Kings: Roger Federer wins 8th Wimbledon, 19th Grand Slam title [Archive]

Spurtacular

07-16-2017, 10:09 PM

Not a tennis guy but what about Ashe,Sampras, and Nadal in reference to the GOAT? First 3 names that popped up in my mind along with Agassi tbh

Nadal is basically the greatest clay surface player of all time. He is 79-2 / 10 grand slam titles at French Open. Otherwise, he has two Wimbledon titles, two US Open titles, and one Australian Open title for a total of two grand slams on grass and three on hard court to go with the ten on clay (which is 25 percent of the surfaces for grand slams). Though, he won gold at the 08 Olympics and 16 Olympics to still put himself into the GOAT convo. And the fact that he's four years younger than Federer and only down in grand slam titles 15-19 puts him within reach of catching him.

Nadal has a 23-14 head to head advantage on Federer. And some years back, maybe circa 2014 when Nadal had won all four matches against Federer in 2013 and beat him at the 14 Aussie Opean Final, and he was the hottest thing going in tennis, he was talking some serious trash in the media and basically calling Federer inferior and washed up; and he was making fun of the fact that Federer had no chance against him on clay and that that put him in the hole along with getting older (It may have happened before this, just my best guess from what I can remember now). I think that was a mistake because it seemed to light a fire under Federer, who had been on pace to be undisputed GOAT before Nadal started rocking the boat. Federer has been the better player in recent years despite not being in his prime while Nadal is still in his prime (years-of-age-wise). Federer has won the last five head to head, including a 2017 Aussie Open Final win to avenge his 2014 Aussie Final loss to Nadal. That was a two grand slam swing that could prove very huge in determining their legacies.

Anybody playing down Nadal relative to Federer should not do so. In 2005-10, these two finished in the top two of the ATP rankings each year, the only time that's ever occurred in six straight years. Head to head, Federer has a winning record on hard courts (10–9) and grass (2–1) and Nadal leads on clay (13–2); so, it made sense that Federer didn't come back from injury to early for a low-percent chance against Nadal at the French Open. But Federer showed that when he is rested, he is the most dominant on grass, sweeping all the sets at Wimbledon.

Interestingly, Federer v Nadal was the final for all 06-08 French Open and Wimbledon finals, with Nadal naturally winning all three French Opens and the 08 Wimbledon Final for four of the six. So, a young and upcoming Nadal felt like he had Federer's number when he was getting brash about it all. After all, when he was 17 in his first match in 04 against the then number-one-ranked Federer he won in straight sets.

I wish I remembered the year and had the ESPN article in which I read that Nadal wast talking all the shit so that I could put it all in a more precise context; besides that, it was a fun read. It was like Connor McGregor level shit talking, honestly.

Chris

07-16-2017, 10:21 PM

Nadal is basically the greatest clay surface player of all time. He is 79-2 / 10 grand slam titles at French Open. Otherwise, he has two Wimbledon titles, two US Open titles, and one Australian Open title for a total of two grand slams on grass and three on hard court to go with the ten on clay (which is 25 percent of the surfaces for grand slams). Though, he won gold at the 08 Olympics and 16 Olympics to still put himself into the GOAT convo. And the fact that he's four years younger than Federer and only down in grand slam titles 15-19 puts him within reach of catching him.

Nadal has a 23-14 head to head advantage on Federer. And some years back, maybe circa 2014 when Nadal had won all four matches against Federer in 2013 and beat him at the 14 Aussie Opean Final, and he was the hottest thing going in tennis, he was talking some serious trash in the media and basically calling Federer inferior and washed up; and he was making fun of the fact that Federer had no chance against him on clay and that that put him in the hole along with getting older. I think that was a mistake because it seemed to light a fire under Federer, who had been on pace to be undisputed GOAT before Nadal started rocking the boat. Federer has been the better player in recent years despite not being in his prime while Nadal is still in his prime (years-of-age-wise). Federer has won the last five head to head, including a 2017 Aussie Open Final win to avenge his 2014 Aussie Final loss to Nadal. That was a two grand slam swing that could prove very huge in determining their legacies.

Anybody playing down Nadal relative to Federer should not do so. In 2005-10, these two finished in the top two of the ATP rankings each year, the only time that's ever occurred in six straight years. Head to head, Federer has a winning record on hard courts (10–9) and grass (2–1) and Nadal leads on clay (13–2); so, it made sense that Federer didn't come back from injury to early for a low-percent chance against Nadal at the French Open. But Federer showed that when he is rested, he is the most dominant on grass, sweeping all the sets at Wimbledon.

Interestingly, Federer v Nadal was the final for all 06-08 French Open and Wimbledon finals, with Nadal naturally winning all three French Opens and the 08 Wimbledon Final for four of the six. So, a young and upcoming Nadal felt like he had Federer's number when he was getting brash about it all. After all, when he was 17 in his first match in 04 against the then number-one-ranked Federer he won in straight sets.

I wish I remembered the year and had the ESPN article in which I read that Nadal wast talking all the shit so that I could put it all in a more precise context; besides that, it was a fun read. It was like Connor McGregor level shit talking, honestly. Federer cannot possibly respect Nadal after that. Federer seems pissed; he's beat Nadal the last five times they played after previously getting his ass handed to him.

Basically it's still an open book on who the GOAT is considering they are both still playing. The trash talk ONLY works if you can back it up like Ali did imo. Personally, I like to tune in when Wimbledon and the Olympics come around. Tennis is perfectly watchable as long as you understand the rules, which I was ignorant of for a long time.

Spurtacular

07-16-2017, 10:29 PM

Basically it's still an open book on who the GOAT is considering they are both still playing. The trash talk ONLY works if you can back it up like Ali did imo. Personally, I like to tune in when Wimbledon and the Olympics come around. Tennis is perfectly watchable as long as you understand the rules, which I was ignorant of for a long time.

Well, Nadal had been dominating head to head and was entering his prime while Federer was leaving his in addition to be number one ranked while Federer was sliding, so I can see how Nadal was emboldened. It was sort of matter of fact shit talking with a tint of utter arrogance. I don't think even most Federer fans expected this turn of events.

What I find to be interesting is how long can Nadal keep dominating on clay? It's all about the sliding, which comes down to really strong joints. And he's starting to get up there. He's no longer a twenty something. And while Federer is older, he's still in such peak condition and just frankly hits shots consistently that other players don't hit. About seven or eight times a match, I'd see him hit angled shots out of reach of the opponent and perfectly placed after he had otherwise had no inherent positional advantage. When a tennis player is placing his shots with that level of surgical precision, he is almost unbeatable.

apalisoc_9

07-16-2017, 10:32 PM

Sampras :lmao

What a scrub

No Tennis player has as good of a resume as Federer and its not close. Sampras is an american that was celebrated but even Djokovic only needs a few more grand slam to surpas sampras resume.

Its

Fed

Nadal

Bunch of irrelvant players.

apalisoc_9

07-16-2017, 10:39 PM

Anyone who puts Sampras over the 15 time Grand slam winner should shoot themselves in the head.

Did I read Agasi? Wow Americans are truly stupid.

Spurtacular

07-17-2017, 12:31 AM

Obviously, nobody really looking at it think Agassi is GOAT. But "the greatest returner" in the history of tennis deserves mention. He had the talent. He just got caught up in his Image Is Everything lifestyle and didn't take the tennis all that serious til he had frittered away much of his twenties.

Arcadian

07-17-2017, 12:53 AM

Nadal is basically the greatest clay surface player of all time. He is 79-2 / 10 grand slam titles at French Open. Otherwise, he has two Wimbledon titles, two US Open titles, and one Australian Open title for a total of two grand slams on grass and three on hard court to go with the ten on clay (which is 25 percent of the surfaces for grand slams). Though, he won gold at the 08 Olympics and 16 Olympics to still put himself into the GOAT convo. And the fact that he's four years younger than Federer and only down in grand slam titles 15-19 puts him within reach of catching him.

Nadal has a 23-14 head to head advantage on Federer. And some years back, maybe circa 2014 when Nadal had won all four matches against Federer in 2013 and beat him at the 14 Aussie Opean Final, and he was the hottest thing going in tennis, he was talking some serious trash in the media and basically calling Federer inferior and washed up; and he was making fun of the fact that Federer had no chance against him on clay and that that put him in the hole along with getting older (It may have happened before this, just my best guess from what I can remember now). I think that was a mistake because it seemed to light a fire under Federer, who had been on pace to be undisputed GOAT before Nadal started rocking the boat. Federer has been the better player in recent years despite not being in his prime while Nadal is still in his prime (years-of-age-wise). Federer has won the last five head to head, including a 2017 Aussie Open Final win to avenge his 2014 Aussie Final loss to Nadal. That was a two grand slam swing that could prove very huge in determining their legacies.

Anybody playing down Nadal relative to Federer should not do so. In 2005-10, these two finished in the top two of the ATP rankings each year, the only time that's ever occurred in six straight years. Head to head, Federer has a winning record on hard courts (10–9) and grass (2–1) and Nadal leads on clay (13–2); so, it made sense that Federer didn't come back from injury to early for a low-percent chance against Nadal at the French Open. But Federer showed that when he is rested, he is the most dominant on grass, sweeping all the sets at Wimbledon.

Interestingly, Federer v Nadal was the final for all 06-08 French Open and Wimbledon finals, with Nadal naturally winning all three French Opens and the 08 Wimbledon Final for four of the six. So, a young and upcoming Nadal felt like he had Federer's number when he was getting brash about it all. After all, when he was 17 in his first match in 04 against the then number-one-ranked Federer he won in straight sets.

I wish I remembered the year and had the ESPN article in which I read that Nadal wast talking all the shit so that I could put it all in a more precise context; besides that, it was a fun read. It was like Connor McGregor level shit talking, honestly.

Good points. Whenever the #2 guy owns the head to head matchup with the #1, you have a fascinating matchup.

Federer making a comeback and winning 2 titles at age 35 is pretty remarkable and helps his legacy even more. But the Nadal rivalry should always be an *.

Spurtacular

07-17-2017, 01:01 AM

Good points. Whenever the #2 guy owns the head to head matchup with the #1, you have a fascinating matchup.

Federer making a comeback and winning 2 titles at age 35 is pretty remarkable and helps his legacy even more. But the Nadal rivalry should always be an *.

What's the asterisk for?

DAF86

07-17-2017, 02:24 AM

It's pretty much federer, then Sampras then everybody else. Those guys were dominant even with great competition (Nadal, Agassi, Roddick, djokovic, Ivanesevic). I feel bad for a nadal, he would have been one of the greats if it wasn't for federer. Then you have guys like bjorg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl. I love Edbergs game but he wasn't anywhere close to Even top 10 conversation.

Why would you name Roddick and Ivanisevic among the "great competition" folks before other guys like Murray, Courier, Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Becker, Wilander and many others?

Also, the two best player of all time are clearly Federer and then Nadal.

lefty20

07-17-2017, 03:06 AM

Nadal dominance against Fed is nobody's fault except Fed's. His refusal to be aggressive with his BH has cost him a couple slams(no, I'm not talking about FO). I would literally be on the verge punching my TV every time I would see Fed settle for a safe rally extending BH vs Rafa/Djoker when he would have them scrambling. It was beyond infuriating. I honestly believe that it was the Stanimal's rise that urged Fed to be, finally, more aggressive with it and it has paid dividends. Great to see the old champ winning again.

Brazil

07-17-2017, 04:17 AM

:lol agassi Sampras

yeah its federer and it's not even close tbh

apalisoc_9

07-17-2017, 04:30 AM

:lol agassi Sampras

yeah its federer and it's not even close tbh

Americans basically :lol

Nadal is clearly the second best too.

Djok is pretty close to becoming third best too.

Its the best generation.

ambchang

07-17-2017, 06:10 AM

Why would you name Roddick and Ivanisevic among the "great competition" folks before other guys like Murray, Courier, Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Becker, Wilander and many others?

Also, the two best player of all time are clearly Federer and then Nadal.

Because Becker willander played in a different era.

Nadal is good but he is so dominant on clay that most of his resume is built on that. His other accomplishments are good but not goat material. Like it or not, Wimbledon will always be the most prestigious, followed by french/US then Australian.

lefty

07-17-2017, 07:08 AM

Burns more calories in 2 minutes than any beisbol team does in 20 hours

Canyonero

07-17-2017, 08:15 AM

Burns more calories in 2 minutes than any beisbol team does in 20 hours

And is a better PG than Parker.

N0 LyF3 ScRuB

07-17-2017, 11:55 AM

Arcadian

07-17-2017, 12:20 PM

What's the asterisk for?

*Lost matchup with Nadal

:lol what has Nadal done to claim #2 at this point in his career?

Won 15 slams (2nd most all time), pretty straightforward.

