Re: The official Tennis thread

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

That if any other player of the equivalent of any other sports went 5 years winning the equivalent of a grand slam just once he would be constantly abused. Hell Messi gets it every year lmao.

Also no he hasn't been 2nd best to Djokovic during that time because even Murray has 2 slams lol. He gets off extremely lightly considering how scrutinised his peers are.

Everything he does is awesome and nothing he does can be criticised because apparently one slam in 5 years doesn't matter when it would be scrutinised to anyone else.

He's in a perfect world where he's seen as a god even after mainly 5 years of failure, nobody else in any sport would be afforded the same luxury.

[El Gunner]

You also have to take in the factor of his age, which you seem to forget a lot. Most people recognise that, that's why he isn't as scrutinised as some players like Murray who are supposed to be in their peak atm.

Murray winning 2 majors compared to Federer's 1 isn't the be-all and end-all. It's about consistency as well. Everyone knows that. The rankings will tell you that. This (and golf) is about the one sport where the rankings make sense.

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

His age is a factor now I agree but it wasn't at the beginning of this 5 year cycle let's say the first 3 years.

Anyway I just looked out of curiosity, since Federer won the Australian open in 2010 Nadal has won 8, Djokovic has won 8, Wawrinka and Murray have two each and Federer and Cilic have one each.

Also I'd argue the slams are the be all and end all tbh, it's why people play the sport and to be frank why people think Federer is the best as he has the most.

Nobody gives a shit about random tour events really, not even the players lol. It's all just constant grind and build up for the slams.

[McAgger]

gtfo here Moal. Clearly hating on the goat.

You have to understand at 34 years of age NOBODY in male's tennis is able to play at the level Federer is doing consistently.

Nadal went shit at 28 years old. He hasn't been relevant for over a year now. Sampras won his last slam at 30 and retired because he was already becoming irrelevant in the 2 years prior to that.

Agassi is another exception who was able to play at a decent level until mid 30s but he was nowhere near as good as Federer is at this age today.

What Roger is doing at this age is insane. He's clearly the second best player on tour for 2 years now (2014 and 2015). He had an ultra shit 2013 because of back injuries. But he's come back stronger and reinvented his game to where he deserves to be hyped.

Murray Murray is in his physical prime right now and he got his ass smacked in a big time semi in his home court by Roger in straight sets just about 2 months ago. He's been getting beat consistently in the past few years. Since Nadal went to shit Roger has been the 2nd best player on tour and it is amazing given his age.

We're talking about RIGHT NOW not 4 years ago or whatever you are saying.

[McAgger]

Much closer than Wimbledon final. Threw away that third set did Roger. He had all the momentum. And in the 4th he chocked at the start but that comeback was great. 2 break points to possibly take it to tie breaker

Novak is a great champion, well deserved regardless

[McAgger]

Btw I have to say this, Jelena Djokovic is sooooo hot and classy. And not hot in trashy way, she is absolutely drop dead gorgeous. That is a woman I would wife in a second. My god I'm in love with her.

[CBarca]

Far too many forehand errors for Federer. Looked good at times, looked awful other times. Djokovic was much more consistent overall and I think that's why he won. Was pulling for Federer though of course. Nearly brought it back...

Too bad. Congrats to Djokovic.

[McAgger]

Federer beats Nadal in the final to win Swiss Indoors

[McAgger]

Nadal got booted in round one from Australian Open

[jibers]

Nadal got booted in round one from Australian Open

He's finished. I knew he would bomb sooner than later because of his playing style. Still a GOAT. Joker should surpass his slam count.

I hope Joker wins the grandslam this year.

[El Gunner]

Still having a tiny fleeting wave of hope that Roger can still add one more major to his tally (:
Would be sad for the FedArmy if Djoker passes his tally, of course it would be deserving, but still sad

[jibers]

Still having a tiny fleeting wave of hope that Roger can still add one more major to his tally (:
Would be sad for the FedArmy if Djoker passes his tally, of course it would be deserving, but still sad

Said this before, will say it again, Djoker is the most complete Tennis player I have ever seen. he has no glaring weaknesses and is literally a textbook tennis player. His basics are just phenomenal. Nadal relied on his athleticism and gained advantage from being left handed, Federer is a freak of nature that has a glaring weakness (which he has improved considerably to be fair).

