Who are your other favorites?

[Moxie]

Yeah, it could be rough but interesting in a different way. We are going to miss the Big Four (even Andy...sorta) when they're gone, but at the same time it would get boring if they just went on forever. I've already been hoping for some new young player to emerge for years now. I'm enjoying seeing Zverev, Shapo etc come up. Looking forward to the next era.

@isabelle, and the long departed @iona will miss Murray, too, as will I. He's grumpy but talented, and has brought the Wimbledon crown back to Britain. And I think he has more left in the tank. I get why people think that Fedal + 2-3 dominance has been a bit of a strangle, but it won't last forever, or even much longer, so that won't be boring, if it ever really has been. It hasn't been for me. You've been a great champion of the youngsters coming up. It'll be interesting to see who floats to the top, and how.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You might be in love but you always have a type. Someone who’s going to get your juices flowing. For me.. Shapovalov, Stan and Grigor all get me a little tingly with those one handers

Interesting you say that. My type is sort of a Nalbandian, or a Federer...yet my love is a Nadal. Weird. Andy Roddick was one of my favorites at one point but his style of play is not at all fun to watch. I think personality plays a big part for me (although I've always loved Nalbandian and it was for his game), when Nadal first showed up, I liked the attitude, the grit, the confidence, the flashiness, etc...

 

[El Dude]

@isabelle, and the long departed @iona will miss Murray, too, as will I. He's grumpy but talented, and has brought the Wimbledon crown back to Britain. And I think he has more left in the tank. I get why people think that Fedal + 2-3 dominance has been a bit of a strangle, but it won't last forever, or even much longer, so that won't be boring, if it ever really has been. It hasn't been for me. You've been a great champion of the youngsters coming up. It'll be interesting to see who floats to the top, and how.

Yeah, I shouldn't bag on Andy. He's hard to root for, though. He doesn't have the same level of class (or talent) as the Bigger Three.

I think it is time we stop saying "Fedal + 2-3" and say "Holy Trinity + supporting cast" or "3+1" or "Fedalkovic + others," or something to that effect. Novak is much closer to Fedal than he is to the rest of the pack in terms of accomplishments and greatness. He's earned his place, even if he never wins anything else. And don't forget: he's the only player who has dominated peak Rafa for an extended period of time.

But I hear you. We should enjoy it while it lasts. I'll miss all of them, and to be honest my favorite match-up is Novak-Rafa because it is just great tennis that I can enjoy without caring who wins.

As for the youngsters, I think Zverev has proven that he's going to very, very good and possibly great. But yes - I continue to be very interested in following the young guys and seeing how they develop. Maybe I'll do a year in review post about them, with speculation about next year.

 

[isabelle]

Interesting you say that. My type is sort of a Nalbandian, or a Federer...yet my love is a Nadal. Weird. Andy Roddick was one of my favorites at one point but his style of play is not at all fun to watch. I think personality plays a big part for me (although I've always loved Nalbandian and it was for his game), when Nadal first showed up, I liked the attitude, the grit, the confidence, the flashiness, etc...

Nalby was my fav player, his point construction was fantastic but now he's a retired guy or a rallye pro (not sure) so I switched on Sir Andy who was my second fav. I also liked the A'Rod, Tsar Marat, Guga.....all enjoyable players, I miss them a lot

 

[atttomole]

I liked Safin a lot. He retired too early and I thought he could have achieved more. Apart from his listless behavior, he didn't seem to have a weakness. I also like Djokovic with his all-round game. Among the youngsters I like Alex Zverev and Kyrgios. With his big game, I was hoping that Kyrgios would do great things, but my enthusiasm is diminishing because he can not get his act together. Zverev has a chance to win slams, but he still looks raw. He has to be careful because the top guys could linger for another 2 to 3 years before the likes of Shapovalov take over.

 

[DarthFed]

I do prefer 1HBH because as many have said it just is a more aesthetically pleasing shot. But I still like a lot of players with 2HBH's. Safin was up there, I also did appreciate Nalbs and Davydenko. Aside from Roger I do like Stan and Gasquet largely due to their one handers. Of the new guys I like Zverev and kind of like Nicko. Not sure how into tennis I will be once Roger retires.

 

[atttomole]

I do prefer 1HBH because as many have said it just is a more aesthetically pleasing shot. But I still like a lot of players with 2HBH's. Safin was up there, I also did appreciate Nalbs and Davydenko. Aside from Roger I do like Stan and Gasquet largely due to their one handers. Of the new guys I like Zverev and kind of like Nicko. Not sure how into tennis I will be once Roger retires.

