Subway Tennis
Legend
Credit on predicting the RG final result. From what I can remember, you, @MeatTornado and @Yugram all predicted the final to play out the way it did.
What saddens me about Federer...
- Thread starter USO
- Start date
Credit on predicting the RG final result. From what I can remember, you, @MeatTornado and @Yugram all predicted the final to play out the way it did.
TennisManiac
Hall of Fame
You're probably right.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
GOATs may change but 90s Clay's legacy never dies
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Pretty sure Roger did better against Rafa at RG last year than Djok did this year.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Federer has a decent shot at two different Slams in 2021, but Nadal has no shot at any more than one Roland Garros title. Riiiiigggghhhhttt.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
So? Rafa can beat everyone at FO. Doesn’t mean that Novak is easily beatable outside of that
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I didn't say easily, did I?
Roger almost got him in the Wimbledon Final and Rafa smoked him today. So it can be done.
These guys are all getting worse as they age. So I think they can all lose to each other and we might be heading for a situation where they are vulnerable to each other everywhere outside of their favorite Slam.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
He's already suggested this and next year is an Olympic year. Fed playing clay is highly unlikely next year, or ever again. Could it happen? Of course, but unlikely. He said at Rome last year after he retired before taking the court, "I'm sad not to be able to take the court today, but am pleased to have said my goodbyes to Rome, a great city and tournament." That surely sounds like he'll never play there again.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Don't be sad. You are just coming to terms with what Nadal and Djokovic fans have known for a while. Fed was never the GOAT, it just seemed that way because of the inflated nature of his records thanks to the start of his career.
He's done nothing or nothing special since 2009 in terms of:
He's done nothing or nothing special since 2009 in terms of:
- YE # 1
- Week at # 1 (vast majority accumulated by 2009)
- US Open
- Roland Garros
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
The 2019 season sure did have the vibe of "one last rodeo" on the dirt. I think we're back in the same situation we were a couple years ago where the speculation was that he might play Paris one more time as part of a farewell tour but doubt we'll see a whole clay ramp up of multiple tournaments in the hopes of winning RG.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
And in that same time Nadal has done nothing special in terms of Australia or Wimbledon. What's his excuse?
titoelcolombiano
Legend
His excuse is that he's the greatest, dominated a slam and surface like no other, dominated Fed in the H2H and won his AO and one of his Wimbledons by beating Fed (not throught he Soderling backdoor) and won two of his USO's by beating Djoker. Now Fed can't even rest on having the slam record....
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Oh yeah that would've gone over great if a Fed fan said that to you any time in the last decade lol
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Plenty did, don't worry
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
ftfy
Last edited:
It's not really against Pete per se. It's against his asss kissers who are Fed haters.
Nate7-5
Hall of Fame
Oooooo woooow
TennisProExpert
Semi-Pro
Djokovic if he gets 2000 for AO and Wimbledon that’s 4000 free points from slams. Only 2000 for Nadal (USO). In this situation it’s unfair and basically gifting him the record.
Think he has to surpass it by at least 50 in this case for it to be legit.
TennisProExpert
Semi-Pro
Federer is better than Djokovic, and better than Nadal on 2/3 surfaces.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Djokovic is arguably better than Federer on 2/3 surfaces. No other player past or present has a legitimate argument other than Novak.
TennisProExpert
Semi-Pro
I wouldn’t put him ahead on any unless you split hard into slow and fast. Talking about peak level, which is what I assume the troll meant by better.
Since I started watching tennis in the 90s, the only players I’d have above or equal to Federer are Sampras on grass and Rafa on clay. Djokovic to me is just the next generation who started beating Fed more as he declined from his prime. That’s just my view.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I wasn't referring to peak level and ultimately it only matters what a player's results are, not how they came about.
Rafa isn't any threat at Wimbledon + hasn't been since 2011, Djoks is a way more complete player on every surface bar clay
Please do not forget the fact that Rafa reached the semi finals of Wimbledon on the last two occasions and was very close to winning the title in 2018 (He was extremely close to beating Novak in Semifinal and would have definitely beaten Anderson in potential final).
lol The likes of Isner, Karlovic, Raonic, Roddick and Ivanisevic prove you wrong as they have way more aces and hit harder than Sampras.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
So Sampras never fired a barrage of aces, no?
Sampras was a clay-court bunny?
Just because someone else hits harder does not mean the previous hard-hitters are suddenly not servebots anymore... Jesus wept, great logic there.
You make zero sense. Not only do the players I mentioned hit harder but they served more aces as well, but guess how many Slams they have won combined? Two!
Try again kid
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
Just barely? Nadal already has 20, and didn't even drop a set.....clearly headed for a lot more.
In an interview this year, Nadal said he wants to retire on 25 slams.
And if Nadal's thinking about 25, he's probably headed for even more than 25.
The thing to remember about Nadal, is he's winning the US Open more frequently now than ever before.....He won 2 of last 3 that he played, and retired in the SF of 2018.
Well a single injury can ruin all plans. It's not going to get easier to win Slams for any of the big 3.
25 Slams are more than huge
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Again, the same logic fallacy, which I explained to you the first time.
Just because someone BETTER shows up (at least in terms of service speed and numbers) does not change the nature of the game of the guy before him.
Capiche?
You are trying to re-write history because Karlovic and Isner exist. And because Ivanisevic was a servebot too. Does not make Sampras Not-a-servebot.
How do I explain this to you in an even simpler way...
Let's say you are the marble champ in your kiddie playground. For a year (which is a long period in kiddie-time). Then suddenly a guy beats you and keeps beating you. This does NOT mean that suddenly you were never a champ.
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
The opposite actually, injuries have never stood in the way of Nadal.
Every time he's injured, he comes back and wins slams.
And he's less injured in recent years than ever before.
He was injured more regularly in his early years.
That's why it will take a long time to retire, because he'll keep coming back.....because he knows he can.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Nomen est omen. Nadal a lot.
How is he going to get to 25 though... Not getting younger. Only 4 slams a year, only two he can realistically win per year, and those aren't guaranteed coz others can win them too, others that are getting better.
Use your BRAIN god damnit!
How many slams do Karlovic, Isner etc have? How many Slams does Sampras have?? Do you even get that?
Evern Federer has more aces than Sampras, which is due to his longer career but nobody calls him a servebot either.
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
Ah, he didn't even drop a set, and he was playing in the worst conditions for his game.
When is he going to stop winning Roland Garros?
And when is he going to stop winning the US Open?
And he remains a contender at Wimbledon, having only lost to Djokovic 2018 (10-8 5th Set), and Federer 2019 (and Nadal won the 2nd Set 6-1 after losing the 1st Set in a tiebreaker).
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Karlovic and Isner would have won slams had they been in that era. Even the very unprofessional, idiotic-strategy Ivanisevic managed to reach 4 finals.
Karlovic and Isner were unlucky to have played in the homogenization era, in the sense that courts and balls were slowed down.
Do you not know even the basics? 90s tennis and modern tennis, completely different things. Krajicek won Wimbledon with his serve, Sampras too, Ivanisevic, Stich. There were no rallies.
Capiche?
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Haven't you noticed how many slams he's missed in his career due to injury? Or had to W/O?
He is not going to have less injuries, but more. He won't be playing all those slams, be sure of that.
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
He won't need to play all those slams, because he's assured of winning the next 3 French Opens, based on what we just witnessed.
So that's 23 slams, and do you really think he can't win 2 more slams elsewhere?
He's a contender everywhere.....even when he wasn't allowed to practice his defense in January 2019 (after ankle surgery in late 2018) he made the AO Final.
Nadal has won 2 the last 3 US Opens he's played, and Thiem was horrible in this year's US Open Final, so you know Nadal can win more US Opens and tie Federer-Sampras-Connors with 5.
LOL Karlovic and Isner never even made it anywhere near the semis in this so called "weak era" if I am not mistaken.
You just proved again that you don't even try to use logic. Stich and Krajicek were much better players than Karlovic and Isner and they still only won Wimbledon only once. And yet you call Sampras a servebot, let that sink in lol
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Machan ... none of those guys ever played each other a single time on fast grass. Sampras isn't even from their generation
And in fact, one available statistic tells us that Djokovic dominates Federer at Wimbledon. Yet you have a remarkable insight that tells you the two will beat up on Nadal/Djokovic on fast grass?As @Dedans Penthouse reminds us frequently ... "My favourite male tennis idol is better than your favourite male tennis idol!"
Last edited by a moderator:
Omega_7000
Legend
What saddens me is that we will have someone that has constantly abused the rules (slowing down everytime he's down for example) with the GS record...
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
I know, yesterday I expected Djokovic to act like he was injured and call for the trainer, but good to see it never happened.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
You are mistaken. Because you've been following pro tennis for what... 2 years now? Isner semis Wimby.
Besides, you called it the weak era, not me. This is not a weak era. It is a career inflation era, all generations will have longer careers from now on.
Makes no difference that Krajicek was better than Isner, if he was (he made MANY unforced errors), Stich had no forehand.
Isner almost reached the finales of Wimby recently (at age 33 or 34)- in this slowed-down era. Imagine what he could have done in the fast-surface/balls 90s.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Lendl?
Shame on him.
He needs to be banned from the history books for his crimes against humanity.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Even funnier is that he promotes ultra-fast surfaces just so his hero can win more.Machan ... none of those guys ever played each other a single time on fast grass. Sampras isn't even from their generation
As @Dedans Penthouse reminds us frequently ... "My favourite male tennis idol is better than your favourite male tennis idol!"
Nevermind how that would ruin tennis, all that matters is the hero's slam number...
This is why fanboiz aren't allowed to vote at ATP meetings.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Machan ... agreed!
And somehow these fanboys remain convinced that players with other-worldly talent wouldn't tailor their game for a surface that plays faster. However, their idol would have no problem doing that I would say it this way: Sampras was the best in the triple combination of serve/volley/return during the fast 90s conditions and with the racquets they had back then.
He wasn’t the best in any of those 3 categories as a standalone shot, but those who were couldn’t compete with him in the other 2 categories (Serve: Ivanisevic; Volley: Edberg/Rafter; Return: Agassi).
And he also was the best baseliner out of the serve-and-volley players. So while he still was a niche player who mainly succeeded in his favourite conditions, he was less so than many others. That’s why he won the most Slams in his era.
Oh wow he made it to the WB semis once in all those years? That changes everything lol
So you call this an era career inflated era yet call the 90s weak? Almost none of the younger players can win any Slams unless the big 3 pass Slams or are injured. The reason why Krajicek and Stich won less was because other players were simply better and had stronger wills.
Dude I have been following tennis since the 80s, you probably weren't even born then. You calling Sampras a servebot is beyond stupid since he is a 14 times GS winner who also won 5 US Open and 2 AO. The fact remains that Isner and Karlovic hit way more aces and harder than Sampras and yet never won anything which disproves your whole argument. Sampras could serve and volley, he had a lethal forehand, moved a lot better, was a fit player and had the mindset of a champion. So much for being a servebot, kid.
Similar threads
