Tennis

[StanSP]

Gonna be about 2am by the time this finishes

 

[StanSP]

Wow Mcenroe can't get out of Djokovic's arse can he

[The Horse's Mouth]

Nadal truly runs these streets

[StanSP]

Nearly there Rafa! 

Thought he was done at 5-2 down. Done amazingly to get to here. 

[StanSP]

The absolute Don. 

 

What a legend. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Get in Rafa lad 

[kingfox]

VAMOS!

[rachhere]

Can you imagine how many slams Rafa would be on if they had two clay court grand slams? 

[Number 6]

What an absolute legend. That 4th set showed everything I love about watching him, never gave up or resigned himself to a 5th set. 

 

Brilliant match from both in fairness. The mental toughness on display was outstanding.

[Nalis]

6 hours ago, rachhere said:

Can you imagine how many slams Rafa would be on if they had two clay court grand slams? 

Two clay court slams would be boring as shit.

 

In the interest of balance, so would 2 grass court slams.

[Super_horns]

Djokovic threw the chance to take it in to a 5th then?

Well played to Nadal .

[Jimothy]

22 hours ago, rachhere said:

Can you imagine how many slams Rafa would be on if they had two clay court grand slams? 

Imagine how many he'd have won if there wasn't a clay slam.

 

 

[rachhere]

12 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Imagine how many he'd have won if there wasn't a clay slam.

 

 

Imagine how many Novak would have won if there weren't hard court tournaments. Clay is a huge part of the tour and of tennis in general around the world. I am also personally quite a fan as its the only surface I can beat my husband on!

Edited 1 June 2022 by rachhere

[Manwell Pablo]

They need to start these evening matches earlier, you can’t start a competitive evening five set clay court game after 8pm.

 

 

[Jimothy]

Just now, rachhere said:

Imagine how many Novak would have won if there weren't hard court tournaments. Clay is a huge part of the tour and of tennis in general around the world. 

I can't be arsed to get into it. I've said before Rafas dominance on clay skews his slam figures and stick by it.

[Manwell Pablo]

2 minutes ago, rachhere said:

Imagine how many Novak would have won if there weren't hard court tournaments. Clay is a huge part of the tour and of tennis in general around the world. 

Hard Court is your basic surface though.

 

Clay court tennis is just a different game almost. Far more than grass.

[gerblod]

8 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I can't be arsed to get into it. I've said before Rafas dominance on clay skews his slam figures and stick by it.

Much as I dislike his obsessive shorts hitching and eyebrow wiping, you cannot be serious in questioning his all-court ability. He's well into an age group where Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev should have superseded him and his peers.

 

He managed to return from what was viewed as a career-ending injury.

 

In the context of competing on the same level as the greatest stroke-player of all time and against the most combative player ever, his place in the pantheon cannot be questioned - whatever surface he plays on. And, as Rachere comments, clay court is a standard surface - especially for players all around the Mediterranean.

 

It would be churlish to question his achievements or his ability. 

 

[Jimothy]

53 minutes ago, gerblod said:

Much as I dislike his obsessive shorts hitching and eyebrow wiping, you cannot be serious in questioning his all-court ability. He's well into an age group where Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev should have superseded him and his peers.

 

He managed to return from what was viewed as a career-ending injury.

 

In the context of competing on the same level as the greatest stroke-player of all time and against the most combative player ever, his place in the pantheon cannot be questioned - whatever surface he plays on. And, as Rachere comments, clay court is a standard surface - especially for players all around the Mediterranean.

 

It would be churlish to question his achievements or his ability. 

 

I never questioned his ability or his place amongst the greats, I just said his dominance on one surface skews the grand slam totals. Because whilst he's obviously very good on other surfaces, his record is comparable with other top players over the years, but not with very top players, so I believe being so dominant on clay is what currently puts him at the top with 21 slams. He's 61% of his slam come from one surface, 13 from 17 attempts (one of those loses was an injury). For comparison, Djokovic 9 Australian opens, his strongest slam 45% of his total. Even lumping the US and Aus together (different surfaces technically so we shouldn't) hard courts make up 60% of him slams, but its 12 from 33 attempts.

 

So what I'm saying if you remove strongest slam for each of the big 3 Djokovic and Federer both still have double figures, Novak on 11, Roger on 12. You take Nadals out and he's on 8. So whilst they all made inroads into the others dominance on particular surface (Federer on clay not so much), Nadals success isn't as spread out as the others. Or to put in another way, outside the French Nadal has an 80% win record in Slam, impressive. Novak has nearer 86% outside the hard courts, thats a big enough difference imo to be clear. I've deliberately left Federer out as I think he played on too long 

 

They all have all court ability, they have all won all the slams, you don't do that unless you do, I just think the others, especially Djokovic have more all court ability, and that's shown by the spread of his slam wins.

[The Horse's Mouth]

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I never questioned his ability or his place amongst the greats, I just said his dominance on one surface skews the grand slam totals. Because whilst he's obviously very good on other surfaces, his record is comparable with other top players over the years, but not with very top players, so I believe being so dominant on clay is what currently puts him at the top with 21 slams. He's 61% of his slam come from one surface, 13 from 17 attempts (one of those loses was an injury). For comparison, Djokovic 9 Australian opens, his strongest slam 45% of his total. Even lumping the US and Aus together (different surfaces technically so we shouldn't) hard courts make up 60% of him slams, but its 12 from 33 attempts.

