A massive moment?

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
It’s a two way equation. Half of the equation was Sampras being done as a force at Wimbledon.

It’s fine to have missed it. I was pretty much a lone voice then, too.

I felt that Sampras was done as a force at Wimbledon after he lost to Federer in 2001 - but I didn't think that Federer would be the man to take his mantle from him (indeed, I remember feeling happy because Henman would have an easy opponent in the QF, which he did, as Federer surrendered tamely).

It took a few years for Federer to actually back up his talent by winning a slam, and probably a year after that before cementing his place as the dominant player of his era (he probably only really did this by defeating Roddick in the 2004 W final).
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
That may be the first major match in many years where one of the big three simply didn’t look capable of beating a much younger opponent.

We’ve all seen it in the old days with Rosewall against Connors, McEnroe against Agassi, Agassi against Nadal. Matches where, no matter what the older player did, they simply didn’t look capable of winning: they looked rather like a remnant of a previous generation whose time has passed.

This match had that feeling.

Is this the natural tennis order finally being restored?

The big changing of the guard moment for me in terms of Federer vs Nextgen has been his battles with Coric this year.

Coric developed a highly tactical approach which involves beating federer with physicality and ball redirection and stopping Roger from applying his all court transition game. He keeps Federer on defence, where the weakest parts of current day federer are exposed: groundstroke consistency and footspeed when defending.

The first chance Coric had to apply this aggressive tactic was in the Indian Wells SF earlier this year, where he was unlucky to lose in three tight sets. Since then, the two players have met twice on two big stages where Federer nornally excels: Halle F and Shanghai M1000 F. Coric has won both matches.
 
R

red rook

Guest
If you’re making “transformational” inferences, it has to be a best of five tournament imo. Two sets? And those 7-5 and 7-6? Please.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
If you think 26 years and 11 months is young for a tennis player you’re clearly new to the game.

Stick around. You’ll get the hang of it.
No, but it wouldn't surprise me if you thought that. Some people really do think 26 is a "baby" in tennis today.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Not exactly a semi, but Kyrgios beating Nadal at Wimbledon, Chung beating Djokovic at AO, Thiem beating Djokovic at FO.

Outside of Slams, there are more to choose from. Zverev beating Federer and Djokovic in Montreal and Rome, respectively. Zverev beating Federer in Halle. Coric beating Federer in Halle and Shanghai. Coric beating Nadal in Basel and Cincinnati. Shapovalov beating Nadal in Montreal. Thiem beating Djokovic in Monte Carlo. Thiem beating Federer in Stuttgart.
Thiem is not considered 'young' anymore! At 25 he is in his absolute peak years.
 

Fabresque

Legend
Lol

I just find it funny how a 37 year old can still go far in tournaments (QF’s on). Where’s the next generation? Or even the lost gen? Losing before that.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
It was clearly obvious Djokovic was not 100% in Paris, he was under the weather and feeling it all week long. Add to that, back to back gruelling matches against Cilic and Federer with less time to recover, and you have the perfect storm for the young Russian to take advantage. Lets give KK credit, he didn't blink and was clinical in his win, but lets also not kid ourselves and say he beat a fresh and healthy Djokovic. Far from it.

And really some Federer fans shouldn't make such statements, since Federer lost to Nadal in Miami in 04 while not feeling one hundred percent either, he had a fever. If it is OK for them to say it there, then they should not begrudge it being said in Novak's case in regards to the Paris loss.
Nadal was also not at 100% of his best level either, he was only 17 years old.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Nadal was also not 100% of his best level either, he was only 17 years old.

Yeah, we know. All due respect but we have had the term baby Nadal rammed down our throats all the time to any match before 2008.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, we know. All due respect but we have had the term baby Nadal rammed down our throats all the time to any match before 2008.
I do not apply the term baby Nadal for any match of Federer-Nadal before 2008, since Nadal was almost a "child prodigy" in tennis. I was specifically talking about Miami 2004, not any match from 2005, 2006 and 2007.:)

Since you mentioned that Federer had fever and didn't play at 100% of his best level, I pointed out that Nadal at age 17 wasn't exactly at 100% of his best level either.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I do not apply the term baby Nadal for any match of Federer-Nadal before 2008, since Nadal was almost a "child prodigy" in tennis. I was specifically talking about Miami 2004, not any match from 2005, 2006 and 2007.:)

Since you mentioned that Federer had fever and didn't play at 100% of his usual level, I pointed out that Nadal at age 17 wasn't eaxctly at 100% of his usual level either.

I am going to be a little blunt here, don't mind it, but I simply am not interested in what you are saying about Nadal. I am talking about the double standards of some Fed fans saying Djokovic was fine just outplayed by KK and I said if they can say Federer was ill agsinst Nadal then they need to be fair and ack others can be ill also, as was the case with Djokovic.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
I am going to be a little blunt here, don't mind it, but I simply am not interested in what you are saying about Nadal. I am talking about the double standards of some Fed fans saying Djokovic was fine just outplayed by KK and I said if they can say Federer was ill agsinst Nadal then they need to be fair and ack others can be ill also, as was the case with Djokovic.
You are absolutely right. Djokovic was undoubtedly sick against Cilic, Federer and Khachanov in Paris. He had a cold the whole week.

But, as the historical example of Federer-Nadal illustrates, even if Nadal did beat Federer when he had fever... Nadal has beaten Federer many times when he is not sick. Maybe Khachanov could also beat Djokovic when he is not sick. Or maybe not. We will see in 2019.:)
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
You are absolutely right. Djokovic was undoubtedly sick against Cilic, Federer and Khachanov in Paris. He had a cold the whole week.

But, as the historical example of Federer-Nadal illustrates, even if Nadal did beat Federer when he had fever... Nadal has beaten Federer many times when he is not sick. Maybe Khachanov could also beat Djokovic when he is not sick. Or maybe not. We will see in 2019.:)

Maybe. But it seems you and others are forgeting Djokovic straight setted KK at Wimbledon, the very event he turned it around at.
 

UnforcedTerror

Hall of Fame
A massive moment?
When this changes, then we have a massive moment. Zverev has potential, and the right attitude, he wants to be out there and be the best, but until he wins this title, it is not a massive moment. Beating a 37 Federer 7-5, 7-6 isn't Federer getting crushed, that is a difference of a few points here and there. IF he can pull out a win tomorrow in the final, then lets talk about a real change, at the moment, it is nothing we haven't seen before, a player beats one of the big three and then promptly loses to the next one. Have to beat them all.

IF Zverev can beat both Federer even in his current state and Djokovic back to back indoors to win a WTF, then there is something of substance there. It is not a slam, but it is still the biggest event outside of the slams and maybe the next logical step for Sacha after already doing well in the Masters. But as stated, the biggest titles are held by guys in their 30s, and this one match today does not change that one single bit.

If Sascha can beat Novak tomorrow, it will be the first time I'm legitimately impressed by the NextGen and intrigued about the future. So far, all their big wins vs the Big 3 have come with caveats.

When was the last time anyone beat a combination of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic at a big event, a slam or a WTF and won the title? Until Zverev beats Djokovic here, it isn't as massive a moment as you may feel, in my eyes. If he beats Djokovic tomorrow, then you are onto something. Seen this movie played out many time before. If Djokovic is holding the title tomorrow, then your massive moment needs to wait a little while longer, at least until AO.

My answer is simple, beating one of them has happened before, we have seen upsets happen, but no one yet has been able to break through against the Big Three as a group and take a big title, and that is exactly what I mean about having seen this movie played out many times before. I have seen Federer, Djokovic and Nadal all get upset in slams, only for that winner to then go onto lose to one of the others.
IF Sacha manages to beat Djokovic here, and that is a big IF considering Djokovic's form, then I will agree with you that we have had a massive moment. Pointing to a specific point that when a 21 beat one of the big three in a slam and WTF doesn't mean much if he goes onto the lose the next one. Show me that you can beat them all, without blinking and then we know the young guns are ready to take over.

So what now??

My hat is off to Spencer Gore. He just knows his things.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Maybe. But it seems you and others are forgeting Djokovic straight setted KK at Wimbledon, the very event he turned it around at.
Very interesting comment. Nadal also straight setted Khachanov at Wimbledon 2017. But then Khachanov gave Nadal troubles at the US Open 2018 and defeat a (sick) bad version of Djokovic. Maybe Khachanov is not yet as good on grass as on hard courts. We will see next year.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Very interesting comment. Nadal also straight setted Khachanov at Wimbledon 2017. But then Khachanov gave Nadal troubles at the US Open 2018 and defeat a (sick) bad version of Djokovic. Maybe Khachanov is not yet as good on grass as on hard courts. We will see next year.

We will see no doubt.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
I felt that Sampras was done as a force at Wimbledon after he lost to Federer in 2001 - but I didn't think that Federer would be the man to take his mantle from him (indeed, I remember feeling happy because Henman would have an easy opponent in the QF, which he did, as Federer surrendered tamely).

It took a few years for Federer to actually back up his talent by winning a slam, and probably a year after that before cementing his place as the dominant player of his era (he probably only really did this by defeating Roddick in the 2004 W final).

I wouldn't say Fed surrendered tamely, he lost in 4 sets and the sets he lost were 2 fiebreaks and a 7-5 And the set he won was 6-2. Tiebreaks were close too though I'm not sure if he had set point in any of the sets he lost
 

Night Slasher

Professional
While I agree with the OP that today's victory (a younger player beating an older ATG) is definitely great for the tennis future, Sasha has already proven himself in tournaments with the best of three set format. What he needs is the next step - to have a deep run in a grand slam.
Remember, the two players of the "lost generation" competed for the title last year and what happened? We didn't hear much of them lately.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Your centuries of experience came up trumps here.
So what now??

My hat is off to Spencer Gore. He just knows his things.
You called it.

Yip.

All digs to @Spencer Gore today. This was a notable tremor in the tennis landscape, a 5.5 event I’d say.

We’ve seen players like Dimitrov and Davydenko win it in past, but they were firmly in the thick/latter end of their careers. Zverev has been knocking on that door of greatness for about a year, this could be the springboard he needs for the slams.

Regardless of what happens this bodes well for 2019 and the future.

Gore called it, and perhaps we now also have some clues why Paranoid Android made an exit when he did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yip.

All digs to @Spencer Gore today. This was a notable tremor in the tennis landscape, a 5.5 event I’d say.

We’ve seen players like Dimitrov and Davydenko win it in past, but they were firmly in the thick/latter end of their careers. Zverev has been knocking on that door of greatness for about year, this could be the springboard he needs for the slams.

Regardless of what happens this bodes well for 2019 and the future.

Gore called it, and perhaps we now also have some clues why Paranoid Android made an exit when he did.

Why am I not surprised to see that you are propping a certified ignorant.

Let's see:

1) he asked when was the last time someone from the young generation beat someone from the big three in a major tournament.

After he received an answer, he completely ignored it

2) after he has been challenged as to what leads him to believe that what he says has any logic, he identified his opinion as supported by an effortless win....... which turned out to be a bit of a mistake, as the win against Federer was anything but effortless

3) he then (again wrongly), tried to work the angle with the Federer analogy, using 100% hindsight.

The truth is that after his win against Sampras Federer had a long period of struggles, in which other players actually amassed a considerable amount of success, while he was wandering, so that was anything but a turning point for Federer.

His win was significant, but it didn't indicate the coming of Federer there and then.

I would have thought that both you and Gore, as avid connoisseurs of the game, and following it for decades, would know all that ( no, you wouldn't for obvious reasons).

Instead, I see only mediocrity of ignorants on the topic.

It is a clear case of one troll patting another on the back for his use of hindsight in his effort to praise himself as an expert, to boost the said person's (non-existent) credentials, in order to continue to use his opinion to the chagrin of every decent tennis fan or analyst of the game.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
Most massive moment in the history of our great sport.
tony-schiavone.jpg
 

Zara

G.O.A.T.
Yip.

All digs to @Spencer Gore today. This was a notable tremor in the tennis landscape, a 5.5 event I’d say.

We’ve seen players like Dimitrov and Davydenko win it in past, but they were firmly in the thick/latter end of their careers. Zverev has been knocking on that door of greatness for about year, this could be the springboard he needs for the slams.

Regardless of what happens this bodes well for 2019 and the future.

Gore called it, and perhaps we now also have some clues why Paranoid Android made an exit when he did.

Lmho!

I don't think that's why PA left though but could be a part of it. He was slowly turning it back when he last said to me that his dislike has gone down a bit.
 
W

We’ll find out. My tennis spider-sense tingles infrequently, but when it does I tend to listen to it.

I felt the same when Borg played Connors in the Wimbledon semi in 1981. I just felt it was over.

I feel the same way about Federer today.

I find it really difficult to imagine you seeing clearly when faced with those puffy I's, thougho_O
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I definitely agree that this could be a big moment of the next generation champ arriving. Now that Zverev has beaten Djokovic and Federer back to back on the big stage, he'll feel less nervous next time and will play closer to his potential. Also, notice the improvements this kid keeps making. The biggest difference of him today from 12 months ago is his net play. It was quite atrocious for a top level pro, but now he seems quite comfortable at the net. This kid is only 21 and working hard, so I expect him to get even better by AO 19. He seems ready to win a slam next year.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Why am I not surprised to see that you are propping a certified ignorant.

Let's see:

1) he asked when was the last time someone from the young generation beat someone from the big three in a major tournament.

After he received an answer, he completely ignored it

2) after he has been challenged as to what leads him to believe that what he says has any logic, he identified his opinion as supported by an effortless win....... which turned out to be a bit of a mistake, as the win against Federer was anything but effortless

3) he then (again wrongly), tried to work the angle with the Federer analogy, using 100% hindsight.

The truth is that after his win against Sampras Federer had a long period of struggles, in which other players actually amassed a considerable amount of success, while he was wandering, so that was anything but a turning point for Federer.

His win was significant, but it didn't indicate the coming of Federer there and then.

I would have thought that both you and Gore, as avid connoisseurs of the game, and following it for decades, would know all that ( no, you wouldn't for obvious reasons).

Instead, I see only mediocrity of ignorants on the topic.

It is a clear case of one troll patting another on the back for his use of hindsight in his effort to praise himself as an expert, to boost the said person's (non-existent) credentials, in order to continue to use his opinion to the chagrin of every decent tennis fan or analyst of the game.


:cool:

Agreed with everything except for the part underlined.

Gave your post a like, people should have good Mondays!

:)
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Lmho!

I don't think that's why PA left though but could be a part of it. He was slowly turning it back when he last said to me that his dislike has gone down a bit.

You must have spoken to him after I last did:

He could save ten kittens from a fire and I'd still have a strong dislike of him.

What I conclude from this your hate is measured in burning kittens.

Burning kittens needed to be rescued:
0 = hate
10 = strong dislike
?? = he’s a’rite
??? = here’s the wifi code
???? = let’s start a band together!

How many burning kittens does it take @paranoidandroid ?

You’re one twisted android.

Over 9000 burning kittens will make me tolerate him.

Update on @paranoidandroid Ze Hate.

It’s worse than suspected.

Burning kittens needed to be rescued:
0 = hate
10 = strong dislike
9000 = tolerate
????? = he’s a’rite
?????? = here’s the wifi code
??????? = let’s start a band together!

We’re running out of kittens to burn.
 
I understand what you are saying, but I’m talking about matches at major events.

Even Agassi had ‘critical’ moments in the first set against Nadal at Wimbledon in 2006, but it never felt as if he was going to win.

It’s a feeling thing. If you’ve watched the game through as many generations, changes of racquet, changes of surface as I have you get a feeling for these things.

For the first time, I got that feeling today with one of the big 3.

Time will tell who is right.

I do think there is something to this, but the problem with relying entirely on feeling is that it's hard to tell whether you're feeling is right or not. I don't know anyone who watched the 1984 Wimbledon final who wouldn't have got that feeling with Connors vis-a-vis McEnroe, but just a couple of months later, he pushed him all the way in a five-hour semi-final. Then again, neither of them won a Slam after that US Open.
 
As long as it is BO3, it is no more of an achievement than winning a M1000. Zverev would not beat Djoker in a BO5 match as the motivation and intensity goes up at slam level.
 

JadeC

Hall of Fame
What I conclude from this your hate is measured in burning kittens.

Update on @paranoidandroid Ze Hate.

It’s worse than suspected.

Burning kittens needed to be rescued:
0 = hate
10 = strong dislike
9000 = tolerate
????? = he’s a’rite
?????? = here’s the wifi code
??????? = let’s start a band together!

We’re running out of kittens to burn.

Lol. Thanks for the laugh.
 
Why am I not surprised to see that you are propping a certified ignorant.

Let's see:

1) he asked when was the last time someone from the young generation beat someone from the big three in a major tournament.

