Boris Becker setting the records straight for youngest evers

nolefam_2024

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
A humble little elbow from Boris
8d6f2d94358a8134b701339b17541150
 
nolefam_2024 said:
The legend himself has come on Twitter and questioned alcaraz fans who have not known history before big 3 played.

www.sportskeeda.com

"Did you check my record??": Boris Becker questions snub after exclusion from records involving Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Indian Wells champ Carlos Alcaraz

With his 2024 Indian Wells victory, Carlos Alcaraz entered the record books alongside legends such as Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Roger Federer.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...
So many " tennis" fans have little to no actual grasp on the history of the sport. Quoting masters tournaments and slam numbers. When the concept of masters barely existed till 25 years ago. The Aussie open was a tournament no one went to and multiple greats were banned from various slams for various reasons. If the tour was set up then like it is now many many people would probably be saying Chris Evert was the GOAT of ladies tennis. And conners and others would have way more slams than they do.

When people talk about Masters and records I just shake my head.
 
insideguy said:
So many " tennis" fans have little to no actual grasp on the history of the sport. Quoting masters tournaments and slam numbers. When the concept of masters barely existed till 25 years ago. The Aussie open was a tournament no one went to and multiple greats were banned from various slams for various reasons. If the tour was set up then like it is now many many people would probably be saying Chris Evert was the GOAT of ladies tennis. And conners and others would have way more slams than they do.

When people talk about Masters and records I just shake my head.
Click to expand...
6 masters level titles by Boris before turning 21 is something laudable but we don't even know about it until the legend himself said so. Very sad.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
6 masters level titles by Boris before turning 21 is something laudable but we don't even know about it until the legend himself said so. Very sad.
Click to expand...
That's because the tennis media is desperate to make you believe that this generation is the greatest of all time.

When in reality, Alcaraz, Skipper, Rune and Man-Bunly are perhaps the weakest group since 1973.
 
Boris is quite right of course but, unfortunately for him, the Masters series only began in 1990 which is when official records are counted from. So, in terms of the Masters series, Nadal and Alcaraz are the only ones to win multiple titles before the age of 21.
 
Mainad said:
Boris is quite right of course but, unfortunately for him, the Masters series only began in 1990 which is when official records are counted from. So, in terms of the Masters series, Nadal and Alcaraz are the only ones to win multiple titles before the age of 21.
Click to expand...
But the bnp Paribas IW official account deleted their tweet.
 
CHillTennis said:
That's because the tennis media is desperate to make you believe that this generation is the greatest of all time.

When in reality, Alcaraz, Skipper, Rune and Man-Bunly are perhaps the weakest group since 1973.
Click to expand...
But you need to present your case so we can believe, do you agree?
 
Neptune said:
But you need to present your case so we can believe, do you agree?
Click to expand...
When was the last time that a 22 year old player, who is one of the best and brightest in the world, lost to a 36 year old has-been in the finals of an important event?

How many decades do we have to go back to find the answer to this question?

Probably to the 1960s when Pancho Gonzales was still able to eek out the occasional win on the pro tour.
 
CHillTennis said:
That's because the tennis media is desperate to make you believe that this generation is the greatest of all time.

When in reality, Alcaraz, Skipper, Rune and Man-Bunly are perhaps the weakest group since 1973.
Click to expand...
They are not desperate, their function is simply to make young people believe that the current is always better than the past and to create a lot of hype around it.
This way they generate interest in the audience, which has an impact on the annual revenue of the media.
:cool:
 
Mainad said:
Boris is quite right of course but, unfortunately for him, the Masters series only began in 1990 which is when official records are counted from. So, in terms of the Masters series, Nadal and Alcaraz are the only ones to win multiple titles before the age of 21.
Click to expand...
I can understand the masters cutoff, but the ATP is frequently posting "records" with the cutoff of 1990 for all events. Check out this retweet (by Christoper Clarey, a journalist who is well into his 50s, so he should know better than to just say "youngest champs in ATP history" with this list. And even with the 1990 cutoff, it's bizarre they include Chang who obviously won titles at 17(but hey he was 18 in 1990 so he makes this weird age record list with only that title counted). BTW Krickstein is the real record holder in this stat.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1761295939913052326

There is so much recency bias, not just here, but with the mainstream media as well. They will probably start using 2000 as the cutoff for stats at some point. Hell, the Saudi Tour might just start counting records from 2025 onward since that technically will be a "new" tour.
 