 

So what I'm saying if you remove strongest slam for each of the big 3 Djokovic and Federer both still have double figures, Novak on 11, Roger on 12. You take Nadals out and he's on 8. So whilst they all made inroads into the others dominance on particular surface (Federer on clay not so much), Nadals success isn't as spread out as the others. Or to put in another way, outside the French Nadal has an 80% win record in Slam, impressive. Novak has nearer 86% outside the hard courts, thats a big enough difference imo to be clear. I've deliberately left Federer out as I think he played on too long 

 

They all have all court ability, they have all won all the slams, you don't do that unless you do, I just think the others, especially Djokovic have more all court ability, and that's shown by the spread of his slam wins.

I don't think there's many who think Nadal is better than Fed or Novak though

[Jimothy]

3 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I don't think there's many who think Nadal is better than Fed or Novak though

There are plenty, and many use the fact he is ahead in terms of slam wins as a big reason.

 

 

[rachhere]

2 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I don't think there's many who think Nadal is better than Fed or Novak though

I will happily concede that Novak is better. I don't know about Fed. Would he have as many slams if he wasn't that bit older and had a few years on tour advantage over them? He's an incredible front runner, but I don't think has quite the same resilience as Novak and Rafa (and I know he's played and won some incredible battles). They all offer something a bit different, and all can build up some case of being the GOAT. Federer I think is seen as the best partly because of his style of play (his graceful movement, the fact he never even looks like he's sweating), although I have heard people gasp out loud when they have seen Novak display his insane flexibility for the first time in a match, and I think he's one of those you have to see in person to fully appreciate his game. 

 

Give it a few years though and we will all be talking about how Alcaraz is the best of all! 

[gerblod]

On 02/06/2022 at 09:03, Facecloth said:

I never questioned his ability or his place amongst the greats, I just said his dominance on one surface skews the grand slam totals. Because whilst he's obviously very good on other surfaces, his record is comparable with other top players over the years, but not with very top players, so I believe being so dominant on clay is what currently puts him at the top with 21 slams. He's 61% of his slam come from one surface, 13 from 17 attempts (one of those loses was an injury). For comparison, Djokovic 9 Australian opens, his strongest slam 45% of his total. Even lumping the US and Aus together (different surfaces technically so we shouldn't) hard courts make up 60% of him slams, but its 12 from 33 attempts.

 

So what I'm saying if you remove strongest slam for each of the big 3 Djokovic and Federer both still have double figures, Novak on 11, Roger on 12. You take Nadals out and he's on 8. So whilst they all made inroads into the others dominance on particular surface (Federer on clay not so much), Nadals success isn't as spread out as the others. Or to put in another way, outside the French Nadal has an 80% win record in Slam, impressive. Novak has nearer 86% outside the hard courts, thats a big enough difference imo to be clear. I've deliberately left Federer out as I think he played on too long 

 

They all have all court ability, they have all won all the slams, you don't do that unless you do, I just think the others, especially Djokovic have more all court ability, and that's shown by the spread of his slam wins.

A well argued hypothesis.

[gerblod]

19 hours ago, rachhere said:

I will happily concede that Novak is better. I don't know about Fed. Would he have as many slams if he wasn't that bit older and had a few years on tour advantage over them? He's an incredible front runner, but I don't think has quite the same resilience as Novak and Rafa (and I know he's played and won some incredible battles). They all offer something a bit different, and all can build up some case of being the GOAT. Federer I think is seen as the best partly because of his style of play (his graceful movement, the fact he never even looks like he's sweating), although I have heard people gasp out loud when they have seen Novak display his insane flexibility for the first time in a match, and I think he's one of those you have to see in person to fully appreciate his game. 

 

Give it a few years though and we will all be talking about how Alcaraz is the best of all! 

I suspect Alcaraz is the one who's going to shove aside all those pretenders to the throne.

I used to watch a programme entitled Transworld Sport. They did a special article on Nadal when he was fifteen basically stating that he was going to be the next tennis great. How right they were. But something about his obsessive-compulsive pre-serve routine has always irritated the hell out of me!

 

Incidentally the Guardian did a paean piece about Juan-Martin del Potro's all too early retirement. If there was anyone who was a genuine gentleman on court it was him. But there were frailties in that big frame which prevented him from achieving what his skill and character deserved. 

 

[gerblod]

On 01/06/2022 at 22:52, Manwell Pablo said:

Hard Court is your basic surface though.

 

Clay court tennis is just a different game almost. Far more than grass.

If you do some background reading on hard court surfaces (as I've just done ) you'll find there are significant differences between the way, for examples, the US and Australian acrylic surfaces play. I suspect there are differences in how grass and clay courts play, but hard courts can be 'tailored' much more - so I guess certain players will have their preferences.

 

[rachhere]

46 minutes ago, gerblod said:

I suspect Alcaraz is the one who's going to shove aside all those pretenders to the throne.

I used to watch a programme entitled Transworld Sport. They did a special article on Nadal when he was fifteen basically stating that he was going to be the next tennis great. How right they were. But something about his obsessive-compulsive pre-serve routine has always irritated the hell out of me!

 

Incidentally the Guardian did a paean piece about Juan-Martin del Potro's all too early retirement. If there was anyone who was a genuine gentleman on court it was him. But there were frailties in that big frame which prevented him from achieving what his skill and character deserved. 

 

I loved that show! Channel 4, right? Delpo really was a top guy, and so sad he had to retire early. At least he managed to get a slam. That Olympic final! 
 

Novak bothers me more with his pre service routine to be honest - just how many times does one have to bounce the ball?!