Canyonero

07-17-2017, 12:32 PM

:lol what has Nadal done to claim #2 at this point in his career? He's the greatest clay player ever - no doubt - but other than that? Djokavic is right there on him... never mind the greats like Sampras.

Second most Grand Slams won
Oympic gold medals in both singles and doubles
4 Davis Cups won
Most ATP 1000 won
Only player to win 10 times the same tournament
Winning record against the other Big Four

Blake

07-17-2017, 12:48 PM

Watching tennis is about as fun as watching nascar or golf.

DAF86

07-17-2017, 01:54 PM

Because Becker willander played in a different era.

Nadal is good but he is so dominant on clay that most of his resume is built on that. His other accomplishments are good but not goat material. Like it or not, Wimbledon will always be the most prestigious, followed by french/US then Australian.

Becker shared more than a decade with Sampras, Wilander like 7 or 8 years.

And lol at the US Open and the Australian Open being more prestigious than Roland Garros. Self centered much? :lol

The Australian Open is by far the least prestigious one, Wimbledon is clearly the most prestigious one and Roland Garros is on par with the US open, with most of the Europeans and South Americans preferring the French tournament.

And about Nadal, he's a 15 times Grand Slam champion, having won at least one time each major, capping all that of with several Davis Cups and Olympic Gold in both singles and doubles. There's really no argument to be made about him not being the second greatest player of all-time.

spurraider21

07-17-2017, 02:17 PM

Watching tennis is about as fun as watching nascar or golf.
golf is the lowest on the totem pole. you can just play your own game. the other players dont affect your score. the only variable is the breeze. it's challenging to be sure, but it's an individual craft. it's akin to playing an individual game at an arcade like pinball, taking turns, and seeing who records the best score, rather than playing a game like street fighter where you are directly competing

at least in tennis and nascar you have adversaries on the same field trying to screw with your plans

140

07-17-2017, 02:36 PM

Becker shared more than a decade with Sampras, Wilander like 7 or 8 years.

And lol at the US Open and the Australian Open being more prestigious than Roland Garros. Self centered much? :lol

The Australian Open is by far the least prestigious one, Wimbledon is clearly the most prestigious one and Roland Garros is on par with the US open, with most of the Europeans and South Americans preferring the French tournament.

And about Nadal, he's a 15 times Grand Slam champion, having won at least one time each major, capping all that of with several Davis Cups and Olympic Gold in both singles and doubles. There's really no argument to be made about him not being the second greatest player of all-time.
Son read amb's post agin, he said literally the same thing tbh :lol

DAF86

07-17-2017, 02:44 PM

Son read amb's post agin, he said literally the same thing tbh :lol

lol yeah. :lol

But then I don't get his point. Only the players that win Wimbledon matter?

ambchang

07-17-2017, 02:58 PM

Becker shared more than a decade with Sampras, Wilander like 7 or 8 years.

Becker was way over the hill by the Sampras hit his prime, and Wilander more so.

And lol at the US Open and the Australian Open being more prestigious than Roland Garros. Self centered much? :lol

The Australian Open is by far the least prestigious one, Wimbledon is clearly the most prestigious one and Roland Garros is on par with the US open, with most of the Europeans and South Americans preferring the French tournament.

That's what I just said. I even said French/US then Australian. What were you reading?

And about Nadal, he's a 15 times Grand Slam champion, having won at least one time each major, capping all that of with several Davis Cups and Olympic Gold in both singles and doubles. There's really no argument to be made about him not being the second greatest player of all-time.

Only 10 of those 15 came from the same tournament. He's great, if it wasn't for Federer, he'd be the greatest ever, but there's Federer, and Nadal never got to dominate his own era.

ambchang

07-17-2017, 03:00 PM

Come to think of it, does it have anything to do with Nadal speaking Spanish? I mean, if Messi spoke Italian, I am sure you will have Ronaldo above him.

140

07-17-2017, 03:05 PM

^:wow

Canyonero

07-17-2017, 03:30 PM

:lol Sampras

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSK9t6OrgU

lefty20

07-17-2017, 03:38 PM

Do you guys really think that Rafa over Djoker is a given? I personally think Djoker is right up there with Rafa and Pete.

Blake

07-17-2017, 05:12 PM

Spurtacular

07-17-2017, 07:04 PM

:lol Sampras

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSK9t6OrgU

I must've watched 5/6th of this match last night, and I somehow managed to miss this exchange. I saw something in the comments and just figured it was historical context :lol

Spurtacular

07-17-2017, 07:06 PM

Becker was way over the hill by the Sampras hit his prime, and Wilander more so.

I don't remember Wilander. He must've been before my time, like in the 70's.

ambchang

07-17-2017, 09:43 PM

I don't remember Wilander. He must've been before my time, like in the 70's.

Mostly late 80s early 90s. I think he made #1 for like a few weeks between Lendl and edberg but I may have been wrong. Flash in the pan guy.

DAF86

07-17-2017, 10:02 PM

Come to think of it, does it have anything to do with Nadal speaking Spanish? I mean, if Messi spoke Italian, I am sure you will have Ronaldo above him.

No, I actually sport hate Nadal because I'm a Fed fan. I was also a huge Sampras fan and an Agassi hater but I don't let personal bias get in the way of irrefutable facts, tbh.

DAF86

07-17-2017, 10:07 PM

Mostly late 80s early 90s. I think he made #1 for like a few weeks between Lendl and edberg but I may have been wrong. Flash in the pan guy.

This guy calls Wilander a "flash in the pan" guy when he is a former number one guy and a three times GS champion but then talks up one hit wonders like Roddick and Ivanisevic. Weren't you supposed to be old? You should be backing Wilander up, tbh. :lol

DAF86

07-17-2017, 10:10 PM

Also lol at saying "10 of Nadal GS came at Roland Garros" when 7 of Sampras GS came on Wimbledon. At least Nadal was able to win at least a major on every surface.

Spurtacular

07-17-2017, 10:12 PM

Also lol at saying "10 of Nadal GS came at Roland Garros" when 7 of Sampras GS came on Wimbledon. At least Nadal was able to win at least a major on every surface.

It speaks to Nadal's playing style. He is at a great advantage when he can slide and use that sort of athleticism that he possesses. The discrepancy is telling. That's why him winning two gold medals on the hard courts is something of an anomaly. I guess in 08 he was maybe the best in the world, and he just got a bit of luck in 16.

DAF86

07-17-2017, 10:14 PM

It speaks to Nadal's playing style. He is at a great advantage when he can slide and use that sort of athleticism that he possesses. The discrepancy is telling. That's why him winning two gold medals on the hard courts is something of an anomaly. I guess in 08 he was maybe the best in the world, and he just got a bit of luck in 16.

So what does it say about Sampras style that he won 7 of his 14 GS on grass, and was never good enough to win on clay?

lefty20

07-17-2017, 10:15 PM

I always forget, are the Olympics B of 3 or 5?

DAF86

07-17-2017, 10:16 PM

I always forget, are the Olympics B of 3 or 5?

Best of 3, the final is best of 5. Like the old Masters series.

Spurtacular

07-17-2017, 10:17 PM

So what does it say about Sampras style that he won 7 of his 14 GS on grass?

It says that he's damn good. Grass is the "neutral" / "natural" playing surface for tennis. Clay is slippery and thereby "unnatural" and hard courts artificially increase the speed of the ball. When this is understood, that's part of what makes Wimbledon so great.

DAF86

07-17-2017, 10:21 PM

It says that he's damn good. Grass is the "neutral" / "natural" playing surface for tennis. Clay is slippery and thereby "unnatural" and hard courts artificially increase the speed of the ball. When this is understood, that's part of what makes Wimbledon so great.

Clary is slippery but Wimbledon is "natural"? :lol

Any scrub with a good serve has a chance on grass (specially in previous eras, before they slowed down the courts). You actually have to play tennis to win on clay.

lefty20

07-17-2017, 10:25 PM

Spurtacular

07-17-2017, 10:27 PM

Clary is slippery but Wimbledon is "natural"? :lol

Any scrub with a good serve has a chance on grass (specially in previous eras, before they slowed down the courts). You actually have to play tennis to win on clay.

What do you think tennis was played on before cement came along? You actually have to know how to skate to win on clay. If I had to take a tennis player for a hockey team, it would be Nadal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gum0KGXtJJY

lefty20

07-17-2017, 10:28 PM

Spurtacular

07-17-2017, 10:30 PM

Also playing on clay is annoying as fuck. It ruins ur shoes, socks, shorts and even the strings get clay all over them. Never played on grass though. I want to but I don't even know if there's any grass courts near me.

I like that the clay surface at Roland Garros is part of the gamut; but I don't think it is at all the best surface for testing a player's overall skills. If they played on ice, too, Nadal might have the advantage; that wouldn't prove he's GOAT though.

DAF86

07-17-2017, 10:56 PM

Are we really calling what moonballing retrievers do "playing tennis"?

Beats the hell out of 1 and a half stroke rallies, tbh.

midnightpulp

07-17-2017, 11:30 PM

Americans basically :lol

Nadal is clearly the second best too.

Djok is pretty close to becoming third best too.

Its the best generation.

:lol

Of course you'd think "the modern" generation is the best.

The competition is literally shit after the big 3 (Andy Murray is the most overrated tennis player in history). Historically, tennis was a young man's (and woman's) game, and once you hit 30, your chances of winning a major tournament were slim-to-none. And the overall talent pool was significantly deeper. Don't believe me? Look at the parity difference before the Nadal, Fed, Joker generation took hold:

http://oi67.tinypic.com/2drgj2h.jpg

From 2004-2017, only 5 men have won multiple majors. From 1990-2003, 10 men won multiple majors.

Even tennis nerds agree. I read them saying the reason a 35 year old Federer (who is kind of a tweener generation-wise, between Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, etc and modern players) can still win majors is because he actually knows how to play tennis, while a lot of the younger players just rely on power serves, power shots, length (tennis players are trending much taller than ever before), and athleticism.

midnightpulp

07-17-2017, 11:47 PM

No, I actually sport hate Nadal because I'm a Fed fan. I was also a huge Sampras fan and an Agassi hater but I don't let personal bias get in the way of irrefutable facts, tbh.

Sampras still>>>Nadal.

An "irrefutable fact" is the fact that Sampras's generation was far deeper than Nadal's. Check the parity differences in my above post. You probably had 10 legitimate threats to win a major, while Nadal's gen has been the Fed, Joker, sometimes Murray, sometimes Warwinka show, with no one being able to challenge Nadal on Clay, where he padded most of his majors.

midnightpulp

07-17-2017, 11:53 PM

Are we really calling what moonballing retrievers do "playing tennis"?

I'm no tennis player nor "tennis nerd" like am I a basketball and baseball nerd, but researching this, grass seems far, far harder to play on than Clay. Faster speeds (meaning faster reaction time demands), faster perceived speeds, less angle bounce. I can kind of understand DAF's argument in saying that grass favors more one-dimensional players who over-rely on service and power, but the results seem anything but. Federer, Borg and McEnroe are/were "tennis players" in the truest sense of the word, and are 3 of 4 most successful players at Wimbledon.

Buddy Mignon

07-17-2017, 11:57 PM

Sampras... and it's not even close.

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 12:05 AM

golf is the lowest on the totem pole. you can just play your own game. the other players dont affect your score. the only variable is the breeze. it's challenging to be sure, but it's an individual craft. it's akin to playing an individual game at an arcade like pinball, taking turns, and seeing who records the best score, rather than playing a game like street fighter where you are directly competing

at least in tennis and nascar you have adversaries on the same field trying to screw with your plans

Players can certainly affect other players directly. If you don't think a player is affected by another player sinking birdies behind him, then I don't know what to tell you. And from my experience, psychological barriers are much more difficult to "play against" than physical ones.

You're kind of taking the soccer crew angle here in pigeonholing "real sports" into something that involves "movement" and "contact." One of the reasons I highly respect golf (and other sports where you have more time to "think" about your actions, like baseball) is because the ability to keep your fine motor skills under control in relatively static pressure situations is far more impressive (and difficult) than just "reacting" to a physical challenge. Football was an absolute joke in this regard. It's all reaction. No time to psyche yourself out (unless you're the place kicker). Even playing QB, you're basically reading and reacting. But that's a "real sport." Basketball, the same thing, unless at the free-throw line.

In "athletic" games, you just kind of zone out and let muscle memory do the work. Golf probably has the highest choke factor out of any sport in existence, which is why many people think it's the hardest sport in the world.

DAF86

07-18-2017, 12:06 AM

Sampras still>>>Nadal.

An "irrefutable fact" is the fact that Sampras's generation was far deeper than Nadal's. Check the parity differences in my above post. You probably had 10 legitimate threats to win a major, while Nadal's gen has been the Fed, Joker, sometimes Murray, sometimes Warwinka show, with no one being able to challenge Nadal on Clay, where he padded most of his majors.

