RaulRamirez
Legend
Yes, some fans gloat too much (Note; when your favorite player wins or your least favorite player loses, you haven't accomplished anything), but I hear so much incessant whining when a "rival" player achieves something.
You know the pejorative terms: Weak Era, Mugs, Weak Draw, Career Inflation Era, and so forth, and then it often deteriorates from there. And sure, even if they started it (is there still any sand left in the box?), why continue the same tired stuff.
Really, why continue to watch tennis if it's of such terrible quality? Peak Roger, Pete, and even Andre (to name a few) aren't returning to the tour.
For those who are mortified (especially) that most of Fed's records have been surpassed, try to deal with it, and stop trying to convince us of how crappy tennis is now, how people aren't supposed to win past a certain age or what would have happened if 35-ish Novak or Rafa had faced peak Roger or another rival.
If you still consider Roger the greatest ever, there are still objective things that can you point to, but there aren't too many left. But he had an amazing career, will be a legend for the rest of his life and possibly beyond, and there is no diminishing what he accomplished and the way in which he did so -- almost always with style, grace and class.
Although The Big 3's careers overlapped for a lot of years (I mean, the three matchups are the three most played in OE history), they didn't grow up at the exact same time and under the exact same conditions. That's impossible and there's no way to account for every variable. Like or dislike any (and I like them all, though root for Novak and Rafa much more so), there is no reason to insult what any of them have accomplished. While I regard Sampras and Borg (in the all-OE) as similar talents, each of The Big 3 have separated themselves achievements-wise for quite a while now.
Try to accept the present...life (even tennis life) goes on...and let's see what will be in the coming season(s).
You know the pejorative terms: Weak Era, Mugs, Weak Draw, Career Inflation Era, and so forth, and then it often deteriorates from there. And sure, even if they started it (is there still any sand left in the box?), why continue the same tired stuff.
Really, why continue to watch tennis if it's of such terrible quality? Peak Roger, Pete, and even Andre (to name a few) aren't returning to the tour.
For those who are mortified (especially) that most of Fed's records have been surpassed, try to deal with it, and stop trying to convince us of how crappy tennis is now, how people aren't supposed to win past a certain age or what would have happened if 35-ish Novak or Rafa had faced peak Roger or another rival.
If you still consider Roger the greatest ever, there are still objective things that can you point to, but there aren't too many left. But he had an amazing career, will be a legend for the rest of his life and possibly beyond, and there is no diminishing what he accomplished and the way in which he did so -- almost always with style, grace and class.
Although The Big 3's careers overlapped for a lot of years (I mean, the three matchups are the three most played in OE history), they didn't grow up at the exact same time and under the exact same conditions. That's impossible and there's no way to account for every variable. Like or dislike any (and I like them all, though root for Novak and Rafa much more so), there is no reason to insult what any of them have accomplished. While I regard Sampras and Borg (in the all-OE) as similar talents, each of The Big 3 have separated themselves achievements-wise for quite a while now.
Try to accept the present...life (even tennis life) goes on...and let's see what will be in the coming season(s).
Last edited:
