[Han Solo]

Originally Posted by Mr. Oracle

This thread has gone down the drain in less than 15 hrs.

Haters and trolls out in full force. Djoker climbing the latter is causing people to go crazier than junk yard dogs (who let the dogs out?).

Imagine the pandemonium next January when Djoker has surpassed Borg and Lendl? They will try to lynch Nole-Nation out of envy.

In terms of majors, that won't be possible unless they've added at least two more to the tour this year, and no-one told us...

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Federer would have struggled in previous clay eras simply because the topspin clay court expert has always bothered him on the surface- Nadal causing him trouble wasn't the first time. Guga, Mantilla, even a past it Costa have ground him into the mud.

But that was pre-prime Fed. It took some time for him to reach his best level on clay. He reached his first RG final in 2006. That Federer wouldn't lose to a lot of players on clay even if it was his worst surface.

[Mr. Oracle]

Originally Posted by Han Solo

In terms of majors, that won't be possible unless they've added at least two more to the tour this year, and no-one told us...

You are partially correct. He can surpass Lendl in terms of slams but not Borg, but Borg for weeks at #1 but not Lendl. Funny thing is I was thinking of weeks at #1 and not slams. Rough weekend! thanks for keeping me honest ! Shouldn't be posting today.

[Sophocles]

Statistically, pretty much, or is well on the way. The Eighties were arguably the most competitive era of all time but neither Becker nor Edberg won all his slams in the Eighties and the reason the Eighties are defined as competitive in the 1st place is that lots of the players achieved a lot. Djoker has achieved more than Becker or Edberg & it doesn't really matter how many of his opponents have achieved anything comparable.

[Corey Feldman]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Federer would have struggled in previous clay eras simply because the topspin clay court expert has always bothered him on the surface- Nadal causing him trouble wasn't the first time. Guga, Mantilla, even a past it Costa have ground him into the mud.

Bruguera still the holder of Fed's biggest career beating (6-1 6-1 in Barcelona)

back when Fed had no BH

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

Bruguera still the holder of Fed's biggest career beating (6-1 6-1 in Barcelona)

back when Fed had no BH

you mean like today?

[Nole fan]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

Anyone who knows anything about tennis, and has been watching longer than the last decade, can see its true. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer - their dominant periods have all resulted in more big trophies than any other period in history. Why? Because surfaces, balls, etc. ensure that the best player at any particular time will win 90% of the trophies on offer.

In previous eras you would only be a contender on a limited number of surfaces, and upsets were far more likely. Therefore you would have to be a top player for longer in order to accumulate large numbers of Slams.

Because of the stranglehold that top players have, winning a single slam is now tougher than it has ever been. But winning a whole stack of slams is a whole lot easier.

Therefore slam counts have been, and will continue to be, degraded as a way to be able to compare players across generations. The longer this goes on (and the more apparent it becomes) the more people will realise.

There is one thing I don't understand about you nostalgiceratards... you only come here to whine and whine and whine endlessly about the state of the game, the horror of surface homogenization, the degradation of the sport, bla bla bla... but then do you follow tennis? If you dislike it so much, why waste your time on this forum? And waste our time? It's simple, if you don't like it don't watch it. There are many fans –the majority– who enjoy it just how it is. If you disapprove of the sport and don't take joy in it, go watch some snooker then.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Nole fan

There is one thing I don't understand about you nostalgiceratards... you only come here to whine and whine and whine endlessly about the state of the game, the horror of surface homogenization, the degradation of the sport, bla bla bla... but then do you follow tennis? If you dislike it so much, why waste your time on this forum? And waste our time? It's simple, if you don't like it don't watch it. There are many fans –the majority– who enjoy it just how it is. If you disapprove of the sport and don't take joy in it, go watch some snooker then.

come on Nina 90% of these losers never saw a tennis match before 2004......the only reason they are crying is that now courts are slow and Fed cant win shit on them except indoor grass or blue clay........not that it's his fault really dude got old too

[Corey Feldman]

Originally Posted by Nole fan

There is one thing I don't understand about you nostalgiceratards... you only come here to whine and whine and whine endlessly about the state of the game, the horror of surface homogenization, the degradation of the sport, bla bla bla... but then do you follow tennis? If you dislike it so much, why waste your time on this forum? And waste our time? It's simple, if you don't like it don't watch it. There are many fans –the majority– who enjoy it just how it is. If you disapprove of the sport and don't take joy in it, go watch some snooker then.

leave snooker alone some of us love that sport (and are good at it).