Moose Malloy said:
I can understand the masters cutoff, but the ATP is frequently posting "records" with the cutoff of 1990 for all events. Check out this retweet (by Christoper Clarey, a journalist who is well into his 50s, so he should know better than to just say "youngest champs in ATP history" with this list. And even with the 1990 cutoff, it's bizarre they include Chang who obviously won titles at 17(but hey he was 18 in 1990 so he makes this weird age record list with only that title counted). BTW Krickstein is the real record holder in this stat.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1761295939913052326

There is so much recency bias, not just here, but with the mainstream media as well. They will probably start using 2000 as the cutoff for stats at some point. Hell, the Saudi Tour might just start counting records from 2025 onward since that technically will be a "new" tour.
Click to expand...
Yea exactly what if they add 3 more masters in the next 10 years. Some writers will write something like player X has won more masters in a year than any player ever!
 
DSH said:
They are not desperate, their function is simply to make young people believe that the current is always better than the past and to create a lot of hype around it.
This way they generate interest in the audience, which has an impact on the annual revenue of the media.
:cool:
Click to expand...
Right. They are paid content writers, who are obviously quite lousy at their job.
 
insideguy said:
So many " tennis" fans have little to no actual grasp on the history of the sport. Quoting masters tournaments and slam numbers. When the concept of masters barely existed till 25 years ago. The Aussie open was a tournament no one went to and multiple greats were banned from various slams for various reasons. If the tour was set up then like it is now many many people would probably be saying Chris Evert was the GOAT of ladies tennis. And conners and others would have way more slams than they do.

When people talk about Masters and records I just shake my head.
Click to expand...
Being banned is the players' own fault.
 
Shaolin said:
Homie looks like he was living on a diet of cough syrup and flamin hot cheetos for 40 years. Hope he's gotten in better health since prison.
Click to expand...
Flamin hot cheetos only have 3.1 grams of saturated fat per 100 grams,
and 3.2 grams of sugar per 100 grams.
They have 22.6 grams of monounsaturated fat-
"Monounsaturated fats from plants may lower bad cholesterol and raise good cholesterol. They also may improve the control of blood sugar levels. Replacing saturated fats with monounsaturated fats in the diet may lower the level of bad cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood."
They have 11.6 grams of polyunsaturated fat-
"Polyunsaturated fats are a type of healthy fat that includes omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, which are essential for brain function."
OonuKe0.jpg
 
ALCARAZWON said:
Flamin hot cheetos only have 3.1 grams of saturated fat per 100 grams,
and 3.2 grams of sugar per 100 grams.
They have 22.6 grams of monounsaturated fat-
"Monounsaturated fats from plants may lower bad cholesterol and raise good cholesterol. They also may improve the control of blood sugar levels. Replacing saturated fats with monounsaturated fats in the diet may lower the level of bad cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood."
They have 11.6 grams of polyunsaturated fat-
"Polyunsaturated fats are a type of healthy fat that includes omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, which are essential for brain function."
OonuKe0.jpg
Click to expand...
Didn’t realize Cheetos are now made with canola oil (healthier than the usual sunflower oil-based processed snack products).
 
Moose Malloy said:
I can understand the masters cutoff, but the ATP is frequently posting "records" with the cutoff of 1990 for all events. Check out this retweet (by Christoper Clarey, a journalist who is well into his 50s, so he should know better than to just say "youngest champs in ATP history" with this list. And even with the 1990 cutoff, it's bizarre they include Chang who obviously won titles at 17(but hey he was 18 in 1990 so he makes this weird age record list with only that title counted). BTW Krickstein is the real record holder in this stat.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1761295939913052326

There is so much recency bias, not just here, but with the mainstream media as well. They will probably start using 2000 as the cutoff for stats at some point. Hell, the Saudi Tour might just start counting records from 2025 onward since that technically will be a "new" tour.
Click to expand...

Isn't that obvious?

The past has no value when its viewers are all dead and the records all too distant to be remembered. For example, we have the open era, now who remembers Tilden or Pancho? Almost all of the people who watched Tilden are not alive anymore, even the ones who knew Pancho are way too old, so these players and their records have been cancelled off .... so at some point of time decades from now records will started to be counted from 2000 as you said. Already the players before Sampras don't exist for most of the crowd who are under 40 today, likewise a time will come when the 40 years olds today will become 80 year olds, and then at that time do you think anyone will talk of Lendl/Mcenroe ? They would be the Tildens of those eras who will be truly forgotten.....

