Sunday, January 3, 2016

What's Up? Topic #18; entries 1/16 - 5/16


 Anything can be posted here! We'll talk about politics, some sports (football, figure skating, & tennis), Movies, & TV! Posts framed w/ "***" are from other contributors! - - (- Closed -)





100 comments:

  1. ***Federer: When he realises that he's never gonna be a threat for the slams anymore, he'll retire. That's when there's a small group of players beating him more often than not on all surfaces, and when he starts losing to lower ranked opps. Doesn't consistently make SF of GS & 1000's anymore. Hard to predict when it will happen.

    Nadal: When he realises he's never gonna win the FO again, he'll call it quits. Still loves tennis, but I don't think he'd be too happy being an old top 20-50 player. At 1 point he'll stop being comp. w/ the top 10 on HC & grass altoghether and he'll also start to lose on clay earlier and more often. When the latter happens, he won't keep his ranking up too much by winning some 500's and reaching some 1000 (semi)finals on clay and he'll drop out of the top 10. Also, one more long injury could end his career eff. I think. Or he quits to preserve winning H2H w/ Federer. Probably quits at RG.

    Djokovic: Anyone's guess. He seems incredibly focused to break Fed's record and takes care of himself greatly. If he's still winning slams, he won't quit before #18. If the younger players overtake him before that, probably when he drops out of the top 5 and stops making GS finals. Injuries may happen though, and either crush a dent in his effort to break the record, stop his dominance, or end his career. Will quit at WTF or AO.

    Murray: Won't quit as long as he's top 5 most likely/still has a shot at slams. When he finally gets overtaken by a younger gen., but that m/b far off. Will definitely last longer if he gets more comp. w/ Djokovic again. May sacrifice goat to God to make Djokovic quit before him. Ends it @ WTF (if still in London), Wimbledon, or USO (maybe).
    ...

    Nishikori: The youngest on the list and probably the hardest to predict. Probably quits when a) he realises he's already peaked and is never gonna win that slam. b) he's been on the tour long enough t/b sick of it OR c) injuries end his career. Quits @ ATP Tokyo.***

    I'd accept Nadal's resignation retroactively, going back to 1/4 at FO vs Nole! He didn't do anything after that; going out to his compatriots who were his pigeons, another early exit at Wimbledon, and topping it off w/ an upset by F3 @ the USO after winning the 1st 2 sets! I personally would love for him to hang on like Connors to be fodder for the tour and listen to commentators talk about "the way it used to be!"

    ***I'd like to have Rafa in the game, no matter what position he's in. Of course, me being confident that he'll not trouble Novak anymore plays part in me saying this.
    ---

    Even if I don't think Nadal used PED, and I truly believe the guy is a class act who would never do such a thing, you gotta admit that he really looks like someone who stopped doing just that. Not only has his performance dropped abruptly, he seems like he aged 5 years in 12 months. He doesn't look as muscular, moves slower, and of course the hair loss doesn't help w/ the suspicions. I don't know what to think, but reading Agassi's book taught me one thing: you can do drugs and the ATP will cover your ass if needed. I guess X will tell.***

    I've felt the same since the beginning; the excess musculature, relentless energy, & frequent absences from the tour when busted w/ secret suspensions! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. ***I can't believe that it's been 20 yrs since Rudy won FS Nat'ls. I feel so old. ITA w/ Johnny; that SP is well choreographed for Polina and is a step forward for her in terms of maturity.***

    It was great and nice to see Galindo after all these years! He did a little for Fox G.P. when skating was still huge in the '90's, but not much since! It really hasn't had that much appeal since rivalry of Plushenko & Yagudin! They pushed the sport to new heights! Today's men are truly amateurs in comparison; even w/ all the quads!

    ***Skating has lost its magic for many who fell in love w/ "6.0" skating. ...soon after 6.0 died. Tried to get into the programs and skaters under the new scoring system, and w/ few exceptions I just can't. Have watched many 6.0 programs several X's. Never been drawn into a program under the new system to watch more than once. Only Yu Na and Mao managed to create programs under this system that really felt inspiring to me. Regardless of all the reasons why, I do think the scoring change resulted in the loss of many diehard former fans and has created a new group of fans that apprec. the skating of today.***

    I feel your pain, but it's not just the scoring that's fallen IMO! It's more to do w/ the skaters; their personalities or lack thereof! ...I haven't watched much skating since Mao & Kim and before that Plushenko's era of dominance! Too bad he pushed Yagudin right out of the sport! If not for jumping prowess of Evgeni, Alexei might have saved himself for many years, but being forced to include those quads took its toll! The Russian women have made a remarkable comeback, but the men have a long way to go! If they keep leaning on Plushenko going into his 40's, what does that say about their program? lol! I too miss the 6.0 scoring, but you have to admit more chicanery went on back then! To unseat the fave, they'd have to leave blood on the ice while the rival would have to lay down a perfect performance! How many instances can you come up w/ OTTH how shady the sport was "way back when;" pros and amateurs? I still drag out the old VHS tapes of Slutskaya, Plushy, Kulik, Yagudin, & Urmanov! I miss "Ice Wars!" ;-)

    ***You certainly may find Brown to be the most enjoyable skater out there; your prerogative. ...there are plenty of other skaters (Hanyu, Fernandez, Chan, Uno, Ten) who are both engaging performers w/ difficult programs, who skate faster & bigger, jump higher and are capable of doing X quads and rotating their triple axels in 1 program. It's not just me saying this; it's others and it's the judges. Quads & artistry are not mutually excl.: you only have to look back at the amazing GPF skates to see that. Frankly, all your ranting about quads sounds more like bitterness that your faves are not able to land them, and you're mad that others can and will place ahead of them. Brown's petition can only be taken under consideration.***

    I don't watch like I used to, but I never think it's cool to just take a spot from someone else that actually worked for it! Brown isn't Eldridge here that can actually compete against the world w/o a quad! Most top skaters have more than 1 and we saw how far Weir fell out of the running w/o 1 of his own! The US has a long way to go to catch up w/ the rest of the world in figure skating; hence why we don't get much on TV anymore! Unless someone from this country is the top rung, we can forget a resurgence of interest in the sport, but I'll keep looking for that miracle! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. ***Seems cruel to make the teams who have no chance train like they might get picked.***

    ...We were so top heavy w/ jr winners in the ladies div. in '08, they had to drop down to past winner, Kimmie Meissner who was in 7th place to field a team! Meissner won Nat'ls in '06, but was going through a lot of changes in her skating; so much so she couldn't stay on her feet when jumping! ...the pressure was too much for even someone as gifted as Sasha Cohen yrs before under the same circum.; too good, too soon, but the lack of exper. hurts them!

    ***I just wonder what kind of career Evan will have if/when he and Vera Wang split or whatever a parting of the ways s/b called. It's like working for Daddy ... doesn't necessarily credential you for other jobs.***

    Either "waiting tables" or working the streets OTDL! - After his shady comments in reference to Johnny, I see Karma! ...When you pretty much "bail" on the sport that gave you status to protect THE OG won is just so sick! These winners gain the heights they wanted to achieve and feel "it can't get any better than this" so why taint it by "going down" precipitously? The "desire" just isn't there to "sustain" it over a period of X in some skaters! I guess that's why I have so much regard and respect for Plushenko! Oksana Baiul w/b an example of bailing; was all downhill after Lillihamer in '94! What else has EVAN been doing since Vancouver?

    ***I can't help but sense your great excitement at being able to share about your considerable experiences at both.***

    If I had the personality and looks; sure!

    ***It's funny how the only ones that keep this Johnny/Evan drama going is the fans. They spoke over a year ago and put the crap to rest, so the fans should too. And Evan didn't exactly "bail" on the sport as you would like to put it, he was forced to leave the sport that was his life and world for so long and not on his own terms. It was very jolting to him, when he had 2 subsequent life changing injuries in relation to his sport. What did you want him to do, continue on to Sochi for back to back gold medals and possibly disable himself forever? He had a very hard X coming to terms w/ having his sport and way of life ripped from him and I feel like he's doing a pretty damn good job dealing w/ whatever he needs and wants to do to make himself happy.

    It was his intention to back to back medal, but as fate had it, it wasn't in the cards for him. When he got the clearance to skate again almost a year after his initial hip injury (which still acts up and bothers him BTW), he did a few exhibitions such as Denis Ten's show and a few Disson specials. He also performed in the short Stars on Ice US tour last Spring, and you could tell by watching him in group #'s that he was definitely nursing his hip. Meanwhile, the man was working in commercial real estate, and then (now) for Vera Wang. As long as he's happy, then that's all that matters and everyone should let it go and get off his case.
    ---

    X's have changed. The "ignorant masses" don't find things through newspapers or network TV. Interests spread online like a virus from people to people, laterally not vertically. ...TV is so 'out.' It is ridiculous and laughable that NBC and these reporters are wishing for the types of drama or rivalry or even "the wack" to rekindle popularity. Fossils.***

    Funny I was just thinking of this subject recently; what I did before the internet and other medium! I would go to the library Monday and read through each Sunday metro area newspaper; from news, sports, and political commentary of LA Times, KC Star, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald! I got it all that way and always felt caught up on world affairs!

    ReplyDelete
  4. ***I prefer some of the older matches j/b of the > contrast in playing surfaces and styles.***

    Exactly! No matter how comp. a match, if all they're doing is taking huge swipes @ the ball w/ relentless abandon during play w/ rallies of 37 strokes, I'll go back to my video coll. of Navratilova, Sampras, Goolagong, King, Edberg, & others who were stylish, constructed pts, & entertains me more than any of this ball bashing today! Going 5 sets doesn't make it classic or even comp. IMO! Wimbledon '09 will go down in history as some sort of memorable contest when it was really a slash and dash error-fest! ...Roger would have rolled over if not for those blown ops by Roddick! Give me '80 Wimbledon semi of Borg & Gerulaitis in their 5 set marathon w/ brilliant play! A great match "back in the day" could also be a blowout like Virg. Slims Chp. of '84 w/ Martina & Chris! This w/b their 1st year attempting to make matches more comp. by going to bo5! That had nothing to do w/ it; more to keep Martina on the court longer than 38 mins! During that period she owned the tour, barely losing sets, much < matches! It was a brilliant ploy while Navratilova played, but after that it started being painful to watch w/ some matches going over 3 1/2 hours! I'm so glad they gave it up and went back to bo3 in '99! BTW, Chris kept up and Martina carried her for a 2 sets making it look good, but it was a beatdown, 6-3, 7-5, 6-1!

    ***I never considered ball bashing and being 5, 6 hours on the court epic. ...Most people nowadays consider longer = more epic.
    ---

    You're wrong. If they consider long = epic then Isner vs Mahut w/b their choice - but it isn't, right? AO '12 is epic b/c it's the clash btw 2 ATG @ their peaks. 2 men w/ highest quality groundtrokes in history. It's weird to think that you can give trouble to those 2 guys by simply retrieving & keeping the ball in play.***

    After all this X, mentally I'm still trying to recover from all that tennis poor Nole had to go through to win that title in '12! It was bad enough Murray kept him on court for almost 5 hours in the semi, having a chance to close Nadal out in 4, he blew it serving it out, eventually losing the TB, but winning in 5 sets and almost 6 hours! ...I still claim Nole mocks him by "giving it back" in spades, but of late, he's gone all out for the quick kill to embarrass Nadal!

    ***Nadal's always getting kicked in the 1st week. So much for the H2H. - I think Milos makes it to the AO semis in a 4 set victory over Monfils!***

    I hope so; maybe I can stop griping about the next gen. being gutless! That was a step in the right direction; taking out Stan like that! Very impressive; such an annoying player who's Jeckyll/Hyde act is getting old! One moment he's hitting screaming winners against the best in the world; the next he can't keep the ball in play against a qualifier!

    ***...I don't think the match w/ Simon was anything more than a hiccup. He will raise his level as usual and dispose of the Samurai in 3.***

    People need to give Simon more credit for playing well! He kept the ball in play and ran down a lot of Nole's best shots to frustrate him for 5 grueling sets! Djokovic helped w/ those horrible dropshots, but I thought I was watching Nole and Stan for a while w/ those long rallies; truly interminable!

    ***...So, Simon surely deserves credit as he was forcing Novak to do something to finish the rally instead of simply expecting him to make a mistake. - Like Simon, Kei c/b capable of producing the same kind of problems for players: running everything down, and returning it. The ??'s are a) whether or not he's in the right place physically to execute his game successfully enough to beat Novak, and b) where Novak is mentally.***

    ReplyDelete
  5. ***...The last thing that Tennis needs is for the 75 yo Fed to win this thing.***

    It's not like I'm no longer a fan of Roger's, but it won't help the game if he continues to hold on like this! Raonic did his job and very impressively considering Stan was on the move from 2 sets down! Milos took me back 20 yrs; bending down low to get those touch shots to softly drop over the net! That BH, sliced net approach almost brought tears! I've been looking forward to both Milos and Kei to do something!

    ***Once the Big 4 retire, it w/b a while before we see multi-GS winners anywhere close to this level w/ consistency as good as theirs. These so-called up-and-comers just aren't up to snuff. Dimitrov, Raonic & Kei haven't even won Masters. Even Murray, the weakest link of the Big Four had won X Masters before his mid 20s. What is it w/ the "next gen.?" They are, quite frankly, pathetic.***

    ...Players like Dimitrov c/b up 5-2 in the 3rd set vs Murray w/ X "MP's," but finds a way to give it away! It happens over and over vs the "Big 4!" These guys have all the ability in the world, but it does them no good; actually allowing other "oldsters" like Cilic, Ferrer, & Berdych to hang around b/c the next gen. isn't ready to take over! It's not like I want the top players to lose, but it should happen more than a 1/2 dozen X's over the last decade!

    ***Why is there always this need to bash the younger players esp. when negative things said about their skills and dedication are mostly harsh and unfair. It seems like it's become a cool thing to attribute hopelessness w/ this younger gen. and call them pathetic and when all this is being said people mostly don't even analyze the challenges surrounding those guys and are just quick to demean them b/c they haven't won a slam or Masters. People who play the game on tour and understand the game and circuit a lot better than any of us such as Fed have given quite the rational explanation compared to simply claiming they're pathetic.

    ...Top and established player are a lot more consistent than ever. Some of you don't look at things in context, nor try to est. a fair basis for comparison. You just claim that the current crop of youngsters have yet to win Masters or slams as if that's easy w/ top guys such as Nole, Murray, Fed, etc grabbing all of them and staying as consistent as ever.

    We all get and know that this new gen. isn't quite as good as the last, but neither are they crap. And this sense of them being average and mediocre is a misconception which stems from the fact that the previous gen. consisted of 3-4 all X greats in Nole, Fed, MUrray and Nadal which create this misconception that the current gen. is crap.
    ---

    "Novak, please destroy Fed in the semi."***

    It doesn't say much for the tour to have the same top 3 AGAIN in the semis! This is just unbelievable! In the old days, you had upsets; McEnroe not even playing a final while on grass or HC! I echo your sentiment; still a fan, but hope Roger is destroyed! We probably just jinxed Nole! ;-)

    ***All this jinx talk. Nobody needs to jinx anything, every match for the rest of the year is already decided. - Beating Stan and then losing to Gael would seriously hurt...I am hoping Milos will take care of business. Gael is tricky though, so Milos has to concentrate on his own game and nothing else.

    Personally I'm rooting for Monfils. At least he makes it interesting. Raonic is beyond boring. Another big guy who's all serve and lumbers around the court slapping at the ball as hard as he can. Sure, he's coming forward, but it's like watching a giraffe w/ a tennis raquet rush the net - only the novelty of it is considerably less interesting.***

    I'd rather the new guard come to the for; Monfil's had his chances and's blown it! I need for someone other than Murray in this final! Not sure Gael can stay on the court throwing his body around the way he did the other day!

    ReplyDelete
  6. ***I believe Serena is right up near the all X GOAT's. A different era than Nav. & Graf. Serena's consistency & dedication ??able... Fully motivated now at the ripe old age of 34, ...very little in terms of comp.
    ---

    If all we judge on are records, then I think a few things lean heavily in Graf's favor:
    107-70 (both lag way behind in this race)
    31-26 (Slam finals)
    8-5 (yr-end #1's)
    377-278 (wks @ #1)

    Wms still has X to make some of those up of course. While she trails by 31 wks for longest stretch as #1.

    ...The arguments for Graf are, I think: 1) She got to 4+ @ each Slam, whereas Wms only has won 3 X's in Paris, 2) Graf won at least 6 titles on each surface, whereas Williams only has 3 on clay. [...Given that it's arguable that HC's were Graf's weakest surface, this argument favors Graf by obscuring that she had more op. to win 6+ Slams on her weakest surface]. A similar argument c/b: 3) Graf won > majors on 2 of the 3 surfaces. It'd be: grass 7-6 Graf, clay 6-3 Graf, HC's 13-9 Wms. ...The main argument for Wms is, I think: She got to 6+ at 3 of the 4 Slams, whereas Graf only got there at 2.***

    I'd feel a lot > about bestowing "GOAT" on Miss Wms if she had taken the sport seriously the entire X she was in the spotlight! No other reigning #1 was quite ...take off extended periods, really invest X in other ventures instead of being the best repr. as #1 as she could, and is so far behind Martina IMO, it's a wasted effort to try and change my mind! Navratilova kept herself in shape and didn't yo-yo around w/ her health the way Serena allowed being the top athlete in the world! Williams' also thought of as the best baseliner of all X; having just a handful of clay titles belies that! She was literally owned in her prime by Henin and allowed a semi-retired mother (Clijster) to beat her in a major (USO)! ;-)

    ***Not close. Graf leads all other important metrics:

    5 slams in a row
    CYGS
    100 more Wks @ #1
    3 more Yrs @ #1
    3% higher career match winning %
    38 more titles
    5 dominant yrs (3 slams or more) compared to Serena's 2

    Just having more slams doesn't cut it. Federer's considered clearly > than Sampras not j/b of slam count, but also being better in almost every other category. To be recognised as > than a historical player, 1 has t/b better than that player in most metrics. The younger player already has the advantage of having records to chase.
    ---

    ...Particularly in light of that the USO's gen. the slightly more prestigious anyway (and that she missed the AO in '87, '92, '95, & '96 all which she whb favored or very close to it). In Serena's favor I would say HC's is clearly regarded as the pre-eminent surface of tennis for quite awhile now, and she clearly trumps all players of that modern HC heavy period; Graf included, there. Wow it's interesting she's now w/i 100 wks of Graf's X at #1. I once thought she could never get w/i earshot there, but she could actually make that quite close.
    ---

    The '87 AO wasn't on HC, and although in retrospect we can say that she might well have won it, she wouldn't have gone in as fave, bearing in mind that she was still ranked #3 at the X. She also wasn't the fave for '92, but I agree about '95 & '96. Although Pierce played very well in '95 & might have played her close. Seles didn't play that well in '96, so Graf might well have won, but OTOH Graf never beat Seles on rebound ace. Good point about getting to 5+ in a tourney on the surface, although note that Graf had 2 ways to get to 5+ on HC's, whereas Wms had to win RG 5 C's to have 5+ titles in a clay Slam.***

    ...As a clay or baseline GOAT; Henin had it all over Wms! Justine won the FO fairly easily while Serena went 10 years btw finals in Paris!

    ReplyDelete
  7. ***Roger made a ton of errors which didn't help his cause one bit. He was going toe to toe in the rallies, but over hitting a lot and netting routine balls. Don't expect him to lose 6-1 or 6-2 sets to Novak much in the future.***

    If Roger tries to, as you say "go toe to toe" w/ Nole, the losses w/b more embarrassing IMO! Can't you see Nole eats up pace? Going 20-30 strokes a rally will do the old man no good by a 4th set; be realistic! Roger committed errors, but they weren't all UF; many were forced by pace of shot & length of the rallies! ;-)

    ***...This "Fed is 34 y.o", is just an easy excuse. He's playing the best tennis we have seen from him in years. He himself has said this himself. Fitness is not the issue. - Federer simply NEVER had the tools to beat Nadal, Djokovic, and even Murray consistently. Why can't you admit that? His game, although artistic, & nice to watch, was ineffective against them. It's a pity Fed fans can't see that.

    a) Federer was 13-6 vs Djokovic until '10, beating him consistently.

    b) Fed owns Murray @ majors : 5-1 w/ 2 sets lost in the matches he's won ...in their last 5 matches, Murray hasn't won a set.
    ---

    ...after seeing Djokovic beat Federer over and over again, it's clear that Fed's highly overrated just like an iphone. It's all marketing. Fed won slams vs clowns like Roddick & Fernandes. Everyone talks about Djokovic beating an old Federer, but he's beating all these younger guys and even beating Nadal and Murray. It's just Djokovic that exposes him. That proves it really. Djokovic has been the better player of the 2 ever since the last 2 years and he has not only caught up but really surpassed Federer in all the technical aspects of the game. It's quite evident from their last 3 GS matches.***
    ===

    Here and elsewhere, Nadal was supposed t/b back; even after the beating at Qatar! Some were musing about a double CGS for Rafa; gack! I thought it was hyperbole, but some seriously thought he would survive through to a final "and" beat Nole! Dreamers and gamblers who must have gone broke! I haven't seen much of them; but I'm not exactly looking to gloat! It takes a lot to realize a fave has "declined" and may never see past glories again; "hello Rafa & Roger?"

    ***Vegas always had Nadal as a longshot. They're the un??ed kings of outcome prediction, so go to them if you ever want the real scoop. Djokovic was a ridiculous monster fave, but it looks like there're right (again).
    ---

    As odd as it seems, it's Fed who's suffering far more than Nadal even though Federer is clearly the far superior player now. So my ?? is ...should the GS events not carry so much significance over the other ATP events? ...Actually Federer isn't that far off Djokovic. It w/b a travesty if Nadal wins the FO this year as in truth Nadal is nowhere near Federer or Djokovic now.***

    ReplyDelete
  8. ***Tomic's bang on. Novak's just too good at the moment and playing like this, he w/b winning vs anyone on that court. It's obvious that Novak, just like Rafa, is uniquely fired up when playing Roger in big matches. The reflexes, the movement, the flexibility, the accuracy of those shots was just ...wow... he was often near flawless. But it seems to me, that even in W'14, W'15 & USO'15, Novak wanted to win their match much, much more deeply than Roger did. ...At this level, more hunger and more confidence is all it takes. He knew he had to bring the goods and bring them fast from the start. Roger knew that too, but he just cannot dig deep enough anymore to somehow attack the problem early enough w/ concerted effort. This certainly was not the case FO '08. There, he was plain destroyed. ...***
    ===

    I was so hopeful Milos had come of age; Wawrinka win isn't enough if you look at history! It looked good for a different final after 3rd set TB and break of Murray! Will the crowd boooooo? That's the ?? if it's another drubbing by the end w/ 6-0 set going to Nole? ;-)

    ***I think you s/b encouraged by Milos's performance. If you were expecting him to become a true elite, you were bound for disappointment, but I think what we saw - defeating Stan, taking Andy to 5 - means he's now a legitimate darkhorse candidate, something more than the Tsongas, Berdychs & Ferrers of the world. More of a del Potro. Kei s/b there too, but I'm starting to see him as another Ferrer type, although trading health for an occasional more explosive level.***

    Agreed for the most part, but Kei has so much more to offer than Ferrer! At his best David is just fodder for the elite players w/ a dismal record vs them all! Kei is capable of beating any of them w/ several weapons at his disposal! Right now it's all 'in his head' and of course how fragile his body is w/ repeated absences from the tour!

    ***Roger lost RG finals only 3 X's before going on to win it in '09 (his 2005 loss was in SF).***

    "Win it" or was he "gifted" his '09 FO? Sorry, Roger didn't win it IMO; assisted by Soderling who took out Nadal in the 1/4's! I just hope Federer got Robin something nice for helping to complete his CGS finally! ;-)

    ***...Roger had to work extremely hard to win RG '09, Rafa not so much to win Wimbledon and Stan had to play like a man possessed to beat Novak @ RG. To put RG '09 in perspective, this was one of the few times the guy who knocked out the defending champion went all the way to the final which should tell you how insanely well he was playing. The norm after a huge upset is the player loses his or her next match dismally. Kudos to Soderling for bucking that trend 2 str. years in a row.
    ---

    Couldn't disagree more w/ the notion that Novak eats up pace btw. Why then has he never won Cincy? The pace of that court is the very reason he hasn't won there and why Roger's attacking game is so effective there. Roger's problem isn't the pace against Novak, it's a combo of him being slower w/ age, Novak in his prime and w/ quicker reaction speed, great return of serve, the courts all being slower these days and his mental block vs Novak where his game that was at a very high level all tournament suddenly goes to pieces. ...Now some hardcore Djokovic fans will say he's not allowed to play his game, but then I'd counter that by saying it's nonsense 'cos he can do so no problem in Masters events, etc. The problem for Roger is the moment is getting to him on the big stage vs Novak and he panics and isn't able to execute his game plan properly when it matters most. He does sporadically, but not the same level of consistency he had even not so long ago as 2011.***

    Pace of shot is not a problem playing vs his pigeons; Nole loves to bang the ball w/ Cilic, Ferrer, & Berdych! You can count their wins over him on 1 hand! Roger does more than hit hard; changes of speed, attacking the net, drop-shotting, etc.!

    ReplyDelete
  9. ***I actually came out the day Roger won Wimbledon '12 and said that Fed should retire on a high. I sensed then, perhaps like many of you, that he had captured lightning in a bottle that tournament and should quit while he was ahead. ...BUT, if Fed had retired, many on here would believe, erroneously as history has proven, that Fed would have won more GS titles in the years to follow. What is his record post Wimbledon in GS matches vs Nadal & Djokovic? In GS matches, he has lost 5 str. to the 2 of them. He only managed to win more than a set in 1 of those encounters. He has gone 7-11 since Djokovic in all matches and is 1-5 vs Nadal (that's a combined 8-16 vs his 2 greatest rivals).

    His continued pursuit of matches will only result in more beatdowns by Djokovic and maybe even Nadal as we move forward. ...2013 appeared t/b that year, but at least he has surprised us w/ some occasional brilliance in 2014-2015.
    ---

    Federer has won more than 10 titles since '12. That's very good. Tennis is mostly about winning tournaments. Not everything is about slams alone. His Basel titles, i.e., has probably made him very happy each X. His slam results are also very good. This I guess is the main debate - whether by going on and giving other players chances to beat him makes his resume worse. This is nonsense. Today Federer probably cares about winning those titles and doesn't care if he loses in SF or 3rd round (he actually has said something like this recently btw, maybe in brisbane?). ...there's a reason why people talk about those 1,000th match wins, 300th GS match wins and so forth. These things are exactly the growing resume of Federer that people think is diminishing b/c he naturally ends up losing matches along the way. ...Roger has played some great tennis all around except '13, in fact better than all but the very best as per his ranking suggests. That's also very good. I for one appreciate it as a fan.
    ---

    The only reason this topic is being brought up is b/c Djokovic is beating him. The media is hyping Djokovic up b/c he's the "big thing" right now; just like they did when Fed was and just like they did when Nadal was. Personally I think it's one of these:

    •Amazing that at 34 yo Roger is competing at the top of the game winning titles and making GS finals. He strengthens his own legacy showing that he is so good even at the age most tennis players have retired, he is still one of the top 3 tennis players in the world.

    •Sad that the tour is so weak that Roger can be ranked so high and be practically one of the only guys on tour capable of beating Djokovic. Shows you how weak this era is. Roger only has good stats b/c he dominated a weak era, yet in this era and at the ripe old age of 34 he's still #3 in the world, winning Masters titles, and making GS finals. Take your pick.

    Of course the Djoker fans like to double negative themselves and claim Roger's stats are inflated due to weak era yet this is the strongest era ever and Djoker is just sooooooo dominant. Guess what, you look as good as your peers allow you to. AKA Djokovic is not losing b/c the other guys just are not that good.
    ---

    Since Wimbledon '12, Federer has achieved the following:
    - Olympic silver medal in singles
    - 1st ever Davis Cup for Switzerland
    - surpassed 1000 wins on tour
    - eclipsed 300 weeks at world #1
    - racked up 3 more slam finals, 3 more YE finals
    - won 13 extra titles to take his tally to 88. includ. 4 Masters1000 titles

    So no, he's definitely not hurting his legacy - Outside of the weeks at #1, the rest are forgettable. There's no points for 2nd place for an all X great. Finals apps just mean you didn't win the title. You either win or you don't. Really, who remembers about winning Masters titles?***

    Just me I guess! lol!

