Tennis

[MuggsyB]

The one thing Djokovic does that perhaps separates him from Fed or Nadal is he consistently finds a way to return blistering 1st serves.  And  often with great precision and depth.  It's unbelievable.  Part of it may be his flexibility but Berrettini is hitting massive serves (on grass) and it's like no problem at all for the Djoker.  Is the grass not as fast as it used to be?

[MU82]

As soon as the best tennis player in history broke Berrettini's first service game of the 2nd set, I told Mrs. 82 it was over.

[MuggsyB]

As soon as the best tennis player in history broke Berrettini's first service game of the 2nd set, I told Mrs. 82 it was over.

Berrettini actually played better in the 3rd and especially 4th set.  The guy is just too good.  It would be amazing if he wins the calendar gs whether people like the guy or not.  The potential of the CGS and the 21st GS title on the same day is pretty remarkable. 

[MU82]

Berrettini actually played better in the 3rd and especially 4th set.  The guy is just too good.  It would be amazing if he wins the calendar gs whether people like the guy or not.  The potential of the CGS and the 21st GS title on the same day is pretty remarkable.

I'll root for Rafa, because I always do. But if Novak is in the U.S. Open final against anybody else, I will be pulling for him to get the slam. It would be a great accomplishment, and one very much deserved.

As a tennis fan, it's been so wonderful to get to watch Novak, Rafa, Roger and Serena all playing in the same era.

[shoothoops]

Ane Mintegi Del Omo becomes the first Spanish player to win the Girls Junior Singles Wimbledon Title, winning over Germany’s Natasja Schunk.

Samir Banerjee defeats Victor Lilov in an All American Boys Junior Wimbledon Final.

Novak Djokovic one of the best Men’s players of his era, captures the Men’s Wimbledon Singles Title over Matteo Berrettini. Slow start in multiple sets for Matteo for different reasons. Djokovic also struggled 2nd serve earlier on. But both were very solid overall, not enough from Matteo on the backhand pass off of the cross court slice approach from ND. And, Djokovic got in to the net quite a bit and he was very solid 34/48 at the net to go along with the often strong service return. Berrettini has the game and grass track record to win it. He had won 22 of 24 on grass. One has to be willing to play longer rallies with Djokovic, with variety, and be aggressively strategic about short points. Djokovic as do many top players often times, play the big points better. Not an easy task. The Olympics and the North American swing upcoming.

Updated Women’s WTA 2021 Points Race:

Barty
Sabalenka
Krejcikova
Swiatek
Pliskova
Osaka
Muguruza
Pavlyuchenkova
Jabeur
Gauff

American Desirae Krawczyk, is into the mixed doubles finals with Neal Skupski.

[MuggsyB]

I'll root for Rafa, because I always do. But if Novak is in the U.S. Open final against anybody else, I will be pulling for him to get the slam. It would be a great accomplishment, and one very much deserved.

As a tennis fan, it's been so wonderful to get to watch Novak, Rafa, Roger and Serena all playing in the same era.

I think most prople would call Serena the GOAT.  Personally, I don't see the argument for Margret Court.  At the same time I think since Henin retired, and Venus has gotten older, she really didn't have anyone that challenged her until she got into her late 30's.  Henin always gave her a few probs, she was a terrific all-around player.

As for the Big 3, to think each of them have 20 in the same era is honestly ridiculous.  Because the vast majority of people would have all of them in the top 5 of all-time.

[shoothoops]

Ane Mintegi Del Omo becomes the first Spanish player to win the Girls Junior Singles Wimbledon Title, winning over Germany’s Natasja Schunk.

Samir Banerjee defeats Victor Lilov in an All American Boys Junior Wimbledon Final.

Novak Djokovic one of the best Men’s players of his era, captures the Men’s Wimbledon Singles Title over Matteo Berrettini. Slow start in multiple sets for Matteo for different reasons. Djokovic also struggled 2nd serve earlier on. But both were very solid overall, not enough from Matteo on the backhand pass off of the cross court slice approach from ND. And, Djokovic got in to the net quite a bit and he was very solid 34/48 at the net to go along with the often strong service return. Berrettini has the game and grass track record to win it. He had won 22 of 24 on grass. One has to be willing to play longer rallies with Djokovic, with variety, and be aggressively strategic about short points. Djokovic as do many top players often times, play the big points better. Not an easy task. The Olympics and the North American swing upcoming.

Updated Women’s WTA 2021 Points Race:

Barty
Sabalenka
Krejcikova
Swiatek
Pliskova
Osaka
Muguruza
Pavlyuchenkova
Jabeur
Gauff

American Desirae Krawczyk, is into the mixed doubles finals with Neal Skupski.

