Your opinions that majority do not share vol. 2

OhYes

Legend
Wouldn't surprise me at all. In return everyone raves about how talent he is, inflating his market value.
And it's always the same, couple of tweeners here and there, couple of underarm serves - he gets entertaining, talented, good for tennis badge.
 

Atennisone

Hall of Fame
Connors would have won around 12 slams had he played the AO more, played RG from 74-78 and were the USO on hard court from 75-77

Thiem won't win more than 2 RG titles and probably not more than 3 slams total

Kyrgios will never win a slam, or perhaps 1 at the very most

Zverev will win more than one slam
You have to be crazy if you think Thiem will win more than 3 slams. Agree on that one and the majority should too.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
I think Kyrgios is paid to do all these things he is doing now. In clay season it was attack on Nadal and Djokovic, in grass season he is dealing more with Djokovic.
I can't speak for Nadal's case much, but Djokovic was attacked many times before mainly by British press and journalists, with things that are mainly gossips or constructed scenarios that are far from truth. They tried to put him out of balance, to deal with things outside of tennis, they became quiet all of a sudden but now this idiot jumps in with his little play and does their job. If NK is payed 750.000$ to play in Laver Cup, I think he is on someones payroll to be "maniacally obsessed with Novak" too.
If that is true (people deliberately distracting Djokovic from tennis), then it is his own fault by some degree. Because let’s be honest, even his fans have to admit this, he is SUCH an easy target for doing that.

That is his big disadvantage against Fedal. I have never seen Fedal acting any differently on the court, match by match and year by year. Nadal once had the issue with this French woman who claimed that he’s a drug cheater. What did he do? He sued her and moved on, case closed.

Djokovic on the other hand wants to be loved by anyone, and if he doesn’t feel worshipped enough, he argues about every single non-issue in sight, not even realising that his image gets worse and worse in that situation.

The French Open match against Thiem was a new height in this regard. Just imagine, this guy plays for the 2nd NCYGS, and all of a sudden all that matters is a simple meaningless time violation at 5-5 in the 3rd set. He argued over that until the set was gone and beyond it. Meanwhile the audience whistled and he made gestures to them. The day before he almost refused to try at all because of the wind. Come on, this guy doesn’t even need a Kyrgios to distract him. His own volatile character is enough way too often.
 

OhYes

Legend
If that is true (people deliberately distracting Djokovic from tennis), then it is his own fault by some degree. Because let’s be honest, even his fans have to admit this, he is SUCH an easy target for doing that.

That is his big disadvantage against Fedal. I have never seen Fedal acting any differently on the court, match by match and year by year. Nadal once had the issue with this French woman who claimed that he’s a drug cheater. What did he do? He sued her and moved on, case closed.

Djokovic on the other hand wants to be loved by anyone, and if he doesn’t feel worshipped enough, he argues about every single non-issue in sight, not even realising that his image gets worse and worse in that situation.

The French Open match against Thiem was a new height in this regard. Just imagine, this guy plays for the 2nd NCYGS, and all of a sudden all that matters is a simple meaningless time violation at 5-5 in the 3rd set. He argued over that until the set was gone and beyond it. Meanwhile the audience whistled and he made gestures to them. The day before he almost refused to try at all because of the wind. Come on, this guy doesn’t even need a Kyrgios to distract him. His own volatile character is enough way too often.
I understand what are you saying. But...
We all are not the same, we come from different backgrounds, we have different perspective what can make us happy and what can we do to make it happen.
It is wrong to say Djokovic is to blame if some things that are not part of sport can have more influence on him than on Nadal.
Also I don't think it would stop if Novak wouldn't show his frustration. Don't tell me that there is someone who picks a player that is susceptible to provocations and does it mainly to him bcs it works.
Everyone can get distracted by such unsportsmanlike behaviour directed to them. And if it's repetitive, you have to ask - why is that ?
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
1. There is no GOAT because it's impossible to compare eras. Seriously. I see people struggle to even compare eras ten years apart. What are you going to do if you start comparing someone like Laver to Djokovic? Next, think of all the ifs and buts you see in the GOAT debate. Surely these apply to every player and not just your favorite?

2. Kyrgios is overrated. This is coming from someone who used to like watching him. I'm not talking about him overall, but his talent is overrated. It's good enough to win Masters and maybe, maybe a GS, but he's not some sort of omnipotent deity who peaks when he wants to. It seems like Kyrgios never loses because he was actually outplayed.

3. Fed's RG/Halle kit wasn't that bad. People need to be especially grateful that he didn't get what Nike has their players wearing, *shudders*.

4. Connors should have a career Grand Slam and definitely at least ten overall. He missed out on the French Open so many times throughout his peak years in the 70s due to the ban (I think he also declined to play at some point???). He made seven straight QF or better appearances after the ban, when he was already leaving his peak years. 1976 French Open was definitely winnable for him, since Borg got knocked out early.

5. If the ATP sped up Wimbledon to suit the demands of the "homogenization" whiners, it would be incredibly boring. You wouldn't be seeing the great volleys of the 70s and 80s. You'd be seeing the serve, serve, serve of the 90s, possibly to an even worse degree. It's because of how much lighter the rackets are today compared to back then, making it easier to serve huge. Expect Isner to consistently make it deep in Wimbledon.

6 (a continuation of 5). For the tournament officials to fix this problem, they would have to enact restrictions on equipment such as poly strings. In my opinion, the courts should be a bit faster, but nothing too crazy. If we're going by CPI, something like 42-43 sounds about right. That would put Wimbledon in the medium-fast range.

7. Clay is not boring.

8. The next gen is not that good, but the hate surrounding them is bordering on ridiculous. Some of the stuff I see about FAA just makes me want to laugh. I mean, the dude is 18 years old and everyone expects him to win multiple titles already. Him already reaching three ATP finals and a Masters semifinal at this age is already super impressive. I find it hilarious how people predict his career will turn out based on what he's doing as a teenager. They're called next gen for a reason.

9. Nadal's serve is alright, but it's his first serve percentage that really does it. It's consistently in the top 10 on the tour, which really says a lot. Someone who's that consistent in getting their first serve in is going to be tough to break, no matter what.

That's nine, I guess.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
-That LC retroactive W/L is fine because you shouldn't have been out there unless you were taking it seriously to begin with.

-Djokovic was genuinely bothered by the backlash over Kermode's ousting.

-UO crowds aren't as bad as many say.

-Nadal didn't deserve to be 2017 YE #1
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
What you’re saying is Federer is better returner than Andy is a server.
Roddick got aced almost 60% more often than Federer

On average Roddick hit 55% more aces than Fed.

The gap is very similar.

Then Fed also had a read on Roddick's serve. When he didn't is when matches got close
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
This is the greatest match of all time.


''Agassi looks like he was playing in about second gear. Was Petchey not that good?''

I've always believed that styles make fights. Andre was all wrong for me on that day.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
For people with too much time on their hands :
Vol.1

Rip me part folks,For me:

1.Wawrinka has a slam in him. Most probably a slam final at least.

2. Djokovic would have beaten Nadal at RG 2011. For this I have no doubt.

3. Djokovic has a significantly higher peak on grass than clay due to his serve return combination not being neutralised.

4. If Djokovic wins one more slam, especially USO, I put him greater than/ equal to Rafa due to his overall record.

5. Shoot me but I think Federer can defeat Djokodal back to back this year in WB. Provided he hits the ball as well as he did in FO. They both don't seem to be in any spectacular grass forms of past.And Fed has blitzed Nadal on slow HC even. However a motivated Djokovic means game over for both of Fedal.


6. More of a hope , but somehow think Murray will do a decent comeback.
I would be over the moon if this happened.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
1. It is hard to call anybody the GOAT. Not only because it’s hard to compare eras due to surfaces,balls,equipment but possibly because all greats have enough of a flaw to hold them back.
2. 2011/12 Federer at slams wouldn’t match up with 2014-early 2016 Djokovic at slams as well as some people think.
3. Since the game changing with the courts and balls in the early 2000s Nadal hasn’t gained as much compared his rivals as much as people think.
4. Murray might have had his best clay season level-wise in 2011 and not in 2015-16 level wise.
5. Djokovic competition in 2011 gets a bit to much credit while his 2014-15 competition doesn’t get enough.
6. People under-look the physicality involved in Federer game pre 2013-14.
7. Ivan Lendl had the toughest competition of any ATG and always will.
8. 2012 Murray on grass would have had a great chance of beating any Djokovic on grass save for the 2015 Djokovic who beat Cllic in the QF and Federer in the final.
9. Nadal peak level can often get under-looked due to his relative inability to sustain it over time compared to his rivals.
10. Each of the big 3 have a good case for being better or worse than the others.
11. Federer peak level at the USO gets a bit too much credit while his AO peak level doesn’t get enough credit.
12. Federer and Djokovic needed to beat Nadal in great form to win a 2nd RG each cement themselves as more all rounded than him.
13. Borg possibly has as high as a peak level as Nadal on red clay.
14. 2012 was the only true year of the Big 4 era were they all co dominated and looked at a similar level.
15. Tennis pre 1970s and going all the way back was not as weak and primitive as some people claim.
16. Sampras is under looked on clay and slower surfaces and would have had more success on clay today.
17. Rebound Ace is not as fast and attacker friendly as people think over Plexicushion pre 2016-17.
18. Clay is not a boring surface.
19. USO 2015 might have been Federer best USO since his peak years on the surface (2004-2008)
20. 2009 Federer served nearly as well as 2015 Federer did.
Those are 20.
You mean Sampras on poly era clay?
 

akatim

New User
1. There is no goat, as Third Serve stated. Agree with his point.
2. I am a tennis fan, so I don't dislike any player unless they have a poor attitude or behavior. Yet, I liked McEnroe so go figure. Kyrios is the only player I currently have no interest in watching, I couldn't stand Connors. Nadals my current favorite, the physical all-out nature was what I liked about him. I like Fed and Novak too, I will be saddened when we see them battle for the last time. I enjoy any two of the three play. 5 setters, tie breakers, nail biters and it's a good day. It would be hilarious if all three ended up tied in grand slam wins. Borg was my favorite as a kid in the 70's, he's my all time favorite.
3. I think too many people are too negative regarding players they don't like. Life's short, enjoy it.
 

BHServe

Semi-Pro
I think Kyrgios is paid to do all these things he is doing now. In clay season it was attack on Nadal and Djokovic, in grass season he is dealing more with Djokovic.
I can't speak for Nadal's case much, but Djokovic was attacked many times before mainly by British press and journalists, with things that are mainly gossips or constructed scenarios that are far from truth. They tried to put him out of balance, to deal with things outside of tennis, they became quiet all of a sudden but now this idiot jumps in with his little play and does their job. If NK is payed 750.000$ to play in Laver Cup, I think he is on someones payroll to be "maniacally obsessed with Novak" too.
I’ve been wondering this Kyrgios’ act somewhat same way.

He may be paid and/or he is paving himself publicity (read: money) with all that nonsense rather than letting his tennis do the talking. he may find that easier way to cash in than doing that only through success in tennis.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
- Zverev will win a slam
- Nadal is the least talented of the Big 4
- US open (not the French open) is the worst slam to watch
- Australian open (Not Wimbledon) is the best slam to watch
- Serena Williams is one of the nicest WTA players on the tour.
- Wawrinka was not clean when he won his slams.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
- Zverev will win a slam
- Nadal is the least talented of the Big 4
- US open (not the French open) is the worst slam to watch
- Australian open (Not Wimbledon) is the best slam to watch
- Serena Williams is one of the nicest WTA players on the tour.
- Wawrinka was not clean when he won his slams.
For starters, there is no such thing as big 4.
 

Pmasterfunk

Semi-Pro
Kyrgios is by far the most normal person on tour. Since all the others are obsessive type-As that are the norm in professional sports, and Kyrgios being a relatively average joe - lazy, unmotivated, looking for work/life balance like most normal human beings - he comes off as crazy.

5. If the ATP sped up Wimbledon to suit the demands of the "homogenization" whiners, it would be incredibly boring. You wouldn't be seeing the great volleys of the 70s and 80s. You'd be seeing the serve, serve, serve of the 90s, possibly to an even worse degree. It's because of how much lighter the rackets are today compared to back then, making it easier to serve huge. Expect Isner to consistently make it deep in Wimbledon.
I remember McEnroe saying the new racquets didn't make the serve that much bigger, but helped returners because the lighter racquets were easier to manoeuvre into position on quick returns.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
For starters, there is no such thing as big 4.
I see from your profile that you Joined this year. Maybe you are a former member who got banned and made a new account, maybe not. Either way, I am now of the view that you have not been following tennis long enough to have seen the years of tennis when the tour WAS dominated by those 4 and the term was universal and no matter how you (or others) feel about the subject now, The big 4 was a thing and will always be a thing and your stubborn denial of it means nothing.
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
For people with too much time on their hands :
Vol.1

Rip me part folks,For me:

1.Wawrinka has a slam in him. Most probably a slam final at least.

2. Djokovic would have beaten Nadal at RG 2011. For this I have no doubt.

3. Djokovic has a significantly higher peak on grass than clay due to his serve return combination not being neutralised.

4. If Djokovic wins one more slam, especially USO, I put him greater than/ equal to Rafa due to his overall record.

5. Shoot me but I think Federer can defeat Djokodal back to back this year in WB. Provided he hits the ball as well as he did in FO. They both don't seem to be in any spectacular grass forms of past.And Fed has blitzed Nadal on slow HC even. However a motivated Djokovic means game over for both of Fedal.


6. More of a hope , but somehow think Murray will do a decent comeback.
I get it with most of these. But number 5...

That’s no longer about form imo. Especially Djokovic. He just seems to have the beating of Fed at this stage in their careers and has always “been there” mentally whenever they’ve played.

In short, as a Fed fan i’ll be hoping someone takes care of Djokovic, ‘cos Fed ain’t beating him whatever happens.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
I see from your profile that you Joined this year. Maybe you are a former member who got banned and made a new account, maybe not. Either way, I am now of the view that you have not been following tennis long enough to have seen the years of tennis when the tour WAS dominated by those 4 and the term was universal and no matter how you (or others) feel about the subject now, The big 4 was a thing and will always be a thing and your stubborn denial of it means nothing.
I watch tennis more than 10 years, even though I didn't post here before. To compare Murray to the big 3 is a joke. He is as far from their achievements as it is possible. And to say Murray is more talented than Nadal is the joke of the year. :-D:-D:-D:-D
 

290Pistol

New User
The Big 3's titles carry 60 percent of the weight that their predecessors carry. We've never seen such a horrid excuse of a generation of 20 something year olds like we have seen the last decade and basically the Big 3 have feasted on the worst generation of tennis players in history and their "accomplishments" need to be better measured in the grand scheme of things. Add that with the slowed down, homogenized surfaces and cookie cutter tennis with no variety in play, their slams need to be auto adjusted to more of the 8-10 slam range spectrum. Not 15-16 slams and more
 

Raining hopes

Hall of Fame
The Big 3's titles carry 60 percent of the weight that their predecessors carry. We've never seen such a horrid excuse of a generation of 20 something year olds like we have seen the last decade and basically the Big 3 have feasted on the worst generation of tennis players in history and their "accomplishments" need to be better measured in the grand scheme of things. Add that with the slowed down, homogenized surfaces and cookie cutter tennis with no variety in play, their slams need to be auto adjusted to more of the 8-10 slam range spectrum. Not 15-16 slams and more

Oh Hello 90s Clay ! You good ? But it seems like you are missing RANDOM capitals and ROFLMAO.
 

WestboroChe

Hall of Fame
I agree that Sampras played the style that was the best for him and most likely it would still have been the best for him today.

But he wouldn’t win Slams with it in this era, no matter how good he was, because the modern racquets would punish him at the net.

Sampras is a good example for an ATG who was born at the right time, when offensive first-strike power mattered a lot while passing shots were still extremely difficult. He would have also been much less successful if he had played earlier.

I therefore generally think the often heard opinion "A great champion would adapt to any conditions" is wrong. Different conditions make different champions instead. Federer could be one of the very rare exceptions.
I think you are somewhat mistaken there. Sampras wasn’t really a S&V player except on grass. I think he would have been just fine playing in today’s field of mental midgets. However I do think that the way the game is played now would not suit him with his anemia he would struggle to win the long points that have become the norm now. I think his power and mental toughness would have made him a top player in any era. Maybe not ATG but a top 10 player with a couple of slams for sure.
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
The Big 3/Big 4 era has been bad for tennis.
Out of interest, why do you think this? The only reason I ask is that without them i’m not sure i’d be watching too much tennis. They’ve taken the game to another level, forced each other to improve time and again. I almost can’t imagine the game without them.
Sure it’s going on too long, but i’m not convinced they’ve been bad for tennis.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
I think you are somewhat mistaken there. Sampras wasn’t really a S&V player except on grass. I think he would have been just fine playing in today’s field of mental midgets. However I do think that the way the game is played now would not suit him with his anemia he would struggle to win the long points that have become the norm now. I think his power and mental toughness would have made him a top player in any era. Maybe not ATG but a top 10 player with a couple of slams for sure.
Okay, a top 10 player, surely we can talk about that. If that would lead to a couple of Slams is another question.

And he didn’t do S&V after every first and second serve (he only did that on grass), but at least after almost every first serve, even on clay. He really tried to win RG with S&V. Only in the first few years of his career he was more of an all-rounder.

The mental toughness depends on how good his game generally works I think. He knew that if his serve is good enough he would have the easy volley. So it’s also easier to be mentally tough as if instead you have to hope (like today) that the passing shot isn’t the best.

Nothing would be played on Sampras’ terms today, and his success would suffer severely. The well-know picture of him getting past left and right on clay (be it on his own serve or after hopeless attempts of chip-and-charge) would transfer to all surfaces.