    ReplyDelete
  10. ***Serena was very slow ...her footwork did her in at this AO. I think it's okay she lost to someone like Kerber who's not the media fave.***

    When has Serena ever had a game plan? Some giving her too much credit in Wms figuring out patterns and taking advantage of weaknesses! W/ both Williams' it's about blowing the other woman off the court; period, end of story! The only thing strategic about it is getting off the court sooner rather than later if all is clicking well in hitting w/ abandon and mindless aggression! Is that too much honesty? ;-)

    ***I agree with you. Seeing her struggle running down dropshots, as if she were on the verge of a heart attack against Vinci. I thought she was done. Still do, though I didn't expect her to play as well as she did until the final. This final was an even bigger choke than the Vinci semi. Kerber played really well, but Serena handed it to her w/ all of those UFEs. ...Evert said Serena has a good chance to achieve the GRAND SLAM this year. Must've been right after the 2nd set. Their "impartiality" almost surpasses their prescience.
    ===

    I'm not gonna talk about Borg w/ someone who has no idea what the tour looked like back then. It was unheard of to win that many majors. It was actually an Open Era record until Sampras won 14. Borg dominated 2 opp. surfaces for YEARS. If it weren't for Americans Connors & McEnroe who blocked him so that if he beat one of them he'd have another waiting in the final, he would've done a lot better at the USO. He retired at the age when Nole wasn't even at 1/2 that mark and would surely win more FO titles. The AO was non-existent at the X so he could only score at 3 majors a year. Imagine if there was no AO today, how many years would it take for Djokovic (if he'd even make it at all!) to get to 11 Slams w/o the AO? He has 5 now and he's gonna be 29 come the FO. Borg would probably be sitting at 12 or 13 actual Slams b/c as sure as Hell, baby Wilander wasn't beating him there. I'm rating Borg very highly on the ATG list, he's got the credentials to be called the GOAT, and in my eyes he's more of a 14-X Slam Champ instead of a player who won 11.***

    Young 'uns just have no idea the elegance, history, & nostalgia of the tennis boom when it exploded w/ Connors, Borg, Vilas, Evert, Goolagong, Navratilova, & King! It became a way of life where tennis-wear became the style of the day! It still endures after all this X w/ the Golden Age of Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, & Wilander! B/c of the way the press is speaking of Roger, they think he's "the ultimate GOAT," when in fact, he might get eaten alive by past talent! It's all about the rackets, going Bo3 in Masters, and the gutlessness of the rest of the tour right now IMO! ;-)

    ***I wouldn't go that far that Federer would get eaten alive, but back then you needed actual talent to get high in the rankings. Right now all you need is strong legs who can carry your body for 5 hours in the heat, a strong mentality and you're nearly there. I'm sick of people calling Djokovic the most complete player ever when he only comes to the net to shake hands. He's the best in what he's doing, but he can't do it all.
    ---

    All Grand Slams are =. J/b Borg didn’t participate at the AO doesn’t mean it wasn’t a worthy tournament. It was a sanctioned GS event and it holds the very same status; just as the others. Anyone have a problem w/ that, they should go argue it w/ the ITF. Everyone had the = opportunity to participate in the tournament and they did. Taking away the AO also means taking it away from past greats such as Laver, Connors, etc who have won the tournament, so it’s unfair on Djokovic, who has 5 titles there to say it doesn’t mean anything when comparing his tally against past legends. 5 GS's at 1 event isn’t a small #.***

    ReplyDelete
  11. ***GOAT pts by me:

    YE#1 - 1 pt
    GS - 1 pt
    WTF - 0,5 pt
    M - 0,25 pt
    GS F - 0,2 pt

    Bonus:
    CGS - 1 pt
    a wk @ #1 - 0,01 pt (100 wks = 1 pt)
    (CM - 0, 5 pts, CGS + CM + WTF = 2 pts)

    If difference btw 2 players is < than 1 pt, then you need a closer look at h2h, competition, other titles, W-L record etc..

    Fed: 5 + 17 + 6x0, 5 + 24x0, 25 + 10x0, 2 + bonus: 1 + 3,02 = 37, 02
    Sampras: 6 + 14 + 5x0, 5 + 11x0, 25 + 4x0,2 + bonus: 2, 86 = 28, 91
    Rafa: 3 + 14 + 1x0, 5 (if OG counts same as WTF) + 27x0, 25 + 6x0, 2 + bonus: 1 + 1, 41 = 27, 86
    No1e: 4 + 11 + 5x0, 5 + 26x0, 25 + 8x0, 2 + bonus: 2 = 27, 6

    Nole's big issue is that he never won RG, but Rafa already got 1 extra pt for his CGS. Rafas big issue on the other side is that he, unlike every other great, never had his own era. He never managed to dominate more than 1 year, never putted together 2 YE #1.
    ---

    Djokovic will win the GS this year. There's no one to stop him. Then he will be tied w/ Sampras & Nadal, but s/b ranked > than either b/c of the better distribution and the GS. And then next year he will win more to exceed them. Can he surpass Fed's 17? Very probably.- Novak winning the GS this year w/b out of this world; 6 in a row the most dominant champion ever. Pete & Nadal will be totally eclipsed.
    ---

    He crushes Nadal in every way.

    Big 5 titles: 16 > 14 (Novak missing RG, Nadal missing WTF)
    Slams: 11 < 14
    WTF: 5 > 0
    Wks at #1: 184 > 141
    Masters: 26 < 27
    H2H: 24 > 23

    If he gets RG and 2 more Masters, he will be ahead of Nadal in every rational person's mind. He will have won every big title, dominated 3 surfaces, and hold every relevant record over Nadal besides slam count.
    ---

    Djokovic already has surpassed NAdal. If you add up all of his ATP pts where you can win 500 points or > - Djokovic's total is > than Nadal's

    Djokovic has passed Nadal in pts >= 500 level

    Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) +

    (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

    Djokovic = (11 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (26 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) +

    (12 x 0.50) = 85.1

    Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x

    0.50) = 84.11
    ===

    ...Hell, no one in the entirety of tennis had the career Navro did that spanned 31 years+. To put this into perspective, Connors, the #1 singles titled mens player, and the man we suspect Federer is chasing for titles, has 109 singles titles (vs Feds 88 or so). Navro has 60 MORE than Steffi Graff at 167 singles titles. That's 10 more than the stupidly underrated (at least on this board by the kids) Chris Evert. But wait, there's more - Navro has more doubles titles than singles at an unbelievably massive 177. That's right, Martina Navratalova has 344 freaking tennis titles. More than John McEnroe's & Jimmy Connors' 50 plus years of tennis efforts combined.
    ---

    To me that's a huge claim for Navratilova as an all-X great. Like her or not, no one has ever personified tennis like she did. One of the reasons the GOAT debate is stupid. Sure, Graf, Court & Serena have more GS titles. But do they personify tennis like Martina did? Navratilova is synonymous w/ tennis in all its different categories. - She won more tournaments than any other woman and was successful in all categories, but does that somehow trump Serena's, Graf's or Court's Slams? No, they're all X greats for different reasons. They're a heterogenous group w/ diff. accomps.***

    ReplyDelete
  12. ***Out of curiosity, I wanted to see which players had the largest "Slam Final Shares" during the Age of Novak (2011-16). That includes 21 Slams.

    Slam Finals: 2011-16:
    17 Djokovic (76.2%)
    9 Nadal (42.9%)
    8 Murray (38%)
    5 Federer (23.8%)
    2 Wawrinka (9.5%)
    1 Cilic (4.8%)
    1 Nishikori (4.8%)
    1 Ferrer (4.8%)

    Slam Wins: 2011-16:
    11 Djokovic (5.2%)
    5 Nadal (23.8%)
    2 Murray (9.5%)
    2 Wawrinka (9.5%)
    1 Federer (4.8%)
    1 Cilic (4.8%)

    Going just on that, Andy's behind only Novak & Rafa in those 2 categories and actually has a better conversion rate (28.5%) than Roger (20%) from '11 to the present. - I imagine some of you are looking around for possible suitors of your next fave player?***

    ...That's the way it's been w/ the next gen. in Kei & Milos! Both have challenged the best, but they can't stay on the court for long either! I'm done w/ Grigor after that loss to Murray in Cincy last season! Like so many of these newbies, he had X MP's and breaks giving away his lead & the match! I'll have to call it gutless to this day! Even if Roger were to hobble away, who's supposed to challenge Nole when these guys can't handle the old men now?

    ***Fiero, I'm not saying it will happen soon, just that it will happen. And unlike the Grigor-Kei-Milos gen., the next gen. (born 1994-98) will be rising as Novak-Murray will be declining. At some point they'll pass each other on the mountain, so to speak. When that will be, IDK. I do expect the tour to become more competitive over the next few years. Maybe not so much this year, although as I've said elsewhere I expect some bounce-back from the '89-93 bunch, but I do think we'll continue to see gains from the Young Punks and by next year they'll start being a factor in big tourneys, or at least some of them will.
    ---

    Subconsiously could Rod Laver be threatned by Djokovic possibly winning the CYS and maybe a Golden CYGS? - He's not threatened by Nole, but no 1 likes to see their records matched or surpassed, no matter what they say. He did tell Darren Cahill that Djokovic's performance in the 1st 2 sets vs Federer was the best tennis he ever witnessed in his life.***

    It was a thrashing; only t/b replayed & duplicated again & again as X goes on! ;-)

    ***I don't for a sec. think Rocket w/b threatened by Djokovic. I think Laver's pretty content w/ his achievements and it's fantastic to still see him as an active observer @ so many tourneys around the world each year. In fact how cool would it be if Laver were to present Djokovic w/ the USO trophy this year if it completed the CYGS for him? Now that w/b a special moment in tennis.
    ---

    If/when Djokovic wins 1 more slam will you rank Nole > than Borg? He shot out like a rocket and dominated early in his career, but retired once he realized that the well was dry. Djokovic will no doubt surpass his career totals, just as Federer & Sampras did.***

    I wish people would stop saying that; and the nonsense about McEnroe running Borg out of the sport! People should really go look up the real history and leave the old wives tales for bloggers and on air commentators who don't have a clue! If today's rules existed, he would have played several more years! Blame the idiot "powers that be" in that period who wouldn't give him a little break from the tour! If he had gotten 2 months early in '82, he probably would have shown up in X for the clay tour; Rome, MC, Paris! Now players w/ that kind of seniority can skip Masters events! That wasn't the case back then; needed to fake injuries like these losers today! ;-(

    ReplyDelete
  13. ***Djokovic has already surpassed Borg's career totals. Given that he has won more than Borg (Same Slam count, many more Masters 1000 =, more YE finals, more slam R-up, longer at being #1) - why do people still rank Borg as being >. Note: I am a huge Borg fan. Back in the day he was regarded as the 'greatest player' ever by many. Just asking the ?? objectively - w/ Djokovic already surpassing almost every mark Borg set - why do many still rank Borg >?***

    What he was able to do w/ a wood racket, being able to overcome the more aggressive game of the day's S & V's, his 11 majors are worth more than Roger's 17! The level of comp., the lightning fast grass, indoor, and HC tennis; you have to appr. his string of wins! Unfort. as X goes on, he'll be forgotten since Nadal has eclipsed his FO record and Fed & Sampras annihilated his Wimbledon prowess, but I saw it and how much he had to overcome compared to today's stars w/ homogenized courts, balls, and racket tech. @ their fingertips! Roger, Rafa, & Nole would have trouble in past eras; BIG TIME!
    ===

    ***Andy Murray: The LOSER among the Winners:

    - Outcome Year Chp. Surf. Opp. - Score
    Runner-up '08 USO Hard Federer 2–6, 5–7, 2–6
    Runner-up '10 AO -Hard Federer 3–6, 4–6, 6–7(11–13)
    Runner-up '11 AO (2) - Djokovic 4–6, 2–6, 3–6
    Runner-up '12 Wimbledon Grass Swit. Federer 6–4, 5–7, 3–6, 4–6
    - Winner '12 USO Hard Djokovic 7–6(12–10), 7–5, 2–6, 3–6, 6–2
    Runner-up '13 AO (3) - Djokovic 7–6(7–2), 6–7(3–7), 3–6, 2–6
    - Winner '13 Wimbledon Grass Djokovic 6–4, 7–5, 6–4
    Runner-up '15 AO (4) - Djokovic 6–7(5–7), 7–6(7–4), 3–6, 0–6
    Runner-up '16 AO (5) - Djokovic 1–6, 5–7, 6–7(3–7)

    This isn't including a bevy of miserable semi and early round losses.
    ---

    ...I definitely think his career has gone downwards just when it was going upwards, but he's a terrier and a competitor, unlike Safin & Nalby and a bunch of other shams we've seen over the last 12 or so years. Andy is limited - but he's done a lot of significant things too. Immense pressure as a Brit trying to firstly reach a Wimbledon final, then win one. He achieved these things. He's #2 in the world. He has a bunch of victories against 3 of the greatest players to ever swing a stick. He's won titles at all levels. The last 2 seasons have seen his best seasons on clay. he can correct his trajectory, he's not gone so far in the wrong direction. I dunno if the negativity is caused by anger at him for not being better, but it isn't for the want of some effort on his part that he isn't.
    ---

    Actually, if you note, my thread was specifically a riff on the fact that he's absolutely 1 of the 'Big 4,' and has a significant amount of achievements. However, 2 slams vs. 11, 14, & 17 is the back of the pack. Not to mention historic melt downs, coach juggling, and other things.***

    He should & c/b doing so much more!

    ***I'd be surprised if anyone thinks that Andy's not the most unfortunate player to be born into this era. He's very talented, has an excellent tennis IQ, works very hard on his fitness & game, and yet has always had Federer, Nadal & Djokovic in front of him. That's some bad luck for a guy w/ that much talent.***

    You can say that about many players in the past; overshadowed by 1 or 2 other players who just happened t/b in the path of another's greatness! Starting in my day it was Vilas of Argentina who had to "wait on" Connors & Borg! Then there was Lendl who had those 2 and had to contend w/ more obstacles in Becker & Edberg! Hewitt whb nothing but a footnote except Sampras had retired and Federer hadn't ascended the throne yet! Today there's Nole who still seems to be scrappin' for much recognition b/c of Fedal! As far as I'm concerned, w/ the game Murray has, he s/b happy w/ the results he has of 2 GS, several Masters, OG, and DC! That's more than other past stars got when > players were in their way! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. ***Wake me when Nole wins 200 titles & 2 CS's. Until then... No, Nole isn't anywhere NEAR a threat to Laver.***

    Sampras did a lot < in many categories, but we still anointed him "The GOAT" back in '02! He had the most GS wins and that was about it! He was dominated in the Masters count by Agassi, never won a FO; even to play a final, and that finishing kick of victory at the '02 USO occurred after 2+ years of being winless! Like Fed, he made a couple finals, but was blown off the court in str. sets by Safin and Hewitt in successive USO's before '02! I think we have "a ways to go" to get to this point!

    ***That is true. Although Sampras did have the most wks @ #1, was ATP's POY a few X's, was = in USO wins, & YEC chps; he did have a few categories. Masters/Super 9 not really considered t/b anything special.***

    Well that's a matter of op. of course! Lack of Masters and saying they're nothing special is something done when not leading in that category! ...I check the recordbooks constantly and marvel at how Nole has inched his way up; past many "so called" greats already and about to pass our current 1's in Fedal! Taking 2 majors the next 2 or 3 years and adding to his Masters' count will only make Nole's record more inflated to blow his rivals out of the water! ...Djpkovic just bided his X and has dominated unlike anyone in the OPEN era these last 5 years; includ. the current GOAT FED! Most of Rogers #'s have to do w/ longevity these days, so nothing c/b done w/ those categories, but the others are being surpassed now or at least threatened like their H2H record which just changed hands last week in Nole's favor after 10 yrs of comp.!

    ***The gen. pub's also not interested in the #'s & stats game which has become an abs. ob. on forums the last few years. -...What about Kerber beating Wms today in AO? - I tend to agree w/ Fiero here: Serena's "strategy" is indistinguishable from her forearm muscles. She's a bruiser, a puncher, not a boxer. The only X I've seen her employ inspired "strategy" or tactics is in her toilet breaks.***

    ...Kerber jumped to #2 w/ a major; finally someone at the top w/ a title of some stature!

    ***Kerber was excellent and caused a lot of the errors for Serena due to getting so many balls back. The missed volleys i.e. weren't poor tech. as many people were saying, but simply very hard to hit as they dipped so low over the net. Now she did of course hit some poor volleys where the court was wide open like on MP. That was a horrific miss, but there were others that were just sloppy and not down to pressure from Kerber. "Congrats Ag!"
    ---

    ...Hell yes Serena's a strategist and 10 X's > than Hingis. That's why she has 21 majors and Hingis only has 5. Now tell me who's the best strategist? ...Serena and Hingis should never be mentioned in the same sentence, ever.***

    I agree wholeheartedly; they shouldn't! That GS count disparity has NOTHING to do w/ strategy though! Seek serious help if you think a little girl who obviously was the best thinker on the court in recent memory has anything to worry about mentally w/ either Williams! They can have all the wins in the world; Hingis lost from "power" tennis of the day w/ these Amazons who were twice her size, slamming aces and crushing their groundstrokes and ROS! Hingis did well to win as much as she did; on par w/ Aggie Radwanska who has the same problem today! Martina's obviously smart and talented or she wouldn't have won 5 more majors last season; taking another 1 at this past AO! We'll see who has the longevity, skill, and mental fortitude to continue well past their prime! She's still winning after retiring twice! My money's on Hingis! You stay w/ the mindless ball bashers and see how far they go!

    ReplyDelete
  15. ***This is true, but as I've said, Novak will be 29 @ start of the next major. We need 1 of the stat experts to tell us, but how many slams have been won in the Open era by players older? I know Connors won 3, I think Roger has 1, Agassi has 3 or 4. There m/b others. Even given the poor level of comp. currently, is it asking too much for Nole to win 6 more? I think so...
    ---

    ...Quite a few, as it turns out, but most in the 70s.

    '68 Rosewall (33, FO), Laver (29, Wim)
    '69 Laver x 4 (30, 30, 30, 31)
    '70 Rosewall (35, USO)
    '71 Rosewall (36, AO)
    '72 Rosewall (37, AO))
    '73 Newcombe (29, USO)
    '75 Newcombe (31, AO), Arthur Ashe (32, WIM)
    '82 Connors (29, Wim; 30, USO)
    '83 Connors (31, USO)
    '90 Lendl (29, AO), Gomez (30, FO)
    '98 Korda (30, AO)
    '99 Agassi (29, FO, USO)
    '00 Agassi (29, AO)
    '01 Agassi (30, AO), Ivanisevic (30, WIM)
    '02 Sampras (31, USO)
    '03 Agassi (32, AO)
    '12 Federer (30, WIM)
    '15 Wawrinka (30, FO)

    5 Laver
    4 Rosewall, Andre Agassi
    3 Connors
    2 Newcombe***

    This means nothing since Nole's not like any of these past champs! Who's more fit, limber, & injury free than this man? He also's playing > events; never missing a slam! Nothing about the game is comparable to the past w/ the > level of athletes, homog. courts/balls, extra protection w/ 32 seeds, and of course how weak the field is right now! Mentally, they've been stunted by a reliable & consistent Fed, Rafa coming & going w/ impunity, & the stability of Nole who hasn't dropped in the rankings once since he arrived 10 years ago! Fedal had huge leads in so many categories and I just marvel seeing Nole move up the ranks if not surpassing them already!

    ***I see maybe a 15-16 slam total for Novak. The closer he gets to Nadal and even Federer slam #'s, we might see him do what Serena did trying to reach 18 and currently in reaching #22 which is flub a few slams b/c of nerves and moments. However if he can do a CS, win an OG medal and maybe do some other things if he comes up 1 < than Fed, it might not matter.
    ---

    ...Dwell on that for a second 'cos the losses now are b/c he's 34 and miles from his prime while Djokovic is 28 & 100% in his prime. Likewise Nadal's well past his prime too. Just 'cos he's almost the same age as Djokovic means nothing 'cos Nadal's prime has well and truly ended. Hewitt's prime was at age 21-22 and he paled in comparison to those years later on. And sure, CVAC, Novak, whatever his name is the "fittest" (artificially mind you) guy on tour currently, but only since using that yoke in '10. ...'34' is ancient in tennis terms. The rest of them just aren't very good anymore (Murray, Nadal) or never were in the 1st place. It's not a strong era by any means.***

    I can turn this around on you and say Nole lost some major finals b/c of his youth & inexper.; so in essence, Rafa & Roger have inflated GS & Masters' #'s! ;-)

    ***From '11-13, the 3 yrs Novak & Nadal were both in their primes, Novak went 9-6. Federer & Novak were never in their primes at the same X, so it's impossible to isolate a X span where the playing field was relatively =.
    ---

    Good pt; Fedal racking up their wins before Novak hit his prime. On another note the CVAC is still allowed (prob) based on the fact that there's no scientific evidence it's capable of producing any of the results it claims. -...When prior champs had to work for hours in the gym to stay fit, you now have people just sitting in a space age machine reading a book or listening to music on headphones w/ an effect twice as powerful as illegal doping. How can that be good for the sport in any way whatsoever? It belittles past achievements. Advancements in racquet tech, strings, etc are 1 thing, but this is total bs.***

    ReplyDelete
  16. ***...So, if Nole keeps his body in shape and does his thing, he might end up being the most decorated dude in tennis.***

    I think he's already made adjustments; commentators talking about it all the X! Nole's become a more complete player; coming into the net, having some great plays jerking around his opponent w/ dropshots and other plays that are about as entertaining as Roger! His serve has become a weapon wiping out X BP's in all his matches! I see no reason why he won't improve and shorten these matches to save his body!

    *** I echo Fiero in saying, "he has already begun." When Becker came on board, one of his primary goals was to help Djokovic get through his matches as quickly as possible. As a commentator watching, he saw what we fans saw - Novak would often take longer than he had to in lesser matches, often leaving him w/ < toward the end of a tournament.

    Novak's serve (both 1st & 2nd) has improved tremendously. His volleying has gone from a liability to rock solid. He's happy to move forward on the short ball, as he's confident about knowing what to do now when he gets there. His willingness to stay on or inside the baseline to dictate play is better than it's ever been and improving. These will all hold him in good stead in terms of longevity. He and his team are always looking at where they can improve incrementally, so at present he's working on getting better to stay ahead of the pack. Whenever he begins to slow down, I'm sure they w/b on top of it, and Nole's 1 of the most teachable champions I've ever seen.
    ---

    I remember in '11 and early '12, when Djokovic suddenly started dominating and was winning all those matches in a row against Nadal, that there was talk of Nadal never beating Djokovic ever again. I remember during the Nadal vs. Djokovic FO matches of '12-14, particularly the latter 2, when a lot of people were predicting Nadal to lose. I remember Nadal later beating Djokovic in the '13 USO and being the best player of '13 overall. ...The ITF shamefully awarded Djokovic it's 2013 POY award.

    ...Indeed, since those 2 wins (Canada & USO '13), they've played 6 HC matches and Nadal has lost all 6 to Nole. Actually, the h2h for their last 12 HC encounters is 10-2 Djoko (w/ both Nadal's wins coming w/i the same 2 months while Djoko's wins spanned '11, '12, '13, '14, '15 & '16). ...Surprisingly, the same goes for clay. Yes, Rafa scored those 2 seminal Master wins in '12, but since then, they've played 3 X's and Rafa lost all of them. Actually, since '11, it's 5-2 Djoko in best of 3 on clay (w/ Nadal's 2 wins in '12, while Djoko's were spread out over '11, '13, '14 & '15).

    Now, Nadal's strongest bastion has been RG of course. He's clung onto that 1 the longest. And yes, he edged out a cliffhanger 5 setter in '13 and won the '14 final against all expectations. The thing is: the pundits were not that far off after all, since Djoko would beat Nadal in straights (for the 1st X ever at RG) the following year.

    ...Rafa has struggled mightily vs other players than Djoko. He has his work cut out for him if he wants to turn that particular rivalry around (meaning: even getting to Djoko seems more and more problematic, almost out of reach on grass for instance). I wish Rafa all the luck in the world because clearly, he's gonna need a whole lot of it.

    ...In 2013, Nadal won RG & USO, but didn't play AO and lost in 1st round of W. Djoko won AO + a semi + 2 finals. He actually got more points from slams than Nadal. Since ITF is the body that governs the slams, they obviously chose to emphasize consistency (as in: going deep in all slams including a win > win half and being completely AWOL in other half). That was an arguable decision, yes, but the logic of it is not incomprehensible.***

    ReplyDelete
  17. ***Wimbledon >>> US Open >>> French Open >>> Australian Open***

    Was the order! AO was having an identity crisis moving from Jan. to Dec back in the 70's to encourage Borg to come "down under" since he won FO & Wimbledon b2b 3 yrs in a row! If he had perchance acquired a USO, he might not have had a choice but to go @ season's end! They moved back to Jan. and has surpassed our crummy USO by a long ways! It's been 1 catastrophe after another! The venue changed surfaces & locations X X's w/i 4 yrs; from grass to clay to HC and of course moving from Forest Hills to Flushing! No major has been as psychotic as ours here in the States! I vote Wimbledon #1 b/c of it's history, the FO #2, then AO, w/ the USO trailing!

    ***Longest WTA Match Win Streak: Navratilova - 74 ('84)
    Longest ATP Match Win Streak: Vilas - 46 ('77)

    Longest WTA Match Win Streak On Clay: Evert - 125 ('73-79)
    Longest ATP Match Win Streak On Clay: Nadal - 81 ('05-07)

    Longest WTA Match Win Streak On HC: Graf - 82 ('88-90)
    Longest ATP Match Win Streak On HC: Roger Federer - 56 ('04-06)

    Longest WTA Match Win Streak On Grass: Navratilova - 47 ('85-87)
    Longest ATP Match Win Streak On Grass: Federer - 65 (2003-08)

    Longest WTA Match Win Streak On Carpet: Navratilova - 48 ('86-87)
    Longest ATP Match Win Streak On Carpet: Lendl - 66 ('81-83)

    Most Cons. WTA Singles Titles: Navratilova - 13 ('84)
    Most Cons. ATP Singles Titles: Borg - 8 ('79-80), Ivan Lendl - 8 ('81-82), John McEnroe - 8 ('83-84)
    ---

    Let us revisit at the end of '16 season. If Nole wins:
    --Only AO, no chance to pass Rafa
    --2 majors, will tie or pass Rafa
    --3 majors, surely pass Rafa and will have a shot to tie Fed
    --GS? A miracle by itself no < than passing Fed in majors count
    ---

    Djokovic dom. vs the Big 4 since '11:

    vs Federer, Novak leads 18 - 9; last 10 matches 7-3 for Novak.
    vs Nadal, Novak leads 17 - 7; leads 9-1 in last 10 matches played.
    vs Murray, Novak leads 18 - 8; last 12 matches Novak leads 11-1

    Novak right now has no comp. Is there even a Big 4 anymore?
    ---

    Federer: reached 23 cons. slam semi's(Nole 14)
    - reached 10 cons. slam finals (Nole 5)
    - reached 18 of 19 slam finals (Nole 7 of 8)
    - holds 237 cons. wks @ #1(Nole 83)
    - won 3 slams/year 3 X's (Nole 2)
    - reached all 4 slam finals/yr 3 X's (Nole 1)
    - has 3 seasons w/ at least 90% win/loss rec. (Nole 2)

    And Djoko has had 15 cons. finals w/i a season and 16 cons. tier 1 finals & 6 cons. tier 1 titles. So he's been more consistent in more impressive ways (Fed's stats include a whole lot of 250s- win/loss)
    ---

    Fed won 3 slams + WTF 3 X's and reached 4 slam finals 3 X's as well. Djokovic only managed this once so far. We're not gonna give some imaginary potential titles he hasn't won yet this year.***

    People were making such a big deal of Roger's age in comparison to Nole, but now they don't mention it in conjunction w/ the longevity of the man and the records he holds! That makes no sense; can't have it both ways!

    ***Djokovic has won 11 Slams now. And there's nothing wrong w/ using '11 as a reference point considering that's when Novak became the player we all know & love today.***

    Nole was a perennial #3 before 2011! Why would we reference his record that much before that X since he had only won 1 YEC, 1 AO, & a handful of Masters? It only makes sense for his RP being his greatest season in '11; same for Connors in '74! In the early 70's it was all about BJK & the new Virg. Slims tour, Riggs, Court, Goolagong, Smith & his shoes, Rosewall, Nastase, & Laver OTTH! Connors & Evert didn't take over USA consciousness until '74 when they won their 1st majors w/ dom. seasons!

    ReplyDelete
  18. ***Congrats to Djokovic for winning his 4th GS in the last 5....

    Laver (after '69 USO) - doesn't play the next 2 GS's, loses 4th Rd, 4th Rd, 3rd Rd @ his next 3 GS's.
    Sampras (after '94 Wimbledon)- loses 4th R'd, F, 1st R'd @ his next 3 GS's.
    Federer (after '07 USO) - loses semi, F, F at his next 3 GS's.
    Nadal - (after '11 FO) - loses F, F, F @ his next 3 GS's.
    Djokovic (after '12 AO) - loses F, semi, F @ his next 3 GS's.
    ---

    If I'm being quite conservative I'd say he'll win AT LEAST 1 more slam this year, but poss. 2 or 3 getting him the coveted CYGS slam. He'll also be the fave for OG. Conserv. est. might put Djokovic @:

    12-13 slams
    29-31+ Masters (1st place all X)
    ~230 wks @ #1 (Close to Connors/Lendl)
    70+ titles (Surpassing Nadal, @ 67 now)
    5 YE #1's, =ing Federer & 1 behind Sampras.
    Possible CGS and CGGS. And that's just '16.

    Let's say '17, when he w/b 30, decline? Who's going to challenge him for the #1 spot? Certainly not a 31 yo Nadal or 36 yo Fed. Murray? Not. Young guns? Disappointing. So, being conserv., let's say he takes 1-2 slams and 2-3 Masters. And finishes at year #1. So now he'd tentatively be at:

    13-15 slams
    32+ Masters (eclipsing all)
    75-80 titles (Fed has 88 now)
    250-275 wks @ #1 (being conserv.- poss. someone overtakes him for a few wks). This would put him 3rd all X behind Sampras & Fed.
    6 YE #1's, =ly Sampras for 1st all X, & passing Fed.
    Dominant H2H over all rivals.

    So, by this point he's clearly w/i striking distance of becoming GOAT. And let's not forget that Djokovic has shown no signs of wear and tear on his body such as players like Nadal have and may continue to play top level for a long X as Fed has. So let's say after '17 he won't be on top anymore, but he wins about 2 more slams in his career (another conserv. est. IMO). So we have this as a safe bet:

    15-17+ slams
    34+ Masters
    270+ wks @ #1
    6 YE #1's
    Dominant H2H over all rivals
    Career GS, poss. double career slam.
    90+ titles

    IMO, at the very least, Nole's on the way to becoming a firm #2 in the GOAT debate, only behind Fed. In these predictions I tried to be realistic yet conservative. He may very well exceed these expectations and become the undisputed GOAT, but I really can't see him doing any worse than the #'s I've laid out here. It really is crazy how someone can skyrocket through the record books in such a short X, but in the past year Djokovic has made a clear case that he's a part of absolute highest tier of players tennis has ever seen.
    ---

    By the end of the year, he will pretty much have had 6 yrs @ #1 (other than '13 where he was close 2). He's due an injury of some type surely. History tells us he will fade as did Fed, Sampras, Nadal, etc. It tends to happen pretty suddenly as well. However, there doesn't seem to be anyone ready to take over or close to it. He seems invincible. He'll finish w/ 15 or 16 slams, but not surprised if he finishes w/ 13 or 18!
    ---

    He's on 11 now, so I see Novak at his present peak winning 14 or 15 Slams at least. He's giving great players like Federer and Murray GS hrashings. Given he's 28, coming up to 29, can Novak reach Federer's 17? Not sure. He has to overcome the Paris obstacle and that m/b in his mind. Novak needs the French for all-court greatness and 3 Wimbledon titles in a row would bolster his legacy too. For me, a '16 GS would make Novak the GOAT and he'd probably add more too. If he wins the FO and 1 other Slam this year, that's another 3 Slam season, 13 Slams and a clay court Major. W/ his dominant #1 standing and wks @ #1, successive yrs as ITF World Champ, and his ATP WTF's, Masters' title successes etc, Noles closing in. He's level w/ Borg for GS wins now & left Connors, McEnroe & Lendl far behind.***

    Thanks; love it!

    ReplyDelete
  19. ***Grand Slams won or lose to eventual champion - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

    # of GS's that each won or lost to the eventual champion (a good loss):
    Australian, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open

    Federer - 4 (5), 1 (6), 7 (3), 5 (4)
    17, 18 out of 67 GS's (52%)

    Djokovic - 6 (3), 0 (7), 3 (2), 2 (5)
    11, 17 out of 45 GS's (62%)

    Nadal - 1 (2), 9 (0), 2 (3), 2 (2)
    14, 7 out of 44 GS's (48%)

    Sampras - 2 (2), 0 (3), 7 (1), 5 (4)
    14, 10 out of 52 GS's (46%)
    ---

    Federer - '04 Wimbledon to '10 AO - a streak of 23 Slam tournaments where he either won (14 of 23) or lost to the eventual champion.
    ===

    Berdych and Ferrer did play better back then. Wawrinka is the only 1 playing better now.***

    Oh I think Ferrer and Berdych are on par w/ the past, just not as smart! You would think they'd expand their repertoire of simple 'ball bashing' and add on more net attacks! Hanging at the baseline hasn't done anything for them except sustained mediocrity! ;-)

    ***...Pardon me, but what final would you say Nole choked before that amazing Wimbledom 2014 final?***

    Nole's had his moments; if not a complete choke, a bit of ganging was going on when serving for a match or 3 a few X's! How many X's has this happened to him where Djokovic's broken and had to come back to win? That '14 Wimbledon match was pivotal in so many ways; Nole slam-less for over a year and hadn't won anything w/ Becker in attendance as his coach! The 2 Masters he took in the spring were won while Becker was in the hospital so it might have changed the course of all 3 lives if that match had gone to Roger!

    ***Oh yeah, I agree completely. I even stated before that the start for Djokovic '15 season began w/ this win; really needed it. After this win, he had the confidence to restart winning all titles in '11 style.
    ---

    I tend to agree w/ Fiero here: Serena's "strategy" is indistinguishable from her forearm muscles. She's a bruiser, a puncher, not a boxer. The only X I've seen her employ inspired "strategy" or tactics is in her toilet breaks, or pretend ones like the match with Danny Long Legs at Wimbledon a few years ago. It ain't subtle, but it was all she got...
    ---

    That's not to say Serena is unintelligent as a player. She's not, she's fiercely bright. But she's no Hingis when it comes to tennis smarts in strategic stuff...- Serena's great, but she's not blessed in who she faces for us to compare her w/ Navratilova or Evert...***

    She hasn't had real comp since Henin & Clijster! The few players that have the firepower to blow her off the court are "head cases" who c/b spotted 4 MP's and they'd find a way to lose it; Sharapova & Azarenka! Then you have SW's bestie in Woz who's also thrown off; has the game, but will never beat Serena on her worst day! At this X you need either an old vet like Vinci or newbie like Bencic who had "nothing to lose" and let it rip; upsets for the ages when the est. stars are pathetic and rarely win if ever! Why it's called a rivalry w/ Maria; I'll never understand! She hadn't won a match vs Wms in over 10 yrs! Aza should just default if she sees Serena's name next to hers! That AO CHOKE serving for it a couple X's allowing Serena to save so many MP's; why didn't she just retire? If she couldn't win that 1, she may never beat Serena again!

    ***...If you had 1 match for a female player to play w/ your wellbeing at stake, would you prefer Hingis or Serena? Most definitely it's Serena for me; even if she is playing against Graf, Evert or Martina Nav in their prime on their best surfaces including clay.**

    Even clay; w/ 10+ years btw FO titles w/ no clay court specialist like Henin? Not sure I'd take that bet Serena would beat any of the past greats like Navratilova, Evert, Graf, or Seles!

    ReplyDelete
  20. ***Going to the confidence and mental issue, ...Of course they do! A nervous player moves < well, clumsily & slower. He doesn't hit so hard b/c he's not so sure. He takes pace off his serve and plays safe. ...Rafa's not a confident player right now. Nor does he have that iron-grip mentality he last showed in '13. So this is a prob for him to overcome. Are his issues physical, as in, he's slowed down and his WTA serve is terrible, etc, or are they emotional? I'd say right now they're both.***

    I used to tell my students that tennis, like most sports is "all about confidence!" You can have all the ability in the world, but if you can't perform in the clutch, mediocrity is the watchword of the day! The confidence of Nole is what's setting him apart from everyone right now! I don't even think he's necessarily playing that well; just good enough to make the opps look bad! In B-ball you see what I'm talking about; Michael Jordon c/b on the court w/ 4 other players that can't make a layup in a practice drill in front of live fans, cameras, & that inevitable audience of millions! For long periods you see millionaire players who can't get the job done, totally dependent on MJ saving the day! Put them out in a playground w/ HIS BOYS, it's all gold; they never miss! You see that in tennis to varying degrees! Fed embarrassed Murray @ Wimbledon who was the legit. #2 of last season IMO, but it didn't look anything like he had a chance to beat Nole in the final! Djokovic saved all those BP's Fed couldn't cash in on!

    ***Rafa's slower. He's not as explosive on his feet as he was, hits balls way too short a lot of the X, and opps have no problem hitting winners off them. His physicality has diminished noticeably. He's lost a ton of muscle."***

    I said that he would "lose it" for obvious reasons! He works too hard to win even early Rd matches vs nobodies, WC's, & also-rans! You can't get away w/ that forever, even though players like Ferrer & Berdych are holding on very nicely at the same level for many years! They weren't #1 and expected to win majors routinely! Now, few matches c/b thought of as routine for Roger and Rafa; s/b some surprises this season! I'm still hopeful the next gen. can step up; Raonic doing his part! "Come on Kei!" I'm done w/ Grigor (unless he shows up @ my door)!

    ***To me, Nadal has lost his greatest asset which was his speed and his confidence. His footwork isn't otherworldly like it was once was. I think Patrick Mouratoglou summed it up perfectly. The current coach of Serena has followed Nadal’s career over the last decade and knows 1st hand about the mindset of a champion. ...Mouratoglou believes Nadal has lost his ability to cover the court b/c of his footwork skills, and as a result, his confidence during matches has been affected.

    “...He’d put so much intensity and be impossible to hit through,” he said. “Today he can’t do that anymore b/c his footwork is so far from what it was before. He’s much slower. And he knows it.”

    “...He might be slower now b/c he can’t train as he used to do anymore, b/c he’s not getting younger and his body has already done a lot. Also it’s tough to think he’ll ever get his speed back. And the more stressed he is, the slower he’s going to be.”

    “...I’m not sure he’d still beat [Novak] Djokovic. ...If at some point he stops believing, he’ll stop. That’s not someone who’s going to hang in there btw the 5th & 10th spot in the rankings. But he still believes he can. For how long, IDK. ...”

    - http://www.si.com/tennis/2016/01/20/rafael-nadal-patrick-mouratoglou-australian-open -***

    We'll see! I think "he's done" no matter what he does! I hope he does hang around longer and continue losing to Nole!

    ReplyDelete
  21. ***So are you saying that even if Nole finishes 14+ majors, you won't consider him to be > than the likes of Borg, Sampras & Nadal j/b he never won 1 of them 4 X's in a row?! I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.
    ---

    Djokovic at 14 w/ a RG title blows all those away IMO. Sampras, I rate the > of those other 3 personally, but Djokovic is going t/b challenging him @ X @ #1 by then, and he destroys Sampras in versatility and consistency (and in a sense dominance considering his '11 & '15 both blow away Sampras's best ever year.). Even Nadal of all people beats Sampras in versatility in a way since he's on any surface >> Sampras on clay by a good margin.
    ---

    FO & OG will get him much > on the GOAT list than completing the MS 1000. The same goes for WTF. MS 1000 are simply not very important in determining >ness. Sampras has 11 MS1000, % is considered = to Nadal who has 27 of them.
    ---

    Who are you to judge how others perceive things? I value it > than I do OG's; now what? Also Sampras has other things that Nadal doesn't. It's not Masters alone.
    ---

    OG will give him more recognition than that stupid "Golden MS 1000" concoction. ...He's never won the FO and OG. People & general fans remember slams, #1's, & WTF/Olympics (those 2 < so).
    ---

    As you've mentioned w/ Sampras-Nadal comparison. Career slam is so huge that Sampras w/ 3 more YE #1's, 140 more wks as #1, more success at 3 other majors, 5 WTF to 0 is considered = to Nadal. Or you can reverse it. Nadal, who has won all slams, and 16 more MS 1000's only considered = to Sampras, simply b/c Sampras' ahead in huge categories like #1, WTF, which easily trump MS 1000s.
    ---

    Who knows how important it w/b considered 10 yrs from now. People's views are always evolving. 20 yrs ago slam count wasn't even considered that important yet. It only became important when Sampras started coming close to Emerson's slam record (despite that Emerson isn't even considered a major all X great) and hyping it himself to the media. Which ended up working against him when it wasn't even that impressive a mark (@ least 3 guys who have more slams than even Federer currently has, let alone many more than Sampras currently has, had Open tennis been in place all along). His true best marks were always his 6 YE #1's & 7 Wimbledons.***

    Ain't that the truth? Many so called experts were ready to anoint Sampras the GOAT even w/o a FO; guilty as charged here! X has eviscerated that notion IMO! He may still be the best grass court player; I'll give him that, but that's about it!

    ***3 Games won by Fed/Mur/Nad vs Novak; 3 Games total won by them in their 1st set vs Nole '16...

    '11 Confirmed GOAT for me & many

    '15 Confirmed he started project #18

    '16 is the 1st year we see the GOAT APPEAR FOR REAL... no chokes, domination from 1st set. Probably 4 GS Wins this year; even that 6 Masters from '15 seems very breakable. All I'm sayin', '16 w/b the highest tennis level ever seen. I doubt he will have more than 1 loss this year. '17-19 will j/b comfy bizniz in getting the needed slams for GOATness. You w/b shocked, but not surprised.
    ---

    Why do you continue to watch a sport that you seem to like nothing about?***

    I'm no fan of modern tennis; been ranting about mindless aggression for years! Players like Ferrer, Berdych, & Nadal are just human backboards and not very entertaining at their best! Give me Federer and his game; even though I think his X has passed! Raonic might save it for me; great win of his over Stan @ AO last month! It's 1 of the reason I barely watch women; more mindless aggression like that of Serena, Sharapova, & Aza! Give me Radwanska, Vinci, or other player that has to actually think about what they're doing on the court! Martina Hingis coming back for doubles makes that worthwhile again!

    ReplyDelete
  22. ***What's your top 7 of Open Era? I can't resist:

    1) Federer
    2) Sampras
    3) Nadal
    4) Borg
    5) Djoker
    6) Connors
    7) Lendl

    Honorable mentions: Agassi, Mac, Edberg, Wilander & Becker
    ---

    Where is Laver?

    1. Laver (2 CYGS)
    2. Federer
    3. Sampras
    4. Nadal
    5. Djokovic
    6. Borg
    7. Lendl
    ---

    1) Sampras, won 14 slams in polarized conditions and in the toughest era, 6 YE #1's, 5 WTF's when BO5.

    2) Laver, 2 GS.

    = 3) Fed, 17 slams, in homogenised era, weakest era in history when he started, loses badly to Nadal on all surfaces.

    = 3) Nadal, 14 slams albeit in homogenised era, owns Fed like a dog owns a bone, owns the FO, but on the other side of that coin 14 is heavily skewed towards the FO.

    = 3) Djokovik, 11 slams & counting, albeit in homog. era, beat Nadal in 3 str. slam finals, beat Fed even when peaked and he was just starting out. 4 YE #1's & counting. Dominates WTF.

    6) Agassi, the only player who can claim all 4 majors, the WTF, the OG & the DC.

    7) Toss up btw McEnroe & Borg. John totally dom. '84.

    Honourable mentions to Lendl & Wilander.
    ---

    Back when Wimbledon & the USO were by far the 2 most important events; wasn't like today at all where the 4 slams are virtually =. ...Most objective individuals still consider Connors the all X USO GOAT even over Sampras or Fed.
    ---

    Sorry, but I just can't put Nadal before Sampras. He's only > on clay.

    AO: Sampras 2-1
    RG: Nadal 9-0
    Wimbl: 7-2 Sampras
    USO: 5-2 Sampras

    Pete was dominating on 2 SURFACES, Nadal only on clay. More wks at #1, 5 WTF > 1 Olym Gold. Sampras NEVER lost 7 str. X's vs main rival. End.

    Sampras > Nadal. Big X.
    ---

    But Sampras didnt get the CGS, Nadal has & it's the Holy Grail. Also 9-0 is a massive gulf that can't be ignored. ...On clay, only Nadal, Fed & literally Nole were consistently strong, but in Sampras' there were loads of clay courter like Courier, Bruguera, Moya, Agassi, Kuerten, etc.***

    IMO, it was just a contrivance to elevate Agassi since he woefully unachieved in his career! All of a sudden it's "the HOLY GRAIL?" It doesn't mean as much as a CYGS!

    1. Fed, only b/c he has most of the top records for the X being! He'll end up dropping if Nole achieves more & Rafa continues his dominance over The GOAT.

    2. Sampras - was the acknowledged GOAT before Fed came along; even w/o a FO final under his belt! He worked the other majors and had a balanced career unlike Rafa @ FO.

    3) Nadal - only b/c he has 14 majors! He was dominant only on 1 surface and if it hadn't been for his ownership of Roger, he wouldn't even have a few majors off clay.

    4) Laver - 3 CYGS; 1 pre-Open, 1 OE, & a Pro GS - nuff said!

    5) Djokovic - 11 majors & counting, owns all things Masters 1000, Bronze OM, h2h career record 1 of the best w/ 2 other GOAT's.

    6) Borg - 11 majors; 6 FO & 5 Str. Wimbledons w/ a wood racket in the "pre-tech" homogenized era.

    7) Agassi - CGS, OG, & a wasted, unachieved career.

    Honorable mentions of Lendl - Professional, consistency, and fitness taken to a new level, Connors w/ the most ATP titles at 109, & 5 USO's on 3 surfaces, McEnroe for a good few years; esp. '84, and Wilander who maxed out his X on the tour starting at 17!

    ***Every pro tennis player considers the CGS the ult. GOAT requirement. I'm a massive Pete fan. Nadal isnt perfect btw; failure to defend a title off clay does put a big ?? over his GOAT claim.

    As for Djok. h2h w/ Fedal, he has perservered brilliantly. Djokovic the past 2 yrs is beating Fedal shadows.
    ---

    I can understand why people would have Borg ahead? Given that Nole has the same # of slam titles as Borg, but longer as #1, more YEC titles (5 vs 3), many more Masters 1000 =s; still have Borg ahead. So having 11 back then is more impressive than having 11 slams now.***

    ReplyDelete
  23. ***Really only the FO is needed to complete Nole's resume. ...Cincy, he has plenty of X left to try and grab that, doesn't need to win it this year, but he won't be making FO finals forever; needs to grab 1. Even if he doesn't get the OG or the Cincy title, I doubt anyone would make a fuss about it when you look at the stage of his career he's in right now.
    ---

    Consistency is Noles middle name, but not "finals conversion." lol. Rafa made 5 Wimby finals and 3 AO finals, you could also say that out of those 5 extra finals that he should have won another 1-2 titles.***

    You can say the same about Roger! How many semi's & finals of majors, YEC's, or Masters when bo5 were lost by him when in a commanding situation? OTTH, 2 come to mind right away; up 2 sets to love in both USO final of '09 to Del Po & '05 ATP Chp to Nalbandian! Those 4 Wimbledon finals lost to Nole & Rafa have to hurt since he's regarded 'great' on grass! So maybe Federer should have @ least 20 majors!

    ***Umm, Federer was never up 2-0 at the USO '09 final. He was up 2-1. IIRC, he got hurt in the Nalbandian match and the commentators were writing him off, and he actually made it a contest in the 5th set despite the injury. Most other players would have retired in that situation; certainly Nadal and Djokovic.***

    Heard it, never cared! Why is it we acknowledge injury of top players giving them an out, but the "also ran" is expected to either play well in defeat or choke!? Roger was still favored and had a significant lead! Just saying! ;-)

    ***If both Tony and Rafa are crying about the game being too fast and that players are hitting winners from anywhere anyX they feel like then why not get off the bloody HC's. Get on clay and stay on clay. Go where you have 46 titles. Go where you dominated the sport for a decade. Get the Hell off the HC's if even clowns are hitting 100 winners on you in a single match. Nevermind the fact that you owned these clowns all your life on all surfaces. Go where you have a significant competitive edge: heavy topspin. All you need is to be fit and you will be good to go. Get fit and get on clay. It cant get any simpler than that.
    ---

    Clay is no longer a refuge for him. Players are learning to hit through him there as well. That's going to happen more often going forward. The same problems he's having on HC's will follow him onto the clay, albeit to a < extent. I agree he needs to find a way to get the confidence back; get the juices flowing again. Complaining how hard everyone hits the balls these days means he's been standing still while everyone else's game has advanced.
    ---

    Rafa was playing well at the end of '15. He even beat Wawrinka & Muzz like he always was doing before. He started well the beginning of this year until

    the final vs Novak where he clearly didn't play well, starting w/ a bad serve and losing incrediblely badly. And w/ Verdasco at the AO, even though he was close to win, 2 pts made the difference for Verdasco to get more confidence and motivation and for Rafa to get nervous and playing worse. Both know each other for loooong X.***

    ReplyDelete
  24. ***...Don't you think this w/b the most intriguing RG, even surpassing that of last yr?***

    I think this past FO had it all; Rafa vs his nemesis in the 1/4'S instead of semi or final, having a delay in his SF w/ Andy due to rain/darkness/length of Stan's match, and all kinds of expectations! Even though Djokovic has won the majority of his meetings w/ the Swiss, they're usually drawn out, long affairs and I wasn't shocked in the least when the match was lost! He was up 2 breaks at the USO and had to use both to survive that 4th set run of Roger's! Happens entirely too much!

    ***Granted we have 2 Masters coming up on HC's, and unless there's a significant shift of some kind, Novak's the fave to win them. In MC, Madrid, Rome - Nadal will have to reassert himself at 1 of the tourneys here if he's going t/b in a place to contend for the FO. I'm still not sure if Novak is skipping Madrid again or not, but in MC & Rome, he's had Rafa's #. Madrid plays faster and Andy w/b there to defend his title. Rafa's got his work cut out for him. Hopefully he can find his form in these early clay tourneys and be competitive in the Masters & RG.
    ---

    You are right GSM; is going t/b a very interesting RG this year. The fact that Novak w/b going for the Nole slam as well gives the tournament some extra pressure that he really doesn't need - trying to finally complete the CGS's enough! Now at RG he'll be going for:

    Completing the Career GS
    Completing the Nole Slam
    Stage 2 of the CYGS
    Stage 2 of the CY Golden Slam

    No pressure, Novak...***

    That'll be up to the media IMO! How will they handle the coverage? Will they go insane coming up w/ new angles to muse about the same facts? How many past champions will put in their 2 cents and subsequently embarrass themselves; McEnroe & Wilander have eaten all their words! All the instances they didn't think c/b achieved by Nole has been surpassed and they're still groveling!

    ***Djokovic's feasting on a very weak era w/ no sight of the end. Seriously, who is gonna stop him? Nadal is a shell of his former self; so is Fed (and can't keep up for more than 3 sets). Even Murray who's comfortably the 2nd best player in the world is nowhere near his 2012/13 level. Wawrinka shows up once a year. ALL these guys are older than Nole too. So as you said, yeah someone new will arrive. When Djokovic is sitting at 30 Slams b/c there won't be anyone to stop him for a decade.***

    The era isn't necessarily weak, but in comparison to the "leaders," they're made to look it! I'm 1 who constantly kvetches about the Big 4 owning the tour, taking most, if not all of the majors and Master's titles! If you look at the record books, it takes you back to a bygone era when 1 person ran things and barely had to practice! We know that isn't how this era's ATG's got it done and it was w/ hard work and dedication, but I still think the rest of the "also-rans" of the day c/b doing so much more to make things more competitive!

    ***If he loses sets: 'oh he cant win even in his prime/peak'
    If he doesnt lose:'weak era'
    The guy just cant wino_O***

    Well I think Nole can live w/ those detractors! The worst one's were past champions saying just a few years ago:

    Djokovic won a title, but he can't win bo5 over Roger or Rafa
    Djokovic won his AO, but he won't beat Rafa on clay
    Djokovic won several clay Masters beating Rafa, but he can't beat him @ FO
    Djokovic beat Rafa @ FO, but he's a shell of himself & well past his prime

    Nole will never do enough for some historians & commentators!

    ReplyDelete
  25. ***...Don't say: "Djokovic won't win the CYGS;" say: "I will stop Djokovic from winning the CYGS." Wawrinka's the defending champ. @ the FO by beating down the #1 w/ GS aspirations.***

    Even though I've lived for tennis for well over 40 years; it's just not that dire in the grand scheme of things in my life @ this X! I'm happy enough with how things are going for the men; actually predictable! If Nole takes it in Paris, I'll be happy enough about it, but won't lose sleep if he doesn't! More from the old school and worship @ the alter of my ATG's; Borg & Martina! They're the champions I grew up respecting the most w/ honorable mentions going to the beautiful and complete games of Goolagong & Mandlikova for women; the men, Federer & Edberg!

    I give them more credit due to the infancy of the ATP & WTA, inferior equipment, lack of respect of tennis even being a sport, poor endorsement opps, etc.! Today's stars have it so much easier; don't even play bo5 in these Masters event which are revered almost as much as a major! I'm starting to think the final should go back to b05 and really show who's the best! I doubt if Nole would take 6 of the 9 if that were to happen; sorta devalues all these double-wins of Nole @ IW-Miami so often after he's taken the 1st major! It's almost expected! Who doubts he will mow them down again in both locations? There won't be any changes I know, but fun to muse about "what if?"

    ***...Can't believe how many Masters titles RAFA has missed out on - w/ his FH DTL spitting off the grass, he'd already be above 30 (and then it would have been game over as far as the Masters record is concerned). Might also help the ultra-hard workers like Federer who aren't blessed w/ fancy footwork on slower surfaces like clay.
    ---

    That's certainly true. After all, we know that RAFA has never lost a point unless an injury interfered w/ his form OR he was lulling his opponents into a false sense of security by not utilizing his FH DTL. HC's, as he's often said, are extremely dangerous, and may interfere w/ his ability to play sports as a hobby post-retirement. If there were grass-court Masters events, he wouldn't have to worry about golfing & fishing, and could unleash his FH DTL to full effect.***

    It's been talked about, but if Queens made into a Masters, you'd have to take 1 away from another location and relegate it to 500 level! It might happen to us here in the States since we have 3 w/ a neighboring event to the north in Canada! Shanghai promotes & spends the most to have theirs, so forget it! MC & Rome are perennial events and are a bargain in more ways than one w/ such long histories! I wouldn't mind putting the ax to Paris since they have a major in the same city! Think about it; more likely to have wasted points on "also-rans" b/c usually the top players are exhausted and easily upset! Nole the 1 player that doesn't seem to follow any rule having t/d w/ consistency; or lack thereof!

    ***I don't think "I love the game" is the only reason Fed still keeps on playing. Some of it is b/c he doesn't want his "best ever" legacy threatened. He knows it's in ??, Nadal & Djokovic can both break his record. Fed looks highly depressed someX's when losing to Novak, esp. after the WTF '15 final. In gen., both he and his wife do not look happy. Why can he not be content w/ his career. What else does he want? Records are meant to broken; surely he must know this.***

    I already mentioned the reason Roger won't even consider retiring is b/c the next gen. hasn't really stepped up to force him out! He's a legitimate #2 or 3 in the world making major finals and winning a Masters event here and there! You never know; might have another upset "blood bath" at a Wimbledon or USO and Roger could slip through; as in his last improbable wins at '09 FO & '12 Wimbledon! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. ***No man has owned the #1 ranking for the entire yr. since Fed in '07.

