Twenty Slams For Roger Federer!

[Spurtacular]

Roger becomes the second male tennis player to reach twenty along with Serena Williams. Though, that he did it in the men's field is much more impressive, imo. Though, he did win this one in conspicuous pink shoes (that were kinda cool I thought).

After dominating the first set of the 18 Aussie Open Final, Federer was up 4-3 on the tiebreaker on the second set when he hit a ball that just hit the top of the net and fell back to his side. Cilic had the next serve; he would take the 5-4 lead and subsequently the set, making it an even match again. Federer hit some great shots in the third and did some off-speed strokes that took Cilic out of his rhythm. He was up 3-1 in the fourth set and one point away from winning his fourth game; he was looking so dominant that John McEnroe called it match point in essence. But Federer didn't get it and there was a swing in momentum as Cillic then won the final five games to force a fifth set. The first game of that set was tight. But then when Federer won the next game on Cillic's serves and then held serve on the 3rd game, the writing seemed to be on the wall. Federer wasn't taking his eye off the prize and letting another set (and the monumental match) slip away. He would win the set, 6-1.

This was the 36-year-old legend's twentieth slam in thirty tries; and he was very emotional following the landmark achievement. It's his second Aussie Open title in a row and third slam win in the last five (four as I think he took the French Open off). Apparently, this string of success comes after a injury inhibiting four-year span in which he had failed to win a slam and in which some were saying he might win but one or two more slams, as people were saying his best days were behind him. This puts him four grand slams ahead of his rival Rafael Nadal, who sits on sixteen. It puts him eight ahead of Djokovic who is at twelve and who had won five of six Aussie Opens prior to Federer's resurgence in the event. The title also puts Roger's Aussie Open tally at six, ahead of Djokovic.

Incidentally, the Cillic/Nadal QF followed a similar run of play with Nadal winning the first and third sets and Cillic winning the second and fourth. But down 0-2 in the fifth set, Nadal retired (presumably with an injury). A Federer/Nadal grand slam final would've been fun. I would guess there is at least one or two more of those coming. But these players are getting older, so one has to assume that every time it happens it could be the last time. Though, Federer still has a superior service game and impeccable ball placement and suitable mobility and stamina; so, he may keep going strong to forty.

And of note, I thought it was funny when McEnroe said that if Cillic pulled out the fifth set (and won his second career grand slam), then such a feat would land him in the tennis Hall of Fame. I couldn't tell if that comment was paying homage to Federer or truly the result of not very high standards for the said HOF given that I don't follow their standards.

[DMC]

:sleep

[lefty20]

Djoker, Murray and Rafa all breaking down while Fed is still going strong. :bobo

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kC3NlrTiKg

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

That's a pretty amazing accomplishment, and an excellent topic for the NBA Forum...kind of breaks up the monotony a bit. Bravo!

[DAF86]

Federer might be the GOATEST of all the GOATS, tbh.

[DeRozan m8]

Fuckin lol at tennis though.

I mean, teams chop and change in team sports to keep dynasties and what not....tennis is obviously different though....

Why is a 36 year old or whatever, still doing this? Wheres the young and growing competition?

Its not like its table tennis or pool either....this is some physical shit....cmon you useless young cunts

[140]

Federer might be the GOATEST of all the GOATS, tbh.

Why am I not surprised :lmao

[DAF86]

Why am I not surprised :lmao

So you have a problem with Federer too? Why do you hate GOATs so much son? :lol

[DAF86]

Fuckin lol at tennis though.

I mean, teams chop and change in team sports to keep dynasties and what not....tennis is obviously different though....

Why is a 36 year old or whatever, still doing this? Wheres the young and growing competition?

Its not like its table tennis or pool either....this is some physical shit....cmon you useless young cunts

I think it's pretty obvious that the lifespan of a professional sportmen has extended across all activities, tbh. On the NBA you have folks playing well into their 40's, in the NFL old ass Brady is still the man to beat, Mayweather in boxing, etc.

[dfens]

Why am I not surprised :lmao

son I rarely follow tennis so I'm not in the know, so this is an honest question, why wouldn't federer be the GOAT?
his stats are absolutely :wow:wow:wow:wow:wow:wow I mean statistically his dominance is far greater than any other modern-era relevant sport player, ever. He is doing Wilt stats combined with Bill Russell winning. To come out of semi-retirement and win 3 slams is just mind breaking tbh, just those 3 are a guaranteed HOF career. :wow

[spurraider21]

why are we talking about field-ping pong?

[dfens]

I think it's pretty obvious that the lifespan of a professional sportmen has extended across all activities, tbh. On the NBA you have folks playing well into their 40's, in the NFL old ass Brady is still the man to beat, Mayweather in boxing, etc.

don't think tennis follows the same rules to age progression, the sport is absolutely brutal for the body, playing 1v1 for long hours in the hot summer sun on hard court is not like mayweather fighting once a year or NBA corpses playing 20 mins indoors. Just saying tbh.

[Canyonero]

don't think tennis follows the same rules to age progression, the sport is absolutely brutal for the body, playing 1v1 for long hours in the hot summer sun on hard court is not like mayweather fighting once a year or NBA corpses playing 20 mins indoors. Just saying tbh.

Federoids tbh

[The Gemini Method]

Would've like to have seen a Nadal v. Federer match-up, but it didn't happen. Dude is unreal. I have a good buddy who is a Fedhead and he was telling me about how huge 20 was. Good for him.

[HarlemHeat37]

Federer and Brady are obvious cheaters, tbh:lol nobody calls them out because they're beloved figures..I don't have a problem with it, I believe all athletes should be permitted to pursue every possible avenue that leads to longevity and optimal performance, but the hypocrisy is cute..

[Down Under]

Federer's game & movement has always been effortless as he's always tried to dictate play & keeps the points short. Nadal on the other hand, has a brutal style on his body where he aims to get every ball back while standing 12+ feet behind the baseline and generating ridiculous top spin until he's able to position himself for a winner. Federer also plays barely any tournaments apart from the lead up to the slams & barely practises during slams all helping to prolong his game.

[Down Under]

Guys like Thiem & Zverev don't have the game to win a grand slam & Kyrgios is a head case obviously so that eliminates a lot of the young guys as threats also.

[DAF86]

don't think tennis follows the same rules to age progression, the sport is absolutely brutal for the body, playing 1v1 for long hours in the hot summer sun on hard court is not like mayweather fighting once a year or NBA corpses playing 20 mins indoors. Just saying tbh.

Well, you have a bunch of 30+ year old folks owning tennis right now. So I don't know how much true does your theory hold, tbh.

[DAF86]

Federer and Brady are obvious cheaters, tbh:lol nobody calls them out because they're beloved figures..I don't have a problem with it, I believe all athletes should be permitted to pursue every possible avenue that leads to longevity and optimal performance, but the hypocrisy is cute..

I'm a firma believer that all top athletes dope one way or another, but if there's one dude I could believe he doesn't is Federer, tbh.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/14/article-0-0A70589B000005DC-759_468x428.jpg

I mean, just look at that. :lol

[vander]

Well, you have a bunch of 30+ year old folks owning tennis right now. So I don't know how much true does your theory hold, tbh.

I thought I read somewhere that the amount of kids playing tennis has been on a steady decline for a long time. so obviously not as much competition anymore

[DAF86]

I thought I read somewhere that the amount of kids playing tennis has been on a steady decline for a long time. so obviously not as much competition anymore

That still doesn't adress the point that dfens brought about tenis being too brutal for the body. If that was the case folks like Federer and Nadal would be retired now, no matter how weak the competition is.

[Spurtacular]

Federer Round of 16 Wimbledon match tomorrow morning, early.

[Arcadian]

I hope we get a 10-year anniversary rematch of 2008, the greatest match of all time :)

[midnightpulp]

I'm a firma believer that all top athletes dope one way or another, but if there's one dude I could believe he doesn't is Federer, tbh.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/14/article-0-0A70589B000005DC-759_468x428.jpg

I mean, just look at that. :lol

Not all doping leads to muscle mass/definition. But yeah, can't take anything away from Federer regardless.

[Spurtacular]

:wow Fed dropping an F bomb in the third set after some calls went against him.

But he managed to win in straight sets to preserve his legs.

[Chucho]

I'm a firma believer that all top athletes dope one way or another, but if there's one dude I could believe he doesn't is Federer, tbh.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/14/article-0-0A70589B000005DC-759_468x428.jpg

I mean, just look at that. :lol

He takes speed.

[HarlemHeat37]

Wow, Federer blows a 2-0 lead and the match after looking invincible:wow

[DAF86]

Wow, Federer blows a 2-0 lead and the match after looking invincible:wow

He had match point too.

Nadal has this shit on lock. He might pretty well surpass Roger in slams when it's all said and done, yet ambchang and midnightpulp will continue saying Sampras was better. :lol

[HarlemHeat37]

Now 229-2 after leading 2-0:lol

[DAF86]

Now 229-2 after leading 2-0:lol

That other loss came against my man, fatty Nalbandian. What a talent that guy had.

[HarlemHeat37]

Nadal is looking shaky against your man Del Potro..won the first set, but 3 straight unforced errors in this one..

These serve-bot tennis players are scary:lol

[DAF86]

Nadal is looking shaky against your man Del Potro..

Nah. Del Potro is the 3rd best player on the tour right now, it was suppossed to be difficult, yet Nadal looks pretty much in command.

[ambchang]

He had match point too.

Nadal has this shit on lock. He might pretty well surpass Roger in slams when it's all said and done, yet ambchang and midnightpulp will continue saying Sampras was better. :lol
:cry the joker is top five ever.

[DAF86]

:cry the joker is top five ever.

Yes, he is. Do you want to lose that argument too? :lol

[ambchang]

Yes, he is. Do you want to lose that argument too? :lol

Too?

Yes, three top fives playing together based on titles won speaks of lack of parity. Just like how warriors are not the greatest team ever nor the 60s Celtics.

[DAF86]

Too?

Yes, three top fives playing together based on titles won speaks of lack of parity. Just like how warriors are not the greatest team ever nor the 60s Celtics.

Nah, you're right. A 5'7'' guy that doesn't know how to put topspin on a ball is a top 5 player over Djokovic.

[DAF86]

Now 229-2 after leading 2-0:lol

Anderson win paid 100 to 1 when Roger was 2-0 up son. Missed opportunity, tbh.

[HarlemHeat37]

Anderson win paid 100 to 1 when Roger was 2-0 up son. Missed opportunity, tbh.

Never would have touched that..

I have Del Potro +4.5, though, looking great..

[DAF86]

Never would have touched that..

I have Del Potro +4.5, though, looking great..

I hope you are right but I doubt it. Even if Delpo win this set. Nadal on 5 sets is too much of a beast and Del Potro might have the worst conditioning on tour.

[DAF86]

Never would have touched that..

I have Del Potro +4.5, though, looking great..

If I was a betting man I would throw 10 bucks at shit like that just for the hell of it. :lol

[Spurtacular]

End of an era?

[DAF86]

End of an era?

They were saying the same thing like 7 years ago.

[Spurtacular]

They were saying the same thing like 7 years ago.

When he as like 30.

[DAF86]

When he as like 30.

Exactly.

[HarlemHeat37]

I hope you are right but I doubt it. Even if Delpo win this set. Nadal on 5 sets is too much of a beast and Del Potro might have the worst conditioning on tour.

Doesn't have to win, just has to not lose by 5 points..can't see how he would at this point, tbh..

Even if Nadal wins this set, looks like it would be 6-4 at best IMO..then he would need to win the 5th set 6-2, very doubtful..

[Spurtacular]

Exactly.

I'm a Fed fan. I think he has a few slams left in him; but at some point the wheels are gonna fall off. Father Time is undefeated.

[DAF86]

Doesn't have to win, just has to not lose by 5 points..can't see how he would at this point, tbh..

Even if Nadal wins this set, looks like it would be 6-4 at best IMO..then he would need to win the 5th set 6-2, very doubtful..

What would "5 points" be in Tennis? Games?

[DAF86]

I'm a Fed fan. I think he has a few slams left in him; but at some point the wheels are gonna fall off. Father Time is undefeated.

Sure. I'm just saying that folks were claiming he was done when he was 30 and 7 years later here we are. I'm not counting Federer out untill he retires, tbh.

[HarlemHeat37]

What would "5 points" be in Tennis? Games?

I guess it would be games, whatever words they use in tennis:lol

[Spurtacular]

Sure. I'm just saying that folks were claiming he was done when he was 30 and 7 years later here we are. I'm not counting Federer out untill he retires, tbh.

The dialogue was right. Federer looked like he was done for a time. He had a resurgence.

[DAF86]

I guess it would be games, whatever words they use in tennis:lol

Yeah, games must be, but that's strange. If Rafa would have won 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. It would have been just a three games difference but a straight sets win, yet you can still lose on a 5 sets match. Doesn't make sense.

And 6-4, 6-2 Nadal, or even 6-3, 6-3, Isn't really that difficult, tbh, but I'm pulling for you bro. :lol

[HarlemHeat37]

Yeah, games must be, but that's strange. If Rafa would have won 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. It would have been just a three games difference but a straight sets win, yet you can still lose on a 5 sets match. Doesn't make sense.

And 6-4, 6-2 Nadal, or even 6-3, 6-3, Isn't really that difficult, tbh, but I'm pulling for you bro. :lol

Ya, you can bet on games spread or you can bet on sets spread instead..Djokovic would have lost on sets today, but won on games IIRC, for example..

I've been winning on sets all tournament, but it's way more unlikely to see straight sets at this point where everybody is close in quality..

[apalisoc_9]

If Novak wins Wimbeldon this era would have

Roger at 20
Nadal at 18
Novak at 13

This is one fucking great era. All time GOAts going at each other.

Also the three best players of all time.

[DAF86]

HarlemHeat37 you were sweating bricks on that last game. :lol Congrats son.

[HarlemHeat37]

HarlemHeat37 you were sweating bricks on that last game. :lol Congrats son.

My win negated by that other disgusting matchup, had over 45.5..Raonic melted down..

[Spurtacular]

If Novak wins Wimbeldon this era would have

Roger at 20
Nadal at 18
Novak at 13

This is one fucking great era. All time GOAts going at each other.

Also the three best players of all time.

20>18>13

There's one best, son.

[-21-]

Isner, Anderson, Djokovic, Nadal

Who you guys got?

[DAF86]

Isner, Anderson, Djokovic, Nadal

Who you guys got?

Nadal over Isner on the final.

[Down Under]

I think it's pretty good how Federer plays even when he's hurt because he's got so many fans. In the first 2 sets, you could see even though he was trying to end the points extremely quickly, he was making a shit ton of errors. Delpo & Nadal was awesome, but I'm backing Djoker to get it done if he doesn't have a meltdown.

[ambchang]

Nah, you're right. A 5'7'' guy that doesn't know how to put topspin on a ball is a top 5 player over Djokovic.

Strawman.

[DAF86]

Strawman.

Head to head of some notable players that crossed generations

Sampras 6 - Henman 1
Agassi 2 - Henman 2
Nadal 2 - Henman 0
Federer 7 - Henman 6

Sampras 5 - Haas 3
Agassi 6 - Haas 4
Nadal 5 - Haas 0
Federer 13 - Haas 4

Sampras 12 - Ivanisevic 6
Agassi 4 - Ivanisevic 3
Nadal 2 - Ivanisevic 0
Federer 2 - Ivanisevic 0

Sampras 4 - Santoro 3
Agassi 3 - Santoro 3
Nadal 1 - Santoro 0
Federer 9 - Santoro 2

Sampras 3 - Moya 1
Agassi 3 - Moya 1
Nadal 6 - Moya 2
Federer 7 - Moya 0

Sampras 4 - Hewitt 5
Agassi 4 - Hewitt 4
Nadal 7 - Hewitt 4
Federer 18 - Hewitt 9

Sampras 3 - Safin 4
Agassi 3 - Safin 3
Nadal 2 - Safin 0
Federer 10 - Safin 2

Sampras 1 - Roddick 2
Agassi 5 - Roddick 1
Nadal 7 - Roddick 3
Federer 21 - Roddick 3

Sampras 0 - Federer 1
Agassi 3 - Federer 8
Agassi 0 - Nadal 2

Old guard

Wins: 71
Loses: 57
Winning pct: 55%

New guard

Wins: 129
Loses: 38
Winning pct: 77 %

Against the same competition, the new guard has a 22% better winning % than the old guard. You may want to come around to the idea that maybe it isn't that previous eras had more competition, maybe it is that today's top guys are just more dominant than older top guys.

[Arcadian]

^Yeah I agree. It's actually a strong era, but Fed and Rafa are just that good. They also probably fuel each other to keep playing and winning.

Too bad we won't get a rematch of the 2008 final...but Isner vs Anderson should be very interesting (and of course Nadal vs Djokovic).

[ambchang]

Head to head of some notable players that crossed generations

Sampras 6 - Henman 1
Agassi 2 - Henman 2
Nadal 2 - Henman 0
Federer 7 - Henman 6

Sampras 5 - Haas 3
Agassi 6 - Haas 4
Nadal 5 - Haas 0
Federer 13 - Haas 4

Sampras 12 - Ivanisevic 6
Agassi 4 - Ivanisevic 3
Nadal 2 - Ivanisevic 0
Federer 2 - Ivanisevic 0

Sampras 4 - Santoro 3
Agassi 3 - Santoro 3
Nadal 1 - Santoro 0
Federer 9 - Santoro 2

Sampras 3 - Moya 1
Agassi 3 - Moya 1
Nadal 6 - Moya 2
Federer 7 - Moya 0

Sampras 4 - Hewitt 5
Agassi 4 - Hewitt 4
Nadal 7 - Hewitt 4
Federer 18 - Hewitt 9

Sampras 3 - Safin 4
Agassi 3 - Safin 3
Nadal 2 - Safin 0
Federer 10 - Safin 2

Sampras 1 - Roddick 2
Agassi 5 - Roddick 1
Nadal 7 - Roddick 3
Federer 21 - Roddick 3

Sampras 0 - Federer 1
Agassi 3 - Federer 8
Agassi 0 - Nadal 2

Old guard

Wins: 71
Loses: 57
Winning pct: 55%

New guard

Wins: 129
Loses: 38
Winning pct: 77 %

Against the same competition, the new guard has a 22% better winning % than the old guard. You may want to come around to the idea that maybe it isn't that previous eras had more competition, maybe it is that today's top guys are just more dominant than older top guys.

Maybe because when’s Sampras plays the old guard he was in his prime and when he plays the new guys he’s past his prime.

When fed played the old guys he’s not entering his prime and when he plays the new guard he is in his prime. Unless you want to say roddick > Sampras and henman is as good as fed.

[DAF86]

Maybe because when’s Sampras plays the old guard he was in his prime and when he plays the new guys he’s past his prime.

When fed played the old guys he’s not entering his prime and when he plays the new guard he is in his prime. Unless you want to say roddick > Sampras and henman is as good as fed.

Actually, the advantage was for the old guard, because they had the chance to face the new guys when they were just puppies coming up.

When Sampras and Federer met, Sampras was 29 and the number 1 seed at wimbledon, Federer was 19 and seeded 15. Yet Federer won. Do you think the result would have been different if the ages and roles were reversed?

When Roddick and Sampras met, Sampras was 29 and the number 3 player in the World, Roddick was 18 and not even in the top 100 I think, and Roddick won. I'm not saying Roddick is better than Sampras, I'm saying that Sampras wasn't as dominant as a Federer or a Nadal, that's why he was more likely to get upset by a junior.

[ambchang]

Actually, the advantage was for the old guard, because they had the chance to face the new guys when they were just puppies coming up.

When Sampras and Federer met, Sampras was 29 and the number 1 seed at wimbledon, Federer was 19 and seeded 15. Yet Federer won. Do you think the result would have been different if the ages and roles were reversed?

When Roddick and Sampras met, Sampras was 29 and the number 3 player in the World, Roddick was 18 and not even in the top 100 I think, and Roddick won. I'm not saying Roddick is better than Sampras, I'm saying that Sampras wasn't as dominant as a Federer or a Nadal, that's why he was more likely to get upset by a junior.

Tennis careers have lengthened considerably in the last decade or so due to training and medicine. When Connors won his last grand slam at 33 it was unheard of at the time. Yet it is relatively common nowadays. Michael chang won his one and only slam at 17. Sampras won his first when he was 19 and 13 of his 15 were won before 29 (he won one at 29 and another one at 31).

Compared to federer and nadal. The primes are just that much longer.

Federer won his first slam at 23, but 5 of his 20 came after he was 28

Nadal at 19 and 3 of his 17 after 28 when he’s only 32 now. Not to mention 11 of his 17 were French opens. There is simply a lack of competition on that surface.

Roddick won his one and only at 21 which is only 3 years from his peak prime.

Sampras average age winning a grand slam was a little less than 25, federer at 27 and Nadal at 25 when he’s only 32 right now.

Players in tennis start hitting their primes early in the late teens early 20s. But players nowadays last a lot longer due to training and medicine. Also because it’s getting harder and harder to get in the field.

Are Nadal and federer more dominant? Sure they won more titles. But are they better? I don’t believe so because the competition is weaker and primes last longer.

[DAF86]

Tennis careers have lengthened considerably in the last decade or so due to training and medicine. When Connors won his last grand slam at 33 it was unheard of at the time. Yet it is relatively common nowadays. Michael chang won his one and only slam at 17. Sampras won his first when he was 19 and 13 of his 15 were won before 29 (he won one at 29 and another one at 31).

Compared to federer and nadal. The primes are just that much longer.

Federer won his first slam at 23, but 5 of his 20 came after he was 28

Nadal at 19 and 3 of his 17 after 28 when he’s only 32 now. Not to mention 11 of his 17 were French opens. There is simply a lack of competition on that surface.

Roddick won his one and only at 21 which is only 3 years from his peak prime.

Sampras average age winning a grand slam was a little less than 25, federer at 27 and Nadal at 25 when he’s only 32 right now.

Players in tennis start hitting their primes early in the late teens early 20s. But players nowadays last a lot longer due to training and medicine. Also because it’s getting harder and harder to get in the field.

Are Nadal and federer more dominant? Sure they won more titles. But are they better? I don’t believe so because the competition is weaker and primes last longer.

Give me one, just one, reasonable argument to say that possibility can be considered true. And no, the dominance of guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic isn't a good argument.

[ambchang]

Give me one, just one, reasonable argument to say that possibility can be considered true. And no, the dominance of guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic isn't a good argument.

When players can dominate in the 30s in a sport that is all about speed and power, then it’s bad competition. How springy 20 year olds can’t out last a 35 year old is evidence in and of itself.

And thanks for ignoring the other points. I actually spent time typing them out you know.

[Spurtacular]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/tennis/serena-reaches-10th-wimbledon-final-with-2-set-win/ar-AAzYxix?ocid=spartanntp

Roided-up black tranny still going strong though.

[DAF86]

When players can dominate in the 30s in a sport that is all about speed and power, then it’s bad competition. How springy 20 year olds can’t out last a 35 year old is evidence in and of itself.

And thanks for ignoring the other points. I actually spent time typing them out you know.

lol tennis being all speed and power.

Tennis is 75% skill. You can have the fastest, most powerful player on the World playing a game against a slow fatso, but if the fatso strikes the ball better than the other guy, he is going to win easily.

And I didn't respond to that other stuff because we have gone through that millions of times already. Besides, you made some mistakes, like saying Federer won his first slam at age 23.

There's not a single valid argument to mantain that this era is weaker than the previous one, none.

-% of victory against players that crossed eras- I already proved that the new guys win by a devastating majority.

-Eye test- undoubtfully if favour of this era, for anyone that is objective. Many players of previous eras had several weaknesses to their game and only got by by serving and volleying. You can't do that now. Yesterday's players always had a weak backhand, or a weak forehand, or weak both. Player nowadays are like 6'0'' to 6'6'' robots that hit 100 mph groundstrokes from either side. Just try to imagine a Michael Chang facing a Del Potro, for example. And I'm talking about Michael Chang, a player who got to be N° 2 in the World, vs Del Potro, who only got to N° 4.

-Surprise Grand Slam winners- Folks like Petr Korda, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johanson, Albert Costa and Gaston Gaudio got to win slams on that era, that's not parity son, that's mediocrity, tbh.

[spurraider21]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/tennis/serena-reaches-10th-wimbledon-final-with-2-set-win/ar-AAzYxix?ocid=spartanntp

Roided-up black tranny still going strong though.
still obsessed with trannies :lol

[Spurtacular]

still obsessed with trannies :lol

Desperate for a point, aren't ya?

[spurraider21]

Desperate for a point, aren't ya?
man you're going to be really disappointed to hear that serena is a woman and not really a tranny. i know thats a major turn-off for you

[Spurtacular]

man you're going to be really disappointed to hear that serena is a woman and not really a tranny. i know thats a major turn-off for you

I wouldn't find myself attracted to that beast in either event. Continue on with your desperation, though. It amuses me.

[spurraider21]

I wouldn't find myself attracted to that beast in either event. Continue on with your desperation, though. It amuses me.
:lol suddenly lost interest after being told she's not a tranny

what a surprise

[Spurtacular]

:lol suddenly lost interest after being told she's not a tranny

what a surprise

False narrative galore like your hero chump. You got ulcers, son.

[Arcadian]

When players can dominate in the 30s in a sport that is all about speed and power, then it's bad competition. How springy 20 year olds can't out last a 35 year old is evidence in and of itself.

That's circular reasoning. You're saying "they're winning because the competition is weak" and "the competition is weak because they're winning."

[ambchang]

lol tennis being all speed and power.

Tennis is 75% skill. You can have the fastest, most powerful player on the World playing a game against a slow fatso, but if the fatso strikes the ball better than the other guy, he is going to win easily.

And I didn't respond to that other stuff because we have gone through that millions of times already. Besides, you made some mistakes, like saying Federer won his first slam at age 23.

There's not a single valid argument to mantain that this era is weaker than the previous one, none.

-% of victory against players that crossed eras- I already proved that the new guys win by a devastating majority.

-Eye test- undoubtfully if favour of this era, for anyone that is objective. Many players of previous eras had several weaknesses to their game and only got by by serving and volleying. You can't do that now. Yesterday's players always had a weak backhand, or a weak forehand, or weak both. Player nowadays are like 6'0'' to 6'6'' robots that hit 100 mph groundstrokes from either side. Just try to imagine a Michael Chang facing a Del Potro, for example. And I'm talking about Michael Chang, a player who got to be N° 2 in the World, vs Del Potro, who only got to N° 4.

-Surprise Grand Slam winners- Folks like Petr Korda, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johanson, Albert Costa and Gaston Gaudio got to win slams on that era, that's not parity son, that's mediocrity, tbh.

:lol 75% skill. Who’s the slow fatso winning grand slam? Where’s that 42 year old skillful guy? You know why most grand slams are on by players before they hit their 30’s right? Then you immediately follow it up with an argument on eye test about players being powerful and physically imposing. Which one is it? Pick a lane.

Then the old guard new guard thing is just a joke. Ivanisevic? His career was pretty much over when he started playing federer. His lone Wimbledon title was a total surprise because he was pretty much done at that point. Ditto some of the other players.

Nadals serve was weak and he’s not the best at volley. Joker’s defense Of the volley was questionable. Federer had a weak backhand for a long time before he fixed it.

[ambchang]

lol tennis being all speed and power.

Tennis is 75% skill. You can have the fastest, most powerful player on the World playing a game against a slow fatso, but if the fatso strikes the ball better than the other guy, he is going to win easily.

And I didn't respond to that other stuff because we have gone through that millions of times already. Besides, you made some mistakes, like saying Federer won his first slam at age 23.

There's not a single valid argument to mantain that this era is weaker than the previous one, none.

-% of victory against players that crossed eras- I already proved that the new guys win by a devastating majority.

-Eye test- undoubtfully if favour of this era, for anyone that is objective. Many players of previous eras had several weaknesses to their game and only got by by serving and volleying. You can't do that now. Yesterday's players always had a weak backhand, or a weak forehand, or weak both. Player nowadays are like 6'0'' to 6'6'' robots that hit 100 mph groundstrokes from either side. Just try to imagine a Michael Chang facing a Del Potro, for example. And I'm talking about Michael Chang, a player who got to be N° 2 in the World, vs Del Potro, who only got to N° 4.

-Surprise Grand Slam winners- Folks like Petr Korda, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johanson, Albert Costa and Gaston Gaudio got to win slams on that era, that's not parity son, that's mediocrity, tbh.

:lol 75% skill. Who’s the slow fatso winning grand slam? Where’s that 42 year old skillful guy? You know why most grand slams are on by players before they hit their 30’s right? Then you immediately follow it up with an argument on eye test about players being powerful and physically imposing. Which one is it? Pick a lane.

Then the old guard new guard thing is just a joke. Ivanisevic? His career was pretty much over when he started playing federer. His lone Wimbledon title was a total surprise because he was pretty much done at that point. Ditto some of the other players.

Nadals serve was weak and he’s not the best at volley. Joker’s defense Of the volley was questionable. Federer had a weak backhand for a long time before he fixed it.

[midnightpulp]

lol tennis being all speed and power.

Tennis is 75% skill. You can have the fastest, most powerful player on the World playing a game against a slow fatso, but if the fatso strikes the ball better than the other guy, he is going to win easily.

