Topic: Wimbledon 2019

[Agent99]

The crowd give everything to Federer before a shot has been played. He could've had a shit on Centre Court and they'd have clapped it like an around the post winner

So you don't like him because everybody likes him? 

[Crosby Nick]

Didn’t Murray win his first major from a similar position?

No, he was 2 sets up and got brought back to 2-2 and recovered to win the decider.

Djokovic beat Tsonga to win his first title so he’s had at least one gimme!

[killer-heels]

So you don't like him because everybody likes him?

The only people who like Djokovic are coaches and spreadsheets.

[Gerry Attrick]

So you don't like him because everybody likes him? 

I don't like him because I just find him really hard to warm to. His persona doesn't sit right with me, but then we don't all like the same things.

[Jm55]

No, he was 2 sets up and got brought back to 2-2 and recovered to win the decider.

Djokovic beat Tsonga to win his first title so he’s had at least one gimme!

Ah yes! I knew someone was 2 sets down in that game!

[Crosby Nick]

The only people who like Djokovic are coaches and spreadsheets.

And suppliers.

[Bullet500]

Absolutely gutted for Federer.

[Red-Soldier]

It is a great period. All the players including Murray are greats. Djokovic, Federer and Nadal are the greatest three players ever.

But there is a reason Federer is liked the most. His game will never be replicated. In fact Tennis and its coaches are intent on making sure that doesnt happen.

You're right in that most of the players now are just robots.  I've been watching tennis for years and Federer is easily the most pleasing on the eye.  He can do things with the ball that nobody else can.

He has made the game look easy for many years.

[Gerry Attrick]

No, he was 2 sets up and got brought back to 2-2 and recovered to win the decider.

Djokovic beat Tsonga to win his first title so he’s had at least one gimme!

But he beat Federer in the semi-final. When Federer was facing bums in finals it was because every player on tour was a bum or finished, Djokovic has had gimmes when the best players have been beaten earlier in the tournament, by him or somebody else rather than them not being there!

[Red-Soldier]

And suppliers.

Of gluten free food 

[Alan_X]

I wasn't around when they were playing with wooden rackets but what we've had in the last dozen or so years won't be eclipsed for decades in my opinion.

I'm not so sure. I used to love watching Wimbledon because the game was about serve and volley. there was far more play at the net rather than the sterile smacking it back and forth from the back of the court.

This is a classic game from 1979 between Nastase and McEnroe. For entertainment it pisses all over the modern game. The actual highlights are at 2:34

 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/FEDUlcvMQWo?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/FEDUlcvMQWo?fs=1</a>

The rackets meant you couldn't smash long balls and it was about technique, touch and mobility.

[Red-Soldier]

I'm not so sure. I used to love watching Wimbledon because the game was about serve and volley. there was far more play at the net rather than the sterile smacking it back and forth from the back of the court.

This is a classic game from 1979 between Nastase and McEnroe. For entertainment it pisses all over the modern game.

I agree.

Just look at the variety of shot they play.

I grew up watching McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg etc..

[Stussy]

I'm not so sure. I used to love watching Wimbledon because the game was about serve and volley. there was far more play at the net rather than the sterile smacking it back and forth from the back of the court.

This is a classic game from 1979 between Nastase and McEnroe. For entertainment it pisses all over the modern game. The actual highlights are at 2:34

 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/FEDUlcvMQWo?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/FEDUlcvMQWo?fs=1</a>

The rackets meant you couldn't smash long balls and it was about technique, touch and mobility.

Imagine if they only allowed wood rackets so the game wasn't so much a power game

[Red-Soldier]

Imagine if they only allowed wood rackets so the game wasn't so much a power game

It was all about technique and timing then.

Now they have a ruddy great big dustbin lid with a metre wide sweetspot 

That's why Federer is loved so much.  He's not a serve and volleyer, but he has variety to his game, which is based on timing and technique.