That's not an irrefutable fact, tbh. Where you see "a deeper generation of threats to win a major" others may see less dominant top players. I don't care to argue either way about that, I'm just pointing out that what you brought to the table is highly arguable.

While the feats Nadal has over Sampras aren't. I know you being the obsessive, compulsive, quasi pathological, arguer that you are, will look for some obscure data to try and spin reality as much as possible, but the facts are really clear on this matter to me.

More tittles, more majors, more master series, more Davis Cups, gold in both singles and doubles. It's just a lot of different things going one way, tbh.

Also, ignoring all of that. Who do you see with better chances of upsetting the other guy on their favourite surface, i.e: what's more likely: Sampras beating Nadal on Roland Garros or Nadal beating Sampras on Wimbledon?

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 12:22 AM

That's not an irrefutable fact, tbh. Where you see "a deeper generation of threats to win a major" others may see less dominant top players. I don't care to argue either way about that, I'm just pointing out that what you brought to the table is highly arguable.

While the feats Nadal has over Sampras aren't. I know you being the obsessive, compulsive, quasi pathological, arguer that you are, will look for some obscure data to try and spin reality as much as possible, but the facts are really clear on this matter to me.

More tittles, more majors, more master series, more Davis Cups, gold in both singles and doubles. It's just a lot of different things going one way, tbh.

Also, ignoring all of that. Who do you see with better chances of upsetting the other guy on their favourite surface, i.e: what's more likely: Sampras beating Nadal on Roland Garros or Nadal beating Sampras on Wimbledon?

Lol at trying to bound debate. None of the facts I ever present to you in debates are "obscure." You just don't like the fact they usually wind up defeating your qualitative arguments.

Finland wins the Pesapello world championship every year, guess that means Finland is just that dominant and nothing to do with the fact that the Pesapello talent pool is pretty much restricted to Finland. One fact that calls into question your assertion that "this gen is just that dominant" is how Federer is still winning majors at 35. Go look up any of the past greats. They were pretty much done around their late 20's. When tennis was a much bigger sport in the 80's and 90's, there was a new crop of young guns like every 5 years to challenge the old guard. The current old guard has been dominating for over 13 years and show no signs of ceding dominance to younger players. (Nadal is over 30 himself).

Yeah, Nadal is unbeatable on clay. But extend it to grass, hard, composite, with 25 matches each, and Pete is beating Nadal more than 50% of the time on ALL surfaces.

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 12:39 AM

spurraider21

07-18-2017, 12:43 AM

Players can certainly affect other players directly. If you don't think a player is affected by another player sinking birdies behind him, then I don't know what to tell you. And from my experience, psychological barriers are much more difficult to "play against" than physical ones.

You're kind of taking the soccer crew angle here in pigeonholing "real sports" into something that involves "movement" and "contact." One of the reasons I highly respect golf (and other sports where you have more time to "think" about your actions, like baseball) is because the ability to keep your fine motor skills under control in relatively static pressure situations is far more impressive (and difficult) than just "reacting" to a physical challenge. Football was an absolute joke in this regard. It's all reaction. No time to psyche yourself out (unless you're the place kicker). Even playing QB, you're basically reading and reacting. But that's a "real sport." Basketball, the same thing, unless at the free-throw line.

In "athletic" games, you just kind of zone out and let muscle memory do the work. Golf probably has the highest choke factor out of any sport in existence, which is why many people think it's the hardest sport in the world.
or its like playing pacman at an arcade when the guy before you got a really good score and now you feel pressure, even though the game itself is completely identical to when you played the other day in a low-stress situation. its like a free throw shooting contest. sure, pressure gets to you, but they're free throws, routine, etc

nobody is physically making it more difficult to make your shot, unlike tennis, baseball, soccer, etc

DAF86

07-18-2017, 12:51 AM

Lol at trying to bound debate. None of the facts I ever present to you in debates are "obscure." You just don't like the fact they usually wind up defeating your qualitative arguments.

lol son. You bore people to death with your wall of words so that when they stop replaying out of boredom you can think you won the argument. :lol

Finland wins the Pesapello world championship every year, guess that means Finland is just that dominant and nothing to do with the fact that the Pesapello talent pool is pretty much restricted to Finland. One fact that calls into question your assertion that "this gen is just that dominant" is how Federer is still winning majors at 35. Go look up any of the past greats. They were pretty much done around their late 20's. When tennis was a much bigger sport in the 80's and 90's, there was a new crop of young guns like every 5 years to challenge the old guard. The current old guard has been dominating for over 13 years and show no signs of ceding dominance to younger players. (Nadal is over 30 himself).

Sure in 2017 there's less talent pool than in the 1980's, seems reasonable. :lol

Tennis popularity is pretty healthy, tbh. This era of Federer and Nadal is one of the most popular eras in tennis history, their Australian Open final this year was one of the most watched tennis games ever. Stop being self centered and thinking that just because Americans lost interest in tennis, thanks to not having a player worth a damn, the entire World lost interest too, tbh.

And the reason Federer and Nadal are winning majors deep into their 30's is simple: Human Evolution. Is the same reason basketball players play untill they are 40 now, and why humans live longer.

Yeah, Nadal is unbeatable on clay. But extend it to grass, hard, composite, with 25 matches each, and Pete is beating Nadal more than 50% of the time on ALL surfaces.

If Nadal and Federed never faced each other I'm sure you would be saying the same about their matchup. :lol

Sampras serve and volley game is tailor made for Nadal's return and passing game. Nadal is the GOAT at hitting tight targets with a guy on the net. Nadal would also murder Sampras'weak backhand when playing from the baseline. There's just no way Sampras comes out on the winning side on more than half the times vs Nadal. I mean, if the undisputed GOAT can't do it, I doubt a lesser player with some of the same weaknesses would.

DAF86

07-18-2017, 12:52 AM

Oh, and Sampras has 5 Masters to Nadal's 0, if this is the tourney you were talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Finals

If I need to clarify what tournaments I'm talking about then you are way out of your comofrt zone on this argument, tbh.

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 01:02 AM

or its like playing pacman at an arcade when the guy before you got a really good score and now you feel pressure, even though the game itself is completely identical to when you played the other day in a low-stress situation. its like a free throw shooting contest. sure, pressure gets to you, but they're free throws, routine, etc

nobody is physically making it more difficult to make your shot, unlike tennis, baseball, soccer, etc

Videogames don't require anywhere near the level of hand-eye coordination and fine motor skill control as golf does. You use your entire body in golf, despite its reputation as an "unathletic sport."

Comparisons to a free-throw shooting contest is absurd. You're trying to hit a ball over 300 yards and control it to the point where it lands where you want it (generally). And then, you have to execute another shot anywhere from 120-200 yards and place that shot in a 20 foot spot to have a a good chance at scoring an underpar shot.

Point is, though, you don't need anyone making it more difficult through physicality. It's more difficult without that aspect than basketball, football, and even baseball. Think about it in terms of learning curve. A newbie will be able to step out onto a basketball court and make a few shots and probably hit rim on longer shots. Put that same newbie on a driving range and he isn't hitting one shot straight nor with legitimate distance.

spurraider21

07-18-2017, 01:14 AM

Videogames don't require anywhere near the level of hand-eye coordination and fine motor skill control as golf does. You use your entire body in golf, despite its reputation as an "unathletic sport."

Comparisons to a free-throw shooting contest is absurd. You're trying to hit a ball over 300 yards and control it to the point where it lands where you want it (generally). And then, you have to execute another shot anywhere from 120-200 yards and place that shot in a 20 foot spot to have a a good chance at scoring an underpar shot.

Point is, though, you don't need anyone making it more difficult through physicality. It's more difficult without that aspect than basketball, football, and even baseball. Think about it in terms of learning curve. A newbie will be able to step out onto a basketball court and make a few shots and probably hit rim on longer shots. Put that same newbie on a driving range and he isn't hitting one shot straight nor with legitimate distance.
im not comparing their physical difficulty. i'm just talking about the "pressure" you referenced. i have no doubt that golf is incredibly challenging, but your opponent has no tangible effect on your goals or performance

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 01:25 AM

[QUOTE]lol son. You bore people to death with your wall of words so that when they stop replaying out of boredom you can think you won the argument. :lol

No. Your lot spouts bullshit (i.e. fatball) that is easily debunked with facts (i.e. the average body fat percentage of MLB players and the fact that no player worth a shit in baseball is fat). Then after you get shutdown, you use the "loldidntread" deflection.

Sure in 2017 there's less talent pool than in the 1980's, seems reasonable. :lol

Tennis was huge in the 80's and 90's. Just because we're in 2017 doesn't automatically mean growth. Tennis is probably a kid's 4th or 5th choice as a sport in the US and is obviously behind soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby, etc, etc in most other countries in the world. What's my point here? Sports like tennis are typically played by athletes not good enough for a particular country's "big sports." But now instead of going into tennis, videogames, internet, etc have filled that void. Australia was one of the great tennis powers in the 20th century. Look how participation numbers have tanked since '01:

http://www.roymorgan.com/~/media/files/morgan%20poll/2017/march/7182a.png?la=en

In the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/mar/17/tennis-decline-lta-wimbledon-andy-murray

And furthermore, look at all the different nationalities that were multiple major winners in the past compared to now.

And :lol at foreigners always reflexively thinking that when an American criticizes a sport, it's because "we're not good at it!" Over the past 15 years, Serena Williams proved herself as the most dominant women's player of all-time while the Bryan Brothers became the most dominant doubles team of all-time. We're plenty good at it. And still, the game is largely irrelevant here now.

"Cuz you don't have a men's singles player!"

Wrong. Chris Evert and Martina matches would dominate the American sports world when they went on. Monica Seles (after defecting) became something of an "American sweetheart" before Graf had her stabbed. Women's players have always just been as marketable as men's here. Again, I blame tennis's growing irrelevance on technology and other entertainment options that are more accessible. Where parents might've once introduced their children to tennis, they'll likely play Pokemon with them instead. It's happening to all sports, not just tennis.

And :lol at thinking human evolutionary changes can happen in 15 years.

Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. 5 years can be like 20 years difference in tennis, which illustrates my point of how the young guns would always dispatch of the late-20 something old guard. That doesn't happen now, and it's not because of "human evolution."

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 01:28 AM

If I need to clarify what tournaments I'm talking about then you are way out of your comofrt zone on this argument, tbh.

I thought you meant the Masters Cup, which is kind of like the 5th major.

Oh, you were talking about "regular season" tennis tournaments :lol

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 01:48 AM

Oh, and Serena also can illustrate my point. She's by far the most famous female athlete in the US and maybe the world, so inspired by Serena, there's bound to be a bunch of young female tennis players in the ranks coming up. After Evert and Martina, you knew the next gen would belong to Seles and Graf. And after them, Hingis and Williams. And...

Nothing. There isn't one young female tennis prodigy out there challenging for and winning majors at 16 like twenty years ago. Venus almost won Wimbledon at 37 coming off the most tragic period in her life :lol

"Human evolution." Sure.

If motherhood doesn't make Serena complacent, she'll continue to win over the next five years at least.

DAF86

07-18-2017, 01:51 AM

No. Your lot spouts bullshit (i.e. fatball) that is easily debunked with facts (i.e. the average body fat percentage of MLB players and the fact that no player worth a shit in baseball is fat). Then after you get shutdown, you use the "loldidntread" deflection.

You have me confused with apo or lefty, tbh. I've never been high on the whole fatball thing. I just say that is fucking boring and that soccer is clearly much more demanding physically. This last one is an irrefutable fact that you will surely try to spin some way.

Tennis was huge in the 80's and 90's. Just because we're in 2017 doesn't automatically mean growth. Tennis is probably a kid's 4th or 5th choice as a sport in the US and is obviously behind soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby, etc, etc in most other countries in the world. What's my point here? Sports like tennis are typically played by athletes not good enough for a particular country's "big sports." But now instead of going into tennis, videogames, internet, etc have filled that void. Australia was one of the great tennis powers in the 20th century. Look how participation numbers have tanked since '01:

http://www.roymorgan.com/~/media/files/morgan%20poll/2017/march/7182a.png?la=en

In the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/mar/17/tennis-decline-lta-wimbledon-andy-murray

And furthermore, look at all the different nationalities that were multiple major winners in the past compared to now.

And :lol at foreigners always reflexively thinking that when an American criticizes a sport, it's because "we're not good at it!" Over the past 15 years, Serena Williams proved herself as the most dominant women's player of all-time while the Bryan Brothers became the most dominant doubles team of all-time. We're plenty good at it. And still, the game is largely irrelevant here now.

"Cuz you don't have a men's singles player!"

