Tennis

[PGsHeroes32]

Whose taller?

Tall people for the win. Short people stink.

[BM1090]

Whose taller?

Tall people for the win. Short people stink.

I'm taller than Muggs but can't imagine I'm taller than many others on this board. Tallest midget, if you will.

[JWags85]

Ya....this is an utterly ludicrous take.  Rafa has won 22 grand slams and all of them twice.  He's 29-30 vs the Djoker and 24-16 vs Fed.  Federer won one French Open btw.

But he's not wrong.  His stature in those rivalries is nearly entirely because of clay.  His rivalry with Fed is very close, but off clay, Fed led him 15-11.  Also never beat him off of clay after 2014 until Fed retired 2 years ago.

Djokovic is even more stark.  That 29-30...becomes 8-23 vs Joker on hard and grass.  Didn't beat him off the clay the last decade of his career after 2013.  His 2 Australian Open wins were when Joker got heat stroke and then wasn't allowed to play cause of the vaccine in 2022.

The most prestigious tournament in tennis is Wimbledon but the truth is grass is the least played on surface by a wide, wide, margin.  In fact very few kids growing up outside of Great Britain, Ireland, and Australia play on it at all.  There are very few public grass courts in the USA for example.

This is amusing cause the 3 best grass court players in history are from the US, Serbia, and Switzerland.

[MuggsyB]

Whose taller?

Tall people for the win. Short people stink.

Stop disparaging our diminutive citizens. 

[MuggsyB]

But he's not wrong.  His stature in those rivalries is nearly entirely because of clay.  His rivalry with Fed is very close, but off clay, Fed led him 15-11.  Also never beat him off of clay after 2014 until Fed retired 2 years ago.

Djokovic is even more stark.  That 29-30...becomes 8-23 vs Joker on hard and grass.  Didn't beat him off the clay the last decade of his career after 2013.  His 2 Australian Open wins were when Joker got heat stroke and then wasn't allowed to play cause of the vaccine in 2022.

This is amusing cause the 3 best grass court players in history are from the US, Serbia, and Switzerland.

That doesn't mean they can't play on grass.  That wasn't my point JWags.  Sampras probably never played on grass growing up.  My comment is about which surface is the most and least played on worldwide and on the pro circuit.  Notice that nothing was said about those winning more Wimbledons and their records being skewed. 

[MuggsyB]

But he's not wrong.  His stature in those rivalries is nearly entirely because of clay.  His rivalry with Fed is very close, but off clay, Fed led him 15-11.  Also never beat him off of clay after 2014 until Fed retired 2 years ago.

Djokovic is even more stark.  That 29-30...becomes 8-23 vs Joker on hard and grass.  Didn't beat him off the clay the last decade of his career after 2013.  His 2 Australian Open wins were when Joker got heat stroke and then wasn't allowed to play cause of the vaccine in 2022.

This is amusing cause the 3 best grass court players in history are from the US, Serbia, and Switzerland.

There's a reason why there are more clay court tournaments. 

[MU82]

Wags and Muggs:

Nadal is one of the three greatest male tennis players ever. We all know who the other two are.

Arguments can be made for any of them as #1, but even though Djokovic isn't my cup of tea I'd choose him as #1.

But debating is one of the fun parts of fandom, so carry on.

Muggs:

As for Alcaraz needing to be more "consistent" to be anywhere near as good as the Big 3 ...

By the time he turned 21 ...

++ Federer had zero major titles.
++ Djokovic had 1 (Australian)
++ Rafa had 3 (all French)

Alcaraz has 3 - 1 on clay, 1 on grass and 1 on hardcourt.

He's every bit as "consistent" as the others were at this age, and arguably moreso. He's undeniably more accomplished than any of them was, at least measuring by majors.

Better comps when factoring age are Borg, who incredibly had 5 majors by 21 (and won a 6th shortly after turning 21); and Becker, who won 3 by the time he was 21.

Borg and Becker ended up giving in to burnout and injury. Those probably will be Alcaraz's greatest obstacles, too.

[MuggsyB]

Wags and Muggs:

Nadal is one of the three greatest male tennis players ever. We all know who the other two are.

Arguments can be made for any of them as #1, but even though Djokovic isn't my cup of tea I'd choose him as #1.

But debating is one of the fun parts of fandom, so carry on.

Muggs:

As for Alcaraz needing to be more "consistent" to be anywhere near as good as the Big 3 ...

By the time he turned 21 ...

++ Federer had zero major titles.
++ Djokovic had 1 (Australian)
++ Rafa had 3 (all French)

Alcaraz has 3 - 1 on clay, 1 on grass and 1 on hardcourt.

He's every bit as "consistent" as the others were at this age, and arguably moreso. He's undeniably more accomplished than any of them was, at least measuring by majors.

Better comps when factoring age are Borg, who incredibly had 5 majors by 21 (and won a 6th shortly after turning 21); and Becker, who won 3 by the time he was 21.

Borg and Becker ended up giving in to burnout and injury. Those probably will be Alcaraz's greatest obstacles, too.

That's fair but you also have to consider that the Big 3 all were competing against each other for slams.  And all three won 20 or more.    I think the overall depth of men's tennis is better now but not at the very top.  Sinner certainly has the potential to be an all-time great, after than I'm not really sure.

The fact that Novak played with an injury but made the Quarters of the French, and now is in position to make a run at Wimbledon, is worth pondering.  It shows how amazing he and the Big 3 have been throughout their careers.  Alcaraz may very well be better at 21 than all of them, but he has an advantage that he doesn't have to play against them for 15 yrs in their primes. 

