Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[Moxie]

Respectfully, I have never thought professionals should be permitted to play in the Olympic Games, regardless of sport. Furthermore, the Olympics did not allow tennis until many years into the Open Era, so I have never held it in as high regard. I would if they were amateurs, but time has passed me by. Still great that Rafa and others have won medals at the Olympics--I just don't think it is anywhere near major level (they are 3 set matches only) or even Davis Cup due to its historicity in the game.

Respectfully, a lot of players who played in the Olympic games have LONG been professionals, in the sense that they are paid and supported by their country's federation. The US was pretty strict about amateur status, but that wasn't so true of a lot of the rest of the world, particularly back in the Soviet Union days. I agree that they should play best of 5, but, hey, the women play best of 3 at Majors, too, so the Olympic Gold should weigh rather as much as a Major, then, for women, right? It's kind of tricky.

 

[BratSrbin]

For nolephobs.
Maybe this will change their minds?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

So nobody is going to mention the elephant in the room?

The fact that Djokovic is 1.88 cm tall while Fedal are only 1.85 cm?

This surely helps Djokovic generate more power, give him more reach on his shots with more court coverage, even get him an advantage on the serve...

Djokovic has a huge advantage yet they are close in accomplishments. It shows how Fedal are more talented.

Jeez, they look like midgets next to him!

 

[Andy22]

Djokovic having 2 slams on hardcourts Is huge unfair advantage for him.

While Nadal only had one on clay...

 

[shawnbm]

Respectfully, a lot of players who played in the Olympic games have LONG been professionals, in the sense that they are paid and supported by their country's federation. The US was pretty strict about amateur status, but that wasn't so true of a lot of the rest of the world, particularly back in the Soviet Union days. I agree that they should play best of 5, but, hey, the women play best of 3 at Majors, too, so the Olympic Gold should weigh rather as much as a Major, then, for women, right? It's kind of tricky.

Tricky a bit, but I have always had my beliefs that women should be playing best of five in majors too, but who am I to upset the apple cart. I hear what you are saying about amateurs and whatnot, but just because the Soviet bloc puppet-states basically sent professionals does not change my view. Before that era, the Games were founded on the idea of amateurs. But the gang who have their medals I am sure are very happy. I personally just don't equate them to major status.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

So nobody is going to mention the elephant in the room?

The fact that Djokovic is 1.88 cm tall while Fedal are only 1.85 cm?

This surely helps Djokovic generate more power, give him more reach on his shots with more court coverage, even get him an advantage on the serve...

Djokovic has a huge advantage yet they are close in accomplishments. It shows how Fedal are more talented.

View attachment 7778

Jeez, they look like midgets next to him!

Then by this argument, I guess we can assume guys like Ivo Karlovic and John Isner have no talent because they hardly won anything meaningful despite being some of the tallest players on tour.

 

[Moxie]

Tricky a bit, but I have always had my beliefs that women should be playing best of five in majors too, but who am I to upset the apple cart. I hear what you are saying about amateurs and whatnot, but just because the Soviet bloc puppet-states basically sent professionals does not change my view. Before that era, the Games were founded on the idea of amateurs. But the gang who have their medals I am sure are very happy. I personally just don't equate them to major status.

I'm with you on the Bo5 for women at Majors, too.

 

[El Dude]

Djokovic having 2 slams on hardcourts Is huge unfair advantage for him.

While Nadal only had one on clay...

This view reveals you as a non-serious fan of tennis. I don't know why anyone would take it seriously, other than equally ridiculous Rafa fanboys.

You're acting like something was taken away from Rafa. The surface composition of the four Slams has been the same since 1988, when Rafa turned 2 years old and probably hadn't even touched a tennis racket yet.

Oh, and Rafa did just fine on hard courts.

 

[shawnbm]

^^^^ this argument would allow Sampras and Federer and Djokovic fans to decry how only one major is on grass and no Masters events. Hell, there are only three or four grass events total for the year! One could use the same logic to say those three might have 12 to 15 grass slams if there had been two per year!

Even so, i have always believed the fairest of surfaces for players of all stripes and manner of play is hard court. It gives the truest bounce and can be very quick to somewhat slow. It allows a baseliner to play his/her game to full effect, and permits a serve and volleyer (if we still had more than a few) to excel playing their style. It balances things out compared to grass or clay IMHO.

 

[El Dude]

^^^^ this argument would allow Sampras and Federer and Djokovic fans to decry how only one major is on grass and no Masters events. Hell, there are only three or four grass events total for the year! One could use the same logic to say those three might have 12 to 15 grass slams if there had been two per year!

Even so, i have always believed the fairest of surfaces for players of all stripes and manner of play is hard court. It gives the truest bounce and can be very quick to somewhat slow. It allows a baseliner to play his/her game to full effect, and permits a serve and volleyer (if we still had more than a few) to excel playing their style. It balances things out compared to grass or clay IMHO.

Yes, agreed. Hards also seem to offer a wider range of speeds, with some almost clay-like and some almost grass-like. I'm an advocate for "surface diversity" and enjoy the changing nature of the tour. I'd even like to see a carpet tournament or two brought back, if only to honor the range of tennis history.

I'd also like to see one grass Masters, but that probably won't happen.

Anyhow, here's a "surface timeline" for Ultimate Tennis Statistics. It looks like clay accounted for almost half of tournaments in the late 70s, maxing out at 49.4% in 1976. Things have been relatively stable since the late 80s, with the main difference being the reduction of carpet starting in the late 90s, disappearing by the late 00s. Most of those went over to hard courts, though it is interesting to note that grass got a small bump.

