Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Between me and Serena?But I thought Serena said it was underrated?
Who’s right?
It's always me.
Between me and Serena?But I thought Serena said it was underrated?
Who’s right?
And it's always the same, couple of tweeners here and there, couple of underarm serves - he gets entertaining, talented, good for tennis badge.Wouldn't surprise me at all. In return everyone raves about how talent he is, inflating his market value.
1) Fed's RG / Halle kits were awesome.
2) Nadal has a decent shot at Wimbledon.
3) Djokovic is very good on fast surfaces.
4) Nadal's serve is underrated.
5) Kyrgios is an OK dude really.
You have to be crazy if you think Thiem will win more than 3 slams. Agree on that one and the majority should too.Connors would have won around 12 slams had he played the AO more, played RG from 74-78 and were the USO on hard court from 75-77
Thiem won't win more than 2 RG titles and probably not more than 3 slams total
Kyrgios will never win a slam, or perhaps 1 at the very most
Zverev will win more than one slam
If that is true (people deliberately distracting Djokovic from tennis), then it is his own fault by some degree. Because let’s be honest, even his fans have to admit this, he is SUCH an easy target for doing that.I think Kyrgios is paid to do all these things he is doing now. In clay season it was attack on Nadal and Djokovic, in grass season he is dealing more with Djokovic.
I can't speak for Nadal's case much, but Djokovic was attacked many times before mainly by British press and journalists, with things that are mainly gossips or constructed scenarios that are far from truth. They tried to put him out of balance, to deal with things outside of tennis, they became quiet all of a sudden but now this idiot jumps in with his little play and does their job. If NK is payed 750.000$ to play in Laver Cup, I think he is on someones payroll to be "maniacally obsessed with Novak" too.
I understand what are you saying. But...If that is true (people deliberately distracting Djokovic from tennis), then it is his own fault by some degree. Because let’s be honest, even his fans have to admit this, he is SUCH an easy target for doing that.
That is his big disadvantage against Fedal. I have never seen Fedal acting any differently on the court, match by match and year by year. Nadal once had the issue with this French woman who claimed that he’s a drug cheater. What did he do? He sued her and moved on, case closed.
Djokovic on the other hand wants to be loved by anyone, and if he doesn’t feel worshipped enough, he argues about every single non-issue in sight, not even realising that his image gets worse and worse in that situation.
The French Open match against Thiem was a new height in this regard. Just imagine, this guy plays for the 2nd NCYGS, and all of a sudden all that matters is a simple meaningless time violation at 5-5 in the 3rd set. He argued over that until the set was gone and beyond it. Meanwhile the audience whistled and he made gestures to them. The day before he almost refused to try at all because of the wind. Come on, this guy doesn’t even need a Kyrgios to distract him. His own volatile character is enough way too often.
Pineapple belongs on pizza.
Pineapple belongs on pizza.
Between me and Serena?
It's always me.
Yeah there's absolutely no skill on the other end of a serveFun fact - Roddick got outaced by Roger in almost every match they played. Not bad for a guy with the most overrated serve of all time.
Yeah there's absolutely no skill on the other end of a serve
Roddick got aced almost 60% more often than FedererWhat you’re saying is Federer is better returner than Andy is a server.
For people with too much time on their hands :
Vol.1
Rip me part folks,For me:
1.Wawrinka has a slam in him. Most probably a slam final at least.
2. Djokovic would have beaten Nadal at RG 2011. For this I have no doubt.
3. Djokovic has a significantly higher peak on grass than clay due to his serve return combination not being neutralised.
4. If Djokovic wins one more slam, especially USO, I put him greater than/ equal to Rafa due to his overall record.
5. Shoot me but I think Federer can defeat Djokodal back to back this year in WB. Provided he hits the ball as well as he did in FO. They both don't seem to be in any spectacular grass forms of past.And Fed has blitzed Nadal on slow HC even. However a motivated Djokovic means game over for both of Fedal.
6. More of a hope , but somehow think Murray will do a decent comeback.
You mean Sampras on poly era clay?1. It is hard to call anybody the GOAT. Not only because it’s hard to compare eras due to surfaces,balls,equipment but possibly because all greats have enough of a flaw to hold them back.
2. 2011/12 Federer at slams wouldn’t match up with 2014-early 2016 Djokovic at slams as well as some people think.