Considering the way Federer plays tennis, it will be difficult for his fans to come to terms with his retirement. However, time is a great healer. We will get used to not seeing Federer, and we will find new favorite players, who will be hopefully not so dissimilar to Federer.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

While I don't have anything against Sasha, I don't particularly like him and will find it hard to root for him. He is kind of boring.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I shouldn't bag on Andy. He's hard to root for, though. He doesn't have the same level of class (or talent) as the Bigger Three.

I think it is time we stop saying "Fedal + 2-3" and say "Holy Trinity + supporting cast" or "3+1" or "Fedalkovic + others," or something to that effect. Novak is much closer to Fedal than he is to the rest of the pack in terms of accomplishments and greatness. He's earned his place, even if he never wins anything else. And don't forget: he's the only player who has dominated peak Rafa for an extended period of time.

But I hear you. We should enjoy it while it lasts. I'll miss all of them, and to be honest my favorite match-up is Novak-Rafa because it is just great tennis that I can enjoy without caring who wins.

As for the youngsters, I think Zverev has proven that he's going to very, very good and possibly great. But yes - I continue to be very interested in following the young guys and seeing how they develop. Maybe I'll do a year in review post about them, with speculation about next year.

While Murray isn't the same level as the Big 3, I disagree about his level of class. He stands up for women in tennis, and he's also the funniest of the Big 4. He may be grumpy on court, but I think he's very classy off of it. I have a problem with the "Holy Trinity" appellation. Too religious for me, or slightly blasphemous. Murray may be in that odd place by himself, but I still think he deserves Big 4, more than Wawrinka deserves being in the same mix. I would stick with "Big 3" or "Big 4." However much Murray has trailed behind, he stayed close in the conversation for a lot of years with GOAT players. He's separated from Stan by 2 gold medals, the #1 ranking, YE#1, and a lot of MS caps. While I agree that he's not Fedalovic, there isn't really anyone else to touch him for accomplishments.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Stan won his slams by playing boldly and bravely at the big stages. However, I don't get the same feeling about Andy even when he won the Slams. It almost felt like, he happened to win them.

 

[Moxie]

Stan won his slams by playing boldly and bravely at the big stages. However, I don't get the same feeling about Andy even when he won the Slams. It almost felt like, he happened to win them.

I am pretty much 180 degrees opposite of you on this. Andy had been close, and had tough losses at Majors. His loss to Roger at W '12 was a real heartbreaker. 6 weeks later he won over Roger in a basic rematch, to win the gold and get himself over a hump. Another few weeks later, he beat Djokovic at the USO, because he was braver and better against the elements. And because he'd gotten the monkey off of his back in London. Same with Wimbledon '13.

Stan got to step up in a Major because his opponent got injured. Surely that win, which wasn't a given without Nadal's back going, gave him confidence at the Major final level. So when he faced Djokovic in 2015, and Djokovic dragged his feet, trying to protect his lead, Stan stepped up. Surely Stan was opportunistic, but I don't think he was braver than Murray. Stan never has faced the public scrutiny that Murray has at Wimbledon, for example. In any case, both deserved their wins, and I'm surprised that you would say that Murray "happened to win" his. I think that hugely underestimates what it took Murray to win those Majors, and oversells how Stan got his. You're kind of prejudiced on this one, don't you think? Otherwise, seriously, don't you think that those Majors were at least evenly earned?

 

[Moxie]

While I don't have anything against Sasha, I don't particularly like him and will find it hard to root for him. He is kind of boring.

Funny, I like his game and don't find him boring.

 

[Nekro]

Stan won his slams by playing boldly and bravely at the big stages. However, I don't get the same feeling about Andy even when he won the Slams. It almost felt like, he happened to win them.

I agree with you, Stan can hit anybody off the court...... Saying he's good only when he smells blood, the opponent is dragging his foot is ridiculous......He's not the vulture type... He's good at punishing pushers, that's true.... Nadal for example is not a typical pusher but when he's not confident or he's injured or whatever he pushes a lot..... Stan's job is to take out the opponent......

When Stan's bad he drops out early, he got to those finals because he was good then.... And he took out his opponents in the finals too.... I wouldn't even say he had to play "boldly", he's a hard hitter and a good shotmaker, that's his game, he's not a crappy pants player either... He was just doing his stuff..... And what Nadal and Nole, and all the opponents before had wasn't good enough.....

