Search results for query: *

Stan I think is one of the most underrated. Never lost in a final, freakish ability. Murray was just cannon fodder

That’s kind of my point, Sampras and Agassi were at the end of their careers, and Hewitt wouldn’t make it in the top 20 these days with his game. Federer took the game to an entirely different level when he began to perform…Novak and Rafa took it even further though.

I think the appropriate way to measure difficulty of winning a slam is the caliber of player they come up against. How many of them have one a slam or two…I’d say probably not too many early days for Fed.

Fed was way off the mark, won most of his slams against players that weren’t anywhere close to the level. Fed had the most aesthetically pleasing game, and was the first complete player that I can recall. It’s been about Rafa and Novak for me and well before they both moved beyond his record. I...

I feel like I’m in the twilight zone, this is literally one of the most non sensical things I’ve ever heard. I feel dumber for having participated.

It’s harder to kick a drop punt, so are you saying that AFL players should revert to an inferior technique just because it’s less effective? There are pros and cons with both single and double handed backhands. It has nothing to do with the weight of the racquet. It’s like saying being a lefty...

No I’m saying it’s harder to generate racquet head speed with a two hander. The degree of freedom to swing with a one hander is greater. double handers are better when playing heavy balls and for control. Either way it’s ludicrous to be arguing the merits of GOAT based on ones shot selection...

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not. It’s easier to generate power with a one hander, second hand is for accuracy and control.

He’s irrelevant and narcissistic. Tennis is a mental game above everything else, he doesn’t have the mental fortitude to succeed so he makes excuses. For every Novak or Jordan there are another 1000 or more with greater abilities that don’t make it because they don’t have the mental strength to...

I don’t think it’s fair to rank Bord so highly based on the fact that he couldn’t handle the pressure…ultimately retiring as a result at 25. The pressure on Novak is inconceivably higher, and crest should be given to him for withstanding and also winning. Nadal for me is second.

Fair argument. A couple of points of contention though. You assume Messi is the GoAT. I dont think you can measure an individuals standing in team sports based on titles.For sure it is a measure, but other things come into play…particularly measuring across eras. For me it’s Jordan by a...

Novak is goat even without winning tomorrow. As the OP said, Federer won many slams in a transition period between eras. He was however the first to be perfect. 1.Novak 2. Rafa 3. Fed

This is true. Wimbledon slowed down massively

I think it’s a foregone conclusion, even at this point Novak is the GOAT. 19 slams with all the other records he has is enough imo. Was Nadal up until this point.

Fair enough, I get the argument...it’s valid. I would contend though, that clay is the most ubiquitous of surfaces and the most played on around the world. It is as such more contested. I think also you need to look at the opponents. Nadal and Djokovic played in a tougher era, they had each...

Of course anything is possible, Novak is the most unpredictable of the big 3...but in a way has also been the most consistent. I think people are largely disrespectful of Stan he has an outstanding record in the big games. And very much took it to Novak and won the game. Novak didn’t lose it...

If you split it like that then it’s in thirds. Fed grass and Djokovic hard courts. Federer has had similar one sided dominance on grass.

That’s what I’m asking, how is Federer ahead of Nadal. They are equal in slams but Nadal has him covered in the head to head race? How can you be better than somebody that beats you more often than not.

The French open is a Grand Slam, entirely different context pressure and tennis. You have to be able to play 5 sets to beat Novak. Stefanos can’t do that.

How, look at the head to head Nadal v Fed. It’s embarrassing

They are one year apart in age. I think still Rafa but if he wins Sunday things change.

Why have your own thoughts when you can regurgitate tabloid trash. Fairly simplistic argument, allow me to dissect it for you. Where did I say superseded? Grand slams are clearly a key indicator, I take a balanced scorecard approach tennis is a complex game. In my view, and objectively speaking...

So for me it has to be between Nadal and Djokovic, and purely because of the head to head...Federer has been smashed by both. Grand slams are one measure but not the ultimate measure in my opinion, you also have to look at who they beat to win the finals. Fed had it pretty easy going early days...