Reply With QuoteIncredible fitness levels but I find tennis hard work to watch
Football is about it for me sports wise
My loss I suppose
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
The GOAT has come through a difficult match, can anyone see a winner other than Djokovic ?
It's about time this golden era of players are put out to pasture, there are plenty of brilliant players around the circuit but melt at the big points, an example being last nights game against Hurkacz, Hurkacz for the most held his service quite easily to get to the tie break and had breaks in the tie breaks but just couldn't find a way to get it done.
Incredible fitness levels but I find tennis hard work to watch
Football is about it for me sports wise
My loss I suppose
Djokovic was and is my least favourite of the big four (I think Murray was up there with the other three for a while), but I have to admit he’s worthy of the greatest ranking now even if his dominance, and almost certain victory this year, is making the men’s event this boring for me - you can hardly blame him for that though.
It's a Big Three for me. The difference in Grand Slam titles is way too large to consider Murray imo. He's still a great for what he did at Wimbledon but Federer / Nadal / Djokovic are in another league.
If Djokovic wins all four Grand Slams this year then the GOAT debate is finally over. Two down, two to go.
My personal favourite however, will always be Federer. His one-handed backhand was like something from a video game. But he wasn't a one-trick pony, he could do it all. He didn't rely on superior athleticism and he wasn't a prick.
Federer. The GOAT.
(unless Djokovic wins Wimbledon and US Open)
Oh come on Bob, if Murray wasnt British he would never be put in a "Big Four" category with the other three. Theyve all won over 20 majors apiece, Murray won 3. Theyve all won around the 90/100 mark for career titles, double that of Murray who has 46. Hes not comparable to the "Big Three" of the last 20 or so years.Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Which is why I said for a while - for a few years early and in the middle of the previous decade Murray was as likely to win a major as two of the other three. In fact, it could have been a big five because the period which covered Murray’s three wins saw a Swiss player win a hat trick of titles, but it was Stan Wawrinka. Roger Federer did not win a Grand Slam title during Murray’s time as a winner,while Nadal only won three times- the dominant player during that period was Djokovic with seven wins.
Werent things different years ago? Wasnt Borg done by about 26 with multiple French and Wimbledon titles and didnt enter the Australian Open for some reason.
They say in football dont compare eras but I think with the different equipment Tennis and probably golf it applies more.
Its been a great era and I was having this conversation with a mate who disagreed. Its definitely the big 3.
Djokovic definitely hard to argue about him being the best I think it depends on the tournament and I believe Nadal in France at his best beats the other 2 with Federer just edging Djokovic at Wimbledon.
Thats some mental gymnastics to try and justify Murray being part of some "Big Four". Both Nadal and Federer had injury problems and time out of the game in the years Murray won his majors.
Federer came back from a long lay off to win 3 more majors at the age of 35/36.
Like the Messi v Ronaldo debate I suppose. Cant argue with Djokoivc numbers but Federer did it with such flair and was coolness personified. He could be playing for more than 3 hours and still looked like he had just stepped out for a leisurely walk around the park. I think The Royal Prince Nonce Andrew got himself mixed up with Roder Federer when he said he doesnt sweat a bead.
Murray was definitely a part of a big 4 for first part of the last decade.
Yes 'only' 3 Grand Slam titles, but another 8 finals and ended 2016 as number 1. Only him and Stan Wawrinka got anywhere close to the others over such a sustained period.
The Australian Open was never treated in the same way as the other three during the Borg era if I remember rightly - many of the big players tended to give it a miss. Yes, Borg was a little like Ash Barty who quit in her mid twenties recently when she was no. 1 in the world (Osaka did much the same thing).
Yeah, the concept of a Big Four isn't just in the British press, it's the wider tennis world as Murray finished the year in the top 4 almost every year for a decade and reached 11 slam finals (and another 10 semis). Murray was considered an obstacle for the slams to be overcome, with the exception of Nadal at the French Open where he is super human. I can't think of anyone else who reached a decent number of finals in this period past Wawrinka with four finals and five semis.
But that is just zoomed in over this golden age, and even then he's certainly the weakest. Murray won't make the all-time top 20 of tennis greats, whereas the other three will be in the top 5 at least.
Regarding the greatest ever, in my opinion the only way this can be judged is by the amount of Grand Slams won.
Therefore, there can be little argument of the Serb holding that title.
That doesn't mean to say that he is the greatest to watch though.
That accolade had to go to Roger Federer, especially on the grass surface (my preference).
Federer has won 8 Wimbledon titles and Djokovic 7, let's hope it remains that way.
I'm hoping the new Spanish sensation Alcaraz gets to the final as he looks to be the only one who can beat Djokovic.
I remember Federer beating Sampras in 2002 and the concensus was this was a changing of the guard. If Alcaraz can do the same to Djokovic it could be something similar.
He's certainly the best of the current crop of players, and most likely to be a consistent winner over the next few years other than Novak.
There are currently 38 male tennis players who have won more Grand Slam titles than Murray.
Just silly this:
From defence to attack by Novak Djokovic
by u/stonded in tennis
His post-match interview was a good one too. He said he knows everyone wants to beat him / he's the one to beat etc. but "It ain't happening. Still."
Some talented players on tour, Alcaraz in particular looks to have something but I don't think any of them are comparable to the big three but relatively recent history would suggest they will come along.
Thinking Sampras was at a time considered untouchable, then federer came along and was quickly followed by Nadal and Djokovic. The latter could mop up most slams for a couple of years unless his body starts to let him down which has to happen at some point.
Style wise preferred to watch federer, but I can't argu against Djokovic being the goat. Had to come along and smash the Federer, Nadal grip and even now has the hunger for more.
Hats off to Murray also, there was a short period where he consistently competed well against these guys, although obviously not in the same league overall. He too clearly loves the sport and competing, regularly dropping down to challenger events when financially he has absolutely no need and is probably half mechanical by now.
Some interesting documentary’s out there about Borgs era, his retirement etc….think he got so much hassle (aliken to beatle mania) he just couldn’t take it anymore. McEnroe was gutted by it.
Like the way Alcaraz plays, almost wild like he doesn’t know what he’s doing, but he does…..
I used to watch Wimbledon but I know find an indulgence event for the rich to appear at and be seen . How ordinary kids can become involved in this sport is beyond me .
Sadly I have to agree.
I think though that it's always been that way, it is just more prominent these days.
Posting Permissions