[Stussy]

But there is a reason Federer is liked the most. His game will never be replicated. In fact Tennis and its coaches are intent on making sure that doesnt happen.

he's Ronnie O'Sullivan basically

[Gerry Attrick]

I'm not so sure. I used to love watching Wimbledon because the game was about serve and volley. there was far more play at the net rather than the sterile smacking it back and forth from the back of the court.

This is a classic game from 1979 between Nastase and McEnroe. For entertainment it pisses all over the modern game. The actual highlights are at 2:34

The rackets meant you couldn't smash long balls and it was about technique, touch and mobility.

It's horses for courses really. Serve and volley is cool, I enjoy watching it but I'd get bored of it quite quickly if that was the main playing style. I enjoy the rallies where they have to manoeuvre their opponent around the court using different angles and spins.

[Crosby Nick]

But he beat Federer in the semi-final. When Federer was facing bums in finals it was because every player on tour was a bum or finished, Djokovic has had gimmes when the best players have been beaten earlier in the tournament, by him or somebody else rather than them not being there!

Didn’t know that. Fair play to the c*nt.

[PoetryInMotion]

Novak is better than Nadal for me. Although I'm no expert. 2/3 of Nadal's majors have come in Paris. 6 majors elsewhere. Same amount of Wimbledon wins as Andy Murray.

I don't see why that is a criticism, if you're so dominant that nobody could touch you, then obviously you're going to rake a bucket load in that area. That's how dominant Nadal has been in French Open Grand Slams. I don't think you'll see any single player again (nobody else is even now), as dominant in any single Grand Slam as Nadal has been. Federer and Djokovic couldn't touch him as much as they would've liked in Paris, just like Nadal has felt it a bit more difficult in others, so I don't see this one is better than the other logic.

As of now, it is 20 to 18 to 16 and that's all that matters to me.

[Illmatic]

Still had to face Murray and Wawrinka as well, both of which are 3 time Grand Slam champions. You can dress it up any way you like, this is the period of tennis that has had the most concentrated amount of talent. Murray and Wawrinka would be near double figures if they were up against normal players, but they're not even close between them.

Warrinka would be no where near double figures he's done very well to win three majors though, however one of those  wins was against an injured Rafa in the Aussie open final. He's probably slightly overachieved if anything. He's only reached about 4 finals, he's only reached the semi's like 7 times, but whenever he goes deep into the majors he tends to win them. 

Murray is on another level really when compared to big Stan; for example, Murray has 14 ATP tour masters 1000 events these are then next tier of events after the 4 majors thats more than pistol Pete Samprass, Warrinka has only won a single one theses big events. Murray has two single's Olympic Gold medals this has not been achieved by any other player, he's also finished a seasons at no 1 and carried team GB on his back to deliver a David Cup win for first time since 1936.

However Murray's GS total is bit low given his ability I feel he should have 6 majors at a minimum.         

[Crosby Nick]

Warrinka would be no where near double figures he's done very well to win three majors though, however one of those  wins was against an injured Rafa in the Aussie open final. He's probably slightly overachieved if anything. He's only reached about 4 finals, he's only reached the semi's like 7 times, but whenever he goes deep into the majors he tends to win them. 

Murray is on another level really when compared to big Stan; for example, Murray has 14 ATP tour masters 1000 events these are then next tier of events after the 4 majors thats more than pistol Pete Samprass, Warrinka has only won a single one theses big events. Murray has two single's Olympic Gold medals this has not been achieved by any other player, he's also finished a seasons at no 1 and carried team GB on his back to deliver a David Cup win for first time since 1936.

However Murray's GS total is bit low given his ability I feel he should have 6 majors at a minimum.         

Murray is a bit like what Gerry was saying with Djokovic. He had one comfortable win when he beat Raonic but really had to work hard for the other two and every final he lost was (I think) against the big 3. Would have won more in a different era, arguably could and should have won a couple more but still did brilliantly to win as much as he did given who he was up against.