And I didn't respond to that other stuff because we have gone through that millions of times already. Besides, you made some mistakes, like saying Federer won his first slam at age 23.

There's not a single valid argument to mantain that this era is weaker than the previous one, none.

-% of victory against players that crossed eras- I already proved that the new guys win by a devastating majority.

-Eye test- undoubtfully if favour of this era, for anyone that is objective. Many players of previous eras had several weaknesses to their game and only got by by serving and volleying. You can't do that now. Yesterday's players always had a weak backhand, or a weak forehand, or weak both. Player nowadays are like 6'0'' to 6'6'' robots that hit 100 mph groundstrokes from either side. Just try to imagine a Michael Chang facing a Del Potro, for example. And I'm talking about Michael Chang, a player who got to be N° 2 in the World, vs Del Potro, who only got to N° 4.

-Surprise Grand Slam winners- Folks like Petr Korda, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johanson, Albert Costa and Gaston Gaudio got to win slams on that era, that's not parity son, that's mediocrity, tbh.

Reaction time declines about 1% per year after age 24, so Federer has an automatic 12% handicap on that front against a player in their athletic prime (reaction time crosses over into handeye coordination, as well). There's no denying the fact that a player of his age is at a significant physiological disadvantage (unless he's a physical outlier or doped to the gills). Obviously Federer will have advantages over younger players in the knowledge, tennis IQ, and instinct departments, but in every sport, we usually start to see the next generation (usually 23-27) start dispatching the old guard 30 and over players. Your last line is the very definition of parity. When there's more threats to upset/win tournaments/championships, it typically means a more balanced talent pool across the board.

I do think modern greats are better than Sampras, Borg, etc in a vacuum, but I don't like vacuum arguments since they punish past generations who obviously didn't have the same luxuries as modern players (goes for any sport). If Nadal were born in 1972, I don't think he's as good as Sampras in that era. Basketball example is Steph Curry. I don't think he'd be any better than his dad if he were born in 1960. Where players like Larry Bird and such learned to shoot in their driveways, players of Steph's generation are taught fundamentals with cutting edge training methods from the moment they pick up a ball.

I don't really have much of dog in this fight, but when a couple of players can dominate a sport where 30 used to be considered a senior citizen, it suggests a top heavy talent pool.

[Darth_Pelican]

Nadal vs. Djokovic in the semis this morning.

[HarlemHeat37]

John Isner is the most unwatchable good player I've ever seen, tbh:lol

Everything other than serving is disgusting..

[DAF86]

Reaction time declines about 1% per year after age 24, so Federer has an automatic 12% handicap on that front against a player in their athletic prime (reaction time crosses over into handeye coordination, as well). There's no denying the fact that a player of his age is at a significant physiological disadvantage (unless he's a physical outlier or doped to the gills). Obviously Federer will have advantages over younger players in the knowledge, tennis IQ, and instinct departments, but in every sport, we usually start to see the next generation (usually 23-27) start dispatching the old guard 30 and over players. Your last line is the very definition of parity. When there's more threats to upset/win tournaments/championships, it typically means a more balanced talent pool across the board.

I do think modern greats are better than Sampras, Borg, etc in a vacuum, but I don't like vacuum arguments since they punish past generations who obviously didn't have the same luxuries as modern players (goes for any sport). If Nadal were born in 1972, I don't think he's as good as Sampras in that era. Basketball example is Steph Curry. I don't think he'd be any better than his dad if he were born in 1960. Where players like Larry Bird and such learned to shoot in their driveways, players of Steph's generation are taught fundamentals with cutting edge training methods from the moment they pick up a ball.

It's obvious that a 24 years old Federer is going to be better than a 36 years old Federer. At similar levels of skill, the physical aspect obviously makes the difference. But tennis is one of the sports (after golf and baseball, where players barely move) that most favours skill over physical aspects.


I don't really have much of dog in this fight, but when a couple of players can dominate a sport where 30 used to be considered a senior citizen, it suggests a top heavy talent pool.

30 was considered a senior citizen on pretty much every sport, yet more and more players of over 30 are starting to dominate in every sport: Lebron in basketball, Brady in the NFL, Messi and Ronaldo in soccer, Federer and Nadal on tennis, Mayweather on boxing, etc, etc, etc. (I don't know who the best player on the NHL is, but I'm sure he must be over 30 too). Does this mean that every sport has a top heavy talent pool? Of course not. We have already gone through this, no reason to keep arguing the same things over and over again. Specially not on an argument as clear as this one, tbh.

[Arcadian]

What an amazing matchup. 6'8 vs 6'10, both can serve 140 mph.

Isner won the longest match of all time, so he should be good :lol

[-21-]

What an amazing matchup. 6'8 vs 6'10, both can serve 140 mph.

Isner won the longest match of all time, so he should be good :lol

I got Anderson. Currently 14 all.

[Arcadian]

"Maybe this will be the match that gets the rule changed."

Oh yeah, 70-68 didn't, but this will :lol

[DAF86]

"Maybe this will be the match that gets the rule changed."

Oh yeah, 70-68 didn't, but this will :lol

70-68 doesn't bother when it's a third round match, tbh. :lol

[Arcadian]

70-68 doesn't bother when it's a third round match, tbh. :lol

I don't see why that should matter. It's the principle of the thing.

At the same time, I don't know if I want it changed. I find it entertaining in a funny way to see how long this shit goes.

[apalisoc_9]

Theres idiots that actually sampras is better than feds? What world do we live in?

Its like saying Malone is better than Lebron.

Shit is ridiculous.

Sampras aint even a top 4 all time player

[DAF86]

I don't see why that should matter. It's the principle of the thing.

At the same time, I don't know if I want it changed. I find it entertaining in a funny way to see how long this shit goes.

Maybe for you. For the guys that are putting the money and should already have Nadal and Djokovic playing on their network it does matter. :lol

[Arcadian]

Maybe for you. For the guys that are putting the money and should already have Nadal and Djokovic playing on their network it does matter. :lol

No I was saying it shouldn't matter that Isner-Mahut was in an earlier round.

[-21-]

I don't see why that should matter. It's the principle of the thing.

At the same time, I don't know if I want it changed. I find it entertaining in a funny way to see how long this shit goes.

Agreed. As ridiculous and exhausting as it is, it's very entertaining.

[DAF86]

No I was saying it shouldn't matter that Isner-Mahut was in an earlier round.

But it does matter. A 70-68 5th set on a third round is harmless for TV. They can go back and forth between different matches. They can stop broadcasting it when it's time for another show to start. You can't do that with a semifinal match.

You must bet that network owners and sponsors are fucking seizing right now that they don't have Nadal and Djokovic on their screens on this moment. And since these are the people that decide the changes, a semifinal match going this long (between two non-rating drawing players) is something that might be the turning point for a rule change.

[HarlemHeat37]

Agreed. As ridiculous and exhausting as it is, it's very entertaining.

I don't know if I'd say it's entertaining IMO:lol

The intensity of such a long tiebreaker is entertaining, but the actual game isn't..Isner's serve is unstoppable and not even human, but he's so bad at everything else:lol

[-21-]

I don't know if I'd say it's entertaining IMO:lol

The intensity of such a long tiebreaker is entertaining, but the actual game isn't..Isner's serve is unstoppable and not even human, but he's so bad at everything else:lol

Yeah, not exactly entertaining. Can't find the right word.

Agreed on Isner, his serve is keeping him alive. Anderson won't back down. You gotta think whoever comes out on top here will be too tired vs. Rafa/Novak.

[DAF86]

I don't know if I'd say it's entertaining IMO:lol

The intensity of such a long tiebreaker is entertaining, but the actual game isn't..Isner's serve is unstoppable and not even human, but he's so bad at everything else:lol

Tell me you betted on games spread on whoever the underdog of this match was. :lol

[HarlemHeat37]

Tell me you betted on games spread on whoever the underdog of this match was. :lol

Took the over on games and aces:lol lost the games over the other day by 0.5 on Isner/Raonic, took it again today..

[DAF86]

Took the over on games and aces:lol lost the games over the other day by 0.5 on Isner/Raonic, took it again today..

What was the line for today's match? (or however that thing is called)

[HarlemHeat37]

What was the line for today's match? (or however that thing is called)

48.5 games

[Arcadian]

This is their championship. The final will be a formality. The real final is coming up next.

[-21-]

Commentators proposing moving the Wimbledon Men's Finals one day later. Extra day of rest for the players and won't be on the same time as the World Cup Final. Makes sense :lol

[DAF86]

48.5 games

Sorry, but I'm a betting illiterate. :lol I meant, who was the favourite and by how many games?

[HarlemHeat37]

How does a human being return Isner's serve?:lol

[DAF86]

Serve, serve, serve. This was tennis before. Long live evolution sons.

[HarlemHeat37]

Sorry, but I'm a betting illiterate. :lol I meant, who was the favourite and by how many games?

Isner was favorite, but it was a coin flip

Bet 110 to win 100 for Isner on my book, bet 100 to win 100 on Anderson

The games spread was -1/+1, so they were expecting this to be decided with tiebreaks every set

I took over 48.5 games total in the match..one of the easiest wins of the year:lol

[Darth_Pelican]

:lmao The Anderson/Isner 5th set

[apalisoc_9]

This game not over yet?

:lol

Im just waiting for Novak vs Nadal

[-21-]

Anderson's got a lot of heart tbh.

[DAF86]

Centre court will be a clay court by the time this two finish.

[DAF86]

lol that point was classic. :lol

[-21-]

What a recovery!

[HarlemHeat37]

I just heard that Isner once had an 11-hour match..wtf? How?

[DAF86]

I just heard that Isner once had an 11-hour match..wtf? How?

The 70-68 5th set we were arguing earlier.

