Tennis 2023

[Martin Alvito]

Was rooting for Carlitos to retain his title but happy for Medvedev. Excellent player. Hope he goes on to win it.

Scalping #1 and #2 in the same Grand Slam is tough, and not just because one can stumble. Only Stan the Man has done it (twice) on the men's side since the rise of Federer. I think Wilander is the only other man to do it twice. Everyone else outside of the top two that won a Slam received a little help.

It's remarkable the contortions these people do to deny the fact that DJOKOVIC IS THE GREATEST TENNIS PLAYER OF ALL TIME.

There's a reasonable argument for all of the Big Three. The only other player anywhere in the frame is Laver, with the two calendar Slams. I happen to agree with you, but it will always be possible to argue that Djokovic was fortunate to be the youngest of the three (and have a play style less taxing on the body than Nadal) unless he really runs up the score. One could also argue that Nadal did it against the prime versions of both.

The 2021 French Open semifinal settled it for me. Djokovic reached a level in that third set that was better than Nadal's peak in that set, and at a higher level than Federer ever reached.

 

[Billy Dean]

Scalping #1 and #2 in the same Grand Slam is tough, and not just because one can stumble. Only Stan the Man has done it (twice) on the men's side since the rise of Federer. I think Wilander is the only other man to do it twice. Everyone else outside of the top two that won a Slam received a little help.


There's a reasonable argument for all of the Big Three. The only other player anywhere in the frame is Laver, with the two calendar Slams. I happen to agree with you, but it will always be possible to argue that Djokovic was fortunate to be the youngest of the three (and have a play style less taxing on the body than Nadal) unless he really runs up the score. One could also argue that Nadal did it against the prime versions of both.

The 2021 French Open semifinal settled it for me. Djokovic reached a level in that third set that was better than Nadal's peak in that set, and at a higher level than Federer ever reached.

Yeah of course, Djokovic is favourite, but would be good if Medvedev could win it

 

[davek]

Scalping #1 and #2 in the same Grand Slam is tough, and not just because one can stumble. Only Stan the Man has done it (twice) on the men's side since the rise of Federer. I think Wilander is the only other man to do it twice. Everyone else outside of the top two that won a Slam received a little help.


There's a reasonable argument for all of the Big Three. The only other player anywhere in the frame is Laver, with the two calendar Slams. I happen to agree with you, but it will always be possible to argue that Djokovic was fortunate to be the youngest of the three (and have a play style less taxing on the body than Nadal) unless he really runs up the score. One could also argue that Nadal did it against the prime versions of both.

The 2021 French Open semifinal settled it for me. Djokovic reached a level in that third set that was better than Nadal's peak in that set, and at a higher level than Federer ever reached.

There's only one metric to use: GS wins.

That was agreed on by all...until Djokovic kept on winning GS titles....then the goal posts were shifted.

 

[Martin Alvito]

There's only one metric to use: GS wins.

That was agreed on by all...until Djokovic kept on winning GS titles....then the goal posts were shifted.

I don't agree, and I wouldn't have years ago. It's possible to run up stats/titles to the point that the question is settled, but that rarely happens in sports.

There were a ton of players in the men's tennis GOAT discussion, twenty years ago. Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg and even Agassi were all reasonable on some level. Bill Tilden as well, but we don't talk about him. I would have taken Laver, until Federer. Zero wins in Paris was a significant blemish on Petey's record.

Most sports are this way. Football has a bunch of players in the frame. Basketball has several good shouts. Golf has three (Jones, Nicklaus, Tiger) in the conversation. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

A few sports are not that way. Phelps is the greatest swimmer. Jerry Rice is the greatest NFL player, though people will argue this point because they don't understand that rings aren't everything in a team sport. Gretzky is the greatest NHL player. These are settled questions because they blasted everyone else off the face of the planet with stats/titles.

 

[davek]

I don't agree, and I wouldn't have years ago. It's possible to run up stats/titles to the point that the question is settled, but that rarely happens in sports.

There were a ton of players in the men's tennis GOAT discussion, twenty years ago. Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg and even Agassi were all reasonable on some level. Bill Tilden as well, but we don't talk about him. I would have taken Laver, until Federer. Zero wins in Paris was a significant blemish on Petey's record.

Most sports are this way. Football has a bunch of players in the frame. Basketball has several good shouts. Golf has three (Jones, Nicklaus, Tiger) in the conversation. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

A few sports are not that way. Phelps is the greatest swimmer. Jerry Rice is the greatest NFL player, though people will argue this point because they don't understand that rings aren't everything in a team sport. Gretzky is the greatest NHL player. These are settled questions because they blasted everyone else off the face of the planet with stats/titles.

I think we can agree that Real Madrid are the greatest football club of all time...why? because they've won scores of Spanish titles and 14 European Cups.

How cant we do that for tennis? Itls not like we're comparing players who haven't all won GS on different surfaces.