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by Nole fan

There is one thing I don't understand about you nostalgiceratards... you only come here to whine and whine and whine endlessly about the state of the game, the horror of surface homogenization, the degradation of the sport, bla bla bla... but then do you follow tennis? If you dislike it so much, why waste your time on this forum? And waste our time? It's simple, if you don't like it don't watch it. There are many fans –the majority– who enjoy it just how it is. If you disapprove of the sport and don't take joy in it, go watch some snooker then.

Where did you get the idea I don't like tennis? I love tennis. I just think it used to be even better back in the 80s and 90s.

The more logical question is why people like you think that in order to enjoy tennis, you have to think that it is better now than it ever has been.

Originally Posted by Saberq

come on Nina 90% of these losers never saw a tennis match before 2004......the only reason they are crying is that now courts are slow and Fed cant win shit on them except indoor grass or blue clay........not that it's his fault really dude got old too

Would make more sense if I didn't make the exact same arguments about Federer.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

Where did you get the idea I don't like tennis? I love tennis. I just think it used to be even better back in the 80s and 90s.

The more logical question is why people like you think that in order to enjoy tennis, you have to think that it is better now than it ever has been.


Would make more sense if I didn't make the exact same arguments about Federer.

it is sad that you are trying to downplay Roger's success

[Caesar1844]

I'm not downplaying anyone's success. They are all very good tennis players. Nadal is probably the clay GOAT. Federer is a legit contender for overall GOAT. Djokovic is a very good multi-slam champion.

I don't think it detracts from their ability to point out the obvious fact that their dominance is assisted by the nature of the modern tour.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

I'm not downplaying anyone's success. They are all very good tennis players. Nadal is probably the clay GOAT. Federer is a legit contender for overall GOAT. Djokovic is a very good multi-slam champion.

I don't think it detracts from their ability to point out the obvious fact that their dominance is assisted by the nature of the modern tour.

Nadal is not probably but he is clay GOAT......it's not a debate even..........Federer is the best ever and GOAT in a sense that he holds 90% of stats and records in tennis history plus is A game is better than anyone's ever.......and Novak is a great multi slam champion.......the fact that you dont have mugs winning Slams today proves this is a very good modern tour.....no Chang's here man

[Caesar1844]

Nadal is pretty debatable as clay GOAT. Borg had almost as many FOs until he got sick of being spanked by McEnroe on fast courts and quit, he would have ended up with quite a few more. I am prepared to give it to Nadal but it's not like its a closed discussion.

The nature of the tour has changed significantly, a lot of records aren't really comparable between eras. Djokovic getting the same slam counts as Becker and Edberg is meaningless because it was much harder to dominate in their day. Just because strings, balls, surfaces have made upsets much less likely doesn't mean that modern players are better than past players.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

Nadal is pretty debatable as clay GOAT. Borg had almost as many FOs until he got sick of being spanked by McEnroe on fast courts and quit, he would have ended up with quite a few more. I am prepared to give it to Nadal but it's not like its a closed discussion.

The nature of the tour has changed significantly, a lot of records aren't really comparable between eras. Djokovic getting the same slam counts as Becker and Edberg is meaningless because it was much harder to dominate in their day. Just because strings, balls, surfaces have made upsets much less likely doesn't mean that modern players are better than past players.

Modern players are also stronger,faster more prepared in essence a better version of past players.......this is tennis how it should be......Djokovic is better than Becker ever was...Nadal is better than Borg...Federer than Sampras......it's the way it works