My eyes tell me he sprays more unforced errors than Djoker or Nadal, but I could be mistaken and not taking into account how consistent Rafa and Djoker were at 21.  I'm not basing who was more consistent on simply who has more gs wins. 

[MU82]

That's fair but you also have to consider that the Big 3 all were competing against each other for slams.  And all three won 20 or more.    I think the overall depth of men's tennis is better now but not at the very top.  Sinner certainly has the potential to be an all-time great, after than I'm not really sure.

The fact that Novak played with an injury but made the Quarters of the French, and now is in position to make a run at Wimbledon, is worth pondering.  It shows how amazing he and the Big 3 have been throughout their careers.  Alcaraz may very well be better at 21 than all of them, but he has an advantage that he doesn't have to play against them for 15 yrs in their primes. 

My eyes tell me he sprays more unforced errors than Djoker or Nadal, but I could be mistaken and not taking into account how consistent Rafa and Djoker were at 21.  I'm not basing who was more consistent on simply who has more gs wins.

You're basing your beliefs not only on your eye test, but on what you remember of your eye test 15-20 years ago. It's not the best way to base a rating, but there's no perfect system.

When Federer was 21, Nadal and Djokovic weren't even on tour. Roger's biggest competition was the likes of Sampras and Agassi, both near the end of their careers, and an ascending Andy Roddick, who never quite lived up to his billing. I could argue quite easily that Alcaraz faces sterner competition from the likes of Sinner and Medvedev than Roger did from anybody.

Nadal and Djokovic are only about a year apart; both had to contend with each other and an in-his-prime Federer. So obviously, each faced a mini-war out there regularly. There never has been anything quite like it, and as a fan I loved it.

None of which "proves" anything you said or I said or Wags said. There is no "proves." These are opinions based on the best facts we have and on our memories.

And I'm sticking with:

If Alcaraz stays healthy and motivated, he can be every bit as good as any or all of the Big 3. At 21 years old, he is at least as good as any of them were at 21, and my memory tells me he's better.

[MuggsyB]

You're basing your beliefs not only on your eye test, but on what you remember of your eye test 15-20 years ago. It's not the best way to base a rating, but there's no perfect system.

When Federer was 21, Nadal and Djokovic weren't even on tour. Roger's biggest competition was the likes of Sampras and Agassi, both near the end of their careers, and an ascending Andy Roddick, who never quite lived up to his billing. I could argue quite easily that Alcaraz faces sterner competition from the likes of Sinner and Medvedev than Roger did from anybody.

Nadal and Djokovic are only about a year apart; both had to contend with each other and an in-his-prime Federer. So obviously, each faced a mini-war out there regularly. There never has been anything quite like it, and as a fan I loved it.

None of which "proves" anything you said or I said or Wags said. There is no "proves." These are opinions based on the best facts we have and on our memories.

And I'm sticking with:

If Alcaraz stays healthy and motivated, he can be every bit as good as any or all of the Big 3. At 21 years old, he is at least as good as any of them were at 21, and my memory tells me he's better.

Fair enough.  This Fils guy from France is a lot of fun to watch.  He's only 20.  It would be nice  if an American breaks through.  Tommy Paul has given Alcaraz trouble.  Fritz has a good shot against a hobbled Zverev.  That said they're underdogs for sure.  I still can't figure out what Alcaraz's best surface is. 

[Shaka Shart]

Alcarez at his top form is the best player in the world. Sinner has a higher floor in terms of standard play.

[Shaka Shart]

Zverev can eat my a**.

[Shaka Shart]

Fritz takes out Fritz

[tower912]

Zverev can eat my a**.

He has time now.

[MuggsyB]

Great to hear that Fritz prevailed. 

[MuggsyB]

I see the Djoker decided to open up a can of whooooop asssssssss on Rune. 

[BM1090]

Fritz and Paul seem here to stay. Not as top players but legitimately top 15. Both have found a lot of consistency lately. Hope Tiafoe can find the same. Shelton has all the tools to surpass them too.

[MU82]

Back to yesterday for a sec: Gauff was losing her mind constantly looking at her coaches, especially Gilbert. Talking to them, pleading with them for some magical formula to win. She's gotta get past that.  It was comical bordering on ridiculous.

[MuggsyB]

Back to yesterday for a sec: Gauff was losing her mind constantly looking at her coaches, especially Gilbert. Talking to them, pleading with them for some magical formula to win. She's gotta get past that.  It was comical bordering on ridiculous.

That's never good.   I didn't get to see the match but when Gauff has a tough day her forehand tends to break down. 

[MU82]

That's never good.   I didn't get to see the match but when Gauff has a tough day her forehand tends to break down.

Her forehand was brutal. I'm not sure I've seen it quite that bad. I'm not sure what she expected Brad Gilbert to do or say from the stands. "Stop hitting your effen forehand into the net!!"?

[MuggsyB]

Her forehand was brutal. I'm not sure I've seen it quite that bad. I'm not sure what she expected Brad Gilbert to do or say from the stands. "Stop hitting your effen forehand into the net!!"?

I don't even know what the rules are as far as coaching during the match.  I can't imagine it would make much of a difference.  Especially if you can't put the ball in the court. 

[MU82]

I don't even know what the rules are as far as coaching during the match.  I can't imagine it would make much of a difference.  Especially if you can't put the ball in the court.

It's allowed. Didn't used to be.

[MuggsyB]

It would be cool if a  New Zealander made the women's semis.  Although she was raised in Switzerland.

[MuggsyB]

Very high quality 1st set with Medvy/Sinner.  But Medvy blinked with two double faults in the tiebreaker. 

[MuggsyB]

Bizarre situation in the Sinner match.  He's experiencing dizziness or something.