Tennis

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, kingfox said:

See MP

 

A well constructed thoughtful post, something that you can’t manage.

 

However Facecloth, yes Thiem won the US Open fair and square, but was his victory just as impressive without Rafa & Fed in the field? Of course it wasn’t, those two being out, instantly diminishes the quality of the field.

 

I haven’t discredited the next generation, for some reason MP obviously thinks I did. When they finally start breaking through, then they’ll get the credit they deserve, something which I said. Until then though, Djokovic, Rafa and Fed on paper are still dominant, they’ve dominated every Slam for the past four years, you know that.

 

The next generation will finally break through at some point; however the argument always is that those three in particular are still the dominant trio, they still get talked about as being the “Big 3”, and when that finally changes, then the next generation will finally get the Worldwide respect they deserve.

 

This Djokovic vs Medvedev match right now, is just proving my point, Djokovic is wiping the floor with him. These guys have proven that they can get the job done, in best of 3 sets, but they are yet to break the Djokovic, Nadal, Fed cycle when it comes to Grand Slam Tennis, it’s bloody frustrating to see, especially as your starting to see a next generation in the Women’s game coming through, the Men’s next generation when it comes to Slams are still way off.

We're talking about the three greatest players to ever play the game. And I do think it's just two, or maybe one now. Federer is done, Nadal isn't far off. Djokovic still have plenty left in the tank though and I can see a couple of years of dominance from him alone in terms of getting to slam finals.

 

The women's game had one stand out player over the last 20 years and she's nearly 40, and never been the same since the baby, so it's no shock the younger generation are able to come through.

 

I think we'll see a new Wimbledon champion this year, a new French champ next year. Djokovic will probably dominate the hard court for the next couple of years. The change is coming though. Nadal was in this event and was knocked out, when in the past you'd be guaranteed a Djokovic v Nadal final.

[Manwell Pablo]

6 minutes ago, rachhere said:

Novak's record in Australia is just insane. Shame Danil hasn't been able to show what he can do in this match, but his time will come. It's hard not to see Novak overtaking Rafa and Federer's number of grand slam wins.

I think he’ll manage it, Nadal could make it interesting if he wins another french or two though.

[kingfox]

3 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Your arguing against a point I’ve not even made now. 😂 I’ve said you can’t call Grand Slam win tainted and that Roger Federer isn’t going to make another final and is no longer anything like dominant in this sport anymore, which he is not.

 

This doesn’t prove anything, Nole clearly is dominant and no one has claimed otherwise, but him missing defaulting in a slam doesn’t “taint” it. Nonsense talk.

So Nole getting disqualified and Rafa & Fed not taking part, didn’t diminish the quality of the US Open then?

 

Today proves that Djokovic is still dominant, and the next generation still can’t get the job done, when one of Novak, Rafa or Roger make a Slam final, that’s the point I’ve been making, which is just facts.

[Nalis]

Yeah I reckon Nadal has a couple more French opens in him bringing him to 22 so the question would be if Djokovic can get another 5 to move to 23. 

[Manwell Pablo]

9 minutes ago, kingfox said:

So Nole getting disqualified and Rafa & Fed not taking part, didn’t diminish the quality of the US Open then?

 

Today proves that Djokovic is still dominant, and the next generation still can’t get the job done, when one of Novak, Rafa or Roger make a Slam final, that’s the point I’ve been making, which is just facts.

It makes it easier to win of course, that’s different from calling the tournament “tainted” 😂

 

He withdrew in 2019 when Nadal won it, and both he and Murray withdrew in 2017 when Nadal won it and federer lost to del Potro, are they tainted as well?

[kingfox]

11 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

We're talking about the three greatest players to ever play the game. And I do think it's just two, or maybe one now. Federer is done, Nadal isn't far off. Djokovic still have plenty left in the tank though and I can see a couple of years of dominance from him alone in terms of getting to slam finals.