 

[Moxie]

I agree with you, Stan can hit anybody off the court...... Saying he's good only when he smells blood, the opponent is dragging his foot is ridiculous......He's not the vulture type... He's good at punishing pushers, that's true.... Nadal for example is not a typical pusher but when he's not confident or he's injured or whatever he pushes a lot..... Stan's job is to take out the opponent......

When Stan's bad he drops out early, he got to those finals because he was good then.... And he took out his opponents in the finals too.... I wouldn't even say he had to play "boldly", he's a hard hitter and a good shotmaker, that's his game, he's not a crappy pants player either... He was just doing his stuff..... And what Nadal and Nole, and all the opponents before had wasn't good enough.....

Fair point that Stan is good at the late stages of a big tournament. But he also does bail early. He's a sometimes contender. Yes, he can be "crappy pants" and I don't even know what "just doing his stuff" even means. He won the 2014 AO, then lost in the first round of RG. Call that what you will, but it's not consistent.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am not talking about consistency. It is well known that Stan does not deliver week in and week out consistency. However, when he wins a Slam, it feels like he went out and got it, unlike the case of Andy.

 

[Moxie]

I am not talking about consistency. It is well known that Stan does not deliver week in and week out consistency. However, when he wins a Slam, it feels like he went out and got it, unlike the case of Andy.

And I would say that's your opinion but hardly a universal truth. Which of Murray's Major wins do you think just fell into his lap?

 

[Federberg]

I think I know what GSM is getting at and I have to agree with him. When Stan goes into Stanimal mode you just know he can beat anyone. With Murray it's felt different like he was the last man standing to be perfectly honest. Nothing wrong with that, a win is a win in my book. But when Stan beat Novak in those 2 finals he was crushing it, waaaaaay more impressive in my view than what Andy did.

 

[mrzz]

As much as I like del Potro actually I would prefer no to root to anyone. This freaking history race for majors spoils a lot of the fun of following the tournaments. I admit that I root for Federer to make as better possible his case for the GOAT position and I am way past the point where I could chose not to care about it. But once this is done, one way or another, I will make an honest effort to root as less as I can, and enjoy the tennis without getting angry at the outcome of the match/tournament/year.

Of course that I don't believe myself, as in tennis and in F1 races I curse and scream so loud in front of the screen that most people I know already wanted to have me in the funny farm....

 

[El Dude]

While Murray isn't the same level as the Big 3, I disagree about his level of class. He stands up for women in tennis, and he's also the funniest of the Big 4. He may be grumpy on court, but I think he's very classy off of it. I have a problem with the "Holy Trinity" appellation. Too religious for me, or slightly blasphemous. Murray may be in that odd place by himself, but I still think he deserves Big 4, more than Wawrinka deserves being in the same mix. I would stick with "Big 3" or "Big 4." However much Murray has trailed behind, he stayed close in the conversation for a lot of years with GOAT players. He's separated from Stan by 2 gold medals, the #1 ranking, YE#1, and a lot of MS caps. While I agree that he's not Fedalovic, there isn't really anyone else to touch him for accomplishments.

Fair enough re: Andy. And I, of course, completely agree that he's a great player, just not as great as the Bigger Three. But yeah, his overall career is far greater than Stan's. To me this chart best illustrates this (click "active players" in the upper right):

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=BigTitles

It shows just how far ahead he is of the pack, but also just how far behind the Bigger Three.

p.s. I like Holy Trinity, but then again I'm not Christian so the "blasphemy" doesn't bother me.

 

[Moxie]

I think I know what GSM is getting at and I have to agree with him. When Stan goes into Stanimal mode you just know he can beat anyone. With Murray it's felt different like he was the last man standing to be perfectly honest. Nothing wrong with that, a win is a win in my book. But when Stan beat Novak in those 2 finals he was crushing it, waaaaaay more impressive in my view than what Andy did.

I still think that's rather more an aesthetic preference, and a bit of a prejudice against Murray. Both beat #1 Djokovic to win 2 of their 3 Slams. I think we all agree, though, that Murray v. Djokovic is a less interesting match-up to watch. To me, Stan's first was almost literally a "last man standing," since Nadal was injured early in that final. (I think I can say that, since we all saw it happen.) And Murray's most recent, Wimbledon '16 v. Raonic was also a bit of that, but he could have had Roger in the final, if Fed had beaten Raonic in the SF. Personally, I thought beating a rebounding Djokovic (down from 2 sets - 0) to take him in 5 was impressive, and his Wimbledon performance v. Djokovic was a good-looking win, even if Novak didn't play especially well. Plus, Murray had far more pressure to win all of those finals than Stan had to win any of his.