T1B

Federer did not play the event.
Nadal was just taken out in the QFs in 5 sets by S. Tsitsipas.


N. Djokovic (1)
A. Karatsev (Q)

A. Medvedev (4)
S. Tsitsipas (5)


Karatsev is a qualifier playing his first grand slam event -- and he's made it to the semis.
Djoker will take him down in 3 sets.


Medvedev is the most entertaining player remaining.
He has a legit shot at winning this tournament, imo.

Medvedev will beat Tsitsipas in 4 sets.

Glad you are enjoying it. The problem with tennis for me is it has little drama. Going back to 2004 there have been 67 grand slam events. Of those events Federer, Nadal or Djokovic have won 56 of them. There have been 6 years where 1 player won 3 of the 4 grand slams. There have also been 8 more years where 1 player won 2 of 4 grand slams.

I just don't see the need to watch, but to each their own.

I haven't given the slightest of fukks about tennis since Borg v MacEnroe at Wimbledon.

I am sure there have been good rivalries since, but nothing as good as that. It is right up there with Ali v Frazier.

I hear ya brah. Where is Roger Staubach?

Maybe you and Wolfman should just hang on the back porch and spin yarns ‘bout dem good ol days.

Meanwhile there are some great athletes and great stories happening now. Perhaps the fact you lame dicks can’t bother with the women speaks to your boring takes.

Good sports.

LS wrote:The problem with tennis for me is it has little drama. Going back to 2004 there have been 67 grand slam events. Of those events Federer, Nadal or Djokovic have won 56 of them. There have been 6 years where 1 player won 3 of the 4 grand slams. There have also been 8 more years where 1 player won 2 of 4 grand slams.

When Pete Sampras passed R. Emerson for the most grand slam titles 20+ years ago it was a crowning achievement.
He took his total up to 14 and was widely heralded as the greatest player ever.

Very few people could have imagined that in the very next generation there would be three guys who would blow past him.

Federer and Nadal with 20 and Djokovic with 17.

It is insane.

Hell, McEnroe and Lendl were studs of their era and they have 7 and 8 slams respectively.

Shitty competition?

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:15 am Shitty competition?

That is perhaps part of the answer.

Until this era it was an aberration for a player to win a grand slam title when he was over 30.
You needed to win your slams in your 20s because after that they were very hard to come by.

But now these three guys (Federer, Nadal, Djoker) have been steadily racking up slams in their 30s.

Greatly improved physical conditioning has allowed for greater longevity.

So they were better than everyone else at age 25 and now they are still better than everyone else at age 35.

That's a theory, anyway.

poptart wrote:A. Medvedev (4)
S. Tsitsipas (5)

These guys had a crazy encounter a couple years ago in Miami.


Medvedev said it was time to rumble!

Medvedev: Man, you better shut your fuck up, okay?









:)

Bill wrote:Perhaps the fact you lame dicks can’t bother with the women speaks to your boring takes.

N. Osaka just dusted off Serena 6-3, 6-4 in one semi.

Clearly the younger, faster, better player.

Yep. Time marches on.

Serena is one of the greatest athletes of all time. Still amazing to watch. But the youth eventually overcome.

Softball Bat wrote:

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:15 am Shitty competition?

That is perhaps part of the answer.

Until this era it was an aberration for a player to win a grand slam title when he was over 30.
You needed to win your slams in your 20s because after that they were very hard to come by.

But now these three guys (Federer, Nadal, Djoker) have been steadily racking up slams in their 30s.

Greatly improved physical conditioning has allowed for greater longevity.

So they were better than everyone else at age 25 and now they are still better than everyone else at age 35.

That's a theory, anyway.

25 year olds are faster than 35 year olds today as well.

I am wondering if equipment might be a factor.

40 years ago, it was serve and volley. Today,we’ll haven’t really watched much, but isn’t it more about cannon serves? So, while speed still counts, so does power. And a 35 year old is still pretty damn strong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The equipment is definitely a factor.

If you watch videos of matches 40 years ago (Borg, McEnroe - with their wood racquets) it looks like they are just dinking the ball around.

The speed and power now is overwhelming by comparison.


There is now almost no serve and volley.

Everyone bangs away relentlessly from the baseline with a western grip forehand.

And the big serve, as you noted.


I marvel at the players of this age, but think that the sport was more interesting when there was greater varieties of style of play.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:04 pm The equipment is definitely a factor.

If you watch videos of matches 40 years ago (Borg, McEnroe - with their wood racquets) it looks like they are just dinking the ball around.

The speed and power now is overwhelming by comparison.


There is now almost no serve and volley.

Everyone bangs away relentlessly from the baseline with a western grip forehand.

And the big serve, as you noted.


I marvel at the players of this age, but think that the sport was more interesting when there was greater varieties of style of play.

I honestly haven't paid modern tennis enough attention to give it a fair appraisal, but it sounds like you have and agree. Nothing today can match Borg/Mac for sheer drama. Those dudes had points that went as long as sets do today. It was the greatest mano a mano sports competition I have ever witnessed.

What do you think would happen if you could bring a 25 year old Borg and his wood racket into say, I dunno, 2012 or so and put him up against Serena with her modern gear?

Is the equipment difference enough to bridge the gender gap? Sure would be fun to watch. More fun than watching Billie Jean beat a washed up Bobby Riggs.

It would be an interesting match.

Serena of 2012 was able to drum the other women because they did not have the foot speed and athletic dexterity to stay in rallies with her.
She overpowered them.

Borg (of 1980 with a wood racquet) would be able to stay in the rallies, because his athletic ability dwarfed that of the women Serena faced.
Borg would chase every shot of hers and make her hit... one more, one more, one more...
And she would end up making errors.

But the pace of Serena's shots would, imo, be a challenge for Borg, with his wood racquet.
In some instances he would be overpowered by her.

I think Borg would prevail, but it would be a competitive match.

Absent a time machine, we’ll never know.

Maybe someone could talk one of today’s young studs into picking up an old wooden racket.

Of course, it would t be the same because you couldn’t possibly expect a young guy to wield it the way Bjorn could in 1977.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

poptart wrote:N. Djokovic (1)
A. Karatsev (Q)

D. Medvedev (4)
S. Tsitsipas (5)


Karatsev is a qualifier playing his first grand slam event -- and he's made it to the semis.
Djoker will take him down in 3 sets.


Medvedev is the most entertaining player remaining.
He has a legit shot at winning this tournament, imo.

Medvedev will beat Tsitsipas in 4 sets.

Djokovic and Medvedev both roll in straight sets.

I like Medvedev to beat Djokovic and take home his first grand slam title.

In fact, I believe Medvedev will be the next world #1 player.

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:15 am Shitty competition?

Correct. On the men’s side, in Sampras’ era there was a middle layer of players who were all capable of taking out a big name in the first week of a slam. Some were good enough to make it far into the second week (ie finals). Many cycled in and out of the ATP top ten regularly. Many turned out to be phenomenal coaches in today’s landscape.

MaliVai Washington, Thomas Enqvist, Cedric Pioline, Woodforde/Woodbridge, Petr Korda, Todd Martin, Wayne Ferreira, Marc Rosset, Andrei Medvedev, Carlos Costa, Aaron Krickstein, Marcelo Rios, Guy Forget, Patrick McEnroe, Paul Haarhuis, Jonas Bjorkman, Jan Seimerink, Mark Philippoussis

Just a very short list but the men’s game of today is nowhere close and not nearly as interesting. The present day women’s field is much more robust in comparison.

It was a disappointing men's final.

Djoker totally outclassed Medvedev.

He wins this event for the 9th time.

Outrageous!


Props to Djoker.


Slams
Federer: 20
Nadal: 20
Djokovic: 18

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:30 pm It was a disappointing men's draw.

Fixed it for you.

Slams
Federer: 20
Nadal: 20
Djokovic: 18

I don't think Federer will win another one.

I could see Nadal winning another French (or two), but it won't be easy.

Djoker is "only" 33 years old.
He has a legit shot at climbing to the top of this list.


Who is the greatest among them?

Clay: Nadal
Grass/Indoor: Federer
Hard: Djokovic

I rate Federer as the best, overall.

Posted by me at Stucknut 5 years ago...

Top 10 male tennis champions of the last 50 years, imo

10. Mats Wilander - 7 slam titles, B. Becker and S. Edberg were considered for this spot
9. A. Agassi - Sampras' top rival, 8 slam wins, career slam
8. J. Connors - the Pete Rose of tennis, electric
7. I. Lendl - 8 straight U.S. Open finals
6. J. McEnroe - gifted, high-strung artist, greatest doubles player ever
5. N. Djokovic - racked up 12 grand slam titles, career slam
4. B. Borg - 5 straight Wimbledon wins, 6 French titles
3. R. Nadal - leads Federer head-to-head, 10 French titles, career slam
2. P. Sampras - dominant, 7 Wimbledon and 5 U.S. Open titles - zero French finals
1. R. Federer - most slams, career slam, best all-around player, imo



Rod Laver won the grand slam in 1969 and clearly would be ranked ahead of some (most, or even all) on this list, but he was really a part of the era before 1969 -- with Emerson, Rosewall, etc.

