The Tennis Thread

[Mr 95%]

This narrative is formed on the basis of bias. It’s always used when there is no argument after the fact.

some people just can’t handle their idols getting overtaken. You mention the girls of the 90s , if it wasn’t for a madman German sick fuck stabbing Seles she would have overtaken graff with ease. I wonder how many would stick the knife into Djokovic.

It ain’t no narrative based on bias..it’s neither an argument. It’s an opinion based on observation. That during these eras there were a number of players that were very close in their ability, hence why the Grand Slams were shared. It doesn’t suggest these players were any better than Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer, just merely there were players closer to each other’s game.

 

[Rodzilla]

Most slams yes.. One of the great all time tennis players. But I don't consider him the GOAT. The last 6 or 7 years has been the worst for men's tennis in my lifetime. There has been next to no serious competition for Novak to stop him from racking up so many slams. Whereas past decades were much more competitive across the board. If you put Sampras or Agassi etc in this era with no competition they'd rack up as many Grand Slam wins. Just my opinion though..

7 years ago nadal was 30 and in his prime, djokovic was doing this even longer than that and beating prime federer

no serious competition is more evidence of greatness and if you put sampras or agassi in this era they would win zero grand slams against djokovic

 

[Rodzilla]

It ain’t no narrative based on bias..it’s neither an argument. It’s an opinion based on observation. That during these eras there were a number of players that were very close in their ability, hence why the Grand Slams were shared. It doesn’t suggest these players were any better than Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer, just merely there were players closer to each other’s game.

if one of those players previously was twice as good then he would win all the slams and people would make the argument that he wasn't as good because he had no competition

 

[Mr 95%]

if one of those players previously was twice as good then he would win all the slams and people would make the argument that he wasn't as good because he had no competition

I only comparing the closeness of competition in those days..does not detract from the quality of the players these day..if you are good it’s not your fault who you are up against.. That’s why it’s hard to compare eras.. different coaching, different technology, different diets.. who knows how players would’ve performed in different eras, it’s all speculation.

 

[B-Train]

7 years ago nadal was 30 and in his prime, djokovic was doing this even longer than that and beating prime federer

no serious competition is more evidence of greatness and if you put sampras or agassi in this era they would win zero grand slams against djokovic

They'd both beat each other several times. To say one would dominate the other is madness.

 

[Rodzilla]

I only comparing the closeness of competition in those days..does not detract from the quality of the players these day..if you are good it’s not your fault who you are up against.. That’s why it’s hard to compare eras.. different coaching, different technology, different diets.. who knows how players would’ve performed in different eras, it’s all speculation.

i mean if sampras was twice the player he actually was and dominated to win 35 slams and nobody else won then people could come up with an argument that he is not as good as players from the 70's-80's who had to play against other grand slam champions

if djokovic was not as good and didn't dominate it doesn't mean he was better than now because he had competition

 

[Shreksno1]

Scary thing is Djokovic has 5 more years in him. Let’s see what the doubters say when he has 30 slams.

 

[Rodzilla]

They'd both beat each other several times. To say one would dominate the other is madness.

djokovic passed sampras in grand slam wins when nadal was 33, he got 10 grand slam wins when federer was 34 and nadal 29, he had to compete against better opposition than sampras and still won twice the amount of slams

djokovic is now 36, he should not be dominating world tennis at this age and its extra GOAT credit to him for doing so

 

[Rodzilla]

also sampras never even got to a french open final, novak won it at 36 dropping 2 sets

sampras embarrassing french open run where you actually have to play creative tennis, 1R, SF, 3R, 2R, 2R, 1R, 2R, 1R

do you want me to bring you a list of names who beat him there? you can't be GOAT with all these holes in the resume

 

[Mr 95%]

i mean if sampras was twice the player he actually was and dominated to win 35 slams and nobody else won then people could come up with an argument that he is not as good as players from the 70's-80's who had to play against other grand slam champions

if djokovic was not as good and didn't dominate it doesn't mean he was better than now because he had competition

Again you play who you are up again..all speculative.. And I mean Djokovic did have quality competition, Nadal, Federer, Murray.. I’m not diminishing his quality at all.. I’m just saying in these other eras player’s games where closer, hence slams shared..

 

[Rodzilla]

Again you play who you are up again..all speculative.. And I mean Djokovic did have quality competition, Nadal, Federer, Murray.. I’m not diminishing his quality at all.. I’m just saying in these other eras player’s games where closer, hence slams shared..

if one player in the past was better then it wouldn't be shared

 

[B-Train]

also sampras never even got to a french open final, novak won it at 36 dropping 2 sets

sampras embarrassing french open run where you actually have to play creative tennis, 1R, SF, 3R, 2R, 2R, 1R, 2R, 1R

do you want me to bring you a list of names who beat him there? you can't be GOAT with all these holes in the resume

I didn't say Sampras was the GOAT. I'm saying if he played now and played til he was 36, he'd have way more slams even factoring in how shit he was at the French Open.