[-21-]

Finally a break :lol

[-21-]

Anderson's gotta have this in the bag

[HarlemHeat37]

This Anderson nigga needs to win Wimbledon and get a 30 for 30 on his run:lol

Beating Federer down 2-0 and match point, beating Isner in a 7-hour game and then defeating Nadal or Djokovic:wow

[Arcadian]

But it does matter. A 70-68 5th set on a third round is harmless for TV. They can go back and forth between different matches. They can stop broadcasting it when it's time for another show to start. You can't do that with a semifinal match.

You must bet that network owners and sponsors are fucking seizing right now that they don't have Nadal and Djokovic on their screens on this moment. And since these are the people that decide the changes, a semifinal match going this long (between two non-rating drawing players) is something that might be the turning point for a rule change.

70-68 should have been a wake-up call. If it can happen in one round, it can happen in a later round. (If anything, it's more likely to happen in a later round when players are more evenly matched.) If they had changed the rule back then, this wouldn't have happened.

[DAF86]

70-68 should have been a wake-up call. If it can happen in one round, it can happen in a later round. (If anything, it's more likely to happen in a later round when players are more evenly matched.) If they had changed the rule back then, this wouldn't have happened.

But rich people only try to change somehting when they are the ones getting screwed.

[Darth_Pelican]

It’s nice to see the result settled regularly and not in Penalty Serves.

[DAF86]

Nadal and Djokovic will have to be finished under the roof and with the lights.

[-21-]

It’s nice to see the result settled regularly and not in Penalty Serves.

:lol

[DAF86]

11 pts tie-breaks might be a good option for Grand Slams 5th sets, imho.

[-21-]

Tennis should be such a bigger sport. I don't get why they're so strict with the crowd making noise and the players showing too much emotion. Imagine a tennis player pulling the celebrations we see in the NBA. Hell, even the commentators are boring. Tennis can be so much more exciting and it would benefit from a little loosening up tbh.

[HarlemHeat37]

^^I don't think the culture allows it, at least from what I've seen on Twitter and such..

There were people angry on twitter because Isner and Anderson were screaming towards each other:lol I see many that apparently hate Djokovic because he "lacks humility and class"

[apalisoc_9]

^^I don't think the culture allows it, at least from what I've seen on Twitter and such..

There were people angry on twitter because Isner and Anderson were screaming towards each other:lol I see many that apparently hate Djokovic because he "lacks humility and class"

Very small number of Black or other Ethnic Background player in tennis..A couple Blacks maybe a japanese and thats really it so the easy target is the eastern Euro.

[Arcadian]

But rich people only try to change somehting when they are the ones getting screwed.

Their lack of foresight is at their own peril :)

[Arcadian]

Tennis should be such a bigger sport. I don't get why they're so strict with the crowd making noise and the players showing too much emotion. Imagine a tennis player pulling the celebrations we see in the NBA. Hell, even the commentators are boring. Tennis can be so much more exciting and it would benefit from a little loosening up tbh.

More people should appreciate tennis regardless. The game itself is interesting, nevermind how loud someone can scream or how creatively they celebrate.

[HarlemHeat37]

Very small number of Black or other Ethnic Background player in tennis..A couple Blacks maybe a japanese and thats really it so the easy target is the eastern Euro.

Man, I get hard seeing how many tennis fans hate Serena:lol it's all white males, too..

[-21-]

^^I don't think the culture allows it, at least from what I've seen on Twitter and such..

There were people angry on twitter because Isner and Anderson were screaming towards each other:lol I see many that apparently hate Djokovic because he "lacks humility and class"

That's exactly my point. The "culture" is too uptight and old-fashioned. I'm not saying they should allow the full on faggotry we see in t:lolday's NBA but allowing the players and the crowd show more emotion could only help the sport grow in terms of... mainstream appeal. When some player loses his cool and shouts at himself then smashes his racket in frustration, the reaction is "this guy is immature". The crowd erupts and the umpire is quick to shut them down. A black player celebrates a point by dancing a bit and "he needs to be more respectful". Obviously, race is a factor as tennis is mostly white sport but it's 2018, time to loosen up a bit.


More people should appreciate tennis regardless. The game itself is interesting, nevermind how loud someone can scream or how creatively they celebrate.

True. All I'm saying is that if they want to become a more popular and lucrative sport, some changes have to be made.

[Darth_Pelican]

Great match so far, tbh. It’s nice to see Djoker getting back to his top play.

[Spurtacular]

That's exactly my point. The "culture" is too uptight and old-fashioned. I'm not saying they should allow the full on faggotry we see in t:lolday's NBA but allowing the players and the crowd show more emotion could only help the sport grow in terms of... mainstream appeal. When some player loses his cool and shouts at himself then smashes his racket in frustration, the reaction is "this guy is immature". The crowd erupts and the umpire is quick to shut them down. A black player celebrates a point by dancing a bit and "he needs to be more respectful". Obviously, race is a factor as tennis is mostly white sport but it's 2018, time to loosen up a bit.



True. All I'm saying is that if they want to become a more popular and lucrative sport, some changes have to be made.

Tennis has been nothing but good to their black trannies, tbh.

[midnightpulp]

It's obvious that a 24 years old Federer is going to be better than a 36 years old Federer. At similar levels of skill, the physical aspect obviously makes the difference. But tennis is one of the sports (after golf and baseball, where players barely move) that most favours skill over physical aspects.


Remember how I always chide the soccer crew in their thinking that the only physical aspects and demanding physical attributes are those that feature running, jumping, cutting, or getting tired? Having played a variety of sports, the most demanding physical aspect there is maintaining precise bodily coordination to perform a mechanically demanding technique (billiards and golf humbled me far, far more than "athletic" sports). I would put tennis up there with baseball and golf as well in that regard.

These sports are a lot more technical than football, basketball, hockey. One little deviation in your wrist position, your hip position, etc, etc throws the entire action into disarray, much more than in other sports. This type of coordination does decline with age, probably more than speed, power, fitness decline. In tennis and baseball, you have to perform mechanically near-perfect while also having lighting speed reaction time. I'm not suggesting Federer should be on the cusp of retirement, but where is the next Federer or Nadal? In past eras, we'd usually see a couple of young guns start to challenge. Doesn't necessarily mean they need to stack majors, but at least be a consistent threat to make the Finals rounds and upset the older guard.


30 was considered a senior citizen on pretty much every sport, yet more and more players of over 30 are starting to dominate in every sport: Lebron in basketball, Brady in the NFL, Messi and Ronaldo in soccer, Federer and Nadal on tennis, Mayweather on boxing, etc, etc, etc. (I don't know who the best player on the NHL is, but I'm sure he must be over 30 too). Does this mean that every sport has a top heavy talent pool? Of course not. We have already gone through this, no reason to keep arguing the same things over and over again. Specially not on an argument as clear as this one, tbh.

See above. In every sport, we usually start to see a new generation of "GOATS" arriving (furthermore, I don't think including football and basketball makes sense. Those sports have very shallow talent pools and have always been traditionally top heavy. Same with boxing. Growing up, I didn't know one kid who was a boxer, and I live in SoCal, while hundreds of kids played basketball, football, baseball, soccer, etc). I would say the team sports with the deepest pools are soccer, baseball, and hockey (perhaps cricket). These sports don't really have too much size/height discrimination and are played seriously in a variety of countries (soccer being number one, obviously). Messi isn't particularly old. 31. I seriously doubt he'll be a top 5 player at 36. I also don't buy Ronaldo as a top 2 player. I don't care about eye test shit. Misled us for years in basketball. People really thought Kirbs was Jordan incarnate '06-'08, despite just above All-Star level advanced metrics.

NHL, for instance, the last 13 MVP winners were all under 30. As Crosby and Ovi start to transition into their post-30 years, the next GOAT on the horizon is 21 year old Connor McDavid, already an MVP winner. Where's tennis's McDavid? In modern baseball, 30 years old is basically a death sentence now (for hitters). This makes sense given the fact that nearly every pitcher in the league has a 96+ plus fastball with sick movement complementing it with dirty shit like 90mph sliders and breaking balls with 2 foot breaks. That small percentage in reaction time decline becomes a huge handicap. Trout, who is basically baseball's Lebron, is projected just to be around All-Star level at 36. Federer, meanwhile, is still head and shoulders above the tennis world compared to everyone but the other big 2, who've been at that level for a decade plus. Summing it up, the fact there's no "next Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal" on the horizon illustrates either a shallow talent pool or a negative change in modern coaching methods at the youth level. I'm not saying Fed isn't the greatest. No doubt he is, but to dominate at a sport like tennis heading into your 40s is peculiar. Nadal also doesn't look to be declining much.

[Darth_Pelican]

:wow Djoker takes down Nadal

[Spurtacular]

:wow Djoker takes down Nadal

That more exciting than roided-up black 700th in the world tranny in another final?

[HarlemHeat37]

^^:lmao there's nothing that angers white men more than Serena Williams..

[apalisoc_9]

If Djoker wins he surpassess Sampras in the all time great list.

To win 13 Grand Slam in the Nadal and Federrer Era is ridiculous.

[DAF86]

Remember how I always chide the soccer crew in their thinking that the only physical aspects and demanding physical attributes are those that feature running, jumping, cutting, or getting tired? Having played a variety of sports, the most demanding physical aspect there is maintaining precise bodily coordination to perform a mechanically demanding technique (billiards and golf humbled me far, far more than "athletic" sports). I would put tennis up there with baseball and golf as well in that regard.

These sports are a lot more technical than football, basketball, hockey. One little deviation in your wrist position, your hip position, etc, etc throws the entire action into disarray, much more than in other sports. This type of coordination does decline with age, probably more than speed, power, fitness decline. In tennis and baseball, you have to perform mechanically near-perfect while also having lighting speed reaction time. I'm not suggesting Federer should be on the cusp of retirement, but where is the next Federer or Nadal? In past eras, we'd usually see a couple of young guns start to challenge. Doesn't necessarily mean they need to stack majors, but at least be a consistent threat to make the Finals rounds and upset the older guard.