 

The women's game had one stand out player over the last 20 years and she's nearly 40, and never been the same since the baby, so it's no shock the younger generation are able to come through.

 

I think we'll see a new Wimbledon champion this year, a new French champ next year. Djokovic will probably dominate the hard court for the next couple of years. The change is coming though. Nadal was in this event and was knocked out, when in the past you'd be guaranteed a Djokovic v Nadal final.

Of course we are mate, but until the next generation come and break the Novak, Rafa and Fed cycle, the talk of them being the “Big 3” will still continue, nobody has done it yet, Thiem only did it because Novak got disqualified and Rafa & Fed didn’t take part, you may not want to class it as a tainted victory; however you take those three out the equation, then the draw is instantly diminished, which of course made life far easier for Thiem.

 

If we see a new Wimbledon champ this year, or a new French champ next year, then hallelujah, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

The change will come at some point, but since the trios dominance came into play in 2017, we’ve seen Anderson, Cilic, Delpo, Thiem and Medvedev, all have a crack at breaking that dominant cycle, they all failed.

 

Until that cycle is broken, then the “Big 3” will remain the “Big 3” in the eyes of Tennis pundits, Tennis journalists and Tennis fans.

[kingfox]

3 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

It makes it easier to win of course, that’s different from calling the tournament “tainted” 😂

 

He withdrew in 2019 when Nadal won it, and both he and Murray withdrew in 2017 when Nadal won it and federer lost to del Potro, are they tainted as well?

Why are they tainted, when you fully expected Rafa to win those tournaments 

 

Since 2017, you’ve expected either Nole, Rafa or Fed to win every Slam they enter, that’s how dominant they’ve been, that’s my point.

 

The way you’re talking, it seems you’re discrediting Rafa.

[Manwell Pablo]

Just now, kingfox said:

Why are they tainted, when you fully expected Rafa to win those tournaments 

 

Since 2017, you’ve expected either Nole, Rafa or Fed to win every Slam they enter, that’s how dominant they’ve been, that’s my point.

 

The way you’re talking, it seems you’re discrediting Rafa.

Because he’s not beat Djokovic, I’m not trying to discredit anyone, this is your rule set not mine.

[kingfox]

Just now, Manwell Pablo said:

Because he’s not beat Djokovic, I’m not trying to discredit anyone, this is your rule set not mine.

Think you’re getting the wrong end of the stick buddy.

 

You’re making out that I said, winning a Grand Slam without beating Novak is a tainted victory, when in fact I didn’t say that at all.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, kingfox said:

Think you’re getting the wrong end of the stick buddy.

 

You’re making out that I said, winning a Grand Slam without beating Novak is a tainted victory, when in fact I didn’t say that at all.

So to be clear had Djokovic not played and Medvedev gone on to win with Nadal going out in the quarters to someone else that passes the Gavin test of a non “tainted” Grand Slams then? 
 

Nadal (34)  who has two grand slam wins off of clay courts since 2013 both in tournaments where Djokovic withdrew either before or during the tournament? 

[kingfox]

2 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Nadal (34)  who has two grand slam wins off of clay courts since 2013 both in tournaments where Djokovic withdrew either before or during the tournament? 

Nonsense talk.

 

Has Rafa along with Nole and Fed dominated Grand Slams since 2017? Yes or no?

[Nalis]

The tennis in Australia might be over but this rally on the thread between@kingfoxand @Manwell Pablois still going strong. Great effort chaps.

Edited 21 February 2021 by Nalis

[Manwell Pablo]

17 minutes ago, kingfox said:

Nonsense talk.

 

Has Rafa along with Nole and Fed dominated Grand Slams since 2017? Yes or no?

No that would be an incorrect statement, Federer has been in three finals and won two, Thiem has been in four finals and won one, next to nothing In it, ignoring you are purposely drawing a line in the sand to suite your argument by going back to 2017 the man is nearly 40 and has not won a slam for three years.