Nadal might have moved ahead of Sampras, and Djoker has probably moved ahead of Borg.

Top 5 of the last 50 years...

5. Borg
4. Djokovic
3. Sampras
2. Nadal
1. Federer

As always, it could be much debated.

Had Bjorn not shut it down early, what kind of numbers do you think he puts up?

I think he could have continued to dominate at Rolland Garros. Don’t think he was done at Wimbledon either.

But would he ever be able to get over at Forrest Hills?

The fast surface got even faster. No way in hell he could have gotten it done with his antique wood racquet.

Would he have been able to compete their after a weapons upgrade?

Would a 35 year old Borg with his shiny new carbon fiber racquet (or whatever it was in 1991) have stood a chance against a very young Pete?

Can’t help but wonder if Borg has wondered the same over the last 40 years.

Hard to believe it’s been that long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A few thoughts...


My top 10 list is based only on singles play.

John McEnroe was the greatest doubles player ever.
He won 10 grand slam doubles titles.

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic -- all have ----> ZERO <----- grand slam doubles titles.

Mac also led the U.S. to five Davis Cup wins, back when the DC was more prestigious than the Aussie Open (and maybe also the French).


Placing importance on racking up grand slam titles only became a "thing" in the past 25-30 years.

When Sampras started closing in on R. Emerson's 12 slams, media began fixating on it.

In previous eras it was not something people thought that much about, and in fact, players routinely skipped playing the Aussie Open, because it was too far away, and it was scheduled right after Christmas and the New Year.

Borg only played the Aussie Open once -- at age 17.
Never played it again.

The Aussie Open was on grass at that time, and we know that Borg dominated the lawns at Wimbledon, so it isn't hard to imagine him racking up a handful of Australian Open titles if he had chosen to play it.

So his 11 major wins (compared to Federer's 20) needs to be put in perspective.

McEnroe also regularly skipped the Aussie Open.


Borg theoretically could have won more majors if he had not retired at age 26.
In that era guys were winning majors until around age 30, so he might have won a few more if he had hung around.

On the other hand, maybe not -- because there are some things to consider.

1. Borg turned pro at 16, so at age 26 he had already been grinding away for a decade.

2. He saw the writing on the wall with McEnroe. Mac was younger, hungrier, very talented, and had become Borg's equal (at least). Mac was on the come and Borg was just trying to maintain that that time. And he was burned out. "Climb the mountain again, Bjorn!! You can do it!!"

No mas!

3. Borg might have won a couple/few more slams if he not retired at 26, but it is not a given.


Young Pete Sampras would have crushed 35 year old Bjorn, regardless of what racquet Borg was playing with.

Young Sampras played old McEnroe in the 1990 U.S. Open and Sampras worked him over.
Pete overpowered him.
It would have been the same with Borg.

Was the Swedish version of the IRS after Borg at the time of his retirement, or was that only later?

I'm not sure.

Borg's personal life has been a disaster through the years.

At one point he was going to sell trophies and career memorabilia to avoid bankruptcy.
I guess McEnroe stepped up and helped him out.

Failed business adventures.
Tax issues.
Drug problems (allegedly).
Women issues.

He is kind of a squirrel.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:42 am Was the Swedish version of the IRS after Borg at the time of his retirement, or was that only later?

Borg did what most high earners in highly taxed European countries did at the time. He moved to Monaco and told them to fukk off.

This was done frequently by athletes and entertainers. It's a little tricky for businessmen of course, but they figure out other ways to beat it.

While you suck their greedy klepto cocks hoping a few crumbs will trickle off their plate.

Fuck off traitor.

poptart wrote:Medvedev

Had some funnay spaz moments yesterday.


0:41 -

0:52 - the old underhand sneak serve attempt

0:58 - Wat?? I've seen a lot of tennis, but have never seen this, let alone in a professional match

2:03 - the meltdown

2:28 - defeated by a dude who has man-tits









Good show, Daniil!

i x 2

2/19/21

poptart wrote:In fact, I believe Medvedev will be the next world #1 player.

There you have it...


Djokovic to be overtaken as world No 1 by Daniil Medvedev after Dubai loss

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... dubai-loss


Djoker returned to action after the Aussie Open debacle, and he lost a straight set match in the quarterfinals of Dubai.

D. Medvedev has risen to #1 in the world.

Props to "The Octopus!"