So you see, everybody gets outdated and thats why I say today, even Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and their records will also become irrelevant/non existence to the public 70-80 years from now. Big 3 would be the Tildens of those times.

Public only cares for people close to them in age or to their parents, nobody takes the grandparents or great grandparents generation seriously in any walk of life....
 
Who cares about “before 21”. What is the significance of “before 21” and “after 21” in tennis??
Why not “before 20”????
 
Razer said:
Isn't that obvious?

The past has no value when its viewers are all dead and the records all too distant to be remembered. For example, we have the open era, now who remembers Tilden or Pancho? Almost all of the people who watched Tilden are not alive anymore, even the ones who knew Pancho are way too old, so these players and their records have been cancelled off .... so at some point of time decades from now records will started to be counted from 2000 as you said. Already the players before Sampras don't exist for most of the crowd who are under 40 today, likewise a time will come when the 40 years olds today will become 80 year olds, and then at that time do you think anyone will talk of Lendl/Mcenroe ? They would be the Tildens of those eras who will be truly forgotten.....

So you see, everybody gets outdated and thats why I say today, even Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and their records will also become irrelevant/non existence to the public 70-80 years from now. Big 3 would be the Tildens of those times.

Public only cares for people close to them in age or to their parents, nobody takes the grandparents or great grandparents generation seriously in any walk of life....
Click to expand...
Oh, dear. Without reference points from the past one is living in an ahistorical tyranny of the present-
one that that this dismal medium greatly encourages. Have at it, but I'll pass.
 
Last edited:
Vincent-C said:
Oh, dear. Without reference points from the past one is living in an ahistorical tyranny of the present-
one that that this dismal medium greatly encourages. Have at it, but I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Reference points are important but how far back ?
May I ask you how old are you? I dont think you are 100 years old to know Bill Tiden, so how relevant is his reference point today?
Similarly 100 years from now the Big 3 will also be irrelevant and none of us will be alive.
 
mental midget said:
becker does seem to get left out of a lot of these 'best teens/youngest ever' conversations...for my money winning wimbledon twice before he turned 19 is the best teen showing in the sport.
Click to expand...
Becker was/is an alpha male who doesnt play well to the sensibilities of the modern world, and given he did jail time the lamestream media will try and airbrush him out of existence.
Becker won the biggest event in tennis at 17. He doesnt need to say anything. Just hold his hand up in that speak to the hand gesture.
 
messiahrobins said:
Becker was/is an alpha male who doesnt play well to the sensibilities of the modern world, and given he did jail time the lamestream media will try and airbrush him out of existence.
Becker won the biggest event in tennis at 17. He doesnt need to say anything. Just hold his hand up in that speak to the hand gesture.
Click to expand...
yeah too bad his legacy has gotten so...complicated? i mean, like you said, win the biggest tournament in the game at 17...and then turn around and defend it a year later? outrageous.
 
Razer said:
Isn't that obvious?

The past has no value when its viewers are all dead and the records all too distant to be remembered. For example, we have the open era, now who remembers Tilden or Pancho? Almost all of the people who watched Tilden are not alive anymore, even the ones who knew Pancho are way too old, so these players and their records have been cancelled off .... so at some point of time decades from now records will started to be counted from 2000 as you said. Already the players before Sampras don't exist for most of the crowd who are under 40 today, likewise a time will come when the 40 years olds today will become 80 year olds, and then at that time do you think anyone will talk of Lendl/Mcenroe ? They would be the Tildens of those eras who will be truly forgotten.....

So you see, everybody gets outdated and thats why I say today, even Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and their records will also become irrelevant/non existence to the public 70-80 years from now. Big 3 would be the Tildens of those times.

Public only cares for people close to them in age or to their parents, nobody takes the grandparents or great grandparents generation seriously in any walk of life....
Click to expand...
Yea I get that to a certain extent. I will say that in team sports there seems to be more of a reverence to the past players. At least it seems to me more so than individual sports where people just get swept aside.
 
insideguy said:
Yea I get that to a certain extent. I will say there in team sports there seems to be more of a reverence to the past players. At least it seems to me more so than individual sports where people just get swept aside.
Click to expand...

