The Official Tennis Thread

Started by Doogie Browser, January 26, 2010, 11:25:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Boycey

Will we ignore the elephant in the room?

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Boycey on June 27, 2019, 09:39:34 PM
Will we ignore the elephant in the room?

Until it's exactly confirmed I'll say nowt
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Angelo

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 27, 2019, 09:33:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on June 27, 2019, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 27, 2019, 07:57:39 PM
They are currently ahead of Federer? As it is, Federer has amassed more grand slams that the other two, regardless of when he won them. Saying winning one grand slam is easier than winning another is silly, and I can't remember a commentator ever saying that either. It may be harder for certain players to win on clay, and that's possibly based on what suits their style or how they started out in tennis.

Going out on a limb here but I think they all want to win Wimbledon

Djokovic and Nadal are the no 1 and 2 in the world, every other slam goes with the rankings as should Wimbledon. Federer has won 2 more slams than Nadal, 5 more than Djokovic, he is 5 years older than Nadal, 6 than Djokovic, he won 12 of those 20 slams before Nadal  and Djokovic had reached the same age that Federer had captured his first slam at.

Federer has played a distant third over the past decade.
Winning on clay requires a far greater all round game, look at someone like Thiem in comparision to Kevin Anderson. Thiem is a superb all round player, Anderson is a big serving giraffe.

But until Nadal wins 2 more to equal and a third to surpass him (should he not win any more) I'll say (personal choice) that Federer is bigger player. Forget about Anderson let's stick with the 3

That doesn't really give a fair reflection though. Both Djokovic and Nadal have dominated Federer, Federer had the break of making hay before they came around hasn't had much of a sniff since they did come into their own.

Federer's first 7 Grand Slam finals were against:

Phillopoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
A 35 year old Agassi
Baghdatis

That was the extent of his competition at the time. Roddick and Hewitt are around the same age as Federer, Roddick a year younger and Hewitt the same age. Roddick was a slam champion at 21, Hewitt at 20. These guys were complete non runners when Nadal, Djokovic, Murray broke on the scene yet they were Federer's main competition for his early years. Even the players outside the top 4 in the Nadal, Djokovic, Murray generation were far better players than Hewitt and Roddick. Guys like Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Ferrer had a far bigger impression on slams than Hewitt and Roddick in the subsequent years.

GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Estimator

#528
During the French Open I had look at their respective records, and scribbled a few things down just to compare the Big 3.*
Federer had won 5 Slams in 2 years, reached 10 in 4yrs, then 15 in 6yrs and finally 20 in 15yrs.
Nadal had won 5 Slams in 4 years, reached 10 in 7yrs, then 15 in 13yrs and finally 18 in 14yrs.
Djokovic had won 5 Slams in 5 years, reaching 10 in 8yrs, then 11 in years.

Also had a look at the Grand Slam champions since Federers first - Wimbledon 2003. Since then the 3 lads have amassed 53 (inc Federers first) title.  Other winners since then include:
(Only won one)
Andy Roddick - US Open
Gaston Gaudio- French
Marat Safin - Aus
JM Del Potro - US
Marin Cilic - US

The only players to win multiple titles since Wimbledon 2003 are Wawrinka with 3 titles (Aus, French, US) and Murray with 3 titles (2 Wimbledon, 1 US)

Had a look then at the previous 17years (not sure why I landed on 17years)
Multiple grand slam winners include:
Becker (5) Lendl (5) Edberg (5) Wilander (3) Sampras (14) Courier (4) Brugera (2) Kuerten (3) Kafelnikov (2) Agassi (8) Hewitt (2) Rafter (2)

Single Grand slam winners
Cash, Chang, Gomez, Stich, Muster, Krajicek, Korda, Moya, Johannssen, Costa, Ferrero, Ivanisevic.

Certainly seemed more open in terms of winners, with some of those names only good for answers on Pointless.

There endeth my scribbles.
*Might not be 100% accurate - difficulty reading my own hand writing  ???