After he received an answer, he completely ignored it

2) after he has been challenged as to what leads him to believe that what he says has any logic, he identified his opinion as supported by an effortless win....... which turned out to be a bit of a mistake, as the win against Federer was anything but effortless

3) he then (again wrongly), tried to work the angle with the Federer analogy, using 100% hindsight.

The truth is that after his win against Sampras Federer had a long period of struggles, in which other players actually amassed a considerable amount of success, while he was wandering, so that was anything but a turning point for Federer.

His win was significant, but it didn't indicate the coming of Federer there and then.

I would have thought that both you and Gore, as avid connoisseurs of the game, and following it for decades, would know all that ( no, you wouldn't for obvious reasons).

Instead, I see only mediocrity of ignorants on the topic.

It is a clear case of one troll patting another on the back for his use of hindsight in his effort to praise himself as an expert, to boost the said person's (non-existent) credentials, in order to continue to use his opinion to the chagrin of every decent tennis fan or analyst of the game.

:cool:
No one likes a sore loser.

But worry not. As I said, my tennis spider-sense tingles rarely. I simply sensed a shift in the deep tennis universe during the Federer match and felt duty bound to announce it.

Although I have a 100% record of calling the shifts in the tennis landscape -going back to the 70s- I am always prepared to be wrong at some point.

It hasn’t happened yet, but never say never!

Happy net play to all.
 
No one likes a sore loser.

But worry not. As I said, my tennis spider-sense tingles rarely. I simply sensed a shift in the deep tennis universe during the Federer match and felt duty bound to announce it.

Although I have a 100% record of calling the shifts in the tennis landscape -going back to the 70s- I am always prepared to be wrong at some point.

It hasn’t happened yet, but never say never!

Happy net play to all.

You don't have a smidge of credibility, and your failure to create some by actually addressing the points you quoted further solidify that fact.

I often wonder (often, because I often read posts from the likes of you), what is it that "makes your spider net tingle"?

The idea that you wasted more of your time writing nonsense?

:cool:
 
I often wonder (often, because I often read posts from the likes of you), what is it that "makes your spider net tingle"?
:cool:

It’s my ‘spider-sense’ that tingles, not my ‘spider-net’.

As to what makes it tingle? I wish I knew. I would be an even wealthier man than I am at the moment, as I would be straight down the bookies to bet my house on it.
 

Zara

G.O.A.T.
You must have spoken to him after I last did:

What I conclude from this your hate is measured in burning kittens.

Burning kittens needed to be rescued:
0 = hate
10 = strong dislike
?? = he’s a’rite
??? = here’s the wifi code
???? = let’s start a band together!

How many burning kittens does it take @paranoidandroid ?

You’re one twisted android.

Update on @paranoidandroid Ze Hate.

It’s worse than suspected.

Burning kittens needed to be rescued:
0 = hate
10 = strong dislike
9000 = tolerate
????? = he’s a’rite
?????? = here’s the wifi code
??????? = let’s start a band together!

We’re running out of kittens to burn.

Lmho!

Why should he still hate Zverev if Zed saves even one kitty? Zed's good deed should outweigh his bad deeds (@Sudacafan new thread idea Good Deeds vs Bad Deeds) if any. Isn't that the sole reason for hatred anyway?

So rich of PA lmho, really though while he hated Zed no doubt I don't think it was as severe as he made it out to be. I remember just before he left I asked him how much it pained him to say that Zverev would end up winning a Slam soon on a scale 1 to 10 and he said 2.5. I asked him, surely you are lying to which he said, okay maybe 2.6. So that's not a lot of hate there or he just mellowed for whatever reason.

Actually that's what I think is going on. He doesn't like to see himself the person he was on this forum (ParanoidAndroid and the leader of ABZ who had enormous amount of posts within a short period of time - even though he was very likeable and clearly, very popular) and would probably like a fresh start. Changes are always refreshing!
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Lmho!

Why should he still hate Zverev if Zed saves even one kitty? Zed's good deed should outweigh his bad deeds (@Sudacafan new thread idea Good Deed vs Bad Deeds) if any. Isn't' that the sole reason for hatred?

So rich of PA lmho, really though while he hated Zed no doubt I don't think it was as severe as he made it out to be. I remember just before he left I asked him how much it pained him to say that Zverev would end up winning a Slam soon on scale 1 to 10 and he said 2.5. I asked him, surely you are lying to which he said, okay maybe 2.6. So that's not a lot of hate there or he just mellowed for whatever reason.