Clay has diminished a bit from a 21st century peak of 35.7% in 2006 to 28.2% last year. But it hasn't strong share of big titles: the Slam and three Masters have held strong, so presumably that's just some minor tournaments turning to hard court.

 

[atttomole]

Surfaces!!

This post will be removed as well.

 

[El Dude]

Umm, links are disappearing?

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

In my opinion, the US Open should have went to carpet in 1978 instead of hard court, so we could have all 4 slams on different surfaces AO (hard court), FO (clay), Wimbledon (grass), and US Open (carpet). The US Open played like a carpet anyway from about 1978 until Sampras retired. A shame that they gradually got rid of carpet as Sampras' career progressed.

If you think 2 hard court slams are bad, just wait until Wimbledon makes the transition from grass to hard court and we have 3 hard court slams. The writing was on the wall when they cancelled 2020 Wimbledon and the organizers came out saying that the grass courts were becoming too difficult and expensive to maintain. In 20 (possibly even ten) years time, grass courts will become a thing of the past just like carpet did at the end of the 20th century.

 

[El Dude]

In my opinion, the US Open should have went to carpet in 1978 instead of hard court, so we could have all 4 slams on different surfaces AO (hard court), FO (clay), Wimbledon (grass), and US Open (carpet). The US Open played like a carpet anyway from about 1978 until Sampras retired. A shame that they gradually got rid of carpet as Sampras' career progressed.

If you think 2 hard court slams are bad, just wait until Wimbledon makes the transition from grass to hard court and we have 3 hard court slams. The writing was on the wall when they cancelled 2020 Wimbledon and the organizers came out saying that the grass courts were becoming too difficult and expensive to maintain. In 20 (possibly even ten) years time, grass courts will become a thing of the past just like carpet did at the end of the 20th century.

And that will be a very sad day for tennis, indeed.

 

[TheSicilian]

In my opinion, the US Open should have went to carpet in 1978 instead of hard court, so we could have all 4 slams on different surfaces AO (hard court), FO (clay), Wimbledon (grass), and US Open (carpet). The US Open played like a carpet anyway from about 1978 until Sampras retired. A shame that they gradually got rid of carpet as Sampras' career progressed.

If you think 2 hard court slams are bad, just wait until Wimbledon makes the transition from grass to hard court and we have 3 hard court slams. The writing was on the wall when they cancelled 2020 Wimbledon and the organizers came out saying that the grass courts were becoming too difficult and expensive to maintain. In 20 (possibly even ten) years time, grass courts will become a thing of the past just like carpet did at the end of the 20th century.

Wimbledon shouldn't change to Hard Courts... It was cancelled in 2020 because of the pandemic? They pay the winners £2 Million each and spend £40 Million on total prize money, so no way can they act like they can't afford to maintain the courts! Why would it be more difficult to maintain the Grass Courts now compared to 10-20 years ago?

 

[Andy22]

This view reveals you as a non-serious fan of tennis. I don't know why anyone would take it seriously, other than equally ridiculous Rafa fanboys.

You're acting like something was taken away from Rafa. The surface composition of the four Slams has been the same since 1988, when Rafa turned 2 years old and probably hadn't even touched a tennis racket yet.

Oh, and Rafa did just fine on hard courts.

Djokovic having two slams on Hardcourts does favour him it's just a fact over it.

It's opinion different from yours doesn't make me or anyone less serious of tennis fan.

If anything your non-serious tennis fan for trying to cancel someone with different opinion that disagrees with your views.

Hardcourts are easy to maintain they not most fair surface on tour in my opinion.

Just because the tour been hardcourts for while doesn't make it fair for Grass or clay court players.

That's dumb logic...

And are you seriously making out the bounce of ball makes hardcourts the most fair LoL.

 

[Andy22]

Also point out Djokovic has 6 masters and WTF finals on Hardcourts while Nadal only has 3 masters in clay.

The unbalance of the tour is reason for Djokovic stats lead nothing else.

The reality is Djokovic only in the Goat race because most of the tour on hardcourts.

Had their been more even Tour Nadal or Federer would be Clear Goats.

Nadal, laver and Borg are all more Talented than Djokovic.

Actually Borg the most Talented player in history and would been the Goat if hadn't retired.

Deal with that I said and move on.

 

[shawnbm]

And that will be a very sad day for tennis, indeed.

Frankly, there are some things that will never change in our lifetimes--the seventh inning stretch in baseball, The Masters at Augusta National in the Spring in golf and the green lawns of the AETLC during the London summer in tennis

 

[Andy22]

Let's not forget Djokovic took advantage of declining injury pone Nadal and a older post prime 3rderer.

It's clear Nadal forehand wasn't the same after wrist injury in 2016.

Nadal was prime ended in 2014
Federer prime ended in 2017

Nadal body was more wore down Compared to Djokovic and Federer reason for faster decline. despite being younger than one of them.

 

[atttomole]

Let's not forget Djokovic took advantage of declining injury pone Nadal and a older post prime 3rderer.

It's clear Nadal forehand wasn't the same after wrist injury in 2016.

Nadal was prime ended in 2014
Federer prime ended in 2017

Nadal body was more wore down Compared to Djokovic and Federer reason for faster decline. despite being younger than one of them.

Because his game is not as good as the other two my friend. He relies more on his physical prowess than the other two. Sorry to disappoint you troll!!