And, Desirae does it, back to back mixed doubles slams at French and Wimbledon this year, with two different partners. Nice job for the Arizona State alum from California.

[cheebs09]

It’s tough because I’m not sure any of their primes really lined up. Federer racked up a lot of majors before Rafa was really a threat on anything other than clay. Novak has racked up a lot as Rafa and Roger have slowed down. Rafa has been able to extend his career long enough to rack up a bunch of French Opens. Granted his non-French count gets him 1 behind Agassi.

I’m a big Rafa fan, but I can’t see how Novak isn’t thought of as the best. He’s far and away the best hard court guy in my opinion. You could argue he’s the best on grass. Clay you have to give Nadal, but Novak is probably 2.

Once Novak got his mental and fitness game up to a championship level, he’s been a machine.

[MU82]

It’s tough because I’m not sure any of their primes really lined up. Federer racked up a lot of majors before Rafa was really a threat on anything other than clay. Novak has racked up a lot as Rafa and Roger have slowed down. Rafa has been able to extend his career long enough to rack up a bunch of French Opens. Granted his non-French count gets him 1 behind Agassi.

I’m a big Rafa fan, but I can’t see how Novak isn’t thought of as the best. He’s far and away the best hard court guy in my opinion. You could argue he’s the best on grass. Clay you have to give Nadal, but Novak is probably 2.

Once Novak got his mental and fitness game up to a championship level, he’s been a machine.

Agree that Novak is the best all-around men's tennis player ever.

I understand what you're talking about re their primes, but I do think they lined up fairly well.

Novak won 3 of the 4 majors in 2011, so let's call that the start of his "prime." Between then and now, Rafa won 3 U.S. Opens, a bazillion French Opens and was runner-up in several Wimbledons and U.S. Opens. I'd say their "primes" intersected pretty well. Roger, yes, was arguably past his prime; yet he still won 2 Wimbledons, 2 Aussies, and was runner-up numerous times in other majors -- in other words, still better than anybody not named Novak or Rafa during that stretch.

I guess a lot of it would depend on how one defines "prime." Novak is 34 now and should be past his prime. P.S.: He isn't!

[MuggsyB]

It’s tough because I’m not sure any of their primes really lined up. Federer racked up a lot of majors before Rafa was really a threat on anything other than clay. Novak has racked up a lot as Rafa and Roger have slowed down. Rafa has been able to extend his career long enough to rack up a bunch of French Opens. Granted his non-French count gets him 1 behind Agassi.

I’m a big Rafa fan, but I can’t see how Novak isn’t thought of as the best. He’s far and away the best hard court guy in my opinion. You could argue he’s the best on grass. Clay you have to give Nadal, but Novak is probably 2.

Once Novak got his mental and fitness game up to a championship level, he’s been a machine.

Fair points Cheebs.  Although I would think most tennis historians would slot Borg #2 on clay and Sampras #2 on grass.  Djokovic is probably the best all-around player and if he finishes the job in NY I think he slams that door.

[cheebs09]

I agree 82, it is nitpicking primes a bit. It is incredible to have 3 guys be this good for this long. I always forget just how good Andy Murray was due to how long the Big 3 careers have lasted.

I agree Muggsy. My rankings were more of the 3. But yes, there’s probably better clay or grass players than these guys on a given day. Also tough with how surfaces have changed. I believe the Wimbledon grass is far different now than when Sampras played. When Nadal started being competitive on grass, it sounded like it slowed down.

[MU82]

I agree 82, it is nitpicking primes a bit. It is incredible to have 3 guys be this good for this long. I always forget just how good Andy Murray was due to how long the Big 3 careers have lasted.

Yep, for a little while there, the talk had gone from Big 3 to Big 4. A shame that he suffered such a severe injury; we'll never know how good he'd have been and how it would have affected the others, especially Novak and Rafa.

[shoothoops]

I agree 82, it is nitpicking primes a bit. It is incredible to have 3 guys be this good for this long. I always forget just how good Andy Murray was due to how long the Big 3 careers have lasted.

I agree Muggsy. My rankings were more of the 3. But yes, there’s probably better clay or grass players than these guys on a given day. Also tough with how surfaces have changed. I believe the Wimbledon grass is far different now than when Sampras played. When Nadal started being competitive on grass, it sounded like it slowed down.

Exactly. Comparing and contrasting players begins and ends with one’s own era. And for many that’s great and plenty good enough. As Pete Sampras said when asked what he would do in today’s game, he said, “I think I would have adjusted.”

Let’s take a look.

