Hafael wrote: » Recency bias makes people put more weight and exaggeration on recent performances. If the 100m was not a timed event there would be people convinced that Usain Bolt was better than ever when he won the Olympics. The reality is he peaked in 2009 at 22, it was a gradual decline from there which you can see by looking at his times. Tennis players don't peak at 34, they usually peak by 24.
glasso wrote: » I didn't say that he's better than ever and I certainly don't change my mind like a goldfish after every match!
android1 wrote: » Do you ever feel embarrassed about your posts? Like even a little bit?
glasso wrote: » to my mind personally all this "past their peak" and "Djokovic 2011 beats Djokovic 2021" is moot. what counts is can they still win or not how they win can evolve over the years - maybe the player is a bit slower (I don't know this for sure but it's likely) over 3 metres than years ago, but true greats can evolve their game to be still unbelievably effective. Experience, mental resilience and clutch play can make up for some physical degradation. they are still capable of amazing tennis - when it counts. and winning the key moments, when it counts. Federer has degraded too far at this point and being honest he never had the level of mental toughness that Djokovic and Nadal had either. He was able to take advantage of Djokovic's "mental / marriage issues" a few years ago to get another couple of slams and fair play to him. Djokovic is maybe not as consistent over a whole match as he used to be but he can still be better than anyone else out there at winning the majority of the sets. and just because the "next gen" are younger and "not past their peak" does not give them any right or indeed an expectation from the public to beat him. they have to go out there and do it.
MisterAnarchy wrote: » Maybe if the womens final was best of 5 sets there might be less nerves.
Augme wrote: » I think a best of 5 for the slam finals would work well but I wouldn't want to see a whole tournament as a best of 5. I feel the quality of tennis would drop too much due to tiredness and fatigue.
walshb wrote: » Come on There’s plenty stats and criteria and intangibles to argue for any the big three Personally I think Fed greatest tennis player ever. Nobody does it better… On clay all at peak, Nadal wins! Hard court all at best, probably Nole. Fed right behind. Should have put Nole away twice in U.S. semis. On grass all at best, I think Fed best..
whiterebel wrote: » I watched that match last night, and had no stake in who won. While I watched it, my son, who's a RN fan walked past and asked how it was going. I said, and this is TB in the 3rd, its brilliant - but its drama, not brilliant tennis. I wake up this morning and Roddick, Murray and Croft are in paroxysms over it. I'm scratching my head wondering did we watch different matches? Now, commentators have to believe everything is better now, particularly when. they show it on their channel - Football started in 1992 - Sky Sports syndrome. No teams before 92, no great players, no great goals. They have a vested interest, plus younger viewers don't remember the greats. How you can even have the discussion about GOAT in tennis without Laver is ludicrous. 11 slams, and forced to miss 20 when he dominated mens tennis. Talk of records for pre-Open era is conveniently forgotten. He won the slam of slams twice, 1962 and 1969. Anyway, the match last night - one of the greatest? Nadal had 16 UEs before the TB in the 3rd set. 55 in total in 4 sets. 55 by the best player on clay we have ever seen. I'd say he has won tournaments with less UEs than that. Eurosport have the highlights up this morning, I watched it back, to make sure I wasn't dreaming. They started their highlights of a 4 set match, at the 3rd set. I had thought, while watching live, that the 3rd set would make it into a "greatest of all time" conversation, but there were terrible misses everywhere in that set, just less by ND. Great drama, but definitely not great tennis. Nowhere near Nadal/Fed Wimbledon or Mac v Borg x 2. The umpire deserves to take one massive boot in the ass for giving ND a violation, when Nadal, as usual slowed down the server. On break point, no less. In one tournament you've got Fed penalised for slowing down one of the slowest servers around, then Nadal is told he is fine versus Norrie, despite persistently slowing up the server. Then you've got the server being penalised last night because Nadal is giving himself a sponge bath in the corner followed by 27,000 tics that he has developed. This needs to stop, the 3rd set would have been done in less than an hour by 2 reasonably quicker servers last night. Nadal hit an ace last night, and you could clearly see he was nearly back to the towel by the time the clock started. No wonder they are not on obvious display for the TV cameras any more.
whiterebel wrote: » I watched that match last night, and had no stake in who won. While I watched it, my son, who's a RN fan walked past and asked how it was going. I said, and this is TB in the 3rd, its brilliant - but its drama, not brilliant tennis. I wake up this morning and Roddick, Murray and Croft are in paroxysms over it. I'm scratching my head wondering did we watch different matches? Now, commentators have to believe everything is better now, particularly when. they show it on their channel - Football started in 1992 - Sky Sports syndrome. No teams before 92, no great players, no great goals. They have a vested interest, plus younger viewers don't remember the greats. How you can even have the discussion about GOAT in tennis without Laver is ludicrous. 11 slams, and forced to miss 20 when he dominated mens tennis. Talk of records for pre-Open era is conveniently forgotten. He won the slam of slams twice, 1962 and 1969.Anyway, the match last night - one of the greatest? Nadal had 16 UEs before the TB in the 3rd set. 55 in total in 4 sets. 55 by the best player on clay we have ever seen. I'd say he has won tournaments with less UEs than that. Eurosport have the highlights up this morning, I watched it back, to make sure I wasn't dreaming. They started their highlights of a 4 set match, at the 3rd set. I had thought, while watching live, that the 3rd set would make it into a "greatest of all time" conversation, but there were terrible misses everywhere in that set, just less by ND. Great drama, but definitely not great tennis. Nowhere near Nadal/Fed Wimbledon or Mac v Borg x 2. .
glasso wrote: » Loser has higher number of UE's shocker (55 vs 37 overall). Including the third set which took twice as long as a normal set - some long games with lots of break points saved and a tie-break. Match was over half an hour longer in duration than the 5 setter that preceded it where UE count was 47 - 43. Tennis is certainly not all about stats either. It's about the battle, the ebb and flow, the intensity. That's what makes it compelling. Zverev V Tsitsipas was a five setter and had less UE's but wasn't a quarter of the match that came after it!!! it's easily the best "big" / GS semi or final for years I put it ahead of the Fed - Djokovic Wimbdledon final in 2019 as it had more "weight" (Nadal never lost at RG semi or final, his 98.5% win record over 5 on clay, never lost a match after taking first set here compared to a relatively faded Federer) and more intensity (imo)after that you have to go back a long way to find a good one.
SlickRic wrote: » My position is this (and I don't like Djokovic at all). Federer may be the most mesmerising to watch at his best, but I think Djokovic is the most difficult player to beat at his best. I won't fall out with anyone over it. It's just how I've felt for a while now. If someone wants to argue for Fed, then great.
walshb wrote: » I agree here.. Life on the line and you have to pick one player to win? Nole by a whisker. I just don’t see it as being remotely clear for any of them.. They are neck and neck the three of them..
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/75771797d68b15f0c5c6e631c7bb7ced.svg)
