Tennis History “What If’s”

[Nadalfan2013]

Not my fault you're delusional. He doesn't take 10 seconds but if he takes a shorter than normal break it's because he hit an ace or a well positioned serve to set up a one, two punch to end the point quickly. Frankly, you should be more concerned how it's laughable how long Nadal takes to towel himself down after he himself gets aced. Disrespectful to the server who should be allowed play at their own pace.

Federer does not play long points and hence the relative lack of fatigue compared to juice monkies who run all match. Try and keep up ffs or get your eyesight checked.

Oh please even when Nadal and Djokovic are toying with Federer making him run left and right with tons of long rallies even on clay, Federer still doesn’t breathe, sweat or take longer than 10 seconds between points, even now at 100 years old of age. Get a clue!

 

[Moxie]

Not my fault you're delusional. He doesn't take 10 seconds but if he takes a shorter than normal break it's because he hit an ace or a well positioned serve to set up a one, two punch to end the point quickly. Frankly, you should be more concerned how it's laughable how long Nadal takes to towel himself down after he himself gets aced. Disrespectful to the server who should be allowed play at their own pace.

Federer does not play long points and hence the relative lack of fatigue compared to juice monkies who run all match. Try and keep up ffs or get your eyesight checked.

You say that Federer plays fast, because he doesn't have a fatiguing game. Yet you criticize Nadal for playing slow, when he plays a more fatiguing game, and, at the same time, you say that he doesn't get tired. Don't you see any correlation, and the contradiction in your positions? They get tired, so they play slower. Also, you've been complaining about Nadal not getting tired since he was 18, and yet have nothing to say about a 35-37 year-old that can play long 5-setters. The delusional one, or let's say, the one with a gigantic double-standard, is you.

 

[Moxie]

Point taken, yet aren’t they all retired or long gone players? B-)

Yes, I was hoping you wouldn't notice that. My point was mostly snide.

 

[mrzz]

Don't you see any correlation, and the contradiction in your positions?

In the name of logic, not necessarily. He can compensate the more fatiguing approach precisely by resting more than the allowed by the rules between points. That is actually the core of his argument.

 

[atttomole]

Guys do not lose the gist of the thread. This thread is only about what ifs. I am wondering how many slams Roger would have won if surfaces had remained specialized.

 

[atttomole]

That was my first post of the year.

 

[Moxie]

Guys do not lose the gist of the thread. This thread is only about what ifs. I am wondering how many slams Roger would have won if surfaces had remained specialized.

I think we're still on "what if Rafa had been held to tight time," so not off topic, but if you want to "what if" on if the surfaces "had remained specialized," we can do that one, simultaneously. Basically, you're asking which ones wouldn't he have lost, though, aren't you? Why don't you make a case? And Happy New Year!

 

[Moxie]

In the name of logic, not necessarily. He can compensate the more fatiguing approach precisely by resting more than the allowed by the rules between points. That is actually the core of his argument.

Are you talking about the core of Front's argument? The core of it is that Rafa dopes, as evidenced by his indefatigability. He says Roger doesn't dope, because he plays shorter points, so he can be more fatigue-free. And yet, Front complains about Nadal's slow play. To him, I guess, it's only time wasting as gamesmanship. Perhaps, in that sense, it's not inconsistent. However, I don't think that's your argument. To you, if I read you correctly, Rafa has always played slow to buy himself time to recover from long points. Even though they aren't all long. Is that your argument?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Really? Shit, I need to find to new facts to support my beliefs. Damn you!

I haven't read that bastard's @brokenshoelace posts but he/she pulled the same shit with me over five years ago..Tell him to eat shit and go F# him/her self.

 

[the AntiPusher]

What if you could sit down and have a beer for one hour with a former ATP player. One player I would choose would be RStepanik aka the Worm..I would ask him to rank with details his conquests on the WTA especially Hingis

 

[atttomole]

What if you could sit down and have a beer for one hour with a former ATP player. One player I would choose would be RStepanik aka the Worm..I would ask him to rank with details his conquests on the WTA especially Hingis

They also call him fish face.

 

[the AntiPusher]

They also call him fish face.

Something on that dude is elongated

 

[atttomole]

I think we're still on "what if Rafa had been held to tight time," so not off topic, but if you want to "what if" on if the surfaces "had remained specialized," we can do that one, simultaneously. Basically, you're asking which ones wouldn't he have lost, though, aren't you? Why don't you make a case? And Happy New Year!

I remember you saying that Nadal dawdles because that allows him to focus. Using your reasoning, I guess his performance would have been affected if he was hurried, because he would have lost his focus. For Federer, I am asking how many he would have won, not how many he wouldn’t have lost. The logic looks the same though.

 

[atttomole]

I think we're still on "what if Rafa had been held to tight time," so not off topic, but if you want to "what if" on if the surfaces "had remained specialized," we can do that one, simultaneously. Basically, you're asking which ones wouldn't he have lost, though, aren't you? Why don't you make a case? And Happy New Year!

And happy New Year to you.

 

[Front242]

Something on that dude is elongated

That's why he's popular with the young chicks

 

[Moxie]

I remember you saying that Nadal dawdles because that allows him to focus. Using your reasoning, I guess his performance would have been affected if he was hurried, because he would have lost his focus. For Federer, I am asking how many he would have won, not how many he wouldn’t have lost. The logic looks the same though.

I'm just suggesting that it's a reason that he plays slow, not that he couldn't be a focused player without it. My point is that I think he does it mainly for himself, not as a way to game others, but, no, I don't think it's critical to his success. I think he would still be a mentally tough player with less time to think about it.

As to your question about Roger, I think you need to define terms better. You asked, "if surfaces had remained specialized." Well, what does that mean, exactly? Pre-2001 grass at Wimbledon? If Australia were still played on grass? If the USO were still played on grass? Or clay? Or do you just mean if Wimbledon hadn't slowed down the grass? Some say that Oz has speeded up and the USO has slowed down. Which HC surface would you pick for them to have stuck with, in this theory, and how would you determine with of those was "specialized?" Especially since both USO and Oz have changed from grass/clay and grass to HC, in fairly recent history.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I haven't read that bastard's @brokenshoelace posts but he/she pulled the same shit with me over five years ago..Tell him to eat shit and go F# him/her self.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I'd laugh at you more but I'm terrified you'll again offer me to come to Cincinnati this summer so you can beat me up.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Things have certainly calmed down since the introduction of the biological passport. No more AO 2012-esque shake your head in disbelief and laugh out loud moments. No normal human beings can run around in over 40c heat for 6 hours and wallop tennis balls till the cows come home.

Ooooooooooooooor, he's no longer in his 20's?

And yeah, no normal human being can. There's nothing about a once in a lifetime athlete that's normal.

 

[Vince Evert]

What if the Ladies played Best of Five sets finals in the slams?

 

[tenisplayrla08]

Coming to this very late obviously. But going back to the main point of this thread and diving back into the history, I have LONG thought that Connors would have won a calendar slam in 74 if it weren't for him being banned from the French for playing WTT. Of course, Borg won his first French that year. So Connors would have had to deal with that. But I mean. We never got to see Connors at the French in his prime. He couldn't/didn't play it for 5 years. Until 1979. And while he'd lost in the 3rd round and 1st round in 1972 and 1973, when he returned in 1979 he didn't lose before the quarters the next 8 times he played it (8 out of 9 years, missed 1986.) Maybe there are other factors at play that I don't know about.

But I think if it weren't for the feuds between the ITF and the WTT and WCT and all that, Laver wouldn't be the only one with a calendar slam. And while we all respect Connors for sure. I think we'd respect him even more. Of course, he could have just made the final and lost or made the semis and lost. He made the final of all 3 slams he played again in 1975 and lost all 3 of them to 3 different players. Newcombe in Australia. Ashe at Wimbledon. And Orantes at the US Open.

And then, I'll echo what several others have said that isn't for men's tennis. Obviously Monica Seles' stabbing is one of the biggest what ifs in sports of all time. We don't know if she would have continued to completely dominate or not. But I think we can mostly assume she would have. Steffi would probably be closer to 18 like Navratilova and Evert. And Seles would probably be up there with them. And Martina Hingis may never have even been a thing. Venus and Serena may have had to wait a little longer to take over. Seles probably never would have dominated Wimbledon. But she probably would have won at least one. I mean. She had been to the final of all 8 slams she played since the start of 1991 (missed Wimbledon in 1991.) She was nearly unstoppable. Seles would very possibly have a gold medal (1996 Atlanta). Of course, Seles was there. And was the number 1 seed. She had comeback and won the Australian Open that year. She lost to Novotna 6-8 in the third. Never a guarantee that anyone wins anything. But if she hadn't been interrupted and didn't have the trauma of it all she likely would have been a different player at those Olympics just like she would have been a different player everywhere else. Truly one of the greatest tragedies in sports history.