US Open 2019

EagererBeaver

Chivito550 wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Last night's game was incredibly fun to watch with some exceptional skill on display.

Yep, you can find exceptions to the rule. But in general the grinding style of wearing down opponents over long rallies is not fun to watch, the same way watching a soccer team put 9 men behind the ball or play a long ball game is not fun to watch.

Absolute gibberish.

jr86

jr86 wrote: »

Oh believe me they'll count next June after Roland Garros in the eyes of many

Indeed. World tour finals titles and other stats seem to be gaining preemptive significance with fed supporters at the moment!

Floppybits

glasso wrote: »

Indeed. World tour finals titles and other stats seem to be gaining preemptive significance with fed supporters at the moment!

I don't think you can count the World tour finals in this GOAT conversation. Half the time the players can't be arsed compete and usually turn up and go through the motions. Sure Dimitrov won it in 2017 and Zverev last year and I remember another year Andy Murray getting called at home to see if he would come and play an exhibition match because one of the players in the final pulled out. The world tour finals is just an end of season money grab, I really think the players could take it or leave it.

dominatinMC

The shifting of the goalposts on here, and other forums, is hilarious. For years, and make no doubt about it, the GS tally was all that ever mattered in the GOAT debate. Now, suddenly, there are other factors, such as Word Tour Finals, Weeks at No.1, etc.

Then there is the whole clay argument to undermine Nadals achievements. The last time I looked, clay courts resembled any other kind of tennis court, with a net in the middle over which a fuzzy yellow ball is supposed to go. Just because the characteristics differ doesn't make it any less a part of the sport. The fact that one man has dominated on this particular kind of tennis court is more of a testament to his greatness, rather than some kind of slight on his career.

I admire all 3 but the bitterness of Feds legion of fans actually turns me off the player at times. In my mind he is the most aesthetically pleasing player ever, but not sure about the greatest - still to be decided :pac:

jr86

Floppybits wrote: »

I don't think you can count the World tour finals in this GOAT conversation. Half the time the players can't be arsed compete and usually turn up and go through the motions. Sure Dimitrov won it in 2017 and Zverev last year and I remember another year Andy Murray getting called at home to see if he would come and play an exhibition match because one of the players in the final pulled out. The world tour finals is just an end of season money grab, I really think the players could take it or leave it.

Couldn't agree more

The Olympic Gold is probably strictly speaking the "5th major"

But even that has a caveat. Its on at an awful time in the year (interrupting the North American HC swing) and only every 4 years. Many of the players will not even turn up, and while I'm sure they love representing their country, a lot that do play will have an obvious eye on the US Open

jr86

jr86 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more

The Olympic Gold is probably strictly speaking the "5th major"

But even that has a caveat. Its on at an awful time in the year (interrupting the North American HC swing) and only every 4 years. Many of the players will not even turn up, and while I'm sure they love representing their country, a lot that do play will have an obvious eye on the US Open

Can't really be talked about in the same breath as a GS until you get the very best turning up for it.

Chivito550

jr86 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more

The Olympic Gold is probably strictly speaking the "5th major"

But even that has a caveat. Its on at an awful time in the year (interrupting the North American HC swing) and only every 4 years. Many of the players will not even turn up, and while I'm sure they love representing their country, a lot that do play will have an obvious eye on the US Open

Olympics has 750 points. Masters 1000 have 1000, and World Tour Finals has 1500, so what you say about Olympics being 5th major isn't true.

I do like the Olympics in tennis as its the only real time you'll see the big guns play doubles. In the Olympics a gold in singles is the same as a gold in doubles which is why you often see players double up or in some cases play mixed doubles too.

BorneTobyWilde

lostcat wrote: »

looks like i missed a belter after going to bed with Nadal 2-0 up

Nadal almost certain to ovetake Federer now, I have a feeling that Djokovic has a small bit too much ground to make up and might be caught by the maturaton of the 'next genners'in the next year or two before be passes 20.

It was epically intense and on a knifes edge. Nadal had to fight for every crumb. The Russian was like a machine, it was in last set when Nadal hit a golden patch, won 15 of 19 points, down to his brilliance and the Russian making faults, it's where the tide turned. But even with two breaks Nadal could not serve out for the win, he was broken back and struggled again on his next chance. Took 3 match points to get over the line.

jr86

Chivito550 wrote: »

Olympics has 750 points. Masters 1000 have 1000, and World Tour Finals has 1500, so what you say about Olympics being 5th major isn't true.
.

