Tennis !

[The binman chronicles]

Solid reply that, fair enough.

I used to play a bit, been watching on/off since Becker won Wimbledon as a young lad. Thought no one would get close to Sampras's dominance then as you say three players come along at the same time to significantly overtake him.

Objectively, these three have to be top 3 of all time, granted. But i'd still rank the other two above Nadal due to an easier-on-the-eye style.

1. Fed...beautiful game.
2. Djoko...a more artful relentlessness than Nadal's monotone force, and more shot-variety.
3. Nadal...yeah he'd have to rank above Sampras, but that Clay Slam is very dominant and skews his stats, plus his style is monotone to me.

Easier on the eye is not a measure of who is the greatest though, yes Federer played the most picture perfect tennis but he has losing records against both the other two. You can't really call yourself the greatest when that happens.

That said Djokovic swept up after Fed was past it and Nadal's body started breaking down. In my mind the best goes to who came out on top when they were at their peak and Nadal managed to beat a prime Federer on his favourite surface grass to win Wimbledon in 08.

 

[dholliday]

Easier on the eye is not a measure of who is the greatest though

it can be, and is often used as a barometer, even in other sports, as long as that easy-on-the-eye style has also translated to (almost) unparalled-success.

yes Federer played the most picture perfect tennis but he has losing records against both the other two. You can't really call yourself the greatest when that happens.

That said Djokovic swept up after Fed was past it and Nadal's body started breaking down. In my mind the best goes to who came out on top when they were at their peak.

Take out Nadal's Clay record, and his head-to-head with Fed looks very different, tho' admittedly still close. Clay is a very particular, peculiar, surface. It's historically often had its dominant players who failed to show up elsewhere but had strong monotone baseline games (Kuerten etc) while dominant Grass/Hard players often struggled on the slower-pace/higher-bounce of Clay.

Sure, Nadal has proven his greatness at the other surfaces too, but only to a similar extent of an Agassi/Connor/McEnroe/Edberg. You can rank him above them because of his Clay record, but can you rank his 8 non-Clay Slams above Fed's 19, or Djoko's 18?

That's a massive gap.

Then add the better shot-variety of Fed/Djoko to the mix, and you've got a strong objective argument for ranking Nadal below them two.


The Clay game is frankly the dullest to watch, being dominant at it doesn't guarantee top spot in the pantheon.

Nadal managed to beat a prime Federer on his favourite surface grass to win Wimbledon in 08.

aye, maybe the greatest match i've ever seen...

...Goran's win is probably my favourite, tho'...despite Rafter checking out. Magic stuff.



As an aside...Steffi vs Serena?

 

[Hogwild]

it can be, and is often used as a barometer, even in other sports, as long as that easy-on-the-eye style has also translated to (almost) unparalled-success.



Take out Nadal's Clay record, and his head-to-head with Fed looks very different, tho' admittedly still close. Clay is a very particular, peculiar, surface. It's historically often had its dominant players who failed to show up elsewhere but had strong monotone baseline games (Kuerten etc) while dominant Grass/Hard players often struggled on the slower-pace/higher-bounce of Clay.

Sure, Nadal has proven his greatness at the other surfaces too, but only to a similar extent of an Agassi/Connor/McEnroe/Edberg. You can rank him above them because of his Clay record, but can you rank his 8 non-Clay Slams above Fed's 19, or Djoko's 18?

That's a massive gap.

Then add the better shot-variety of Fed/Djoko to the mix, and you've got a strong objective argument for ranking Nadal below them two.


The Clay game is frankly the dullest to watch, being dominant at it doesn't guarantee top spot in the pantheon.



aye, maybe the greatest match i've ever seen...

...Goran's win is probably my favourite, tho'...despite Rafter checking out. Magic stuff.



As an aside...Steffi vs Serena?

Loved Goran, all three of them - Good, Bad and 911. Him winning Wimbledon was one of my all time sporting moments.

Steffi v Serena is so, so hard. I LOVE Steffi, but ultimately I think Serena is the right answer.

 

[dholliday]

Him winning Wimbledon was one of my all time sporting moments.

aye...outside of football it's in my top 3: with the Carl Lewis/Mike Powell Long Jump battle, and Michael Johnson's 19:32.