Wrong. Chris Evert and Martina matches would dominate the American sports world when they went on. Monica Seles (after defecting) became something of an "American sweetheart" before Graf had her stabbed. Women's players have always just been as marketable as men's here. Again, I blame tennis's growing irrelevance on technology and other entertainment options that are more accessible. Where parents might've once introduced their children to tennis, they'll likely play Pokemon with them instead. It's happening to all sports, not just tennis.

Having individuals to relate to in sports is what helps bust its popularity, specially for less established sports. Do you think Tiger would have caused the kind of revolution that he caused for golf in the US if he was from Finland? Of course not. Do you think tennis wouldn't be much more popupar in the US if Federed was from New York and Nadal from Boston? Of course it would. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just human nature.

And :lol at thinking human evolutionary changes can happen in 15 years.

Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. 5 years can be like 20 years difference in tennis, which illustrates my point of how the young guns would always dispatch of the late-20 something old guard. That doesn't happen now, and it's not because of "human evolution."

It's not human evolutionary changes. It's changes on medicine, nutrition, rest and overall technology available.

DAF86

07-18-2017, 01:52 AM

I thought you meant the Masters Cup, which is kind of like the 5th major.

Oh, you were talking about "regular season" tennis tournaments :lol

:lol Analogies to American Sports. Yeah son, you are way out of your depth.

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 01:58 AM

:lol Analogies to American Sports. Yeah son, you are way out of your depth.

Not my analogy. The ATP considers it a "2nd tier" event (the only 2nd tier event, in fact).

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 02:16 AM

You have me confused with apo or lefty, tbh. I've never been high on the whole fatball thing. I just say that is fucking boring and that soccer is clearly much more demanding physically. This last one is an irrefutable fact that you will surely try to spin some way.

In game, sure. But physically demanding doesn't mean anything (in that it makes a sport more entertaining/difficult). What I argue is that the physical demands to become a great baseball player are just as much to become a great soccer player. The workout routines aren't that much different aside from the differences in strength/stamina training (baseball players obviously put in more work in the weight room while soccer players put in more cardio work). And baseball players do put in cardio work. Jose Fernandez was doing 600 mile pelontons per week prior to the season (then he died).

These "fat" players are washing out. Fielder. Retired. Sandoval. Benched again. Colon. 100.00 era or some shit. Sabathia. Eternally on the DL.

Having individuals to relate to in sports is what helps bust its popularity, specially for less established sports. Do you think Tiger would have caused the kind of revolution that he caused for golf in the US if he was from Finland? Of course not. Do you think tennis wouldn't be much more popupar in the US if Federed was from New York and Nadal from Boston? Of course it would. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just human nature.

Serena is a top ten name in American sports. And I'm telling you as someone who lived through McEnroe, Connors, that Evert was just as big of a name. Williams, just as big a name as Sampras. Also, golf was huge before Woods. Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, all household names. And I would bet that the television ratings are similar when any of those players were contending for a major. Tiger made golf pop culture big in a sense, but he really didn't revolutionize/save golf from ratings doldrums like say Magic and Bird saved the NBA.

It's not human evolutionary changes. It's changes on medicine, nutrition, rest and overall technology available.

No amount of high tech medicine sans PEDs can give a 35 year old man (or even a 30 year old man) the athleticism of a 23 year old.

So either: maybe tennis's talent pool is bigger than ever, but modern coaching methods with regards to skills are worse (tennis nerds agree here).

Tennis's talent pool is overall smaller.

Combination of both. Shrinking talent pool + bad coaching.

Tennis used to be:

17 year old star(s) rising through the ranks. Starts to hit prime at around 19. Dispatches of "old" late-20s stars who retire around 30. Rinse/repeat.

The top 4 players in the world: Joker, Nadal, Murray, Fed are all 30+, with Fed at 35. You just don't see that in ANY sport really (aside from maybe golf).

apalisoc_9

07-18-2017, 04:27 AM

Leave it to mid to call the generation with tbe three best players eve as weak :lmao

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 04:37 AM

Leave it to mid to call the generation with tbe three best players eve as weak :lmao

Have a counter argument?

Top 5 players in the world (Fed, Nadal, Joke, Murray, Warwinka) are all over 30.

Tell me the last time that's happened in tennis? Or even another sport. The fact a younger generation talent in their early 20's can't rise up against the "Big 5" tells me the talent pool is weak.

A tennis nerd explains:

This. At the rate at which competition is (not) coming in at the lower levels (as the best European athletes go into soccer, America just stops producing good players due to lack of interest in tennis and losing athletes to more lucrative sports, and people in general opting out of sending their children to draconian tennis training schools from social pressure); we are guaranteed to see a very high performing group of people who should be getting their asses handed to them by dint of their age keep being able to persist against a wretchedly unskilled lower generation.

In a healthy era, the slam count of the big four would be HALVED, easily, and we would see Federer with 9 or 10 slams, Nadal with 7 or 8, Djoker with 5 or 6, Murray with MAYBE one. It is unlikely that any would have a career slam. They're all very good players, but the numbers they are putting up reeks of a bad younger generation and it's being proven that this is the case as time goes on; and NOT that we are just lucky enough to see a bunch of all-time greats at the same time.

We haven't seen over 30 dominance from a a group of players like this (we even see it on the women's side) in ANY other sport. You might have one old guard player still holding on (i.e. Lebron), but it's rare for that many. To relate it to basketball, where is the Curry, Westbrook, Durant, Leonard to Lebron?

No young players worth a shit on the ATP. I can buy Federer "being that good," but not 4 other over-30 players at the same time.

Spurtacular

07-18-2017, 06:20 AM

or its like playing pacman at an arcade

Speaking of... saw this the other day. Crazy shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoVvgSwPDYk

#SaveChumpDumper

dfens

07-18-2017, 06:25 AM

Have a counter argument?

Top 5 players in the world (Fed, Nadal, Joke, Murray, Warwinka) are all over 30.

Tell me the last time that's happened in tennis? Or even another sport. The fact a younger generation talent in their early 20's can't rise up against the "Big 5" tells me the talent pool is weak.

A tennis nerd explains:

We haven't seen over 30 dominance from a a group of players like this (we even see it on the women's side) in ANY other sport. You might have one old guard player still holding on (i.e. Lebron), but it's rare for that many. To relate it to basketball, where is the Curry, Westbrook, Durant, Leonard to Lebron?

No young players worth a shit on the ATP. I can buy Federer "being that good," but not 4 other over-30 players at the same time.

huge advancements in nutrition, recuperation, interval training, gear quality and low danger specialized steroids in the past 20 years alone. Absolutely top athletes live optimized lifestyles. Flawless fundamentals and ubiquitous access to them from childhood absolutely maximize skill. These are valid in ALL sports (football, basketball, tennis, etc). Also the exponentially increased public exposure of the sport makes it hard for unexperienced players both on and off the court.

son besides low quality high volume trolling do you have anything else going for you ? business? women? outside activities? great health? serious question tbh, you seem pretty desperate tbh.

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 06:33 AM

son besides low quality high volume trolling do you have anything else going for you ? job? women? outside activies? good health? serious question tbh, you need to go outside more, life is short tbh

Yes.

Hope that answered your question :toast

Spurtacular

07-18-2017, 06:38 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb6WkASoO44

140

07-18-2017, 07:15 AM

son besides low quality high volume trolling do you have anything else going for you ? business? women? outside activities? great health? serious question tbh, you seem pretty desperate tbh.
Son he's not trolling tbh, believe it or not :lol

ambchang

07-18-2017, 07:27 AM

This guy calls Wilander a "flash in the pan" guy when he is a former number one guy and a three times GS champion but then talks up one hit wonders like Roddick and Ivanisevic. Weren't you supposed to be old? You should be backing Wilander up, tbh. :lol

I probably mixed him up with another guy. There's this guy who was number one for like a few weeks in the late 80s. Besides, wilander was in the 80s Sampras in the 90s and federer in the 00s and 10s. Wilander really wasn't Sampras' direct competition

Canyonero

07-18-2017, 07:29 AM

I probably mixed him up with another guy. There's this guy who was number one for like a few weeks in the late 80s. Besides, wilander was in the 80s Sampras in the 90s and federer in the 00s and 10s. Wilander really wasn't Sampras' direct competition

Becker or Edberg?

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 07:35 AM

huge advancements in nutrition, recuperation, interval training, gear quality and low danger specialized steroids in the past 20 years alone. Absolutely top athletes live optimized lifestyles. Flawless fundamentals and ubiquitous access to them from childhood absolutely maximize skill. These are valid in ALL sports (football, basketball, tennis, etc). Also the exponentially increased public exposure of the sport makes it hard for unexperienced players both on and off the court.

son besides low quality high volume trolling do you have anything else going for you ? business? women? outside activities? great health? serious question tbh, you seem pretty desperate tbh.

I didn't see your crappy edit.

Your logic fails. If the older players are benefiting that much from sports science advancements (which they are, no argument there), then the younger players will benefit equally and, unlike the older players, will have the massive benefit of prime athleticism and coordination over the older players. So what's happening? It's strange that 5 players in the same age group are the dominant players with no under-30 player even close to them, much less any late-teens/early-20's prodigies. My guess is smaller talent pool/worse coaching.

Additionally, why haven't those sports science advancements produced the same success in other sports for older players? Basketball? All the best players in the world aside from Lebron are under-30. Baseball? All the best position players in the world are under-30. Hockey? Ditto. Real football? The QB does remain an old man position, but the majority of the top position players otherwise are under-30. Soccer? I have no clue. That sport is stuck in stone age regarding metrics, so it's more difficult to quantify player value.

I get it, though, you foreigners want to talk up this generation because it's the first men's singles tennis generation not to feature a great American player. I'm all for Fed as the greatest, but Nadal and Joker are not better than Sampras.

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 07:36 AM

Son he's not trolling tbh, believe it or not :lol

Indeed. You guys troll me with your retarded opinions that I have to debunk.

ambchang

07-18-2017, 07:40 AM

Becker or Edberg?

No, loved those guys though they were only numero uno for a while. Becker really brought in that power serve aspect to the game. Edberg was the king of volleys (next to McEnroe)

ambchang

07-18-2017, 07:44 AM

No, I actually sport hate Nadal because I'm a Fed fan. I was also a huge Sampras fan and an Agassi hater but I don't let personal bias get in the way of irrefutable facts, tbh.

Really isn't irrefutable. More titles doesn't mean greater. Competition era and impact on the game factors in as well.

Btw, I heard Sampras speak Spanish. He just shot up your goat list.

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 07:46 AM

Really isn't irrefutable. More titles doesn't mean greater. Competition era and impact on the game factors in as well.

Btw, I heard Sampras speak Spanish. He just shot up your goat list.

:lol

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 07:55 AM

Really isn't irrefutable. More titles doesn't mean greater. Competition era and impact on the game factors in as well.

Btw, I heard Sampras speak Spanish. He just shot up your goat list.

Also, Wimbledon>all. It's basically the defacto tennis "world championship." Modern generation fanboys will hem and haw and probably say something about Americans, but that's the way it's always been in tennis.

There’s one last element to throw into the mix: the players’ preferences. Though both the WTA and the ATP (the men’s tennis entity) did not have player surveys at hand, there was a survey done back in the late 1990s by the French magazine, Tennis. That survey asked 108 top players to rank the four Slams in order of prestige. The ranking went as follows:

1. Wimbledon
2. French Open
3. U.S. Open
4. Australian Open

Considering that, who really gives a shit about the French? It's basically like winning the Conference title in basketball then :lol

dfens

07-18-2017, 07:58 AM

Son he's not trolling tbh, believe it or not :lol

if it's for real, which tbh I just can't believe, he's the type to make america great again tbh :lmao

Mitch

07-18-2017, 10:54 AM

Argies are naturally racist, Tbh. They'll side with the Spaniard if their country doesn't produce a good player for a sport.

140

07-18-2017, 11:08 AM

Btw, I heard Sampras speak Spanish. He just shot up your goat list.
:lol

140

07-18-2017, 11:09 AM

Argies are naturally racist, Tbh. They'll side with the Spaniard if their country doesn't produce a good player for a sport.
Not a coincidence they were so fond of the Nazis tbh

Blake

07-18-2017, 11:11 AM

Mitch

07-18-2017, 12:41 PM

Not a coincidence they were so fond of the Nazis tbh

Yup, they thought Hitler would have put them on the Aryan race list. They'd probably get gassed all the same, tbh

DAF86

07-18-2017, 01:57 PM

Really isn't irrefutable. More titles doesn't mean greater. Competition era and impact on the game factors in as well.

Btw, I heard Sampras speak Spanish. He just shot up your goat list.

So I give you an honest, reasonable response to the matter and you insist with your wrong assumption about my personal interests? Ok :lol

Nadal having more majors than Sampras is irrefutable, an era being weaker than the other isn't. It's pretty simple actually. To me it seems like you are the one letting personal bias get in the way of reality, tbh.