As for comparing who gets to the Grand Slam finals, it could be  pointed out that:

Wawrinka has won the French open, but has yet to make it past Wimbledon QF's
Thiem has made the last two French open final, but has yet to make it past Wimbledon R4
Ferrer another French Open finalist, didn't get past Wimbledon QF
Soderling, twice a French Open finalist, didn't get past Wimbledon QF
Ulster League Champions 2009

gallsman

Not that it makes a huge difference but Satin also won the 2000 US Open, absolutely demolishing Sampras, so he is also a multiple champion albeit with one of them before Federer started his collection.

Boycey

We are going to ignore it then...

Angelo

Quote from: Estimator on June 28, 2019, 01:12:42 PM


Wawrinka has won the French open, but has yet to make it past Wimbledon QF's
Thiem has made the last two French open final, but has yet to make it past Wimbledon R4
Ferrer another French Open finalist, didn't get past Wimbledon QF
Soderling, twice a French Open finalist, didn't get past Wimbledon QF

Look at the prototype of player they are though. They are not just one dimensional  6ft5 servers, they are complete all rounders.  The last slam Soderling took part in was 8 years ago. He was effectively retired at 26 due to medical issues and injuries.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Angelo

Quote from: Estimator on June 28, 2019, 01:12:42 PM
During the French Open I had look at their respective records, and scribbled a few things down just to compare the Big 3.*
Federer had won 5 Slams in 2 years, reached 10 in 4yrs, then 15 in 6yrs and finally 20 in 15yrs.
Nadal had won 5 Slams in 4 years, reached 10 in 7yrs, then 15 in 13yrs and finally 18 in 14yrs.
Djokovic had won 5 Slams in 5 years, reaching 10 in 8yrs, then 11 in years.


That bit charts how easy it was for Federer when the competition was Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Agassi and Sampras were all old men.

When Djokovic and Nadal emerged, Federer was pushed a distant third and remained firmly in their shadows. Djokovic captured his first Australian Open aged 20 in 2008, Nadal captured his first non-clay slam in 2008 also having just turned 22 a few days beforehand.

From then on Djokovic and Nadal have won 14 slams each, Federer has won 8. Both Djokovic and Nadal have a superior head to head record against Federer at slams. Djokovic and Nadal have both won slams where they have had to face both Federer and each other enroute. Federer hasn't. Nadal has beaten Federer on all surfaces at slams, so has Djokovic. Nadal has beaten Djokovic on all surfaces in slams, and Djokovic has done the same to Nadal. Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG.

GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Milltown Row2

We get it, Nadal is best on clay. Ask any player, they'll want to win Wimbledon. It's the big slam
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Angelo

#534
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 28, 2019, 06:05:07 PM
We get it, Nadal is best on clay. Ask any player, they'll want to win Wimbledon. It's the big slam

We get it, you are seduced by the cardigan doffing and strawberries and cream. It's the freakshows and ton plus aces that you admire in tennis.

Enjoy the giraffe fest over the next fortnight, the real tennis was last month, this is novelty safari tennis.

The facts simply don't lie.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Angelo on June 28, 2019, 06:35:41 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 28, 2019, 06:05:07 PM
We get it, Nadal is best on clay. Ask any player, they'll want to win Wimbledon. It's the big slam

We get it, you are seduced by the cardigan doffing and strawberries and cream. It's the freakshows and ton plus aces that you admire in tennis.

Enjoy the giraffe fest over the next fortnight, the real tennis was last month, this is novelty safari tennis.

The facts simply don't lie.

Nadal's words, not mine


"I love everything about it,'' Nadal said. "The grass gives something special to the tournament. When you walk around it's different to other places. My goal was always to play well here on grass. I did that in 2006, playing in the final for the first time. That was a big surprise for me. To do it another time the next year made me think: 'I can really play well here.' When I won in 2008, it was one of the most emotional moments of my career, if not the most emotional.

"For me it was a dream to win here – more than a dream. Spanish players in the past saw Wimbledon as something that was impossible to win, a different sport. But I always had my dream of doing well on this surface. I love it. I loved this place – just being here and seeing everything – from the first time I came here to play juniors.''
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Angelo

#536
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 28, 2019, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on June 28, 2019, 06:35:41 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 28, 2019, 06:05:07 PM
We get it, Nadal is best on clay. Ask any player, they'll want to win Wimbledon. It's the big slam

We get it, you are seduced by the cardigan doffing and strawberries and cream. It's the freakshows and ton plus aces that you admire in tennis.

