Play in a simulated football league - find great movies and TV shows - play Werewolf - play video games (try our Minecraft server) - argue about politics - listen to music - keep up with science news - play board games - just gasbag - discuss true crime - and so much more.
Federer made the semi finals of Wimbledon in July 2016 and won the aus open in 2017. Less than 6 months out of the game. He would have resumed training late 2016.Did Fed get a free 9-12 months off to get his body right at 32?
So with 9-12 months rest he'll deteriorate from being number 1 and winning slams to no chance.Federer made the semi finals of Wimbledon in July 2016 and won the aus open in 2017. Less than 6 months out of the game. He would have resumed training late 2016.
With every chance that 2021 will be the resumption of the Tour and Djokovic turning 34 next year, it is going to be very difficult for him to surpass Federer.
I had djokovic winning wimbledon this year and possibly the US, with next year being his shot at the slam record. Was certainly hoping this would be the case at least. I can't see it happening with 2020 scrapped.
Of course it does.Makes no difference, you can’t be is the GOAT conversation if you didn’t win 2 of the 4 majors.
Where did I say he has no chance at winning a slam after 2020? Please refer to the post.So with 9-12 months rest he'll deteriorate from being number 1 and winning slams to no chance.
Borg played the US Open 9 times and never won it. No claim at being the GOAT if you haven't won 2 of the 4 slams.Of course it does.
I don't think he's the GOAT but you can't point to a tournament he played once and claim him not winning it is a problem.
He clearly never won it because he almost never played it. Not because he didn't have the talent.
Where did I say you said he couldn't win a slam? Please refer to the post.Where did I say he has no chance at winning a slam after 2020? Please refer to the post.
He has to win 4 to pass Federer. I've said he won't do it if 2020 is lost.
If you're gonna troll make it at least half intelligent.Borg played the US Open 9 times and never won it. No claim at being the GOAT if you haven't won 2 of the 4 slams.
The poster made a valid point, how could borg be referred to as a goat if he hasn't won the aus and us open. Ok, he only played 1 aus open. However he played 9 US opens and never won it. The poster makes a very valid point, you dismiss them.If you're gonna troll make it at least half intelligent.
I never said Bjorg was the GOAT or should be in the conversation. But pointing to a tournament he never won due to not playing it isn't a good reason. As I explained. Before you tried to troll.The poster made a valid point, how could borg be referred to as a goat if he hasn't won the aus and us open. Ok, he only played 1 aus open. However he played 9 US opens and never won it. The poster makes a very valid point, you dismiss them.
Djokovic is disadvantaged to get to 21 slams due to the 2020 season most likely being canned. That's quite obvious. He was looking like the best player in the world in January. How will that look in 2021, when he'll be turning 34 and still requiring 4 slams to pass Federer? My point yesterday was that djokovic won't pass Federer if 2020 is cancelled.
Why do you think that he still will be able to do it?
Sometimes I think the crowd against him motivates Djokovic during a match. Not to say he wouldn't win otherwise. I think of this year's final against Thiem and back to the Wimbledon final against Federer last year. They were hard matches to watch as a Djokovic fan, with the crowd so strongly against him.Possibly. He won't get as rattled as he looked during the final this year I guess.
Well I suppose firstly it's about how good and dominant players were taking into account the top players in their era.How is Borg in the discussion? Never won an Aussie or US open.
Having watched and played tennis since 1963, this is how I see the ranking situation:-Well I suppose firstly it's about how good and dominant players were taking into account the top players in their era.
When Borg played the top players didn't bother with the Australian Open so that's not really a point. It wasn't considered anywhere near the same status as the other 3 back then.
In an 8 year period he won 6 French and 5 Wimbledon, who else has come close to that? and then retired at 26.
It is interesting that he never won the US Open but would it help your point if he snagged a couple of those and 1 less each of the others?
Back then courts were very different so he won on grass and clay and strangely the one in the middle, the hard courts, he couldn't win.
Who knows why.
But he was a deadset champ and in the conversation for greatest ever with only a couple of others more.
I wouldn't argue if people put Sampras and Federer in the conversation, I just think logically you can knock them out. But I guess it's not a logical thing, so I wouldn't argue but whatever...Borg is in there. He was something else.
He really was.
Just watch him play;it's something else.
For the most part he beat McEnroe and Connors.
Connors was a champ and a hardarse.
But McEnroe at is best was genius himself. His year in '84 was epic, and Djokovic had a similar at some point, both only lost 3 matches all year. McEnroe was 2 sets up at #French which wasn't his go but lost his nerve against Lendl who was a champ himself, still won Wimbledon and US; but the point is that Borg dominated an absolute alltime great. Well 2 of them.
Federer didn't do that. He didn't dominate his direct contemporaries. He won most of his slams before Nadal and Djokovic were on the scene. Samparas dominated his contemporaries but I would say didn't have the allround game of Federer.
Trying to guage the best ever is to judge them at their best, accross all courts and how they dealt with the their main rivals.
Laver possibly didn't haven't the strength of opposition but he beat them all more often than they beat him and won on an array of surfaces. Surely that's the bar?
Personally at their absolute best across all surfaces and relative to their rivals I had have Djokovic as the best , I'm not a fan, I like Nadal but he's who I'd choose but if someone said bollocks Laver is peerless I couldn't argue. But then Borg had something indefinable.
I'm not sure that's strictly true. Federer had a top-shelf power game in his own right. For example, who has the biggest serve of those three?Federer's game, when at his peerless best, was sublime. He often had his opponents applauding his strokes. His all-court, all-round game was so good to watch.
He lacks the brute power of Nadal and Djokovic
Ok, I agree. Fed lacks nothing. His DH BH is a thing of beauty, and against the brutal incessant power of that duo, it can go astray. But I love that he has done it all his careerI'm not sure that's strictly true. Federer had a top-shelf power game in his own right. For example, who has the biggest serve of those three?