Search results

Very strange thing to say imo but if that's your take, sure. It's not like that we have to agree or something.

Nadal's pet slam and masters are likely to stay as pets more so than Federer's and Djokovic's ones. I don't get this response. Nadal is the biggest force on a specific surface. You're saying that Agassi would take away from Nadal on clay more than Federer and Djokovic on hard? Or Kuerten is a...

If it was just the Big 3, I'd probably say it's either Federer or Djokovic with slight edge to Federer. But with Sampras' presence, I'm going to say Nadal because Sampras would take away enough from Federer and Djokovic on fast surfaces to deny them.

I agree that Nadal did not make it to Federer/Djokovic in some Slams in his prime by losing before. And that’s another thing to factor in. My point was thinking about all the context there is to reach a conclusion. Considering the context goes well with the bias but disregarding the context that...

I get annoyed when something statistical is done so recklessly and incomplete. Here; 58 entries, 40 qf+ results (69.0%), 33 sf+ results (56.9%), 19 f+ results (32.8%), 12 titles (20.7%) / Federer outside of Wimbledon in Grand Slams 45 entries, 29 qf+ results (64.4%), 21 sf+ results (46.7%), 15...

The bolded part is just kind of bizarre though. There's only 9 three-slam seasons in the open era, Federer leads the list with 3 and Djokovic had 2. Nadal's 1 is not bad. Wilander is also one of the players with three-slam season, would that matter much? If we make comparisons to Lendl (who...

I think Nadal has a great case to be the goat male tennis player with 20 GS titles and being the H2H king, especially in Majors/bo5s. But that 2006-15 decade argument caught my eye. From 2006 to 2015; Nadal won 13 GS titles, 0 TF titles, 23 Masters titles, 141 weeks at #1 Federer won 11 GS...

I think Federer lost that match to the media pressure more than Del Potro. This may sound too nitpicky but the media was going crazy with young Del Potro's flat forehand and labelling it as a rival to Federer's FH, that visibly bothered Federer. I say visibly because Federer played his forehand...

And maybe winning in team sports is different than winning in individual sports.

He has a great case for sure. I wouldn't say he's the best sportsman of the 2010s but his case is great without a doubt. 15 Grand Slam titles in the decade, #1 in the rankings for 274 weeks, 5 time #1 player in year-end ranking. Comparing across the sports is always hard. LeBron James, Lionel...

This feels like a mean vs. median kind of thing. On average, Nadal takes it because his superiority in Roland Garros is still a borderline outlier even in such company. If anyone's objecting to this, their objection is coming from median stand point, not mean.

I thought it was a very obvious sarcasm about this; "since '11 the only significant non-clay Slam victory Nadal has over Djokovic was '13 USO, when Djokovic was in a slump. Since '11, Djokovic has these Slam non-AO victories over Nadal: 1 at RG. "

Djokovic was in a slump in 2013 and it deserves to be excused but 2015 Nadal was the peak Nadal. Please. That 2015 RG victory is totally legit, especially when we excused 2013 USO.

I don't think one can be the H2H and bo5 goat without such mental fortitude. Not that I'm saying Nadal is definitely the answer but he has to up there. Nadal is 91-24 (79%) in the bo5 matches he played in quarter finals or afterwards. For comparison, Djokovic is slightly below 74% and Federer is...

Quite possibly but not having such a strong seasonal performance when it's right there, next to Djokovic's most complete season, didn't feel right.

The calendar they'll play through is same with 2016. Only ATP500, Masters, Tour Finals and Grand Slams though. Jan 18, Australian Open (hard) Feb 8, Rotterdam (hard) Feb 15, Rio (clay) Feb 22, Dubai (hard) Feb 22, Acapulco (hard) Mar 7, Indian Wells (hard) Mar 21, Miami (hard) Apr 11, Monte...

LOL, had a misclick, voted Yes when I wanted to vote No.

AFAIK, she signed an endorsement deal with Tecnifibre at the beginning of the year. https://www.tecnifibre.com/athletes/tennis/women/iga-swiatek

So Prince failed to secure a deal with Swiatek (wonder if they even tried) and Swiatek plays with Tecnifibre right now? Nice...

I'm not an advanced player. Started playing tennis with the Phantom 100X 305 almost a year ago. I can not make comparisons like you guys are doing because the Phantom is the only frame I've hit with constantly. I got a chance to use the latest Yonex Ezone 98 and 100, and also Babolat Pure Strike...

It was a simple misclick on the numpad. Surely this is a topic with people full of agendas but sometimes, it's not accurate. Will edit my post. Cheers.

The title says "one of the most balance", not the most balanced. I don't see what's to argue against. Are Federer and Djokovic more balanced? Sure. Doesn't mean Nadal is not one of the top all-courters.

With the way he put it, he sounded like the gap was so big and clear that having Nadal next to Agassi is something out of order. That's why I asked about the gap (if there's one) is big enough to talk like that. Agassi played 31 matches against Federer and Sampras on hard courts. He went 12-19...

At this point, my posts should be self explanatory. Again. With all these, how's the gap between Agassi and Nadal is a full tier?

I'd like to see Agassi's case to be -definitely- over Nadal on hard court. On Masters and Tour Finals level, Agassi went 24-14 (63.2%) on indoor hard court and Nadal went 50-24 (67.6%). What separates Agassi from Nadal by a full tier?

I think you're bit too harsh towards Nadal's hard court record. Surely, Federer is the goat grass player. Also has a case to be the goat hard court player. It's between him and Djokovic. Nadal is still top 5 hard court player though. Nadal won 5 Slam titles in 10 finals, 10 Masters titles in 19...

H2H is not the only thing I had in there. Nadal's distributions are still slightly more noisy than Federer's and Djokovic's but not noisy enough to say his Slam results are skewed by his dominance on clay. Is it Nadal's fault that Federer lost 4 Wimbledon finals to have similarly "skewed"...

I think Nadal's a proper all-courter. He just shows that in Grand Slams though. Nadal against Federer on surfaces other than clay; 3-1 on hard (all matches in Aus Open) and 1-3 on grass Nadal against Djokovic on surfaces other than clay; 2-3 on hard (0-2 in Aus Open and 2-1 in US Open) and 1-2...

How the time changes... Australian Open has been the best Grand Slam for me for years and when I started to watch tennis, it was more like "what's his name".

TBH, no one will care and this is a very bad approach. Prince doesn't have a leg to stand on against Babolat/Yonex/Head/Wilson and them letting a major name go is something of a value? No chance.