In any case over and above that is my point that the whole idea of GOAT - talked up 3/4 years ago when Nadal and Federer were looking like it'd be them for decades to come - was dropped because a Serb...who we're all supposed to dislike because they're not on 'our' side in some geo-political soft power war...surpassed all others to become GOAT.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I think we can agree that Real Madrid are the greatest football club of all time...why? because they've won scores of Spanish titles and 14 European Cups.

How cant we do that for tennis? Itls not like we're comparing players who haven't all won GS on different surfaces.

In any case over and above that is my point that the whole idea of GOAT - talked up 3/4 years ago when Nadal and Federer were looking like it'd be them for decades to come - was dropped because a Serb...who we're all supposed to dislike because they're not on 'our' side in some geo-political soft power war...surpassed all others to become GOAT.

They're not just clear. They're well clear. Twice as many titles as the next best in the top European competition, plus a strong domestic record, settles it.

It's not nearly as clear with the Big Three. Federer is probably the most influential player in the history of the game. Nadal has a strong edge over Federer, and a virtual dead heat with Djokovic. Djokovic has a slight edge against both, and the most Slams by a small margin. If you go back further in time, it gets messy. There are factors like foreigners skipping the AO because coming out ahead on the travel costs meant betting on making the final.

When it's close on the metrics, subjective factors can tip the scale in different ways for different people. Pele has three World Cups and an absurd goals/per, though that was in an era where across the board it was higher. Maradona was a one-man army who willed Argentina to a World Cup and Napoli to a pair of Serie A titles. Messi was the linchpin of the greatest club side of all time and has the World Cup. Cristiano Ronaldo has the European Cups, the goals and a Euro for a side that has little business winning a Euro. Then there's the all-timers like Cruyff, Beckenbauer and Lev Yashin who changed the game.

I will still then tell you that I think Iniesta is the best footballer I have ever laid eyes on, because he could kill you in every attacking way possible, and that absolutely no one would have terrified me as a defender more than Brazilian Ronaldo at his peak barreling down the pitch in a one-on-one situation.

 

[woomy]

I think we can agree that Real Madrid are the greatest football club of all time...why? because they've won scores of Spanish titles and 14 European Cups.

How cant we do that for tennis? Itls not like we're comparing players who haven't all won GS on different surfaces.

In any case over and above that is my point that the whole idea of GOAT - talked up 3/4 years ago when Nadal and Federer were looking like it'd be them for decades to come - was dropped because a Serb...who we're all supposed to dislike because they're not on 'our' side in some geo-political soft power war...surpassed all others to become GOAT.

I think we dislike Novak because he is a tosspot, not because if his nationality.
There is nothing likable about him.

Saying that, he is pretty good at this tennis thingy.
Is he the best ever? Probably. I think if you took all players at their best ever, and play over say 5 years. This guy would come out on top.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I think we dislike Novak because he is a tosspot, not because if his nationality.
There is nothing likable about him.

Saying that, he is pretty good at this tennis thingy.
Is he the best ever? Probably. I think if you took all players at their best ever, and play over say 5 years. This guy would come out on top.

He has a good sense of humor. They don't call him the Djoker for nothing. That's about it, in terms of likability, and he took a huge reputation hit during COVID.

Peak Novak beats anyone. Alcaraz won at Wimbledon because he ran Djokovic out of gas. Djokovic peaked very late, but Father Time is now having his say. Odds are that he'll still bag enough titles in the next two to four years to settle the question, then hang it up, but injuries are also a thing in tennis. I would have told you in 2007 that Tiger would leave Nicklaus well in his dust, but stuff happened.

Of course, Alcaraz is quite young, so there's still ample time for him to pass peak Novak. He keeps adding pieces to his game at an astonishing rate.

 

[davek]

They're not just clear. They're well clear. Twice as many titles as the next best in the top European competition, plus a strong domestic record, settles it.

It's not nearly as clear with the Big Three. Federer is probably the most influential player in the history of the game. Nadal has a strong edge over Federer, and a virtual dead heat with Djokovic. Djokovic has a slight edge against both, and the most Slams by a small margin. If you go back further in time, it gets messy. There are factors like foreigners skipping the AO because coming out ahead on the travel costs meant betting on making the final.

When it's close on the metrics, subjective factors can tip the scale in different ways for different people. Pele has three World Cups and an absurd goals/per, though that was in an era where across the board it was higher. Maradona was a one-man army who willed Argentina to a World Cup and Napoli to a pair of Serie A titles. Messi was the linchpin of the greatest club side of all time and has the World Cup. Cristiano Ronaldo has the European Cups, the goals and a Euro for a side that has little business winning a Euro. Then there's the all-timers like Cruyff, Beckenbauer and Lev Yashin who changed the game.

I will still then tell you that I think Iniesta is the best footballer I have ever laid eyes on, because he could kill you in every attacking way possible, and that absolutely no one would have terrified me as a defender more than Brazilian Ronaldo at his peak barreling down the pitch in a one-on-one situation.

What does that mean? What measure are you using for 'influential' and 'edge' and 'dead heat'?

It's simple enough: we have a measurement that everyone was happy enough with 2 years ago before Djokovic started surpassing everyone else. Grand Slam singles titles.