    Breakdowns since:

    '08 - Federer 32.86 Wks (63.19 %) / Nadal 19.14 wks (26.86 %)

    '09 - Nadal 26.57 wks (51.1 %) / Fed 25.43 wks (50.9 %)

    '10 - Federer 22.43 wks (43.13 %) / Nadal 29.57 wks (56.87 %)

    '11 - Nadal 26.29 wks (50.56% ) / Djokovic 25.71 wks (49.44 %)

    '12 - Djokovic 35.28 wks (67.85 %) / Fed 16.72 wks (32.15 %)

    '13 - Djokovic 44 wks (84.62 %) / Nadal 8 wks (15.38 %)

    '14 - Nadal at least 26.71 wks, but could be more / Djokovic at least 3 wks, but prob. a lot more? / Someone else (unlikely, but theoretically poss.)
    ---

    Nole was the 1st guy to do it in 8 yrs. I think he has a good shot to match Fed's feat of doing it 3 str. yrs. My odds w/b:

    YE #1 in '16- 95% likely
    YE #1 in '17- 55% likely (or should I say 45% chance of losing #1 at some point in the year whether he ends it there still or not).

    Of course you can start the year at #1 and end it there while losing the #1 ranking during the year as Djokovic did in '12 to Fed. Although that's fairly rare in recent X's. Obviously a lot can happen in a year which is why I gave only 55% for '17. Djokovic could start to decline. Also if Murray can improve & close the gap throughout '16 (or even Wawrinka or Raonic. Hard to imagine 35 yo Fed ever keeping level for 52 wks to outrank the much younger Djokovic again) and if that happens they could potent. take #1 someX in '17. Maybe an up & comer could emerge. Djokovic could get injured. Only a huge injury could stop him from being YE #1 and in fact holding #1 the entire year as things look now though.***

    I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone! I can't remember a moment any 1 was close to taking the #1 ranking from Nole last season after he acquired it @ YEC the previous yr. in '14!

    ***I can't see him losing the #1 ranking for quite awhile.
    ---

    ...Nole'll then become the #1 player on the career winning % list, the #1 player on the cons. titles list (tied w/ Borg, Lendl, McEnroe), & the #1 player on the cons. finals list (tied w/ Lendl).***

    ITA; I marvel going to the record books seeing Nole's name climb or take over a category! ...As for the CYGS moniker; never took it seriously until it appears most will think of it being something lacking on a resume! Heaven knows we all gave special dispensation to Sampras anointing him the GOAT even though he never played a FO final! That's impossible now w/ the BIG 3 who have or will sweep past him w/i the next 2 yrs! I wouldn't think any worse of Nole since most ATG's have a bugaboo event going back gens; Borg @ USO, Lendl @ Wimbledon, Connors @ FO! Who doesn't have something missing? Even Laver retired regretting not taking even 1 WCT Chp!

    ***...Serena's great, but she's not blessed in who she faces for us to compare her w/ like Navratilova or Evert...***

    She hasn't had real comp. since Henin & Clijster! ...Then you have SW's bestie in Woz who's also thrown off!

    ***Once Caroline won the toss and wanted to serve. Instead of saying to the umpire that she wants to serve, she was asking Serena, "is it ok if I choose to serve?"***

    You can't be "besties" like that; going back to past eras! Martina & Chris had to actually "hate" 1 another to get to where they wanted t/b! If they had continued to play doubles together, Evert might have lost her edge, so she's the 1 that dumped Martina way back when! Steffi & Gabriella had to separate after a while as well which led to some monumental victories for Sabatini starting in '90!

    ReplyDelete
  27. ***Martina Navratilova:

    Won most Major titles overall (men or women): 59
    Won the Wimbledon singles title 6 cons. X's which is an Open era record among both men & women.

    Most cons. yrs ended @ #1 (singles), ('82–86): 5
    Most wks @ #1 (doubles ranking): 237
    Most cons. wks @ #1 (doubles): 191
    Won the Wimbledon singles title 9 X's which is a record for both men & women.
    Won more singles titles @ 1 GS tournament (Wimbledon) in the Open era than any other man or woman.

    Won most single titles (men or women): 167
    Won most doubles titles (men or women): 177
    Won most titles overall (men or women): 359
    Won most single matches (men or women): 1,442
    Won a career boxed set of GS (tennis) titles winning singles, doubles & MX doubles @ all 4 GS tourneys a record shared w/ M. Court & Doris Hart.

    Won most Majors combined doubles (same gender & mixed) titles: 41 (an all X record).

    Won most same gender Majors doubles titles: 31 (20 partnered w/ Shriver)
    Best single-season win-loss record of all X (man or woman): 86–1 (98.9%) in ('83).
    Longest winning streak on grass courts: 69
    Won singles & doubles at same tourney a record 84 X's.
    Won the most WTA Tour Chps titles ('78–86): 8
    Most WTA Tour Chp Finals ('75–92): 14
    Won the most WTA Tour Chps doubles titles ('80–91): 11.
    Most cons. tour titles in a single season: 13 ('84).
    Most cons. yrs winning at least 1 tour title: 21 ('75–95)
    Most titles @ any single WTA tourney overall Ameritech Cup Chgo: 12 (6 wins cons. '78–93).

    Most career indoor titles: 93
    Most Majors match wins: 306
    Most WTA tour finals match wins: 60
    Most career match wins overall on grass cts: 305
    Most career match wins overall on carpet cts: 516
    Most match wins vs #1 ranked player: 18
    Most cons. sets won in a season (1984): 74
    Most matches btw the same players:80 (vs Chris Evert 43-37).
    Most singles finals btw the same players: 61 (vs Chris Evert, 36-25).
    Most cons. singles finals played :23 ('83-84).
    Most diff. tourneys played in a career: 390
    Longest cons. winning streak (Open era): 74 matches ('84).
    Best Grass ct winning %: 86.66% (305–39).
    Best Carpet ct winning %: 89.99% (576–58).

    In '06, Navratilova became the oldest-ever GS tournament champion when she won the USO MD's title. At that X she was just over a month away from her 50th BD (Oct. 18). Her partner, Bob Bryan, was born in '78, 4 yrs after she won her 1st Slam title.

    The only man or woman to win 8 diff. tourneys at least 7 X's.
    WTA Player of the year 7 X's ('78–79, '82–86): record tied w/ Graf. This rec. contested b/c more top orgs & experts, includ. Tennis Mag. & World Tennis Mag, rated Evert (6) as #1 in '78 than Navratilova (3).
    ---

    Martina Hingis:

    On March 31, 1997, Hingis became the youngest player ever t/b ranked World #1 by the WTA (age 16 yrs, 182 days).

    In '97, Hingis became the 1st Swiss woman ever to win Wimbledon.
    In '98, Hingis won all 4 Major women's doubles titles in the same CY, only the 4th woman in tennis history t/d so (after Bueno, Navratilova, & Shriver).

    In '00, Hingis became the only woman player to earn more than US $3 million in prize $$ for 4 cons. yrs.

    On June 8, 1998, Hingis became the 3rd woman since the WTA rankings began on Nov. 3, 1975 to hold the World #1 ranking in singles & doubles simult. (after Navratilova & Sánchez-Vicario). Lindsay Davenport, Kim Clijsters, & Serena Williams have since duplicated that feat.

    Won all WTA Tier I titles.
    Most WTA Tier I finals: 27***

    ReplyDelete
  28. ***Was Djok the 1st to win Wimbledon w/o a grass warm-up tourn.? IDK.***

    I can't ever remember Borg going to Queens! After losing the FO early in the 1/4's to Panatta, Borg went into seclusion, practiced vigorously on grass and won his 1st Wimbledon w/o a warm-up event in '76! He skipped FO in '77 and went right to London to get in practice to win his 2nd title! After winning the FO from '78-81, no warm-up before going on to make final after final at AELTC, losing the last to McEnroe in '81! Guess he may have needed that extra bit of work on grass! lol!

    ***Yeah, apparently that was the case! Didn't play them. It's a wild thing to me, and I'm trying to get my mind around it. Mhb hard to squeeze in really solid practice (who in the world were Borg's lucky practice partners?) w/ all of the tournaments they played back then. Incidentally, Borg has 64 titles (!!), and retired when he was like 26!***

    He was a winner from the beginning; esp. on clay! IIRC, he went into Wimbledon in the strike year of '73 as a 15 y.o. and was seeded unexpectedly due to so many top players staying away! He had to withstand a lot of pressure at a very young age; long before all the help given these days to the "toddlers" on tour!

    ***Nice one. To hear McEnroe talk about him, he was some kind of invincible mutant on the tennis court.***

    Well? If you look at the recordbooks, Borg's #'s still persevere after all this X! Even the brilliance of Federer @ Wimbledon & the omniscience of Nadal on clay hasn't been able to elim. or even diminish Bjorn's legacy or legend! As they said back then and to this day, he was the =lent of a tennis "rock star" & people were elevated by being in his presence!

    ***Such condensed brilliance. The ratio of success is phenomenal. - The last X Borg played a grass tourn. other than Wimbledon was the YEC in '74.***

    I watched that final in Melbourne on TV w/ Vilas & Nastase! All expected "The Master" t/b Ilie who pretty much owned the tourney during his era! It was 1 event where he could sustain a loss or disqual. and still make the semi and move onto the final winning it 4 of 5 X's during it's inception when it still moved around the world and changed surfaces! Vilas was just ripping the ball while Nastase was at net! He couldn't put the ball away & Guillermo muscled his way to a Master YEC in 5 sets!

    ***So, Vilas never won RG (how the...?), but did win USO on clay! Any consolation to him? Got a clay major at least.***

    Why do you say that? Vilas won Paris in '77; the 1 year Borg decided to skip the tourney! He beat his pigeon, Gottfried in the final! Vilas won 2 majors that season & still wasn't #1 in the world; like Nole long after him, he played 3rd banana to Borg & Connors! Vilas won a lot of those summer clay events, taking well over 100 victories, but he was still #3 seed @ USO and would normally have to go through both Borg & Connors! Fortunately for him, Bjorn hurt his shoulder & retired from a match w/ Stockton! Vilas went on to defeat Connors in the final in 4!

    ***I knew it was a low # at least! He's got the most wins on clay, so I doubt he can possibly be satisfied w/ 1 title there, esp. after Nadal won 9.***

    His nemesis @ the X was Bjorn; and few beat the 'clay god' on his home surface! He only lost to 1 person @ the FO twice; Panatta! Borg owned all the others & Vilas more than others; maybe dropping 4 or 5 matches in 20+ contests! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  29. ...'12 Wimbledon wasn't that improbably a win for Roger if you had seen the run of form he was on the past 9 months. After the back issue...yeah it looked in doubt, but after IW I thought Fed would have as good a shot as anyone to win Wimby that year.***

    Roger's playing as well as he ever has IMO! What's killing him is his stubbornness thinking he can hang w/ today's players, going toe to toe w/ rallies going 24-32 strokes! That's just not practical for him in the past, much less today vs Nole! Last season Fed had periods of brilliance, getting to Masters' finals and actually beating Nole a few X's; but all in bo3! Bo5 in the majors didn't go so well; his FH flying on him after all those long, ill-advised rallies! That w/b his problem for here on out as long as Nole's playing this well! Sorry!

    ***...as bright as things look for Djokovic right now, the road to another 6 slams at age 29+ is far from given. The odds of Nadal turning things around are also rather slim. ...Regardless, records are meant t/b broken and if Djokovic or anyone else breaks Federer's record, it still won't change much about his legacy. He will still be 1 of the most adored players of all X w/ a style no 1 could replicate.
    ---

    ...
    Exactly who was Federer's successor back in the day, let us say '10, when he was 29 (Djokovic w/b 29 in 2 months)?
    Djokovic, who even thought about retirement in '09? Nope.
    Murray, the mental midget, far below his '12-13 level? No.
    Del Potro, who played a total of 6 matches in '10? No.
    Soderling, whose career was over after '10? No.
    Tsonga? LOL
    Or maybe Nadal, who had to take a break from tennis, so that our strong era champion could finally win RG and break Sampras' Slam record? Just 1 man down, & Federer goes back to his winning ways. Is this the evidence of a strong era? One thing that Nadal certainly succeeded Federer in is taking advantage of weak comp., but he wasn't as lucky as Federer; didn't last long.

    Do not forget, Djokovic's the only reason why Nadal's still behind Fed. But I guess it's hard to accept the fact that the GOAT himself required help from "a weak era beneficiary" to halt the onslaught, something he proved unable to do X and again. - If there was no Djokovic, Federer would win 5 more slams; at least 3 more (2 more Wimbledon, 1 more USO, & possibly AO, '08 & '16). So, Djokovic denies everything.
    ---

    What a load of crock...

    1. ...Djokovic was #3 in '07 b/c he made a slam final, 2 slam semi's, & won 2 Masters (Miami, Canada)

    2. '09 Djokovic played a ton of matches (97 IIRC) and did go deep into many of the tournaments...SF, QF, QF in 3 of the 4 slams.

    '09 had Nadal being strong, esp. in the 1st 1/2, had Del Potro, Soderling, Murray, Djokovic all in the mix ...

    3. No one denied '10 was a relatively weak year --that benefited Nadal mostly

    4. Nadal took a break from tennis in G '09? ...Soderling took him out...Fed took out Soderling in the final.

    5. Who was Federer's successor in '10? Nadal was #1 in '10, winning 3 slams ...a lot of the talk was about him chasing down Fed's slam count...

    -'06 was a relatively weak year (for Fed), '10 (for Nadal), but Djokovic has had it from '014-til now

    6. ...Djokovic stopped Nadal from winning 3 slams @ max (Wim '11, USO '11, AO '12). He stopped Federer from winning @ least 4 slams (AO '11, Wim '14, Wim '15, USO '15) & arguably others (AO '08, USO '11)***

    ReplyDelete
  30. ***Djokovic & Federer have played 45 X's to date.
    All matches: Djokovic 23–22 GS matches: Djokovic, 9–6
    ATP WTF's matches: Djokovic 3–2
    ATP Masters 1000 matches: Tied 9–9
    Best of 3 set matches: Federer, 15–14
    Best of 5 set matches: Djokovic, 9–7
    Matches lasting 5 sets: Djokovic, 3–0
    Winning the match after losing 1st set: Djokovic, 7–1

    All finals: Djokovic, 11–6 GS finals: Djokovic, 3–1
    ATP WTF's finals: Djokovic, 2–0
    ATP Masters 1000 finals: Djokovic, 4–3
    ATP World Tour 500 series finals: Tied, 2–2

    All sets: Federer, 69–63 Deciding sets: Djokovic, 12–5
    TB sets: Federer, 12–10 Deciding TB's: Djokovic, 3–1

    Results on each court surface:
    Clay cts: Tied, 4–4
    HC's: Tied, 17–17 Outdoor: Federer, 13–12
    Indoor: Djokovic, 5–4
    Grass cts: Djokovic, 2–1
    ---

    Djokovic & Nadal have played 47 X's to date.
    H-2-H tallies:
    All matches: Djokovic, 24–23
    All finals: Djokovic, 14–10
    GS matches: Nadal, 9–4
    AO: Djokovic, 1–0
    RG: Nadal, 6–1
    Wimbledon: Tied, 1–1
    USO: Nadal, 2–1
    GS finals: Nadal, 4–3

    Tennis Masters Cup/ATP WTF's matches: Djokovic, 3–2
    Tennis Masters Cup/ATP WTF's finals: Djokovic, 1–0
    ATP Masters Series/ATP Masters 1000 matches: Djokovic, 14–9
    ATP Masters Series/ATP Masters 1000 finals: Djokovic, 7–5
    DC matches: Nadal, 1–0
    Olympics: Nadal, 1–0

    Results on each court surface:
    Clay cts: Nadal 14–6
    Hard cts: Djokovic 17–7 Outdoor cts: Djokovic 13–5
    Indoor cts: Djokovic 4–2
    Grass cts: Nadal 2–1
    ---

    There's no other player who has reached 8 Masters 1000 finals in a single season or in cons. seasons. Djokovic's the only player to achieve this feat in the Open era and since the Masters 1000 series began in '70.

    Djokovic's the only player to win 6 Masters 1000 titles in a single season. He broke his own previous rec. of 5 which was tied w/ Nadal, Rod Laver & Connors.
    ---

    ATP Rankings '73 (16,790) - highest # of ranking pts as #1 - SA
    ATP '70 - 15 strt finals reached in season ('15) - SA
    10 Top tier tourneys won in season - Stands Alone
    30+ match wins vs Top 10 opps in a season - SA
    Defeated all Top 10 players in season - SA
    ATP WTF's '70 4 cons. titles - SA
    15 cons. match wins - SA
    ATP Masters 1000 '70 6 titles won in season ('15) - SA
    8 finals reached in season ('15) - SA
    19 HC titles - SA
    12 finals won in a row - SA
    2 yrs winning 5+ titles - SA
    3 yrs reaching 6+ finals - SA
    3+ titles at 6 diff. tourneys - SA
    4+ titles at 4 diff. tourneys - SA
    Simul. holder of 6 diff. tourneys - SA
    Paris - '68 4 men's singles - SA
    China - '93 6 men's singles - SA
    Shanghai '09 3 men's singles - SA***

    ReplyDelete
  31. ***Nole's GS recs (Stands Alone):

    '10–13 7 cons. HC finals
    '05–16 88.4% (114–15) HC match winning %
    Wimb. — AO '11-16 2 streaks of 3 cons. Major titles - Fed
    FO — AO '07–08 Youngest player to reach semi's of all 4 Majors (20 yrs, 250 days)
    '07–08 Youngest player to reach all 4 Majors semi's cons.
    AO / Wimbl. '08–15 3+ titles @ AO & Wimbl. - Fed
    FO / USO '07–15 3+ R-up finishes @ 2 Majors - Fed
    AO '12 Longest GS final (by duration) vs Nadal

    Recs @ each GS tourney:

    AO '08–16 6 men's singles titles overall
    '11–13 3 cons. titles
    '08–16 6 finals overall
    '11–13 3 cons. finals - Wilander & Lendl

    FO '11–15 5 cons. semi's - Fed & Nadal
    USO '12 Longest final (by duration) vs Murray

    Djokovic's the 1st player in the Open era to win 6 AO titles, 1st and only player to win 3 cons. titles, & only player to reach 6 AO finals overall.

    ATP Masters 1000 Records & ATP WTF's recs:
    GP Chp Series began in '70.

    ATP WTF:

    '12–15 4 cons. titles
    '12–15 15 cons. match wins
    '14 76.1% (51–16) games winning % in 1 tourney
    '08–15 1st 5 finals won
    '11 Qualified the earliest – 18 wks, 6 days

    ATP Masters 1000:

    '07–13 8/9 titles won
    '07–12 Finalist in all 9 tourneys - Fed & Nadal
    '07–2015 19 hard court titles
    '15 6/6 hard court finals in a season
    '15 6 titles won in a single season
    '015 8 finals reached in a single season
    '11, '14–15 Streak of 5 titles
    '14–15 Streak of 9 finals
    '11,'12,'15 - 3 yrs reaching 6+ finals
    '11-12 - 2 cons. yrs reaching 6+ finals
    '12–15 12 finals won in a row
    '11 31 cons. match wins
    '15 39 match wins in a single season
    '13–15 4 cons. tourneys titles - Nadal
    '15 5 cons. tourneys finals - Nadal
    '11,'15 2 yrs winning 5+ titles
    '11,'14–15 2 streaks of 5 titles
    '11,'14–15 3 yrs winning 4+ titles
    '13–15 3 streaks of 4 titles
    '13–15 2 streaks of 4 cons. tourneys titles
    '14–15 2 cons. yrs winning 4+ titles - Federer
    '11–15 5 cons. yrs winning 3+ titles
    '07–15 4+ titles at 4 diff. tourneys
    '07–15 3+ titles at 6 diff. tourneys
    '14–15 Simul. holder of 6 diff. tourneys titles
    '11–15 Retaining titles at 6 diff. tourneys
    '15 4 cons. title defenses
    '11–13 Won all 3 clay tourneys (MC, Madrid & Rome) - Nadal
    '15 Winning the opening 3 events of a season
    '11, '14–15 Won IW's – Miami Masters title double 3 X's
    '08–15 4 IW's titles overall - Fed
    '09–15 4 Paris titles overall
    '13–15 3 cons. Paris titles
    '12–15 3 Shanghai titles overall
    '12–13 2 cons. Shanghai titles - Murray
    '13–15 3 yrs winning Paris & YEC B2B

    '15 15 strt. finals in a season
    '14–16 18 Top tier tourneys finals in a row
    '15 10 Top tier tourneys won in a season
    '14–15 7 Top tier tourneys won in a row
    '06–15 20+ wins over each other member of the Big 4 (Fed, Nadal & Murray)
    '06-16 + H2H record vs each other member of the Big 4
    '15 31 match wins vs. Top 10 opps in a single season
    '15 37.8% - % of Top 10 wins to the overall match wins of a season
    '15 Defeated all Top 10 players in season
    '12,'13,'15 3 yrs winning 24+ matches vs. Top 10 opps.
    '11–13,'15 4 yrs winning 20+ matches vs. Top 10 opps.
    '11–13 3 cons. yrs winning 20+ matches vs. Top 10 opps.
    '11 5 cons. match wins vs #1 player in finals (Nadal)
    '07 Youngest player to defeat the top 3 players in succ. (Roddick, Nadal & Fed)
    '07 Youngest player to win Miami(19 yrs, 316 days)
    '15 Most prize $$ won in season ($21,646,145)
    '09–15 6 China titles
    '12–15 4 cons. China titles
    '15 7 titles defended in a season - Fed
    '07–10 4 YE's @ #3 - Connors
    '07–10 4 cons. yrs ended @ #3
    '03–16 95.8% (614–27) match winning % after winning 1st set
    '03–15 74.2% (141–49) deciding set winning %***

    ReplyDelete
  32. Just looking at the record book & wondered where Nole'll be situated in each major historically; esp. if he were to win more! At the AO, he has 6 wins; just behind Agassi's 90.57% w/ 49 of 56 matches to Nole's 90.48% w/ 57 of 63 contests! If he takes it next season, he'll go by Andre and top all AO winners @ 91.4%! - Right now at the FO, he's woefully behind! He's 81.36% & can't chal. Rafa's 97.22%! ...On to Wimbledon, he's already made headway & is in 4th place, pushing Fed for 3rd @ 88.06 if he wins in July! At the USO, winning 2 Chp., he has a lot of match wins & finals putting him in at in 3rd place, but can take over #2, leapfrogging Fed, but behind Sampras w/ a win putting him @ 87.67%!

    ***I think Djoker has a better return all-around -- I think he'd pose Sampras a few problems; esp. considering Federer employed similar tactics to Sampras (1st serve, volley, try to finish the pt) and it didn't work out. Sampras obviously was a much > net player; but I don't see that strategy working out well against the likes of Djokovic. Nadal would hang in there and wait for his opps -- like he did w/ Fed. "Weather the storm" in his words. His mentality & powerful baseline groundstrokes would hurt Sampras a little I feel -- different story to playing a guy like Chang on grass.***

    Funny you should bring up Sampras & Chang! I have a very vivid memory of them playing @ Wimbledon! Chang was playing as well as he could, making great "gets," but Sampras was "in the zone" and just "toyed" w/ him in 3 mercifully quick sets; 4,1 &3! What sets Sampras apart from all other champions is his serve; esp. the 2nd! No 1 saved as many BP's as Pete w/ that 1 lone weapon! I set him above Roger since we all know the list of players going into the HOF before, during & after Pete was long gone! Roger didn't have 1/2 as much talent opposing him; "sorry guys, I just can't help myself!" I used to muse that at any given X, there c/b 12 GS winners in the men's draw! That isn't possible these days w/ 4 players pretty much locked in and taking just about everything in sight!

    ***Roddick was playing exceptionally well in that '09 Wimbl. match and deserved the win. He came very close vs Fed in the final, but couldn't get over the finishing line. But not getting over the FL vs Fed in big finals was the story of his life. Murray at least managed it 6 X's vs Djokovic & 3 X's vs Fed. Incidentally, Murray finished 8-3 in the H2H w/ Roddick including a victory @ Wimbledon in '06 when he was still a kid and Roddick still in his prime!***

    Exactly; Murray a lot more accomplished! Roddick came nowhere near what he shd in a fairly weak era when Sampras was winding down and Federer hadn't ascended the throne yet! Andy was Roger's fave pigeon; always taking advantage of his 1-dimensional game that wasn't going to win over anyone! You can sneak a Masters or 500 level event just smashing serves and wailing away on FH's, but Roger proved all you need to do is make someone like that play the ball; just kick the ball back & they'll oblige w/ an ufe! Roddick won't ever forget that '09 match; up a set & X SP's for a 2-0 lead! He blew it; BIG TIME! As over-rated as I thought people considered his game, but IMO, he woefully underachieved! One major w/ all those opps? A WC champ mhb able to convert a couple of those!

    ***Roddick vs Federer - 3-21, no Slam wins
    Murray vs Djokovic - 9-23, 2 Slam wins
    Pretty much clear who dealt w/ his nemesis better. - Lol no. Roddick never beat Fed at a slam. Murray beat Djoko in 2 slam finals. But yeah, right now and at the AO mostly, he has no chance.
    ---

    Fed never put up such a stinker of a match in slam finals vs Roddick, unlike Djokovic in USO '12 and Wimby '13 finals vs Murray. Djokovic shb undefeated in slam finals vs the inferior Scot too, but was very generous.***

    ReplyDelete
  33. ***...Federer was always a far superior player than Roddick in terms of his court positioning, his return game, & his net game. On paper, Roddick should NEVER have beaten Fed b/c everything that Roddick did well, Fed did better. And Roddick's primary weapon (serve) was completely neutralized by Fed's chip/block return. So Roddick had limited options vs Fed except to hold his serve and hope Fed's game went off. ...Roddick often lost 6-7 in a TB or would win a set or 2.

    The differences in skill btw Murray & Djokovic isn't nearly as significant to me. They both have a great 1st serve, incredibly fast, have awesome 2-handed BH's, solid FH's, good drop shots, good lobs, & decent volleys. The main difference btw them is their mentality. Djokovic has a fearless, aggressive, dictating mentality, while Murray has a reactionary, defensive, bait & switch/cat & mouse mentality; doesn't work vs Nole. And Murray uses very poor tactics vs Djokovic, and he lets his emotions get to him on the court and affect his play. I don't think Murray believes deep down that he can actually beat Djokovic (even though on paper he s/b able to), whereas Roddick deep down did believe he could beat Fed. Djokovic is in Murray's head in a way that Federer was never in Roddick's head.***

    Thumbs up!

    ***I am a huge Nadal fan; have been ever since I 1st saw him in '04 before he was famous. Loved his attitude and the way every point was his last. We will never see his like again, and to me he is the greatest tennis player I have seen, although i expect Djokovic to assume that mantle in about 12 months. Rafa has had a career that's more than he could have dreamed of.

    But his fans and the man himself need to now face reality. He is finished! His game is now obsolete as he is too slow in his movement to carry it off so now his shots are like hitting practice for opponents. Unlike the other Icon of the past decade, Federer, Nadal does not have the God-given talent to mask his physical decline as his whole game was built around the physical edge he had over opps. Even Fed gets exposed vs the other true great of the past decade, Djokovic. But Fed has the talent to take care of the less gifted players, while Nadal doesn't and as such, he should announce his retirement @ this year's FO.

    Anyone who thinks Nadal has a chance of winning the FO needs to take the blindfold off. Forget Djokovic, Nadal won't compete w/ any of the top 10. They will simply hit him off the court. Fed's suffering @ the hands of Djokovic, but he isn't embarrrassing himself at all; Nadal is and it's trajic to see. His entourage is his > problem. They make alot of money off him so clearly they won't be telling him the brutal truth which is that he's finished as a world class major winning tennis player; or even Masters 1000.***

    Besides the physical aspect in Nadal's game; the inconsistency and the failing serve, his confidence has t/b shaken! You c/b at peak form w/ all the talent in the world, but if you're not confident doing what you think is "your best," you're going to fail! That was plain and simple a failure yesterday; should have imposed his will on the kid & attacked the net! Nadal couldn't do it; " he just m/b done!" STICK A FORK IN HIM! If he doesn't get by Busta in the 1st Rd or Almagro potentially in the 2nd in Rio, I think that w/b telling! His pigeons haven't been as obliging!

    ***Just what we need, another excuse for fanbois to gnash their teeth at each other.

    Nadal: showed up, played a physically-demanding game coupled w/ a ferocious comp. streak and on his best day kicked everybody's ass esp. his top rivals. Caught shlt for it throughout his career from fanboi haters who acused him of everything under the sun while his grinding style of play (it would appear) eventually took its toll on the champion pitbull / topspin monkey-cappybara (choose one)***

    ReplyDelete
  34. ***...W/ Rafa, we m/b seeing his own version of "decline-revealed weakness." Maybe what we're seeing is just how much of his game was his indomitable will & fearlessness. When he loses that mental edge, the weaknesses in his game are revealed.

    Presumably we'll eventually see Novak's version. But I think the basic idea is, when a truly great player loses even just a hair off of the main factor that makes him great, it has a kind of snowball effect. Depending upon how diverse a player's skill set, the fall w/b small to more moderate. Roger has a diverse skill, which has seen him fall from #1 to #2-3, whereas Rafa's more specialized so we're seeing him fall from #1 to #5-6. I imagine that Novak's drop w/b more akin to Roger's - slow and steady, but still comp. for yrs after he starts showing decline.
    ---

    You are right on. Many tennis analysts and former players predicted Rafa's fall t/b steep when it will happen. He's upset by a more wider range of players than Roger is. His fall on grass is esp. magnified at Wimbledon. What happened there in the last 4 yrs is prob. unprecedented for a 2 X winner & 5 X finalist.***

    I was definitely in the group of people that knew his decline w/b more precipitous than a more classic player! I always thought it insane to use so much physicality to play tennis; destined t/b in a wheelchair! We saw girls breaking down back in the 70's & 80's like Austin & Jaeger overextending their bodies! Rafa's matches from early Rds were full scale wars rather than quick battles & it had to catch up w/ him sooner or later! I thought he was done after his last great run of '13, but he eeeked out 1 more FO! He looks "all @ sea" when playing these days; someX's not even in the vicinity of shots he normally would have run for and made a "get" that ultimately would save the pt for him! That just isn't ... & it's not just happening vs the elite; everyone's challenging him from the 1st Rd on! It's only going to get uglier and I'll make sure to have plenty of videotape to document it all!

    ***Yes, and players that Roger swats aside like fleas, Rafa gets into "to the death" cage matches w/. The diff. w/ Rog is he does not let players PLAY. Period. W/ Rafa, his opps can work themselves into the match w/ long rallies where they start to assimilate to his spin and pace and get emboldened. They actually get to play.
    ---

    He has 16,790 pts right now, including 300 Dubai R-up points. If he wins in Dubai, he'll + 200 pts to 16,990. Since he's sched. to play DC 1st Rd vs Kazakhstan, he'll get to 17,000 win or lose (40 pts/win, 10 pts/loss). Of course, more is @ stake in Dubai for Novak.
    Longest streak of finals.
    Longest streak of titles.
    Highest career winning %.
    Not bad for an ATP 500.
    ---

    ...After the AO '14 loss I must admit that I lost some faith in Novak and didn't think he would win as much as I thought he would. But I wasn't at the point where I thought he wouldn't win any. After AO 14 I would have taken 9 or 10 slams to end his career with TBH. Those losses '12-14 hurt a lot b/c I truly believed he should have won at least 3 more slams in that X. Wimbledon '14 was a big sigh of relief.***

    The parallels w/ Lendl are just so amazing; I can't get past it! Ivan had to wait his turn when the top ranked players were still divvying up the spoils! The only reason Borg, Connors, & McEnroe didn't have more titles was they tended to skip the AO & FO (Jimmy/John anyway)! When Ivan finally ascended the throne in '85, there was more to apprec. since he had to endure so much to get where he was! We have the same thing going on now w/ Nole who at X's still has to deal w/ the legend of Fedal! He's knocking out the record books all the X! I feel fortunate to have seen the success of the 2 greatest artisans of all X; Lendl & Djokovic!

    ReplyDelete
  35. ***But who else do you think s/b holding onto the #2 ranking? Who deserves it more than Murray?***

    No one! I watched him and for the 1st 6 months of last season I wondered how Roger was able to hold onto the ranking w/ being in 6th place on the ATP list? His results from '14 held him up until the end of '15 when Murray finally took over as #2 and justifiably so w/ 2 Masters' win and a major final! Roger was marginally better overall w/ 2 major finals & a Masters, beating Andy convincingly, but it balanced out to give The Brit a slight advantage!

    ***It's fine. When Murray retires you will see it and people will start giving extra credit points to Murray for everything he has achieved in his career. Hewitt & Roddick are too of the most absurdly overrated players here b/c a lot of posters get sentimental about the X's when they were at their best. The only diff/ is, Murray has many more brilliant achievements to his name compared to Roddick & Hewitt.***

    If Murray doesn't achieve #1 status for even 5 mins like a Rios, Muster, or Moyer, Murray will end up being merely a footnote in the grand scheme of things! He has a lot more ability than past #1's, but was unfortunate to play at the same X as Nole, Roger, & Rafa! He had the ability to make more of a mark, but his passive, counterpunching game wasn't going to rule this era! He needed his opp. to "give it to him" and that just wasn't going to happen enough to make it worthwhile to continue playing as he does! He's a moron to regress as he has, changing the rest of his team, taking on Mauresmo; where has it gotten him?

    ***That's a little unfair. He had back surgery and hasn't been quite the same player since. He has done well to fight his way back to the #2 spot but, while he was struggling to regain his form, Djokovic was able to move on w/ his game and get even better. He has had the good fortune to avoid any serious injuries and so has enjoyed an uninterrupted career. Unfortunately for Murray, Lendl walked out on him shortly after his back surgery. It was certainly not Murray's decision to split up. I agree w/ you that he could possibly have found someone more suitable than Mauresmo but, winning Slams apart, he has got back to #2 w/ her at his side. Yes, he mhd a bit better, but it's pretty remarkable how well he has done since his surgery, IMO.***

    It may be unfair, but I've been a devotee of tennis since '73, seeing how history has been molded by certain players while others aren't even acknowledged! I'm not beating up on Murray for not winning, but for the reason he loses matches; defensive play! He's breaking down his own body just like Rafa, exerting too much effort to win the simplest of matches starting in the 1st Rd! Players like this are doing themselves in; look at Chang w/ "hip replacements!" These guys are gonna wind up in wheelchairs and it c/b avoided by being a little more offensive and closing out more points at the net! Hanging near the backstop, dodging linesmen and ball-kids makes no sense to me! That was what Borg did back "in the day!" This is '16 and we have elite players who are struggling w/ what we consider a weak era; it's all on them and the way they play the game! Only Nole seems to be pressing the issue and playing w/ more joy! Roger can actually do more, but in his mind "I can hang out here and play 20-36 ball rallies w/ these kids!" He's deluding himself!

    ReplyDelete
  36. ***As bad as Rafa is relative to his best, he's still #5 in the world - that means he's been better than everyone but Novak, Andy, Roger, & Stan. I think what's shocking about that ranking is that he's fully healthy. He's dropped down out of the #1-2 range before, but it was always due to missed X. Rafa's been healthy for over a year now.

    I think this clay season will make or break the rest of his career. If he does well, wins a Masters or 2 or even the FO, then it could re-invigorate him and we could see 2 or 3 more years. If he struggles, doesn't win a big tournament and/or goes out earlyish in the FO, then I wouldn't be surprised to see him retire after this year, or maybe give it 1 more shot next.
    ---

    As bad as Rafa is relative to his best, he's still #5 in the world - that means he's been better than everyone but Novak, Andy, Roger, & Stan.***

    Anything but being at the top is not acceptable to a real ATG! That's why Roger's still fighting; thinking he can still get the job done! For the most part he's playing as well as he ever has and is only having serious trouble w/ 1 player; NOLE! Rafa in his position of #5 in the world can't say the same! Ferrer's been as high as #4 IIRC; SO? Unless Rafa's challenging for majors, he's wasting his X & the adulation of his fans as the losses begin to pile up from players who's claim to fame is only for beating him! If Qatar is any indication of how competitive he is against Nole, then to lose vs Thiem on clay last week, how's he supposed to survive the early Rds @ Masters events next month?

    ***It's not b/c of Fear but a lack of confidence. Rafa doesn't have his quickness, speed, or his killer FH. Until he regains confidence in those 3 parts of his game, he may continue to struggle, IMO.
    ---

    How about we discount RG and remove the dirt from our minds?
    Federer = 16
    Sampras = 14
    Djokovic = 11
    Connors = 8
    Agassi = 7
    McEnroe = 7
    Becker = 6
    Edberg = 6
    Borg = 5
    Nadal = 5
    Courier = 2
    Murray = 2

    How about we discount Wimbledon to get away from the dogmatic stuff and stiff upper lipped British spectators and feel alive in the co. of our boisterous & uninhibited fans in rival slams?
    Nadal = 12
    Federer = 10
    Djokovic = 8
    Agassi = 7
    Sampras = 7
    Connors = 6
    Borg = 6
    McEnroe = 4
    Becker = 4
    Edberg = 4
    Courier = 4
    Murray = 1
    ---

    How about we discount USO to get away from those doughnut munching, raucous crowd indulging in unscrupulous activity and feel civilized again?

    Nadal = 12
    Federer = 12
    Borg = 11
    Djokovic = 9
    Sampras = 9
    Agassi = 6
    Becker = 5
    Edberg = 4
    Courier = 4
    Connors = 3
    McEnroe = 3
    Murray = 1

    So we are left w/ Happy Slam ;-)
    ---

    How about we discard all 4 Slams (feral Aussies, cheese-eating surrender monkey Frenchies, snobby Brits, drunken Yanks) and all ATP events played in those wretched countries and just focus on what truly matters in tennis ie. Olympic Singles Gold Medal Winners:

    Mecir = 1
    Rosset = 1
    Agassi = 1
    Kafelnikov = 1
    Massu = 1
    Nadal = 1
    Murray = 1
    Everybody Else = 0
    ---

    From '03-08:
    Federer went 459-56 (90.89%)
    Federer won 13 Grand Slams
    Federer reached 17 GS Finals
    Federer won 53 titles
    Federer reached 68 finals

    For Djokovic t/b as productive, he would have t/d the following in '16:
    currently 374-41 (90.12%) - I think he won't get near 459 match wins, but will have > win/loss %
    Win 2 more Grand Slams
    Reach 2 more GS Finals
    Win 10 more titles
    Reach 12 more finals
    ---

    Wrong calculation - 1) 459+56 = 515 2) 459/515=89.12% (2dp)***

    Thx!

    ReplyDelete
  37. ***Slams won by beating PRIME ATG's in finals:

    Federer: 1 (2 if you consider '06 Nadal on grass prime)
    Nadal '07 Wimbledon

    Nadal: 8
    Federer '06 RG
    Federer '07 RG
    Federer '08 RG
    Federer '08 Wimbledon
    Federer '09 AO
    Djokovic '12 RG
    Djokovic '13 USO
    Djokovic '14 RG

    Djokovic: 3
    Nadal '11 Wimbledon
    Nadal '11 USO
    Nadal '12 AO

    This does reaffirm my belief that Nadal is the mentally strongest player of all X. He did a great job of converting finals. He w/b the player I'd pick if my life was on the line, but he never was consistently the greatest. He also was unlucky t/b the in btw guy. While I don't believe in weak eras, I think it's cute how many Fed fans are complaining about it right now. He only beat ONE ATG player IN THEIR PRIME to win a major.
    ---

    The peak Djokovic ('11) could beat post-peak Federer and post-peak Nadal only by a little margin. Also don't forget that he lost to Federer in FO. - That's an overstatement. - His only loss came vs peak Federer (who played his 2nd best RG match ever right after the '09 final). And even that semi was close, given that Novak returned like $#!t on the 2 SP's he had in the 1st set and made 3 easy UE's when up 5-4 in the TB. More than that, he served for the 4th set and held 2 more BP's in the next game. That's what he did at his peak against Fedal.
    ---

    Nadal was 25 in '11 & 27 in '13. He was at his peak in both of those yrs. Djokovic beat Nadal 7 str. X's from '11-12 & some weren't close. '11 Wimbledon & USO was more like a drubbing than a miracle. Regardless, he won the matches and went 10-1 vs them that year. The only loss was the FO SF & that's damn impressive.***

    Didn't think '11 c/b surpassed, but Nole almost obliterated all those records taking an extra Masters and YEC title to finish off '15!

    ***The # of majors played & how cons. Fed destroys Sampras in both categories.***

    Even though I give all due credit to Fed for his consistency, longevity, & winning ways, Sampras was truly part of a "golden age" w/ so many players destined to the HOF and more! At any given X, there c/b 12 GS winners in a draw; can barely scratch 1/2 that these days w/ the tour falling down on the job making the elite work for it! Also, Bo3 for Masters' wins helped out Nadal & Djokovic of late while Federer only had to deal w/ Bo5 early on! There's a difference; not necessarily calling either era weak or strong, but the discrepancies are worth noting!

    ***Having 12 GS winners in the draw doesn't necessarily mean anything esp. when a lot of them are 1-2 slam wonders. There are a lot of slam winners in the women's game at the moment. Serena, Maria, Venus, Azarenka, Kvitova, Kuznetsova, Schiavone, Stosur, Panetta, Kerber. Yet I particularly wouldn't call this a strong era at the moment.***

    If it's so easy to win ONE, why aren't there more of these "slam wonders?" That's what's so frustrating; the women's tour used t/b maligned b/c everything was being taken by 2, 3, or 4 players while the rest of the tour survived on scraps! That's what's happening now w/ the men and I've been railing about it for years! The next gen. hasn't stepped up and the ones w/ the actual skill and ability can't stay on the court more than a few weeks before breaking down! It's hard to watch at X's; just like the women's tour 20-30 years ago!

    ***Q: Is Nole's level comparable to the best versions of Federer and Nadal?
    Ferrer: "It's difficult to compare. The 3 of them had phenomenal seasons. But w/o a doubt Novak is making history"...

    - http://canchallena.lanacion.com.ar/1870323-ferrer-soy-un-inconformista-siempre-hay-que-buscar-algo-para-ser-mejor -***

    ReplyDelete
  38. ***Is it just me or are some of these top players trying to jinx Djokovic? No player is unbeatable, so I can't understand why anyone would say such a thing. - Indeed. Novak has been getting so much praise from every tennis analyst/retired players/current players in the last couple of weeks. He's this month GOAT of all X. It's funny b/c people have such short term memory. It's still very fresh how people were saying the exact same thing about Nadal in '13 and look what happened 6 months later? I'm not trying to take anything away from Novak, I respect the player and actually fond of the guy off-court as I find him very funny and seems like a nice guy, but to think that Novak is immune to aging is ridiculous. At the end of the day, his game's still based on moving well and defending and he will eventually lose a step just like Federer/Nadal did and that could have a considerable impact on his results. The margin btw a top player and a top 20 is paper thin.***

    Tis true, but we keep waiting for a "sea-change" and it just hasn't happened! Dimitrov, Kei, & Milos are still scrappin', but the challenge is so infrequent, it's hard seeing a move by them b/c we've been waiting for so long already!

    ***...Sampras' H2H's during his prime w/ Krajicek & Hewitt.

    Sampras v Krajicek - Played 10 X's:

    Krajicek 6 wins
    Sampras 4 wins

    Hardly owned. Sampras won their last 2 matches and in slams, it was 1 win each. Sampras won the 2nd of their 2 slam matches, even though he was down a set in that match.

    Sampras v Hewitt - Played 9 X's

    Hewitt 5 wins
    Sampras 4 wins

    Again, hardly owned. 3 of the wins to Hewitt came in '01/02 when Sampras was in his 2 year decline prior to winning the USO and then retiring. In the slams, it ended 1-1.

    Let's have a look at Nadal v Federer in slam matches only - Played 11 X's:

    Nadal 9 wins
    Federer 2 wins

    FO 5-0 Nadal
    W 2-1 Federer
    AO 3-0 Nadal

    LOL. Now that's ownership.

    ...In the Fedal H2H:

    Nadal 3 wins across 2 slams on 2 surfaces
    Federer 2 wins across 1 slam on 1 surface

    Now to lose 3-2 isn't that bad, but when comparing it to Sampras who went 1-1 vs both Krajicek and Hewitt, the latter who won vs Sampras during his decline. It still proves once and for all that Sampras, unlike Federer, never lost his H2H battles once he got in his prime.

    ...Bottom line, Federer lost to his biggest rival & Sampras didn't.
    ---

    Sampras' w/o a shred of doubt, 1 of the greatest to ever play. But, your evident obsession w/ Sampras, and useless statistics, may make people actually irritated. ...Federer has the highest stake in the 'Goat' status, but not necessarily in the highest peak level status. When Djokovic supporters bring this up, they're vehemently opposed by Federer fanboys. Claims of a weak era are made.

    ...That Sampras supposedly declined at 29, but you use Federer's results post age 34. ...10 years down the line, New fans won't care about Pete's h2h, but they'll only look at his achievements. Perhaps, ...Federer fans will develop some sort of animosity vs Sampras. Similarly, Fed fans express their frustration at Djokovic, simply b/c of unworthy members of their fan base. If you really care about Pete, you're not doing a good job.***

    ReplyDelete
  39. ***4/4 SCOTUS can't overturn President Obama's Ex. Orders any longer can they?***

    Didn't you know that was "the plan" from the beginning? McConnell told Obama, "do whatever you want! I'll pretend to object, but we cool! Just take it as far as you like; we the Rep. Party will find a way to blow every advantage we have in Congress, in state Houses, and up to now the Supreme Court! Yau know best Barack!" ...Obama has systematically had 1 of the most successful tenures as President; even in his 2nd term! Reps keep overplaying their hand, there's a backlash, then they cave again & again! - Reps are seriously "back-peddling" after mouthing off about not even taking up hearings to fill seat of SCOTUS! FOOLS; m/b forced t/d so since such a political hot potato!

    ***Clearly. what's interesting about it is:

    - it is NOT a change of heart
    - It is a change of MIND

    WHY? B/c it's an election year.

    And Rep. leaders like McConnell are so deeply mired in their obstructionist mode; to suck up to their Rep. loyalist base, they forgot that there're sev. Rep. seats in the Senate which are in contest this Nov. If McConnell don't watch their step w/ their unbridled obstructionism; they may end up tossing control of the Senate back to the Dems. So precisely as Fiero425 has stated, the Reps are back-peddling furiously, trying to unring the bell; the consequence of saying what they think, instead of what's pol. expedient.***

    McConnell promised things would run like a well-oiled machine if the Reps took Congress! They have it; lock, stock, & barrell and there's still "nothing!" The reason they finally took the Senate was b/c the Dems were more vulnerable in '14, when it should have flipped in '12 but for the incompetence of whacko-bird candidates in Ind. & MO! ...I'm sure the voters of MI didn't think they w/b literally poisoned as in Flint, but it's not like they weren't warned! Whenever I hear politicians use that refrain of "exceptionalism," I laugh and say to myself; "yep, exceptionally dumb!" We vote against our own interests every day! It's only getting worse w/o "pork" in the Nat'l budget to heel these animals in DC!

    ***Well F4, historically the congressional partisan pendulum lags the WH by a term or 2. The problem is; obstructionism doesn't require a lot of creativity. ...they seem to have forgotten how to produce very much. It's not clear to me Boehner, McConnell, & now Ryan fully understand the implications of their own legis. inactivity. They seem content to believe the U.S. electorate wants more of what full congressional Rep. leadership delivers.***

    If Obama had gone to Scalia's funeral, it whb him being a "hypocrite!" I can hear the FNC anchors going at it from that angle; so BHO will be "damned if he does, or damned if he doesn't!" He can't win!

    ***Ah, but the truth is he could go to the funeral, make one of his "words" speeches and make himself not look so divisive in the meantime. For him to chose to meet w/ a communist leader instead of showing respect to 1 of America's most brilliant legal minds just show his contempt for our country. He did the same thing w/ Margaret Thatcher.
    ---

    What part of, "he is going on Friday" do you not get? He doesn't need to make the man's funeral a zoo w/ Secret Service. That would make it more about him. He chooses to go and pay his respects in private. But, this is par for the course w/ ignorant and silly comments by you people. If he had went, as Fiero stated, you people w/b saying he would try to make it about him.***

    Rep. candidates for President bitch about Obama would rather go to Communist Cuba than to attend Scalia's funeral! Cruz makes an even bigger deal about it, esp. since he clerked for Scalia, but now it's reported he won't attend himself due to his campaign schedule conflicts! Such hypocrites! ;-(

    ReplyDelete
  40. ***The President has a responsibility to nominate a new Justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote. - Very true! Nothing defines WHEN they must vote, and they will...eventually. The record thus far is a 27 month delay. I suspect the Senate will NOT exceed that record. There is absolutely NO hurry!***

    ...Like a Rep. cares you caught them being a hypocrite; couldn't care less! The balance of power has finally shifted!

    ***SCOTUS is the last word in law... and gov't, the final say. Therefore, we Americans MUST keep Obama from any possible 'confirmation!'***

    The SCOTUS lost it's respectability and reverence years ago acting more and more political during the Clinton years! Deciding on a President in 2000 doesn't help their legacy as well! W/ the latest nomination, maybe this fuk'n country can move into the 21st century!

    ***Reps started rigging the Supreme Court w/ conservatives many years ago; been one of their pet projects for decades.***

    Don't you love when McConnell says elections have consequences, then when things don't go exactly as expected, he wants to rig procedure? What happened to this man? He wasn't this bad before, but to hold onto his job w/ cons and the Tea-Baggers, he has to act like a jerk and a total ass!

    ***The KY voting majority hates Obama w/ a passion and reelected McConnell to show how much they really do hate him.***

    It's places like that that I yawn when "bad things" happen! These people are so hateful and unashamed of their animus towards this man that they'd just assume the country "go under" than have a successful period under him! Obama's quietly having one of the most successful Presidencies and anyone w/ a brain and common sense knows it; that's where their frustration comes from! They've done "absolutely everything" they could to undermine his initiatives; even if it was something they supported before he became Commander-In-Chief! Rep. leadership has mirrored that hatred, emboldening them to talk disparagingly about the man, his family, and patriotism; hell they denied his citizenship! This is a very dark period in the country's history; akin to eras I'd rather not get into; the hubris w/b mind numbing to some who are totally blind to what's going on! I don't have a lot of hope for the future w/ the way things are going now outside of a recovering economy, unemployment low, gas prices way down, wars winding down, etc.! Seems like Reps thrive better in desperate situations; even if they have to create it and they keep repeating the process no matter how successful Dems are in office! - As bad as the economy is, it's still better now than it was at the end of "W's" term; thank GAWD!

    ***Yes. President GWB flunks the Reagan "are you better off?" test.***

    It means nothing w/ these people! It's someone else's fault; never theirs even when they run the entire show in Congress, they overspend & promote/encourage wars while cutting taxes! Total fuk'n idiots; and they wonder why the debt keeps growing? "If we cut taxes so much, they'll spend more and the tax money will roll in!" Totally idiotic, but they've had this theory since I was a kid; still haven't gotten any smarter after all these decades!

    ReplyDelete
  41. ***I wouldn't lose any sleep over it F4.
    The convenient thing for truth-tellers in such matters is; it's a simple quantification. Pick the units:
    - private-sector jobs gained
    - relative prosperity: how is the U.S. economy doing compared with the economies of our trading partners: E.U., China, etc.

    It literally reduces it to arithmetic simplicity.

    And the context is; the most recent U.S. president before our current president took office when the nation & the nation's economy was fairly stable. We were at peace.

    After 8 years of the "texan" from Connecticut, and the wheels came off.
    - Worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in U.S. history,
    - the U.S. was at Wars
    - we were losing ~800K jobs per month
    - etc

    Obama may not be a flashy guy. But he's been patiently whittling away at it, dragging a recalcitrant congress along.

    “... Reince Priebus, the RNC today said that 300K jobs ... aught to be expected every month ... and just a historical perspective:
    - during the 8 years of President Bush (younger) there were 2.1 M net jobs created in the US. Of the 2.1 M, 1.8 M of them were in the public sector ... that means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector in 8 years, net ...
    more jobs have been created in the US in the last 4 years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined. ...
    70 yrs since WWII. 36 yrs of Rep. presidents, 34 yrs of Dem. presidents. In those 70 years, there were 36.7 M jobs created under Rep. presidents ... a little over 1/2 the X. In 34 yrs there were 63.7 M created by Dems. That's 29 million more. You know, perhaps it's an accident once, or twice or what. But I mean at some pt the Dems ought t/b comfort in the fact that they have been better the economy and job creation than h/b the opp.
    ...
    It's 15 years since we've had 10 cons. months of over 200,000 [job growth]. Just 15 years ago there was a fella from Arkansas ... there were more jobs created in Bill Clinton's 8 years than there were in Ronald Reagan's 8 years, and the 12 years of both Bush's combined. I mean 6 M more jobs created in those 8 yrs, ... policy does kick in, & is reflected in the results.” Mark Shields...***

    Believe me, I well know this stuff; which is the bane of my existence that the less informed MOHRONs would rather vote for "W" b/c he was someone you'd like to have a beer w/ over the more robotic GORE and it cost us; BIG TIME! The Nat'l debt was actually going down before "W" who promised "compassionate conservatism," responsible spending, and a safer world; TOTAL BS and they really haven't been punished for it!

    We've subsequently changed blue states into red, whole swatches of the country h/b @ war w/ gov't, stalling it in such a way that the infrastructure is crumbling around us, students are getting dumber rather than smarter, and the Nat'l debt doesn't seem like anything we can control, even with all the cuts! When bridges and roads start going, regret won't cover how bad it'll be! I'm so glad I'm old and won't have to deal w/ the malfeasance of our reprs who would rather play politics than get ANYTHING DONE! Reps took over CONGRESS and as far as I can tell, nothing's changed; if anything it's worse! Judges waiting for hearings to assume appeal court duties that are seriously needed is something on permanent hold until the next President I guess! They may be shamed into filling this last SCOTUS position though! We'll see how long the country will allow this to continue, but I'm losing hope all the X!

    ***They've started. Bridges and roads ARE crumbling around us. The funny thing about SC nom; McConnell & other Reps present it like: Obama shouldn't nominate a Scalia replacement b/c a presidential election s/b a referendum by the People on which party should make such choices / appts.

    Well guess what Mitch?? The People have chosen, TWICE!! They picked Obama!***

    ReplyDelete
  42. ***...I do not think Nadal fears a lot his opps, but I do believe people don't fear him. ...Not a vague fear of losing...***

    I explain it as "a true lack of confidence!" W/o it, no amount of skill will help you! The problem w/ Nadal is he doesn't have any real skill to fall back on like "a Fed!" If his physicality is limited, he's done! It is the reason I said many years ago, Rafa won't last long on the tour!

    ***...Players often fear that they can't play like they used to. They fear missing shots they used to make routinely. This isn't necessarily fear of their opp., though it c/b connected. Players can fear that X is running out. ...Things go wrong and they yell at their entourage like Murray does: that's fear. I doubt Rafa fears his opps as much as he gets anxious of the occasion. He's not settled at certain X's where he used to thrive at the most pressurised situations. His mental toughness was beyond compare. Fiero mentioned "lack of confidence" above. That's fear...
    ---

    Fair play to Cuevas. Awesome way to end it. Must say after he failed to convert the MP's in Nadal's last service game. I thought he was gonna end up losing serve there and ultimately the match. - Nadal is becoming the same as Federer w/ BP conversions. Only 2/13 there.
    ---

    So, not a single person picked Pablo Cuevas in my poll even though I had a separate entry for him. Rafa continues his way of losing to surprise opps.
    Pablo took Rafa to 3 sets last year and this year he finished the job. - So, Rafa couldn't even win a 250 clay and a 500 clay event now. Let us see what happens in the 1000 and 2000 clay events.***

    So much for Rafa's salvation in his comeback to GOAT status! South America always seemed a great way to get in match play and gain confidence! It's over it seems; thank GAWD!

    ***Nadal is now embarrassing himself and arguably is showing a slight mental disorder on the court. We all know he had a form of OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) w/ all his butt picking, hair stroking, water bottle placement, 154 bounces of the ball befor serve, but as he gets older, that type of disorder gets worse and you can now see it in his whole demeanour on court; so uneasy and tense it is actually hard to watch.

    Great champions are of course remembered for their performances at their peak. Every one eventually declines. The problem though w/ Nadal is his decline is not a decline as such, it is almost an exposure of the abject side of his game. No coach would recommend playing his style of tennis, returning serve 15 feet behind the baseline. Nadal's achievements are miraculous of course, but if he continues to carry on, it w/b impossible to call him GOAT (if he retired tomorrow I'd still give him that title), but further more, it w/b hard to place him in the top 7 of all X.

