US Open - 2017

[JackNah_8]

Didn't follow the mixed but she won the womens before the Nadal game.

She also won the mixed with J Murray

 

[LukeParkerno1]

She also won the mixed with J Murray

I was getting back from Melbourne when that match was on I think.

Glad she won.

 

[Collingwoodity]

You can't complain about people demeaning a slam win in the same post you just demeaned about 4 years worth of achievements.

See, I didn't, I was using it as an example of how easy it is to twist facts to suit an argument, just like you have now for cheap Federer likes. You didn't happen to be in the crowd cheering Del Potro's double faults in the 1/8 final?

Federer still needed to beat Bagdahtis, Roddick & Phillipoussis in GS finals but are they actually any better than Anderson, Dolgopolov or Gublev? Not really, the difference is marginal.

Good for Federer, by the same token good for Nadal.

 

[JamisonRun40]

Thank goodness the USO is over, my least favourite GS. Wished Keys had won instead of Sloane who I find just as arrogant as Serena. She even poses the same. The commentator who mentioned about Sloane and Maddison sitting together obviously didn't watch the final between Sam and Serena when they did it first. Sloane wasn't particularly graceful after she beat Serena (I think it was her) in her semi final in the AO a few years back. I gave her some slack as she was still quite young. Back then I called her a Sloane Ranger as she kept going on about her grandmother.

 

[JamisonRun40]

Why would you let a win destroy a friendship? if this was the case the tour would be a very lonely place as Sharpie would tell you.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

See, I didn't, I was using it as an example of how easy it is to twist facts to suit an argument, just like you have now for cheap Federer likes. You didn't happen to be in the crowd cheering Del Potro's double faults in the 1/8 final?

Federer still needed to beat Bagdahtis, Roddick & Phillipoussis in GS finals but are they actually any better than Anderson, Dolgopolov or Gublev? Not really, the difference is marginal.

Good for Federer, by the same token good for Nadal.

The reality is right now it is a transition era in the mens. It means that until these up and comers get more mature/fit then you will see so called soft runs to Slams. In this era you will still see Federer and Nadal be good enough to jag a few Slams over the next 2 years or so. Then hopefully you see the new players up the top and contending.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think the point is that as long as someone with a lot of slams like roger, Rafa, fed or murray, has proven repeatedly that they can win against the best, then it doesn't really matter if they win a handful of 'soft' ones. In reality if you win 15-20, there WILL by the law of averages be a few against relative no hopers. That's unavoidable. As long as you show you can win when it's tough, they all count.

Race back on.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think the point is that as long as someone with a lot of slams like roger, Rafa, fed or murray, has proven repeatedly that they can win against the best, then it doesn't really matter if they win a handful of 'soft' ones. In reality if you win 15-20, there WILL by the law of averages be a few against relative no hopers. That's unavoidable. As long as you show you can win when it's tough, they all count.

Race back on.

Exactly, and by the same token there will be hard ones. It usually evens itself out. Disappointing Rafa didn't win the AO but 2 Slams each is pretty fair.

 

[PhatBoy]

Exactly, and by the same token there will be hard ones. It usually evens itself out. Disappointing Rafa didn't win the AO but 2 Slams each is pretty fair.

This.

I tend to think along similar lines when assessing his balance of clay to non clay majors. He's won 6 - that's as many as Becker or edberg, two legitimate greats, won anywhere. It proves that he didn't just 'snag' one or two, so it makes any argument about reliance on clay fairly moot.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

This.

I tend to think along similar lines when assessing his balance of clay to non clay majors. He's won 6 - that's as many as Becker or edberg, two legitimate greats, won anywhere. It proves that he didn't just 'snag' one or two, so it makes any argument about reliance on clay fairly moot.

If he wins one more AO he becomes the only person since Laver (I think) to have won each Slam more than once.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Congratulations to Rafa! Great to see him back at the top where he belongs.

 

[JackNah_8]

Thank goodness the USO is over, my least favourite GS. Wished Keys had won instead of Sloane who I find just as arrogant as Serena. She even poses the same. The commentator who mentioned about Sloane and Maddison sitting together obviously didn't watch the final between Sam and Serena when they did it first. Sloane wasn't particularly graceful after she beat Serena (I think it was her) in her semi final in the AO a few years back. I gave her some slack as she was still quite young. Back then I called her a Sloane Ranger as she kept going on about her grandmother.

Yea I remember Sloane wasn't that graceful after she beat Serena at the Australian open. It was a dramatic match, Serena struggling with ankle and back injury that day..

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yea I remember Sloane wasn't that graceful after she beat Serena at the Australian open. It was a dramatic match, Serena struggling with ankle and back injury that day..

I didn't mind Serena losing.

That is all.

 

[BobbyMorri]

See, I didn't, I was using it as an example of how easy it is to twist facts to suit an argument, just like you have now for cheap Federer likes. You didn't happen to be in the crowd cheering Del Potro's double faults in the 1/8 final?

Federer still needed to beat Bagdahtis, Roddick & Phillipoussis in GS finals but are they actually any better than Anderson, Dolgopolov or Gublev? Not really, the difference is marginal.

Good for Federer, by the same token good for Nadal.

You kidding right.....Rublev is a kid so let's ignore him. The kid is talented and will have a good career but he is a kid.

The fact that you are comparing Dolgopolov and Anderson with Bag and Poo is poor enough. Poo made 2 slam finals and was as dangerous as they come on his day. Baghdatis was on a special roll during that Aus Open. Both have a career high of 8, both have 20 odd top 10 wins.