[Eeyore]

I don't see why that is a criticism, if you're so dominant that nobody could touch you, then obviously you're going to rake a bucket load in that area. That's how dominant Nadal has been in French Open Grand Slams. I don't think you'll see any single player again (nobody else is even now), as dominant in any single Grand Slam as Nadal has been. Federer and Djokovic couldn't touch him as much as they would've liked in Paris, just like Nadal has felt it a bit more difficult in others, so I don't see this one is better than the other logic.

As of now, it is 20 to 18 to 16 and that's all that matters to me.

Tennis has changed though. The surfaces, the racquets  and the ball have pretty much merged the game with the exception of clay.

[idontknow]

I wasn't around when they were playing with wooden rackets but what we've had in the last dozen or so years won't be eclipsed for decades in my opinion.

You're right, it's been incredible, I'd still go push it back to Federer v Nadal both coming together though.
Strangely enough, after wooden rackets, Borg, McEnroe, early Becker, it went to the hard-hitting Sampras era where it seemed that finesse at top level men's tennis was all but impossible due to the physicality of the game.
Then, along come Federer, Nadal, Djorkovic (and Murray - so far ahead of the rest it's a bit petty to leave him out, I think).
It could be that another lull occurs, before a younger generation gets to grips with the new standards this group have set.

As for who'll get the most by the time the current crop all finish playing, Djorkovic must be favourite now, although if Nadal might still be coming out to win the French when he's 50.

[Millie]

I'm not so sure. I used to love watching Wimbledon because the game was about serve and volley. there was far more play at the net rather than the sterile smacking it back and forth from the back of the court.

This is a classic game from 1979 between Nastase and McEnroe. For entertainment it pisses all over the modern game. The actual highlights are at 2:34

 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/FEDUlcvMQWo?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/FEDUlcvMQWo?fs=1</a>

The rackets meant you couldn't smash long balls and it was about technique, touch and mobility.

Nastase - probably my favourite ever player.  Always entertaining to watch.

[b_joseph]

I'm not so sure. I used to love watching Wimbledon because the game was about serve and volley. there was far more play at the net rather than the sterile smacking it back and forth from the back of the court.

This is a classic game from 1979 between Nastase and McEnroe. For entertainment it pisses all over the modern game. The actual highlights are at 2:34

Back in my day and all that. The players who played in those games and in that era are saying that what they see today is awesome. Different but awesome.
Just like equipment changes in every sport or improvements in conditioning or playing surfaces. In thirty years time, todays game will look positively old fashioned...as it should.
The sheer conditioning needed to compete at the highest level today is unheard off and it leads to some of the most epic sporting events you could ever see in any sport.
So what they loose in volleying, they have gained in dramatic creativity from the baseline.

[PhilV]

No, he was 2 sets up and got brought back to 2-2 and recovered to win the decider.

Djokovic beat Tsonga to win his first title so he’s had at least one gimme!

Man's just out here disrespecting Jo-Wilfried like that 

[Circa1892]

Novak is better than Nadal for me. Although I'm no expert. 2/3 of Nadal's majors have come in Paris. 6 majors elsewhere. Same amount of Wimbledon wins as Andy Murray.

Paris is a GS though, so absolutely dominating on that surface for more than a decade isn't any less valid than Federer having so many Wimbledon's is it?

A counter-argument could be that the Aus Open is the least prestigious of the four so Djokovic's domination over there shouldn't count as much. (It's a nonsense argument, but the same surely?)

[Scottymuser]

Paris is a GS though, so absolutely dominating on that surface for more than a decade isn't any less valid than Federer having so many Wimbledon's is it?

A counter-argument could be that the Aus Open is the least prestigious of the four so Djokovic's domination over there shouldn't count as much. (It's a nonsense argument, but the same surely?)

