The Official Tennis Thread

who will win french open

  • nadal

    Votes: 71 38.8%

  • joker

    Votes: 59 32.2%

  • roger

    Votes: 26 14.2%

  • other

    Votes: 27 14.8%
  • Total voters
    183
mr x

mr x

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
15,576
Reputation
2,870
Daps
24,662
wrong thread here's anna instead

ana.gif
 
Y

Yapdatfool

Superstar
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
8,400
Reputation
1,134
Daps
22,111
Reppin
NULL
Off topic, I hope scotland becomes independent just to see Murray shyt all over england for the rest of his career.

That being said, Murray's being aggressive so far, if he keeps it up...
 
Regular_P

Regular_P

Just end the season.
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
80,509
Reputation
10,157
Daps
215,760
VMR said:
Eh, id have to respectfully disagree. I think there are more bigger servers in the game now and more people just sitting on the baseline and rallying for hours on end. There was Goran, Phillipoussis(spelling?), Rusedski and Sampras as the top fastest servers essentially. Rusedski got popped for roid and was a bum and Poussis had a run or two but never put it together. Now you got all types of guys bombing 135+, most of whom cant do shyt else on the court. Groth just came out of the woodwork bombing 140 something and almost pushed Fed to a 4th set (up 4-2 and serving in the 3rd) and he literally had nothing else. Then theres Cilic (goran coaching), Karlovic, Isner, Janowicz etc

IMO, there were more unique play styles and better overall quality of matches in the 90's. Much more depth too. Now there's the few top guys and its a rarity that anyone else wins a slam. Wawrinka was one of the few aberrations in the nadal/djokovic/federer monopoly (murray doesnt belong in that tier but w/e, him too). Murray pretty much went on that run due to Lendl being his coach and making him not be soft...now he's without Lendl and he's soft again. Michael Chang has been coaching Kei and look at his improvement. Even Edberg is coaching Fed now and Fed is being lauded as elevating his game back up. The late 80's into the mid-late 90's was the golden era.

The 90's had a shyt ton of talent. Edberg, Courier, Agassi, Sampras, Lendl, Becker, Muster, Kafelnikov, Rafter..then you even had guys like Rios and Moya get up to #1. Then you had guys like Goran, Malivai, Chang, Todd Martin, Stich, Corretja, Krajicek, Bjorkman etc who always were a threat and most of which either have a slam win or a finals appearance. Not to mention the doubles quality of play was much better too (Woodies/Bhupati and Paes etc).

Now its a few guys in the rotation for every grand slam singles title and the Bryan Brothers winning pretty much every doubles grand slam.
Click to expand...
To me, that doesn't mean there's a lack of depth. I think that just speaks to how dominant these guys are. If you dropped two of them in the 90s with Sampras, it'd be the same thing we're seeing now.

Put Ferrer, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Del Potro, Berdych, Gasquet, even Monfils and I'm positive they would have some/more majors under their belts.

I don't even mind the same guys winning every major. We're always getting the best possible matchups. Like Bird and Magic playing in every Finals in the 80s.
 
N

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,328
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,989
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
Regular_P said:
To me, that doesn't mean there's a lack of depth. I think that just speaks to how dominant these guys are. If you dropped two of them in the 90s with Sampras, it'd be the same thing we're seeing now.

Put Ferrer, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Del Potro, Berdych, Gasquet, even Monfils and I'm positive they would have some/more majors under their belts.

I don't even mind the same guys winning every major. We're always getting the best possible matchups. Like Bird and Magic playing in every Finals in the 80s.
Click to expand...

I see your argument but may have to just agree to disagree. These guys now look better due to better strings/racquets/training, they arent more skilled. A lot of it is due to the tennis academy explosion which essentially makes every player be taught the same way (specifically in the US). I told Bolletieri to F off personally (or the youth equivalent). Its not like seeing Bird and Magic every year...it's like seeing Shaq/Kobe and the Spurs vs the garbage East teams in that era (Nets, 76ers etc)

