Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'College Football Soundoff' started by DeputyDodge, Jul 14, 2019.
I’ve only been home long enough to see this fifth set but these guys are putting on a show. 6-6
This is a classic.
Wow Federer just broke serve 8-7
Back to back breaks
Holy shit. 2 championship points saved
That may have broken Fed’s will
Djokovic is the master of saving match points.
I don’t know what to do with my hands
You could double fist me?
Please. I can’t only get so erect
Tiebreak to decide it all!
History being made.
Federer had 2 match points on his serve and couldn't convert. That's gonna haunt him.
That was grueling.
Djokovic just kept Fed on his backhand. Incredible set, glad I tuned in when I got home. I feel like I played, exhausting to watch
Yep. He is gonna be kicking himself for a long time for not converting the win.
Might be the second best Wimbledon Finals match ever. Ironically, Federer--the undisputed King of the All England Club--lost the best Wimbledon Finals match too.
Great match. Too bad the result, I was routing for Fed. I've always been a fan of him, among the Big 3.
You know Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic have dominated for so long, you wonder about who is next. Is there a next generation player to step up soon? I don’t see one. The women’s game has plenty of future stars. The men’s, there are still questions.
It’s a good question. Have the “next guys” just not been able to breakthrough because Rafa, Fed, and Joker just been that good? Or is it because there haven’t been any new guys who are capable of carrying the torch?
The Women’s game certainly does seem to have a steady pipeline of talent.
There are some young stars, but none of them can beat the Big 3 yet. Those three are just remarkable players. We'll probably never see this kind of dominance by 3 players for such a long time, ever again.
That was one of the most high caliber matches of tennis ever. Djokovic tanked in the second set but other than that, what an epic.
Federer played some of the most brilliant tennis ever... But Djokovic is some kind of machine, a freak of nature. He makes some of the most improbable shots and has insane athleticism. Federer is the most skilled shotmaker ever... When he's on point, he made ease of the Joker... But when it came to crunch time in the tiebreakers the Joker just had a extra gear.
The two best players ever going head to head in an epic 12-12 5th set... Legendary.
Rafa is better than Joker and arguably better than Federer too.
Fed is the best tactician of the three and one of the most precise shot makers of all time. But he lacks some of the killer instinct that Joker and Rafa have.
Joker probably has the best natural ability of the three and when he's on top of his game he's unbeatable. Unfortunately, he is the most inconsistent of the three and at times in his career has just been a head case who didn't seem willing to put in the work needed to win.
Rafa has a drive to win, a willingness to reach down and use every ounce of mental and physical energy that he has. Honestly, his will to win is one of the top 5 of any athlete in any sport ever. It's up there with MJ and Tiger. On top of that, his speed on the court is incredible, his ability to keep points alive and hit winners from positions on the court that most can't even hit a recovery shot from...it's just remarkable.
There's a reason Rafa has a 24-16 edge over Fed in head to head matches, including 10-4 in Grand Slams--one of which was on Fed's best surface in Fed's prime to win Wimbledon. Nadal also leads Joker h2h in Grand Slams matches, 9-6. So he's a combined 19-10 h2h in Grand Slam matches against Fed and Joker.
He's also the only player in history to win 3 Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces in a calendar year, and the only player in history to win at least 1 Grand Slam for 10 consecutive years. Oh, and one of just four people--men or women--to win the Career Golden Slam, with Agassi, Graf, and Serena being the other three.
Nadal is a clay court specialist... He's got the career gland slam as does Federer.
But without the clay court advantage, Federer actually has a winning record over Nadal.
"Of their 40 matches, 20 have been on hard court, 16 have been on clay, and 4 have been on grass. Federer has an edge on his best surface, grass (3–1), and on hard court (11–9) while Nadal dominates Federer on his best surface, clay (14–2)."
Federer has more Grand Slam titles than anyone and it's more spread out across all 4 majors than Nadal.