The thing is - other than the French Open, both Fed and Djoko have a much more even spread of wins - Fed has 8 Wimbledons, 6 Aussis and 5 US Opens; Djoko has 7 Aussis, 5 Wimbledons, and 3 US Opens.  Whereas Nadal has 12 French's, but 1/2/3 at Aus/Wimb/US - only half as many combined; whereas if you do that for the others compared to their best total, Fed as 12 compared to 8 Wimbledons (so triple the ratio of Nadal), and Djoko has 9 vs 7, so 2.5 times the ratio.  So whilst it is less "valid", what it does show is Nadal is painfully one dimensional compared to the other two, especially Fed. 

[Phil M]

More bitchy in here at times than the tedious Messi v Ronaldo stuff.

[Crosby Nick]

Man's just out here disrespecting Jo-Wilfried like that 

Not as much as Gerry calling every player from 2003-2006 as washed up or a bum.

[Red-Soldier]

More bitchy in here at times than the tedious Messi v Ronaldo stuff.

You should see the dedicated tennis forums!   

[Crosby Nick]

The thing is - other than the French Open, both Fed and Djoko have a much more even spread of wins - Fed has 8 Wimbledons, 6 Aussis and 5 US Opens; Djoko has 7 Aussis, 5 Wimbledons, and 3 US Opens.  Whereas Nadal has 12 French's, but 1/2/3 at Aus/Wimb/US - only half as many combined; whereas if you do that for the others compared to their best total, Fed as 12 compared to 8 Wimbledons (so triple the ratio of Nadal), and Djoko has 9 vs 7, so 2.5 times the ratio.  So whilst it is less "valid", what it does show is Nadal is painfully one dimensional compared to the other two, especially Fed. 

“Painfully one dimensional” is a bit of a ridiculous comment for a player who has won all 4 Grand Slams including beating a peak Federer on grass.

I do broadly agree that the other two have won more of a spread and  maybe that counts for something. Bottom line is all three are incredible, even  Djokovic who I do routinely abuse, even though some is tongue in cheek.

You can make a see for all 3 being the greatest. I do still go for Federer partly for his style of play but as Phil says it is getting a bit like the Messi/Ronaldo/Origi debate.

[Gerry Attrick]

You can make a see for all 3 being the greatest. I do still go for Federer partly for his style of play but as Phil says it is getting a bit like the Messi/Ronaldo/Origi debate.

 

[S]

20 grand slams. But bottlers always will be bottlers.

It goes without saying that "bottling it" is a horrendous term.

However, I do believe the occasion of that last game got to Federer. No player - no matter how great - is totally immune to pressure. It doesn't matter if Federer has 20 grand slams, he's only human. The reality of being so close to beating a player who for a long time now has had the better of him would have been on his mind in that game.

[Alan_X]

Back in my day and all that. The players who played in those games and in that era are saying that what they see today is awesome. Different but awesome.
Just like equipment changes in every sport or improvements in conditioning or playing surfaces. In thirty years time, todays game will look positively old fashioned...as it should.
The sheer conditioning needed to compete at the highest level today is unheard off and it leads to some of the most epic sporting events you could ever see in any sport.
So what they loose in volleying, they have gained in dramatic creativity from the baseline.

I understand about the creative baseline play but personally it leaves me a bit cold.

[Peabee]

But he beat Federer in the semi-final. When Federer was facing bums in finals it was because every player on tour was a bum or finished, Djokovic has had gimmes when the best players have been beaten earlier in the tournament, by him or somebody else rather than them not being there!

Yeah, it’s no coincidence that Federer’s worst period for GS wins occurred when Djokovic started to peak. Along with the injuries he suffered.

However, articles like this jumped the gun. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/05/03/roger-federer-will-never-win-another-grand-slam---heres-why/

Djokovic has won his 16 during a really tough era and managed to hold all 4 slams. The state of the men’s game below these guys makes it look likely he could overtake 20, and Federer will be gutted he didn’t put a gap of 6 between them yesterday... Djokovic has won 4 of the last 5 slams.