    The reason is b/c he will not have left any legacy in respect of how to play the game. The longer he carries on, the more evident it is that his style of tennis is not the way to play the game. You can't be an all X great and leave a legacy like that. If he retired tomorrow, the last 18 months c/b dismissed as simply the end of a great career, but if he carries on deeper ??s w/b asked; many already have!

    I've said Federer should retire as well, but w/ him it's totally diff. He's still world class. It's just galling to see him keep losing to a great player in Djokovic, but still utimately an inferior 1 in terms of their best levels. However Federer still shows us excellent tennis that's a coach's blue print. Nadal oTOH is not now a world class player, despite his ranking curently. He is a truly awful player and t/b honest, if he carries on this season, he is going to struggle to get past the early rounds of any tournament on any surface. He is getting exposed very badly and he must retire...now!***

    ReplyDelete
  43. ***Unless Nadal figures out a few things, it is looking bleak.
    -ROS's horrendous
    -FH's reverted back to '03/04 w/ loopy, service line landing puff balls
    -BP conversion % is awful
    -cannot raise the level of his game on important pts.
    -and this is NEW..distressed by opps winners...looking to the sky asking "why me?" Where before he would just erase them from the memory bank.
    ---

    Nadal looks like he's tightening up, which causes his shots to land short. His ufe count was way too high to give him the win. He had better let go of his fear of missing and just hit the ball w/ confidence.
    ---

    I'm sticking with my view that Novak has the edge over Rafa even now. ...The difference btw Rafa & Novak is currently 3 slams. ...For me a slam is worth the same if it's your 1st or your 20th. In both cases it's still the ultimate achievement in the sport, and it shouldn't be regarded as any < of an achievement b/c a player has already won a lot of them.

    Imagine if Fed won an 18th slam. Would this be any < of an achievement than when he won, say, his 4th? I don't think it would b/c I count each slam the same. But you are saying that once players have a lot of slams, slams don't mean as much. So much so, that 3 slams becomes relatively nothing.
    ---

    With a 14 to 11 lead, why's Rafa only up 905 to 865? Each Slam win gives 50 pts, so just going by wins, Rafa has 700 to Novak's 550. Finals give 20 pts, SF 10 pts, QF 5 pts, 4R 3 pts, 3R 2 pts, and 2R 1 pt. So it is heavily weighted towards better results, w/ a win worth 2 Fs & a SF combined. Compare the 2's Slam results:

    W/F/SF/QF/4R/3R/2R
    RN: 14/6/3/6/4/4/5
    ND: 11/8/10/6/2/4/1

    Let's subtract the results from each other to see what we end up w/:

    RN: +3 Wins, +2 4R, +4 2R
    ND: +2 Fs, +7 SF

    Now clearly the system still favors Rafa's +3 Wins, but the rest of the results favor Novak - as they should. Novak has been far < prone to go out early or be upset, and far more consistent overall. Another way to put is that while Rafa has those wins to 2 finals and 1 SF from Novak, Novak partially--although not fully--makes up the diff. through having 6 SF's to Rafa's 2 extra 4R and 4 extra 2R. This isn't as much penalizing Rafa for going out early as it is benefiting and acknowledging Novak's remarkable consistency.

    One other factor of my formula that some might not agree w/ is that in addition to pts for YE rankings, I give a bonus of +1 point per wk at #1. This gives Novak an edge of +45 & counting.

    Summary: Right now, Novak & Rafa are neck-and-neck, @ least according to the El Dude Proprietary Ranking Formula--actually just .001% apart. While Rafa has the big edge in Slam wins, Novak makes up for it with better non-win Slam results, 5 more WTF's titles, and 45 more wks @ #1.
    ---

    My all X rankings @ this pt:

    1. Laver
    2. Gonzales
    3. Federer
    4. Sampras
    5. Nadal
    6. Tilden
    7. Djokovic
    8. Borg
    9. Vines
    10. Connors or Rosewall

    Honorable mentions- McEnroe, Lendl, Budge

    I think the only 3 you can seriously argue as GOAT are Laver, Gonzales, & Fed. You could make a legit case for all 3. I have learnt a bit more about Gonzales's career and as great as it was, his relative weakness on clay has me considering moving him behind Federer more.

    I had been thinking Djokovic s/b behind Borg since Borg didn't really have the AO and both are still at 11 slams. However the more I thought about it, Djokovic is already well ahead in X at #1 (and he is already mathematically guaranteed another 20 wks minimum @ #1 even if he doesn't win another match in that span), is ahead in YEC titles, Borg not winning the U.S.O even w/ it being on clay for a period looks worse than Djokovic not winning RG yet, and Djokovic's longevity is already miles ahead while his consistency is at least as high if not higher. So I think all things considered Djokovic c/b in front already.***

    ReplyDelete
  44. ***...The GOP is perilously close to being defunct now; on a Nat'l basis anyway.***

    Their 1 saving grace after running individual states into the ground; at least Nationally they'll always put a bullet in their own fk'n heads! Bush was truly delusional to possibly think this country would elect him so soon after a horrendous admin. of "W!" Someone, maybe his momma should have told him; "maybe later!"

    ***It's a stain on the Bush family name. Had JEB stayed out of it, he could have looked like on the high road. But he ran and lost; affirmative public rejection.***

    The hubris of it all!

    ***W/ Trump in, I wouldn't have voted for Bush. But at least he had some exper. running something - and he seemed t/d a good job. Cruz & Rubio are both phonies & have no exper. that makes them qualified to run the US. I wish just 1 debate moderator would ask them, "What qualifies you to run/manage the entire Fed. Gov't?" Trump, Bush, & Kasich would have an answer. Cruz & Rubio would have no answer.
    ---

    Hillary has raised more than Jeb and more than doubled Jeb in the spending depart. But some libs tend to ignore that fact.***

    ...and your pt. is? He's out of the race and she's leading and most assuredly w/b the Dem. nominee! Ya'll really need work on your talking points! Bitchin' about what Schumer said about "W" not getting a choice in the remaining months of his admin. meant nothing since Alito was confirmed by the Senate for the SCOTUS! The constant victimization of Reps by the MSM is something in their 'pointed' heads w/ not a scintilla of truth since Trump's almost getting reverential treatment instead of calling him out on his exaggerations & lies! Same for Bernie on the Dem side; never explaining how he's supposed to pay for all his "pie in the sky" programs led by "free college!" All pols are fabricators of truth and pander to the stupid masses! We'll never learn, going down in the gutter every election cycle! The end can't happen soon enough IMO!

    ***I don't think Romney / Ryan lost their election. I think Bush lost it for them. And as Buchanan suggests, JEB! bowing out is yet further confirmation the Bush family name has tarnished the Rep. party brand. Seriously. ...***

    I so agree! That's "W's" true legacy; he fk'd up so much it got a Black man elected President, who was labeled a bastard, Muslim, not of this country (probably Kenyan), w/ a Mau Mau communist father, and educated in a Madrasa! W/ all those attacks & labels, the country still overwhelmingly went for Obama proving "W" was a blight on the Rep. Party! "Thanks 'W;' you couldn't have been more helpful in saving the country from an even bigger mistake in McCain/Palin & Romney/Ryan!" Obama has saved the country from what chb w/ a Rep. Congress and a cons. SCOTUS! Heaven knows what would have happened if not for that veto pen! The hubris of thinking JEB could rehabilitate the BUSH name shows how delusional the party still is after all this X of reflection and a "penned" autopsy of where they've gone wrong in getting elected Nationally!

    ***He may put Hillary (back) in the White House. - UNBELIEVABLE - Wake up Kasich!***

    Tell "that" to Lyndsey Graham and all the other fools that endorsed JEB!

    ***J/b people didn't like Bush didn't mean they had to elect ANYONE just to spite him.***

    You call it "spite," I call it coming to their senses! After trashing the economy and starting 2 wars, how would it be rational to keep a Rep. in power? It's bad enough House seats are "rigged," but at least Nationally, the country was saved from McCain/Palin, then Romney/Ryan! I shudder to think of the repercussions of their leadership; or lack thereof! How soon you forget "911," Katrina, the Wall Street collapse, and the war perpetrated on gays, women, Blacks, Latinos, & progressives! ;-(

    ReplyDelete
  45. ...How soon you forget "911," Katrina, the Wall St. collapse, & the war perpetrated on gays, women, Blacks, Latinos, & progressives!

    ***911 may have happened regardless of who was president. That's not a cut and dry thing anyway as far as pointing fingers at 1 person. Katrina? You actually believe the liberal media's garbage that it was somehow Bush's fault when in fact it was the fault of New Orleans Mayor Nagin for not planning right for the disaster. But the media sure as Hell wasn't about to blame a black Dem.

    The Wall St. collapse was the result of liberal policies gone wrong w/ Freddie & Fannie. You can blame Clinton for the mess of lending to people who weren't qualified to own homes. 'War' on gays, women, Blacks, Latinos, & progressives? You've been watching too much MSNBC or CNN or listening to that rag 'Think Progress.' And if what happened to the economy in '07-08 is all Bush's fault, that can't explain why there was a healthy economy for some yrs after we recovered from 911.
    ---

    Gar spends his life online in utter futility attempting to defend the indefensible. Anything but admit to error on election day...***

    Anything cons do is an error IMO! Look at these loser candidates of their; calling each other liars, Godless, illegitimate citizens, and the like! It's absolutely obscene seeing things deteriorate to these levels of discourse! Over the years the Rep party has gone over to "the dark side" and it's just too difficult to take any of them seriously! Some are still trying to blame Clinton for "911" and to this day "W" says he inherited a recession! He's a fool and anyone who believes that is a fuk'n idiot! The Nat'l debt was going down, there was a surplus, unemployment low, and the market high! They turned this country into a debtor nation when we were on our way to something great; peace, prosperity, and little hanging over our heads! That drastically changed under "W" and they're still making excuses for him! If any of these disasters occurred under Obama, they w/b excoriating him even more than they do already! It's hard to smack him around since unemployment is under 5%, gas prices are low, & the DOW steadily going up! What else can they bitch about? They'll find a way and take advantage of their supporters who'll never learn their lessons!

    ***...When JFK had the Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba to deal w/; he didn't use U.S. Fed gov't drawings the way Sec. Powell did. JFK showed us aerial photographs. Ockham's Razor. Bush lied.***

    I should chart how many guys "W" brought in w/ stellar records and resumes and turned them into liars, cheats, & unpatriotic! I feel so sorry for many of them, including Powell, but they really should have told The President "no thanks!" No 1 twisted their arm t/g and support someone who lied to get us into a war & justify "war crimes" w/ what they called "enhanced interrogations!"

    ***Dumb ol' rednecks marched behind GW Bush and they keep marching today straight into screamin' Hell.***

    I just wonder will The Secret Service get into a gun battle trying to keep The Hague from arresting "W" if he's stupid enough to go abroad? I can only remember him sneaking into Can. for a speech! His detail has t/b super-nervous when outside the continental US!

    ***GW Bush doesn't travel the world much today. He had to cancel his European book signing tour facing arrest. Before being seated as President, he was only outside of USA 1 X on a family outing.***

    ReplyDelete
  46. ***...That article posted mentioned that Nadal seems rather resigned. I almost wonder if he is even at peace. I haven't watched any recent matches, but I'm wondering if people see a player who is struggling internally, or if they see a guy who is just going through the motions. In other words, he might simply not want it anymore, or not want it enough.***

    It's called "being BROKEN!" Again, why are people surprised? All that training, those long unnecessary matches vs lower ranked players, the travel, the weight of his family on his back; surprised he lasted this long truthfully!

    ***...Going into AO '14, that's when Rafa lost his confidence in his body and his game. As you recall he had never surrendered a set to Stan previously. However, the combo of the injured upper part of his turso and his back, getting trounced by Stan sent Rafa into his current state. ...At the X I said he would shake it off. I was very wrong.***

    Sorry guys, I am so tired of hearing about Rafa's injuries; who isn't hurting these days? That's what happens when you push your body to do something it doesn't want to do! All the experts laud his results, but most comment on how the stroke production is "ugly" and not worth teaching to someone else! This is a sport; if he pushes himself into injuries, that's on him! He has $$ & fame to go and do something else! Please stop it; few care! Does he care when he's playing against an injured player? I think not; usually running them to death! Now he knows how it feels when he's barely able to get to balls!

    ***Injuries have punctuated Rafa's injury, and when he's long gone, but not forgotten, it'll still be said that he was unfortunate w/ injuries.***

    I still made mention of Roger being Rafa's pigeon! All I do is acknowledge who's the best; no matter who it is! I can like or hate the player, but IMO, the true GREATS are from a "bygone" era; sorry! Things have gotten easier for today's stars w/ tech, homogenized courts, training, coaches on court, and many big tourneys going to best of 3! I don't think even Nole would win 6 Masters if he had to play Bo5! I don't have the reverence of today's players; even Roger in comparison to Laver, Borg, Tilden, Gonazales, & Sampras!

    ***1) Nadal after '09 lost his unparalleled movement, but replaced it w/ a slightly advanced court positioning, and even MORE spin than he used too. In particular his serve really packed on a lot of oomph, and his FH became even more of a neutralizer, pinning people back and not allowing them to open up the court on him.

    The problem now is that his serve has lost some combination of spin and/or accuracy, and its allowing people to get ahead in the return game before Nadal is ready. In short, he doesn't get into that comfortable point pattern as much, and the loss of control is creating matchup problems for him. Since he doesn't defend as well as he used too, he can't quite get back into the point the same way as he did in '08.

    2) Like what happened to Federer in '08, he has lost consistency on his groundstrokes. Nadal probably used to commit the fewest amount of errors per shot on tour. He could literally rally all day long. Now, there are a lot more mistakes, and again w/ the theme, he has lost some amount of control. He's not a guy thats going to hit a ton of winners, so this is particularly bad for him.

    His losses recently remind me a lot about what used to happen to him vs Federer's gen. The Blake's, Davydenko's and Nalbandians of the world who were able to get to him by ball striking him off the court. I feel like he was able to mitigate those types of losses w/ his improved serving, but w/ the recent poor form, the same type of losses are beginning to reappear.***

    ReplyDelete
  47. ***What is your top 7 of Open era:

    1. Fed
    2. Sampras
    3. Djokovic
    4. Nadal
    5. Borg
    6. Laver
    7. Lendl***

    I guess I'll go along w/ the herd; except Nadal can't be at the top w/ such a limited reign & game:

    1. Sampras
    2. Fed
    3. Borg/Djokovic
    4. Lendl
    5. Nadal/Agassi
    6. McEnroe
    7. Connors

    ...Sampras more impressive w/ the level of comp. He had to deal w/ in a true GOLDEN AGE of tennis! At any given X, there c/b 8-12 GS winners in a major draw! That can't happen anyX soon w/ the men since The BIG 3 only left scraps to Wawrinka, Cilic, Murray & Del Po!

    ***Controversial list in terms of the order. Not sure how Nadal can be any < than 2nd when he has won all there is to win? ...Lendl can't be put in top 7 as Wimbledon's a must have IMO for top 7 status. I like the fact I can understand where you are coming from. There's an rgument about Sampras t/b top as you are spot on about his era the real golden age of tennis. Becker, Courier, Agassi, Edberg, were alot better than Murray, Wawrinka, Ferrer, Berdych & Tsonga. Plus Sampras had loads of great clay courters to deal w/; Muster, Bruguera, Medvedev.
    ---

    Very briefly, for maybe a year or so we had Becker, Sampras, Edberg, Courier & Agassi @ or close to their best, not always at same X, but close enough. That was a never t/b repeated period. Nadal, Federer, Djokovic has been amazing, but below them the gulf is massive, and I include our own Murray.
    ---

    Correct! If I'm not mistaken that was around '91-93, young Agassi/Sampras challenging the more exper. Becker/Edberg w/ Courier in the mix. You can say that '08-11 is similar, but yes massive gap to rest of field.
    ---

    The golden age of tennis was early 90s. Sampras MILKED it big X from '96-02 if you want to bring up strong/weak comp. How's Agassi same as Nadal, and Lendl above Nadal? Sorry to say, but doesn't make sense.***

    I thought it was supposed t/b my opinion! Funny, it used t/b a right in this country; not sure where you're from!

    ***Regarding Sampras, that's an important pt. His comp. from '92-95 was great. His comp. from '96 onwards not so hot. People who worship Sampras tend to focus only on the '95-earlier field. - What's most baffling to me is the same people who argue Borg should rate better than 11 slams, and make excuses for others using context of the X ...***

    I watched Connors from the beginning; sorta like Nadal! He had his success, but it was sparse, limited, & short-lived! Like Fed, he had a nemesis he couldn't beat for the most part and then had trouble w/ the next gen.; BORG owned him, then McEnroe & Lendl! He won over them @ X's, but for the most part they embarrassed him; esp. near the end! He stayed on the tour too long and it only hurt his legacy! He has the most tourneys won @ 109, was a victor at the USO on 3 diff. surfaces winning 5, but after '83, if not for his great run of '91 USO, he would have only been a footnote!

    ***So he didn't do much after age 31. What did Lendl do after age 30?
    ---

    1) Federer - 17 slams, CS, & '06 sn win % 94.48 (3 of the 5 losses to Nadal in finals on clay, reached the final in every tourney except Cinnci). His H2H vs Nadal his abs. weakest part, but after all tennis isn't about H2H.

    2) Nadal - played @ the same X as 2 others on the list; still won 14 slams & CS. His strongest part's clay & H2H. He was ahead of both Nole & Fed H2H before the "collapse" post-'14. His weakest pts obviously everything else than clay. He could never reach the season stats of Nole & Fed b/c of his inconsistent play on other surfaces.

    3) Sampras - Close to Nadal, but he misses that important FO. Rock solid in all ways.

    4) Borg - 11 slams @ age 25, won btw '74 & '81 w/o playing AO. The strong combo of 5 Wimbledon & 6 FO. Reached 4 USO finals.

    ...the next players on the list should involve Connors, Nole, Agassi & Lendl.***

    ReplyDelete
  48. ***Didn't realise Lendl only turned the tide when Connors was 32/33 and past his prime. Same goes for McEnroe...interesting. Point taken. That said, I reckon it w/b difficult to separate Lendl, McEnroe & Connors. One has to really analyze all the other nitty gritty details; esp. when on a similar/same slam count.***

    I guess you can say, "history repeats itself!" Connors was older like Federer; then had trouble w/ their youthful comp. in Borg/McEnroe & Nadal/Djokovic respectively! Both had late runs at being #1, overtaking those rivals, but the slide was precipitous after that! Connors went down, down, down, while Roger's been able to at least compete! Sooner or later it will happen; we all know that, but this season should tell us a lot concerning Roger and Rafa!

    ***...but Sampras didn't do much from '96-02. Did way more from '93-95 anyways...which IMO is his peak in terms of level of play and results. He showed he could dominate the stronger comp. and the weaker comp. didn't inflate his resume. Won mostly Wimbledon's in that period and the USO's he won were very worthy wins. (Scud, battling through corretja despite illness, goran, chang in 96 and Haas/Roddick/Agassi in '02.***

    That's a matter of opinion & comparability to the other players in his era; a contradiction w/ Sampras still winning Wimbledon in '97, '98, '99. & 2000, w/ 2 more USO's ('96 & '02) & 3 more YEC's! To me it's comparable or even better than Roger's swan song! I doubt he'll finish up w/ a major; my suggestion for him after Wimbledon in '12, but he felt he had more left in him! It's been well over 3 yrs! Sampras went 2 yrs btw majors at the end; '00 Wim. to '02 USO! That's 1 of the reasons I give Pete more credit; esp. w/ all the talent around that era! Roger has to worry about 1 person for the most part and he's still not winning majors! Sorry!

    ***...How would Roger tell that he wouldn't win a slam over the next 3 yrs. In fact he could very well have won the '14 Wimbledon final - it was that close. He spent most of '14 & '15 as the #2 player in the world. Are you saying that b/c he had slipped to the rank of #2 he should stop? No, tennis playing ability gives someone no ability to tell the future at all.***

    Not at all! That just tells historians how sad this era has been; plenty of talent, but "walking wounded" and gutless play doesn't allow them to win anything! How often are the statistics thrown out there about how few Masters and Majors have gone to players outside of the Big 3! That doesn't say much about the comp.; even the best s/b beaten someX! Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Courier, & all the rest didn't have the "cake-walks" of Roger, Rafa, and of course Nole now! He's just that much better, but how in the world is this old man still ranked #3 in the world? Weird!

    So Roger should have retired after Wimby '12 b/c everything after has tarnished his legacy. ...Sampras starting '96 won 6 more majors (from age 25-31). Roger from 08 won 5 more (ages 27-34)...really not a big diff.***

    It's the way he feels babe; winning majors the only good reason to hang around! If he just wants to travel around being a practice dummy for the rest of the tour, he can do that; it's up to him!

    ***The old man is still #3 (#2 for most of '14/15) b/c the chasing pack stinks. Too much of a gap. A decade or so ago you had a whole bunch of players of Murray's caliber in Safin, Hewitt, Roddick & Nalby who would pull off a win every now and then. Now it's just Murray, and Wawrinka is just way too inconsistent, he could barely win 250s for crying out loud.***

    Well at least you know where I'm coming from! It's just not right that Roger shb able to hold off "the riff-raff" like this for so long!

    ReplyDelete
  49. ***Hillary is your next President. Take it to the bank. The GOP's working feverishly to make it so.***

    Get used to saying "Madam President!" It's amazing how it couldn't be scripted better to "make it so!" Her Dem. rival is a doddering old man who thinks he can win by offering "pie in the sky!" On the other side of the scale, you have the most dysfunctional group of guys calling each other names & tearing their own party apart! The convention s/b a circus w/ Trump, Cruz, Rubio, & Romney sneaking in the back door thinking there w/b a revolt that might select him instead! The Dems will have another love-fest & FNC will yackity-yack about absolutely nothing trying to undermine their comity! They're a mess and I can't wait for the show!

    ***...All the territories in blazing Hell are "Red States"...***

    It's ok for some to point fingers at where a report came from, but don't turn the mirror on them! How many X's do they undermine or totally "poo-poo" a news report b/c it came from THE MSM, Huffington Post, or Daily KOS? It doesn't matter it's been confirmed, but the kvetchin' always begins there! For the last few days, Reps have combed the papers and news clips trying to justify their attitude in trying to suspend hearings on SCOTUS opening! Now Biden may have said the same thing 30 years ago! SO? Bush, "W", and all others got their seat eventually! Banter is banter; actions speaks louder than words and there's been no disruption of the procedure before so these ASSholes might as well get on w/ it! Some Dems may talk of obstructing, but only Reps actually do it; costing the country $$, respect, & continuity! Reps promised voters to bring the FED to a screeching holt & they've succeeded; "BRAVO losers! That's 1 way for you to win!"

    ***Obama cracks joke about Scalia's death - Reverend Scalia, the son of the deceased, the one that presided over the ceremony, made a few jokes of his own. That's simply a demonstration of the fact that we c/b reverent, w/o being somber. - - Gar needs to just go away...***

    The truly pathetic have to reside somewhere! I well know it's frustrating to have such petty, ignorant people around always trying to "stir the pot," but I'd rather they're in plain sight than organizing in their silos, bunkers, & compounds out in the middle of nowhere!

    ***Not everyone that lived in concrete & steel is a troglodyte F4. I'd still like to read Obama's words. But the pattern is predictable. The Obama bashers bash Obama. It's as predictable as the sunrise. What they don't seem to realize is, when they criticize the 'deck-chair arrangement' on the Titanic instead of something substantive like the piloting on the bridge; they're persuasively arguing in favor rather than against. Auschwitz concentration camp survivors had legitimate complaint. Those were not 5 star accommodations. When it's a criticism of comedy material of the POTUS, that's an indication the President's basically getting it right on policy. That's quite laudatory from critics.
    ---

    Had a Rep. President done the same regarding the passing of a liberal SCOTUS judge, the media w/b shitting themselves w/ anger and we'd never hear the end of it. - Calm down everyone, Obama DID NOT crack a joke about Scalia's death. It's just Gar being dumb and conspiratory once again.***

    ReplyDelete
  50. ***Hillary Clinton most corrupt politician of 2015***

    Hillary hasn't been a pol since '08 and was not a decider of anything while S.O.S.! ...I just hope when she does become President, these jackasses that swear they "can't take it" finally end it all and make the world a fk'n better place!

    ***...Perhaps I care more about the Rep reputation than they do. It surely seems so in this case.
    ---

    ...If McConnell sticks to his own word, and rejects a Rep. nominee, there'll be Hell to pay if President Clinton gets a liberal judge through a Dem. controlled senate in '17. It's a clever move on Obama's part.***

    It took a while, but Obama's learning! Congress in gen., and Reps more specifically "worked" him in his 1st term! The ceiling was about to crash and he was being too rational while they threaten our very existence w/ their political grandstanding on the "right!" In this 2nd term, it appears The President has had the most relevant in my memory; ACA affirmed twice, Executive Orders are flying out of his office (though contested), economy slogging along, unemployment & gas prices low; it's hard for Reps to stand there w/ a straight face how "we need a change before going over a cliff!" These people are so pathetic and look like fools trying to undermine this man who's flying high compared to them! This SCOTUS selection, whoever it is, will embarrass McConnell and Grassley! They're going to pay for their hubris at this X thinking they can wait out the clock! Unfortunately it's more like a calendar so they might as well get on w/ it! Some vulnerable Rep. Senators are already encouraging the hearings; Collins & Kirk so far! The Senate is in jeopardy & they know it! This is just Feb.; I can't see them getting away w/ this obstruction! I'm gonna enjoy watching them squirm!

    ***Don't get your hopes up F4. There were many Dems that wanted newly inaugurated President Obama to put the primaries from the Bush admin. on trial for their war crimes.***

    ...and he got his reward for being magnanimous and trying to move the country on during that hellish period when the DOW dropped into the basement and we were losing 800,000 jobs a month! It didn't make sense to go after the previous admin., but Reps couldn't take that Obama was sitting in that chair! Have you ever heard of the opposition's leadership going on Nat'l TV and admitting that his main job was to make him a one term president? It's 1 thing to say "NO" on everything, but the objection was coupled w/ massive disrespect! They say they're not racist, but I couldn't imagine another president getting called "a lie" during a SOTU speech! There was this constant refrain of Obama being professorial and distant, but when the man invited these animals to a lunch or dinner, they said "NO!" You can't have it both ways, but Reps got away w/ it; finally getting the HOUSE back in '10! They kept it up, squandering their chance of taking the Senate in '12, but they finally achieved their goal! Unfortunately their tactics are costing them Nationally and they aren't in good shape to take Presidency anyX soon!

    ***Regardless of how improbable it obviously is, for most Reps in U.S. Federal elected positions, partisanship Trump's citizenship.
    If implementing a Dem. proposal would benefit the U.S., but congressional Reps are in a position to reject it; so often they punish the whole People for their petty partisan "victory." I consider it not merely treacherous, but perhaps in some cases traitorous. And they just don't care!***

    Amen and hallelujah to that... You see the polls where Reps have been trolling in at 9% popularity, but @ the same X bemoaning how Obama is under 50%!

    ReplyDelete
  51. ***Rafa hasn't beaten anyone in top 50. Novak's 1 thing, and Thiem is on the rise, but the Cuevas & Verdasco losses are more troubling.***

    ...prob. by Wimbledon, he might drop out of the top 10! There are so many players out there performing well, winning tourneys, & definitely on an incline; Thiem, Goffin, & Kazan! Milos & Kei have made some noise of late and I look forward to them competing in the majors; maybe that breakthrough will occur!

    ***I'd like to know what happened to the Nadal we saw at Basel and WTF in Nov. I thought he was finally moving back up. But this year so far he has been horrible.***

    I said people were being premature about "Rafa is back!" How ridiculous! He's a mere shell of himself w/ little to no confidence! His fans should get used to this level of play!

    ***Well, it's been poor so far, but if there's 1 thing I've learned over the years is to never write Nadal off; not until his left arm falls off @ least!
    ---

    I fail to see how a GOAT c/b 0-8 to his main rival at 2 of the slams, and only 2-1 at the other 1 they played. It gets overlooked b/c of the prestige of the FO, but Nadal is 3-0 at AO. Then over last 9 yrs, the majority of their careers I think Federer has won 7 Majors. No mean feat of course, but Nadal has 12, Djokovic 11. How can a GOAT over most of his career win < than his 2 main rivals?

