• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tennis thread

dingdongo said:
He definitely needs a couple more grand slams, however playing with his dodgy back for ages and then having surgery I think he will be happy that he pushed Novak as hard as he did this week.
I think it bodes well for next year if he can keep working hard on his fitness at the end of the season (Christmas/New Year), then he should be able to get back to a level where he can really challenge again next year. Remember Murrays strength is pretty much grinding down opponents, something getting back to full fitness should enable him to do more.

I think the bigger question (and I don't know the answer!) is who history will claim is the best of all of them?
Click to expand...

Federer. He's been the most dominant on the majority of surfaces wheras Nadal dominated clay but not grass or hard.
 
Definitely Federer. I remember when people were jerking off about Djokovic when he won three of the four majors in the same year, and saying he has raised the bar. Federer has achieved the same in three different years, each time also winning the season ending finale as well. He is also the only man to have won three of the majors on no fewer than four occasions each. He also holds the record for most weeks at number 1 in the rankings. He holds the record for virtually everything that matters, and to be honest even if Rafa does overtake his total of majors one day I still think history would remember Federer as the better/more dominant player.
 
I'm a fan of Federer but i don't believe it can be said that he is categorically the best ever, the debate is far from cut and dried imo.

For me Federer is the perfect example of how stats can be deceiving. Whilst it is by no means ever easy to win a Grand Slam, the majority of his were achieved in a period where there was no significant competition. A time when arguably Andy Roddingdong was the no.2 in the world. His Grand Slam final wins against the best of today, Nadal and Djokovic, were won when both had just reached their twenties, and as a result both were still very much in the development phase of their careers. When Nadal developed his game further there is absolutely no debate whatsoever who the better player was between the two. I can't see how anyone can categorically accept one player being regarded as the best ever when he has such an inferior head-to-head record to one of his closest rivals.

I like Federer but i regard both Djokovic and Nadal as the better players. Neither may achieve the same number of slams as Federer has (although there is a very valid argument that Nadal would have racked up 2 or 3 more slams by now if it weren't for his injuries) but both have dominated a considerably more difficult era, an era that has included Federer, and have in the process taken tennis to a whole new level.
 
Last edited:
^^^ You 3 are confusing with your Jurgen the German Lineker Klinsmania usernames lol

jurgen lineker said:
the majority of his were achieved in a period where there was no significant competition. A time when arguably Andy Roddingdong was the no.2 in the world.
Click to expand...

There's actually some posters on Tennis forums that try to argue that Federer had it tougher beating a prime Roddingdong and Hewitt back in the day compared with Novak over the last copuple of years, who now faces an aging Federer and a often injured Nadal.
Although I totally disagree with that view. Roddingdong was never anywhere near the level of todays top 4 in my opinion.
 
The big difference for me is, Nadal has only dominated the French Open whereas Federer has dominated 3 of the 4 slams.

Also a bit presumptious to say Nadal would have won more slams, we've just seen Djokovic get well beaten by Nishikori. Nadal has lost to some real no names at Wimbledon and don't give the old "he was injured" excuse.
 
He has lost to no names at Wimbledon, true, but i think you need to accept that he was injured during one Wimbledon a couple of years back, how serious the injury was we don't know and it's pointless speculating as we will never know, but he did have an operation shortly afterwards that kept him out for around 7 months. That alone suggests it was at least a niggling injury that he had to tolerate during that tournament. That said he has also won Wimbledon twice and reached two finals against arguably the greatest grass court player ever. He may not have dominated on grass but he has most definitely proven himself to be amongst the best of today quite simply for beating Federer in his prime in a final at Wimbledon and also taking him to 5 sets on two other occasions at a very early stage in his career.

Perhaps it is slightly presumptuous to say that he would have won 2 or 3 more slams, but as i said above it's a valid argument to claim that it is fairly decent possibility that he would have. Weren’t he seriously injured in an Australian Open match a few years back against Ferrer which he eventually went on to lose? He was also injured in the Australian Open final this year (although Wawrinkwa was playing brilliantly so a win there was by no means a certainty). He has also completely pulled out of 1 Australian Open, 1 Wimbledon and now 2 US Opens. That's a total of 7 slams where he has either pulled out completely or has not been fully fit to contest to his full potential. Perhaps it is slightly presumptuous to claim that he would have won a couple more slams, but do you not agree that there is a very decent possibility that he would have?

All that said, I’m not claiming Nadal is the best ever, as the ‘best ever’ debate is always a nasty one as you have the age old ‘you can’t compare generations ’ argument to contend with. But as far as this generation is concerned, I regard both Djokovic and Nadal to be better than Federer. But at the same time I also understand the reasonings behind why people feel Federer should be regarded the better of the two. As I said in my above post, the debate is far from cut and dried, there are valid arguments for all three. I just personally slightly lean towards Rafa, then Novak (although my opinion with those two changes fairly regularly) followed by Federer.
 
Last edited:
Mosquito_Coasting said:
Nadal may be a better player but Djokovic? Come on.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. In fact I lean to the argument that dingdongo raised that Djokovich has only prospered as Federer and Nadal have faded.

Put it this way, Djokovich started winning multiple majors from 2011 on. Since then Fed has only won one in 2012. In their prime, no comparison. Nadal has had his well versed injury problems and I don't rate Murray that highly.
 
jurgen lineker said:
He has lost to no names at Wimbledon, true, but i think you need to accept that he was injured during one Wimbledon a couple of years back, how serious the injury was we don't know and it's pointless speculating as we will never know, but he did have an operation shortly afterwards that kept him out for around 7 months. That alone suggests it was at least a niggling injury that he had to tolerate during that tournament. That said he has also won Wimbledon twice and reached two finals against arguably the greatest grass court player ever. He may not have dominated on grass but he has most definitely proven himself to be amongst the best of today quite simply for beating Federer in his prime in a final at Wimbledon and also taking him to 5 sets on two other occasions at a very early stage in his career.