No one can watch tennis the last three or four years and say there's a lot of depth and tonnes of worthy challengers to Djokovic or any top player from any era. The quality and depth has been rubbish for years.

 

[Mr 95%]

if one player in the past was better then it wouldn't be shared

But there wasn’t, that why Slams were shared..their games were closer together. Djokovic once he fixed his diet became so much better than anyone else..

 

[B-Train]

Scary thing is Djokovic has 5 more years in him. Let’s see what the doubters say when he has 30 slams.

If he keeps playing against chumps that can't produce in the semis and finals of Slams then there will always be the same argument.

Surely you agree the standard is rubbish right now?

Djokovic is brilliant and is just an alien with his fitness and how well he can stay in rallies which wears opponents down but everyone else aside from Alcaraz is really not worth talking about as none of them can consistently threaten him or play at a high level to take the next step and win several slams themselves.

 

[Rodzilla]

If he keeps playing against chumps that can't produce in the semis and finals of Slams then there will always be the same argument.

Surely you agree the standard is rubbish right now?

Djokovic is brilliant and is just an alien with his fitness and how well he can stay in rallies which wears opponents down but everyone else aside from Alcaraz is really not worth talking about as none of them can consistently threaten him or play at a high level to take the next step and win several slams themselves.

give djokovic a time machine so he can dominate the 90's then you would say the 90's standard was rubbish

 

[Rodzilla]

i read another bullshit opinion piece on djokovic claiming that his agility and rubber man movement gives him an advantage over other players and so doesn't make him goat, asking if someone was 10ft tall and hit an ace every serve, helping him win 30 grand slams would it make them the best tennis player ever, claiming it wouldn't

agility and movement counts, fitness counts, and yes the 10ft man would be the greatest tennis player of all time because power and serving counts

 

[Shreksno1]

If he keeps playing against chumps that can't produce in the semis and finals of Slams then there will always be the same argument.

Surely you agree the standard is rubbish right now?

Djokovic is brilliant and is just an alien with his fitness and how well he can stay in rallies which wears opponents down but everyone else aside from Alcaraz is really not worth talking about as none of them can consistently threaten him or play at a high level to take the next step and win several slams themselves.

So if Federer was around now you would take this same narrative ?
Come on bro what kind of argument is that ? If that’s the case you can minus 10 of Federer slams if chump opponents don’t count as a win. Sounds more like excuses

alcaraz is most certainly a threat, he needs fitness and mental toughness which will come in time he’s only

 

[Shreksno1]

i read another bullshit opinion piece on djokovic claiming that his agility and rubber man movement gives him an advantage over other players and so doesn't make him goat, asking if someone was 10ft tall and hit an ace every serve, helping him win 30 grand slams would it make them the best tennis player ever, claiming it wouldn't

agility and movement counts, fitness counts, and yes the 10ft man would be the greatest tennis player of all time because power and serving counts

Absolutely ridiculous. When hypotheticals are brought in to debate it’s game over. Game set and match

nadals left bicep is bigger than His right, gives him an unfair advantage as he carry’s less weight, Andy roddocks has webbed feet gives him an edge in stability, only mike Tyson’s physique was perfect for peek a boo technique that’s why he dominated, Ronnie Coleman’s, arnies, Dorian’s genetics are the reason why they won so many Olympias

They hate him even more after his Muhammad Ali moment, he chose his moral principles and stood his ground during the great vaccine fiasco over chasing grand slams and stilllll eclipsed Federer. A true champion and hero, that’s a goat.

 

[B-Train]

So if Federer was around now you would take this same narrative ?
Come on bro what kind of argument is that ? If that’s the case you can minus 10 of Federer slams if chump opponents don’t count as a win. Sounds more like excuses

alcaraz is most certainly a threat, he needs fitness and mental toughness which will come in time he’s only

Yeah I'd say the same about any player from any era that was dominating now. The last 4-5 years especially has been the worst depth in tennis and lack of quality players in a long time.

 

[Interestingg]

I was a staunch Nadal fan in the Nadal-Federer rivalry and up till this year said he was the GOAT. But there comes a time when the stats and wins are just too hard to ignore. Barring a miraculous comeback from injury, it’s becoming impossible to argue against Novak’s GOAT status. That stuff about surfaces I read in this thread is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever seen