Jump to content

Tennis Thread


DoleINGout

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Most athletes, it's not as apparent tbh. 

I mean Federer is 38 years old and he's able to play these five hour grueling matches with his stamina holding up. Not sure what makes it more apparent that Djokovic is on something opposed to Federer. They probably both are on something but LIS, without 365 testing you will never know for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Federer blows another one against Djokovic. Unreal how mentally tough Djokovic is when he's facing Federer. Against the other top two he is money for the most part. It's just he's been upset more than the other two against lesser opponents in the finals. 

But Djokovic could get to 17 by years end and may end up surpassing both Nadal/Federer in the next two years. Crazy. 

What a huge swing for their Slam totals. Federer goes from an almost guaranteed 6 up to only 4 up. He needed this one very badly.

So many swing matches between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

I mean Federer is 38 years old and he's able to play these five hour grueling matches with his stamina holding up. Not sure what makes it more apparent that Djokovic is on something opposed to Federer. They probably both are on something but LIS, without 365 testing you will never know for sure.

Don't doubt it but Federer also didn't go from having a massive cardio issue to being an ironman almost overnight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

What a huge swing for their Slam totals. Federer goes from an almost guaranteed 6 up to only 4 up. He needed this one very badly.

So many swing matches between them.

Yeah, but this one along with the 2011 US Open were especially rough losses for Federer when he had double championship point in both matches. That's the difference between 22 majors for Federer (If he beats Nadal in 2011 finals) and 14 for Djokovic. At that point it's a safe bet that Djokovic never catches him and highly unlikely Nadal does either. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not worried about major totals tbh. I don't think that dictates who the GOAT is. 

Like, I don't think Serena is the female GOAT just because she has more major wins than BJK or Steffi Graff, etc. Just means she had longevity and took advantage of a weaker era. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, beekay414 said:

I'm not worried about major totals tbh. I don't think that dictates who the GOAT is. 

Like, I don't think Serena is the female GOAT just because she has more major wins than BJK or Steffi Graff, etc. Just means she had longevity and took advantage of a weaker era. 

It's certainly a big part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Yeah, but this one along with the 2011 US Open were especially rough losses for Federer when he had double championship point in both matches. That's the difference between 22 majors for Federer (If he beats Nadal in 2011 finals) and 14 for Djokovic. At that point it's a safe bet that Djokovic never catches him and highly unlikely Nadal does either. 

And the blown opportunities against others, like blowing the US Open against JMDP.

But all 3 have had those blown matches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beekay414 said:

The doping in this sport has got to be ridiculous

Thank you for saying it. Most of the times tennis is too cool for people to mention anything. Only weightlifting, cycling and 50k walking get called out.

 

Even though the founder of wada **** Pound (that's his name) claimed tennis was the dodgiest of all sports. 

 

But at least they aren't hypocrites and all the top guys are allowed to do it. This was a hell of game. I agree with you it wasn't natural, but for both of them. 

Edited by The Hitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

It's certainly a big part of it.

Kinda disagree. It punishes players with shorter careers, is all it does.

Does Novak winning 20+ grand slams over a damn near 20 year career make him better than Bjorn Borg who won 11 over a 10 year career? How do we decide that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Yeah, but this one along with the 2011 US Open were especially rough losses for Federer when he had double championship point in both matches. That's the difference between 22 majors for Federer (If he beats Nadal in 2011 finals) and 14 for Djokovic. At that point it's a safe bet that Djokovic never catches him and highly unlikely Nadal does either. 

True. Though would fed beat nadal in the final. At the time nadal was owning fed and djokovic was owning nadal. Fed also had some luck here and there (2009 against roddick). 

But I'm still not sure djokovic catches fed. Djokovic has shown he can suddenly crash and be awful. He said in the interview that fed at 37 is an inspiration to him. I think he's fighting as well to stay in top form physically. Maybe he wins 6 more. Maybe like Murray he collapses at some point too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am by far not a Tennis person, but I googled "Tennis Big 3" and saw an article "Big Four" and thought "oh gee, I bet they try and lump Andy Murray in because of the British pandering". Low and behold. 

He's good, an all-time player even probably, but to lump him in with Fed, Djok, and Nadal seems asinine to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, beekay414 said:

Does Novak winning 20+ grand slams over a damn near 20 year career make him better than Bjorn Borg who won 11 over a 10 year career? How do we decide that? 

Also keep in mind, Djok also has to contend with both Federer and Nadal, that alone is a bigger obstacle to overcome and deserves some additional merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Danger said:

I am by far not a Tennis person, but I googled "Tennis Big 3" and saw an article "Big Four" and thought "oh gee, I bet they try and lump Andy Murray in because of the British pandering". Low and behold. 

He's good, an all-time player even probably, but to lump him in with Fed, Djok, and Nadal seems asinine to me.

I guess it was coined during a period when murray was at least competitive with the other three. 

He was making finals, often beating the other guys in the semis, regularly top 2 in the rankings and occasionally won a final. 

 

I don't like Murray and over career, he's nowhere near the others but he was up there with them from say 2009-2016 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

×
×
  • Create New...