Your opinions that majority of people do not share?

The official count of Slam titles should include moral victories.

giphy.gif
 
Red Rick said:
It's like the cycling's Grand Tours being reduced from 23 days to a week (the format of other stage races). It's taking the one defining feature that makes it different from lesser events, the one thing that makes all the legendary matches of history so special, and throwing it on a dumpster fire. What does tennis possibly have to gain by going Bo3 in Slams?

Don't get me wrong. Tennis will survive. Because braindead casual fans will barely care, rich yups will still buy the VIP arrangements, and because all the media ever does is make things seem better or worse than they are to people too stupid to know better.

So yeah, tennis will survive. For all the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
Can certainly see the potential for this happening. Have people seen the number of hits even unofficial uploads of Laver Cup matches get? This is going to be huge. The format is very attractive.

BUT.. I see the day this format takes over slams as really far off. It MAY start eating into Masters if wannabe tournaments like it come up. I mean, why should Fed have all the fan? What's stopping Nadal or Djokovic from having similar tournaments of their own? It could well happen. The Big Three are bigger than the game. We know this because we have seen even in Wimbledon the officials helping them at the expense of lower ranked players. So they won't just disappear. They will probably take up enormously influential roles in tennis once they retire from the pro tour. Fed has found a way to do it even while still playing. But coming back to why I think it won't displace the slams, because Test cricket has survived twelve years after the introduction of Twenty 20 cricket. In fact, the most remarkable ODI World Cup final and the most remarkable Test (Ashes) both happened this year. I think instead events like Laver Cup grow the sport while the traditional base continues to support it in its pure form. From my perspective, this is not a completely bad thing because tennis is overly dependent on rich old people splurging their retirement money on tournaments. We need it to capture the attention of younger fans too. And Laver Cup can do that. But should a promoter like figure also be playing in the pro tour? I don't think so but I know the drill, St Federer and all that.
 
Raining hopes said:
What are views that most people would not agree on?

Mine would be:

1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009.

Irrelevant.

2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality.

Five? Try 10.

3.Del Porto would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured.

I hope that´s not an unpopular opinion because it is so obviously true.

4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky.

Irrelevant.

5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass.

Obscure and irrelevant.

6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level.

Very questionable. He´s only played two 5-setters.

7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon.

That´s probably correct.

8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal.

Yes, there was. When he was 11 and not yet ready to trash Cash and Moya.

9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead.

He is somewhat more talented but that´s pretty much it. In terms of clutch he is by far the weakest of the three. Clutch is where champs are best measured.

10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more.

Irrelevant. Another opinon about nuances.

11.There has not been any significant change in the sport since early 2000s

There doesn´t have to be. I am more than happy with the way tennis is being played on the men´s tour since, especially compared to the awful 90s and its servebotting.
Click to expand...
 
If Porkwrinka got into shape he’d be trouble for Djokovic.***

***Post approved by Jack Sock.
 
Last edited:
Some day Zed will be considered the undisputed GOAT and the battle of The Big 3 will be a quaint relic consisting primarily of (quite a lot, 99% of the board) ancient TTW threads.
 
Last edited:
George Turner said:
Controversal (for real) opinions of mine.

-The Nole slam is an inferior achievement to Borgs French Open-Wimbledon doubles.

4 slams is twice as much as two slams. Channel Slam is impressive but let´s not go crazy about it.

-Michael Stich had the talent to win about 6 majors.

With that crappy forehand?

But yeah, he had a great touch and was a proper servebot. But the whiny mentality of a 5 year-old got in the way. And having to be loved by crowd, otherwise he couldn´t play well.

-Richard Gasquet had the talent to win about 3 majors, even with the big four around

Nearly every Frenchmen who makes it to the top 30 is very talented and could have won slams. They are the perennial underachievers.

-Nick Kyrgios is a glorified serve bot

He has amazing touch, and very unusual technique that make his matches fun. But yeah, overly relies on that awful 250000 mph serve.

-Eugene Bouchard is a shallow a-hole

Agreed. Only Serena and Wozniacki are perhaps worse. Bitchard is a psychopath.

-Steffi Graf benefited from very poor competition and so is somewhat overrated. With decent competition she'd have won about 15 majors rather than 22.

And without Seles BEING STABBED BY GRAF´S OWN FAN she would have had 15 slams and Monika about 20.

-Zverev will win majors and TW posters are harsh on him!!

Tough call.

-No woman player could beat a top 1000 ranked man.

Of course.

-Murray would have won about 6 majors in a different era.

Or more.