[El Gunner]

^^Never said or insinuated otherwise.

[jibers]

^^Never said or insinuated otherwise.

I know (:

El Stunner pls

[McAgger]

What's Fed's glaring weakness?

gtfo Jibs.

[El Gunner]

His backhand

[Freeza]

His age

[RealGunner]

No killer mentality

[Great Leader Sprucenuce]

His backhand

Aye it's why Nadal had so much success against him, don't get me wrong it's a beautiful shot but it was fundamentally flawed against Nadal's two hander.

Also Jibers i disagree that Nadal relied on athleticism, it was a key reason but to say that understates how good the rest of his game was.

There's been lots of hugely athletic guys in history who had nowhere near his success because they didn't have his serve or his ability around the net ( which was very underrated) and just the general ability to change the pace of a rally.

He just had shit tonnes of injuries, no player would be the same. Of course he got those injuries due to his style of play and it's his own fault and we all saw this coming but to say he relied solely on athleticism is very wrong imo.

[jibers]

His backhand

Aye it's why Nadal had so much success against him, don't get me wrong it's a beautiful shot but it was fundamentally flawed against Nadal's two hander.

Also Jibers i disagree that Nadal relied on athleticism, it was a key reason but to say that understates how good the rest of his game was.

There's been lots of hugely athletic guys in history who had nowhere near his success because they didn't have his serve or his ability around the net ( which was very underrated) and just the general ability to change the pace of a rally.

He just had shit tonnes of injuries, no player would be the same. Of course he got those injuries due to his style of play and it's his own fault and we all saw this coming but to say he relied solely on athleticism is very wrong imo.

I know what you mean, just threw a trait out there. He was a counter puncher that used ridiculous heavy spin and basically waited for errors. That's why he covered so much ground and why he has had so many injuries. He never had any killer shot. He grinds you down. TBH he's been playing at the highest level since he was 19

The toll it's taken on his body is telling. I think those games in 2012 against Djoker also damaged him a bit.

His athleticism is a big factor. He is getting to balls a lot slower regularly meaning he is hitting them a lot shorter allowing the opposition to change the pace. Before he got there and hit the ball very deep. His backhand has declined as well as he seems to hit that a lot shorter. It was becoming a weapon after 2011 but it has declined badly as well.

[El Gunner]

Doesn't help having a "killer mentality" or "killer shots" when Djoker in this form turns your most offensive shot into a winner for himself

[McAgger]

*bleep* off

His backhand.

Do you know what glaring weakness means? Obviously not.

Fed has and had throughout his time in the tour one of the best backhands in the game.

One of the reasons he used to shank so many backhands was because of his well-documented small headed racquet. His backhand is now godly that he's using a larger racquet since 2014.

His whole prime he played with a 90inch.

[McAgger]

I agree with Jibers on Nadal analysis. His whole game wasn't completely based on athleticism, he's obviously a talented player, but his dominance certainly came from his athleticism. Now that the legs have gone, the dominance is gone. And unlike Roger, he's refusing to adapt and play another way.

[El Gunner]

Nah, I think it's fair enough to say that Roger's backhand has been his ultimate shortcoming when it has come to the big games in his career.
Yes he pulls off some fabulous shots with his backhand, he has perfected the slice, he has adapted so much to that side of his game that the improvement not only has been wise, but somewhat fantastic to the rest of us watching him play because it is a credit to his commitment and intelligence. I think even Roger himself knows and will admit that it is his one weakness hence he has worked on it so much in the past 7 years.

This weakness has also been fairly obvious to see in the big matches he has lost in especially against Nadal and that's why Nadal has such a superior H2H record between the two.

[El Gunner]

And McAgger it's not about his shanks as much as he has been put under tremendous pressure on that side so much so that he has been beaten that way a lot of times.

[silver]

What a match from Djokovic! Some of those shots by Simon would have floored anyone, but Djokovic somehow managed to fight on.

The women's draw is so weak. Williams vs Sharapova in the quarters...whoever wins that match wins the whole thing.

[Sponsored content]