His style on clay back then was the proof that he either couldn’t rallye there with any decent player or didn’t trust in his abilities. Imagine how this attitude would be punished in today’s overall baseline era.

I was a huge Sampras fan as a child by the way.
 

Cashman

Professional
Out of interest, why do you think this? The only reason I ask is that without them i’m not sure i’d be watching too much tennis. They’ve taken the game to another level, forced each other to improve time and again. I almost can’t imagine the game without them.
Sure it’s going on too long, but i’m not convinced they’ve been bad for tennis.
They've changed the economics of the sport, hypercharging its success at the same time as tying it to the success of their own personal brands. You said it yourself - without them, you wouldn't be watching too much tennis.

I mean, Sampras and Agassi were big - but the numbers associated with these guys are almost beyond comprehension. They have won almost half a billion dollars in prize-money alone. Add in their endorsements, and they have upwards of $2 billion in direct earnings. The commercial clout they they control on the tour - in the sport - is incalculable. They make or break tournaments. It's not a coincidence that most of the changes made to the tour since 2004 have benefited them and perpetuated their success - ATP revenue has almost quadrupled during that period.

The sport has become so financially addicted to these mega-brands that I think people are naive to think that we will see it disappear when the current crop of players retire. The next group may be bigger, and less successful - but the general principle of having a defined group of players consistently at the top of the rankings, with long-term success across all tournaments, on all surfaces, in all countries will continue. So we can look forward to a future with more advantages for the top players, more disparity between the haves and the have-nots, more control by the elite players over tournaments and seedings and surfaces.

Personally I don't think that's good for the game of tennis.
 
Last edited:
Fed would not have won a CYGS even if Nadal didn't exist.
Nadal's resume at Wimbledon would be similar to WTF if the grass was artificial.
It was mono, not Nadal, that prevented Fed's records from being unapproachable.
Borg > Nadal, and Djokovic.
Keep the servebox speed the same, speed up the rest of the court.
Let the 1 seed decide which half the 3 and 4 seeds are drawn into.
Even if there is another superstar; American men's tennis is dead, and not coming back.
 

Zardoz7/12

Professional
Djokovic and Federer are in the top 10 greatest Clay court players in the open era (Obviously behind Nadal)
Nadal's 2013 was better than Nadal's 2008.
Murray hit his peak in 2012/2013.
Federer's level in 2015 was better than his level in 2017.
Kyrgios is a good guy.
Davydenko is more worthy of a slam than Nalbandian or Rios.
I enjoy watching Ivo Karlovic play to see the emotional tug of war when his opponents constantly can't return his serves.
 

SamprasisGOAT

Professional
The Big 3's titles carry 60 percent of the weight that their predecessors carry. We've never seen such a horrid excuse of a generation of 20 something year olds like we have seen the last decade and basically the Big 3 have feasted on the worst generation of tennis players in history and their "accomplishments" need to be better measured in the grand scheme of things. Add that with the slowed down, homogenized surfaces and cookie cutter tennis with no variety in play, their slams need to be auto adjusted to more of the 8-10 slam range spectrum. Not 15-16 slams and more
Absolutely spot on my friend
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
They've changed the economics of the sport, hypercharging its success at the same time as tying it to the success of their own personal brands. You said it yourself - without them, you wouldn't be watching too much tennis.

I mean, Sampras and Agassi were big - but the numbers associated with these guys are almost beyond comprehension. They have won almost half a billion dollars in prize-money alone. Add in their endorsements, and they have upwards of $2 billion in direct earnings. The commercial clout they they control on the tour - in the sport - is incalculable. They make or break tournaments. It's not a coincidence that most of the changes made to the tour since 2004 have benefited them and perpetuated their success - ATP revenue has almost quadrupled during that period.

The sport has become so financially addicted to these mega-brands that I think people are naive to think that we will see it disappear when the current crop of players retire. The next group may be bigger, and less successful - but the general principle of having a defined group of players consistently at the top of the rankings, with long-term success across all tournaments, on all surfaces, in all countries will continue. So we can look forward to a future with more advantages for the top players, more disparity between the haves and the have-nots, more control by the elite players over tournaments and seedings and surfaces.

Personally I don't think that's good for the game of tennis.
Compelling argument.

But i’d also suggest it’s swings and roundabouts. There will surely be a dip in interest when these guys retire. Tennis will surely lose a lot of the mainstream popularity that has, admittedly, been built around those 3 in particular.

I’m not sure the game of tennis will benefit from effectively being a lower quality product. And i’m still not 100% convinced that the travails of the tour are a result of big 3 success. But I certainly see your point.
 
Top