Novak Djokovic, great player, one of best in his era and therefore one of the best all time in tennis. But just as one could look a little closer at any other player, one can do that with him too.

More than half of his Grand Slams have come since Federer turned 34. He’s never missed an Australian Open in his career, not one time. That’s his favorite and the one he’s won the most.

Bjorn Borg played it once. Jimmy Connors played it twice, winning once, finals the other time. McEnroe played it five times.

Rod Laver won 5 of 6 straight slams, turned pro, and was therefore banned from playing slams the next 5 years, 20 straight slams missed. He also won 8 other times in Paris, London, New York, in events that were not considered as or counted as slams.

The examples are pretty endless. Draws and luck matter too.

Surfaces and technology have changed a lot. Today’s Wimbledon is a baseline tourney not a serve and volley tourney. It’s been that way for a while. The four surfaces ate much closer to being the same as opposed to being very different than each other in the past.

Some people get caught up in the moment. It’s more of a personality trait than a reality trait.

It’s like an NFL player up for the Hall of Fame. Perhaps that player broke records rushing or receiving. And years later as the game changes in many ways, perhaps their record(s) are broken more often by more players. But that doesn’t change what the original player in the discussion did at the time. “At the time” is the key phrase. Nothing can take away what happened during that particular time. And, each period in time can only work with the resources in that period.

With these three particular players, their skill sets and where and how they have achieved what they have achieved varies a bit. That doesn’t take away from any of the three. They have all been the best of their overlapping eras. Good for them Good for the sport.

There are reasons why Djokovic stops by Sampras’ house when he’s in L.A. Rhere are reasons why Sampras mentions Laver quite frequently and spends time with him in San Diego, and so on. The players and many others recognize and understand it more than some superficial observers.

[MuggsyB]

Exactly. Comparing and contrasting players begins and ends with one’s own era. And for many that’s great and plenty good enough. As Pete Sampras said when asked what he would do in today’s game, he said, “I think I would have adjusted.”

Let’s take a look.

Novak Djokovic, great player, one of best in his era and therefore one of the best all time in tennis. But just as one could look a little closer at any other player, one can do that with him too.

More than half of his Grand Slams have come since Federer turned 34. He’s never missed an Australian Open in his career, not one time. That’s his favorite and the one he’s won the most.

Bjorn Borg played it once. Jimmy Connors played it twice, winning once, finals the other time. McEnroe played it five times.

Rod Laver won 5 of 6 straight slams, turned pro, and was therefore banned from playing slams the next 5 years, 20 straight slams missed. He also won 8 other times in Paris, London, New York, in events that were not considered as or counted as slams.

The examples are pretty endless. Draws and luck matter too.

Surfaces and technology have changed a lot. Today’s Wimbledon is a baseline tourney not a serve and volley tourney. It’s been that way for a while. The four surfaces ate much closer to being the same as opposed to being very different than each other in the past.

Some people get caught up in the moment. It’s more of a personality trait than a reality trait.

It’s like an NFL player up for the Hall of Fame. Perhaps that player broke records rushing or receiving. And years later as the game changes in many ways, perhaps their record(s) are broken more often by more players. But that doesn’t change what the original player in the discussion did at the time. “At the time” is the key phrase. Nothing can take away what happened during that particular time. And, each period in time can only work with the resources in that period.

With these three particular players, their skill sets and where and how they have achieved what they have achieved varies a bit. That doesn’t take away from any of the three. They have all been the best of their overlapping eras. Good for them Good for the sport.

There are reasons why Djokovic stops by Sampras’ house when he’s in L.A. Rhere are reasons why Sampras mentions Laver quite frequently and spends time with him in San Diego, and so on. The players and many others recognize and understand it more than some superficial observers.

Where I would disagree is the idea that you can only compare players within the same era.  I think you can  look at each era and depth and greatness of the field of players.  Also, while it's true Djoker has dominated the AO and it's the least prestigious GS tournament, all the top players have gone to Melbourne unlike back in the day.   The surface and technology changes are important to fully analyze but the fact is this particular era has three 20 win GS winners.  The vast, vast, majority of legends like Laver and Sampras, as well as tennis historians, would certainly put all three of these players on their best of all-time list.  On the flipside when Emerson led in GS titles no one considered him a top 5 player ever.   The one person historically that imo is the hardest to judge vs modern players is Bill Tilden.