Amazing that Federer has so many GS titles given that period between 2011 and 2016 when he won only one (and won none for 4 seasons?). I think he’s continued to try and get as many GS titles as possible before retiring. Hence why he was more deflated than we’ve probably seen after a loss.

I just love the fact we’ve witnessed an era with all these guys battling against each other (54 GS titles between the big 3) along with Murray and Wawrinka (60 GS if you add these two, which equates to 15 years of GS titles between just those 5.

[Peabee]

“Painfully one dimensional” is a bit of a ridiculous comment for a player who has won all 4 Grand Slams including beating a peak Federer on grass.

I do broadly agree that the other two have won more of a spread and  maybe that counts for something. Bottom line is all three are incredible, even  Djokovic who I do routinely abuse, even though some is tongue in cheek.

You can make a see for all 3 being the greatest. I do still go for Federer partly for his style of play but as Phil says it is getting a bit like the Messi/Ronaldo/Origi debate.

It’s also amazing that Nadal has won at Wimbledon with his game, his always long clay-court season and the quick transition to a short grass-court season. Apparently, his joints are always in a state after the clay season.

I also think it’s fucking great that there’s been a tennis player so dominant on one surface.

French Open: W (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019)

That record is just ridiculous. Haha.

[penga]

Not really.  He won his first in 2011, when Federer was 29.

- Federer at 29-37 was still far better than any player he faced before Nadal in the modern era. Even when Nadal came along it was only 1 huge rival. Pretty much evidenced by the fact that technology, training techniques, physicality/fitness has all increased in tennis yet 37 year old Federer is still head and shoulders above anyone not named Nadal or Djokovic. Don't buy they suggestion that Federer was past him prime by 29 just because he didn't win many grand slams for a lengthy period, he simply faced a better opponent(s) in that time. Like now Djokovic is 32 which is a fair bit older than 29 and still apparently in his prime because he has won the last 4/5 slams. Yet 37 y.o. Federer was still able to outplay him for most of the match...
- Nadal was still in his prime from 2011 onwards besides the injury riddled periods -  basically cancels everyone else's chance to win RG every year as well lol. Only 1 year older than Djoker but started his peak earlier. Djokovic has even beaten him once at RG which Federer has still not managed.
- Even a prime Murray I daresay would beat Sampras and Agassi.
- The modern day top end player has very few weaknesses and comparatively players' perceived/possible weaknesses at the net are nothing near the weaknesses players in the past would have in other areas (e.g. shit backhand, poor from the baseline, lack of power, lack of mobility, weak serve, poor at net). In the past you could win slams with significant or more technical deficiencies in your game. Even a player like Tsonga who has never won a slam is more complete than most of the players in the past IMO (but perhaps lacking in mentality also).

So to win his entire 16 slams in this era with 3 huge rivals or at least against 2 legends is probably the hardest to do. If Djokovic didn't exist Federer, Nadal and Murray would've split at least 14 out of Djokovic's 16 grandslams IMO e.g. Federer 24, Nadal 23, Murray 7.

[clinical]

Federer's biggest mistake wasn't moving to a larger head racket sooner than he did. There's too much of a coincidence.

[elsewhere]

Djokovic certainly cements his place in Top 3 and hurts me to say it but I think he has a good shot getting much closer to Federer bar injuries. The new generation just doesn't have any names you can look and say this can beat likes of Federer/Djoko/Nadal. Only ones close were Murray' Wawrinka, Del Potro and now the gap got bigger due to their injuries/retirement. Looking at Top 20 and not seeing anyone who can beat any of this 3 in a grand slam. So expecting Djokovic-Federer-Nadal to win more this year and next year which should shape up the G.O.A.T argument.

[Nick110581]

Djokovic could well end with most Slams.

Federer should have won Sunday. Amazed he didn’t.