I - personally - don't consider anything a 5th major. Majors are just so far ahead in terms of prestige than anything else.

Whatever about the points on offer - I'd imagine every single player on tour though would take an olympic gold before a masters title. The ones that skip the Olympics know they've little chance of winning anyway. the big guns will all be gung-ho

Floppybits

jr86 wrote: »

I - personally - don't consider anything a 5th major. Majors are just so far ahead in terms of prestige than anything else.

Whatever about the points on offer - I'd imagine every single player on tour though would take an olympic gold before a masters title. The ones that skip the Olympics know they've little chance of winning anyway. the big guns will all be gung-ho

I would agree, there is more prestige having an Olympic Gold Medal than a masters title. The fact that it is only every 4 years adds to the prestige. Look a Federer, one of the greatest of all time and will probably not win an Olympic Gold medal in singles. I wonder if asked would he swap some ATP masters Titles for that Gold medal?

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

His US Open record is very impressive but overall 12 of 19 slams coming from the one slam highlights his inadequacies on other surfaces. Can such a player be considered the greatest of all time?

This is a bit unfair, as he has made many GS finals away from clay.

Be like penalizing RF on clay, even though he is probably a top 5 ever clay court player. Had Nadal, the GOAT on clay not been there, RF may be a 5-6 time FO winner...

Rafa has been to several Oz finals, SW19 finals and U.S. finals. He is an all court great, like Nole and RF....

PicardWithHair

jr86 wrote: »

Oh believe me they'll count next June after Roland Garros in the eyes of many

He will be on 21 slams next June after RG...

lostcat

The history books will have a list in 5 years time on which the top three, then all retired, will sit with in or around 20 slams each, one of them will have a couple more than the other two.

people who have been watching tennis, without heavily biased own-favourite tinted glasses, can remember just the slams from this year and ponder:
AO- Djokovic destroys Nadal in the final
FO - Nadal beats Federer fairly handily in the semi en route to the title
Wimb Federer beats Nadal fairly handily in the semi, beaten by Djokovic in the final
USO - Nadal stays the pace and takes advantage of a good draw as the other two fall away

point being, in real time, the margins between these three over a decade have been very very thin, and whichever of them ends up with a slam or two more will realise that. Its a pity the fans don't/wont.

mzungu

Seems like I missed a hell of a match after heading to bed.

As regards the whole GOAT thing I won't get into it too much at the moment. All three have their favoured surfaces but Nadal just happens to be practically unbeatable on his. Unlike 1990s clay court specialists that came before him (Muster, Bruguera etc) he welcomed the challenge of conquering other surfaces. He worked damn hard at his game and rose to that challenge. I get that people do not like his style of play, but personally I enjoy it. I like baseline slugging. It is an art form in itself. Being so dominant on clay is not a mark against Nadal's claim to be the GOAT, it is quite the opposite. He is well able to win slams on another surfaces. Last night he outhit a man ten years his junior. A truly phenomenal athlete.

lostcat

Floppybits wrote: »

I would agree, there is more prestige having an Olympic Gold Medal than a masters title. The fact that it is only every 4 years adds to the prestige. Look a Federer, one of the greatest of all time and will probably not win an Olympic Gold medal in singles. I wonder if asked would he swap some ATP masters Titles for that Gold medal?

A rhetorical question I'm assuming? Federer or Djokovic would certainly give up 3 or 4 of their tens of ATP titles for a gold medal.

Djokovic would possibly give up a slam for one, the prestige is one thing but there is also 'winning one for your country'.

MisterAnarchy

mzungu wrote: »

Unlike 1990s clay court specialists that came before him (Muster, Bruguera etc) he welcomed the challenge of conquering other surfaces. He worked damn hard at his game and rose to that challenge.

Other surfaces ,yes back in the 90's there actually were other surfaces .
The courts were not homogenised and the players didn't have modern string technology.
It was a completely different era.
I've mentioned this time and time again .

If Nadal ,Federer and Djokovic were playing back then on those courts with those rackets Federer would be winning the vast majority of the tournaments .
He has suffered most with the change in technology ,Nadal has gained the most and Djokovic has also gained .

The courts nowadays are slower ,the ball bounces higher and baseliners can be alot more aggressive due to the string technology .
The modern courts favour defensive players more than aggressive players,it used to be the other way around.

