That's circular reasoning. You're saying "they're winning because the compe ion is weak" and "the compe ion is weak because they're winning."
False narrative galore like your hero chump. You got ulcers, son.
That's circular reasoning. You're saying "they're winning because the compe ion is weak" and "the compe ion is weak because they're winning."
75% skill. Who’s the slow fatso winning grand slam? Where’s that 42 year old skillful guy? You know why most grand slams are on by players before they hit their 30’s right? Then you immediately follow it up with an argument on eye test about players being powerful and physically imposing. Which one is it? Pick a lane.
Then the old guard new guard thing is just a joke. Ivanisevic? His career was pretty much over when he started playing federer. His lone Wimbledon le was a total surprise because he was pretty much done at that point. Ditto some of the other players.
Nadals serve was weak and he’s not the best at volley. Joker’s defense Of the volley was questionable. Federer had a weak backhand for a long time before he fixed it.
75% skill. Who’s the slow fatso winning grand slam? Where’s that 42 year old skillful guy? You know why most grand slams are on by players before they hit their 30’s right? Then you immediately follow it up with an argument on eye test about players being powerful and physically imposing. Which one is it? Pick a lane.
Then the old guard new guard thing is just a joke. Ivanisevic? His career was pretty much over when he started playing federer. His lone Wimbledon le was a total surprise because he was pretty much done at that point. Ditto some of the other players.
Nadals serve was weak and he’s not the best at volley. Joker’s defense Of the volley was questionable. Federer had a weak backhand for a long time before he fixed it.
Reaction time declines about 1% per year after age 24, so Federer has an automatic 12% handicap on that front against a player in their athletic prime (reaction time crosses over into handeye coordination, as well). There's no denying the fact that a player of his age is at a significant physiological disadvantage (unless he's a physical outlier or doped to the gills). Obviously Federer will have advantages over younger players in the knowledge, tennis IQ, and instinct departments, but in every sport, we usually start to see the next generation (usually 23-27) start dispatching the old guard 30 and over players. Your last line is the very definition of parity. When there's more threats to upset/win tournaments/championships, it typically means a more balanced talent pool across the board.
I do think modern greats are better than Sampras, Borg, etc in a vacuum, but I don't like vacuum arguments since they punish past generations who obviously didn't have the same luxuries as modern players (goes for any sport). If Nadal were born in 1972, I don't think he's as good as Sampras in that era. Basketball example is Steph Curry. I don't think he'd be any better than his dad if he were born in 1960. Where players like Larry Bird and such learned to shoot in their driveways, players of Steph's generation are taught fundamentals with cutting edge training methods from the moment they pick up a ball.
I don't really have much of dog in this fight, but when a couple of players can dominate a sport where 30 used to be considered a senior citizen, it suggests a top heavy talent pool.
Nadal vs. Djokovic in the semis this morning.
John Isner is the most unwatchable good player I've ever seen, tbh
Everything other than serving is disgusting..
It's obvious that a 24 years old Federer is going to be better than a 36 years old Federer. At similar levels of skill, the physical aspect obviously makes the difference. But tennis is one of the sports (after golf and baseball, where players barely move) that most favours skill over physical aspects.
30 was considered a senior citizen on pretty much every sport, yet more and more players of over 30 are starting to dominate in every sport: Lebron in basketball, Brady in the NFL, Messi and Ronaldo in soccer, Federer and Nadal on tennis, Mayweather on boxing, etc, etc, etc. (I don't know who the best player on the NHL is, but I'm sure he must be over 30 too). Does this mean that every sport has a top heavy talent pool? Of course not. We have already gone through this, no reason to keep arguing the same things over and over again. Specially not on an argument as clear as this one, tbh.I don't really have much of dog in this fight, but when a couple of players can dominate a sport where 30 used to be considered a senior citizen, it suggests a top heavy talent pool.
Last edited by DAF86; 07-13-2018 at 12:06 PM.
What an amazing matchup. 6'8 vs 6'10, both can serve 140 mph.
Isner won the longest match of all time, so he should be good
Last edited by Arcadian; 07-13-2018 at 12:16 PM.
I got Anderson. Currently 14 all.
"Maybe this will be the match that gets the rule changed."
Oh yeah, 70-68 didn't, but this will
70-68 doesn't bother when it's a third round match, tbh.
I don't see why that should matter. It's the principle of the thing.
At the same time, I don't know if I want it changed. I find it entertaining in a funny way to see how long this goes.
Theres idiots that actually sampras is better than feds? What world do we live in?
Its like saying Malone is better than Lebron.
is ridiculous.
Sampras aint even a top 4 all time player
Maybe for you. For the guys that are putting the money and should already have Nadal and Djokovic playing on their network it does matter.
No I was saying it shouldn't matter that Isner-Mahut was in an earlier round.
Agreed. As ridiculous and exhausting as it is, it's very entertaining.
But it does matter. A 70-68 5th set on a third round is harmless for TV. They can go back and forth between different matches. They can stop broadcasting it when it's time for another show to start. You can't do that with a semifinal match.
You must bet that network owners and sponsors are ing seizing right now that they don't have Nadal and Djokovic on their screens on this moment. And since these are the people that decide the changes, a semifinal match going this long (between two non-rating drawing players) is something that might be the turning point for a rule change.
I don't know if I'd say it's entertaining IMO
The intensity of such a long tiebreaker is entertaining, but the actual game isn't..Isner's serve is unstoppable and not even human, but he's so bad at everything else
Yeah, not exactly entertaining. Can't find the right word.
Agreed on Isner, his serve is keeping him alive. Anderson won't back down. You gotta think whoever comes out on top here will be too tired vs. Rafa/Novak.
Tell me you betted on games spread on whoever the underdog of this match was.
Took the over on games and aces lost the games over the other day by 0.5 on Isner/Raonic, took it again today..
What was the line for today's match? (or however that thing is called)
48.5 games
This is their championship. The final will be a formality. The real final is coming up next.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)