DAF86

07-18-2017, 02:04 PM

Argies are naturally racist, Tbh. They'll side with the Spaniard if their country doesn't produce a good player for a sport.

If I'm racist why would I side wih the brown dirty Spaniard instead of the white American?

Mitch

07-18-2017, 02:39 PM

If I'm racist why would I side wih the brown dirty Spaniard instead of the white American?

The Spaniard is closer to your people, you probably hold a grudge on non-hispanic whites for Falkland and defeating Germany.

ambchang

07-18-2017, 02:55 PM

So I give you an honest, reasonable response to the matter and you insist with your wrong assumption about my personal interests? Ok :lol

Nadal having more majors than Sampras is irrefutable, an era being weaker than the other isn't. It's pretty simple actually. To me it seems like you are the one letting personal bias get in the way of reality, tbh.

So russell is the goat in basketball?

DAF86

07-18-2017, 02:56 PM

The Spaniard is closer to your people, you probably hold a grudge on non-hispanic whites for Falkland and defeating Germany.

The United States is closer to Argentina than Spain. I don't even need to cross international waters to get to the States, tbh. :lol

DAF86

07-18-2017, 02:57 PM

So russell is the goat in basketball?

Is basketball an individual sport?

DAF86

07-18-2017, 03:03 PM

Not a coincidence they were so fond of the Nazis tbh

You are no saints yourself in the whole Nazi harboring thing son. :lol

lefty20

07-18-2017, 03:24 PM

Speaking of Argies, I still feel really bad for Delpo. I thought for sure that he's the next big thing after seeing him in 09 US Open. But those fucking wrist injuries and surgeries have ruined what should've been a goat potential(I'm serious) career. :depressed

DAF86

07-18-2017, 03:30 PM

Meh, never been much of a Delpo fan, tbh.

Mitch

07-18-2017, 03:40 PM

The United States is closer to Argentina than Spain. I don't even need to cross international waters to get to the States, tbh. :lol

Closer racially, this is why Hitler would gas you guys.

140

07-18-2017, 04:46 PM

Meh, never been much of a Delpo fan, tbh.
Why am I not surprised :lol

DAF86

07-18-2017, 05:00 PM

Why am I not surprised :lol

So, do I cheer for anything Argentinian/Spanish or not? Can you commit to a trolling shtick? :lol

midnightpulp

07-18-2017, 06:39 PM

Is basketball an individual sport?

We can rephrase that into are the 60s Celts the greatest team of all time?

As great as they were, the league was only 8 teams deep, meaning less competition to battle and less of a chance of an early round upset.

I see a parallel to modern tennis. The fields aren't as deep with talented 2nd tier players who are a legitimate threat to knock out the big guns.

Easily proven by the variety of major title winners then compared to now.

You'll say, "well maybe no one was good enough to be totally dominant."

And why do you think that is? Look at any sports that have had a shallow talent pool period. It's always one player/one team dominating.

ambchang

07-18-2017, 06:43 PM

Is basketball an individual sport?

Is 11 titles in 13 seasons for russell a fact?

Also is russell Español?

140

07-18-2017, 06:47 PM

So, do I cheer for anything Argentinian/Spanish or not? Can you commit to a trolling shtick? :lol
Well you seem to like your argentinian athletes to be gutless, spineless and lacking in personality so that's why I figured tbh

Spurtacular

07-18-2017, 07:35 PM

So, do I cheer for anything Argentinian/Spanish or not? Can you commit to a trolling shtick? :lol

All the race trolls here are the ones that fantasize about taking bbc. :lmao

Blake

07-18-2017, 07:46 PM

We can rephrase that into are the 60s Celts the greatest team of all time?

As great as they were, the league was only 8 teams deep, meaning less competition to battle and less of a chance of an early round upset.

I see a parallel to modern tennis. The fields aren't as deep with talented 2nd tier players who are a legitimate threat to knock out the big guns.

Easily proven by the variety of major title winners then compared to now.

You'll say, "well maybe no one was good enough to be totally dominant."

And why do you think that is? Look at any sports that have had a shallow talent pool period. It's always one player/one team dominating.

Det dude Serena be dominating

Spurtacular

07-18-2017, 07:49 PM

Det dude Serena be dominating

I remember when the 200th ranked dude kicked his ass :lmao In one game (if not one career), that trans destroyed women's tennis.

DAF86

07-18-2017, 08:49 PM

Well you seem to like your argentinian athletes to be gutless, spineless and lacking in personality so that's why I figured tbh

Del Potro is pretty gutless, tbh. "I'm too tired to play best of 5 matches" :cry

Down Under

07-18-2017, 10:48 PM

I agree that Sampras probably had more challengers, but the margain for error today is so small (elite players obviously hit the ball harder, deeper & closer to the lines) that there are only a handful of players with the groundstrokes & agility to consistently retrieve the ball in play & keep it in play.

lefty20

07-18-2017, 11:00 PM

Del Potro is pretty gutless, tbh. "I'm too tired to play best of 5 matches" :cry

Common m8, he's never ever said that. Dude has made 0 excuses despite having legit reason to gripe about. Guy works hard to rehab, grinds up the rankings only to have to go back and have another surgery. It keeps happening over and over, frankly I'm kinda surprised that he hasn't just called it quits.

Spurtacular

07-19-2017, 01:55 AM

^^^

He was making concessions for a faggoty race troll.

Canyonero

07-19-2017, 09:19 AM

Nalbandian could have been n°1 (said by Federer himself) if he had cared more about training and less BBQing tbh.

lefty20

09-04-2017, 08:18 PM

Delpo with a sweet 0-2 comeback. Fed should win on Wednesday night, but it's nice to see Delpo into the quarters again.

Canyonero

09-05-2017, 07:53 AM

Schwartzman > DelPo as we speak tbh

MB20

09-05-2017, 08:52 AM

Federer is the GOAT. He is Sampras on steroids.

Players that have dominated eras: Federer/Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, Borg, Connors, McEnroe.

2nd tiers: Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Hewitt, Courier, Murray.

lefty20

09-05-2017, 03:56 PM

Schwartzman > DelPo as we speak tbh

Disagree. But Schwartz is younger, so he still has 3 years to pad is resume(which is quite underwhelming for a 25yr old, tbh) and get it on par with Delpo's current body of work.

I don't see it happening doe.

140

09-06-2017, 08:41 PM

My nigga DP going fucking in tbh

140

09-06-2017, 10:51 PM

Del Potro is pretty gutless, tbh. "I'm too tired to play best of 5 matches" :cry
Looked pretty fucking good to me tbh :lol

ElNono

09-06-2017, 10:53 PM

My nigga DP going fucking in tbh

:wow

lefty20

09-06-2017, 10:57 PM

:wow

140

09-06-2017, 11:05 PM

:wow
Son what's the deal with DAF throwing all the true argie sports legends under the bus tbh?

DAF86

09-06-2017, 11:07 PM

Looked pretty fucking good to me tbh :lol

Watch him gift the match to Nadal after taking out GOATerer, tbh.

ElNono

09-07-2017, 01:19 AM

Son what's the deal with DAF throwing all the true argie sports legends under the bus tbh?

New Age Argie Fan, tbh

Canyonero

09-07-2017, 08:42 AM

If Del Bosto wins the trophy, he's back in the top 10.

Canyonero

09-07-2017, 10:15 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJGHN7wUEAAqo0b.jpg:large

:lol

DAF86

09-10-2017, 06:28 PM

Folks who don't think Nadal is the second best player in history. :lol

And we have to wait and see if he doesn't end up being the best of all-time. Just 3 Majors down.

lefty20

09-10-2017, 06:37 PM

Rafa has worked really hard this year, so I'm sure his knees will need all of next year to recover. We'll see if he can regain his form in 2019.

Arcadian

09-11-2017, 04:48 AM

Folks who don't think Nadal is the second best player in history. :lol

And we have to wait and see if he doesn't end up being the best of all-time. Just 3 Majors down.

If he surpasses Federer in majors and retains his decisive head-to-head advantage, it would be difficult to argue against Nadal as the GOAT.

140

09-11-2017, 05:27 PM

Thinking Faggotrer is some kind of goat :lmao:lmao:lmao

Spurtacular

01-27-2018, 02:58 PM

https://www.afp.com/en/news/722/more-slam-glory-beckons-ageless-federer-melbourne-doc-xz91g2

Spurtacular

01-27-2018, 04:03 PM

https://www.afp.com/en/news/722/more-slam-glory-beckons-ageless-federer-melbourne-doc-xz91g2

Final at half past midnight (2:30 Central). Gonna have to get a nap in and watch that.

Snaq O'Meal

01-28-2018, 08:09 AM

20 grand slams and counting. Probably the favorite to win the Wimbledon again if his health holds up.

dfens

01-28-2018, 09:11 AM

tbh Federer is probably the greatest winner in the history of sport, just an aberrant win count, finals, semifinals .. no quitting, no tantrums, no super athlete, takes good care of body, takes good care of family, true germanic tbh :toast

Canyonero

01-28-2018, 09:24 AM

This man can't stop GOATing tbh.

tbh Federer is probably the greatest winner in the history of sport, just an aberrant win count, finals, semifinals .. no quitting, no tantrums, no super athlete, takes good care of body, takes good care of family, true germanic tbh :toast

:lmao Becker begging for his trophies so he can pay his debts

spursistan

01-28-2018, 09:55 AM

apalisoc_9

01-28-2018, 10:20 AM

To be fair, tennis is just having its own weak era..The young generation sucks ball..Federer in particular benefited from the decline and injuries of Novak Djokovic-- arguably the best player in the world from 2011-2016..Even Nadal himself can't stay healthy..Fed just cleaned up while beating a bunch of gimps really..

yeah. Not the most competitive open.

Problem is nadal is always going to have health issues and Novak looks done as a number 1 caliber.

still, Nadal is the 2nd greatest of all time and Novak is argubly a top 5 player. Thats gonna serve his reputation when its all said and done.

lefty20

01-28-2018, 12:21 PM

To be fair, tennis is just having its own weak era..The young generation sucks ball..Federer in particular benefited from the decline and injuries of Novak Djokovic-- arguably the best player in the world from 2011-2016..Even Nadal himself can't stay healthy..Fed just cleaned up while beating a bunch of gimps really..

Rafa and Djoker only have themselves to blame by abusing their bodies with the grind it out/wall-bot play style.

dfens

01-28-2018, 01:18 PM

This man can't stop GOATing tbh.
:lmao Becker begging for his trophies so he can pay his debts

lol Becker, only poor life choices : from women, gambling, investments, life style, etc :lol

Spurtacular

01-28-2018, 04:31 PM

Federer GOAT, tbh.

Raven

01-29-2018, 03:18 AM

To be fair, tennis is just having its own weak era..The young generation sucks ball..Federer in particular benefited from the decline and injuries of Novak Djokovic-- arguably the best player in the world from 2011-2016..Even Nadal himself can't stay healthy..Fed just cleaned up while beating a bunch of gimps really..

i'd say it has more to do with the end of the insanely slow surfaces that were making every tournament painfully predictable until the semis..

DAF86

01-29-2018, 11:30 AM

I had forgotten about ambchang, midnightpulp and Mitch's soreness about the fact that Rafael Nadal is the second greatest tennis player in history. :lol

LaMarcus Bryant

01-29-2018, 12:55 PM

Undisputed GOAT no question.
What is the deal with Novak Djokavic? How does one dominate so soundly then disappear

Mitch

01-29-2018, 02:02 PM

I had forgotten about ambchang, midnightpulp and Mitch's soreness about the fact that Rafael Nadal is the second greatest tennis player in history. :lol

Wtf did I ever say about tennis? Is he like an honorary argie for you or something?

DAF86

01-29-2018, 02:39 PM

Wtf did I ever say about tennis? Is he like an honorary argie for you or something?

No, in fact, as a Federer fan I sport hate Nadal very much. But that doesn't prevent me from looking at the facts objectively, tbh.

Jules_Winnfield

01-29-2018, 02:40 PM

I had forgotten about ambchang (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=986), midnightpulp (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=5430) and Mitch (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=36270)'s soreness about the fact that Rafael Nadal is the second greatest tennis player in history. :lol

Rafael Nadalbrook

https://youtu.be/qTqHSztcPP0?t=2m15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl36ZSky-ZM

https://youtu.be/dCjw0Unm8OY?t=2m

ambchang

01-29-2018, 04:34 PM

I had forgotten about ambchang, midnightpulp and Mitch's soreness about the fact that Rafael Nadal is the second greatest tennis player in history. :lol

I thought we are talking about GOATs here, not guys who won tourneys because the goat got hurt.