 

[davek]

I think we dislike Novak because he is a tosspot, not because if his nationality.
There is nothing likable about him.

Saying that, he is pretty good at this tennis thingy.
Is he the best ever? Probably. I think if you took all players at their best ever, and play over say 5 years. This guy would come out on top.

He's the best player there's ever been.

 

[Martin Alvito]

What does that mean? What measure are you using for 'influential' and 'edge' and 'dead heat'?

It's simple enough: we have a measurement that everyone was happy enough with 2 years ago before Djokovic started surpassing everyone else. Grand Slam singles titles.

Influential: players have been trying to copy what Federer did well ever since. When you attack the net after a strong first serve, you're copying McEnroe. When you send back heat that wins the point from objectively losing positions, you're copying Federer. Djokovic, Nadal and Alcaraz all have learned to do this well. Replies like that are not reliably possible in chess, but are possible in tennis because it's a game of geometry, rather than space control.

Edge: W/L. Dead heat: within any reasonable notion of variance. Nadal's H2H against Federer is 24-16. Djokovic-Nadal is 30-29. The latter is a dead heat. The former is not.

I categorically reject the notion that the GOAT discussion was settled on titles prior to Djokovic surpassing Nadal and Federer. Petey was really, really good, but there was no consensus that he was the GOAT because he had two more Slams than Emerson, nor would any discussion would have concluded that. The men's tennis GOAT was a spirited bar debate at the time. It still is, but it's a different debate.

 

[davek]

Influential: players have been trying to copy what Federer did well ever since. When you attack the net after a strong first serve, you're copying McEnroe. When you send back heat that wins the point from objectively losing positions, you're copying Federer. Djokovic, Nadal and Alcaraz all have learned to do this well. Replies like that are not reliably possible in chess, but are possible in tennis because it's a game of geometry, rather than space control.

Edge: W/L. Dead heat: within any reasonable notion of variance. Nadal's H2H against Federer is 24-16. Djokovic-Nadal is 30-29. The latter is a dead heat. The former is not.

I categorically reject the notion that the GOAT discussion was settled on titles prior to Djokovic surpassing Nadal and Federer. Petey was really, really good, but there was no consensus that he was the GOAT because he had two more Slams than Emerson, nor would any discussion would have concluded that. The men's tennis GOAT was a spirited bar debate at the time. It still is, but it's a different debate.

Serve volley predated McEnroe and turning your opponent onto the defensive from seeminlgy controlling positions well predates Federer. They were reinventing the wheel.

Head to head includes matches outside the slams on the tour and cant be seen as any guide to who is a better player as the same effort isn't put in.

GOAT based on slam wins has been the metric for years now. My point is that it has now been dropped by the media - as good lap dogs of the cold war.

 

[Billy Dean]

I think we dislike Novak because he is a tosspot, not because if his nationality.
There is nothing likable about him.

Saying that, he is pretty good at this tennis thingy.
Is he the best ever? Probably. I think if you took all players at their best ever, and play over say 5 years. This guy would come out on top.

My only issue with him is his behaviour during the pandemic really.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Serve volley predated McEnroe and turning your opponent onto the defensive from seeminlgy controlling positions well predates Federer. They were reinventing the wheel.

Head to head includes matches outside the slams on the tour and cant be seen as any guide to who is a better player as the same effort isn't put in.

GOAT based on slam wins has been the metric for years now. My point is that it has now been dropped by the media - as good lap dogs of the cold war.

Re: McEnroe: sure, but he defined to do it well. I'm not sure I agree with respect to Federer. I had never seen anything like it.

I question your dismissal of the entire tour. I think Masters 1000 matches matter. You're free to disagree.

I think your belief in your metric is deeply questionable. You are welcome to disagree. It's a reasonable position in the bar/pub discussion. I land on the same spot in men's tennis, though I would disagree with your reasoning. If you want to call out Western sports media as narrative hacks, I'm not inclined to argue. If you want to call them out for trumpeting Federer on Slam wins until the rationale vanished, I'm with you there.

All of that said, the line that sticks with me is the Nike commercial they aired right after Federer hit fifteen. McEnroe, being McEnroe, said, "Thanks, Roger, for making the rest of us look average."

Typically hilarious McEnroe, but it also hit upon the truth. Slams do matter. It wasn't what mattered, with respect to Federer. He made everyone that came before look average. The way he did it was what became legend.

 

[stipe]

My only issue with him is his behaviour during the pandemic really.

Thats pretty much mentality here in ex-Yugoslavia, laughing to whole thing, and i dont mean just kids and stupid corona-parties, but majority of people, nobody takes anything seriously here

After proclamation of lockdown this island where im usually spending vacation was fuller then peak summer season and pretty much nobody followed any rule.

There is siege mentality at work here (but most strongly in Serbia) and a lot of arrogance, to put it bluntly

"Everyone hates us anyway, feck them all" (thats chief mentality in this parts).
Slovenia is probably only normal country in this region with better mentality and work ethic.