Christy42

I feel like a goat discussion is silly between those 3. They are so close and so much could have gone different ways (whose totals would a healthy Murray have cut into etc.).

Then you have different surfaces, closer than they used to be but obviously still a big difference between clay and grass. I mean how much should each count for? Should Fed's grass ability count for less because people put on less grass tournaments.

I don't think the above have good answers. Just enjoy them while you can.

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

If Nadal ,Federer and Djokovic were playing back then on those courts with those rackets Federer would be winning the vast majority of the tournaments .
H

This such certainty is ridiculous. You cannot know this..

Simple. They have all beaten each other through the years with the same conditions. All three are that superb..

Fed fans are insufferable at times...

mzungu

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Other surfaces ,yes back in the 90's there actually were other surfaces .
The courts were not homogenised and the players didn't have modern string technology.
It was a completely different era.
I've mentioned this time and time again .

If Nadal ,Federer and Djokovic were playing back then on those courts with those rackets Federer would be winning the vast majority of the tournaments .
He has suffered most with the change in technology ,Nadal has gained the most and Djokovic has also gained .

The courts nowadays are slower ,the ball bounces higher and baseliners can be alot more aggressive due to the string technology .
The modern courts favour defensive players more than aggressive players,it used to be the other way around.

If the courts really were homogenised, then Nadal should be as unbeatable on hard and grass courts as he is on clay. A lot has been made of how the surfaces have changed drastically but I really don't buy it, nor do I buy into the string technology argument for that matter. All players have the same advantages and disadvantages and it is down to the individuals talent and how they handle it.

walshb

mzungu wrote: »

If the courts really were homogenised, then Nadal should be as unbeatable on hard and grass courts as he is on clay. A lot has been made of how the surfaces have changed drastically but I really don't buy it, nor do I buy into the string technology argument for that matter. All players have the same advantages and disadvantages and it is down to the individuals talent and how they handle it.

Agreed. Far too much is being made of these drastic changes in the game from the late 90s to recent years...

And then you hear the nonsense that Nole and Nadal wouldn’t have a hope against an Edberg or Mac or Sampras if they had to play on the grass courts of the 80s and 90s. It’s horsesh1t. Nole and Nadal are absolute monsters...in any era, on any surface, with whatever equipment is being used..

Most this nonsense from Fed fans who cannot stomach the fact that Nole and Nadal are his equal...and possibly his kryptonite.

Chivito550

mzungu wrote: »

If the courts really were homogenised, then Nadal should be as unbeatable on hard and grass courts as he is on clay. A lot has been made of how the surfaces have changed drastically but I really don't buy it, nor do I buy into the string technology argument for that matter. All players have the same advantages and disadvantages and it is down to the individuals talent and how they handle it.

Yep, so players just stopped using serve and volley by pure coincidence then? A method of tennis that proved very effective on all surfaces but clay right up until the early 2000s.

The rallies just got longer by pure coincidence too.

The science comparing speed and height when the ball bounces from the 90s to the present day are all lies too.

bada_bing

Don't forget there was a period when wimbledon was simply won by firing aces one after another and i lost interest in tennis during that period and i think the same also applied for general audiences during that time. Also the rallies were quite poor as the players relied too much on their serve to win points so i'm thankful that they made changes to prevent servebots from dominating the tennis game and ensured that players were rewarded for staying in rallies and for being consistent with their game

jr86

bada_bing wrote: »

Don't forget there was a period when wimbledon was simply won by firing aces one after another and i lost interest in tennis during that period and i think the same also applied for general audiences during that time. Also the rallies were quite poor as the players relied too much on their serve to win points so i'm thankful that they made changes to prevent servebots from dominating the tennis game and ensured that players were rewarded for staying in rallies and for being consistent with their game

Very true

Also while they may have slowed down the grass after 2001 - interestingly a renowned baseliner Agassi had made two semis and a final in the last 3 years on this "fast grass"

I don't know where people get this notion that Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't have been competitive on grass in that era. Agassi was a classy player but frankly isn't fit to lace either's boots

Chivito550

jr86 wrote: »

Very true

Also while they may have slowed down the grass after 2001 - interestingly a renowned baseliner Agassi had made two semis and a final in the last 3 years on this "fast grass"

I don't know where people get this notion that Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't have been competitive on grass in that era. Agassi was a classy player but frankly isn't fit to lace either's boots

Agassi won all 4 grand slams during a time when the courts were hugely different, unlike the homogeneous nature of today's game. He is an absolute legend. Before the courts got slowed down, he was the only player to achieve this feat across clay, grass and hard (Laver did it on just grass and clay).