Edited 21 February 2021 by Manwell Pablo

[kingfox]

4 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

No that would be an incorrect statement, Federer has been in three finals and won two, Thiem has been in four finals and won one, next to nothing In it, ignoring you are purposely drawing a line in the sand to suite your argument by going back to 2017 the man is nearly 40 and has won’t a slam for three years.

Incorrect statement, but this list clearly shows Novak, Rafa and Fed’s dominance. 
 

 

My argument since last night, has always stemmed back since 2017, why? Because that’s when the trios dominance well and truly started, and nobody since then, has managed to step up to them and break their cycle.

 

The evidence is there in writing.

 

The next generation are yet to break that cycle, when they finally do then we’ll talk about the changing of the guards, until that happens, people still class the “Big 3” as the “Big 3” for a reason.

 

 

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, kingfox said:

Incorrect statement, but this list clearly shows Novak, Rafa and Fed’s dominance. 
 

 

My argument since last night, has always stemmed back since 2017, why? Because that’s when the trios dominance well and truly started, and nobody since then, has managed to step up to them and break their cycle.

 

The evidence is there in writing.

 

The next generation are yet to break that cycle, when they finally do then we’ll talk about the changing of the guards, until that happens, people still class the “Big 3” as the “Big 3” for a reason.

 

 

Roger Federers dominance of tennis started in 2017, now I’ve heard it all 😂

[kingfox]

Just now, Manwell Pablo said:

Roger Federers dominance of tennis started in 2017, now I’ve heard it all 😂

Did I say that? No I didn’t.

 

His dominance started in about 04, we all know that.

 

But when you add Novak and Rafa to the mix, the trios dominance well and truly took over since 2017, before that Grand Slams were being more shared, yet again more facts.

 

Supposedly I put words in your mouth last night, you’ve just done the same with me.

 

You’re like a player taking a tactical MTO, dirty scummy tactics.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, kingfox said:

Did I say that? No I didn’t.

 

His dominance started in about 04, we all know that.

 

But when you add Novak and Rafa to the mix, the trios dominance well and truly took over since 2017, before that Grand Slams were being more shared, yet again more facts.

 

Supposedly I put words in your mouth last night, you’ve just done the same with me.

 

You’re like a player taking a tactical MTO, dirty scummy tactics.

😂

 

Im just playing along you are so far off the original subject and arguing complete straw man arguments and have been for awhile.

 

The only fact is a 39 year old man who hasn’t won a slam for thee years being absent from a tournament doesn’t devalue it in the slightest (which was actually the original point btw)

[kingfox]

1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said:

The only fact is a 39 year old man who hasn’t won a slam for thee years being absent from a tournament doesn’t devalue it in the slightest (which was actually the original point btw)

It does though when he’s been part of the trio that has dominated Slams for four years.

 

As I keep on saying the “Big 3” are still talked about as the “Big 3” for a reason, doesn’t matter if Roger is 39 and hasn’t won a Slam in three years.

 

Nobody has stepped up and broken the trios dominance, when they finally do, then they’ll finally get the credit they deserve.

 

Thiem, Medvedev or whoever, aren’t mentioned in the “Big 3” category yet, because they are yet to break the mould. 
 

To say they’ve overtaken Rafa and Roger is utter delusion.

[Manwell Pablo]

5 minutes ago, kingfox said:

It does though when he’s been part of the trio that has dominated Slams for four years.

 

As I keep on saying the “Big 3” are still talked about as the “Big 3” for a reason, doesn’t matter if Roger is 39 and hasn’t won a Slam in three years.

 

Nobody has stepped up and broken the trios dominance, when they finally do, then they’ll finally get the credit they deserve.

 

Thiem, Medvedev or whoever, aren’t mentioned in the “Big 3” category yet, because they are yet to break the mould. 
 

To say they’ve overtaken Rafa and Roger is utter delusion.

