Not top 5, but probably top 10, tbh.Murray as top 5 all time
"Inferior, watered down era"pretending this inflated number of slams isn't a product of an inferior, watered down era
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, Rod , Berdych, Zverev, Tsonga, etc.
Because this era of tennis is dominated by a very small number of rich kids who can afford a coach.Djokovic is probably top 5 all time. Murray is up there too.
Why so interested on arguing about something you have admitted to be a casual fan of? Your "casualness" shows, tbh.
And
And Spanish speaking hero isn’t #2.
Second in Grand Slams and first in master series.
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.
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.Because this era of tennis is dominated by a very small number of rich kids who can afford a coach.
And
Tim Henman, an old schooler that es 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/...w/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.
Last edited by DAF86; 06-13-2018 at 12:38 PM.
Yet he doesn’t appear on two of the four list you use to support the joker.Second in Grand Slams and first in master series.
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.
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?
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.
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 les, but that is explained by a lack of compe ion, an argument that can't be used in Tennis since with each passing year the number of professional tennis players keeps growing and growing.
Quality>quan y tbh
How do you quantify quality? Henman, a guy that got to play in both eras, said that this current era is much tougher.
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 les. 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.
At least it's an actual sport for once, as opposed to povertyball.
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 Rod , 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.
You mean "top coaching" as in coaches of professional tennis players?
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.
Son, seriously, just give it up with this matter.
Thanks for just making up.You mean "top coaching" as in coaches of professional tennis players?
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.
Son, seriously, just give it up with this matter.
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 compe ion 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.
What 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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote