Let's talk about 2017...

[Puppet Master]

I'm not denying that it is a hard climb for Roger, but if anyone can do it he can. And again, let's go back to Carol's question about why some were putting him and Rafa in the same category. That's all I was saying, that they're roughly in the same category in terms of chances of success in 2017, if you weigh all factors: age, health, play style, recent record, etc. Carol--in her blind but also endearing fangirlism of Rafa--seems to think he's just a tweak or two away from a return to 2013 form, and she's been thinking that for the last two and a half years. She asked this question and didn't like the answer so got upset.

To be honest, though, I don't get not cheering for both. Are Roger fans so "butthurt" about Rafa that they can't wish him the best and hope to see him have one last surge to another Roland Garros title? Are Rafa fans so bitter that they can't cheer for a 35-year old great to have continued success? I mean, are we tennis fans first and foremost or are we really so petty?

I want the next gen to rise up and take hold of the tour, but that's clearly not going to happen within the next year or so. I'd much rather see a 2017 that isn't the season-long equivalent of an attrition war between Andy and Novak...it gets a lot more interesting if the King of Clay the Maestro are back. On the other hand, I can also admit that I hope Rafa's success is limited to clay, because as much as I'm a tennis fan first, a Roger fan second, I do like him having that Slam title lead . But I honestly would like to see Rafa do well on clay, even win RG one more time...but only one!

It's Roger's own fault that he played all those godawful slam finals against Novak, but how could we stay mad at him, we love him. I am rooting very hard for Nadal to win RG this year, because that would end all the "tied with Pete Sampras" talk, even though Nadal is objectively more talented and more accomplished. It would be historical.
And I don't know why, but I am on the same boat as Front is, regarding Roger. I think he will storm the tour in 2017.
It should be an exciting one.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I too would like Rafa to surpass Pete officially as well.

 

[El Dude]

It's Roger's own fault that he played all those godawful slam finals against Novak, but how could we stay mad at him, we love him. I am rooting very hard for Nadal to win RG this year, because that would end all the "tied with Pete Sampras" talk, even though Nadal is objectively more talented and more accomplished. It would be historical.
And I don't know why, but I am on the same boat as Front is, regarding Roger. I think he will storm the tour in 2017.
It should be an exciting one.

Maybe not the time and place for this, but this is a rather subjective statement on "objective" truth and I'm sure some would find it debatable. I personally give Pete a slight edge, but just by a hair. Rafa's main edge is his huge lead in Masters titles, but they played in a different context. Pete has those five year-end championships and two Grand Slam Cups, and of course the six year-end #1s. If Rafa surges and wins another Slam, I think you could better argue for him, but it would still be very close. Just my humble opinion, though.

But I do think you could go either way, I just think it is close enough that you can't really say what is "objectively" true.

 

[Puppet Master]

It's Roger's own fault that he played all those godawful slam finals against Novak, but how could we stay mad at him, we love him. I am rooting very hard for Nadal to win RG this year, because that would end all the "tied with Pete Sampras" talk, even though Nadal is objectively more talented and more accomplished. It would be historical.
And I don't know why, but I am on the same boat as Front is, regarding Roger. I think he will storm the tour in 2017.
It should be an exciting one.

Maybe not the time and place for this, but this is a rather subjective statement on "objective" truth and I'm sure some would find it debatable. I personally give Pete a slight edge, but just by a hair. Rafa's main edge is his huge lead in Masters titles, but they played in a different context. Pete has those five year-end championships and two Grand Slam Cups, and of course the six year-end #1s. If Rafa surges and wins another Slam, I think you could better argue for him, but it would still be very close. Just my humble opinion, though.

But I do think you could go either way, I just think it is close enough that you can't really say what is "objectively" true.

Did you forget or... ? Boy this is kind of awkward that I have to remind you, but:
Clay. Sampras and clay. Those two didn't work together too well. A man with such a hole in his resume, as in no clay slam (and only 1 clay masters to his name) can't be ahead of Rafa just because he was number #1 longer than Nadal was.
We will have these discussions in the future, but for me it's a no brainer.

 

[Front242]

Finally the voice of reason! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - -

Nah. She just detests Federer. Unfortunately for her and others, she's gonna be upset when he storms back. For a start he made the Wimbledon semis after surgery with a bad knee. Things can only and will only improve.

As I said before, that says more about the weak and pathetic play of the other tour players than about Roger! Time has passed; he ain't 26 or so! The old man is closing in on 36! Wake up and smell the latte! :nono :angel: :cover :ras:

You want me to wake up and smell the latte when you keep proclaiming Novak's greatness? He's playing the same useless c***s that Roger is lol. Time has not passed btw. He made the Wimbledon semis with a bad knee so, no, time has definitely not passed. Without the knee injury he was in another slam final at age 35.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's Roger's own fault that he played all those godawful slam finals against Novak, but how could we stay mad at him, we love him. I am rooting very hard for Nadal to win RG this year, because that would end all the "tied with Pete Sampras" talk, even though Nadal is objectively more talented and more accomplished. It would be historical.
And I don't know why, but I am on the same boat as Front is, regarding Roger. I think he will storm the tour in 2017.
It should be an exciting one.

Maybe not the time and place for this, but this is a rather subjective statement on "objective" truth and I'm sure some would find it debatable. I personally give Pete a slight edge, but just by a hair. Rafa's main edge is his huge lead in Masters titles, but they played in a different context. Pete has those five year-end championships and two Grand Slam Cups, and of course the six year-end #1s. If Rafa surges and wins another Slam, I think you could better argue for him, but it would still be very close. Just my humble opinion, though.

But I do think you could go either way, I just think it is close enough that you can't really say what is "objectively" true.

Did you forget or... ? Boy this is kind of awkward that I have to remind you, but:
Clay. Sampras and clay. Those two didn't work together too well. A man with such a hole in his resume, as in no clay slam (and only 1 clay masters to his name) can't be ahead of Rafa just because he was number #1 longer than Nadal was.
We will have these discussions in the future, but for me it's a no brainer.

The Problem is Rafa has a big hole in the resume due to not capturing WTF even once. One could easily argue that the clay hole of Pete is nullified by the WTF hole of Rafa.

 

[El Dude]

I know Pete had a big problem on clay. He also played in a context where courts were far more diverse. I'm guessing Rafa would have struggled more on grass and fast hards during the 90s.

The point being, you can't judge a player from a different context (or era) of play by another. For example, we could look at Borg and say he "only" ever won two Slams in a year, but we have to remember that he played three Slams a year, not four--so he was still winning two-thirds of the Slams he played in for a few years. From his first to last Slam he won 11 of 22 Slams he played in; from RG 1978 to RG 1981, he won 7 of 10. That a huge degree of dominance that isn't adequately reflected in his peak years of "only" two Slams.

Of course this isn't to completely ignore Pete's weak spot. If he had won even just one Roland Garros we'd be singing a different tune. But I also think GameSetAndMath brings up a good point, with Rafa's weak spot of the World Tour Finals. In fact, if you go back to the start of the Year-End Championships in 1970, the best players not to win at least one are: Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall (both in their 30s then), John Newcombe, and Mats Wilander. Every other 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era won it at least once: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, and Djokovic.

But again, I'm not even really arguing that Pete's career was greater. I think you could argue either way. That said, I don't think you can argue it is "objective" or a "no-brainer." It is very, very debatable.

 

[Fiero425]

No, none of the big four are playing. See circus thread for more details.

Bout time! That money grab made no sense for any of these senior citizens on the court! :angel: :dodgy: :cover

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

It is not that people have become suddenly noble; It is just that there was not much money on the plate this time.

I just want to never hear these idiots whining about how long the season is and how it's breaking them down! If they weren't such greedy ba$$tards, they'd have time to rest and excel for years to come! uzzled :nono :cover

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It would be nice if Andy wins AO, Rafa the RG, Roger the Wimby and Delpo the USO, In case, you are wondering, I am not predicting this, but I am wishing this to happen.

 

[Puppet Master]

I know Pete had a big problem on clay. He also played in a context where courts were far more diverse. I'm guessing Rafa would have struggled more on grass and fast hards during the 90s.

The point being, you can't judge a player from a different context (or era) of play by another. For example, we could look at Borg and say he "only" ever won two Slams in a year, but we have to remember that he played three Slams a year, not four--so he was still winning two-thirds of the Slams he played in for a few years. From his first to last Slam he won 11 of 22 Slams he played in; from RG 1978 to RG 1981, he won 7 of 10. That a huge degree of dominance that isn't adequately reflected in his peak years of "only" two Slams.

Of course this isn't to completely ignore Pete's weak spot. If he had won even just one Roland Garros we'd be singing a different tune. But I also think GameSetAndMath brings up a good point, with Rafa's weak spot of the World Tour Finals. In fact, if you go back to the start of the Year-End Championships in 1970, the best players not to win at least one are: Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall (both in their 30s then), John Newcombe, and Mats Wilander. Every other 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era won it at least once: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, and Djokovic.

