just go back to the eighties most* top players I think would still be top today but there are a few I have doubts about. Larry Bird in nba, Gretzky in hockey, some slow plodding nfl/baseball types.

Bird was insanely skilled at 6'9" - there's an argument to made that he'd flourish in the current era.  Luka Doncic isn't particularly athletic either but he seems to be doing just fine.

Good point about Seles/Graf's lack of competition though.  Oddly I remember when that happened, it was a pretty big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doncic is fine just like Dirk was fine but Dirk was never considered an upper echelon superstar like Bird was. Neither Dirk or Doncic are able to really effect the defensive side of the game and I doubt Bird would be able to in todays game. Curry you can say the same (so clearly there is room for a defensively limited player with amazing offensive skills in todays game) but they all to me lag behind players like LeBron, KD and Giannis who can dominate both sides of the ball. (Or to go back to the 80s Jordan and Hakeem and Magic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arakasi said:

Doncic is fine just like Dirk was fine but Dirk was never considered an upper echelon superstar like Bird was. Neither Dirk or Doncic are able to really effect the defensive side of the game and I doubt Bird would be able to. Curry you can say the same but they all to me lag behind players like LeBron, KD and Giannis who can dominate both sides of the ball.

Dirk won an MVP and Finals MVP and was for a period in the conversation for best player in the league while serving as a bridge to modern bigs like KAT. He's at worst a top 25 all-time player, fourth best at his position. And he played with nobody unless you include the corpse of Kidd. Obviously Dirk isn't in Lebron's sphere, but KD and Giannis have to do a little bit more before that one is clearly cut and dried. 

Back to Kyrgios  being weird, but fun, in the third set of a tight match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

Doncic is fine just like Dirk was fine but Dirk was never considered an upper echelon superstar like Bird was.

?  Yes he was.  Granted, Bird is pretty much universally thought of as a better player/higher on all-time lists, but that's simply well-deserved by being a much better overall player on offense and actually trying on defense.

And yeah, Bird wasn't a great two-way player, but it's kinda silly to suggest his career would be much different considering he competed against Magic's Showtime, Jordan's Bulls, Detroit's Bad Boys, and even Olajuwon's (and Sampson's!) Rockets.

Anyway I think you're overestimating how much has "changed" since that era in terms of athleticism across all sports.  To take the baseball example, yes, pitchers are throwing much faster and striking people out at a much more prodigious rate.  But that's more due to the context of what the game emphasizes now - and is willing to give up in terms of risk to pitcher injuries/lack of durability - as well as of course the obvious difference in training and technology.  None of that has to do with pitchers actually being more "athletic" than they were 30-40 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people argued Bird as best player of the decade. No one ever said that about Dirk. I honestly don’t think anyone ever though he was the best player in the NBA either despite Tywins post. Lots of players win MVPs. Derrick Rose won one. MVP just like anything suffers from voter fatigue when for most stretches it should just be the same 2-3 players all the time. Obv both Bird and Dirk are top 50 players all time so definitely superstars. But I don’t think Doncic will ever be considered to be as great a player as Bird was.

But I absolutely think bigger, stronger faster is a thing in all modern sports. And each sports have their limits. For now to be the best pitcher in baseball you need to be able to throw high 90s fastball. Maddux I just don’t think would be as great in todays age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arakasi said:

Maddux I just don’t think would be as great in todays age.

Maddux's contemporaries included the likes of Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson.  He'd still be amazing.

1 hour ago, Arakasi said:

But I don’t think Doncic will ever be considered to be as great a player as Bird was.

Probably not, no, but that's just cuz few are.  The point is he has no trouble dominating offensively in today's game despite his relative lack of athleticism.  As for your Dirk vs. Bird comparisons, you're really grasping at straws for the difference between a top 20 to 25 greatest player of all time and a top 10 to 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What makes you say that when so many of the younger women cite Serena as their inspiration?

 

I... was talking about Steph Curry? I literally said there was a good argument to cite Serena as the GOAT for exactly the reason that we're now talking about, which is not the same reason you were giving before?

 

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk why so many of you feel dead set on fighting this


I said it already but the person most effectively presenting the case against Serena being GOAT is you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And? That's tennis? I really like Halep, but she also loses as a top 10 seed in the first round of majors. Even as the top seed. Serena has played forever and in case you forgot, has played a lot injured. Shocking that someone who has won 23 slams has also lost a lot. That happens more on the women's side, especially in the now third decade of the era of the three cyborgs, though finally one of them isn't trying anymore.

Are we talking about Halep as GOAT beyond the shadow of doubt?

Sure, losing is part of the sport and every professional athlete ever has had some surprising losses, but that's exactly why you can't just say Serena would comfortably beat Graf, no doubt.

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Massive rule changes? What are you even talking about. Literally nothing changed.

You are aware of the difference in defending between Jordan era and let's call it Curry era? With physicality in defence being at this level, if peak Jordan played today he'd average 40 points per game at least. Imagine giving him that much space!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

I... was talking about Steph Curry? I literally said there was a good argument to cite Serena as the GOAT for exactly the reason that we're now talking about, which is not the same reason you were giving before?

I said it already but the person most effectively presenting the case against Serena being GOAT is you. 

I'm still kind of confused on what you're arguing then. New day, we had a pause. Please restate your opinion and we'll go from there.

And I also don't get why I'm presenting the case against Serena when one of my main arguments is that Graf's best, her best serve, is literally the average serve speed today. That thing kind of matters.

9 hours ago, baxus said:

Are we talking about Halep as GOAT beyond the shadow of doubt?

Sure, losing is part of the sport and every professional athlete ever has had some surprising losses, but that's exactly why you can't just say Serena would comfortably beat Graf, no doubt.

I just used Halep because a few years back she was the top seed and lost in the first round and did again this year being top 10 and heavily favored. The sport is kind of weird, what do you want me to say? Tennis is like baseball, the favorite regularly loses. 

Quote

You are aware of the difference in defending between Jordan era and let's call it Curry era? With physicality in defence being at this level, if peak Jordan played today he'd average 40 points per game at least. Imagine giving him that much space!

I think you're overstating what hand checking did back in the 80's and 90's on the defensive side and I hate to break it to you, but Jordan wasn't a shooter (career less than 33% from outside). That would limit his ability to attack the rim a lot today. Westbrook is a career 30.5% shooter and we've seen how that's gone. 

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...