The Official Tennis Thread

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@Liu Kang

this debate seems to be of higher quality than most other "list debates" on the whole board. boxing rivals it as the ring posters are very good.

again, solid response. ill respond and try to pivot the convo towards comparing nadal to borg/johnny mac after i address your points.

just two parting jabs for kicks..you think rafa could play the amount of matches vilas did if he wanted to? a lot of his matches included scoring without tiebreakers in any set as well. i wouldnt use vilas' matches played against him, but rather for him since it was amazing. Also, I wonder how Nadal's technique and top spin would look with wooden racquets..and how much worse his volleying would be

 

[Liu Kang]

@Liu Kang

this debate seems to be of higher quality than most other "list debates" on the whole board. boxing rivals it as the ring posters are very good.

again, solid response. ill respond and try to pivot the convo towards comparing nadal to borg/johnny mac after i address your points.

just two parting jabs for kicks..you think rafa could play the amount of matches vilas did if he wanted to? a lot of his matches included scoring without tiebreakers in any set as well. i wouldnt use vilas' matches played against him, but rather for him since it was amazing. Also, I wonder how Nadal's technique and top spin would look with wooden racquets..and how much worse his volleying would be

Well I try to stay objective mostly. I like Nadal (above Federer) but I know his flaws and I'm not trying to be biased towards him (I got nothing to win lol). Ultimately, it's a matter of taste, I think we simply disagree on how we value greatness. I believe the era from 2006 to now is on a level we never witnessed before (and that's why ultimately Federer/Nadal and Djoko will end up for sure in the top 10 OAT and maybe all 3 in the top 5 ever). You, simply don't and that's ultimately where we differ. But it's a friendly convo so it's OK

And let me use that pull counter just for that one : Nadal couldn't play that much because the game is faster and harder today and also more professional. Times have changed and the Lendl/Connors/Vilas numbers of match are impossible in today's era. Even Federer whose game is the most efficient couldn't play that much. I think that during his record season where he lost 4 or 5 times, he played like 90 matches and that's the most he ever played. You saw that Money May signature punch right here ?

And honestly, Nadal volley (and smash) is very good. He simply don't use it often in his game but don't be fooled by that, he's good there too. His technique is underrated and people often think he's just a brute but he can play with finesse and really has a good hand imo.

 

[Regular_P]

personally i think rafa is done but federer cant be the best with that giant stain on his record

Breh, Fed's career accomplishments are unapproachable. He should be #1 on everybody's list. The fact that he's STILL in the hunt at basically every major is mind blowing.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Well I try to stay objective mostly. I like Nadal (above Federer) but I know his flaws and I'm not trying to be biased towards him (I got nothing to win lol). Ultimately, it's a matter of taste, I think we simply disagree on how we value greatness. I believe the era from 2006 to now is on a level we never witnessed before (and that's why ultimately Federer/Nadal and Djoko will end up for sure in the top 10 OAT and maybe all 3 in the top 5 ever). You, simply don't and that's ultimately where we differ. But it's a friendly convo so it's OK

And let me use that pull counter just for that one : Nadal couldn't play that much because the game is faster and harder today and also more professional. Times have changed and the Lendl/Connors/Vilas numbers of match are impossible in today's era. Even Federer whose game is the most efficient couldn't play that much. I think that during his record season where he lost 4 or 5 times, he played like 90 matches and that's the most he ever played. You saw that Money May signature punch right here ?

And honestly, Nadal volley (and smash) is very good. He simply don't use it often in his game but don't be fooled by that, he's good there too. His technique is underrated and people often think he's just a brute but he can play with finesse and really has a good hand imo.

FWIW, I always stanned Agassi as a kid but Im remaining objective as well.

As far as the eras..we agree on agreeing to disagree You could just as easily find 3 or more top 10 OATs in a few different eras I reckon

We could shoulder roll counter jab on this (Vilas etc) ad infinitum thats why Im going to pivot back to Borg/Johnny Mac > Nadal eventually. Particularly Jmac since Nadal is off my list and Mac is off yours. Prepare to defend against singles AND doubles all time greatness

Spoiler

nadal can hit good vollies? maybe on the practice court

 

[Ari Gold Bawse]

great debate brehs

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

great debate brehs

debate half-time appetizer




fukkery and old school personality + skills borg wanted to punch someone

at arthur ashe. everyone here wants to champion serena and rightfully so, but ashe was more of a trailblazer than her and his death was beyond tragic

 

[bdkane]

Comparing eras in tennis is next to impossible. Way too many variables. Homogenized surfaces, racket tech which makes serve and volleying next to impossible to sustain and more focus on training among other things. The women's game has way more depth now however

 

[Liu Kang]

Comparing eras in tennis is next to impossible. Way too many variables. Homogenized surfaces, racket tech which makes serve and volleying next to impossible to sustain and more focus on training among other things. The women's game has way more depth now however

There is also the pace of the game which is faster, the lesser importance of the volley, the bigger importance of the open stance because of the higher pace of rallies etc. Everything is relative indeed though that doesn't prevent us to have a good discussion about the game.

FWIW, I always stanned Agassi as a kid but Im remaining objective as well.

As far as the eras..we agree on agreeing to disagree You could just as easily find 3 or more top 10 OATs in a few different eras I reckon

Well, IMO, in 10 years, Fed, Nadal and Djokovic will be in my top 5 with Pete and Bjorn and Laver at 6.

We could shoulder roll counter jab on this (Vilas etc) ad infinitum thats why Im going to pivot back to Borg/Johnny Mac > Nadal eventually. Particularly Jmac since Nadal is off my list and Mac is off yours. Prepare to defend against singles AND doubles all time greatness

I could agree with Borg being at 3 honestly, I think him and Nadal could be tied at that place or even Nadal being a rank below him, at this point, it doesn't really matter like that. Regarding Borg, I didn't really factor him being banned from playing at the Aussie or sometimes at the French because of the two circuits thing so I'll gladly give you this point. But don't use over-representation of wins on a surface as an explanation to why because this I can't agree with

And doubles really ?

Spoiler

nadal can hit good vollies? maybe on the practice court

First result in youtube for "Nadal + volley".

​

I know it's a sample so it's not necessarily representative of all his volleys but we all know Nadal is a pure baseliner who only go to the net to end points in one volley. He doesn't have Fed's talent obviously when it comes to volleying but he's very good imo. It's an underrated part of his game because he simply doesn't use it often. You should watch some of his doubles in the Davis Cup, he really has a nice volley and good reflexes.

I agree with you on the other hand about personalities which were far more different back then. There are only a couple of crazy brehs like Paire or Monfils but they are not even the top of the basket unlike the Nastase, Connors and McEnroe...
But we also know umpires give warnings way more easily than they were doing before. McEnroe would have been disqualified so much times in our era, it wouldn't have been funny. That vid with Nastase and them would be impossible today with all the discussions about ball marks and all. The crowd back then found that amusing because they were somehow used to but now (above all in the French Open ), everytime a breh goes to check a mark, he's getting booed.

 

[malbaker86]

@Liu Kang


Nadal frustrates the hell outta me with his lack of volleying and approaching the net more. He's one of the best on tour at it and lord knows that would help him finish points quicker. Which he would drop shot more too.

 

[Liu Kang]

@Liu Kang


Nadal frustrates the hell outta me with his lack of volleying and approaching the net more. He's one of the best on tour at it and lord knows that would help him finish points quicker. Which he would drop shot more too.

Yeah he only goes to the net following a winner or a "failed-to-be" winner (in this case, he ends the point with an easy volley). I think he needs to drop Tony as a coach. Tony has a way of seeing tennis that isn't fitting Rafa anymore. It has been great for decades but they both should realize it's not anymore. His knee problems should have pushed them to end points faster but Rafa's still in baselining mode If you watched his loss against Dustin, it was ridiculous how the breh was playing on grass as if it was clay. Trying to moonball on Brown's BH as if it would annoy him. He should change his strategy and still have one based on his FH which has always been his strength but where it would be used as a mean to come to the net. Only way for him to still be a top 10 players in the next couple of years.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@Liu Kang

I see the Borg respect.

Still won't concede JMac. Ill write something up when I get off the tennis courts later today.

 

[Liu Kang]

@Liu Kang

I see the Borg respect.

Still won't concede JMac. Ill write something up when I get off the tennis courts later today.

Oh but I'm not obtuse, I'm opened to discussion don't worry. I mean I had Borg at 4 and Nadal at 3 so the respect was already there lol and switching them up is no big deal. The discussion made me revisit some history that I had forgotten and I didn't remember Borg's impossibility to do the Aussie and the French Vilas won. And realistically, this could change regarding Rafa's future results so I'm not sweating it. If Rafa does back to the right discussion, he'll secure that third IMO though the probability is low (regarding the direction)

For Mac, you'll have to try real hard to convince me

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Oh but I'm not obtuse, I'm opened to discussion don't worry. I mean I had Borg at 4 and Nadal at 3 so the respect was already there lol and switching them up is no big deal. The discussion made me revisit some history that I had forgotten and I didn't remember Borg's impossibility to do the Aussie and the French Vilas won. And realistically, this could change regarding Rafa's future results so I'm not sweating it. If Rafa does back to the right discussion, he'll secure that third IMO though the probability is low (regarding the direction)

For Mac, you'll have to try real hard to convince me

Whether I convince you or not isnt the primary purpose to me. In most cases, debates as such don't change the minds of the participants as much as flush out pertinent information and help educate onlookers on things they may not have previously known. This has been spirited and fruitful so I am pleased.

Don't think Im not gonna drop a dissertation on Jmac's greatness though

 

[yoyoyo1]

Rampras

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@Liu Kang

Here are some career statistics of Mac (lazily acquired, but analysis will be less lazy):

According to the ATP website, McEnroe had the edge in career matches on Jimmy Connors (20–14), Stefan Edberg (7–6), Mats Wilander (7–6), Michael Chang (4–1), Ilie Năstase (4–2), and Pat Cash (3–1). McEnroe was even with Björn Borg (7–7), Andre Agassi (2–2), and Michael Stich (1–1). He trailed against Pete Sampras (0–3), Goran Ivanišević (2–4), Boris Becker (2–8), Guillermo Vilas (5–6), Jim Courier (1–2), and Ivan Lendl (15–21). McEnroe won 12 of the last 14 matches with Connors, beginning with the 1983 Cincinnati tournament. Edberg won the last 5 matches with McEnroe, beginning with the 1989 tournament in Tokyo. McEnroe won 4 of the last 5 matches with Vilas, beginning with the 1981 tournament in Boca Raton, Florida. And Lendl won 11 of the last 12 matches with McEnroe, beginning with the 1985 US Open.

• He has an advantage over 6 top 50 all time mens players. Cash is borderline but a GS winner and reached #6. Chang is a GS winner and reached #2. Wilander won 7 singles GS titles, 1 doubles GS title and 3 Davis Cup championships and reached #1 overall (he's underrated). He won 12/14 last matches vs Connors (longevity vs peer rival), 8 GS singles titles. Edberg was #1 in singles and doubles with 6 GS singles titles and a runner up at the French. Also 4 time davis cup champion (with Wilander on his team for 3). Nastase has 2 GS singles titles, with 4 runner ups and also reached #1. In total, he has a W-L advantage over 6 players that have a total of 25 GS victories..with 4 of them being world #1's(with at-least 5 matches played)..and a good deal of them were very good on multiple surfaces. Sidenote: We should also not discount carpet/omni as a valid surface. It was used frequently in this time period and was by far the fastest surface. Ive played on each of these surfaces, including omni, and can attest to it being ridiculously fast and difficult. You can slide on it more than clay (often has sand on it) and its faster than grass/hard in most cases.
  
• He is even with Borg and the argument can be made that he essentially took the love of the game out of him. Him beating Borg in his prime at Wimbledon in 81 (yes this was Borg's last GS year but everyone acknowledges he retired in his prime and was 19-2 in GS's that year). McEnroe also beat him in the US Open final that year as well, accounting for his only 2 GS losses. John also beat him in '80 in the US Open Final but lost to Borg in the '80 Wimby final in arguably the best match of all time (16-18 4th set TB) and 6-8 in 5th set.
• 2-2 with Agassi, considering the age gap is impressive although a small sample size. They alternated wins and Agassi won the last match in '92 at Wimby in the Semis..when Agassi was 22 and Mac was 33. We already covered Vilas extensively (4 GS titles, 2 on hard court). Courier was a solid player and Lendl is an ATG (who Mac dominated early and Lendl dominated later, conversely to Mac vs Connors. Lendl is essentially the same age and 2-1 in GS finals vs Mac, beating him in 5 sets at the FO and splitting at the US Open. Mac was 3-1 vs Lendl on carpet in big year end tourneys. Lendl was fabulous on all surfaces, with 8 GS titles and 2 runner ups at the FO. Becker had his number but meh..he's also an ATG on all surfaces, 6 GS titles and a #1 rank. FWIW, he was 2-0 vs Ashe (3 GS, #1 rank), Stich is a GS winner and reached #2..Courier is 11 years his junior, reached #1 and has 4 GS titles 2 runner ups. Goran has 1 an reached #2 rank (lost to Agassi and Sampras (2x) in Wimby finals, all in closely contested matches.
  
• Other than his last finals appearance, all of his runner-ups went 5 sets. He lost to Lendl, Connors and Borg in his GS finals appearances. He beat Gerulaitis (1 GS champion), Borg 3x, Connors, Lendl, Chris Lewis (shrugs, Mac won easily 2-2-2) in his wins.

So, as you can see, his resume vs all time great players is impressive to say the least. Of the players 17 named, 11 of them reached #1, 3 reached #2, 1 reached #3, 1 reached #6 and Lewis reached top 20. That means 16/17 were top 10 and all top 20 quality players. Im sure I missed a couple too. By my count, these 17 named players accounted for 70 grand slam titles! His strength of schedule is nearly unmatched...and having this vast array of players winnings GS's and making it to #1, in my opinion, is representative of the idea that there was far more depth and overall quality of opponents than there has been during rafa's run.

Ill yield to you for now.