Becker was known as the greatest teenage prodigy of all time when we were little kids, he was in our General Knowledge books as far as I remember and he had just retired some years back at that time. However today in 2024 probably the greatest teenage prodigy being marketed would either be Nadal or Alcaraz, and if we go 30 years later maybe the media will find new people to market. This constant urge to sell individuals with recency bias never stops.
 
Razer said:
Becker was known as the greatest teenage prodigy of all time when we were little kids, he was in our General Knowledge books as far as I remember and he had just retired some years back at that time. However today in 2024 probably the greatest teenage prodigy being marketed would either be Nadal or Alcaraz, and if we go 30 years later maybe the media will find new people to market. This constant urge to sell individuals with recency bias never stops.
Click to expand...
Ya I agree. Not sure if you are American but our team sports really do a good job of keeping the old guys in the minds of the local fans, maybe not so much on a national level. Some people do just become legendary. Even today young people have heard of Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth ect. Someone like Pele in soccer or Maradona are legendary in their countries and the world. But you are correct, with Tennis its like oh they have been gone ten years? Lets move on. I will be curious with the big three.
 
insideguy said:
Ya I agree. Not sure if you are American but our team sports really do a good job of keeping the old guys in the minds of the local fans, maybe not so much on a national level. Some people do just become legendary. Even today young people have heard of Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth ect. Someone like Pele in soccer or Maradona are legendary in their countries and the world. But you are correct, with Tennis its like oh they have been gone ten years? Lets move on. I will be curious with the big three.
Click to expand...

I am not an American, but yes team sports do give more respect to legends of the past. Even in Cricket kids today have heard of old names like Sunil Gavaskar or Kapil Dev in our country who won us the cricket world cup 40 years ago. Needless to say Maradona and Pele are also famous names even today in my country despite we not even being a top football nation. So I guess team sports where people represent a country are treated with gratitude by countrymen and the stardom of these guys is also more than individual sports in general. Big 3 will also be forgotten, I am sure of it. If their records are broken by Sinner or someone down the lane in 20 years, make no mistake the Big 3 will be a thing of the distant past. Plus who knows, we are living in an era where sports is evolving bigtime, Saudis are investing in the game, probably in a decade they will push for a 5th slam, or mayve even a 6th slam considering some existing masters tournament that might be upgraded ? SO in 20 years time we could be looking at a 6 slam scenario and thus inflated numbers like a slams race of 2 guys with 30 slams each, something like that. As weird as it sounds these things could happen and the narratives will also be spun accordingly. We will have guys like Roddick saying on air "Ohh man, these current fellas are so much better than my generation, I think these guys would smoke Roger or Novak today ... " something on these lines we could have the commentators saying.... Narratives will be spun in ways that could render the 2000s and 2010s less relevant as the 80s/90s are today....... :laughing:
 
Razer said:
I am not an American, but yes team sports do give more respect to legends of the past. Even in Cricket kids today have heard of old names like Sunil Gavaskar or Kapil Dev in our country who won us the cricket world cup 40 years ago. Needless to say Maradona and Pele are also famous names even today in my country despite we not even being a top football nation. So I guess team sports where people represent a country are treated with gratitude by countrymen and the stardom of these guys is also more than individual sports in general. Big 3 will also be forgotten, I am sure of it. If their records are broken by Sinner or someone down the lane in 20 years, make no mistake the Big 3 will be a thing of the distant past. Plus who knows, we are living in an era where sports is evolving bigtime, Saudis are investing in the game, probably in a decade they will push for a 5th slam, or mayve even a 6th slam considering some existing masters tournament that might be upgraded ? SO in 20 years time we could be looking at a 6 slam scenario and thus inflated numbers like a slams race of 2 guys with 30 slams each, something like that. As weird as it sounds these things could happen and the narratives will also be spun accordingly. We will have guys like Roddick saying on air "Ohh man, these current fellas are so much better than my generation, I think these guys would smoke Roger or Novak today ... " something on these lines we could have the commentators saying.... Narratives will be spun in ways that could render the 2000s and 2010s less relevant as the 80s/90s are today....... :laughing:
Click to expand...
Yes I am not sure about your slam scenario. However as I have said above, the whole masters thing and people quoting " records" in masters is just annoying to me. There literally could be 15 masters in 10 years or they will call them something else. And they could be located in some other cities. Its nice for whatever player is playing in whatever time period for points and rankings but someone acting like they mean something historically are dreaming. I know when Pete Sampras played it they were barely relevant. The guys went to these tournaments to get points for the best seeding at the slams. No one knows or cares how many " master" style tournaments Pete Sampras or Jim Courier or Stephan Edberg won.
 