-In majors first and second round matches should be best of three. This is a better way to make early rounds more unpredictable than going back to 16 seeds.

Horrible idea. Let´s not water down male slams, making them almost as irrelevant as WTA ones.
Click to expand...
-The Nole slam is an inferior achievement to Borgs French Open-Wimbledon doubles.

4 slams is twice as much as two slams. Channel Slam is impressive but let´s not go crazy about it.

-Michael Stich had the talent to win about 6 majors.

With that crappy forehand?

But yeah, he had a great touch and was a proper servebot. But the whiny mentality of a 5 year-old got in the way. And having to be loved by crowd, otherwise he couldn´t play well.

-Richard Gasquet had the talent to win about 3 majors, even with the big four around

Nearly every Frenchmen who makes it to the top 30 is very talented and could have won slams. They are the perennial underachievers.

-Nick Kyrgios is a glorified serve bot

He has amazing touch, and very unusual technique that make his matches fun. But yeah, overly relies on that awful 250000 mph serve.

-Eugene Bouchard is a shallow a-hole

Agreed. Only Serena and Wozniacki are perhaps worse. Bitchard is a psychopath.

-Steffi Graf benefited from very poor competition and so is somewhat overrated. With decent competition she'd have won about 15 majors rather than 22.

And without Seles BEING STABBED BY HER OWN FAN she would have had 15 slams and Monika about 20.

-Zverev will win majors and TW posters are harsh on him!!

Tough call.

-No woman player could beat a top 1000 ranked man.

Of course.

-Murray would have won about 6 majors in a different era.

Or more.

-In majors first and second round matches should be best of three. This is a better way to make early rounds more unpredictable than going back to 16 seeds.

Horrible idea. Let´s not water down male slams, making them almost as irrelevant as WTA ones.
 
UnderratedSlam said:
-The Nole slam is an inferior achievement to Borgs French Open-Wimbledon doubles.

4 slams is twice as much as two slams. Channel Slam is impressive but let´s not go crazy about it.

-Michael Stich had the talent to win about 6 majors.

With that crappy forehand?

But yeah, he had a great touch and was a proper servebot. But the whiny mentality of a 5 year-old got in the way. And having to be loved by crowd, otherwise he couldn´t play well.

-Richard Gasquet had the talent to win about 3 majors, even with the big four around

Nearly every Frenchmen who makes it to the top 30 is very talented and could have won slams. They are the perennial underachievers.

-Nick Kyrgios is a glorified serve bot

He has amazing touch, and very unusual technique that make his matches fun. But yeah, overly relies on that awful 250000 mph serve.

-Eugene Bouchard is a shallow a-hole

Agreed. Only Serena and Wozniacki are perhaps worse. Bitchard is a psychopath.

-Steffi Graf benefited from very poor competition and so is somewhat overrated. With decent competition she'd have won about 15 majors rather than 22.

And without Seles BEING STABBED BY HER OWN FAN she would have had 15 slams and Monika about 20.

-Zverev will win majors and TW posters are harsh on him!!

Tough call.

-No woman player could beat a top 1000 ranked man.

Of course.

-Murray would have won about 6 majors in a different era.




Or more.

-In majors first and second round matches should be best of three. This is a better way to make early rounds more unpredictable than going back to 16 seeds.

Horrible idea. Let´s not water down male slams, making them almost as irrelevant as WTA ones.
Click to expand...


ndsmcobserver.com

The biggest scam in sports history // The Observer

Few athletes have dominated their sport like Monica Seles dominated women’s tennis. During the height of her career, she was considered virtually unbeatable. In 1990, at the age of only 16, Seles became the youngest ever champion of the French Open. In just a two-year period (from early 1991 to...
ndsmcobserver.com ndsmcobserver.com
 
DSH said:
ndsmcobserver.com

The biggest scam in sports history // The Observer

Few athletes have dominated their sport like Monica Seles dominated women’s tennis. During the height of her career, she was considered virtually unbeatable. In 1990, at the age of only 16, Seles became the youngest ever champion of the French Open. In just a two-year period (from early 1991 to...
ndsmcobserver.com ndsmcobserver.com
Click to expand...
The German media were waging a WAR against Seles. It s not inconceivable that the cretin who stabbed her was influenced by German journalists who spewed venom and hate toward Seles for daring to usurp their darling robot Graf.

It is indeed the biggest travesty in tennis, if not all sports.
 
UnderratedSlam said:
-The Nole slam is an inferior achievement to Borgs French Open-Wimbledon doubles.

4 slams is twice as much as two slams. Channel Slam is impressive but let´s not go crazy about it.