3. Since the game changing with the courts and balls in the early 2000s Nadal hasn’t gained as much compared his rivals as much as people think.
4. Murray might have had his best clay season level-wise in 2011 and not in 2015-16 level wise.
5. Djokovic competition in 2011 gets a bit to much credit while his 2014-15 competition doesn’t get enough.
6. People under-look the physicality involved in Federer game pre 2013-14.
7. Ivan Lendl had the toughest competition of any ATG and always will.
8. 2012 Murray on grass would have had a great chance of beating any Djokovic on grass save for the 2015 Djokovic who beat Cllic in the QF and Federer in the final.
9. Nadal peak level can often get under-looked due to his relative inability to sustain it over time compared to his rivals.
10. Each of the big 3 have a good case for being better or worse than the others.
11. Federer peak level at the USO gets a bit too much credit while his AO peak level doesn’t get enough credit.
12. Federer and Djokovic needed to beat Nadal in great form to win a 2nd RG each cement themselves as more all rounded than him.
13. Borg possibly has as high as a peak level as Nadal on red clay.
14. 2012 was the only true year of the Big 4 era were they all co dominated and looked at a similar level.
15. Tennis pre 1970s and going all the way back was not as weak and primitive as some people claim.
16. Sampras is under looked on clay and slower surfaces and would have had more success on clay today.
17. Rebound Ace is not as fast and attacker friendly as people think over Plexicushion pre 2016-17.
18. Clay is not a boring surface.
19. USO 2015 might have been Federer best USO since his peak years on the surface (2004-2008)
20. 2009 Federer served nearly as well as 2015 Federer did.
Those are 20.
I think Kyrgios is paid to do all these things he is doing now. In clay season it was attack on Nadal and Djokovic, in grass season he is dealing more with Djokovic.
I can't speak for Nadal's case much, but Djokovic was attacked many times before mainly by British press and journalists, with things that are mainly gossips or constructed scenarios that are far from truth. They tried to put him out of balance, to deal with things outside of tennis, they became quiet all of a sudden but now this idiot jumps in with his little play and does their job. If NK is payed 750.000$ to play in Laver Cup, I think he is on someones payroll to be "maniacally obsessed with Novak" too.
And less clay specialists.You mean Sampras on poly era clay?
Less specialists, but he would never put a dent into Fedalovic on clay.And less clay specialists.
For starters, there is no such thing as big 4.- Zverev will win a slam
- Nadal is the least talented of the Big 4
- US open (not the French open) is the worst slam to watch
- Australian open (Not Wimbledon) is the best slam to watch
- Serena Williams is one of the nicest WTA players on the tour.
- Wawrinka was not clean when he won his slams.
Then Fed also had a read on Roddick's serve.
I remember McEnroe saying the new racquets didn't make the serve that much bigger, but helped returners because the lighter racquets were easier to manoeuvre into position on quick returns.5. If the ATP sped up Wimbledon to suit the demands of the "homogenization" whiners, it would be incredibly boring. You wouldn't be seeing the great volleys of the 70s and 80s. You'd be seeing the serve, serve, serve of the 90s, possibly to an even worse degree. It's because of how much lighter the rackets are today compared to back then, making it easier to serve huge. Expect Isner to consistently make it deep in Wimbledon.
For starters, there is no such thing as big 4.
For people with too much time on their hands :
Vol.1
Rip me part folks,For me:
1.Wawrinka has a slam in him. Most probably a slam final at least.
2. Djokovic would have beaten Nadal at RG 2011. For this I have no doubt.
3. Djokovic has a significantly higher peak on grass than clay due to his serve return combination not being neutralised.
4. If Djokovic wins one more slam, especially USO, I put him greater than/ equal to Rafa due to his overall record.
5. Shoot me but I think Federer can defeat Djokodal back to back this year in WB. Provided he hits the ball as well as he did in FO. They both don't seem to be in any spectacular grass forms of past.And Fed has blitzed Nadal on slow HC even. However a motivated Djokovic means game over for both of Fedal.
6. More of a hope , but somehow think Murray will do a decent comeback.
Bacon shouldn't be wrapped around other red meats.
Pineapple belongs on pizza.