Sadly i missed a lot of Bolt's runs.

Steffi v Serena is so, so hard. I LOVE Steffi, but ultimately I think Serena is the right answer.

agreed.

i saw Justine Henin play live, seeing that backhand for real was very impressive. Always thought she didn't quite fulfil her potential despite a bunch of Slams.

 

[Acrobat]

it can be, and is often used as a barometer, even in other sports, as long as that easy-on-the-eye style has also translated to (almost) unparalled-success.



Take out Nadal's Clay record, and his head-to-head with Fed looks very different, tho' admittedly still close. Clay is a very particular, peculiar, surface. It's historically often had its dominant players who failed to show up elsewhere but had strong monotone baseline games (Kuerten etc) while dominant Grass/Hard players often struggled on the slower-pace/higher-bounce of Clay.

Sure, Nadal has proven his greatness at the other surfaces too, but only to a similar extent of an Agassi/Connor/McEnroe/Edberg. You can rank him above them because of his Clay record, but can you rank his 8 non-Clay Slams above Fed's 19, or Djoko's 18?

That's a massive gap.

Then add the better shot-variety of Fed/Djoko to the mix, and you've got a strong objective argument for ranking Nadal below them two.


The Clay game is frankly the dullest to watch, being dominant at it doesn't guarantee top spot in the pantheon.



aye, maybe the greatest match i've ever seen...

...Goran's win is probably my favourite, tho'...despite Rafter checking out. Magic stuff.



As an aside...Steffi vs Serena?

Steffi. It was WAY harder to win when she was around….. the competition was astounding. Navratilova, Sanchez- Vicario, Seles, Hingis, Sabatini, to name a few. And at her peak, Steffi wiped the floor with them. Her golden slam year will never be equaled/beaten, she was merciless that year. Her forehand was the best I’ve ever seen. Loved her!

 

[dholliday]

Steffi. It was WAY harder to win when she was around….. the competition was astounding. Navratilova, Sanchez- Vicario, Seles, Hingis, Sabatini, to name a few. And at her peak, Steffi wiped the floor with them. Her golden slam year will never be equaled/beaten, she was merciless that year. Her forehand was the best I’ve ever seen. Loved her!

also sound argument. Such a brutal unfairness what happened to Seles. Horrible. She recovered, but was never quite the same player. Before that, she was Steffi's biggest challenger.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Men's tennis is dull as dishwater now. You know who is going to win before a ball is hit. In the last 10 years of Grand Slams, just 7 have gone to players that weren't called Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic, with just 2 of those happening in the last 6 years. It's about as competitive now as the Scottish Premiership.

 

[evilwebby]

Steffi is the greatest female player I've seen, no question in my mind. She changed the modern game and turne it into a baseline dominated game on all surfaces, thanks to her athleticism and fierce forehand. She retired at 30 still at her peak and could have won a lot more had she kept going.




Roger will remain the GOAT in my mind. Again, basically because he drastically changed the way the game is played. He could basically play any shot from anywhere on the court. Novak and Nadal are incredible, but peak Federer is just genius, poetry... call it what you want.. he just moves differently.. his game was always based more around shotmaking and perfect timing.

 

[The binman chronicles]

it can be, and is often used as a barometer, even in other sports, as long as that easy-on-the-eye style has also translated to (almost) unparalled-success.



Take out Nadal's Clay record, and his head-to-head with Fed looks very different, tho' admittedly still close. Clay is a very particular, peculiar, surface. It's historically often had its dominant players who failed to show up elsewhere but had strong monotone baseline games (Kuerten etc) while dominant Grass/Hard players often struggled on the slower-pace/higher-bounce of Clay.

Sure, Nadal has proven his greatness at the other surfaces too, but only to a similar extent of an Agassi/Connor/McEnroe/Edberg. You can rank him above them because of his Clay record, but can you rank his 8 non-Clay Slams above Fed's 19, or Djoko's 18?

That's a massive gap.

Then add the better shot-variety of Fed/Djoko to the mix, and you've got a strong objective argument for ranking Nadal below them two.