Andersons CH is 10, 12 Top 10 wins. He is only one year younger than Baggy as well. Dolgopolov!!!!!!!! He has 3 career titles to his name, career HIGH of 13.

And you compare Dolgopolov to Roddick!!!!!!!!!.........A lot of people don't rate Roddick but he would still kick Anderson's arse, let alone Dolgopolov. Roddick won 32 career titles, including a grand slam. That is way more than the other 4 combined.

Don't bag "Fed fans" when you come up with stupid statements like the one above.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Not a huge fan of Stephens either, I saw a bit of her presser and she belittled one of the journos. Yes it was a dumb question but she could have handled it better.

 

[Wolfs]

And you compare Dolgopolov to Roddick!!!!!!!!!.........A lot of people don't rate Roddick but he would still kick Anderson's arse, let alone Dolgopolov. Roddick won 32 career titles, including a grand slam. That is way more than the other 4 combined.
.

Also don't forget that Roddick won a Davis Cup and was a World Number 1.

 

[vast]

See, I didn't, I was using it as an example of how easy it is to twist facts to suit an argument, just like you have now for cheap Federer likes. You didn't happen to be in the crowd cheering Del Potro's double faults in the 1/8 final?

Federer still needed to beat Bagdahtis, Roddick & Phillipoussis in GS finals but are they actually any better than Anderson, Dolgopolov or Gublev? Not really, the difference is marginal.

Good for Federer, by the same token good for Nadal.

Well your original post wasnt really looking like an example and more like a dig at Fed fans given the last line and then you throw in another dig about cheap Fed likes as though you arent doing the same to the anti-fed crusaders on this board. People have their favs but dont let the pot call the kettle black.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Not a huge fan of Stephens either, I saw a bit of her presser and she belittled one of the journos. Yes it was a dumb question but she could have handled it better.

True but reporters could actually stop asking silly questions though. Players would get frustrated if the same questions are being asked over and over again.

 

[X_box_X]

Fed v Rafa. Who has had a better year?

Fed with a 41-5 win/loss record, which includes the Australian Open and Wimbledon crowns, and a QF appearance at the US Open. He did not play at the French Open. Fed's Wimbledon success was so impressive that he failed to drop a single set throughout the tournament.

Rafa with a 60-10 win/loss record, which includes the French Open and US Open crowns, runner up at the Australian Open and fourth round at Wimbledon. Rafa's French Open success was so impressive that he failed to drop a single set throughout the tournament.

Both have won two Slams this year, but Rafa has a runner-up in one of the remaining two he didn't win.

Fed may get the honours because of a higher winning percentage and a 3-0 head to head record against Rafa.

 

[Pedantic]

Fed v Rafa. Who has had a better year?

Fed with a 41-5 win/loss record, which includes the Australian Open and Wimbledon crowns, and a QF appearance at the US Open. He did not play at the French Open. Fed's Wimbledon success was so impressive that he failed to drop a single set throughout the tournament.

Rafa with a 60-10 win/loss record, which includes the French Open and US Open crowns, runner up at the Australian Open and fourth round at Wimbledon. Rafa's French Open success was so impressive that he failed to drop a single set throughout the tournament.

Both have won two Slams this year, but Rafa has a runner-up in one of the remaining two he didn't win.

Fed may get the honours because of a higher winning percentage and a 3-0 head to head record against Rafa.

I think you have to say Rafa. Sure he played more but the most important thing is that he won more. The margin is fairly narrow though, it could change if for example Federer defeated Nadal on his way to another tour finals victory.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Fed v Rafa. Who has had a better year?

If Federer wins the Tour Finals, it's a legitimate discussion. As it stands, Nadal.

Although we were told for years by Nadal fans that H2H is the important thing in tennis, so I guess they'd disagree and say Federer?

 

[X_box_X]

Hingis has had an incredible career. She won her 29th and 30th career Grand Slams, doing the double in the doubles.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

I don't understand the need to compare players all the time, is this a blokey thing? I couldn't care less who is the GOAT or the best out of Roger and Rafa and so on. I have my favourites for various reasons but don't feel the need to make comparisons all the time.

Anyway, carry on...

 

[X_box_X]

I don't understand the need to compare players all the time, is this a blokey thing? I couldn't care less who is the GOAT or the best out of Roger and Rafa and so on. I have my favourites for various reasons but don't feel the need to make comparisons all the time.

Anyway, carry on...

Why don't you enjoy considering or analysing who is better, and has been better, between two of the greatest players in the sport?

Unfortunatley you're going to be in the minority here. In pretty much every sport, there are always going to be fans comparing players and analysing who they believe is better. That's why we have world records, that's why there is so much emphasis on total Grand Slams won. It allows fans who don't know each other to come together and generate discussion. It allows rivalries to be born and grow.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Why don't you enjoy considering or analysing who is better, and has been better, between two of the greatest players in the sport?

Unfortunatley you're going to be in the minority here. In pretty much every sport, there are always going to be fans comparing players and analysing who they believe is better. That's why we have world records, that's why there is so much emphasis on total Grand Slams won. It allows fans who don't know each other to come together and generate discussion. It allows rivalries to be born and grow.

I know, that's why I said 'carry on'. I just can't be bothered with that kind of analysis because everyone has their own views and it's just an endless argument. I don't enjoy my sport in that way. Yep, I realise after being on Bigfooty for a few years I am in a minority!