A title's a title. Whether it's 34-28 or 13-3, you still go down in history.Glad I went to the semis. Both women (or all 4 really) were loads better.
I'll be honest. I saw it 5-3 and just assumed the entire match was over.Berrettini wins the first set in a tiebreaker. What a turnaround. Long way to go though.
Honestly, even after Novak was down two sets against Tsitsipas in the French Open, I wasn't really worried about him losing. He usually gets his act together and wins.And now Djok up 2 breaks in the second set. 3-0.
Stamina for days. It really is impressive how long Djok can play while also getting better.Honestly, even after Novak was down two sets against Tsitsipas in the French Open, I wasn't really worried about him losing. He usually gets his act together and wins.
They put the arrow on who is serving. I think that is less confusing that continually flipping the names.One thing I’ve always wondered is why ESPN doesn’t flip the score graphic to indicate who is at the top of the screen and who is at the bottom.
Damn right, he is!holy shit what a wonderful point-the touch both these guys have.
But Joker is a special kind of brilliant
I agree. And to think he’s only 34. With the shape he is in he has many more majors in him. What an era of tennis we have witnessed with Fed, Nadal and Novak.He is the true GOAT. This is coming from a true Fed-homer.
So is the golden slam as well.The calendar slam is well and truly on. Incredible.
He's already done that so, I mean, it's a special achievement but not for him. Hah. That's how incredible he's been. The potential calendar (and golden) slam is really exciting.To think it would probably be 4 Slams in a row already if he didn't get DQ'd at the US Open last year.
I wonder if the crowd in New York is going to be rooting for history or rooting for the upset. My guess is the latter.He's already done that so, I mean, it's a special achievement but not for him. Hah. That's how incredible he's been. The potential calendar (and golden) slam is really exciting.
It's like if three separate Tiger Woods played golf at the same time in the late 90s. And only those three Tigers won for 16 years.Incredible for Djokovic. At some point in the next 3-6 years this era of mens tennis will be over, and historically it's just unreal. Since the French Open in 2005, there has been just 3 Grand Slams in which none of the Big 3 made the finals (US Open last year, Wimbledon in 2016 and US Open in 2014).
That's the exact metaphor I've been thinking of myself recently. It really is incredible. (Not least because very good players have really struggled to play their best tennis when they've come up against the Big Three, just as so many good golfers kept falling at Tiger's feet for so many years.)It's like if three separate Tiger Woods played golf at the same time in the late 90s. And only those three Tigers won for 16 years.
Big Fed homer here, so take this with that in mind...I think a lot about whether or not the fact that all 3 have played at the same time has made them more or less successful. I hate to simplify it to GS finals only, but here are their records in GS finals against the other Big 3:
Federer: 4-10
Nadal: 11-7
Djokovic: 8-6
Here are their records in GS finals against all others:
Federer: 16-1
Nadal: 10-1
Djokovic: 12-4
Federer in particular was so dominant against everyone else and so mediocre against Nadal/Djokovic. In a world without the others, does he win 25+ majors and go down as the runaway GOAT? Or would the lack of competition cause him to get complacent and retire far earlier?
This is a fair post, I thought I'd look up all of their head to heads against each other, just for the sake of info.Big Fed homer here, so take this with that in mind...
But Roger's record vs Rafa in the French final is 0-4. So at times I feel like this stats punishes Roger for being the second best clay player of that time period. If Roger had lost in the 2nd or 3rd round, Roger's final record would be much better.
Also, Roger is the oldest of them and was just out of his peak right when Novak was peaking too.
Again, huge Roger fan here but I think the head to head isn't exactly a great comparison.
However, with all that said, when all is said and done, Novak will go down as the greatest of all time.
All true, but it has me wondering the reverse: Maybe his head to head would be better, but how much did Federer benefit from hitting the scene a few years before Nadal and Djokovic? Nadal started winning titles really early, but he was seen as something of a clay specialist. He won his first non French Open GS in 2008, the same year that Djokovic won his first major. Before 2008, Federer already had a ridiculous 12 GS wins. If he'd come along a few years later, it's reasonable to think that number would dip a bit with the increased competition.Big Fed homer here, so take this with that in mind...
But Roger's record vs Rafa in the French final is 0-4. So at times I feel like this stats punishes Roger for being the second best clay player of that time period. If Roger had lost in the 2nd or 3rd round, Roger's final record would be much better.
Also, Roger is the oldest of them and was just out of his peak right when Novak was peaking too.
Again, huge Roger fan here but I think the head to head isn't exactly a great comparison.
However, with all that said, when all is said and done, Novak will go down as the greatest of all time.
I love Federer along with the other big 3 as I enjoy watching the greatness of this era. Nothing will ever come close. But Federer did load up on majors early in his career against some weaker opponents in Mark Philippoussis, Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez (who), and Robin Soderling. He beat Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin early in his career for titles and both were former number 1's along with another former number 1 in Andy Roddick who he was 4-0 in majors against. He also beat a pretty washed up Andre Agassi in the 2005 US Open as well. Hell even Rogers last two major wins came against Marin Cilic a good but not great player whose only major win came against Nishikori. Its definitely a shame that the primes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic didn't overlap at once because that would have been fun to see.All true, but it has me wondering the reverse: Maybe his head to head would be better, but how much did Federer benefit from hitting the scene a few years before Nadal and Djokovic? Nadal started winning titles really early, but he was seen as something of a clay specialist. He won his first non French Open GS in 2008, the same year that Djokovic won his first major. Before 2008, Federer already had a ridiculous 12 GS wins. If he'd come along a few years later, it's reasonable to think that number would dip a bit with the increased competition.
The issue with any H2H with Nadal is that he’s just too dominant on clay. It’s obviously to his credit but it really skews thing. For what it’s worth, Nadal hasn’t beaten Djokovic on a non-clay court in 8 years. It’s a ridiculous statistic. He also hasn’t beaten Federer on a non-clay court in 7 years, although they haven’t played too many matches. Still, Rafa’s dominance on clay warps a statistic like H2H. Diving deeper, you can see that Novak is clearly the better player. Or at least has been for the last 10 years.This is a fair post, I thought I'd look up all of their head to heads against each other, just for the sake of info.
Novak 27, Fed 23
Rafa 24, Fed 16
Novak 30, Rafa 28
I am not sure about the grass and clay courts but the hard courts today are different than they were in the 80s and 90s. However just read that the grass courts have been cut to 8 mm since 1995 so there have been changes there as well.Isn't it an issue here too that the courts have slowed down a lot, making it easier for one player with a single style to win slams on different services?