-Michael Stich had the talent to win about 6 majors.

With that crappy forehand?

But yeah, he had a great touch and was a proper servebot. But the whiny mentality of a 5 year-old got in the way. And having to be loved by crowd, otherwise he couldn´t play well.

-Richard Gasquet had the talent to win about 3 majors, even with the big four around

Nearly every Frenchmen who makes it to the top 30 is very talented and could have won slams. They are the perennial underachievers.

-Nick Kyrgios is a glorified serve bot

He has amazing touch, and very unusual technique that make his matches fun. But yeah, overly relies on that awful 250000 mph serve.

-Eugene Bouchard is a shallow a-hole

Agreed. Only Serena and Wozniacki are perhaps worse. Bitchard is a psychopath.

-Steffi Graf benefited from very poor competition and so is somewhat overrated. With decent competition she'd have won about 15 majors rather than 22.

And without Seles BEING STABBED BY HER OWN FAN she would have had 15 slams and Monika about 20.

-Zverev will win majors and TW posters are harsh on him!!

Tough call.

-No woman player could beat a top 1000 ranked man.

Of course.

-Murray would have won about 6 majors in a different era.

Or more.

-In majors first and second round matches should be best of three. This is a better way to make early rounds more unpredictable than going back to 16 seeds.

Horrible idea. Let´s not water down male slams, making them almost as irrelevant as WTA ones.
Click to expand...
I think he's talking about Borg having done it 3 times. If so, then that's a reasonable position to take.
 
1. PETE would take Rogi's soul in a protracted rivalry.
2. 90s was way tougher than 00s
3. Bazookas, homogenization and cheatilon ruined the game
4. Big 3 are hilariously overrated, and win 2/3s of their slam haul in a non-homogenized era.
 
Last edited:
That after 20 seconds, the server can serve whether the receiver is ready or not. And that the 30 second time clock actually be enforced on the server. Kinda like the shot clock in basketball. Buzzer and all!
 
Last edited:
As crap as Laver Cup is, the format may just reinvigorate the sport by giving it much needed variety - team dynamics, live rubbers, doubles.
 
Vexing Med is simply not that good, he just has a unique and odd style that throws people off.

Thiem is not a top 10 tennis player and will prove that this next year.

Big Berr will never break the top 5 and never reach a slam final.
 
Last edited:
Lleytonstation said:
But seriously, I watched him play about 5 times this year, and I was very unimpressed. He got slaughtered by Fed, and even though he had his chances against Rafa (Rafa was playing very poor), the guy has ZERO backhand.
Click to expand...
Berrettini? I like him, but I don't expect him to make the top 5. I mean, it's hard to say when everyone under 30 sucks, so you never know. I feel like some younger guys will probably skip over him as the older guys start waning.

Unpopular opinions? Jazz is great.
iu

 
Pmasterfunk said:
Berrettini? I like him, but I don't expect him to make the top 5. I mean, it's hard to say when everyone under 30 sucks, so you never know. I feel like some younger guys will probably skip over him as the older guys start waning.

Unpopular opinions? Jazz is great.
iu

Click to expand...

;)
 
UnderratedSlam said:
The German media were waging a WAR against Seles. It s not inconceivable that the cretin who stabbed her was influenced by German journalists who spewed venom and hate toward Seles for daring to usurp their darling robot Graf.

It is indeed the biggest travesty in tennis, if not all sports.
Click to expand...

And then the attacker never even went to prison.

It is absolutely outrageous.

SaintPetros said:
1. PETE would take Rogi's soul in a protracted rivalry.
2. 90s was way tougher than 00s
3. Bazookas, homogenization and cheatilon ruined the game
4. Big 3 are hilariously overrated, and win 2/3s of their slam haul in a non-homogenized era.
Click to expand...

How come Borg could win everywhere then.
 
Federev said:
Fed has a tremendous work ethic.

Arrogantererer Fed sort of made his own bed when it comes to Djoko-family hate. He was mean in the old days.

Nadal is a great grass-court player. He's just "relatively" wiped out by the clay season.

None of the big 3 are specialists.

"Weak era" is always a myth. Players are weaker in large part due to the greatness of the ones dominating them.

GOAT is an unattainable concept - too many variables and unknowns as all the players say - even MJ admitted this. But to whatever degree there is one - Fed will be the "GOAT" regardless of slam count for a long time to come. No disrespect - but he's transcended the sport in ways Djokdal don't and that's not likely to change. As Rod Laver recently said: "Nadal, Djokovic are all big champions. But Roger surpasses tennis, the world of sport, and sports in general in a way that no one in history has done before him. He is the most recognized athlete in the world and a figurehead for this great game,”
Click to expand...
Uhm, no I don't think so.
 