insideguy said:
Yes I am not sure about your slam scenario. However as I have said above, the whole masters thing and people quoting " records" in masters is just annoying to me. There literally could be 15 masters in 10 years or they will call them something else. And they could be located in some other cities. Its nice for whatever player is playing in whatever time period for points and rankings but someone acting like they mean something historically are dreaming. I know when Pete Sampras played it they were barely relevant. The guys went to these tournaments to get points for the best seeding at the slams. No one knows or cares how many " master" style tournaments Pete Sampras or Jim Courier or Stephan Edberg won.
Click to expand...

Yes, when I read terms like "Big Titles" then I feel weird. Such lame terms did not exist in 2000s, they've been created less than a decade back to pump up resumes of 90s gens. The Djokovic fans are having orgasms daily about Big titles, they are opening posts on whether Nole's records will be broken or not, some of them saying that it wont be broken in their lifetime.... haha... it is so bloody funny... We thought Federer's Slams record would stand a few decades and look where we are now. Today Sampras is being judged by fans on his masters trophies or by his lack of CGS, it is all too retroactive for these morons and that is very angering, I agree.
 
dr325i said:
Who cares about “before 21”. What is the significance of “before 21” and “after 21” in tennis??
Why not “before 20”????
Click to expand...
The current age of Alcaraz, number 2 in the world, do you know him?
:sneaky:
 
Razer said:
Isn't that obvious?

The past has no value when its viewers are all dead and the records all too distant to be remembered. For example, we have the open era, now who remembers Tilden or Pancho? Almost all of the people who watched Tilden are not alive anymore, even the ones who knew Pancho are way too old, so these players and their records have been cancelled off .... so at some point of time decades from now records will started to be counted from 2000 as you said. Already the players before Sampras don't exist for most of the crowd who are under 40 today, likewise a time will come when the 40 years olds today will become 80 year olds, and then at that time do you think anyone will talk of Lendl/Mcenroe ? They would be the Tildens of those eras who will be truly forgotten.....

So you see, everybody gets outdated and thats why I say today, even Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and their records will also become irrelevant/non existence to the public 70-80 years from now. Big 3 would be the Tildens of those times.

Public only cares for people close to them in age or to their parents, nobody takes the grandparents or great grandparents generation seriously in any walk of life....
Click to expand...
One thing is for sure: Federer and Nadal will be talked about forever.
I'm still doubtful about Djokovic. Not because he's an inferior player, but because he doesn't possess the aesthetics and intangibles of Federer nor the uniqueness of Rafa.
Maybe it will be the opposite, with Djokovic turning out to be a bigger stats and aura outlier than Fedal.
 
Nuclear Warhead Sinner said:
One thing is for sure: Federer and Nadal will be talked about forever.
I'm still doubtful about Djokovic. Not because he's an inferior player, but because he doesn't possess the aesthetics and intangibles of Federer nor the uniqueness of Rafa.
Maybe it will be the opposite, with Djokovic turning out to be a bigger stats and aura outlier than Fedal.
Click to expand...

LOL @ Federer and Nadal being talked about forever.

Nobody among the kids born in 2010s decade will even care for Federer or Nadal. They dont have that much time to care for the past, kids are already having low attention spans and dont care of previous generations much, you think they will talk of Federer? for what ? He does not even hold any record anymore of importance....