Raven

01-29-2018, 05:17 PM

Canyonero

01-29-2018, 05:54 PM

Who would be the second greatest? Please don't say Sampras.

Mitch

01-29-2018, 07:10 PM

No, in fact, as a Federer fan I sport hate Nadal very much. But that doesn't prevent me from looking at the facts objectively, tbh.

You hate an argie? Must be because he's not white enough.

DAF86

01-29-2018, 09:09 PM

I thought we are talking about GOATs here, not guys who won tourneys because the goat got hurt.

Who are you even talking about now? :lol

DAF86

01-29-2018, 09:16 PM

he's not though.. not even close.

How can the 2nd in the list of most GS wins and the all time leader in Masters 1000 not only not be the second greatest player of all-time but not even be close? :lol

Under most objective metrics he is the 2nd greatest player of all-time, maybe even the GOAT. Only a blind hater could say otherwise.

DAF86

01-29-2018, 09:19 PM

You hate an argie? Must be because he's not white enough.

Who are you even talking about now? :lol

ambchang

01-29-2018, 09:25 PM

Who are you even talking about now? :lol

Yeah. Acting like Nadal would even have a chance to be in the conversation even federer had been healthy all along.

It’s like saying Hakeem is the second goat because he won when the goat was being suspended.

midnightpulp

01-29-2018, 09:25 PM

I had forgotten about ambchang, midnightpulp and Mitch's soreness about the fact that Rafael Nadal is the second greatest tennis player in history. :lol

I don't have enough dog in this fight to be sore. I just think it's a weak era. Tennis was always a young man's game where you were an old man by 28 and the next wave of superstars were staking their claim. The fact the same 2 or 3 players have dominated for more than decade says a lot. You can invoke better training methods, sports medicine, and the like, but those same advancements should also help younger players reach new heights.

DAF86

01-29-2018, 09:29 PM

Yeah. Acting like Nadal would even have a chance to be in the conversation even federer had been healthy all along.

It’s like saying Hakeem is the second goat because he won when the goat was being suspended.

I was seriously asking because on this last Australian Open Nasal had to retire, which opened the path for Federer.

You do know that Nadal owns Federer badly on H2H matchups right?

ambchang

01-29-2018, 09:35 PM

I was seriously asking because on this last Australian Open Nasal had to retire, which opened the path for Federer.

You do know that Nadal owns Federer badly on H2H matchups right?

:lol only because most of those wins were on clay. Which btw is known to be the oddball surface.

Federer leads on both hard and grass.
:lol losing before meeting in the finals is now a good thing
:lol laker fan logic.

DAF86

01-29-2018, 09:50 PM

:lol only because most of those wins were on clay. Which btw is known to be the oddball surface.

Federer leads on both hard and grass.

Clay is the oddball surface? What now? :lol

Also, untill last season Nadal was 9-7 over Federer on Hard courts. And is only 1-2 on grass. So he dominates Federer on his favourite surface and plays him even on the Swiss' favourite surfaces. That's seems like a pretty clear win for Nadal, tbh. Why can't Federer dominate Nasal on grass like the Spaniard dominates him on Clay?

:lol losing before meeting in the finals is now a good thing
:lol laker fan logic.

When the fuck did I say that? :lol

I just pointed out that he got injured. In a match he was going to win, I might add.

ambchang

01-30-2018, 06:41 AM

Clay is the oddball surface? What now? :lol

Also, untill last season Nadal was 9-7 over Federer on Hard courts. And is only 1-2 on grass. So he dominates Federer on his favourite surface and plays him even on the Swiss' favourite surfaces. That's seems like a pretty clear win for Nadal, tbh. Why can't Federer dominate Nasal on grass like the Spaniard dominates him on Clay?

When the fuck did I say that? :lol

I just pointed out that he got injured. In a match he was going to win, I might add.

Of course clay Is oddball. And now you are picking and choosing timeframes.

Nadal loses out before facing federer than the ekther way around. Fact.

DAF86

01-30-2018, 12:00 PM

Of course clay Is oddball. And now you are picking and choosing timeframes.

Nadal loses out before facing federer than the ekther way around. Fact.

Old fart with 6 yeard old boy replays. :lol

ambchang

01-30-2018, 12:26 PM

Old fart with 6 yeard old boy replays. :lol

I could have responded if I know what you are talking about.

Also, I’d Nadal speaks Portuguese, you’d be ragging him for being the most overrated player ever. Not just in tennis, but in sports overall.

DAF86

01-30-2018, 12:31 PM

I could have responded if I know what you are talking about.

Also, I’d Nadal speaks Portuguese, you’d be ragging him for being the most overrated player ever. Not just in tennis, but in sports overall.

What part of "I'm a Federer fan, I hate Nadal" you don't get? :lol I'm just not a on old fart with zero emotional balance, so I don't let my feeling get in the way of rational arguments, tbh.

Thinking Spanish speaking brotherhood is a thing down here. :lol

ambchang

01-30-2018, 02:38 PM

What part of "I'm a Federer fan, I hate Nadal" you don't get? :lol I'm just not a on old fart with zero emotional balance, so I don't let my feeling get in the way of rational arguments, tbh.

Thinking Spanish speaking brotherhood is a thing down here. :lol

You can say what you want, but to say someone has zero emotional balance because he disagrees with you seems to be someone with zero emotional balance.

Nadal faces weak competition other than federer, and especially later in his career. Tennis has been a sport with declining popularity and as such isn’t fed with the level of talent as in the past.

Nadal is the greatest number 2, but he’s not the 2nd greatest.

DAF86

01-30-2018, 02:47 PM

You can say what you want, but to say someone has zero emotional balance because he disagrees with you seems to be someone with zero emotional balance.

Nadal faces weak competition other than federer, and especially later in his career. Tennis has been a sport with declining popularity and as such isn’t fed with the level of talent as in the past.

Nadal is the greatest number 2, but he’s not the 2nd greatest.

You are the one giving emotional responses such as ":cry you only say Nadal is the second greatest because he speaks Spanish :cry"

Not only an emotional weak argument, but also a terrible erronous and laughable one, tbh. :lol

Also, from your posts I can tell that you aren't that big of a tennis fan. I'm sure you didn't even watch the last Australian Open.

ambchang

01-30-2018, 04:16 PM

You are the one giving emotional responses such as ":cry you only say Nadal is the second greatest because he speaks Spanish :cry"

Not only an emotional weak argument, but also a terrible erronous and laughable one, tbh. :lol

Also, from your posts I can tell that you aren't that big of a tennis fan. I'm sure you didn't even watch the last Australian Open.

:lol. Not sure if you are really this stupid or just pretending. Nadal Spanish link is to make fun of your argument because that’s the only way you can do unequivocally declare Nadal to be the second greatest without taking other factors into consideration

If anything it is to make fun of your emotional responses.

As for being a tennis fan, really not that big of one.

DAF86

01-30-2018, 04:18 PM

:lol. Not sure if you are really this stupid or just pretending. Nadal Spanish link is to make fun of your argument because that’s the only way you can do unequivocally declare Nadal to be the second greatest without taking other factors into consideration

If anything it is to make fun of your emotional responses.

As for being a tennis fan, really not that big of one.

Yeah well, it shows in your arguments.

ambchang

01-30-2018, 05:24 PM

Yeah well, it shows in your arguments.

Yeah, because it that’s a true tennis fan to look up which Spanish-speaking player has the second most grand slam in tennis history

DAF86

01-30-2018, 05:38 PM

Yeah, because it that’s a true tennis fan to look up which Spanish-speaking player has the second most grand slam in tennis history

I really tried to understand what you are trying to say there but to no avail, tbh.

ambchang

01-30-2018, 09:54 PM

I really tried to understand what you are trying to say there but to no avail, tbh.

Subnout takes with that’s. Speech diction thing didn’t work out. Would’ve been better if I tried Español though. It would have been the second best post in this forums history.

Darth_Pelican

06-10-2018, 10:20 AM

Nadal cruising to another French Open title.

Canyonero

06-10-2018, 11:11 AM

Undisputed second GOAT

lefty

06-10-2018, 12:49 PM

Spaniards owning clay courts, what else is new

Spurtacular

06-10-2018, 05:36 PM

Nadal cruising to another French Open title.

Best ice skater tennis player of all-time.

Spurtacular

06-10-2018, 05:44 PM

Roger Federer is opting out of the French Open for the third straight year.

He announced in March he would be skipping the entire clay-court season.

The Swiss tennis player told reporters after suffering a loss to Australian qualifier Thanasi Kokkinakis in the Miami Open: “I decided not to play.

“I’m a positive thinker, every match is another opportunity. You take a break, get away from it all, and get back to practice court and work.”
Back in 2016, Federer pulled out of the French Open because of knee and back issues and in 2017 he made the decision not to play the entire clay-court swing, and instead opted to prepare for Wimbledon.

In May, he spoke about his decision: “I am not 25 any more I need to reserve some energy for Wimbledon. I love the grass more than the clay court, so that is why I won’t take part this year.”
The superstar’s Roland Garros absence will be felt, but the odds are on Rafael Nadar holding on to his Paris crown.

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/969415/Roger-Federer-French-Open-2018-Roland-Garros-is-Federer-playing-french-open

DAF86

06-10-2018, 08:55 PM

:lol ambchang's capitulation on this thread.

ambchang

06-10-2018, 09:20 PM

:lol ambchang's capitulation on this thread.

What did I do? Like how nadal plays in an age when nobody cares about tennis?

140

06-10-2018, 10:01 PM

:lol wow, I knew federer was a pussy but not to this extent, tbh..

Spurtacular

06-10-2018, 10:27 PM

:lol wow, I knew federer was a pussy but not to this extent, tbh..

It's smart. Why waste energy and reduce his body for a tournament he has little chance of winning at the expense of a chance of winning a tournament that he's odds on favorite for? Seeing him dominate last year's Wimbeldon, it's not like he's not proving that. Also, there frankly is difference between 25 and 37 as he says. If this somehow shatters the illusion for you, then so beit.

DAF86

06-11-2018, 12:31 AM

What did I do? Like how nadal plays in an age when nobody cares about tennis?

You started talking about the Spanish language when you realized you didn't have a good argument for Nadal not being the second greatest player of all time. :lol

Also: https://www.totalsportek.com/most-popular-sports/

A global reach and over a 1 billion followers makes Tennis the most popular individual based sport

Talking out of your ass, again. :lol

apalisoc_9

06-11-2018, 12:57 AM

Lol Fed, Nadal are very clearly the two best players of all time.

Dumb ass americans still think sampras is close?

Thats like Saying Paul Pierce is bettern Jordan and Lebron :lmao

Even Novaks has had a better career.

In trurth if Novak didnt get injured. Heck if he wins a couple more grandslam.

Fed
Nadal
Novak

Will go down as the three best of all time.

Spurtacular

06-11-2018, 01:43 AM

ambchang

06-11-2018, 05:24 AM

You started talking about the Spanish language when you realized you didn't have a good argument for Nadal not being the second greatest player of all time. :lol

Also: https://www.totalsportek.com/most-popular-sports/
:lol gender equality being a reason when one has to three sets and the other five.

Sampras > nadal. Deal with it.

Talking out of your ass, again. :lol

DAF86

06-11-2018, 02:52 PM

lol son, no. You are the one that needs to deal with the fact that Nadal has surpassed Sampras, tbh. You sound like an old fart hanging on to outdated ideas and beliefs. :lol

140

06-11-2018, 03:03 PM

It's smart. Why waste energy and reduce his body for a tournament he has little chance of winning at the expense of a chance of winning a tournament that he's odds on favorite for? Seeing him dominate last year's Wimbeldon, it's not like he's not proving that. Also, there frankly is difference between 25 and 37 as he says. If this somehow shatters the illusion for you, then so beit.
The only illusion that needs shattering is of people who think fagerer is some sort of goat tbh :lol

Spurtacular

06-11-2018, 03:11 PM

The only illusion that needs shattering is of people who think fagerer is some sort of goat tbh :lol

He's at 20 slams. :wow Exactly how many does he need to win to be the GOAT? :lmao

Darth_Pelican

06-11-2018, 03:35 PM

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal/F324/N409

It's crazy that Federer has beaten Nadal 5 times in a row, but before that, Nadal beat him 5 times in a row.

spursistan

06-11-2018, 04:20 PM

lol son, no. You are the one that needs to deal with the fact that Nadal has surpassed Sampras, tbh. You sound like an old fart hanging on to outdated ideas and beliefs. :lol

Rafa is closer to Federer than Sampras is to Nadal :lol.

Nadal actually played in the same era of his main competitor and dominated him in the big matches (I think it is something like 9-3 in Grand Slams). He just turned 32 last week and might threaten Federer's Slam count..

wingster

06-11-2018, 09:20 PM

ambchang

06-12-2018, 12:06 PM

lol son, no. You are the one that needs to deal with the fact that Nadal has surpassed Sampras, tbh. You sound like an old fart hanging on to outdated ideas and beliefs. :lol

:cry Spanish speaking player is dominant in an era when it has been a two player sport for 15 years.