Enjoy the giraffe fest over the next fortnight, the real tennis was last month, this is novelty safari tennis.

The facts simply don't lie.

Nadal's words, not mine


"I love everything about it,'' Nadal said. "The grass gives something special to the tournament. When you walk around it's different to other places. My goal was always to play well here on grass. I did that in 2006, playing in the final for the first time. That was a big surprise for me. To do it another time the next year made me think: 'I can really play well here.' When I won in 2008, it was one of the most emotional moments of my career, if not the most emotional.

"For me it was a dream to win here – more than a dream. Spanish players in the past saw Wimbledon as something that was impossible to win, a different sport. But I always had my dream of doing well on this surface. I love it. I loved this place – just being here and seeing everything – from the first time I came here to play juniors.''

And?

A player talks up a tournament in the buildup to it? He doesn't compare it to any other tournament or say it's the best.

When it comes down to it, a booming serve alone will bring you a long, long way on grass court tennis. On clay? Well, if you can serve good, that is fine, but what else have you behind that? There's a reason why guys like Anderson (6ft8), Isner (6ft10), Opelka (7ft), Raonic (6ft5), Kyrgios (6ft4) and Berdych (6ft5) all sat out RG to be ready for Wimbledon - their game revolves around their serve. It's set play tennis, it's like a guy on a GAA team who is solely there for frees. Clay court tennis demands for you to be able to work points when your serve doesn't win them automatically. Grass court is just set play tennis, bludgeon shots for easy points.

Wimbledon has always had this unfounded sense of superiority, it's classic Anglo culture, the cardigans, the all white wear, the gentelmens championship.......... grass court tennis is a far more one dimensional and less skillful version of tennis than clay but it has an unfounded prestige in the anglo world and they are very protective about it.

Saying grass court tennis is better clay is like saying rugby union is better than association football. It's like saying Gary Cahill is better than Roberto Baggio.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Milltown Row2

How many of those guys have actually won Wimbledon?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Angelo

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 29, 2019, 08:16:22 AM
How many of those guys have actually won Wimbledon?

What does that matter?

The same guys have dominated all surfaces over the past decade. Only the US Open has thrown up winners outside of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka where Del Potro and Cilic captured one. Apart from that the only guys who have won the French since 05 have been Nadal, Federer, Wawrinka and Djokovic. The only guys that have won Wimbledon since 2003 have been Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. The only guys who have won Australia since 2006 have been Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Wawrinka.

What you will see is that the guys who go well on hard courts nearly always go well on grass. Wawrinka is really the only notable exception there in that he has two hard court slams at the US and Australian but never made it past the QF at Wimbledon. Clay is the surface that plays different, it's not a case of bludgeoning the ball past, it requires strategy, intuition, improvisation and craft to win those points. On grass court, you're just looking at bludgeoning the ball as hard as you can because when it hits that ground it just skids away, particularly in the first week before the court firms up - this is why big servers will always go far in Wimbledon but not on clay.

I think one of the hard court slams should certainly be switching to clay again. The US Open used be clay for a few years in the 70s and it would be a welcome return to have it back. If you look at the rankings now, the top 20/30 players are dominated by big gangly lads who are 6ft5 plus and don't really have that much of a game behind their serve and that is because the hard/grass court calendar predicates this.

The prototype of player that goes well at Wimbledon is very obvious, he's usually a big guy which goes hand in hand with having a monster serve. You'll see it all in the next fortnight where we have big one dimensional servers populating the last 16 and one of them will probably make a dash to the final.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Raonic or Cilic in another Wimbledon final this year.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Milltown Row2

So the best players technically, fitter and tactically win the big tournaments. Which has been Federer (the most) followed by the other two. Your point is Nadal is best on clay, one surface and crap on the other two surfaces (in comparison to Fed and Novak)

If you have a preference for clay court players then fine, It's not as prestigious and wanted as Wimbledon, forget about the stuffiness and whatever annoys you.
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea