Your opinions that majority of people do not share?

[RaulRamirez]

Borg and Sampras are underrated and Nadal and Djokovic are overrated
Probably just a result of recency bias but I think they’re all around similarish playing ability

I think that - in the Open Era - Borg, Sampras, and each of The Big 3 are all different, but similarly gifted/talented/skilled.
Some would point to other players - perhaps McEnroe - as having similar talent levels.

But at this point, I think it's very hard to argue that Borg and Sampras accomplished as much as any of Roger, Rafa or Novak.
I don't think it's recency bias, as much as the fact of their longevity, versatility and sheer drive to stay at the top.

 

[1stVolley]

Other than the moon is made out of ricotta cheese, arguing about who is the tennis GOAT is a waste of time because there is no consensus as to what determines "GOAT in tennis". Is it number of slams won, best H2H record, longest time as world #1, greatest number of grand slams, whitest set of teeth, etc., etc.?

 

[mike danny]

+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

I disagree with the baby Nadal conception to the point that it makes him seem like Zverev or anything of the sort.

 

[Atennisone]

Djokovic can never be GOAT if he isn't loved by fans.

Therefore Federer is GOAT

 

[mike danny]

+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

Nadal won Wimb 2008 in big part thanks to the 2008 RG trashing more than him improving on grass to a monumental degree.

 

[mike danny]

2015 Fed was overrated because 2004 Agassi was better on HC than him and 2004 Roddick was better on grass than him.

 

[Noleberic123]

2015 Fed was overrated because 2004 Agassi was better on HC than him and 2004 Roddick was better on grass than him.

Beat peak Nole three times, showed how grass court tennis should be played to Murray at Wimby, committed genocide at Cincy, destroyed everyone till the final at the USO. Nah he was a beast despite not being as good as his younger self. He's not overrated.

 

[mike danny]

Beat peak Nole three times, showed how grass court tennis should be played to Murray at Wimby, committed genocide at Cincy, destroyed everyone till the final at the USO. Nah he was a beast despite not being as good as his younger self. He's not overrated.

Overrated as in better than everyone Fed himself faced. When people think that is when I think he is overrated.

In other words, he is not a weak opponent by any means, but he isn't this terminator that some Nole fans insist he is.

I mean I just found 2 guys better than him on the same surfaces that he thrived on

 

[Tsongerer]

Peak Fed beats peak Nole anywhere most of the time in GSs except slow hard.

Peak Nole beats peak Nadal anywhere most of the time in GSs except clay.

Peak Nadal beats peak Fed anywhere most of the time in GSs except grass.

 

[mike danny]

Peak Fed beats peak Nole anywhere most of the time in GSs except slow hard.

AO: Nole 8-2
FO: 5-5
Wimb: Fed 8-2
USO: Fed 6-4

Peak Nole beats peak Nadal anywhere most of the time in GSs except clay.

Not at the USO. At the USO it would be close.

Peak Nadal beats peak Fed anywhere most of the time in GSs except grass.

Nope. Only on slow hard would Nadal have an advantage. On faster HC, Fed would win be it at the AO or the USO.

Not gonna give Nadal this kind of advantage since they mostly played on slow HC.

 

[vex]

Djokovic can never be GOAT if he isn't loved by fans.

Therefore Federer is GOAT

Cool story bro

 

[Tsongerer]

AO: Nole 8-2
FO: 5-5
Wimb: Fed 8-2
USO: Fed 6-4


Not at the USO. At the USO it would be close.


Nope. Only on slow hard would Nadal have an advantage. On faster HC, Fed would win be it at the AO or the USO.

Not gonna give Nadal this kind of advantage since they mostly played on slow HC.

Id give Fed 6-4 at RG, he moves naturally better on clay than Nole and beat him there when he was almost 30 and Nole had his peak season. It's true Nole pushes Nadal better on clay, but styles (strengths/weaknesses) make match ups. Also 8-2 at the blue AO. Fed would 6-4 or 7-3 him on rebound ace.

I think Nole beats Rafa 6-4 or 7-3 at USO. Rafa just performed too bad most years after 2011 for Nole to make up for the H2H at that tournament.