[shoothoops]

Where I would disagree is the idea that you can only compare players within the same era.  I think you can  look at each era and depth and greatness of the field of players.  Also, while it's true Djoker has dominated the AO and it's the least prestigious GS tournament, all the top players have gone to Melbourne unlike back in the day.   The surface and technology changes are important to fully analyze but the fact is this particular era has three 20 win GS winners.  The vast, vast, majority of legends like Laver and Sampras, as well as tennis historians, would certainly put all three of these players on their best of all-time list.  On the flipside when Emerson led in GS titles no one considered him a top 5 player ever.   The one person historically that imo is the hardest to judge vs modern players is Bill Tilden.

There are literally dozens of factors that are not the same in different eras.

Many past tennis greats compliment the more recent tennis greats and vice versa. That’s always going to be common. But look a little closer and people such as Sampras will say the quote I referenced. He’s very comfortable with his place in tennis history.

The Australian Open is by far the most popular Grand Slam Tourney among today’s players, not close. It’s called “The Happy Slam” for a reason. To say it is somehow less prestigious isn’t true at all. Not in modern few decade history. You may be confusing the Australian Open with The French Open. The running joke the past few decades when some players are asked to rank the four slams, some will put Indian Wells etc ahead of The French Open.

Before the mid and later 1980’s, many players did not play Australia for multiple reasons that include:

The Tourney was previously held at a different time of year. More recently, it has been held as the first slam of the year with ample rest and injury recovery time from the end of the previous long season. It’s now played in the popular Australian summer. It’s a thing to spend the month of January in different parts of Australia and New Zealand. Some of today’s too players also get paid $ to play in exhibitions while there.

Novak Djokovic has played in 17 straight Australian Opens. Roger Federer has played there 22 out of the past 23 years. Rafa Nadal has played there 16 out of the past 18 years.

Jimmy Connors played the Australian open 2 out of 24 years. Bjorn Borg played the Australian Open 1 time in the 10 years he played. John McEnroe played 5 out of 16 years. Chrissie Evert played it 6 out of 20 years. Martina Navratilova played it 10 out of 23 years. Steffi Graf played it 10 out of 17 years. Andre Agassi played it 9 out of 21 years.
Sampras played it 11 of 15 years. (He’s very close with Rod Laver) Ivan Lendl well known for his fitness and playing many events, missed it 5 times. Serena has played it 20 of 24 years.

So, here you have one of the four slams where many past players didn’t play, which of course means they had less opportunity to win slams over the years. And, this is just one example of many.

It isn’t just surface and technology. That’s just a few examples of many. But even those contain numerous examples within them.

In the past professional players couldn’t play in the slams. They wanted to make a living and played numerous pro events and exhibitions to pay the bills. Today players have it a lot easier with scheduling, rest, recovery, injury treatment, racket, shoe, clothes, analytics, travel, medicine, coaching, training, communication, on and on and on. It’s a different world. Some of the best players in the world stopped playing at age 25 (Borg) or 31 (Agassi, Sampras) etc…There was literally a top American Men’s player that advanced to the Round of 32 of Wimbledon this year just two weeks after torn meniscus surgery. There have been many missed slam opportunities have their been in the past compared to now based on yet another factor here. How many Women (and Men) stopped playing to start families and do other things? It’s just another example of something easier to do today and still play, than in the past. Endless examples.

Why would I compare players from different eras that played under entirely different circumstances? I wouldn’t. I’d just enjoy it all.

Trying to compare eras is silly season. It’s pretty wild that some of the people that revere Marquette’s basketball history, teams, and players, from the 1970’s, are also some of the same people that are dismissive of past players success in tennis or other sports. That suggests that objectivity never existed on the topic with those people in the first place. It’s more about liking what they like. And, that’s great, but, fandom and liking something isn’t the same as similar, fair and objective measures of success.

I’m aware of the personality trait of some people to have a desire for a definitive number or ranking or answer, always searching. To these people, there can only be one answer. That must be a challenging trait to have. For some others, they will have a favorite or favorites, and those inevitably become the best to them. Fandom of course is a bit different and easier. Reality and common sense suggest there are many all time great players, teams, of different eras to be equally revered and celebrated. There is something within those people that makes them feel better if they can say this or that is the best thing ever. It somehow brings those people some sort of definitive comfort and closure they seek. Good for them. It isn’t objective reality. But it’s all good.

Counting slams is a recent phenomenon for some. It’s a modern sports talk hot take for some. And, a reasonable discussion can be had about one era. But even in the current example, say Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, they have all had success in different ways that perhaps some of the others didn’t. So, it’s far easier to say all three are all time greats that were the best of their two overlapping eras.

A fair, and objective thing to do is to compare athletes that play at a similar time under similar circumstances. Give the players of yesteryear all of the same advantages as those of today and get back to me. Or, take away all of today’s advantages for players and have them play under past circumstances, and get back to me.