No, no it doesn’t. 😂 He’s 39, and hasn’t won a slam for three years, how on earth can you say him not being there takes anything away from the winner of any tournament. if Djokovic wins it you don’t sit there saying “Well Rog wasn’t there so doesn’t really count does it”  He was a outstanding player but can only play half the tour these days because of his age 😂 laughable.

 

Its funny as your argument would be far stronger and would actually get close to having some weight if you just accepted this and dropped Rog from it altogether but you are too stubborn to do so 😂.

[kingfox]

4 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

No, no it doesn’t. 😂 He’s 39, and hasn’t won a slam for three years, how on earth can you say him not being there takes anything away from the winner of any tournament. if Djokovic wins it you don’t sit there saying “Well Rog wasn’t there so doesn’t really count does it” 

 

So according to you, when it comes to winning Slams, especially since 2017, the “Big 3” now don’t exist, despite the evidence and history being there.

 

Come back to me when the likes of Thiem, Medvedev or whoever finally break the mould, because right now there’s no evidence of them doing it 👍🏻

[Manwell Pablo]

12 minutes ago, kingfox said:

 

So according to you, when it comes to winning Slams, especially since 2017, the “Big 3” now don’t exist, despite the evidence and history being there.

 

Come back to me when the likes of Thiem, Medvedev or whoever finally break the mould, because right now there’s no evidence of them doing it 👍🏻

Yes I am saying Roger Federer is no longer a top three player and Nadal is no longer a top three player on anything apart from clay.

 

And there is plenty of evidence of that.

[kingfox]

2 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Yes I am saying Roger Federer is no longer a top three player and Nadal is no longer a top three player on anything apart from clay.

 

And there is plenty of evidence of that.

When it comes to Slams(Which has been my argument all along) where’s the evidence?

 

Because what I see is Djokovic, Nadal and Federer having won 15 out of the last 16, Grand Slam titles.

 

Therefore the “Big 3” still firmly exist, nobody has proven to break the mould yet.

 

Now I’m getting sick and tired of your delusion, I have a Football match to watch.

 

#NoAmarteyNoParty

[Manwell Pablo]

2 minutes ago, kingfox said:

When it comes to Slams(Which has been my argument all along) where’s the evidence?

 

Because what I see is Djokovic, Nadal and Federer having won 15 out of the last 16, Grand Slam titles.

 

Therefore the “Big 3” still firmly exist, nobody has proven to break the mould yet.

 

Now I’m getting sick and tired of your delusion, I have a Football match to watch.

 

#NoAmarteyNoParty

We already did this remember, Dominic Thiem four finals one win, Federer three finals two wins.

 

#Evidence

[kingfox]

6 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

We already did this remember, Dominic Thiem four finals one win, Federer three finals two wins.

 

#Evidence

Since 2017.

 

Roger Federer - 3 Grand Slam titles

Dominic Thiem - 1 Grand Slam title(Won purely off the basis of a Djokovic DQ and Rafa & Roger not taking part)

 

But Dominic Thiem is supposedly now dominating Grand Slam titles.

 

He may have reached four finals, but he lost to Djokovic and Nadal in three of them, hence zero dominance, hence the current failure of him not breaking the cycle.

 

#Evidence 

[Manwell Pablo]

Just now, kingfox said:

Since 2017.

 

Roger Federer - 3 Grand Slam titles

Dominic Thiem - 1 Grand Slam title(Won purely off the basis of a Djokovic DQ and Rafa & Roger not taking part)

 

But Dominic Thiem is supposedly now dominating Grand Slam titles.

 

He may have reached four finals, but he lost to Djokovic and Nadal in three of them, hence zero dominance, hence the current failure of him not breaking the cycle.

 

#Evidence 

Ha I knew I’d get you to come back and correct me. 😂
 

How many of those Roger Federer Grand Slams did Nole play in Gavin.

 

Not that the performances of 36 year old Roger Federer three years ago are at all relevant to 2021 tennis in the least.