True, Fed and Rafa never played on rebound ace or US Open when it used to be fast. Did they ever even play an indoor BO5? At an indoor match at the US Open in a year where the conditions are fast, I certainly wouldn't favor Rafa).

 

[Maverick13]

Women don’t deserve equal prize money if they don’t play best of five. Equal pay for equal work. (But to be clear, The reality is worse than it sounds on paper) equal prize money when the women’s maximum sets is a men’s minimum (21) is absolutely ridiculous. Im 100% for equality but it feels like reparations than equality.

 

[daggerman]

Women don’t deserve equal prize money if they don’t play best of five. Equal pay for equal work. (But to be clear, The reality is worse than it sounds on paper) equal prize money when the women’s maximum sets is a men’s minimum (21) is absolutely ridiculous. Im 100% for equality but it feels like reparations than equality.

So should a male player make less if he plays all 3 setters instead of all 5 setters in Best of 5?

 

[Maverick13]

So should a male player make less if he plays all 3 setters instead of all 5 setters in Best of 5?

If you can tell me a time where both the men’s and women’s champions played exactly 21 sets a piece I will retract my statement.

 

[daggerman]

If you can tell me a time where both the men’s and women’s champions played exactly 21 sets a piece I will retract my statement.

Why? Male champions play a different number of sets from other male champions all the time. Should there be a difference in pay in those cases? Equal pay for equal work, right?

 

[Maverick13]

Why? Male champions play a different number of sets from other male champions all the time. Should there be a difference in pay in those cases? Equal pay for equal work, right?

I’ll explain my thoughts simpler, total sets is a bad example; the threshold for a men’s title is 21 sets, while it’s only 14 for a women. Having different thresholds but equal prize money is not equal pay for equal work regardless of how it plays out. And btw please don’t think I’m some sexist advocating to take away women’s prize money, I just think they should play best of 5 as well in slams.

 

[daggerman]

I’ll explain my thoughts simpler, total sets is a bad example; the threshold for a men’s title is 21 sets, while it’s only 14 for a women. Having different thresholds but equal prize money is not equal pay for equal work regardless of how it plays out. And btw please don’t think I’m some sexist advocating to take away women’s prize money, I just think they should play best of 5 as well in slams.

If a male champion wins at least one match via walkover or retirement -- and therefore fails to meet the 21 set threshold -- should he make less than a player who wins 21 sets?

 

[tsurismo5]

I like the earnings-proportionate-to-work argument if for no other reason than as insurance against the injuries that could reasonably be expected to increase by playing more tennis. Such injuries could cost future winnings in subsequent tournaments, which could be troublesome for lower ranked players. As well, playing a grueling grand slam tournament (many four or five setters) could fatigue players and cause them to withdraw from future tournaments or perform worse in them, resulting in monetary losses.

 

[Maverick13]

If a male champion wins at least one match via walkover or retirement -- and therefore fails to meet the 21 set threshold -- should he make less than a player who wins 21 sets?

Fair, but we can break it down further. The women are getting paid more per set and it is only even if they play 21/21. You believe that’s fair? I have yet to see an argument defending my woman deserve equal prize money for best of 3.

 

[Cashman]

• Slam count is a pointless measure for greatness, at least for any pre-1990s player
• Whilst the Big Three are great players, their unprecedented ATP domination has more to do with changes in the game than anything particularly special about them compared to past greats
• Any disadvantages experienced by Federer later in his career due to slower courts are well and truly offset by the advantages he received earlier

 

[Wurm]

• Slam count is a pointless measure for greatness, at least for any pre-1990s player

Slam count records should include the pro slams for the pre-Open era. In which Ken Rosewall is on 23.

 

[NatF]

Slam count records should include the pro slams for the pre-Open era. In which Ken Rosewall is on 23.

Nope. For starters it makes no sense to count the pro majors and the amateur ones together. Then there's a bunch of other issues to be had.

Rosewall doesn't need a conflated major count to show his greatness.

 

[ForehandRF]

Slam count records should include the pro slams for the pre-Open era. In which Ken Rosewall is on 23.

So, Ken Rosewall is better than Borg at the French ?

 

[NatF]

Hot take: Hewitt had a better forehand than Murray.

 

[Wurm]

Nope. For starters it makes no sense to count the pro majors and the amateur ones together. Then there's a bunch of other issues to be had.

"Opinions that majority of people do not share".

 

[NatF]

"Opinions that majority of people do not share".

Well you were responding to Cashman so kinda odd if you have issue with me doing the same with you...

I guess you wanted to share you opinion but not discuss it?

 

[Red Rick]

Hot take: Hewitt had a better forehand than Murray.

Not sure that's a really hot take? Hewitt's forehand was a fast court, non poly forehand though. Really diminished as slow court poly age came around.

I've always said Murray's forehand was a bigger problem for him than his 2nd serve.

 

[Sabrina]

1. Nadal 2017 RG form is highly overrated. Of course that was the best he could play at 30s, still nothing compared to 2007/2008/2010 and 2012 RG Nadal.
2. Del Potro wouldn't have won more than 2 GS even if he hadn't been injured (Novak is his biggest namesis).
3. Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Djokovic, etc are about equal in term of talent or abilities, just that Djokodal was helped by the advanced condition and medicine.
4. Roddick is above Murray in term of peak level at Wimbledon/Us Open.
5. Nadal is no longer the mental giant as he used to be (since 2014/2015).

 

[StrongRule]

1. Nadal 2017 RG form is highly overrated. Of course that was the best he could play at 30s, still nothing compared to 2007/2008/2010 and 2012 RG Nadal.
2. Del Potro wouldn't have won more than 2 GS even if he hadn't been injured (Novak is his biggest namesis).
3. Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Djokovic, etc are about equal in term of talent or abilities, just that Djokodal was helped by the advanced condition and medicine.
4. Roddick is above Murray in term of peak level at Wimbledon/Us Open.
5. Nadal is no longer the mental giant as he used to be (since 2014/2015).

Pretty sure this is a common opinion. More than that, it's a fact.

 

[Atennisone]

1. Nadal 2017 RG form is highly overrated. Of course that was the best he could play at 30s, still nothing compared to 2007/2008/2010 and 2012 RG Nadal.
2. Del Potro wouldn't have won more than 2 GS even if he hadn't been injured (Novak is his biggest namesis).
3. Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Djokovic, etc are about equal in term of talent or abilities, just that Djokodal was helped by the advanced condition and medicine.
4. Roddick is above Murray in term of peak level at Wimbledon/Us Open.
5. Nadal is no longer the mental giant as he used to be (since 2014/2015).

1. No way! Call Basilashvili and Wawrinka to ask them
2. I'm afraid this is actually true
3. Not sure what you mean
4. 2013 Murray had beat 2009 Roddick
5. Sad and true indeed

 

[NatF]

Not sure that's a really hot take? Hewitt's forehand was a fast court, non poly forehand though. Really diminished as slow court poly age came around.

I've always said Murray's forehand was a bigger problem for him than his 2nd serve.

I think most people who are really familiar with Hewitt's game wouldn't find it particularly crazy but then most people aren't familiar with him. Hewitt didn't have a lot of weight to his rally ball, he relied on taking the ball early, good depth and angles. I think post 2004 Hewitt may have rectified that somewhat had he not been injured if his AO and IW campaigns are anything to go off.

Probably agree about the Murray forehand, especially at the AO he couldn't really play three good sets off the forehand wing against Djokovic. The wheels always fell off.

 

[ForehandRF]

Sets 1&2 of the 2011 USO SF are some of the best sets Fed has ever played at the USO.

 

[RS]

Borg and Sampras are underrated and Nadal and Djokovic are overrated
Probably just a result of recency bias but I think they’re all around similarish playing ability

Your probably not Nadal fan like your picture misleads......

 

[mike danny]

Sets 1&2 of the 2011 USO SF are some of the best sets Fed has ever played at the USO.

That entire match was a great one for him. A shame he choked it away.

Difference between 2006 Fed and 2011 Fed.

 

[FatHead250]

Clay is the second most real surface, after grass. Hard courts are an abomination

 

[RS]

1. Mental strength is too much touched based on.
2. Today game has more variety than people think.
3. Murray peak level does not get enough credit while peaky blinders are ranked too a little high (Safin,Wawrinka,Del Potro)
4. Today is no where the weakest period in the mens game.
5. Federer could have worked on his endrance more in his peak and is more casual fitness wise than some of his peers. (Nadal,Djokovic)
6. 2011 Federer would struggle with 2015 Djokovic more than he did 2011 Djokovic.
7. Berdych and Tsonga do not anywhere get enough credit for the quality they showed.
8. Djokovic pre 2011 fitness issues are overstated.
9. Federer poor record in slams vs Djokdal is one of the reasons he is not the GOAT.
10. People look past the flaws in the pre 2000s game.