But again, I'm not even really arguing that Pete's career was greater. I think you could argue either way. That said, I don't think you can argue it is "objective" or a "no-brainer." It is very, very debatable.

I will admit that my bias hit me a little, it's a lot closer than I initially thought, but at least Rafa has an excuse: he was up against #1 and arguably #2 greatest indoor players ever, Fed and Djokovic. Sampras just blew it every time he stepped on a clay court. But enough of this now, Rafa probably has 1 or 2 more WTF appearances in him, he theoretically has a chance. lot
As the thread title says, let's talk about 2017

 

[Carol]

I'm not denying that it is a hard climb for Roger, but if anyone can do it he can. And again, let's go back to Carol's question about why some were putting him and Rafa in the same category. That's all I was saying, that they're roughly in the same category in terms of chances of success in 2017, if you weigh all factors: age, health, play style, recent record, etc. Carol--in her blind but also endearing fangirlism of Rafa--seems to think he's just a tweak or two away from a return to 2013 form, and she's been thinking that for the last two and a half years. She asked this question and didn't like the answer so got upset.

To be honest, though, I don't get not cheering for both. Are Roger fans so "butthurt" about Rafa that they can't wish him the best and hope to see him have one last surge to another Roland Garros title? Are Rafa fans so bitter that they can't cheer for a 35-year old great to have continued success? I mean, are we tennis fans first and foremost or are we really so petty?

I want the next gen to rise up and take hold of the tour, but that's clearly not going to happen within the next year or so. I'd much rather see a 2017 that isn't the season-long equivalent of an attrition war between Andy and Novak...it gets a lot more interesting if the King of Clay the Maestro are back. On the other hand, I can also admit that I hope Rafa's success is limited to clay, because as much as I'm a tennis fan first, a Roger fan second, I do like him having that Slam title lead . But I honestly would like to see Rafa do well on clay, even win RG one more time...but only one!

I think that as Roger's fan what you are saying is more a wish than anything else. Of course it's clear that you wouldn't mind if Rafa would play well ONLY on clay and to win ONLY one more GS and not three more but let's go to wait what 2017 and 2018 bring to us it doesn't matter what you or me want/wish
By the way I didn't get upset with your answer, I just took it a little "funny" but not very surprised

 

[El Dude]

Holy projection, Batman! You think I'm guilty of wishful thinking, Carol, just because I think/hope Roger has a chance of returning to his 2014-15 form? Oh, the irony. Do you have any self-awareness around this?

Anyhow, my "wishful thinking" is pretty mild. I think you thought my answer "funny" because you are unable to look at anything to do with Rafa in an unbiased way.

 

[Carol]

Holy projection, Batman! You think I'm guilty of wishful thinking, Carol, just because I think/hope Roger has a chance of returning to his 2014-15 form? Oh, the irony. Do you have any self-awareness around this?

Anyhow, my "wishful thinking" is pretty mild. I think you thought my answer "funny" because you are unable to look at anything to do with Rafa in an unbiased way.

So you can think/hope Roger has the chance of returning his 2014-15 but if I think that Rafa can come back playing better than 2014-15 then I'm unable to look anything with Rafa in unbiased way.......honesty I don't understand you too well :cover

 

[El Dude]

You're changing things up, Carol. I'm not saying that Rafa can't play better or even that he doesn't have another surge in him. Actually, all I was saying is that I put him and Roger in a similar category in terms of their chances of success going forward, which you take issue with (although as far as I can tell, you're the only regular participant here that thinks Rafa has much better prospects than Roger).

But again, look at the actual results of the last couple years. Roger barely played in 2016, but still made it to two semifinals. Rafa hasn't made a semifinal since 2014 Roland Garros, when he was turning 28 years old. Now he's 30, so forgive me if I question him being able to find a form that he hasn't had for two and a half years.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that I've even said I hope he surges in the clay season, if only for the sake of high drama...I'm not Front, Carol! I don't hate your guy.

But there IS hope. Rafa was playing his best tennis in a couple years back in clay season, so I don't see why he cannot rise again. But remember: even a slightly resurgent Rafa--as we say for a couple months last year--couldn't do more than win a lone clay Masters and another lesser title. We cannot ignore the fact that he's seen his ranking decline in each of the last few years, from 1 to 3 to 5 to 9. Doesn't that trajectory worry you?

