Fedalovic Wars

[atttomole]

A good loser is a good opponent to face. A sore loser is a dangerous opponent to face. I’ve gone through this same topic a lot with you and you keep coming back to it. I don’t know if you watched tennis in the eighties and nineties but I always recite the fact that every year that loudmouth Rusedski arrived at Wimbledon declaring that he was there to win.

Well he never got close to winning - but he was difficult to face. He was hard to shake off. He was like a lot of players back then who didn’t arrive just get their grinning photo taken while shaking hands after yet another predictable defeat. If players don’t have spite, they don’t have fight. I remember Phil Mickelson (I think) saying, back in the days Tiger was in full prowl, that everyone else was playing for second.

If that’s your attitude, you just might come second, but never first…

I think you are confusing me with someone else. We have not discussed this topic at all. I know old—school players like McEnroe think that hating an opponent gives a higher level of motivation to beat the opponent. Maybe, but I think it’s highly speculative. I think Agassi hated Sampras, but he remained his pigeon. Sampras won their most important encounters.

Sometimes players are diplomatic because they don’t want to put pressure on themselves, which I think was the case with Michelson. I remember Francesco Molinari said he relished the challenge of being paired with Woods. He played the first few holes well, but suffered a meltdown later in the round when Woods made a series of birdies. And he never recovered!!

 

[Kieran]

I think you are confusing me with someone else. We have not discussed this topic at all. I know old—school players like McEnroe think that hating an opponent gives a higher level of motivation to beat the opponent. Maybe, but I think it’s highly speculative. I think Agassi hated Sampras, but he remained his pigeon. Sampras won their most important encounters.

I don’t think it’s about hating your opponent. As you say, the data there is speculative. McEnroe and Connors were basically immature brats. Ignorant at times, when it might disturb their opponent. But neither of them hated Borg. And their matches were fiercely competitive.

The Big 3 don’t hate each other, yet they compete ferociously against each other. It’s about hating losing. It’s about ambition. Competitiveness. Leaving it all out there on court. I read somewhere that Tsitsipas is the 14th highest earner in tennis history. Like me, you’re shaking your head. This is part of the problem, but not all of it, because the highest earners are all great champs who were never in it for the money.

I doubt Tsitsipas is in it for the money either, but he has a very loose relationship with the warrior qualities needed to succeed. From what I’ve seen from following tennis, the 80’s and 90’s were the most competitive. The seventies had some great players but weaker fields. The 80’s and 90’s had fields that were largely divided depending on each players specialist surface, players felt they could take down the #1 on his worst surface, and also on his best, and generally the lower orders were more rowdy. They were like sharks in the water. Things were more volatile.

For a long time now they’ve been less ambitious while also much better off financially, and much less likely to cause upsets…

 

[shawnbm]

Look, not with standing what Agassi has to say, and tons of comparing Sampras to Federer, I personally believe the Pete Sampras, at his best was almost unbeatable, especially in a hard or a grass Court. About the only guy would put in the same category on the services would be Federer of course

 

[shawnbm]

Horrible typos there

 

[Andy22]

Unfortunately for Djokovic fans Nadal still the Goat because he's Greatest on single surface and played the best tennis in history.

 

[Moxie]

I think that the distinction that’s important here is between ‘what’s meaningful to tennis’ and ‘what’s meaningful to the players.’ They’re not necessarily the same thing. I get that players want that communal association with the Olympics and athletes of others sports. I remember in 2008 Rafa stayed in the Olympic village and loved being around the likes of Phelps and Bolt, hanging out with other great sports stars, and all in pursuit of the same gold medal.

I will also say, however, that an Olympic gold medal is still a big trophy. Not a Major, but I'd call it equivalent to a YEC. The stakes are high, and the structure is a bit unusual. And on top of that, the Olympics mixes it up with the surfaces.

I can understand the appeal of this, but I also think that players have let this get in the way of important tennis titles, which given the timing of the Olympics in the calendar, is always going to be unfortunate…

I'm not sure if players always do themselves in by playing the Olympics before the USO. I don't think Rafa lost to Pouille at the USO because he played the Rio Olympics. Pouille is a strange, dangerous and streaky player. Do you think Rafa lost that match (in 5) because he played in Rio? Did Murray lose in 5 to Nishikori because he'd won the Gold in Rio? Both would likely have played Roger's Cup and Cincinnati, anyway. That said, I do think that Novak did himself in, physically and emotionally, trying for the Golden Career Slam. But that's different. That's about being on a streak, and managing what you can do when you're trying to manage a CYGS. The Olympics only comes up every 4 years. Players make their own decisions about playing it. You may say they over-value it, but they make their own decisions. And I would say it's not as over-valued as you think it is. It IS still a big prize, even in tennis.

 

[Kieran]

I will also say, however, that an Olympic gold medal is still a big trophy. Not a Major, but I'd call it equivalent to a YEC. The stakes are high, and the structure is a bit unusual. And on top of that, the Olympics mixes it up with the surfaces.

That’s an arbitrary evaluation, but I don’t think to highly of the YEC either. See above.

I'm not sure if players always do themselves in by playing the Olympics before the USO.

I’m thinking 2008. Novak in 2021. I’m sure there’s others. Like I say, it depends on what value players put on it, for their own sake, but to let it get in the way of a chance at a slam is a highly risky venture..

 

[Kieran]

Look, not with standing what Agassi has to say, and tons of comparing Sampras to Federer, I personally believe the Pete Sampras, at his best was almost unbeatable, especially in a hard or a grass Court. About the only guy would put in the same category on the services would be Federer of course

Pete was a savage. I think he gets downgraded so readily nowadays because it was his record that they all raced past to reach 20. It’s as if his labours to reach such a puny total are proof that he was second rate…

 

[Fiero425]

Novak Djokovic's Surprise Serve Placement Yields Big Results | ATP Tour | Tennis

Novak Djokovic's high-risk, high-reward second-serve strategy has him leading this critical stats category in 2023.

www.atptour.com

Neat article by Craig O'Shannessy.

Hard to believe, but it appears the 10 points Alcaraz got for just being in the draw's 2nd Rd. in Paris is keeping him in the YE #1 race!

 

[Kieran]

Hard to believe, but it appears the 10 points Alcaraz got for just being in the draw's 2nd Rd. in Paris is keeping him in the YE #1 race!

The things you Djoker fans cry about. Maybe everything should be made ridiculously easy for him, is that it?

 

[Fiero425]

The things you Djoker fans cry about. Maybe everything should be made ridiculously easy for him, is that it?

You know better than that! I'm just amused and entertained by Djokovic taking over the Men's tour! It's hard to keep invoking Fedal by the masses, but b/c they aren't playing, according to you & others the tour must be WEAK AF since an old man is showing them all "how it's done!" To avoid jinxing it, I'm not going to prematurely add another YE #1 to his record! It was the same w/ Paris & #40! I gave Grigor a chance! Heaven knows Andrey played well enough to win in the SF, but blew it! I even guessed that DF would occur on MP! It was to expected from "King of the 250's!"

 

[Kieran]

You know better than that! I'm just amused and entertained by Djokovic taking over the Men's tour! It's hard to keep invoking Fedal by the masses, but b/c they aren't playing, according to you & others the tour must be WEAK AF since an old man is showing them all "how it's done!" To avoid jinxing it, I'm not going to prematurely add another YE #1 to his record! It was the same w/ Paris & #40! I gave Grigor a chance! Heaven knows Andrey played well enough to win in the SF, but blew it! I even guessed that DF would occur on MP! It was to expected from "King of the 250's!"

You’re amused and entertained by Novak taking over the tour - but you couldn’t be surprised. With his main rivals absent injured or retired, who else would take over the tour? Who? I’ve often said it that the goat talk is silly because largely these records are about opportunity, being able to grab so many in a clutch where nobody else was available to take them.

Djokolytes unwittingly agree with me, when they say Rafa only won Australia in 2022 because Novak was absent. Rafa fans say Novak won the FO this year because Rafa was missing. This is to acknowledge what I’m saying. And although it’s not so simple - Rafa may still have won Australia and Novak may still have won in Paris - who else would have won? In the absence of their main rival, they were the only options. And Novak is without Fedal now so he’s making cheap and easy hay.

It’s about opportunity. It’s not about him being better than Fedal…

 

[Fiero425]

You’re amused and entertained by Novak taking over the tour - but you couldn’t be surprised. With his main rivals absent injured or retired, who else would take over the tour? Who? I’ve often said it that the goat talk is silly because largely these records are about opportunity, being able to grab so many in a clutch where nobody else was available to take them.

Djokolytes unwittingly agree with me, when they say Rafa only won Australia in 2022 because Novak was absent. Rafa fans say Novak won the FO this year because Rafa was missing. This is to acknowledge what I’m saying. And although it’s not so simple - Rafa may still have won Australia and Novak may still have won in Paris - who else would have won? In the absence of their main rival, they were the only options. And Novak is without Fedal now so he’s making cheap and easy hay.

It’s about opportunity. It’s not about him being better than Fedal…

IDK what to tell you! It's a lot of BS IMO b/c stats, facts, & reason seem to get thrown out the window these days! It's all about "opportunity & absense of comp." now according to you! I'm lost! I thought players still had to perform! All I know is, 100 years down the line, no one will GAF about our opinions on the subject! It can only be about history and the record books eventually!

 

[Kieran]

IDK what to tell you! It's a lot of BS IMO b/c stats, facts, & reason seem to get thrown out the window these days! It's all about "opportunity & absense of comp." now according to you! I'm lost! I thought players still had to perform! All I know is, 100 years down the line, no one will GAF about our opinions on the subject! It can only be about history and the record books eventually!

If it was just simply about stats, then there’d be no arguments. In any sport. Myself and my brother had a great conversation yesterday about whose treble was greatest: Manchester United in 1999, or Manchester City in 2023. But how could this even be a question when the stats are even: they both won the same 3 trophies in the season. And yet, it’s a question because there are contexts behind even the most simple facts.

Question for you: which was Novaks greatest single victory in a grand slam? And why?

 

[Fiero425]

If it was just simply about stats, then there’d be no arguments. In any sport. Myself and my brother had a great conversation yesterday about whose treble was greatest: Manchester United in 1999, or Manchester City in 2023. But how could this even be a question when the stats are even: they both won the same 3 trophies in the season. And yet, it’s a question because there are contexts behind even the most simple facts.

Question for you: which was Novaks greatest single victory in a grand slam? And why?

Without a doubt, I have to go to 2021 French Open SF where Novak defeated the "clay GOAT," Nadal on his home turf! It solidified Nole's record w/ a much needed 2nd FO title while defeating Nadal to do it! That's something Fed was never able to do w/ more chances earlier against a young Nadal! It can't get any better than that even if you want to hark back to all 3 of Novak's Wimbledon finals over Roger! I'm Out!

 

[Moxie]

Without a doubt, I have to go to 2021 French Open SF where Novak defeated the "clay GOAT," Nadal on his home turf! It solidified Nole's record w/ a much needed 2nd FO title while defeating Nadal to do it! That's something Fed was never able to do w/ more chances earlier against a young Nadal! It can't get any better than that even if you want to hark back to all 3 of Novak's Wimbledon finals over Roger! I'm Out!

Such an interesting choice, since it wasn't even a final. Says rather more about Nadal than Novak.

 

[Kieran]

Without a doubt, I have to go to 2021 French Open SF where Novak defeated the "clay GOAT," Nadal on his home turf! It solidified Nole's record w/ a much needed 2nd FO title while defeating Nadal to do it! That's something Fed was never able to do w/ more chances earlier against a young Nadal! It can't get any better than that even if you want to hark back to all 3 of Novak's Wimbledon finals over Roger! I'm Out!

That was a biggie alright. And so you can see the difference between that French Open, and his winning the French Open this year. In other words, stats don’t tell the whole tale. That FO was as tough as it gets to win, but it was only a single slam title added to the stats.

Going back to 2020 Novak has gained 7 more slams on top of that one without facing any opposition. That’s what I mean by “opportunity.” Roger had opportunity like that too, when Rafa was young. It helped boost his total, as well…

 

[atttomole]

That was a biggie alright. And so you can see the difference between that French Open, and his winning the French Open this year. In other words, stats don’t tell the whole tale. That FO was as tough as it gets to win, but it was only a single slam title added to the stats.

Going back to 2020 Novak has gained 7 more slams on top of that one without facing any opposition. That’s what I mean by “opportunity.” Roger had opportunity like that too, when Rafa was young. It helped boost his total, as well…

They have all had ‘opportunities’. Including the Great Pete Sampras. He had to contend only with Agassi, who was a good ball striker but with an average serve. Agassi was almost a Schwartzman, which meant he couldn’t generate that much power on his serve.

 

[Kieran]

They have all had ‘opportunities’. Including the Great Pete Sampras. He had to contend only with Agassi, who was a good ball striker but with an average serve. Agassi was almost a Schwartzman, which meant he couldn’t generate that much power on his serve.

I don’t think you fully understood what I was talking about with ‘opportunity..’

 

[atttomole]

I don’t think you fully understood what I was talking about with ‘opportunity..’

I do actually!!