Actually that's what I think is going on. He doesn't like to see himself the person he was on this forum (ParanoidAndroid and the leader of ABZ who had enormous amount of posts within a short period of time - even though he was very likeable and clearly, very popular) and would probably like a fresh start. Changes to have are always refreshing!

You're probably right. I don't think anyone really hated Zverev, it was a nice paper bag to have as a distraction in between the mud flinging in here. Now that he's winning big things that's out the window, so we get to tippy-toe around him too. This generation will need its Berdych, like every generation has.

By the how, I'm glad you've popped by this thread. Earlier for company it was @Tennis_Hands and to be able to move from total entanglement with someone to total ignorance of the same person all within the space of about forty seconds is something of an epiphany to me. I'll get around to it later I suppose, he's like that barnyard cat that won't stop loudly going 'MEOWRRRRR'. Or an auditor deep in the basement at the IRS.

There was a minor explosion here the other day.

The usual people rushed to claim responsibility.

First the IRA, then the PLO, then ISIS, and the Gas Board. Even China Nuclear Fuels rushed out a statement to the effect that the situation was completely under control, that it was a one in a million chance, that there was hardly any radioactive leakage at all, and that the site of the explosion would make a nice location for a day out with the kids and a picnic, before finally having to admit that it wasn’t actually anything to do with them at all.

No cause could be found for the explosion.

th


It seemed to have happened spontaneously and of its own free will.

Oh wait. That's the other thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Read (almost) all posts above.
I think PA was misunderstood.
His hate on Z was just a hobby. Something funny to dedicate himself, to fight boredom. That’s why he founded the ABZ cult.
Z’s gestures were a fertile soil to nurture them. Just trollish and funny stuff.
You can’t compare this to what, for example, Serena deserves. No one would have created a Serena hateclub because that’s more serious.
 
Last edited:

Zara

G.O.A.T.
You're probably right. I don't think anyone really hated Zverev, it was a nice paper bag to have as a distraction in between the mud flinging in here. Now that he's winning big things that's out the window, so we get to tippy-toe around him too. This generation will need its Berdych, like every generation has.

By the how, I'm glad you've popped by this thread. Earlier for company it was @Tennis_Hands and to be able to move from total entanglement with someone to total ignorance of the same person all within the space of about forty seconds is something of an epiphany to me. I'll get around to it later I suppose, he's like that barnyard cat that won't stop loudly going 'MEOWRRRRR'. Or an auditor deep in the basement at the IRS.

There was a minor explosion here the other day.

The usual people rushed to claim responsibility.

First the IRA, then the PLO, then ISIS, and the Gas Board. Even China Nuclear Fuels rushed out a statement to the effect that the situation was completely under control, that it was a one in a million chance, that there was hardly any radioactive leakage at all, and that the site of the explosion would make a nice location for a day out with the kids and a picnic, before finally having to admit that it wasn’t actually anything to do with them at all.

No cause could be found for the explosion.

th


It seemed to have happened spontaneously and of its own free will.

Oh wait. That's the other thread.

I will be honest. I am guilty of just skimming the thread but then I came across your post where you mentioned PA and I was stuck for a moment. I thought it was funny. Now I had to go back and read the whole thread just so I know what's really going on. It wasn't worth it much, to be honest, though quite entertaining.

To recap, I found Gore's feeling innocent. Though it's rather a big feeling based on just one match (initially); but feelings or instincts tend to be like that. They are not based on reasons or logic, and that's where Tennis_Hands' over the top reaction comes in, quite obviously as he's a man of reasons and logic and get this - his cage was rattled by this feeling and you simply added fuel to it - spontaneous or not.

And I am not even sure if we should have free will! I don't think we have earned it - yet.
 
Last edited:

duaneeo

Legend
Zverev would not beat Djoker in a BO5 match as the motivation and intensity goes up at slam level.

Zverev had only made it to two Masters quarterfinals before making...and winning...his first final. He's now 3/5 in Masters' finals, and would be 4/5 if the rain hadn't saved Rafa. He's now made...and won...his first WTF final. All at the age of 21. When the time comes that Zverev meets Djokovic or anyone else in a slam final (which I think will be next year), he could definitely win it.
 
Top