Crisstti said:
Nah, thought of that lol. That's why I wrote COULD win and not WON. He played 4 finals there, didn't he?. He certainly could win.
Click to expand...

Borg won RG then Wimbledon playing radically different styles. He was exceptionally versatile, like no-one else in that era. McEnroe, Edberg, Agassi could only reach one RG final in their best form, and in case of Edberg and Agassi, with some luck regarding the tournament favourite (Lendl and Kuerten respectively) suffering an upset by the eventual surprise finalist. McEnroe, an exceptional talent among talents, was legitimately scary in his crazy 1984 season even on clay despite not playing the conventional clay game, but suffered a royally painful defeat against Lendl that bothers him to this day, and could never come close to that level again. Lendl managed to be consistent at Wimbledon, but lost both finals in straight sets so not even close.

In short, point is, no-one except Borg had more than one real chance to win their worst slam during the peak variety era(s). Inimitable Borg pushed great Mac very deep in 1980, was competitive for 2.5 sets in 1981 before losing focus, and looking a little back, was favoured to beat Connors in 1978 if not for the damned thumb injury. That's a yuuuge bonus to his historical goat case.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Borg won RG then Wimbledon playing radically different styles. He was exceptionally versatile, like no-one else in that era. McEnroe, Edberg, Agassi could only reach one RG final in their best form, and in case of Edberg and Agassi, with some luck regarding the tournament favourite (Lendl and Kuerten respectively) suffering an upset by the eventual surprise finalist. McEnroe, an exceptional talent among talents, was legitimately scary in his crazy 1984 season even on clay despite not playing the conventional clay game, but suffered a royally painful defeat against Lendl that bothers him to this day, and could never come close to that level again. Lendl managed to be consistent at Wimbledon, but lost both finals in straight sets so not even close.

In short, point is, no-one except Borg had more than one real chance to win their worst slam during the peak variety era(s). Inimitable Borg pushed great Mac very deep in 1980, was competitive for 2.5 sets in 1981 before losing focus, and looking a little back, was favoured to beat Connors in 1978 if not for the damned thumb injury. That's a yuuuge bonus to his historical goat case.
Click to expand...
"What if" is seldom a huge bonus imo
 
Doping penalties for the duration of the suspension of the ATP Tour / WTA Tour due to COVID-19 should be frozen. What's the point of has ban of participation at tournaments, when no tournaments are taking place and the entire field of players is at home? For Djokovic and Barty will not count the weeks spent in 1st place during the tennis suspension, but for Jarry, Spears or Haddad Maia will the same weeks count towards their doping penalties. This is a double standard.
 
Enceladus said:
Doping penalties for the duration of the suspension of the ATP Tour / WTA Tour due to COVID-19 should be frozen. What's the point of has ban of participation at tournaments, when no tournaments are taking place and the entire field of players is at home? For Djokovic and Barty will not count the weeks spent in 1st place during the tennis suspension, but for Jarry, Spears or Haddad Maia will the same weeks count towards their doping penalties. This is a double standard.
Click to expand...
There is no COVID, all players got busted.
 
Raining hopes said:
What are views that most people would not agree on?

Mine would be:

1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009.

2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality.

3.Del Porto would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured.

4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky.

5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass.

6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level.

7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon.

8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal.

9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead.

10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more.

11.There has not been any significant change in the sport since early 2000s
Click to expand...
+like because these are truly controversial opinions

I think DelPo is super over rated myself and gets hyped based on a “woulda coulda” hypothetical career.

I don’t think anyone other than Fed fans in denial think he is anything but barely ahead at this point. Who in thier right mind thinks he’s miles ahead?

Hard to argue against baby Nadal considering he eventually improved to the point where he beat Fed at Wimby
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Raining hopes
Your opinions that majority do not share vol. 2
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
10K
ForehandRF
ForehandRF
M
  • Poll Poll
Hot Take: 20-year-old Djokovic is better than 20-year-old Alcaraz
2
Replies
97
Views
6K
thrust
T
skypadq
federer fire tony roche in 2007 was worst mistake on his entire carrer ?
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
40-15 still haunts me
40-15 still haunts me
TheAverageFedererFan
Grand Slam Titles that The Big Four Should Have Won
Replies
2
Views
374
TheAverageFedererFan
TheAverageFedererFan
AM95
Why do people forget about Federer's Mono?
2
Replies
94
Views
10K
Azzurri
Azzurri
Back
Top