Perhaps it is slightly presumptuous to say that he would have won 2 or 3 more slams, but as i said above it's a valid argument to claim that it is fairly decent possibility that he would have. Weren’t he seriously injured in an Australian Open match a few years back against Ferrer which he eventually went on to lose? He was also injured in the Australian Open final this year (although Wawrinkwa was playing brilliantly so a win there was by no means a certainty). He has also completely pulled out of 1 Australian Open, 1 Wimbledon and now 2 US Opens. That's a total of 7 slams where he has either pulled out completely or has not been fully fit to contest to his full potential. Perhaps it is slightly presumptuous to claim that he would have won a couple more slams, but do you not agree that there is a very decent possibility that he would have?

All that said, I’m not claiming Nadal is the best ever, as the ‘best ever’ debate is always a nasty one as you have the age old ‘you can’t compare generations ’ argument to contend with. But as far as this generation is concerned, I regard both Djokovic and Nadal to be better than Federer. But at the same time I also understand the reasonings behind why people feel Federer should be regarded the better of the two. As I said in my above post, the debate is far from cut and dried, there are valid arguments for all three. I just personally slightly lean towards Rafa, then Novak (although my opinion with those two changes fairly regularly) followed by Federer.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but to me that's another point in Roger's favour. He has competed in 60 consecutive grand slams, and reached at least the quarter finals in way more than half of them. His longevity and ability to keep himself fit, and to also keep winning when not fully fit (don't forget he had glandular fever and still won at least one title and reached other finals), not to mention his back issues of the last few years, yet still managing to make finals. Rafa is brittle and I would agree had he been fit he would probably have won more, but as I say, the fact that Federer can stay fit shows what a truly remarkable athlete he is.
 
Klinsmania said:
I see your point, but to me that's another point in Roger's favour. He has competed in 60 consecutive grand slams, and reached at least the quarter finals in way more than half of them. His longevity and ability to keep himself fit, and to also keep winning when not fully fit (don't forget he had glandular fever and still won at least one title and reached other finals), not to mention his back issues of the last few years, yet still managing to make finals. Rafa is brittle and I would agree had he been fit he would probably have won more, but as I say, the fact that Federer can stay fit shows what a truly remarkable athlete he is.
Click to expand...

I agree, the fact that Federer is still relevant at his age now at this time in tennis speaks volumes of his ability. He is of the type that once all the physical attributes of his game are stripped away from him due to age can still compete at the highest level quite simply down to the high level of raw ability he possesses. Will be interesting to see if the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and to an extent Murray can do likewise.

Mosquito_Coasting said:
Nadal may be a better player but Djokovic? Come on.
Click to expand...

In terms of achievements perhaps I agree it is slightly unjust to include Djokovic in the same company as Federer and Nadal. But for me, if we are discounting all else and basing it on pure ability displayed then for me Djokovic is up there. Some of the matches that he has competed in with Nadal in the past 2 or 3 years have been at such an absurdly high level, the highest level of tennis I’ve personally witnessed, most notably that 6 hour epic he had with Nadal in the Australian Open final which he went on to win.

That coupled with that ridiculous year he had in 2011 and the fact that he will most likely end up with at least 10 slams at a time where he is competing with two other all time greats means he can’t entirely be dismissed as being amongst the best. Imo anyway.
 
For me he just hasn't won enough titles to be considered with the other two. When/if he reaches 12 then I would say he has a legitimate claim. You can say Federer had easier opposition, and I agree, but you still have to get the job done. There are so many variables, that discounting Fed for a variable reason is equally unsatisfying. There are further variables.
 
Federer struggles against the kind of player Nadal is, left handed with a lot of top spin. But Nadal struggles more (obviously very comparatively) against everyone else. Or else he would have won more slams and been to more finals. So that could make Fed the better, more rounded player.
 
Murray lost 6-0, 6-1 to Fed lastnight, his heaviest ever defeat, he must've made 5 differing excuses as to why he lost in his interview afterwards
 
Djokovic knocks Rafa out of the French Open. Only the second person ever to beat Nadal at the French. Nadal has been out of sorts for a while now but still a great win for Djokovic.

Very likely to go on and win the whole thing now, on course i guess for the Grand Slam too.
 
jurgen lineker said:
Djokovic knocks Rafa out of the French Open. Only the second person ever to beat Nadal at the French. Nadal has been out of sorts for a while now but still a great win for Djokovic.

Very likely to go on and win the whole thing now, on course i guess for the Grand Slam too.
Click to expand...
Wasn't to be. I'm a massive Djokovic fan. Kind of have to be - the missus is from Serbia! (though in fairness it's more than that; having watched almost every one of his matches since 2011, I can't think of a better all round sportsman in the world today - in any sport). I still think he'll complete the career slam at some point - assuming he stays injury free, he's still got 5 years left at the top of his game (gotta win the French at least once). I also think he remains the only current player capable of winning a calendar Grand Slam (though it won't be this year obviously).

Wimbledon could go either way for him this year... after the let-down of losing the final in Paris, he could enter the tournament either fired up or deflated. But I'd bet on him winning the US Open this year. Amazingly, given his fantastic clay court season this year, he's actually better on a hard surface (though so is Murray of course).
 
Ridiculous that the "All ENGLAND Club" won't show any of the football on their grounds, stupid fuddy-duddy luddite toffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back