See above. In every sport, we usually start to see a new generation of "GOATS" arriving (furthermore, I don't think including football and basketball makes sense. Those sports have very shallow talent pools and have always been traditionally top heavy. Same with boxing. Growing up, I didn't know one kid who was a boxer, and I live in SoCal, while hundreds of kids played basketball, football, baseball, soccer, etc). I would say the team sports with the deepest pools are soccer, baseball, and hockey (perhaps cricket). These sports don't really have too much size/height discrimination and are played seriously in a variety of countries (soccer being number one, obviously). Messi isn't particularly old. 31. I seriously doubt he'll be a top 5 player at 36. I also don't buy Ronaldo as a top 2 player. I don't care about eye test shit. Misled us for years in basketball. People really thought Kirbs was Jordan incarnate '06-'08, despite just above All-Star level advanced metrics.

NHL, for instance, the last 13 MVP winners were all under 30. As Crosby and Ovi start to transition into their post-30 years, the next GOAT on the horizon is 21 year old Connor McDavid, already an MVP winner. Where's tennis's McDavid? In modern baseball, 30 years old is basically a death sentence now (for hitters). This makes sense given the fact that nearly every pitcher in the league has a 96+ plus fastball with sick movement complementing it with dirty shit like 90mph sliders and breaking balls with 2 foot breaks. That small percentage in reaction time decline becomes a huge handicap. Trout, who is basically baseball's Lebron, is projected just to be around All-Star level at 36. Federer, meanwhile, is still head and shoulders above the tennis world compared to everyone but the other big 2, who've been at that level for a decade plus. Summing it up, the fact there's no "next Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal" on the horizon illustrates either a shallow talent pool or a negative change in modern coaching methods at the youth level. I'm not saying Fed isn't the greatest. No doubt he is, but to dominate at a sport like tennis heading into your 40s is peculiar. Nadal also doesn't look to be declining much.

Zverev is 19 and the #3 player in the World. In any other era, where the top players weren't as dominating, he probably would have won a slam by now.

[DAF86]

ambchang did you watch that game? If you did, you can't tell me with a straight face Djokovic isn't a top 5 player of all-time, tbh.

[DAF86]

The WTA is a good example of parity not exactly meaning better quality. Outside of Serena, anything can happen on the WTA, on any given Slam a no name woman can come and win the whole thing to then never been heard of again. That's not parity sons, that's mediocrity at its finest.

[apalisoc_9]

ambchang did you watch that game? If you did, you can't tell me with a straight face Djokovic isn't a top 5 player of all-time, tbh.

Third best of all time. 12 in the fed and Nadal era is mad. And he has a einning record against both Nadal and Fed.

[ambchang]

ambchang did you watch that game? If you did, you can't tell me with a straight face Djokovic isn't a top 5 player of all-time, tbh.

*straight face* Djoker isn’t a top 5 player.

Was it a good game? Sure. But ranking based on one game is like saying Michael Adams is one of the goats because he scored 56 in a game.

[-21-]

Great match from Rafa and Novak. Really could've gone either way. Kinda want to see Anderson win though.

Also, Kerber with the surprisingly convincing win over Serena. Maybe she's finally declining after giving birth. I mean she is 36.

[midnightpulp]

Zverev is 19 and the #3 player in the World. In any other era, where the top players weren't as dominating, he probably would have won a slam by now.

He's 21, and doesn't have one Slam finals appearance. The primary reason they are dominating is because there's no up-and-coming great to challenge them. Usually the greats have a major by that age. I'm just a casual tennis fan, but I did read an opinion on a tennis board that the reason the old guard have such longevity now is that the younger players are all 6'5" and over (more height=less coordination. Big 3 all under 6'3") who rely too much on their size and athleticism (power) and never developed an effective enough all-around skill-set to really challenge for majors against the Big 3. The blame was put on youth coaching.

[apalisoc_9]

*straight face* Djoker isn’t a top 5 player.

Was it a good game? Sure. But ranking based on one game is like saying Michael Adams is one of the goats because he scored 56 in a game.

Djoker has a winning record against both Nadal and Fed you dumb fuck. Jesus christ.

[Spurtacular]

Williams wasn't able to win the trans-woman / biological woman side of the bracket.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/14/serena-williams-denied-historic-grand-slam-title-at-wimbledon/

[Down Under]

Watched Federer Nadal 2007 & 08 Wimbledon finals the other day & there's been virtually no drop off at the level of either player. Both still move incredibly well, Nadal's top spin off his forehand is still ridiculous, Federer's forehand, volleys & improvisation are still awesome. Same with Djoker compared to 08 Aus open final. Still moves just as well, still equally strong on both wings.

[ambchang]

Djoker has a winning record against both Nadal and Fed you dumb fuck. Jesus christ.

So djoker is greatest all time? Since when is having a winning g record vs fed and nadAl a criteria for being in the top fivr?

[apalisoc_9]

So you think thats the only criteria?

The man is on his way to win 13 grandslams in the Nadal and Fed era. He is the third greatest of all time.

[apalisoc_9]

Feds gonna end his career with 20+
Nadal is gonna end up with 20+
Djoker is gonna end up with 16+

And the Old geezers. " but my sampras is my hero" :lmao


No Era have seen three 15+ Grand Slam winner play all together. Can you imagine djoker without fed and nadal. Dude would have 25+ Grand slams by now. Scary stuff.

Not to mention guys like Murray also winning multiple grand slams.

[140]

Watched Federer Nadal 2007 & 08 Wimbledon finals the other day & there's been virtually no drop off at the level of either player. Both still move incredibly well, Nadal's top spin off his forehand is still ridiculous, Federer's forehand, volleys & improvisation are still awesome. Same with Djoker compared to 08 Aus open final. Still moves just as well, still equally strong on both wings.
Yeah that's just perfectly normal tbh

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Federer's H2H record vs Nadal is brutal. But he's still #1 all time.


Also, so happy to see Djokovic back in a grand slam final.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

*straight face* Djoker isn’t a top 5 player.

Was it a good game? Sure. But ranking based on one game is like saying Michael Adams is one of the goats because he scored 56 in a game.

:lmao :lmao

The fuck?!? He's at least top 3, and if he hadn't fallen off a cliff in the last 2 years or so he was on his way to being #1 all time. He was on pace to break Federer's all time GS record against stiffer competition.

I don't think he'll do it now, hell I don't even know if Wimbledon is just a fluke but it feels like this is the best tennis he has played in a long long time.

I think if he keeps up this level of play he can retire with 15 or 16 slams at the most.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah that's just perfectly normal tbh

Even if they are on super PEDs, you'd have to assume all the young guns are on these PEDs, too. I said above that I think the problem might be that many of the younger players on tour are 6'5" lanky fucks who rely more on athleticism (the power part of athleticism) and size than skills (so I've read on a tennis forum). The Big 3 are all under 6'3".

[apalisoc_9]

Yeah that's just perfectly normal tbh

No doubt these guys are on PED. :lol

Dont think that was ever a question.

[apalisoc_9]

Fed playing like hes 29 at 40 :lmao

[Down Under]

Federer's gotta have the worst body for someone who's juicing I've seen :lol

[ambchang]

So you think thats the only criteria?

The man is on his way to win 13 grandslams in the Nadal and Fed era. He is the third greatest of all time.

Thanks for among the point he’s the third greatest in this era.

[ambchang]

:lmao :lmao

The fuck?!? He's at least top 3, and if he hadn't fallen off a cliff in the last 2 years or so he was on his way to being #1 all time. He was on pace to break Federer's all time GS record against stiffer competition.

I don't think he'll do it now, hell I don't even know if Wimbledon is just a fluke but it feels like this is the best tennis he has played in a long long time.

I think if he keeps up this level of play he can retire with 15 or 16 slams at the most.
Ivanesic on his only grand slam at 30. Sure he was on his way up then.

[ambchang]

Feds gonna end his career with 20+
Nadal is gonna end up with 20+
Djoker is gonna end up with 16+

And the Old geezers. " but my sampras is my hero" :lmao


No Era have seen three 15+ Grand Slam winner play all together. Can you imagine djoker without fed and nadal. Dude would have 25+ Grand slams by now. Scary stuff.

Not to mention guys like Murray also winning multiple grand slams.

Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg back in the day and russell won 11. They must be the GOATs. :lol young kids thinking :cry Lebron is my hero :cry.

[apalisoc_9]

Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg back in the day and russell won 11. They must be the GOATs. :lol young kids thinking :cry Lebron is my hero :cry.

Go be old somrwhere.

[ambchang]

Go be old somrwhere.

To be ignorant somewhere.

:cry today’s tennis players are all goats because they won so many grand slams :cry
:wow yesterday’s nba players all suck despite putting up ungodly numbers because their competition sucks

Pick a lane ignoramus.

[apalisoc_9]

Diaper old man actually thinks tennis had a backwards evolution :lmao

[ambchang]

Diaper old man actually thinks tennis had a backwards evolution :lmao

35 year "young" shit-take master doesn't understand what consistency means.

[DAF86]

This is the epitome of modern tennis dominating older tennis:

msmelVjUAgY

Grand slam final. So none of the "this guy was way past his prime, or that dude was still a puppy" excuse (in fact, Sampras beat Safin on the US open semifinal of the following year).

I'm not saying Safin is better than Sampras, I'm not saying Safin at his best beats Sampras at his best. All I'm saying is that a guy like Safin was pretty fucking competitive and he could go toe to toe against a guy like Sampras to the point of having a winning record against him (4 W's - 3 L's) Yet, when it came to Federer, he could only win 2 of 12 matches.

So, how come against Sampras, Safin could be competitive; but against Federer, he could not? Well, maybe because Federer was just more dominant than Sampras. And the same goes to guys like Nadal and Djokovic.