If Agassi was at his prime during the game today he'd win far more than 8 slams.

Agassi was the exception to the norm at Wimbledon during the 80s and 90s. Not too many baseliners had success there during this time. The mere fact he was able to compete against serve and volley players on fast surfaces surely indicates he would thrive in today's game of medium/slow courts.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Agassi won all 4 grand slams during a time when the courts were hugely different, unlike the homogeneous nature of today's game. He is an absolute legend. Before the courts got slowed down, he was the only player to achieve this feat across clay, grass and hard (Laver did it on just grass and clay).

If Agassi was at his prime during the game today he'd win far more than 8 slams.

Agassi was the exception to the norm at Wimbledon during the 80s and 90s. Not too many baseliners had success there during this time. The mere fact he was able to compete against serve and volley players on fast surfaces surely indicates he would thrive in today's game of medium/slow courts.

Agassi was brilliant during his reign. Nadal and Nole are different animals...

They are faster and stronger, along with all their other talents...

Agassi at his prime playing today would be very lucky to win slams if faced with the big three....all three are too strong...

josip

Agassi also married Steffi, something the Big 3 are unlikely to achieve.

dominatinMC

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Other surfaces ,yes back in the 90's there actually were other surfaces .
The courts were not homogenised and the players didn't have modern string technology.
It was a completely different era.
I've mentioned this time and time again .

If Nadal ,Federer and Djokovic were playing back then on those courts with those rackets Federer would be winning the vast majority of the tournaments .
He has suffered most with the change in technology ,Nadal has gained the most and Djokovic has also gained .

The courts nowadays are slower ,the ball bounces higher and baseliners can be alot more aggressive due to the string technology .
The modern courts favour defensive players more than aggressive players,it used to be the other way around.

The certainty with which you say this can only mean you're a die-hard Fed fan. You state these hypothetical scenarios as if fact. The fact is the Big3 have all competed under the same conditions - why the need for hypothesizing otherwise? That's like constructing an argument to say "if all courts were clay", or "if all courts were grass". We can only base arguments on what we've observed, and what actually exists. As Nadal said earlier during SW19 (in relation to Kyrgios) "if, if, if - doesn't exist"

And FWIW, Nadal has adapted his game considerably from his earlier clay-court game to eventually conquer all surfaces - as any tennis commentator will testify to. So, as homogeneous as the surfaces are (as you claim), there are obviously characteristics which he adapted to. Now, if (to borrow your hypothesis narrative) the surfaces were wildly different, as they were in the 90's, what's not to say that Nadal (and Djokovic) would not have adapted to those courts as well? Who knows :pac:

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Agassi was brilliant during his reign. Nadal and Nole are different animals...

They are faster and stronger, along with all their other talents...

Agassi at his prime playing today would be very lucky to win slams if faced with the big three....all three are too strong...

Yes and if Agassi grew up and was conditioned with today's game he'd be faster and stronger too. To say he couldn't compete is nonsense. He was still taking sets off Federer at the tail end of his career, way past it

walshb

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Yes and if Agassi grew up and was conditioned with today's game he'd be faster and stronger too. To say he couldn't compete is nonsense. He was still taking sets off Federer at the tail end of his career, way past it

Yes, I was expecting this.....

I can see him being competitive, but I don't see him really putting a dent in the other three. I didn't day he would not compete, but the poster I was quouting seemed to suggest he'd be winning a lot more slams. That I cannot at all see..

Hasn't a chance in France vs. Nole/Nadal or Fed. They have far too much....May push Fed really close...

SW19: No way he hangs with any of them.....A 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011 version of the three hammer him.

All at peak and Agassi clearly suffers...

Best chance is Oz...

He won the first three matches vs a Federer that was maybe 4 years pre prime for Roger.

All at the height of their powers see Agassi losing to the three regularly.

walshb

I will add that of all the top 90s players, it is Agassi's all around game that makes him the best threat to the top three....

I don't think a Sampras matches up well at all against the top three. He has a serve and volley....Other than this the others are far stronger...far stronger baseline games....Sampras would be hard pressed to break their serves from the back of the court, and he is risking too much trying to chop and charge...