Tournament Federer Nadal
Australian Open 6 1
French Open 1 12
Wimbledon 8 2
US Open 5 3
Total Count 20 18
Federer also has the record for most weeks at #1.
I caught the end of the first set, and those guys were dropping them on the lines. They were hitting the ball all over
Lol. Fed got the career grand slam only because Nadal missed a French with injury. And Fed doesn’t have the Golden Slam.
I’ll admit that both Fed and Nadal have a case for greatest of all time. Fed has the most Grand Slam titles (by 2), but Nadal has the distinct H2H over Fed, and again, beat him on his best surface in his prime to win Wimbledon. But yeah, he’s just a “clay court specialist.”
You sound exactly like those SEC homers that say things like, “well if you take out the ACC’s two best teams, then what’s left?”
That’s such an illogical way to frame an argument. Why should we take out Nadal’s French Open titles? Do they count less than Fed’s Wimbledon titles?
Honestly, Fed is lucky that he got into the early part of his prime before Nadal and Joker came of age. Think if he was Joker and had to compete with two other all time greats for his entire prime?
And at any rate, my entire point was that today’s match wasn’t between the two best of all time. There is almost no argument that could put Joker over Rafa.
Nothing takes away from Nadal's success at the French. But he just hasn't matched Fed or Djokovic across all surfaces. If you know about tennis you know clay courters play a different style than hard courters and have a major advantage on clay courts.
Most of the season and playing around the world is on hard courts. Grass is rare and a short pro season.
I don't really like the clay court rally all day style... It's fun to slide on clay... But most of the ATP is on hard courts. That's where you gotta excel to be the best.
Djokovic is gonna pass Nadal for GS titles and has already been #1 longer. He might surpass Federer one day too.
And yeah it would have been harder for Federer to come up if he had to battle Nadal and Djokovic all his career... But it would have been harder to them to beat a younger faster Federer.
Federer at his best is the GOAT. I love his playing style too, so I'm biased... But 20 GS titles and 309 weeks at #1 are irrefutable. Roger is the GOAT.
You can argue Fed as GOAT (for now) all day long. Despite being owned by his contemporary rivals head to head, he obviously has a case.
There is no world in which you can argue that Joker is better than Nadal as of right now. None.
Stop acting like some SEC homer who only picks and chooses which games matter and which don’t. You keep rambling about Rafa being a one trick pony, when he’s the only man in history to win a GS on three different surfaces in the same calendar year.
You can look at Federer much like you look at Jack Nicklaus. Not only the all time leader in
Majors but throw in second places and he’s untouchable.
Anyway we’re certainly blessed to witness these three guys. I’m more of a Fed fan myself but Joker was relentless yesterday. I still can’t believe he overcome the championship points in the one game game yesterday. I thought that would be it, over and done almost immediately but Fed rallies agains and gets it to tie break. Wow, what a show.
You could also make an argument that Federer has been age-disadvantaged for much of that time. He's about to turn 38, while Nadal and Djokovic are 33 and 32. So for much of that time that they've been playing each other, he was past his prime, while the other two were still in theirs. He's only won 4 Grand Slams since he turned 30, in 2011. He won 16 before that.
Historically, the peak age for a tennis player was mid-20s.
Greatest Player at his Peak: Djokovic at his best is the best ever.
Greatest Player for Longevity: Federer (so far)
Greatest Player under Adversity: Nadal because he has won so many slams despite missing so many due to injuries. Plus he had to overtake Prime Federer for #1 and then immediately contend with Djokovic coming into his Prime. Nadal never had breathing room unlike the other two.
Agree. Well said.
what happened to Andy Murray?
What makes him really great is he seems like the kind of guy you can't help but like. He always comes across as grateful, win or lose. I've never once thought Federer was a lousy champ or sore loser. Makes it really hard to root against him. Fun fact of the day, jack Sock is like my 3rd cousin (i think).