[midnightpulp]

This is the epitome of modern tennis dominating older tennis:

msmelVjUAgY

Grand slam final. So none of the "this guy was way past his prime, or that dude was still a puppy" excuse (in fact, Sampras beat Safin on the US open semifinal of the following year).

I'm not saying Safin is better than Sampras, I'm not saying Safin at his best beats Sampras at his best. All I'm saying is that a guy like Safin was pretty fucking competitive and he could go toe to toe against a guy like Sampras to the point of having a winning record against him (4 W's - 3 L's) Yet, when it came to Federer, he could only win 2 of 12 matches.

So, how come against Sampras, Safin could be competitive; but against Federer, he could not? Well, maybe because Federer was just more dominant than Sampras. And the same goes to guys like Nadal and Djokovic.

I think you're still missing the essential point. And you're still comparing players in a vacuum (unfair to past era players. There's a 9 year difference in ages between Sampras and Safrin. That was a huge difference then). We all know the "next generation" in any sport will likely introduce cutting edge techniques, many times play with more advanced equipment, and been reared under more effective training techniques, leaving the old guard to evolve or die, and they're usually too past their prime to really "evolve." The peculiar thing about today's tennis is where is the 20 year old Safrin on tour taking apart one of the old guard like he took Pete apart in that video? We're not even getting a hint of "the next generation." It's still the same old story every major.


There's no logical way to compare players across eras. You can't even say, "Well, I watched both [insert players] at 24, and player X is just far better," because player X will likely be a more current player who had training, knowledge, and equipment advantages player Y didn't. Basketball example. Is Curry a better player than Larry Bird in a vacuum? I think so. Do I think Curry becomes an all-time great if he were born in Bumfuck, Indiana in the late 50s and learned to shoot in his driveway? No. The best way is just to rank by era. NBA has the Russell, Kareem, Magic/Bird, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron eras, for example.

[apalisoc_9]

I think you're still missing the essential point. And you're still comparing players in a vacuum (unfair to past era players. There's a 9 year difference in ages between Sampras and Safrin. That was a huge difference then). We all know the "next generation" in any sport will likely introduce cutting edge techniques, many times play with more advanced equipment, and been reared under more effective training techniques, leaving the old guard to evolve or die, and they're usually too past their prime to really "evolve." The peculiar thing about today's tennis is where is the 20 year old Safrin on tour taking apart one of the old guard like he took Pete apart in that video? We're not even getting a hint of "the next generation." It's still the same old story every major.


There's no logical way to compare players across eras. You can't even say, "Well, I watched both [insert players] at 24, and player X is just far better," because player X will likely be a more current player who had training, knowledge, and equipment advantages player Y didn't. Basketball example. Is Curry a better player than Larry Bird in a vacuum? I think so. Do I think Curry becomes an all-time great if he were born in Bumfuck, Indiana in the late 50s and learned to shoot in his driveway? No. The best way is just to rank by era. NBA has the Russell, Kareem, Magic/Bird, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron eras, for example.

Nigga you just admitted you dont even watch tennis.

The difference between 80-90s tennis vs the Nadal/Djoker/Fed trio is very significant. Its like 80s ball vs 2014 Spurs ball.

The PED obviously helps but more importantly the increased in skill level.

Lets not forget that this generation also have Andy Murray, Stan Wawarinka..both these two would have gave sampras a run for his money and would most likely win 10+ slams in the 90s.

[midnightpulp]

Nigga you just admitted you dont even watch tennis.

The difference between 80-90s tennis vs the Nadal/Djoker/Fed trio is very significant. Its like 80s ball vs 2014 Spurs ball.

The PED obviously helps but more importantly the increased in skill level.

Lets not forget that this generation also have Andy Murray, Stan Wawarinka..both these two would have gave sampras a run for his money and would most likely win 10+ slams in the 90s.

Did you even read what I said? My point doesn't need me to watch anything. I know a sport will "evolve" over a decade or so, so yes, an 80's tennis great has little chance of competing today. My problem with these "vacuum" arguments is that it unfairly punishes older players for when they were born. Federer, Nadal, etc didn't spring fully formed from the head of Zeus. We don't know how good Nadal would be if were born in 1970. We don't know how good Bjorg would be if he were born in 1985. Training, knowledge, technique improves every decade, so to unequivocally state a modern player is better is illogical, since the older player didn't have any of the advantages a modern player has to fully reach his potential. Larry Bird learned to shoot in his driveway. A modern player when he's young learns to shoot at a "training complex," with professional instructors at his side. I'm not punishing Bird in comparison.

[DAF86]

I think you're still missing the essential point. And you're still comparing players in a vacuum (unfair to past era players. There's a 9 year difference in ages between Sampras and Safrin. That was a huge difference then). We all know the "next generation" in any sport will likely introduce cutting edge techniques, many times play with more advanced equipment, and been reared under more effective training techniques, leaving the old guard to evolve or die, and they're usually too past their prime to really "evolve." The peculiar thing about today's tennis is where is the 20 year old Safrin on tour taking apart one of the old guard like he took Pete apart in that video? We're not even getting a hint of "the next generation." It's still the same old story every major.

Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro, all were doing damage at that age. Right now, I already told you about the number 3 player in the World, Sverev. And maybe, the reason oung folks aren't taking nthe big guys apart, is because the current big guys aren't as easy to take apart as previous big guys.


There's no logical way to compare players across eras. You can't even say, "Well, I watched both [insert players] at 24, and player X is just far better," because player X will likely be a more current player who had training, knowledge, and equipment advantages player Y didn't. Basketball example. Is Curry a better player than Larry Bird in a vacuum? I think so. Do I think Curry becomes an all-time great if he were born in Bumfuck, Indiana in the late 50s and learned to shoot in his driveway? No. The best way is just to rank by era. NBA has the Russell, Kareem, Magic/Bird, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron eras, for example.

I agree with that, It's unfair to compare players of today, with players of previous eras. But that's not what we're arguing right now. ambchang says that the competition is weaker now, than in previous eras, that's just not true.

[ambchang]

It is relative to the age. The proof is players dominating the game in the mid 30/.

[lefty20]

Cilic & De Minaur putting on a great show late night.

[Arcadian]

He'll need 5 sets to dispatch with Millman if he's going to pull it off.

[DAF86]

Roger might finally be done sons.

[lefty20]

Very unusual performance by Roger. Missed way too many routine(for him) putaways and, to his credit, Millman gave him absolutely nothing for free.

[Spurtacular]

Forgot to watch the match. Too bad about Fed. He'll probably win the next Wimbledon though.

[Arcadian]

Thiem is on fire!

[DAF86]

Thiem is too much of a choker to beat Nadal on a Grand slam.

[lefty20]

That was an incredible match. Feel bad for Thiem, but this reminds of the crushing defeats Wawrinka had vs Nole before he finally broke through. Thiem only 25, so I'm sure his best is still ahead of him.

Can't wait for Delpo vs Rafa on Friday.

[Canyonero]

Roidfael looking solid

[DAF86]

Thiem is too much of a choker to beat Nadal on a Grand slam.

Called it. Should have been a relatively comfortable 4 sets win for Thiem.

[JakeCuenca]

Nadal for some reason is always injured when hes losing and getting outplayed.

[Spurtacular]

Nadal for some reason is always injured when hes losing and getting outplayed.

Yea, imagine that. :lol

[Canyonero]

Serena :lmao:lmao:lmao what a crybaby

[Arcadian]

This bitch needs to shut up and play. And take the loss.

She's trying to make this all about her tragic penalty and detract from Osaka's dominating victory. What a selfish cunt.

[Canyonero]

Such a dirty move. Classic Serena tbh.

[Arcadian]

And fuck everyone who was booing. This 20 year old just defeated her idol in a Grand Slam final and you're gonna boo? Fucking faggots.

[resistanze]

Serena's tantrum aside, the referee did what everyone in this forums hates - made the match about him. No one calls coaching violations, just silly.

Osaka was the better player even up to the drama so no issue here.

[Arcadian]

:cry "we're gonna get through this" :cry

Yeah, we're gonna get through the fact you got your ass dominated by a little Asian girl.

[Canyonero]

:lmao Serena just ruined this talented girl's moment of joy. What a piece of shit.

[FrostKing]

Straight sets lol

Avante get in here your previous black athlete punked by an asian. Told you Asians are superior athletes.

[Canyonero]

Straight sets lol

Avante get in here your previous black athlete punked by an asian. Told you Asians are superior athletes.

A black Asian to be more specific :lol

[Avante]

Straight sets lol

Avante get in here your previous black athlete punked by an asian. Told you Asians are superior athletes.

So what Asian can out run any sub 9.90 black sprinter?

What Asian can whip any of the great black boxers?

What Aian belongs in with Magic, Jordan, LeBron?

What Asian can run with any black sub 20.00. 45.00 sprinter?

Ever seen a big fast Asian similiar to Bo Jackson?

Asians are little, they are slow...ok?

Dude, compare the career of Serena Williams vs Your Asian hero, who is FAR FAR FAR more accomplished?

Asians pretty suck in sports actually.

[FrostKing]

So what Asian can out run any sub 9.90 black sprinter?

What Asian can whip any of the great black boxers?

What Aian belongs in with Magic, Jordan, LeBron?

What Asian can run with any black sub 20.00. 45.00 sprinter?

Ever seen a big fast Asian similiar to Bo Jackson?

Asians are little, they are slow...ok?

Dude, compare the career of Serena Williams vs Your Asian hero, who is FAR FAR FAR more accomplished?

Asians pretty suck in sports actually.
Running = game

Sports requires strategy. There is no strategy in being the fastest runner. Blacks suck at sports but are good at gimmicky games. That is why all the coaches are white

[Avante]

Running = game

Sports requires strategy. There is no strategy in being the fastest runner. Blacks suck at sports but are good at gimmicky games. That is why all the coaches are white

The dumbest thing I have ever read is this...Blacks suck at sports......are you retarded?

Dude, you have never watched....