And of course, it isn’t tennis specific. It can be applied to any sport.

[shoothoops]

7 of the 9 U.S. Open series events will be using the Hawk-Eye-Live electronic line calling on all courts. (San Jose and Newport will not)

All 9 events can only be seen on Tennis Channel and Tennis Channel plus in the U.S.

Newport
San Jose
Atlanta
Washington
Toronto
Montreal
Cincinnati
Winston-Salem
Cleveland

[lawdog77]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the electronic line calling where it shows a recreation (for lack of a better word) of the ball placement. Maybe its my distrust of not being able to see the actual ball. I liken it to video poker. No way would I put my money in a video poker machine.

[shoothoops]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the electronic line calling where it shows a recreation (for lack of a better word) of the ball placement. Maybe its my distrust of not being able to see the actual ball. I liken it to video poker. No way would I put my money in a video poker machine.

Some electronic line calling systems have been tested a long time with great accuracy before being used. That’s why they are in use. The French Open doesn’t use any yet because repeated testing has reached a good enough standard to use it. Testing is rigorous.

[MU82]

So yes, glad we all agree with everybody not on Scoop that by the time he's through, Novak Djokovic will be recognized as the greatest tennis player ever.

[MuggsyB]

So yes, glad we all agree with everybody not on Scoop that by the time he's through, Novak Djokovic will be recognized as the great tennis player ever.

I look at the baseliners from the Sampras era and frankly the Big 3 would smoke these guys.  Agassi was great but nowhere close to these players.  Sampras imo had the best serve ever.  On fast grass or a hard court he had the game to perhaps overpower them on a particular day. However, the overall skills and court coverage of the Big 3 are on a completely different level.  The more that I think about it, and having watched some older matches recently, the more convinced I am that if you compare the B3 to the Sampras/Aggasi era it's not remotely close.

[MU82]

I look at the baseliners from the Sampras era and frankly the Big 3 would smoke these guys.  Agassi was great but nowhere close to these players.  Sampras imo had the best serve ever.  On fast grass or a hard court he had the game to perhaps overpower them on a particular day. However, the overall skills and court coverage of the Big 3 are on a completely different level.  The more that I think about it, and having watched some older matches recently, the more convinced I am that if you compare the B3 to the Sampras/Aggasi era it's not remotely close.

Truth.

[MuggsyB]

Truth.

Tilden is a really interesting conversation having read a bit about the guy.  He thoroughly dominated his era including seven US-Opens.  His win percentage is pretty sick as well.  You add the fact that he was known to "4-Ball".  What that means is he would hold four balls in one hand on his service games and the result was humiliating misery for his opponents.....a.k.a. ace, ace, ace, ace.   This fact alone should certainly add him to any conversation on the all-time best.  It's quite conceivable his personal life has hurt his historical opinion and greatness.

[shoothoops]

So yes, glad we all agree with everybody not on Scoop that by the time he's through, Novak Djokovic will be recognized as the greatest tennis player ever.

This is what gaslighters do when they are unable to discuss specific facts of a situation.

[MuggsyB]

This is what gaslighters do when they are unable to discuss specific facts of a situation.

Would you agree that Agassi was one of the best players of his era after Sampras?  I'm curious how you think he would have done against Nadal, Fed, or Djoker when they were all in their prime whether it be the 90's or today?   You seriously believe that he was near their level?

As far as "facts" this is a speculative conversation.

[shoothoops]

Would you agree that Agassi was one of the best players of his era after Sampras?  I'm curious how you think he would have done against Nadal, Fed, or Djoker when they were all in their prime whether it be the 90's or today?   You seriously believe that he was near their level?

As far as "facts" this is a speculative conversation.

The actual facts are players in past eras played under different circumstances as opposed to now. Those are facts.

What you aren’t doing is allowing past players to have all of those many advantages that players today have when doing your speculative comparisons. That isn’t apples to apples.

Andre Agassi?

He defeated Pete Sampras 14 times. For persecutive, only one other player did it half of that amount. He won the Australian Open almost 50% of the times he played it, and, he still missed the event 12 other times and, he retired at 31. Only 1 other player in his era won more titles than Agassi. When Agassi retired, only 2 players had won more Grand Slams. Only 3 had played in more Grand Slam Finals. Only 2 had played in more slam semifinals. Only 1 had played in more slam quarterfinals. Only 1 player had won more matches. Agassi had a hard court winning percentage of 84%. Only 2 players could match that. Only 2 players had won more Masters Titles.

I think it’s pretty easy to say Agassi would be an all time great in any era. Imagine if he had all of the advantages of today’s players on tour. Do we need to go over all of those again?