    You could argue Federer btw '07-16 was not as good as '03-06, but he chose to carry on playing and history won't say he was past his best so what happened '07 on doesnt count. As for Nadal's Wimbledon record, ITA w/ you, but I'm the one calling for his retirement as if he carries on like this, then Djokovic will surpass him. Nadal and Federer at the moment have the cushion of the FO over Djokovic.
    ---

    Everybody (includ. Fed himself) gets that Nadal's better playing Federer on the slow outdoor surfaces (eg FO & AO). You can add a million matches on in those arenas and Nadal would win most of them. But it doesn't tell us anything more than Nadal's better facing Federer on those slow surfaces. Now if you want to have a wider range of surface/conditions - you end up w/ Nadal/Federer being 2 all:

    Nadal - Clay, Outdoor Hard (which is mostly slow these days)
    Federer - Grass, Indoor - It really is that simple.
    ---

    ...Fed's beaten Nadal on clay (Madrid, Hamburg), slow hard (Miami, IW's) too. So when he's maxing out on these slow surfaces he can beat Nadal. Same w/ Nadal - he has 3 victories vs Fed on Grass/Indoor/Medium Fast HC. But the fact is, on balance, slow outdoor is always going to favour Nadal. It's just a shame we didn't get to see a nice even spread of matches on surfaces/conditions. Again, we already have the answer as to playing H2H who wins on slow outdoor. It doesn't matter how many more Nadal wins in those conditions - we already know he's better in H2H.***

    ReplyDelete
  52. ***...it wasn't myself who arbitriarly decided that Connors shouldn't get YE #1 for '75, '77, '78. They are controversial yrs - and not just w/ the ATP either - esp. '77. - That's fine, however Lendl & Connors also had a ton of wks @ #1 a lot don't think they were or deserved it, so if you are going to talk up wks at #1, then we likewise have t/g by the off. rankings for YE #1 & all other #1 stats too. Otherwise we might as well not even talk about wks at #1 at all either.
    ---

    ...(best case for Lendl), b)an additional edge for Connors depending how much credence you give to the latter points of wks @ #1.***

    If I might intercede, the diff. btw Connors & Lendl go deeper than their comparable records in majors, wks at #1, & YEC's! IMO, Jimmy just hung around longer being other players' punching bag; save '91 USO run! Lendl retired 4 years after winning his last major; Connors hung around for another 13 after taking '83 USO! Lendl was the consummate pro, took fitness to another level, won a lot more consistently, and worked harder as evidenced by his FO wins; of which Connors never even played a final! Lendl also won the YEC twice in the same year; jan. '86 for '85 season and new date in Nov. for '86 season YEC's (beating Becker both X's) owning 5 of them in total! Even w/ Connors' 109 title record, he was pretty useless that last decade of his career! Lendl never let himself become that irrelevant!

    ***Interesting. So you think Connors staying around so long actually hurts him in your eyes, doesnt help him? While I don't really agree it's an interesting perspective. Yes, Lendl was probably wise to retire when he did, while Connors maybe stayed around too long unnecessarily. Although his '91 USO run was something special.
    ---

    I'm actually not sure I rate Borg > than Djokovic. I think Djokovic might in fact already be ahead. His X at #1 is already infinitely better (particularly when he is mathematically ensured another 15 wks minimum @ #1). His YEC titles are well ahead. His longevity is already far better than Borg's, and his dominance is better considering his '11 & '15, and that he basically been the world's best player almost all of the last 5+ yrs.

    I do clearly rate Borg better than Djokovic when it comes to slam titles. Their 11 isn't the same. If I rate Djokovic > already, it's b/c of the things outside slam titles. - I know Connors skipped the French, but doubtful as to how many he could actually win; Lendl way better indoors/carpet as well.
    ---

    In '78, Borg won 2 of the 4 biggest events, got to the finals of a 3rd & semis of another. That's =/better than Djoker's '12-14. In '79-80, he won 3 of the 4 biggest events w/ 4+ Masters each year. In '79 he had a WP% better than any of Djokovic's yrs. In '80 he got to the finals of all the big events. Not much diff. than Djoker's '11 & '15. They both have 2 dom. yrs.

    Borg's ahead IMO b/c he won essentially 14 titles at the 4 biggest events of his day. Also he adjusted to court speeds which did not suit his game and won on extreme surfaces so much which is 1 of the most incredible feats in the history of the sport. Djokovic played on conditions which ideally suited his game. Djoker will have t/d a hell of a lot to move past Borg in my book.
    ---

    Novak joined the 700-win club, becoming the 12th player in the Open Era to do so. Here they are:

    1. Connors 1254
    2. Lendl 1071
    3. Federer 1067
    4. Vilas 928
    5. McEnroe 875
    6. Agassi 870
    7. Edberg 801
    8. Nadal 775
    9. Nastase 775
    10. Sampras 762
    11. Becker 713
    12. Djokovic 700***

    ReplyDelete
  53. ***I don't care how it happens ... GOATing or vulturing, let it be #18. Fed lost some slam finals that he should have won, so I don't mind a little cosmic justice swooping in and giving him an easy draw to make it happen.***

    Anything after that '09 Wimbledon choke job by Roddick is a gift! Federer was officially done there & confirmed by Del Po coming all the way back to take USO final from him! It all balances out!

    ***Roger should have lost that Wimbledon to Roddick and won that USO. They sort of canceled each other out.
    ---

    If Nole Matches, or even Surpasses Rog, but does not win the FO...how will this factor in to your calc. on historical standings?

    Personally, for me, a CGS is the single most impressive achievement in a players career - To date, only 7 players have done this:

    * Player won 2 CGS's

    Fred Perry (age 26) – '35 FO
    Budge (23) – '38 FO
    Laver* (24) – '62 USO
    Emerson* (27) – '64 Wimbl.
    Agassi (29) – '99 FO
    Federer (27) – '09 FO
    Nadal (24) – '10 USO

    The fact that we had 2 players who both won CGS's (Rog, Rafa) in the same 3 yr. span boggles my mind. It took 30 yrs for Agassi to do it after Laver. There are a slew of great players who have not won 1 particular slam:

    French Open:
    Becker, Sampras, Edberg, Connors, McEnroe, etc

    Wimbledon:
    Rosewall, Vilas, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, etc.

    US Open:
    Borg, Courier

    Australian Open:
    McEnroe, Borg, etc.
    ---

    ...Was thinking of a listing of 'The Big 4' & who they thwarted the most keeping them from winning at a major? Every1 comes up w/ Nadal keeping both Nole & Roger out of the winning circle @ FO until '09! OTTH Murray went down to Djokovic @ AO @ least 4 X's! Fed's had a real X trying to get past Nole @ both Wimbledon & USO of late! Anybody else?
    ---

    Fed won 11/33 through '07 Wimbledon
    Djokovic's @ 11/45 career thru '16 AO.

    Now Fed won 5 of his next 10 thru '10 AO. Can Djokovic match that pace? This could become handy if and when Novak wins his #18; defend Borg's claim to the GOAT.***

    ReplyDelete
  54. ***Statistically, the gen. after Novak, Rafa & Andy's - Generation Grigor - is so far the least successful in Open Era history for its age. I mean, has the game really got that much more physical since Novak & Andy rose to become elites 8 or so yrs ago (both of them entered the top 10 when still in their teens!)? I don't think so, I think it's just that the next gen. are not as good.***

    I've already "coined" these newbies as GUTLESS! They have the ability to beat any 1 of the Big 4; just can't finish! Biggest ex. was Grigor @ Cincy vs Murray; had multiple breaks, MP's, & found a way to blow it! I'm done w/ them all; Dimi, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Cilic, & so many others that have been around for yrs only playing 1 or 2 GS finals! Kei, Nick, & Milos give me some hope of late! The teeny bobbers have been impressive in Thiem, Fritz, & Klizan!

    ***...I do think Hingis is in many ways further elevating her own legacy through this. I think if her doubles success continues even further you could make a possible case for ranking her above someone like Henin. Henin clearly outshone Hingis in singles in the end, 7 slams to 5, & overcoming the big hitters & upgrading her game to do so in a way Hingis could not. While singles' far more important than dubs, such a continually legendary & great doubles career, along w/ her excellent singles career does give Hingis an increasingly stronger case against people like Henin (who had virtually no doubles career, and quit tennis altogether early vs Hingis who only did singles early).
    ---

    W/ her doubles GS, winning 3 out of 4 singles majors and X finals in the 4th, one could even make an argument that the career of Hingis is already a shade better than Venus or w/b definitely better by end of '16.

    Hingis:

    Singles : 5-7 ( at least 2 finals in each of the majors)
    Doubles : 12-3 (GS)
    Mixed : 4-0
    Overall : 21-10

    Venus:

    Singles : 7-7
    Doubles 13-0
    Mixed : 2-1
    Overall : 22-8
    ---

    The 1 big problem w/ doubles, esp. in the WTA is no partnership seems to last more than a couple of yrs anymore. Sev. yrs ago everyone would have named Errani/Vinci the greatest active doubles players & where are they now?***

    Ain't that the truth! "Back in the day" we had almost lifeX partnerships; King/Casals, Stove/Durr, Court/Wade, & Navratilova/Shriver! AnyX there was a trial or perm. separation, it's more of a shock! Same for the men; Smith/Lutz, Newcome/Roche, Hewitt/McMillan, McEnroe/Fleming, Stewart/McNair, Ramirez/Gottfried, & of course The Bryan Bros!

    ReplyDelete
  55. ***-Nadal fans, sorry for the downfall of the man. It’s tough to see. I was watching the Wimbledon '08 final the other day and realized how far he has fallen. But it’s OK. It’s life.

    -Now, decided to come up w/ 30 controversial opinions of mine. Here they are...

    1) Djokovic's not @ his peak. '11 was his peak level of play. Look @ Rome '11 final vs the Rome '15 ...and both USO & AO finals.

    2) Murray's better than Roddick ever was. World #1 or no #1.
    3) Nadal actually has the >est level of play ever; not Fed or Djokovic.
    4) Kyrgios' the next big thing. Not controversial, but he and Thiem are going to split slams for yrs.

    5) Djokovic has the most balanced career of any player; ever. He’s won the AO, Wimbledon, USO, IW, Miami, MC, Rome, Canada, Shanghai, Paris, & London; ALL X x'S. Who else can say something like this? No FO is a spot though.

    6) Nadal was so much > on clay from '05-08 than he was from '11-14.
    7) Wawrinka's overrated. Credit for both slams, but other than that, he isn’t as > as everyone makes out.

    8) Davydenko is, was, & will remain > than Nishikori ever w/b.
    9) Nalbandian had a > career than Ferrer.
    10) Leave Laver out of every conversation we have on CYGS or GOAT. Respect to him, but we’re in a new dimension. His accolades aren’t even > than Rafa if we ‘weigh’ them up.

    11) Cilic didn’t pop out the blue. Go and see his RG & Wimbledon matches vs Djokovic, & Toronto match vs Fed, & you’ll know his GS had pending potential.

    12) Fed's a much > player now than '10-11.
    13) Nadal's done; fully. No going back. He doesn’t know how to schedule @ all. He doesn’t want a new coach. 1 Masters MAX until he retires.

    14) Djokovic won’t win the FO this year. He also won’t win the Olympics.
    ...

    18) Fed's not mentally tough. Winning some 5-setters & saving MP's happens someX's.

    19) Let’s break down Federer’s ‘weak era’. Do not count '04, as you can't penalise a 22-yo 1st-X World #1 for dominating. '05 was not weak; '06 was, '07 was not. Ergo, 1 weak yr. Djokovic had '15.

    20) Murray has more talent that Djokovic.
    21) Nadal maxed out his potential; even went over & beyond.
    22) Djokovic’s game isn't boring.
    23) Federer’s >est achievement is not nec. his 17 slams; it's the year '12. Came back, won Wimbledon, 3 Masters 1000, double digit finals & WORLD #1, all in the midst of Nadal, Murray & Djokovic’s prime, & @ age of 31. If that doesn’t quash this ‘he can only dominate a weak era’, then whatever, you can’t be helped.

    24) This 1’s gonna sting the Djoko fans. Okay - he got INCREDIBLY lucky in many matches in '15; Miami vs Dolgo, Wimbl. vs Anderson, Montreal vs Gulbis, Cinci vs Goffin & Dolgo, then USO vs Fed.
    ...

    25) Fed will not win an 18th. Had chances & let it slip.

    ...
    30) Everything said, Djokovic will end up on 15 slams. Ain’t no way in Hell the man reaches 17.***

    ReplyDelete
  56. ***...You have to admit Novak has a much better matchup vs Nadal. Novak beating washed up Nadal in '15 doesn't imply peak Fed can do the same.
    ---

    Not on clay. The diff. is that when Federer was in his prime, so was Nadal. Djokovic got almost all of his wins vs a past his prime or washed up Nadal. Everyone knows this.
    ---

    Nadal won 5/6 FO meetings vs Djokovic convincigly & the only X he pushed him to 5 was after Nadal was serving for a 4 set win. 19-24 yo Nadal is plain better than 25-28 yo Nadal. The only X Nadal played close to his peak level was the '12 FO & he nearly laid a str. set beatdown on Djokovic in the final.
    ---

    Fact 1, Fed has 0 wins over Nadal at RG. He also hasn't taken Nadal to 5.

    Fact 2, Movak has a much better h2h vs Nadal.

    Fact 3, prime or non-prime is defined by you subjectively. I can also say Nadal's peak was '08 to '13. Did Novak get all his wins in '11 vs washed up Nadal? Lol.

    If you played a guy 40+ X's, prime or non-prime doesn't really matter. The large # means that they have both been playing at a level high enough to reach the semis & finals of tournaments, and so each win counts.

    If you discount Nole's wins vs old Nadal, then I can also discount Nadal's wins over pre-'11 Nole. It goes both ways.
    ---

    Overall Nole's won 10 of the last 21 Slams, 4 of the last 5 WTF's, finished #1 '4' of the last 5 yrs, & took 21 of the last 45 Masters; averaging over 8 titles a year. I'm not sure how much more one could want.

    OTTH, your criteria pretty much limits an "era" to what Roger did in '04-07, when he won 11 of 16 Slams. But that's a pretty high bar and basically makes the term "era" so narrow as to be pointless. Perhaps we could instead use the term "era" to refer to a great player's best years and period of dominance. Then we could look at different eras, some that overlap:

    Roger: '04-09
    Rafa: '08-13
    Novak: '11-16

    Maybe the most meaningful use of the term "era" w/b for '04-16, the Fedalkovic Era. Facts won't lie, but someX's might mask. Very subjectively, as huge Nole's fan, I admit Nole era is not as dominant as Fed's. In other words, his peak is not as high as Fed. Result-wise they are close. But if we watched the entire MAJORS, we could easily see Fed was HEAD & SHOULDERS vs the field, except @ RG. However as Nole admitted himself on the AO '16, he had roller-coaster matches on every major he won. AO '11 & '16 are the only finals w/o dropping a set. Sitting in front of TV, I just feel Fed's margin at his peak is much > than Nole's, though he paid price in some 5-set classics.

    Hypothetically, if another player wins RG consecutively 4-5 X's, w/o dropping a set, not even through single TB all the way, is he more dominant than Rafa? He gets my vote, though Rafa is still well regarded as THE BEST in RG.

    If we have to label Nole, I would put COMPLETE and CONSISTENT ahead of DOMINANT. Though Fed & Rafa (on RG) style are more entertaining (again, subjective) and result more convincing, I prefer to watch Nole's match. When all is said and done, trophy-wise, Nole has decent shot to catch RAFA or even Fed if all stars align. His jumping into GOAT debate simply far exceeds my expectation.***

    ReplyDelete
  57. ***700 reached @:
    Nadal (28 yrs, 21 days), Wimbledon '14 (14 GS)
    Djokovic (28 yrs, 9 months, 2 days), Dubai '16 (11 GS)
    Federer (28 yrs, 9 months, 20 days), RG '10 (16 GS)
    Nadal and Federer had clearly won more important matches than Novak has @ this milestone.
    ---

    I believe Federer & Sampras are close to the same level...however...in Fed's early years of domination his main rivals were not that good. Only in recent years have they become a "strong era" w/ the likes of Murray or Djokovic also having improved...but the strong part of this era is short lived.

    Sampras had much tougher comp. in the early going of his reign ('92-95) than Federer ('03-07). Although even there you had a year like '04 which was very good, and '07 & '05 were decent enough. Sampras' comp. from '96 onwards was quite weak. Federer has had much tougher comp. from '08 onwards vs Sampras from '96 onwards, & even if those aren't Fed yrs of dominance or era years, he still won quite a few slams (5), & was denied quite a lot by stronger comp. than what Sampras had from '96 onwards.

    So to answer who had the tougher comp., it's mixed. It'll simply be which player someone prefers & that person will automatically say that player had the tougher comp. probably, LOL!
    ---

    ...Sampras had by far the hardest era in history. Jim Courier was a fantastic player, like a machine and in many ways the player who set the tone for the game we see now, i.e reliance on the FH, often hit inside out w/ topspin. Sampras though was the guy that toppled him, a massive achievement.

    Becker and Edberg in Sampras' early days were still forces, Becker only on fast surfaces, but Sampras was able to beat both on their best surfaces when they were playing well, which few players could.

    Stich was a bit like Wawrinka today but infiitely more talented. Sampras beat him when it mattered.

    Ivanisevic was a great fast court player, again Sampras could handle his best if at his peak level.

    Then in Sampras' later career he had Agassi at his best to deal w/, & Agassi was a forerunner in some ways to Nole. Agassi was fantastic in his later yrs, fulfilled the early potential, but still, a dclining Sampras beat him in the biggest matches.

    Then we have the likes of Muster, Bruguera, Medvedev, Moya, Kuerten who were all amazing clay courters.

    Basically Sampras had great players to deal w/ who specialized on certain surfaces & he dominated the tour.

    Had Sampras got the FO he whb The GOAT by a country mile.
    ---

    Where Federer struggles, is in tight situations. A noteable exception w/b his TB record, particularly in slams. But other than that, he does tend to crumble a little bit and get more flustered than Nadal or Djokovic would when another guy is matching him blow for blow. While Nadal obviously had the game to trouble him, part of his domination over Roger was Fed's inability to cope w/ pressure situations. ...He's folded in too many 5th sets for reasons that have nothing to do w/ the op's play style or fitness for me to say this isn't an obvious issue for him.***

    ReplyDelete
  58. ***I value the majors way, way over Oly; esp. Wimb. Think it w/b absolutely incredible to win that at 35. If we're concerned about ATP bucket list stuff, then maybe I'd vote for OGM... providing he p/up either MC or Rome in that scenario.***

    Any thing after '12 is literally gravy when it concerns Roger! I'd say don't be greedy and settle for the OG! Nole & Andy can stand losing a medal in comparison to Roger & Rafa who lead the way in majors!

    ***Well, I do see your point, but... what's this "settle" of which you speak? ;) You are absolutely right about the late-career cherry on top stuff... really didn't see him still in the mix at this stage of the game. I'll take an Oly medal, but Green18 is the thing! I think this is his 5th Olympics.***

    SOG is lacking in Roger's display case! What's another Wimbledon? Sorta like Nadal and all those FO's; probably never gets old, but if he drops to the ground making clay angels @ his age, I'd reserve a rubber room for his future! You apprec. any major win, but even Nole has pulled back on his celebration after taking a major!

    ***I have always been against skipping Masters which you have won last year, and "unfortunately" Djokovic won both MC & Rome in '15. Skipping either wouldn't be nice, plus they are a lot more prestigious than Madrid. I guess he needs to show clay peak at RG, not the Masters like he has been usually doing.***

    How has it helped Nole to beat Rafa in str. sets in finals at Rome, Madrid, & MC in the past? I can recall the rivalry of McEnroe & Lendl where John beat him in the 2 preceding events before '85 USO! Ivan didn't waste any emotions on those finals and only lost a set in route to his 1st USO chp! SomeX's you do what you have to do! ;-)

    ***For someone w/ a well known negative Slam final record, Ivan perfectly planned that 1 out.
    ---

    Universally regarded as 2 of the greatest HC players in the Open era, who is the > ?

    Federer -

    1) 60 titles overall
    2) 9 majors on HC
    3) 18 Masters
    4) 86.81 win %
    5) 6 WTF on HC

    Djokovic -

    1) 47 titles overall
    2) 8 majors on HC
    3) 19 Masters
    4) 88.37 win %
    5) 5 WTF on HC
    ---

    Novak has almost caught up. He's breathing on Feds back. Soon Novak will take the HC crown from Fed.***

    ReplyDelete
  59. ***Hillary: Late term abortions OK w/ exception of the health and life of the mother - You all understand that when they stick the "and health" onto the life of the mother, that includes things like "financial health, mental health" etc...***

    Limited souls will beat this topic to death! This poor woman in Congress related how she had to terminate a pregnancy due to gestation inside the fallopian tube I guess! So these no nonsense animals would rather she take the baby to term and sacrifice herself like a parasitic host? Not even remotely dignified as an argument IMO, but of course they're the great hypocrites bitchin' about gov't overreach and are always "at the ready" to tell you how to run your life! These people have disgusted me for well over 40 yrs and they just can't let one SCOTUS ruling go! Reps & cons. have been purposefully fracturing the country using this issue as a political football and I pray they burn in HELL 1 day! ;-(

    ***Fiero... you're talking about a 1 in a million thing.... not the legalization of killing a 7 lb human being who hasn't been born yet b/c a woman changed her mind too late. ...***

    So you're admitting "there s/b an exception?" Which is it then boy? ;-(

    ***Fiero, when have I ever written otherwise? How exactly am I "all over the place?"
    ---

    Worst President ever: Reagan or W. Bush? Reagan, GWB & Nixon: 3 worst Presidents since World War II.

    Reagan:
    -Destroyed the Middle class
    -Rampant deregulation
    -Iran Contras
    -Appointed radical religious Dominionists like Jim Watt in his cabinet
    -Allowed the Neocons to take over foreign policy
    -Elimination the FCC Fairness Doctrine

    GWB:
    -Ignored warnings issued to the U.S in the wks before 9/11 in the hopes of a Pearl Harbor attack envisioned by the Neocons to begin a reshaping of the Middle East; bungling of the Iraq occupation gave birth to ISIS

    -Absolute disastrous, needless trillion $$ war & occupation of Iraq
    -Squandered the surplus left by his predecessor and then put the US in debt w/ China for decades to come

    -Disastrous relief efforts after a natural disaster struck NYC.
    -Allowed the scandalous Christian Evangelicals to rise to political power
    -Multiple attacks on US Embassies during his terms
    -Absurd denial of climate change and refusal to join the Kyoto Protocol

    Nixon:
    Primarily for authorizing the Watergate break in.***

    ReplyDelete
  60. ***They didn't convict OJ due to lack of evidence. They didn't convict him b/c they ignored the evidence and they were able to stick it to "The Man." - There was more than enough evidence....only way you get there is to discount a bunch of it, which the Dream Team tried to give them reason to. For instance OJ's Blood at the crime scene and DNA tests showing it was his to a one out of some billions chance.
    ---

    And last I checked "sticking it to the Man" can't be found in any jury instruction ever given.***

    The reverse of "sticking it to the man" occurs everyday a Grand Jury doesn't indict a cop that kills a person over something as benal as a traffic citation! Happens every single day people! Even w/ cell phone recordings, these a-holes skate; thanks for playing our game!
    ---

    Reps say they aren't bigots or racists, but it's hard to think otherwise w/ what they call "the Southern Strategy," disenfranchising minorities to vote, the Willie Horton ad, and of course how they treated the 1st Black President! What didn't they say or do that belies that feeling or obvious character trait?

    OBTW, I watch FNC as well to know how bad they c/b when they think we're not listening or watching our backs! All of those A-holes are about as despicable as can be; Hannity, O'Reilly, Krauthammer, and so many more! They don't even think they're being offensive! ??'ing Obama's citizenship, patriotism, religion, ethics, mother, father, kids, & intelligence! According to them, Harvard was just 1 of those "= opp." handouts to this undeserving pieces of shit! Many will burn in HELL if there is any justice! At least Lee Atwater apologized for his crimes vs Dukakis before he died! He saw the handwriting on the wall and was sorry; these jerks can't see how divisive and hateful they really are for the whole world to see!

    ***Black Lives Matter! - Yes they do. Latino, Asian, & Caucasian lives matter as well.***

    Asians and Caucasians aren't routinely being yank out of their cars for traffic offenses, assaulted and/or shot dead! Spare me!

    ***Perhaps b/c Asians & Caucasian aren't dumb enough to mouth off to a cop and act entitled? Now if we just stay calm, no one's gonna be harmed by the huge bomb that's gonna explode any min.***

    Such a cop out; no pun intended! So being rude entitles a cop to blow someone away? You are really something else, but I've seen and heard worse so you're in good company of being a fool!

    ***And racial profiling is a problem and s/b addressed. What was in my reply that you didn't agree w/. Do you think Asians & Caucasians lives don't matter? Personally I think all lives do, but feel free to disagree.***

    You can't be serious! Really? Some people don't need special civil rights legislation so they're treated like human beings even if they weren't taught to be respectful and low-key! Not everyone has a loving family to teach them t/b thoughtful and conciliatory to others; esp. cops! Like I said, I've never had a problem w/ police; always very nice to me, but I come from another world! Everyone's nice to me; esp. strangers! Some aren't that lucky and I feel for their plight! I watch too much news where you see horrendous things happening! It's always been that way, but w/ every camera in cells, we see how ugly it c/b! That guy in Cincy shot 7 X's by that cop who tried to say "he tried to take my weapon" w/ all those bullets in his back was a done deal until those videos showed! He was believed and the press

    certified it as justified! That's my outrage; how many were just as blatantly bad and no 1 was held accountable?

    ReplyDelete
  61. ***CBS Focus Group Calls Clinton ‘Worst Liar I’ve Ever Seen’***

    These people who are Clinton's detractors are so full of shit! ...They deserve 1 another and there s/b carnage during the elections in Nov. and I can't wait! These fools are likely to lose all of Congress, not just the Senate! The LIAR-in-Chief will bring the whole party down!

    ***Yes. There's not much mystery there. Part of the problem is, they invalidate their otherwise legit claim by over-stating the magnitude. What public servant w/ as many decades of tenure as she has; has never lied, or gotten it wrong in terms nit-picking partisans won't make mountain of mole hill? A sober AND HONEST discussion m/b quite constructive. Self-righteous lying seems more to their taste. And it doesn't end w/ Hillary. Some say Obama's the worst President.***

    Doesn't matter, "the right" is still bitchin'; "consumer confidence's low, Obama the most divisive President ever," & all kinds of other made up shit trying to undermine 1 of the most successful Presidencies considering the obstruction from DAY ONE! They threw everything at his admin. and he still massacred McCain & Romney! These people are so delusional forgetting all "W" put this country thru! Such jerks!

    ***I'll grant you this F4, history seems increasingly likely to regard President Obama as an above avg. U.S. Prez, by numerically quantified standards:
    - economy
    - stock market
    - unemployment
    - etc.

    He's surely a vast improvement over "W," but you know what, I just think it's kind of fun to see the Rep. loyalists & Obama-bashers writhing in their self-deluded partisan agony. For them to choose to actually actively prefer self-flagellating angst over enjoying the practical recovery from the Bush recession; it's fun. The fact that they've reduced themselves to concocting lies out of the ether merely confirms the groundlessness of their criticisms. Paradoxical though it may surely be; they flatter Obama more than they seem to comprehend. It's all quite amusing.
    ---

    Chris Wallace grilled Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) on FNC yesterday. And while McConnell tap-danced around SCotUS nom. of Garland like a champion, he showed his true colors by stating that Obama's nominee would change the ideological balance of the court; just as the electorate would wish. After that, George Will blew his "Biden Rule" excuse completely out of the water. He's a good man, but he's wrong on this issue; though I would expect of him precisely what he's doing. It's the type of "conclusion 1st" procedure I'd expect from a religionist.***

    McConnell used t/b more reliable t/d the right thing, but he's been so busy trying to placate the Tea-Baggers & hold onto his job, he's been a colossal disappointment these last several yrs! He even contributed to threatening our credit rating @ the beginning of Obama's term so as far as I'm concerned he's the lowest snake on the HILL! You expect insanity from Cruz, Paul, & Lee, but not a Rep. stalworth as he pretends t/b now!

    ***McConnell's simply holding a badly losing hand. He's doing the best he can. He doesn't want to preside over SCOTUS shifting left, during his tenure. So he pretends to stand on noble principle; as he hypocritically does exactly the opp. of what he said before.