NCAA Football
NCAA Basketball
NBA
The Olympics
NFL Football
USFL Football
CFL Football
UFC
Boxing

Well?

[FrostKing]

The dumbest thing I have ever read is this...Blacks suck at sports......are you retarded?

Dude, you have never watched....

NCAA Football
NCAA Basketball
NBA
The Olympics
NFL Football
USFL Football
CFL Football
UFC
Boxing

Well?
Why didn't you include american high school football?

Blacks are horrid at Winter Olympics. Boxing they aren't better than whites or latinos. The rest are domestic american sports no one else in the world gives a shit about.

Blacks = shitty athletes. Great dancers.

[AaronY]

Serena's tantrum aside, the referee did what everyone in this forums hates - made the match about him. No one calls coaching violations, just silly.


Yep.

[Avante]

Why didn't you include american high school football?

Blacks are horrid at Winter Olympics. Boxing they aren't better than whites or latinos. The rest are domestic american sports no one else in the world gives a shit about.

Blacks = shitty athletes. Great dancers.

My God guy, you don't nothing. Dumb as a rock.

[DAF86]

uiBrForlj-k

So after all that victimization, it turns out they were indeed actually cheating. :lol

I guess Serena is the one owing an apology.

[FrostKing]

uiBrForlj-k

So after all that victimization, it turns out they were indeed actually cheating. :lol

I guess Serena is the one owing an apology.
Sneaky move on her part TBH. Her behavior overshadows that she is a cheat. (As if she didn't use performance enhancing drugs in the past anyway)

This is an athlete with inflated ego because of social media. All day everyday she has people (fake accounts?) flooding her with support on how she is fighting for womens rights and motherhood and racism.


Serena
Lebron
Kaepernick

[Canyonero]

Nole making Delpo his bitch as usual

[Spurtacular]

Sneaky move on her part TBH. Her behavior overshadows that she is a cheat. (As if she didn't use performance enhancing drugs in the past anyway)


As if she's not using them now. 37-year-olds coming off alleged pregnancy should not be the strongest player on the tour.

[DAF86]

Top 3 player ever doing top 3 player stuff.

[JakeCuenca]

Top 3 player ever doing top 3 player stuff.

He will surpass nadal. Probably win three grandslams next year barring injury.

[Darth_Pelican]

Federer vs Nadal in the French semis on tv now. These guys don’t age.

[Spurtacular]

Federer vs Nadal in the French semis on tv now. These guys don’t age.

Federer losing that ninth game in the first set to make it 5-4 after being up forty love really put him in a bad place mentally. You could tell he didn't want to drain himself with Wimbledon around the corner.

[Spurtacular]

Federer vs Nadal in the French semis on tv now. These guys don’t age.

In the semis now, too.

[Spurtacular]

This why Federer took his foot off the pedal when that one set fell through at French Open vs. Nadal. No need to burn out before Wimbledon.

[phxspurfan]

Tennis man tennis'd again

[FrostKing]

Djokovic probably too strong in the Final

[DeadlyDynasty]

Close match right now, 5th set

[FrostKing]

JOKER fought off 2 Championship Points, now in the lead

[Reck]

Stuff of legends.

Nadal must be crying into a pillow right about now knowing he will never quite match up to these greats.

[phxspurfan]

Fed should have finished this 9-7. Had to fuck around with it now he might lose

[-21-]

anyone got a stream???

[FrostKing]

JOKER still in control

Not sure Federer can break him

[DeadlyDynasty]

Tennis will never be better in our lifetimes

[GAustex]

Too bad a tie break settles it

[Reck]

Top side seems to be a problem for Djokovic. He is slipping, sliding and falling a lot.

[HarlemHeat37]

Losing 3 tiebreaks would be pretty heartbreaking for PEDerer..

[GAustex]

Good stuff

[DAF86]

Tennis will never be better in our lifetimes

But according to some here it's not that Federer and Djokovic are two of the three best players ever. It's just that they have no competition.

[DAF86]

This was vital for Roger to gain some separation in Grand Slams won. It doesn't look good for him in terms of ending up as the winnigest slam champion.

[Thread]

Anytime Media gets thwarted is a good day. They wanted Fed & they wanted Fed bad.

No.

[HarlemHeat37]

Eating grass is a new level of GOAT:lol

[Divac Doesnt Flop]

Great win for Djokovic. Sick of media and Wimbledon crowd's irrational hatred for Nole.

[Divac Doesnt Flop]

Anytime Media gets thwarted is a good day. They wanted Fed & they wanted Fed bad.

No.

This. So much this.

[DAF86]

Anytime Media gets thwarted is a good day. They wanted Fed & they wanted Fed bad.

No.

Media wanted Kawhi on the Lakers, tbh.

[Thread]

Media wanted Kawhi on the Lakers, tbh.

No. Then they get 0 bites at the apple. This way they get 2 bites. They'll laud him no end on the Clippers & they beat us senseless for our failure to secure him.

Like Trump. Media gets 0 bites at the apple once he beat Hillary. They can't laud her non-stop & they can't torment him for losing to her.

[Divac Doesnt Flop]

I wouldn't say they wanted it. Lot of people saying it would be a weak move to go to Lakers. Jalen Rose was hyping him staying in Toronto. The media is in the tank for the Knicks so they want everybody to go to NY.

[Divac Doesnt Flop]

The only reason the Spurs fans are so brainwashed and anti-Kahwi now is because the media dogged him for expressing interest in the Lakers last season when he was injured. Non-stop Kahwi hate. Spurs are media darlings and have 50 ex-Spurs on tv all the time.

[GAustex]

WTF Vlade you are on the wrong thread

[140]

Oh hey, a final between two of Nadal/Federer/Djokovic for the umpteenth time, what a surprise! Surely a sign of a healthy and competitive sport.

[Divac Doesnt Flop]

That was an epic final what are you complaining about. Not that many finals between 2 of the 3. Look at the lists of past finals.

[namlook]

Media wanted Kawhi on the Lakers, tbh.

ESPN excluded?

[Darth_Pelican]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/66960410_2814577068589031_5034190644348715008_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnPVvfhJ2B207_QPPNh6eCc1UtMlOmSYeXsf1Uuf8c HJaxa_1F5bPUmM1efzEwGyKY&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=103f659cdf9a1ff3fdc3e338d750c849&oe=5DED0483

[UZER]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/66960410_2814577068589031_5034190644348715008_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnPVvfhJ2B207_QPPNh6eCc1UtMlOmSYeXsf1Uuf8c HJaxa_1F5bPUmM1efzEwGyKY&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=103f659cdf9a1ff3fdc3e338d750c849&oe=5DED0483

Man Joker is right there!

[FrostKing]

Federer is GOAT but Djokovic can overtake Nadal

[Spurtacular]

Dang, GOAT Federer had Championship Point and he lost all three of his sets on tiebreakers while handily winning the other two.

[Divac Doesnt Flop]

I wonder how GOATy Fedz would be if the arenas weren't always in the tank for him. Imagine having to win 16 majors always in a hostile crowd, sometimes with them deliberately interupting you, as with the goons at Wimbledon every year for Djokovic. Fedz wouldn't win a thing.

[Spurtacular]

I wonder how GOATy Fedz would be if the arenas weren't always in the tank for him. Imagine having to win 16 majors always in a hostile crowd, sometimes with them deliberately interupting you, as with the goons at Wimbledon every year for Djokovic. Fedz wouldn't win a thing.

Imagine Djokovic having to play Federer in his prime. He wouldn't have won an mf set.

[K...]

I think in the long run, these 3 guys won't be compared head to head by major tournament wins. There's too much variability. If all tournaments were clay Nadal would be the goat. But that's not the case. Djokovic will absolutely win the most major titles but I don't think he can overtake fed as the goat without the benefit of a major in prime rival.

[DAF86]

19th slam for Nadal. Dude will end up as the winngest GS player and folks here will still say he isn't even a top 10 player ever. :lol

[Spurtacular]

19th slam for Nadal. Dude will end up as the winngest GS player and folks here will still say he isn't even a top 10 player ever. :lol

He might be the best of all-time on ice.

[Spurtacular]

Federer not winning match point at Wimbledon was a blow, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/tennis/federer-brushes-aside-de-minaur-to-claim-record-10th-basel-title/ar-AAJqUWo?ocid=spartanntp

[FrostKing]

https://i.ibb.co/3Y8rMwv/Screenshot-2020-01-30-12-05-27-1.png

Djokovic stretched his Grand Slam winning streak against Federer to six in a row

Djokovic now leads their head-to-head series 27-23, including 11-6 at majors. Federer hasn't beaten him at one of the sport's four most important tournaments since 2012.

[The Gemini Method]

Seems Joker has Federer's number especially at the Aussie. Don't follow tennis all that much. I imagine Roger's run isn't for much longer...

[FrostKing]

Seems Joker has Federer's number especially at the Aussie. Don't follow tennis all that much. I imagine Roger's run isn't for much longer...
Roger is injury prone at his older age. It has forced him to play more aggressive in early rounds to cut down on the number of sets his body logs. Roger actually came out strong yesterday but Novak is too powerful over 5 sets considering Roger's health

[The Gemini Method]

Roger is injury prone at his older age. It has forced him to play more aggressive in early rounds to cut down on the number of sets his body logs. Roger actually came out strong yesterday but Novak is too powerful over 5 sets considering Roger's health To make it to the semifinal at his age and be pretty competitive the past couple years is impressive. Do you see this being the last go round for Federer?

[Arcadian]

Roger is injury prone at his older age. It has forced him to play more aggressive in early rounds to cut down on the number of sets his body logs. Roger actually came out strong yesterday but Novak is too powerful over 5 sets considering Roger's health
Federer was up 4-1 (40-0) in the first set before he fell apart.

[FrostKing]

To make it to the semifinal at his age and be pretty competitive the past couple years is impressive. Do you see this being the last go round for Federer?
I am also a tennis novice. I would place the over/under at 1 more major title for Roger and I predict 2