I watch tennis more than 10 years, even though I didn't post here before. To compare Murray to the big 3 is a joke. He is as far from their achievements as it is possible. And to say Murray is more talented than Nadal is the joke of the year.I see from your profile that you Joined this year. Maybe you are a former member who got banned and made a new account, maybe not. Either way, I am now of the view that you have not been following tennis long enough to have seen the years of tennis when the tour WAS dominated by those 4 and the term was universal and no matter how you (or others) feel about the subject now, The big 4 was a thing and will always be a thing and your stubborn denial of it means nothing.
The Big 3's titles carry 60 percent of the weight that their predecessors carry. We've never seen such a horrid excuse of a generation of 20 something year olds like we have seen the last decade and basically the Big 3 have feasted on the worst generation of tennis players in history and their "accomplishments" need to be better measured in the grand scheme of things. Add that with the slowed down, homogenized surfaces and cookie cutter tennis with no variety in play, their slams need to be auto adjusted to more of the 8-10 slam range spectrum. Not 15-16 slams and more
I think you are somewhat mistaken there. Sampras wasn’t really a S&V player except on grass. I think he would have been just fine playing in today’s field of mental midgets. However I do think that the way the game is played now would not suit him with his anemia he would struggle to win the long points that have become the norm now. I think his power and mental toughness would have made him a top player in any era. Maybe not ATG but a top 10 player with a couple of slams for sure.I agree that Sampras played the style that was the best for him and most likely it would still have been the best for him today.
But he wouldn’t win Slams with it in this era, no matter how good he was, because the modern racquets would punish him at the net.
Sampras is a good example for an ATG who was born at the right time, when offensive first-strike power mattered a lot while passing shots were still extremely difficult. He would have also been much less successful if he had played earlier.
I therefore generally think the often heard opinion "A great champion would adapt to any conditions" is wrong. Different conditions make different champions instead. Federer could be one of the very rare exceptions.
The Big 3/Big 4 era has been bad for tennis.
Okay, a top 10 player, surely we can talk about that. If that would lead to a couple of Slams is another question.I think you are somewhat mistaken there. Sampras wasn’t really a S&V player except on grass. I think he would have been just fine playing in today’s field of mental midgets. However I do think that the way the game is played now would not suit him with his anemia he would struggle to win the long points that have become the norm now. I think his power and mental toughness would have made him a top player in any era. Maybe not ATG but a top 10 player with a couple of slams for sure.
They've changed the economics of the sport, hypercharging its success at the same time as tying it to the success of their own personal brands. You said it yourself - without them, you wouldn't be watching too much tennis.Out of interest, why do you think this? The only reason I ask is that without them i’m not sure i’d be watching too much tennis. They’ve taken the game to another level, forced each other to improve time and again. I almost can’t imagine the game without them.
Sure it’s going on too long, but i’m not convinced they’ve been bad for tennis.
Absolutely spot on my friendThe Big 3's titles carry 60 percent of the weight that their predecessors carry. We've never seen such a horrid excuse of a generation of 20 something year olds like we have seen the last decade and basically the Big 3 have feasted on the worst generation of tennis players in history and their "accomplishments" need to be better measured in the grand scheme of things. Add that with the slowed down, homogenized surfaces and cookie cutter tennis with no variety in play, their slams need to be auto adjusted to more of the 8-10 slam range spectrum. Not 15-16 slams and more
They've changed the economics of the sport, hypercharging its success at the same time as tying it to the success of their own personal brands. You said it yourself - without them, you wouldn't be watching too much tennis.
I mean, Sampras and Agassi were big - but the numbers associated with these guys are almost beyond comprehension. They have won almost half a billion dollars in prize-money alone. Add in their endorsements, and they have upwards of $2 billion in direct earnings. The commercial clout they they control on the tour - in the sport - is incalculable. They make or break tournaments. It's not a coincidence that most of the changes made to the tour since 2004 have benefited them and perpetuated their success - ATP revenue has almost quadrupled during that period.
The sport has become so financially addicted to these mega-brands that I think people are naive to think that we will see it disappear when the current crop of players retire. The next group may be bigger, and less successful - but the general principle of having a defined group of players consistently at the top of the rankings, with long-term success across all tournaments, on all surfaces, in all countries will continue. So we can look forward to a future with more advantages for the top players, more disparity between the haves and the have-nots, more control by the elite players over tournaments and seedings and surfaces.
Personally I don't think that's good for the game of tennis.