That is 10.

 

[StrongRule]

1. No way! Call Basilashvili and Wawrinka to ask them
2. I'm afraid this is actually true
3. Not sure what you mean
4. 2013 Murray had beat 2009 Roddick
5. Sad and true indeed

2013 Murray struggled against Verdasco and Janowicz but would beat 2009 Roddick? I'm not sure about that.

 

[Atennisone]

2013 Murray struggled against Verdasco and Janowicz but would beat 2009 Roddick? I'm not sure about that.

He just pranked Verdasco and Janowicz. Djokovic also struggled Medvedev and Shapovalov in 2019 AO, but the final was not the same

 

[mike danny]

He just pranked Verdasco and Janowicz. Djokovic also struggled Medvedev and Shapovalov in 2019 AO, but the final was not the same

2009 Roddick did not play sh*t tennis like 2013 Wimb final Djokovic and 2019 AO final Nadal.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Sony = GOAT

 

[mike danny]

9. Federer poor record in slams vs Djokdal is one of the reasons he is not the GOAT.

Unless you can show me the younger GOAT candidates Djokodal have had, this won't be a fully justified opinion.

 

[Sabrina]

2009 Roddick did not play sh*t tennis like 2013 Wimb final Djokovic and 2019 AO final Nadal.

What is the best version of Murray at Wimbledon anyways? 2012, 2013 or 2016? I did not see much differences between them. Roddick of course is 2004 and 2009, maybe even 2003.

 

[ForehandRF]

Unless you can show me the younger GOAT candidates Djokodal have had, this won't be a fully justified opinion.

There is a difference between the greatest and the perfect player anyway.Like I said on other instances, on TTW the H2H is the most important criterion, bigger than the titles.They should make trophies to reward the H2H and make some fanboys happy, but thankfully tennis is not about that.

 

[RS]

Unless you can show me the younger GOAT candidates Djokodal have had, this won't be a fully justified opinion.

Federer lost a lot even before 2013 when he was considered not too old.

 

[StrongRule]

What is the best version of Murray at Wimbledon anyways? 2012, 2013 or 2016? I did not see much differences between them. Roddick of course is 2004 and 2009, maybe even 2003.

I'd say 2012 was the best, even though he lost the Wimbledon final. (still won the Olympics on grass after that)
However, in 2009-2011 Murray also was close to his prime on grass. It's not like Roddick beat a terrible Murray in Wimbledon 2009 semifinals. He beat a pretty good Murray in a close match.

 

[RS]

There is a difference between the greatest and the perfect player anyway.Like I said on other instances, on TTW the H2H is the most important criterion, bigger than the titles.They should make trophies to reward the H2H and make some fanboys happy, but thankfully tennis is not about that.

When you play you rivals 31 times in slams. H2H matters. Tennis is about H2Hs esp between main rivals.

 

[zagor]

7. Berdych and Tsonga do not anywhere get enough credit for the quality they showed.

Agreed, I think they're both somewhat underrated. For them, the big 4 excuse actually holds up. They had to face the brunt of it.

Both played some fantastic tennis at times that could have been rewarded with a slam title in different circumstances.

8. Djokovic pre 2011 fitness issues are overstated.

Yep, been saying the same for years. His 5 set record before 2011 was excellent and he played near 100 matches in a single season in 2009.

For me, the biggest difference between peak 2011+ Novak and the one before has been the FH (and serve since teaming up with Becker later on).

 

[Hitman]

There should be a heavyweight championship belt the reigning world number one wears out to each match
Theme music should be played for the players

 

[ForehandRF]

When you play you rivals 31 times in slams. H2H matters. Tennis is about H2Hs esp between main rivals.

I'm not saying that the H2H doesn't matter just that it's not the most important/decisive criteria, especially in the Fedovic rivalry.With Nadal, give him the H2H and anyway Fed is the better player on hard and on grass.