Official Tennis thread

I hate to say it, but it looks like Djokovic is on a clear track to take the Australian Open. He just beat Federer in 4 sets, and has now advanced to his 5th straight Grand Slam final.
 
Night Prowler said:
Why? :(
Click to expand...

Nole is not that popular of a figure among tennis fans. Federer and Nadal have huge fanbases, they're not exactly pleased with Djokovic surpassing them.

Federer and Nadal reached heroic levels in tennis. They were contrasts of each other in terms of playing style and it was fun to watch. Djokovic isn't as unique as them, and he's on his way to surpassing Nadal in terms of success. He's dominating the game.

Don't know if that's the case here, but it is the case in most occassions where people aren't happy about his success. I personally enjoy watching him. Great defensive player.
 
Understandable. I hated Federer since the beginning of his domination, while I do acknowledge he's the best player ever. I just don't like his attitude and behaviour. I liked Nadal though.
 
Federer has a habit of being a bad loser. Most of the time the opponent "wasn't too good", it's that Federer was "out of form" or "wasn't his day".
 
Hey, a Canadian is in the semi-finals! Yay! Go Raonic! Make the finals and lose to Djokovic!
 
Night Prowler said:
Why? :(
Click to expand...
Flash pretty much explained it. Basically, I'm just not really a Djokovic fan. Nadal is my absolute favorite player, and his rivalry with Federer is what really got me into the sport.

I still can't help but respect how absolutely dominant Djokovic has been lately.
 
Novak Djokovic wins his 6th Australian Open title. I will honestly say that he is undeniably the best hard court player in tennis.
 
Lampwick 43 said:
Novak Djokovic wins his 6th Australian Open title. I will honestly say that he is undeniably the best hard court player in tennis.
Click to expand...

I think there's a good chance Djokovic ends up as the greatest hard court player of all time. Federer has 9 grand slam titles on hard court, Djokovic is up to 8 now. If he wins US Open he's gonna tie Federer for the most hard court grand slam titles. Already tied Roy Emerson for most Australian Open titles.

Gotta feel for Andy Murray. This is his 5th title match loss in Australia. He's playing in what may be the greatest era for men's tennis. Probably would've won a lot more if he played in the 90s. His prime coincided with the greatest clay court player of all time (Nadal), the greatest grass court player of all time (Federer) and the greatest hard court player of all time (Federer/Djokovic).
 
Last edited:
Djokovic is certainly one of the best players ever, but...

re: greatest era for men's tennis.

It depends on how you look at it. E.g. How long is an era? And: what makes something the greatest era? Not sure if I'd consider it the greatest if it's dominated by such a small amount of people.

In the past (e.g. seventies and eighties and nineties) there were also great players. Perhaps not that dominant as some are now, but that may be because there were more strong opponents. For me, at least, it was an at least as exciting era, with some legendary players who were good in more than 1 or 2 grand slam venues.

E.g. look who are mentioned in Ivan Lendl's record against top players:


Andre Agassi
Boris Becker
Björn Borg
Pat Cash
Michael Chang
Jimmy Connors
Jim Courier
Stefan Edberg
John McEnroe
Pete Sampras
Mats Wilander

And now check Novak's Top 10 wins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics#Top_10_wins
Lots of "nobody's" who didn't win much, compared to when Lendl was around. You can say they didn't win much because of the three top players. I guess it works in two directions.

In short: I'd take more players into account if I would measure quality.
 
Don't think there's any argument against Federer and Nadal on grass and clay. Their domination lies more on their skill than the quality of their opposition and it's widely accepted as such in the world of tennis, by past and present players.

I used the term greatest era not because of the quantity of good players or enjoyment you get from watching. There has never been a time where all courts have had players that had a shot at being the greatest of all time. Clay court is now up for grabs because of Nadal's injuries but a couple of years ago, you had Federer playing on grass at a level that had never been seen before, Nadal playing on clay in the same way and now you have Djokovic playing on hard court at an all time great level.

I was talking about Andy Murray, at his level stakes are already really high, it takes all time great competition for a player of his skill level to have only two grand slam titles under his belt.

The game is dominated by such a small amount of people because that small amount of people are playing at an all time great level.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it can also be said that the game is dominated so much by this small amount of people because there is a big difference in quality between them and the rest. Not just because the top players are fantastic. Also, because the rest doesn't give that much opposition.

re: Federer playing on grass at a level that had never been seen before

Well, Sampras is lauded by many tennis analysts as one of the greatest grass-court players of all time. He has won seven Wimbledon singles titles in eight years from 1993 through 2000 losing for the only time in between in 1996 quarter finals, against Richard Krajicek in his finest hour.
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly, though, that period of time had very few people considered Sampras's equal, especially on grass. The problem with telling how good individual tennis players are is because the upper elite crust tends to be very thin. Are they merely the best player of their time, or are they better than other players before and after?

I don't know the answer to this, merely asking the question.
 
LooseCannon said:
If I recall correctly, though, that period of time had very few people considered Sampras's equal, especially on grass. The problem with telling how good individual tennis players are is because the upper elite crust tends to be very thin. Are they merely the best player of their time, or are they better than other players before and after?

I don't know the answer to this, merely asking the question.
Click to expand...

I do not follow tennis like I used to, but I think you are right with Sampras, who was certainly an excellent player, but he is hard to measure. When I first started watching, you had guys like Conners, Bog, McEnroe, Villas, Nastase (sp?) on the men's side. They really pushed each other and made for must watch TV
 
I didn't see Sampras live in his prime but I've watched most of his Wimbledon victories. I'm not pulling it out of my ass when I say Federer is on another level. Federer would destroy Sampras. Sampras was a fantastic service/volley player, probably the greatest of all time. Prime Federer is the worst possible matchup for a service/volley player, because he had the best passing shot in the history of the game. Federer's arsenal is just way too broad for Sampras to handle him.

There was no one in the 90s that could handle Sampras' big service/volley based fast paced game. Nobody had the game to combat it. Agassi was the greatest service returner of all time and it still wasn't enough, because he didn't have the offensive arsenal. Federer loved playing against service/volley guys, pretty much toyed with them throughout his prime. His calm demeanor would drive Sampras nuts as well because Sampras loved playing a fiery game.

With that being said I do rate Sampras the 2nd greatest grass player of all time.

LooseCannon said:
If I recall correctly, though, that period of time had very few people considered Sampras's equal, especially on grass. The problem with telling how good individual tennis players are is because the upper elite crust tends to be very thin. Are they merely the best player of their time, or are they better than other players before and after?
Click to expand...

This problem is the main reason why I only use acclompishments as a filter and not a base for comparison. I compare the respective play styles and how the players would combat each other.
 
Last edited:
The Flash said:
I compare the respective play styles and how the players would combat each other.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that it is highly subjective and it's essentially the way you think they might play out, whereas accomplishments, majors, championships are factual things.
 
LooseCannon said:
The problem with this is that it is highly subjective and it's essentially the way you think they might play out, whereas accomplishments, majors, championships are factual things.
Click to expand...


The other thing is they craft their game to their opponents at the time. Not that any player could totally change, but they would work on things to minimize an advantage other top players might have and maximize what advantage they have. It is always problematic, but interesting, to compare players in different eras (different equipment, training methods, surfaces, possibly rules) in any sport
 
LooseCannon said:
The problem with this is that it is highly subjective and it's essentially the way you think they might play out, whereas accomplishments, majors, championships are factual things.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I completely disregarded the "factual things".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top