DAF86

06-12-2018, 12:36 PM

:cry Spanish speaking player is dominant in an era when it has been a two player sport for 15 years.

Djokovic is probably top 5 all time. Murray is up there too. :lol

Why so interested on arguing about something you have admitted to be a casual fan of? Your "casualness" shows, tbh.

140

06-12-2018, 12:47 PM

It's incredible how people can be such prisoners of the moment, wow :lol

DAF86

06-12-2018, 01:06 PM

It's incredible how people can be such prisoners of the moment, wow :lol

Actually, it's incredible how people get caught up with old stuff and have a hard time accepting something current is better, tbh.

Most Slams won

1-Federer - 20
2-Nadal - 17
3-Sampras - 14
4-Djokovic and Emerson - 12

Most masters series won

1-Nadal - 32
2-Djokovic - 30
3-Federer - 27
4-Agassi - 17
5-Murray - 14

Most Masters cups won

1-Federer - 6
2-Djokovic/Lendl/Sampras - 5

Most weeks at number 1

1-Federer - 309
2-Sampras - 286
3-Lendl - 270
4-Connors - 268
5-Djokovic - 223

Under pretty much any metric, Djokovic is a top 5 player of all-time.

140

06-12-2018, 01:54 PM

:lol pretending this inflated number of slams isn't a product of an inferior, watered down era

140

06-12-2018, 01:54 PM

Murray as top 5 all time :lmao

DAF86

06-12-2018, 02:01 PM

Murray as top 5 all time :lmao

Not top 5, but probably top 10, tbh.

DAF86

06-12-2018, 02:04 PM

:lol pretending this inflated number of slams isn't a product of an inferior, watered down era

"Inferior, watered down era" :lol

At the thought of skinny ass, one dimensional players like Rafter, Phillipoussis, Ivanisevic, Henman, Kucera, etc. facing against players like Del Potro, Cilic, Wawrinka, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Berdych, Zverev, Tsonga, etc. :lol

ambchang

06-13-2018, 05:18 AM

Djokovic is probably top 5 all time. Murray is up there too. :lol

Why so interested on arguing about something you have admitted to be a casual fan of? Your "casualness" shows, tbh.
Because this era of tennis is dominated by a very small number of rich kids who can afford a coach.

And :lol joker and Murray. When there are so many top 5 players all in the same era it’s clearly a matter of competition.

ambchang

06-13-2018, 05:21 AM

Actually, it's incredible how people get caught up with old stuff and have a hard time accepting something current is better, tbh.

Most Slams won

1-Federer - 20
2-Nadal - 17
3-Sampras - 14
4-Djokovic and Emerson - 12

Most masters series won

1-Nadal - 32
2-Djokovic - 30
3-Federer - 27
4-Agassi - 17
5-Murray - 14

Most Masters cups won

1-Federer - 6
2-Djokovic/Lendl/Sampras - 5

Most weeks at number 1

1-Federer - 309
2-Sampras - 286
3-Lendl - 270
4-Connors - 268
5-Djokovic - 223

Under pretty much any metric, Djokovic is a top 5 player of all-time.

And Spanish speaking hero isn’t #2.

DAF86

06-13-2018, 12:15 PM

And Spanish speaking hero isn’t #2.

Second in Grand Slams and first in master series. :lol

When it's all said and done, Nadal might finish with the most slams, the most masters series and a H2H advantage against Roger and you would still be saying he isn't even better than Sampras. :lol

DAF86

06-13-2018, 12:29 PM

Because this era of tennis is dominated by a very small number of rich kids who can afford a coach.

And :lol joker and Murray. When there are so many top 5 players all in the same era it’s clearly a matter of competition.

This era of tennis being weak is an old people's argument, easily disproven by the fact that players who got to play in both eras: mid to late 90's and early to mid 00's, always say the level of play was higher in newer eras.

Tim Henman, an old schooler that bitches about today's tennis lack of diversity and wishes tennis was more like before, still had this to say:

"When you look at it this era, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have 36 Grand Slams among them. It's the toughest era in tennis.

I don't think (I would do well on this era), I would not win much."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/interviews/We-need-different-speed-courts-says-Henman/articleshow/28598116.cms

You know why he says this, despite being an old school guy that wishes tennis was more like before? Because he got a taste of both worlds. He played against Sampras, Agassi, Courier, etc and he played against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray; and he knows, from experience, that tennis' level is at its peak, right now.

ambchang

06-13-2018, 01:26 PM

Second in Grand Slams and first in master series. :lol

When it's all said and done, Nadal might finish with the most slams, the most masters series and a H2H advantage against Roger and you would still be saying he isn't even better than Sampras. :lol

Yet he doesn’t appear on two of the four list you use to support the joker.

Btw, do you think the reason those 60s players averages insane rebounding numbers is because they were all top 5 rebounders in league history, or just that there weren’t that many good rebounders?

ambchang

06-13-2018, 01:27 PM

This era of tennis being weak is an old people's argument, easily disproven by the fact that players who got to play in both eras: mid to late 90's and early to mid 00's, always say the level of play was higher in newer eras.

Tim Henman, an old schooler that bitches about today's tennis lack of diversity and wishes tennis was more like before, still had this to say:

"When you look at it this era, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have 36 Grand Slams among them. It's the toughest era in tennis.

I don't think (I would do well on this era), I would not win much."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/interviews/We-need-different-speed-courts-says-Henman/articleshow/28598116.cms

You know why he says this, despite being an old school guy that wishes tennis was more like before? Because he got a taste of both worlds. He played against Sampras, Agassi, Courier, etc and he played against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray; and he knows, from experience, that tennis' level is at its peak, right now.

Because of all the advancements and nutrition available? Sure. Same for pretty much every sport.

DAF86

06-13-2018, 01:39 PM

Because of all the advancements and nutrition available? Sure. Same for pretty much every sport.

He had the same advancements and nutrition available than everybody else did, tbh, and he still had more problems keeping up with the Federers, Nadals and Djokovic than with the Sampras, Agassis and Changs.

DAF86

06-13-2018, 01:47 PM

Yet he doesn’t appear on two of the four list you use to support the joker.

Btw, do you think the reason those 60s players averages insane rebounding numbers is because they were all top 5 rebounders in league history, or just that there weren’t that many good rebounders?

Different style of play, people back then used to miss a lot more and more rebounds were available, tbh. But that's a style of play difference, not an accomplishments difference. The equivalent in tennis would be that players used to do a lot more serve and volley back in the days.

The accomplishment argument in basketball would be Russell's 11 titles, but that is explained by a lack of competition, an argument that can't be used in Tennis since with each passing year the number of professional tennis players keeps growing and growing.

140

06-13-2018, 01:50 PM

Quality>quantity tbh

spurraider21

06-13-2018, 01:52 PM

:lol arguing over field ping pong

DAF86

06-13-2018, 01:57 PM

Quality>quantity tbh

How do you quantify quality? Henman, a guy that got to play in both eras, said that this current era is much tougher.

ambchang

06-14-2018, 05:57 AM

He had the same advancements and nutrition available than everybody else did, tbh, and he still had more problems keeping up with the Federers, Nadals and Djokovic than with the Sampras, Agassis and Changs.

I meant groups as a whole.

As for Henman. He couldn’t really compete with the best even back then. Then he got old. It’s like saying duncan went toe to toe with shaq but couldn’t put up those stats vs unibrow so unibrow > shaq.

Different style of play, people back then used to miss a lot more and more rebounds were available, tbh. But that's a style of play difference, not an accomplishments difference. The equivalent in tennis would be that players used to do a lot more serve and volley back in the days.

The accomplishment argument in basketball would be Russell's 11 titles, but that is explained by a lack of competition, an argument that can't be used in Tennis since with each passing year the number of professional tennis players keeps growing and growing.

Not really. The availability of top coaching and proper training is getting more and more restrictive. Leading to great disparity in overall inflow of talent. This allows a very small number of players to dominate and win more titles. Not because al of a sudden there are these great players.

I can’t use winning to justify individual dominance in basketball but you can use the team analogy. The 60 s Celtics are t the best team of all time.

Clipper Nation

06-14-2018, 08:48 AM

:lol arguing over field ping pong
At least it's an actual sport for once, as opposed to povertyball.

DAF86

06-14-2018, 03:46 PM

I meant groups as a whole.

As for Henman. He couldn’t really compete with the best even back then. Then he got old. It’s like saying duncan went toe to toe with shaq but couldn’t put up those stats vs unibrow so unibrow > shaq.

Not really. The availability of top coaching and proper training is getting more and more restrictive. Leading to great disparity in overall inflow of talent. This allows a very small number of players to dominate and win more titles. Not because al of a sudden there are these great players.

I can’t use winning to justify individual dominance in basketball but you can use the team analogy. The 60 s Celtics are t the best team of all time.

lol "top coaching" and "proper training". Argentina is a third World country that is constantly generating tennis talent. The US is the country that spends the most in tennis and since Roddick, they haven't really came out with a potential GS winner. If you have the tools, you will get where you need to get.

ambchang

06-14-2018, 04:53 PM

lol "top coaching" and "proper training". Argentina is a third World country that is constantly generating tennis talent. The US is the country that spends the most in tennis and since Roddick, they haven't really came out with a potential GS winner. If you have the tools, you will get where you need to get.

Because top coaching is what is expensive. Some tennis mommdropping $2000 a month kn her kids won’t do anything.

DAF86

06-14-2018, 06:07 PM

Because top coaching is what is expensive. Some tennis mommdropping $2000 a month kn her kids won’t do anything.

You mean "top coaching" as in coaches of professional tennis players? :lmao

Coaching in tennis must be the less important type of coaching in all of sports. Federer went on a 2 or 3 years period of total domination without a coach. Tennis coaches are nothing more than guys to keep you company and throw balls at you so that you can warm up before matches. :lol

Son, seriously, just give it up with this matter. :lol

ambchang

06-14-2018, 07:33 PM

You mean "top coaching" as in coaches of professional tennis players? :lmao

Coaching in tennis must be the less important type of coaching in all of sports. Federer went on a 2 or 3 years period of total domination without a coach. Tennis coaches are nothing more than guys to keep you company and throw balls at you so that you can warm up before matches. :lol

Son, seriously, just give it up with this matter. :lol

Thanks for just making shit up.

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 03:21 AM

Quality>quantity tbh

Hey, we agree. DAF is wrong. Lack of parity is always the result of a shallow talent pool and typically never a result of there magically being 2 or 3 exceptional humans who are so far beyond the competition others have little chance. Now, I have no dog in this fight re: being American and wanting to prop Sampras. There's little doubt the big 3 that have dominated the last 15 years are better players in a vacuum. Tennis is a rather technical sport, and I'm sure top players have an array of high-tech gadgets (high-speed cameras, tracking tech, computer analysis, etc) they use to constantly analyze and refine their games that players of past generations didn't have. Combine that with better training methods, and you get the next evolution of top players.

But if it's a "strong era," why is the sport still being dominated by the same 2 or 3 players who are all past 30 (which used to be senior citizen age in tennis)? "Better nutrition, sports science, etc." This would also benefit the younger players, probably more-so. Those younger players also have access to all that aforementioned technology and modern training methods, yet the 2nd tier of players (most of whom are in their athletic primes) aren't really the upset threats to the big 2 like in past generations (the win distribution of majors was more spread out in past eras). Either tennis isn't drawing the athletic talent like it once did or coaching at the youth level has changed over the past decade or so. And it doesn't matter if these 2nd tier players are better in a vacuum than the 2nd tier of past-gens. That's not what "strong era" means. Strong era means a wider equal distribution of talent across the sport to the point where anyone can win. The deepest talent pool would theoretically be every player in the pool having equal odds to win.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 11:39 AM

Hey, we agree. DAF is wrong. Lack of parity is always the result of a shallow talent pool and typically never a result of there magically being 2 or 3 exceptional humans who are so far beyond the competition others have little chance. Now, I have no dog in this fight re: being American and wanting to prop Sampras. There's little doubt the big 3 that have dominated the last 15 years are better players in a vacuum. Tennis is a rather technical sport, and I'm sure top players have an array of high-tech gadgets (high-speed cameras, tracking tech, computer analysis, etc) they use to constantly analyze and refine their games that players of past generations didn't have. Combine that with better training methods, and you get the next evolution of top players.