The Clay game is frankly the dullest to watch, being dominant at it doesn't guarantee top spot in the pantheon.



aye, maybe the greatest match i've ever seen...

...Goran's win is probably my favourite, tho'...despite Rafter checking out. Magic stuff.



As an aside...Steffi vs Serena?

It's all subjective in the end. Federer only gets close to Nadal head to head due to Federer's Indian summer at the point Nadal was injured. A clay court is still part and parcel of a tennis, you can't dismiss one, to do so you would have to dismiss grass being the other outlier and the Federer's record doesn't look so special.

I'll always say I would rather watch Federer play, but who was better at the sport (I.e. beat your opponent) I would have to say Nadal.

Steffi vs Serena would be a special, again I would prefer to watch Steffi but Serena probably beats her when both were in their pomp.

 

[dholliday]

.

I've been playing and watching the game for a long, long time.

What standard you at?

I thought i was alright: decent power, mean slice, solid netplay. A female friend (i'm a bloke), who played at a club in her teens but had not picked up a racquet for a decade since, challenged me. I thought i'd have to go easy on her but she had me panting all round the court lol such tidy consistent technique in her shots. She mullered me something like 6-3 6-2 (and she probs went easy on me).

Just shows how far ahead in class those are who actually trained for a bit against those who only played for hobby.

Steffi is the greatest female player I've seen, no question in my mind. She changed the modern game and turne it into a baseline dominated game on all surfaces, thanks to her athleticism and fierce forehand. She retired at 30 still at her peak and could have won a lot more had she kept going.




Roger will remain the GOAT in my mind. Again, basically because he drastically changed the way the game is played. He could basically play any shot from anywhere on the court. Novak and Nadal are incredible, but peak Federer is just genius, poetry... call it what you want.. he just moves differently.. his game was always based more around shotmaking and perfect timing.

It's all subjective in the end. Federer only gets close to Nadal head to head due to Federer's Indian summer at the point Nadal was injured. A clay court is still part and parcel of a tennis, you can't dismiss one, to do so you would have to dismiss grass being the other outlier and the Federer's record doesn't look so special.

I'll always say I would rather watch Federer play, but who was better at the sport (I.e. beat your opponent) I would have to say Nadal.

Steffi vs Serena would be a special, again I would prefer to watch Steffi but Serena probably beats her when both were in their pomp.

enjoyed reading these.

fine sport is tennis.

 

[Hogwild]

.

What standard you at?

I thought i was alright: decent power, mean slice, solid netplay. A female friend (i'm a bloke), who played at a club in her teens but had not picked up a racquet for a decade since, challenged me. I thought i'd have to go easy on her but she had me panting all round the court lol such tidy consistent technique in her shots. She mullered me something like 6-3 6-2 (and she probs went easy on me).

Just shows how far ahead in class those are who actually trained for a bit against those who only played for hobby.






enjoyed reading these.

fine sport is tennis.

I don’t play much anymore, but have a USTA rating of 4.5 now (Am in the States, it’s a respectable enough rating I suppose). Won a state Chamionship in high school, but chose not to play in college, as I was not good enough to do anything but walk on where I wanted to go to school and did not want to go where I had offers. That was all ages ago though.

My wife played a couple of years in college but we never play against each other - the weight of my ball isn’t anything she wants to tolerate (insert joke here).

 

[dholliday]

I don’t play much anymore, but have a USTA rating of 4.5 now. Won a state Chamionship in high school

didn't know about those, just checked them out. i'm around 3.5 tho' i can do bit of spin, volley & variety and have decent first-serve so at best flirted with the 4.0 rating.

My wife played a couple of years in college but we never play against each other - the weight of my ball isn’t anything she wants to tolerate (insert joke here).

lol

yeah when i recently played against my lady-friend i plainly had more power but her consistent technique was just too much for me, she barely made any unforced errors. she's probably around a 4.5 or 5.0.


those ratings are really useful when seeking a hobby tennis-partner.

 

[evilwebby]

Another Radacanu ret. inj...

 

[The binman chronicles]

Another Radacanu ret. inj...

She needs to stop using the Everton physios.

 

[Toast]

Another Radacanu ret. inj...

Didn’t look great that btw.