And I am not saying they will care for Djokovic much, maybe they won't, Nole is as dull / cringe as it gets ... but even that dull guy has records which could keep his name in visible spectrum for kids.... but Federer ? ... .. or even Nadal for that matter, what does he have except 14 french opens ? His name will not be much relevant to kids except trivia.... Yes Big 3 will be remembered for decades but "forever" is laughable, they will be forgotten 50 years from now... why wait forever ? .... in 2074 itself we will see them forgotten and not talked about. ... as forgotten as rosewall is today maybe.....

none of them will have a Laver like status, I am sure... Our generation respects Laver but our next generations are not so kind to care for old farts like we do
 
Last edited:
mental midget said:
yeah too bad his legacy has gotten so...complicated? i mean, like you said, win the biggest tournament in the game at 17...and then turn around and defend itT a year later? outrageous.
Click to expand...
The fact is though that Becker won a total of 6 slams, which is considerably less than: Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Then, there is Connors, Lendl and Agassi with 8 and Wilander with 7. AGAIN, it is the total of slams and masters that should count, not the age they were won.
 
DSH said:
The current age of Alcaraz, number 2 in the world, do you know him?
:sneaky:
Click to expand...
Again, creating arbitrary “records” to inflate current generation potential and make things interesting as the Big 3 are slowly closing that chapter…. The “record” completely irrelevant that points to…nothing (examples would be all big 3 that at that age had different achievements and we all know how it “ended”)…
 
dr325i said:
Again, creating arbitrary “records” to inflate current generation potential and make things interesting as the Big 3 are slowly closing that chapter…. The “record” completely irrelevant that points to…nothing (examples would be all big 3 that at that age had different achievements and we all know how it “ended”)…
Click to expand...
It's not arbitrary. No one is saying 21 is the new gold standard for measuring things.

But since the current Masters champ is about to turn 21,lets look back and see how past players stack up at this current age. It's really not any more complicated than that.

Stop looking at everything through some stupid GOAT debate lens. This has nothing to do with how many he'll end up with 20 years from now. It's just an interesting stat for right now in the moment.
 
MeatTornado said:
It's not arbitrary. No one is saying 21 is the new gold standard for measuring things.

But since the current Masters champ is about to turn 21,lets look back and see how past players stack up at this current age. It's really not any more complicated than that.

Stop looking at everything through some stupid GOAT debate lens. This has nothing to do with how many he'll end up with 20 years from now. It's just an interesting stat for right now in the moment.
Click to expand...
Preach, buddy, for telling it like it is.
(y)
 
Razer said:
LOL @ Federer and Nadal being talked about forever.

Nobody among the kids born in 2010s decade will even care for Federer or Nadal. They dont have that much time to care for the past, kids are already having low attention spans and dont care of previous generations much, you think they will talk of Federer? for what ? He does not even hold any record anymore of importance....
Click to expand...

Anecdotally, the juniors and HS kids I am around in tennis still talk about Federer and Nadal, but Alcaraz comes up really often as well. Oddly with the college kids Kyrgios comes up, but more when they do something 'tricky' like an underhand serve. These are kids from 6 to college young people in their 20's. I think Fed and Nadal will still be talked about for a few generations because their parents will still talk about it, but yes, will eventually fade to the likes of Alcaraz or Sinner, depending on what they do career wise.

As far as this new generation being weak, it's just silly. It is actually easier to claim the Fedal era was weak because you had two top guys and Djokovic claim most titles, so really you only had three really good players that stood out. It is harder to break away from the pack now because the level of players has risen overall and on any given day or in any given tourney someone will break out. To me that is what makes tennis more exciting, which is something the WTA had for a while. You have IGA running away with it now, but still a good group of challengers behind. But no on wants to look at that side of the coin and still look to those very few exceptional players, which anyone saying Alcaraz or Sinner isn't, they aren't really loking at the bigger picture.

Most the time the "back in the day" folks vested too much in earlier tennis to see what modern tennis brings, and the arguing continues ad nauseum.

As far as Boris's comments, really both can be true with the stats so I'm not gonna kncok Boris for his take or the ATP/IW for their take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ghostofMecir
Record for consecutive matches played without losing in straight sets: Alcaraz hasn’t lost in straight sets in nearly a Year
Replies
38
Views
2K
ghostofMecir
ghostofMecir
T
The Ten True Changes Of The Guard In Tennis!
Replies
24
Views
549
Tennis Devolution
T
Winner Sinner
“The pressure destroyed me”: Alcaraz opens up about Sinner’s absence and the weight of expectations.
2 3
Replies
111
Views
2K
bullfan
B
Jack & Coke
The Magician's Final Trick
Replies
34
Views
4K
Jack & Coke
Jack & Coke
L
The Greatest Hard Court Players of the Open Era
Replies
41
Views
5K
BeHappy
B
Back
Top