strongwilled
Rookie
Where was this thread after Coric beat Federer in Shanghai?
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.
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?
Where was this thread after Coric beat Federer in Shanghai?
No, but it wouldn't surprise me if you thought that. Some people really do think 26 is a "baby" in tennis today.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.
Thiem is not considered 'young' anymore! At 25 he is in his absolute peak years.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.
Because he was! LOL He played by catching cold the whole tournament!
Nadal was also not at 100% of his best level either, he was only 17 years old.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 100% of his best level either, he was only 17 years old.
When Spencer Gore’s spider-sense tingles, it pays to listen.
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.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 usual level, I pointed out that Nadal at age 17 wasn't eaxctly at 100% of his usual level either.
You are absolutely right. Djokovic was undoubtedly sick against Cilic, Federer and Khachanov in Paris. He had a cold the whole week.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.![]()
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.
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.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.
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).
Now what? Now we wait for Australia and hope they meet again.
Thank you, Hitman and UT.My hat off to him also. He must be thrilled with today's result.![]()
Thank you, Hitman and UT.
Your centuries of experience came up trumps here.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
![]()
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.
He could save ten kittens from a fire and I'd still have a strong dislike of him.
Over 9000 burning kittens will make me tolerate him.
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.
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.
No one likes a sore loser.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.
![]()
Agreed with everything except for the part underlined.
Gave your post a like, people should have good Mondays!
![]()
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.
I often wonder (often, because I often read posts from the likes of you), what is it that "makes your spider net tingle"?
![]()
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 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.
![]()
It seemed to have happened spontaneously and of its own free will.
Oh wait. That's the other thread.
Zverev would not beat Djoker in a BO5 match as the motivation and intensity goes up at slam level.