Back to Goran for an example...in Wimby 92 he beat Lendl, Edberg and Sampras all in a row, then lost to Agassi in 5 sets in the finals. There is nothing close to that depth now whatsoever. Not only is it impossible for someone to have that tough of a road, but it is impossible for someone to advance that far in the draw. Youre telling me Del Potro/Tsonga/Ferrer etc are beating Lendl and Edberg and Sampras in a row? They'd probably be underdogs to each of them. Goran was ranked 125th and a wildcard entry when he finally won Wimbledon. Similarly, you got a guy like Guga, who had a short career but still won 3 French Opens (and won one at 66th in 97 and beat 3 champions en route). There are about 10-11 HOF'ers inducted that played a good portion of their career in the 90's (with a few more to be inducted and many of which played each other often). These guys all had a GS win or two and/or many finals/semis appearances over many years. You just don't have that depth now at all. Djokovic/Federer/Nadal are all HOF's if they retired today. Murray has a chance but needs to remain relevant...everyone else has no shot unless they win 1/2 slams, and chances are they wont until Fed and/or Nadal retires. This, in turn, devalues said future slams one because they couldn't do it against the best of the best (unless it's a guy who is really young now who is not in his prime). If Wawrinka or Murray, for example, win a few more slams but don't do so until Fed/Nadal are gone..the wins are weak to me. Murray and Stan are in their primes now, and so area vast majority of the other guys you named and none of them are really seen as legit threats. DelPo may be the exception since hes been injured so much but thats about it. Ferrer will never win a slam in this era and you put him in the 90's and he barely cracks the top 25, if that, and purely based on clay court season (in which he'd probably get wiped by moya/corretja/muster/agassi etc)
 
Last edited:
Regular_P

Regular_P

Just end the season.
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
80,509
Reputation
10,157
Daps
215,760
VMR said:
I see your argument but may have to just agree to disagree. These guys now look better due to better strings/racquets/training, they arent more skilled. A lot of it is due to the tennis academy explosion which essentially makes every player be taught the same way (specifically in the US). I told Bolletieri to F off personally (or the youth equivalent). Its not like seeing Bird and Magic every year...it's like seeing Shaq/Kobe and the Spurs vs the garbage East teams in that era (Nets, 76ers etc)

Back to Goran for an example...in Wimby 92 he beat Lendl, Edberg and Sampras all in a row, then lost to Agassi in 5 sets in the finals. There is nothing close to that depth now whatsoever. Not only is it impossible for someone to have that tough of a road, but it is impossible for someone to advance that far in the draw. Youre telling me Del Potro/Tsonga/Ferrer etc are beating Lendl and Edberg and Sampras in a row? They'd probably be underdogs to each of them. Goran was ranked 125th and a wildcard entry when he finally won Wimbledon. Similarly, you got a guy like Guga, who had a short career but still won 3 French Opens (and won one at 66th in 97 and beat 3 champions en route). There are about 10-11 HOF'ers inducted that played a good portion of their career in the 90's (with a few more to be inducted and many of which played each other often). These guys all had a GS win or two and/or many finals/semis appearances over many years. You just don't have that depth now at all. Djokovic/Federer/Nadal are all HOF's if they retired today. Murray has a chance but needs to remain relevant...everyone else has no shot unless they win 1/2 slams, and chances are they wont until Fed and/or Nadal retires. This, in turn, devalues said future slams one because they couldn't do it against the best of the best (unless it's a guy who is really young now who is not in his prime). If Wawrinka or Murray, for example, win a few more slams but don't do so until Fed/Nadal are gone..the wins are weak to me. Murray and Stan are in their primes now, and so area vast majority of the other guys you named and none of them are really seen as legit threats. DelPo may be the exception since hes been injured so much but thats about it. Ferrer will never win a slam in this era and you put him in the 90's and he barely cracks the top 25, if that, and purely based on clay court season (in which he'd probably get wiped by moya/corretja/muster/agassi etc)
Click to expand...
In fairness, Ivanisevic was a bit of an all or nothing player and on the right day, he could beat anyone with that serve. Also, Lendl was clearly on the back end of his career (32 at the time). :manny:

Del Potro beat Ferrero (former #1), Nadal and Fed when he won the '09 US Open.

I'm of the opinion that the big 3 plus Murray have demoralized the rest of the tour to an extent and have a psychological edge over everyone they play. One could argue that means the rest of the guys are mentally weak, but I'd say they're just beat down from losing to those four for the better part of a decade.

The other matches are Lakers/Nets, but with most of the Finals involving the top 4, those are Lakers/Celtics.

We'll agree to disagree like you said though. :manny:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top