Very much agreed, and while "Next Gen" and "Zed/Med/Tsit Gen" were/are disappointments, I also think that they caught a lot more abuse than they deserved. Not only did they have to take the stage after "The Beatles" [of tennis], but they also had to outplay them. Or if you will, try to come after Shakespeare and outwrite him.
Zverev will catch abuse in every era. His real life comp might be berdych who I distinctly remember was abused heavily in his playing days and now fans look past all the mugging choking and losing meekly.
One one of my motivations for this thread was a thread I commented on this morning (even if it started as a partial "troll thread") about Nishikori. Although he "never won anything"...actually, he did win quite a bit, just not slams. He was/is great to watch, as were other smaller-sized players, like Goffin, Diego and Dolgopolov. They were all fun watches for me. (For some reason, I couldn't get into David Ferrer that much, but I also admired how consistently and persistently he battled.) It can't just be about the slam race and "stolen glory".
I think this is true. If you're a new fan and Alcaraz or Sinner are your favorite players, do you even care about Federer, Nadal or Djokovic?
Thats the problem. People on this forum are delusional about how much the average american knows about tennis. Most people I know who don't actively play tennis don't even know the names "Novak Djokovic" or "Jannik Sinner". Just Fed, Nadal, Venus, and Serena. Maybe Sharapova or Coco if you're lucky.
The problem with this is that Sincaraz have losing records vs ancient Nadavic. The only “silver lining” is that Sinner has a tied record vs Joker.
I truly don’t foresee anyone beating this. (hopefully).
he is considering equal, by their fans, now when he is actually on his own tier and clearly above them by some margin! you know, no GOATs or 3 GOATs BS or all is equal BUT stile and legacy BS.
It's not that difficult. Sinner was 79-6 last year. Could have been 81-5 with hawk eye on clay
I get it, but would also appreciate this thread staying as non-partisan as possible.
If you're a new fan and Alcaraz or Sinner, do you think any of them believe that Nadal or Djokovic are anywhere in the same stratosphere as either one of them?
Latest is the greatest is not the concept . But the concept is , why should I care for the past greats.If you're a new fan and Alcaraz or Sinner, do you think any of them believe that Nadal or Djokovic are anywhere in the same stratosphere as either one of them?
Most people don't have much of a concept of history. The latest is the greatest. Full stop. And of course, these two swept the slams last year.
Anyway, no, they're not anywhere near the same stratosphere as either one of them. At least that's what I've been told by a young Sinner fan.
I do think that tennis "needs" more Alcaraz-Sinner matchups at slams. They have met three times at slams -- two of them 5-setters, and a four-setter -- but none at a slam final.
You attack we attack
But it's not only "them" -- let's keep the general idea moving, please.
Again, they have losing records to the guys they’d be comparing them to, lol. All it takes is a single Google search and they’d figure it out. Imagine this, an “old fan” and a “new fan” are arguing who’s better between RAFA and Sincaraz. And the new fan says that Sincaraz would both smoke RAFA if they played him. And after doing aforementioned Google search finds out that it’s actually Sincaraz who’re always going to have the losing record in that matchup. There’s being ignorant in history and then there’s just being lazy. For example, when I became a fan of RAFA in 04 I went looking for any possible matches I might have missed. And the first matchup I looked for was any possible match where he would have played Guga to see how he faired against him.If you're a new fan and Alcaraz or Sinner, do you think any of them believe that Nadal or Djokovic are anywhere in the same stratosphere as either one of them?
Most people don't have much of a concept of history. The latest is the greatest. Full stop. And of course, these two swept the slams last year.
Anyway, no, they're not anywhere near the same stratosphere as either one of them. At least that's what I've been told by a young Sinner fan.
No, I would not accept that it's in my head. The thought that fed is better player is talked by your fanbase every day. Or single hander is better.
the cult mentality is laughable lol
Even 81-5 wouldn’t beaten it though. It’s stood the test of time since 84. maybe sinner could do it if everyone else really shîts the bed.
I don't have thin skin at all. Preferring someone is completely fine.
yeah. I don’t like the idolization of athletes in general.
I have seen the attack by so many members from this forum itself.
So insecure. One of Nole's fan is obsessed with 'Nole is GOAT'
Exactly. There's a distinct difference between a true tennis fan(open-minded) and an obsessed fan
Berdych was actually not such a perennial choker. His score against the big three at slams is actually better than Murray’s. I think what drove many (especially Fed and Djoko fans) off, was his idiotic fangirling towards Nadal which caused the impression that he was very happy to lose to his daddy.
Yes he had issues with big 3 but even Andy owned him. Ferrer beat him in hc bo5. He was too much of a punching bag.
How do you come to that conclusion? Both are extremely talented and talent is a way too complex concept to make such a plain statement. Djokovic won his first slam at a younger age than Fed and was generally successful earlier. Not that this means he was more talented as different talents develop differently, but the phrase “Fed is naturally talented, Djokovic had to “build” his talent” doesn’t sound logical to me against this background.
He still reached a slam final and beat Murray at slams. Nobody expected him to be a multiple slam champion.
This fact single-handedly disqualifies Andy Murray from any ATG discussions.
One of many.