 

[Carol]

You're changing things up, Carol. I'm not saying that Rafa can't play better or even that he doesn't have another surge in him. Actually, all I was saying is that I put him and Roger in a similar category in terms of their chances of success going forward, which you take issue with (although as far as I can tell, you're the only regular participant here that thinks Rafa has much better prospects than Roger).

But again, look at the actual results of the last couple years. Roger barely played in 2016, but still made it to two semifinals. Rafa hasn't made a semifinal since 2014 Roland Garros, when he was turning 28 years old. Now he's 30, so forgive me if I question him being able to find a form that he hasn't had for two and a half years.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that I've even said I hope he surges in the clay season, if only for the sake of high drama...I'm not Front, Carol! I don't hate your guy.

But there IS hope. Rafa was playing his best tennis in a couple years back in clay season, so I don't see why he cannot rise again. But remember: even a slightly resurgent Rafa--as we say for a couple months last year--couldn't do more than win a lone clay Masters and another lesser title. We cannot ignore the
fact that he's seen his ranking decline in each of the last few years, from 1 to 3 to 5 to 9. Doesn't that trajectory worry you?

Oh come on El Dude, you know perfectly well why Rafa is right now #9, he got a wrist injury in the beginning of the clay season and he wasn't able to play well in Madrid and Roma and he just played a couple of matches in RG before to withdrawn. He was off for two months and he decided to play in Rio (crazy decision) and also you know what happened later, another two months off to take better care with his wrist. Look Federer, he is #16 because he just has played 6 matches in the whole year because his knee
He is 30 and I don't think he has plans to play until 35 but I can tell you from now if he would be injury free the next two years he will be able to do better than you think

 

[El Dude]

"If he would be injury free" is the operative clause. Regardless of how the results occurred, rankings don't lie. Sure, if he's healthy he should be able to finish in the top 5.

 

[Carol]

"If he would be injury free" is the operative clause. Regardless of how the results occurred, rankings don't lie. Sure, if he's healthy he should be able to finish in the top 5.

Are you sure that Roger is going to be "injury free"? or the others? don't you think that some players has taken enough advantage of Rafa's injuries? I do, so maybe now it's his time, you never know

 

[rafanoy1992]

Since this is a thread about 2017, here are some interesting stats:

2017 will be the sixth straight year, a player could potentially achieve a Career Grand Slam. Wawrinka needs a Wimbledon crown to complete the set. Murray could also complete the set if he wins the Aussie Open AND French Open.

If Nadal wins a tour title in 2017, he extends his streak of winning at least 1 title to 14 straight seasons which will put him in a tie with Lendl and Connors for 2nd all time. Federer has the all time record with 15 straight seasons with a least 1 title.

If Djokovic reach a single slam final, he will be tied 5th alongside with Borg, for consecutive seasons reaching at least 1 slam final appearance with 8.

Djokovic only needs a AO final loss to join Federer, Lendl, and Murray as the only players to be runner-up in all 4 slams. Similarly, Nadal only needs a FO final loss to join the trio.

If Federer plays in three slams in 2017, he will surpass Santoro for most appearances in a Slam with 71. This is a pretty remarkable statistic, to be honest!

Here's another interesting stat: Djokovic needs to win 6 Slam matches to surpass Jimmy Connors in the all time slam match wins with 234. Federer has the record with 308 wins. This is an amazing stat considering where Djokovic was before 2011.

And I will leave you guys with this one: If Nadal wins Monte Carlo, Barcelona, AND Roland Garros in 2017, he would be the first male player to win at least 10 titles in a single Grand Slam event, a single Masters 1000, AND a single 500 tour event. Now, that would be an amazing feat to achieve by Nadal!

 

[El Dude]

"If he would be injury free" is the operative clause. Regardless of how the results occurred, rankings don't lie. Sure, if he's healthy he should be able to finish in the top 5.

Are you sure that Roger is going to be "injury free"? or the others? don't you think that some players has taken enough advantage of Rafa's injuries? I do, so maybe now it's his time, you never know

Again, you're making stuff up. Of course there are question marks about Roger - that's why I'm putting him in the same category with Rafa and not as more likely for success.

And you never know: Robin Soderling could come back and finally win Roland Garros

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Both Nadal and Federer are recovering from an injury and coming back to tour after some gap. Federer after a longer gap in fact. But that's not that much of an issue given how talented these guys are. I am only concerned that Federer might not have the same capacity right now to play long and intense five-set matches at a good level till the end as Nadal. Federer has lost some close 5 setters in the last 4 years even at Wimbledon.

Sent from my Titanium Octane using Tapatalk