But if it's a "strong era," why is the sport still being dominated by the same 2 or 3 players who are all past 30 (which used to be senior citizen age in tennis)? "Better nutrition, sports science, etc." This would also benefit the younger players, probably more-so. Those younger players also have access to all that aforementioned technology and modern training methods, yet the 2nd tier of players (most of whom are in their athletic primes) aren't really the upset threats to the big 2 like in past generations (the win distribution of majors was more spread out in past eras). Either tennis isn't drawing the athletic talent like it once did or coaching at the youth level has changed over the past decade or so. And it doesn't matter if these 2nd tier players are better in a vacuum than the 2nd tier of past-gens. That's not what "strong era" means. Strong era means a wider equal distribution of talent across the sport to the point where anyone can win. The deepest talent pool would theoretically be every player in the pool having equal odds to win.

Or maybe, just maybe, the declining age has been delayed, and since the two greatest players of all-time are the ones taking advantage of that fact, it makes perfect sense that they are still the ones dominating.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 11:40 AM

Thanks for just making shit up.

What shit did I make up?

ambchang

06-15-2018, 11:44 AM

What shit did I make up?

Coaches don’t matter. That players can miraculously learn to dominate year after year, after they just learn to unlock their full potential at 18, with absolutely no help at all.

ambchang

06-15-2018, 11:46 AM

Or maybe, just maybe, the declining age has been delayed, and since the two greatest players of all-time are the ones taking advantage of that fact, it makes perfect sense that they are still the ones dominating.

Yes, because we, after a century of tennis, and decades of the sport reaching maturity, suddenly have three or four of the top five players just magically appear as they all stumbled upon the mutant tennis dominance gene.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 11:56 AM

Coaches don’t matter. That players can miraculously learn to dominate year after year, after they just learn to unlock their full potential at 18, with absolutely no help at all.

If you weren't a casual tennis fan, you would know that many players go long periods of time without coaches, and many times those moments equal the best of their careers. Like I said, Federer most dominant version came when he didn't have a coach and he did warm ups with his wife.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 12:01 PM

Yes, because we, after a century of tennis, and decades of the sport reaching maturity, suddenly have three or four of the top five players just magically appear as they all stumbled upon the mutant tennis dominance gene.

Bolt, Phelps, Serena Williams, Federer, Messi, Lebron. It's not uncommon to have GOATS in current sports. Humans are constantly evolving, it's just natural law.

Clipper Nation

06-15-2018, 12:08 PM

Bolt, Phelps, Serena Williams, Federer, Messi, Lebron. It's not uncommon to have GOATS in current sports. Humans are constantly evolving, it's just natural law.

:lol

Ginobilly

06-15-2018, 12:15 PM

Bolt, Phelps, Serena Williams, Federer, Messi, Lebron. It's not uncommon to have GOATS in current sports. Humans are constantly evolving, it's just natural law.

Humans aint evolving:lol its just better sports medical care and better peds that are extending these guys primes.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 12:20 PM

Humans aint evolving:lol its just better sports medical care and better peds that are extending these guys primes.

Ok, and who comes up with those improvements and PEDS, animals?

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 12:45 PM

Or maybe, just maybe, the declining age has been delayed, and since the two greatest players of all-time are the ones taking advantage of that fact, it makes perfect sense that they are still the ones dominating.

Scientific impossibility, unfortunately (no sports medicine advancement can stay off reaction time decline as a person ages, even if that person has the body of a 20 year old). Across all sports, 27-29 is the peak prime period in an athlete's career, when knowledge and athleticism come together most effectively. We should see the next tennis GOAT(S) challenging the old guard right now. Where is he/are they? You might say, "Look at the NBA. Lebron is 34 with a shit-ton of miles and still easily the best player in the league." The reason the NBA has such shitty parity and only 2 or 3 superstar players (like real superstars, players that can anchor a franchise for a decade) is because the worldwide basketball talent pool is small.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 12:49 PM

Scientific impossibility, unfortunately (no sports medicine advancement can stay off reaction time decline as a person ages, even if that person has the body of a 20 year old). Across all sports, 27-29 is the peak prime period in an athlete's career, when knowledge and athleticism come together most effectively. We should see the next tennis GOAT(S) challenging the old guard right now. Where is he/are they? You might say, "Look at the NBA. Lebron is 34 with a shit-ton of miles and still easily the best player in the league." The reason the NBA has such shitty parity and only 2 or 3 superstar players (like real superstars, players that can anchor a franchise for a decade) is because the worldwide basketball talent pool is small.

lol son. It's not only Tennis and Basketball, in pretty much every sport, old players are dominating. In soccer, by far the two best player on Earth are over 30, something that had never happened before. Is the talent pool small in soccer? :lol The NFL best player is 40 years old.

But sure, the decling age hasn't been delayed. I'm sure you have some nice graphics to prove that. :lol

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 12:50 PM

Bolt, Phelps, Serena Williams, Federer, Messi, Lebron. It's not uncommon to have GOATS in current sports. Humans are constantly evolving, it's just natural law.

:lol Humans (or any lifeform) don't evolve over decades. If you want to say training methods, nutritional knowledge, and sports science have evolved, then yes. But true evolution is a painstakingly slow process that takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

https://phys.org/news/2011-08-fast-evolutionary-million-years.html

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 12:56 PM

lol son. It's not only Tennis and Basketball, in pretty much every sport, old players are dominating. In soccer, by far the two best player on Earth are over 30, something that had never happened before. Is the talent pool small in soccer? :lol The NFL best player is 40 years old.

But sure, the decling age hasn't been delayed. I'm sure you have some nice graphics to prove that. :lol

Haven't I showed you stats to use in your Messi vs. Ronaldo debate just how overrated Ronaldo is? You said yourself, the Kirby of soccer where his flash and "charisma" distract from his actual in game impact. Isn't that Egyptian guy going to win player of the year? Looking it up: 26 years old. And Messi is a tick over 30. I just said the peak of an athlete's career is around 27-29. NFL? Shallow talent pool. So it looks like the actual 2 best players in the world. Messi and the Egyptian are within the range.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 01:05 PM

Haven't I showed you stats to use in your Messi vs. Ronaldo debate just how overrated Ronaldo is? You said yourself, the Kirby of soccer where his flash and "charisma" distract from his actual in game impact. Isn't that Egyptian guy going to win player of the year? Looking it up: 26 years old. And Messi is a tick over 30. I just said the peak of an athlete's career is around 27-29. NFL? Shallow talent pool. So it looks like the actual 2 best players in the world. Messi and the Egyptian are within the range.

lol son, no. It's either Messi or Sidenaldo. Like it has been for the past 10 years. I'm sure such dominance is because of the small talent pool soccer has.

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 01:24 PM

lol son, no. It's either Messi or Sidenaldo. Like it has been for the past 10 years. I'm sure such dominance is because of the small talent pool soccer has.

Stats to back that up? "Uh, uh, soccer is, um, an eye test sport!" Then why are Messi's "advanced stats," (soccer advanced stats are still in their infancy) head and shoulders above Fagnaldo's?

Scroll down. Ronaldo's goals expected per shot are middle of the road, while Messi is the clear leader. Ronaldo seems to be a "chucker." And yes, I realize that missed soccer shots don't work like missed basketball shots, since a shot on goal in soccer seems to always create an advantage for the attacking team, whether through generating corners and/or rebounds, but isn't the stigma around Ronaldo is that he needs elite passers around him to serve him his "tap ins" on a plate, while Messi actually "creates?"

Some newer stats like space created show exactly that in finer detail than just assists and goals created:
Soccer is fundamentally a game of space and movement, so Bornn and Fernandez devised models using positional data that evaluate the occupation and generation of space by players. “We can see at every instant the location of each player and the ball, and from this deduce how players’ movements create space for themselves and others,” Bornn said. “We can also see whether they do that actively, by running into open spaces, or passively, by staying in high-value locations while the play shifts away.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lionel-messi-is-impossible/

I don't see the evidence other than gifs of cute bicycle kicks.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 01:26 PM

Stats to back that up? "Uh, uh, soccer is, um, an eye test sport!" Then why are Messi's "advanced stats," (soccer advanced stats are still in their infancy) head and shoulders above Fagnaldo's?

Scroll down. Ronaldo's goals expected per shot are middle of the road, while Messi is the clear leader. Ronaldo seems to be a "chucker." And yes, I realize that missed soccer shots don't work like missed basketball shots, since a shot on goal in soccer seems to always create an advantage for the attacking team, whether through generating corners and/or rebounds, but isn't the stigma around Ronaldo is that he needs elite passers around him to serve him his "tap ins" on a plate, while Messi actually "creates?" (some newer stats like space created show exactly that in finer detail than just assists and goals created): "Soccer is fundamentally a game of space and movement, so Bornn and Fernandez devised models using positional data that evaluate the occupation and generation of space by players. “We can see at every instant the location of each player and the ball, and from this deduce how players’ movements create space for themselves and others,” Bornn said. “We can also see whether they do that actively, by running into open spaces, or passively, by staying in high-value locations while the play shifts away.”)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lionel-messi-is-impossible/

I don't see the evidence other than gifs of cute bicycle kicks.

Top scorer and Champion of CL.

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 01:33 PM

Top scorer and Champion of CL.

Kobe was the top scorer and Champion of the NBA many times. Soccer is an 11 vs. 11 team sport, so I don't see how you can appeal to the per game stats and "rings" argument here when so many factors can go into a making a player look better than he is. Scroll down more, and you'll see Fagnaldo as a middle of the pack player in unassisted goals.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 01:37 PM

Kobe was the top scorer and Champion of the NBA many times. Soccer is an 11 vs. 11 team sport, so I don't see how you can appeal to the per game stats and "rings" argument here when so many factors can go into a making a player look better than he is. Scroll down more, and you'll see Fagnaldo as a middle of the pack player in unassisted goals.

He scored 33% more goals than the next top scorer. Look, I'm far from a Sidenaldo fan, but he is clearly the second best player in the World.

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 02:07 PM

He scored 33% more goals than the next top scorer. Look, I'm far from a Sidenaldo fan, but he is clearly the second best player in the World.

So scoring is the only thing that matters in soccer? Midfielders and defenders can't have more in game impact than strikers? Again, this would be like saying Kobe is clearly better than Duncan because he scored a certain percentage more points. This is exactly why soccer needs a metrics revolution, and its coming.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 02:10 PM

So scoring is the only thing that matters in soccer? Midfielders and defenders can't have more in game impact than strikers? Again, this would be like saying Kobe is clearly better than Duncan because he scored a certain percentage more points. This is exactly why soccer needs a metrics revolution, and its coming.

In soccer, smart positioning and timely runs to get in positions to score is a very important ability that not everybody possess.

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 02:16 PM

In soccer, smart positioning and timely runs to get in positions to score is a very important ability that not everybody possess.

But you still need midfielders and other players to deliver accurate crosses, through passes and the like to give the striker making that timely run a good shot on goal. Currently, it seems soccer underrates the midfielders and defensemen. All the focus/hype is on the goal scorers. Unless soccer is a striker centric sport above all else.

DAF86

06-15-2018, 03:07 PM

But you still need midfielders and other players to deliver accurate crosses, through passes and the like to give the striker making that timely run a good shot on goal. Currently, it seems soccer underrates the midfielders and defensemen. All the focus/hype is on the goal scorers. Unless soccer is a striker centric sport above all else.

Just watch the damn games, tbh. If you didn't see this Portugal-Spain game, try to catch it on replay and tell me if Sidenaldo isn't among the best. :lol

midnightpulp

06-15-2018, 03:16 PM

Just watch the damn games, tbh. If you didn't see this Portugal-Spain game, try to catch it on replay and tell me if Sidenaldo isn't among the best. :lol

You know I don't watch this sport much. Looking at the highlights now. His goals were: A fuckin' penalty (of course. Isn't he called Penaldo as well?), a weak shot flubbed by the goalie (and he did nothing to create the play, really. The long pass and first touch of the player who flipped the ball to him are what generated the play). 3rd goal. Free kick. Lol.

But you're still not answering the question. How are other players "valued" relative to strikers? That's the crux of my point here. Soccer seems to only value goals and maybe assists in determining player value. I'd be willing to bet that if soccer had a comprehensive advanced stats methodology, we'd see midfielders and defenders have more game impact than the players perceived as the best (i.e. Ronaldo). Or you tell me. Is striker simply the most important position?

ambchang

06-15-2018, 04:52 PM

If you weren't a casual tennis fan, you would know that many players go long periods of time without coaches, and many times those moments equal the best of their careers. Like I said, Federer most dominant version came when he didn't have a coach and he did warm ups with his wife.

Sure. After they’ve been shown the way. You think anyone can just afford those to unlock their potential? Why would lesser players who can’t afford to pay hundred of thousands of dollars to have some guy keep them company?

Bolt, Phelps, Serena Williams, Federer, Messi, Lebron. It's not uncommon to have GOATS in current sports. Humans are constantly evolving, it's just natural law.

It’s uncommon to have the top 2 and another 2 top tens though.