    It's not the Dems that are dealing such devastation to the Rep. party including:

    - Tea party
    - Grover Norquist
    - Trump
    - abandonment of political & fiscal conservatism are doing more harm to the GOP than Dems could.

    George Will said:

    - if Trump gets the Rep. nom., &
    - a better 3rd party candidate runs;
    - George Will votes for that 3rd party.

    That's how Clinton got into the White House in '92. It w/b a shame to see the same thing happen for Hillary this yr.***

    ...and in '96! Perot hosed Bush 41 in '92 & Dole in '96; getting 19% of the vote each X IIRC!

    ReplyDelete
  62. ***Nadal was the top dog for almost years? He's not even at full 3 yrs by looking at his weeks at #1. Djokovic has been on top for one full year longer than Nadal.***

    Nadal's the "Venus Wms" of the ATP; overrated, limited X @ #1, & hanging on for no good reason!

    ***LOL I wouldn't be that harsh. :D But honestly, I can't see any twisted way of looking @ it where Nadal was the top man for 5 yrs. - Venus overrated?...is that melidonium clouding your judgement?***

    Even though I haven't cared much about women's tennis since Henin retired, I know full well the shortcomings of this so called great! ...Her serve though historically 1 of the fastest & heaviest in the WTA, that hitch c/b seen from the cheap seats! ...if you make her work she's likely to donate her serve to you w/ X DF's! ...She was terribly inconsistent & hasn't dominated since those early yrs of 2000-01 w/ an assist from Serena donating 2 of those Wimbledons!

    ***Ignorance is bliss.***

    Yo Mamma!

    ***Calm down, it's only 2 filthy rich players that maybe dope; both of them. Both of them have brilliant careers. They have enough support already.***

    Exactly! It kills me how people defend the Williams' & Nadal like they need it; rich, world-wide fame, meeting Prez's, & I'm supposed to feel sorry when things aren't running perfectly for them! I wish I c/b spared that kind of ignorance!

    ***I meant Nadal & Novak. Both of them get defended; Federer too. One fan group saying their player is doping. No 1 knows!***

    TF.com site posted Nadal may be suing a FO official b/c she mentioned to the press that he had failed a doping test 2 years ago! I don't think he wants to do that; "Discovery" in the court case might expose other things he may want to keep undercover! I say those injury absences over the years were secret suspensions!

    ***Obviously Srdjan wants as many opportunities for his son to pound DecliNadal into oblivion as possible. There's no way he would genuinely wish Nadal to become a real competitor to Djokovic again. Doesn't strike me that way at all.***

    Maybe, but the same thing c/b said and was happening w/ Nadal & Federer matches! We all knew the result before it occurred, but it was still "must see" TV!

    ***...Their non-clay rivalry went NID after the AO '09 final, except you could still expect Federer to defeat Nadal indoors, but by that X the greatest past of their rivalry was already over. Fedal was never that hopelessly one-sided as a top rivailry in tennis (i.e., before '11).
    ---

    I think Novak's currently the most talented player. Honestly, if someone were to ask me the most talented of all X it w/b Fed, primarily b/c the guy has done things that barely anyone has done before. It's like he's "rewritten tennis" or something like that. Djokovic's highly talented, no denying that, and everything people say about him, "outlasting ops, baseline robots," and such, are also talents. You need high stamina & extreme consistency to achieve that. Talent is almost like a prerequisite to become world #1; you need a lot of it, too!
    ---

    Djokovic has a bunch of weapons and different talents. These days he does tend to outlast his foes until finals day when he dials up the concentration and destroys them w/ accurate and measured yet aggressive ground strokes. The guy has good feel on the lob and drop shot too - if that is more your thing. I don't think he's the 'perfect' player, but he's very talented.***

    ReplyDelete
  63. ***Not sure what to make of this IW tourney for Rafa. Obviously good for the confidence. We'll see how he goes in Miami.***

    Why should this year be any different? IIRC, Nadal's never won in Miami! If he barely survives a kid, I seriously doubt he'll even make the final!

    ***No, he has not. He's made the Final 4 X's though. One step closer... He got knocked out of Miami in the 3rd Rd last year too, so maybe he can rack up some ranking pts. - Djokovic EXPECTS to win now. He's too focused and I knew when he won the 1st set that he was going to probably pummel Nadal in the 2nd. It's like he can't stand even losing a set to Fed/Nadal anymore.***

    I've been saying for a while, Nole wants to punish Fedal for the adoration they get even when down in the rankings! At Qatar, Nole tried to blitz Nadal, challenging calls and giving away NOTHING! He actually looks as if he's toying w/ them; esp. Rafa! I love it!

    ***He's riding high right now, for sure. But Nadal doesn't deserve being trashed by him in any way. Federer has it coming. He was a jerk to Novak, so it's karma. - Fed was down 2 sets to love in that Wimb '08 final...the agony was in pushing it to a 5th set only to lose 9-7 in low visibility due to darkness.***

    As I said, many of those matches I can't even watch! Nadal stole 6 of them; esp. at the FO w/ his whole act of stalling, toweling off after every pt, challenging every call, & receiving coaching from the stands! If I don't watch them, I can't even remember it! What I enjoyed in '11 was that Nole started giving it right back to him! After each loss, it was great to see how he felt being stepped on & beat! Some champions are better than others; Nadal's rather low on my list! He can't win w/ just his skill & ability, he has to run cons, cheat, & steal & I've never cared for him!

    ***I think pretty big sum of the decline was temporary. Hasn't he improved since USO last year? Are you suffering from Nadal improvement Denial Symptoms, NIDS?***

    Concerning Nadal, I can't be more satisfied! I hope he continues to stagger & flail around being a punching bag for Djokovic & the rest of the tour! I have no fear of him pulling an upset; esp. after that dissection at FO last season!

    Qatar put the final nail in his coffin & he's getting exactly what he deserves for what he's put the tour thru w/ his whole rotten court act, the self-entitlement, & of course being suspected of PED usage! I'm not in denial babe; YOU ARE!

    ***It never got explicitly mentioned here before. On Feb. 22nd, Serena =ed Martina w/ 156 wks of continuous #1 ranking. On Feb. 29th, she came into sole possession of #2 spot in this criteria. #1 is Steffi w/ 186 wks. If Serena can hold on to her #1 spot til Sep. 19th, she will tie it and on Sep. 26th she can become top of the pack.***

    IMO, that only proves how weak the women are in this era w/ early retirements of players who challenged her like Hingis, Clijster, & Henin! Martina & Chris owned their eras, but they were just so much better than the rest like Mandlikova, Shriver, Austin, & Jaeger! Everyone has coaches today, use advanced training procedures w/ Navratilova's nutrition standards, but they can't even be consistent enough to compete vs other also-rans; much < the Williams'! Like the men, they have the physical attributes to win, but their brains are scrambled; esp. when nearing the finish line! How many have collapsed w/ X MP's & huge leads only to drop apparent victories! It's so sad to see again & again; really disliking early Rds allowing top players to escape!

    ReplyDelete
  64. ***After winning IW, 2 & 0 over Raonic:

    - Djokovic ties Nadal for MS 1000 titles @ 27-27.
    - Djokovic stretches the lead in the h2h series to 25-23 over Rafa.
    - Djokovic narrows the gap in career titles to 67-62.

    1) Already ahead or tied:
    a. Wks @ #1: 184-141. By my calc., it is mathematically impossible for Djokovic to lose the #1 ranking before Rome, even if he takes the spring off.

    b. Yrs @ #1: Confirmed as YE #1 for '15, so 4-3 as of the end of the yr.

    c. WTF's: already ahead 5-0.
    d. If we include ind. Slams, then he's bound to finish ahead in Australia; now ahead @ Wimbledon & USO.

    2) Can realistically catch up:
    a. Masters Series titles: Djokovic has won the last 4 and is certainly likely to win sev. more. 27-26; gap in finals now 41-38. Gap in SF's now 57-51.

    b. Career h2h: 24-23 to Djokovic.
    c. Career h2h rec. vs others: matchups consisting of 5 matches or >, Djokovic only trails Roddick & Nadal only trails Davydenko. If Djokovic wins his next match vs Nadal, he will trail only Roddick, while Nadal will trail Davydenko & Djokovic. It w/b difficult for Djokovic to catch up in majors, esp. w/ Nadal winning Slam Wooden Spoons and falling before the 1st wk is over in 3 str. Slams. Perhaps when Nadal is a non-seed in a Slam, he'll be drawn vs Djokovic in Rd 1.

    d. Career titles: Titles: 67-61. Finals: 99-87. SF's: 130-122. W/ regard to my later update, Djokovic overtakes Agassi with a 61-60 lead in career titles.

    3) Not much chance:
    a. GS titles: I don't see Djokovic winning 6 more, so Nadal s/b safe even if he wins no further titles. 14-11.

    b. Career winning %: Djokovic leads 82.70 - 82.64!

    Other categories suggested:
    a. Wins over top 10 ops: Djokovic 151-133 Nadal. 163-136.
    b. Career match wins: Djokovic 677-758 Nadal. 698-771. ...That's down to 81, but still @ least a yr's worth of match wins).

    c. Slam match wins: Djokovic 214-198 Nadal.
    d. Slam finals reached: Djokovic 18-20 Nadal. 19-20. Djokovic now = 3rd in this category. If he makes just one more Slam final, then he, Fed, & Nadal w/b the 1st 3 men ever to make 20 Slam finals

    e. Slam SF's reached: Djokovic 28-23 Nadal. 29-23.
    f. Slam 1/4-finals reached: Djokovic 34-29 Nadal. 35-29.
    g. Slam match winning %: Nadal leads 86.84 - 86.29 [198-30 vs 214-34].

    Of the 9 most important HC events, he's won 4 of them 5 X's or more, 5 of them 4 X's or more, & 7 of them 3 X's or more. Only @ the USO & Cinci is he not a 3 X champion. If we include all finals, then the list is:

    US Open: 6
    Aussie Open: 6

    WTF's: 5

    IW: 6
    Miami: 6
    Canadian Open: 4
    Cinci: 5
    Shanghai: 3
    Paris Bercy: 4
    ---

    If Djokovic were to stop playing now? By the #'s, Sampras' > than Nole. When you rank those stats by importance it's very clear...The 3 most important stats are probably all unreachable by Djokovic too.

    GS Titles: Sampras
    Cons. YE #1: Sampras
    YE #1: Sampras
    WTF: Sampras (=, but Sampras won over a longer stretch)
    MS 1000 titles: Djokovic
    Career Win %: Djokovic
    Win % @ GS events: Djokovic
    3 Slam seasons: Djokovic
    Longest streak of SFs in GS: Djokovic
    Longest streak of QFs in GS: Djokovic***

    ReplyDelete
  65. ***Is it harder to win all 4 Slams of the year or all 9 Masters + WTF?***

    A big 'eyeroll' for even creating the poll! It's not happening! Nole's done the best you can w/ the Masters, being in finals of all 8 played, winning 6 and taking 3 of 4 Majors; being in all 4 finals! His '15 is truly the greatest since Lavers' '69!

    ***Djokovic record vs the other members of the Big 4 on slow HC (AO, IW, Miami) is 25-3.

    Djokovic-Federer 7-1
    Djokovic-Nadal 7-1
    Djokovic-Murray 11-1

    Federer beat him at '07 AO, Nadal in '07 IW, & Murray in '09 Miami...
    ---
    ...After the 5 hr, 5 set Rome final btw Federer & Nadal, both withdrew from the Hamburg Masters due to exhaustion. The problem lies simply in the scheduling. There s/b at least a wk in btw Masters events.***

    I put a lot of the reasoning in the homogenized courts and the stupid way people play tennis; hugging the baseline and rarely going to the net except for the obligatory handshake and picking up the winner's check! Back in the day, you rarely had 20-30 stroke rallies; common place now w/ games running 10 mins or more! That's on the players IMO; esp. Roger who has the ability to charge the net more and cut off those "so called" fabulous "gets" which are just floating back asking to be pounded away! He's got it in his mind, "I can hang w/ these 20 somethings as long as I want!" That's delusion at its worst!

    ***Fiero that's true of course. But don't you think it's about 4 to 5 yrs too late? Not that this wasn't true even before then. Still, there was some wisdom in not breaking a winning formula up until '10. ...,but after the rest of '12 & after '13? It isn't all delusion. He simply couldn't get out of his comfort zone and risk going back to the old aggressive style he had dropped a decade earlier. He feels more comfortable consistently beating the rest of the tour as opposed to take risks for winning the big ones.
    ---

    It's easy for us to project a player's past abilities into the future. Even if it were possible, it requires that the player has the confidence to unlearn & relearn. Your instincts take over on the court and rewiring your instincts is hard and usually pointless past a players peak.***

    Well I've been kvetchin' about this type of play for OVER 10 years and if Federer doesn't change his mental aspect of his game, he'll start losing more; sorta like his past "so-called" rival, Rafa! Losing in the 2nd or 3rd Rd will become the norm and it'll get uglier as X goes on! If he thinks he can be "Jimmy Connors" playing like that until he's 40, he's more delusional than I thought!

    ReplyDelete
  66. ***FBI leans toward Hillary indictment***

    Just keep making up shit and talking to yourselves! Delusion still reigns on "the right" I see! ;=)

    ***Your falling down world is about to crash. What will you chicken littles DO? The Sky is Falling, falling! I honestly believe the Clintons have something on Obama, perhaps several things! If and when Obama ever complies with the FBI he opens himself to the facts of his fraud.***

    Bow down and get ready to salute the next president of the US, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" w/ Bill by her side! You losers will be throwing yourselves out of windows, no doubt about it! You're so scared, it's palpable; ya'll reek in the fear! I'm embarrassed for you since no one is taking up this cause of demonizing Hillary for Benghazi, her email server, and whatever else nitwits make up to make themselves feel better!

    ***I made a formal complaint about obstructionist Congressional Reps to the DOJ, so let's see if the squeaky wheel gets their attention... I think DOJ is obligated to follow up any legitimate complaint. - You should start making some threats vs GOP politicians. That's probably the best way for you to get your point across.***

    You're kidding? If they even remotely cared what the people thought, they would have passed a bill dealing w/ gun background checks! The polls still show that that's the least we c/d w/ all the gun violence and it's pretty much stuck in favor @ 90%; obviously includes the "gun nuts!" Reps won't hear of it proving they don't give a shit what we think!

    ***Fiero... please tell me the law you think that would prevent some of this "gun violence." ...I would HOPE that Reps don't give a FK what you think. I expect them to follow the constitution. I'd say that I expect Dems t/d the same, but they have long ago shown they don't.***

    I keep hearing the same BS ?? every X this issue comes up! There are any # of ways to slow down the proliferation of weapons out there by just using common sense! What brilliant person thought it was ok to give gun permits to blind people? What about known spousal abusers? Plenty of mental patients out there who legally buy guns all over the freakin' place! In Chgo "sick" women are famous out in the suburbs doing something crazy using a gun; again the gun was bought legal! It is pretty ridiculous that Chgo bans the sale, but all you have t/d is step across the street to achieve your goal of owning hardware! A lot c/b achieved w/ the simplest of "background checks!" Personally, fools can go and kill each other; thin the herd, but when innocent folks get caught up in the crossfire, punishment s/b swift & punitive! W/ "great power," ...comes great responsibility; hence why parents are charged if their kids are wounded or killed just having the thing laying around!

    ***Netanyahu is asking for that $3 B annual gift t/b raised to $5 B thru '28. It's up to $4 B since his visit w/ Reps in Congress last year... While America borrows from foreign gov'ts and Americans suffer...***

    BiBi's hilarious! Why doesn't he ask his good buddy Mitt for a loan or gift? He decided to take sides in the last election and it cost him; it should! That made about as much sense as Iranian student terrorist back in '79 deciding it w/b better to undermine Carter vs Reagan! I'd of counseled Obama t/d as little as possible for Israel at this X! Politic's a blood sport; ya get cut when you play around w/ the wrong person! Obama's no punk; knew he would punish Netanyahu sooner or later for that slight a few yrs ago! ;-)

    ***Why don't he ask the Clinton's for a donation...for them t/b "flat Broke" ...they're the richest Dem. crooks running.***

    Hmmm, I'm pretty sure The Obamas don't have a $150 M in their retirement IRA! I wonder how you manage that w/ limits of a sev. $6000/yr? Is Romney, Methuselah in disguise? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  67. ***ISIS Decimated Under Bush – Grew 4,400% Under Obama? - - The article leaves out 1 important observation. It shb entitled "ISIS created under Bush..."***

    Amen and hallelujah to that! Reps always go out of their way w/ revisionist history going back to Reagan; forgetting he negotiated w/ terrorist Iran, sold them arms, then diverted those fund to Cen. Am. in opp. of the Boland Amend.! Typical hypocrites & liars will villainize Clinton & Obama, but totally leave off the failings of their heroes! It's hard to take!

    ***..."Benghazi happened under her watch." - Correct. Do you hold her responsible? The terror attacks of 09/11 happened during W's tenure. Do you hold him responsible? If you think judicial proceeding is appropr. for HRC about it; do you think similar judicial proceeding is equally approp. for GWB?***

    They have many ways around this truth about 911; Rudy G. says Bush kept us safe, period! JEB says he kept us safe after 911! It's so sad & pathetic! These are supposed t/b smart people, but I guess they think we're all DUMB! They should realize, the only ones that dumb are them and their ilk on the "right!" More revisionist history at work! ;-)

    ***Reps had FBI preoccupied w/ investigating Clinton when they shb investigating Osama Bin Laden...***

    Reps are still trying to live down Nixon after all these yrs! They want to totally forget about that, but make Bill getting a "hummer" something worth taking down his Presidency! They're some sick puppies on the "right" and they just can't help themselves! They can ignore what "W" put the country through, but they call Obama the most divisive President in memory! The Kool-Aid was flowing when they came up w/ all the things to obstruct his very successful tenure in the WH and they can't stand it! "W" w/b remembered for starting 2 wars, trashing the economy, allowing many to die in Katrina while he celebrated McCain's bd, & not prosecuting Wall Street execs who STOLE billions of $$'s!

    ***The prerequisite for being a active member of the Rep. Party these days is t/b obsessively selfish.***

    Trump campaign manager charged in simple assault/battery of reporter; pleads not guilty in Jupiter, FLA! He turned himself in at 8 am today! Let the good X's roll for The Donald!

    - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/police-charge-trump-campaign-manager-assault-38003113 -

    "Police Charge Trump Campaign Manager W/ Battery - FLA police have charged Donald Trump's campaign man. Corey Lewandowski w/ simple battery in connection w/ an incident earlier in the month involving a reporter.

    Police in Jupiter, issued Lewandowski a notice Tues. to appear before a judge on May 4 for the misdemeanor charge. A surveillance video released by the police appears to show Lewandowski grabbing a reporter for Breitbart News as she tried to ask Trump a ?? during a March 8 campaign event.

    The Trump campaign said Lewandowski "is absolutely innocent of this charge" in a statement released late Tuesday morning.

    ..."Lewandowski grabbed Fields' left arm w/ his right hand causing her to turn and step back," reads the report. Fields showed police her left forearm which "appeared to show a grabbing-type injury," according to the investigating officer.***

    Funny how his flunky campaign workers are as pathetic a liar as their candidate saying "he doesn't know this woman," but besmirches her reputation! Yeah, she quit her job at Briebart and is mentally unstable b/c she just wanted to get this fool in trouble! IDIOT! This could have all been avoided if this a-hole had just apologized, but we all know anything having t/d w/ Trump is never something to apologize for! This might be the big derail of his campaign; FINALLY!

    ReplyDelete
  68. ..."women hate women!" I keep asking about this so called sisterhood and I watch the news to see women making excuses for Trump when he's such a misogynist pig! I just can't believe they would rather vote for him than "1 of their own" who's more qualified than any other candidate! I hate the vitriol trying to make her responsible for what BILL does all the X!

    ***Yes, just like people say blacks hate other blacks. Any oppressed group turns on each other.***

    No matter how I harp on it, you're typical & forgiving of such behavior!

    ***...I can tell you why, Ron Goldman & Nicole Simpson, 2 human beings that were slaughtered by that bastard, that's why.***

    Cry me a river! Where are the tears for past atrocities perpetrated on minorities? What about of late; Sandra Bland in Texas? We c/d this all day b/c I have a long memory! Some don't give a damn, but I certainly take it into consideration! It may not be right, but what injustice is? This country is littered w/ atrocities; Japanese internment, Native American genocide, slaves, lynchings! So please spare me the outrage of this 1 case!

    ***Damn, this country sucks, doesn't it?***

    It's not as much as the country sucks, but we lie to ourselves about how noble and how much better we are than other countries! I wouldn't live anywhere else, but it certainly wouldn't be in the South!

    ***...After the acquittal, OJ was perplexed why he couldn't get anymore roles in movies/TV and didn't understand why his endorsements (eg- Hertz) stopped. He was supposed t/b in some NBC mini-series called "Frogmen" (one of Darden's friends mentions it in a previous ep) and NBC scrapped the entire thing b/c of the trial. OJ was mad & didn't understand why since he was a "free & innocent man" according to his own words. He was/is totally delusional.
    ---

    I'm from Britain, but it seems unbelievable to me that someone like Fuhrman c/b invited onto chat shows and be a regular guest on talk radio shows 20 yrs later. ...W/ the Trump phenomenon still going strong, the BLM campaign too w/ all the accompanied stories, it just makes me think that large sections of America are still the cesspit of hate and discrimination that MLK described. Very sad.***

    Tis true; just putting on a front of being accepting and nice! 1/2 the country's still overrun w/ dicks, bigots, & racists unfortunately! All you have t/d is see how they treated Obama w/ absolute contempt; ??ing his birth, patriotism, religion, mother, father, wife, & kids! Nothing was spared! The SOUTH can burn to the ground like TARA or blow away w/ the next Katrina and I couldn't care less! Those people don't deserve to live; esp. the politicians they elect! Fk 'em all!

    ***Nothing's changed. Even w/ a Black President. The only major shift now is that instead of Mark Fuhrmans we got George Zimmermans.***

    Not to mention the people who let Zimmerman 'get off' w/ his murder!

    ***Britain has come to terms w/ a lot of it's race issues. It was one of the first world powers to condemn slavery and eventually abolished it w/o having a war over it. It has had a world wide exposure to most cultures for centuries. Our country is only 400 years old and the majority of that X, it has relegated Afro-Americans (and some other minorities) to a 2nd class citizen status and that was only AFTER American chattel slavery was abolished.

    If you think Furhman is bad, look @ the fiasco that is Paula Deen. She's still in business. If you check into it, look at her apology video. She was so sorry, she couldn't even bother to add real tears to her fake cry. Even the formation of a movement like Black Lives Matter w/b hard pressed t/b needed outside of the "US" since the fall of Apartheid.***

    ReplyDelete
  69. ***Djoko has largely dominated the tour for the last 5 yrs:

    # of Slams won (since '11):
    1- Djoko: 10
    2- Nadal: 5
    3- Murray: 2
    4- Wawa: 2
    (So Djoko has won more slam titles than the next best 3 COMBINED)

    # of WTFs won:
    1- Djoko: 4
    2- Fed: 1

    # of Masters won:
    1- Djoko: 22
    2- Nadal: 9
    3- Fed: 7
    4- Murray: 5
    (There again, he's won more Master titles than the next best 3 combined)

    # of titles won:
    1- Djoko: 44
    2- Nadal: 24
    3- Fed: 22
    4- Murray: 19

    # of YE's @ #1:
    1- Djoko: 4
    2- Nadal: 1

    Head to heads:
    Vs Fed: 18-9 Djoko
    Vs Nadal: 18-7 Djoko
    Vs Murray: 18-6 Djoko - (What's up w/ that # 18 fetish? :)
    Vs Wawa: 11-2 Djoko
    ---

    Who's Novak's main rival since '14?

    VS Federer (8-6)
    (3 Major finals, 1 SF, 2 WTF Finals)

    4-0 in Majors
    1-1 in WTF (2-1 includ. retirement)
    3-5 in Masters, Others

    VD Murray ( 11-1)
    (2 Major finals, 1 SF & 1 QF)

    4-0 in Majors
    7-1 in Masters, others

    VS Stan ( 4-2)
    (1 final, 1 SF & 1 QF)

    1-2 in Majors (the 1 match Novak won was in 5 sets)
    1-0 in WTF
    2-0 in Master
    -

    Certainly since '14 it feels like Federer due to having faced him in the 3 Major Finals....esp. 2 Wimbledon Finals. In reality though Djokovic is largely w/o peer @ the min. & regardless whether it's decided t/b Federer, Stan or Murray...there's a fair bit of day light btw them & Novak @ the min.
    ---

    I thought Nadal was gonna get like 19 majors. Djok lost way too many finals. Otherwise, he'd be sitting on 14 or 15 already. Boris freaking Becker brought him to another level. Father X remains undefeated, however.***

    Nadal? 19? I've been saying for years his run would come to a screeching halt due to the physical nature of his game! He was already breaking down several yrs ago; unable to stay on the court more than a few months! Why in the world would you think he could keep up this pace of winning a couple major, having to recoup from injury (or secret suspension for PED use), then start back up again? For GODsake, his only real patsy was Roger while others were stealing his thunder! His fallback was winning on clay and he couldn't even sustain that starting in '11! By the X he lost in straights to Nole at the FO last season, he was officially DONE! He's a huge joke and anyone who thinks it will turn around anyX soon is a homer and delusional; SORRY!

    ReplyDelete
  70. ***Wow and for such a depressing paragraph, he's a Tier 1 legend. I guess everyone else that's ever played tennis in history that has accomplished less than him must REALLY suck.***

    I have more respect for the results of past champions w/ 1/2 the majors! Nadal has HUGE holes in his career; limited X at #1, unable to defend a title off clay, & an inability to stay on the court for a sustained period!

    ***He's the only active player to win X Slam titles on ALL surfaces so you cannot just dismiss him as some kind of 1 surface wonder!***

    Nadal record: 1 AO, 9 FO, 2 Wimbledons, 2 USO's, no WTF, & never defended a Masters on any other surface than clay! What else do you need to see or hear? Rafa's limited in comparison to Roger & Nole who've had more balanced careers w/o glaring disappearances! Wake up & smell the coffee!

    ***Although I agree that the current comp.'s the weakest in Noles career. I think he's too old to reach 17 slams. Although he's physically fit, he turns 29 w/ "just" 11 slams. His style is tougher than Roger's and it's far from certain he'll have a Fed or Agassi-like late career. You also have injuries & sickness which often become more normal post 30. Keeping in mind how exhausting the 5 setters are, I really can't see him going through another 6-7 Slams as a winner @ his age.***

    Thanks! Everyone who claims to know so much; esp. about current champs, it's always nice to see them eat it when found to be wrong! I'm sure people think Roger and Nadal s/b winning majors to this day and it's just not happening! Roger should have retired after winning his last almost 4 yrs ago and Rafa's well past it and was lucky to take FO in '14! They're both done!

    ***Yup. As I've pointed out many X's; Nole will need a post 29 career the world has never seen. In Open era, the only 1 w/ more than 3 post 29 wins is Agassi. And you could argue that his strong late career was partly b/c of his relatively few matches & poor results from '95-'99. As Federer has said; "it's almost impossible to stay on top yr after yr." I can't see Nole continuing like he has since '11 for 3-4 more yrs.
    ---

    John Mcenroe, '02: "He [Fed] is 1 of the most talented players on planet Earth."***

    What happened to McEnroe slobbering over Rafa as the best of all X? Such an idiot; can't keep his cheerleading in any kind of consistent direction!

    ***His brother enjoys that. They were doing some post-match analysis & JMac starts backtracking again & exalting his original love. PMac grins & says, "changed your mind, huh?"
    ---

    Can't really blame McEnroe. The whole world was running after Rafa to break Fed's record. He could have stood his ground; maybe then I would've had some respect for him. But his non-stop pandering of Rafa chb more profession related than personal thoughts. Either way he's accountable. His change of heart last year seemed so fake in light of where it was before that.***

    I never thought of Rafa as a GOAT of any era; so limited being mostly the king of clay! The major reason he's not even in my top 5 is b/c to this day, Rafa still hasn't defended ONE title off the dirt! He's obviously more vulnerable on fast surfaces so that's a big reason to discount most of his success IMO! He only had McEnroe fooled b/c he's owned Roger; even on grass & HC's!

    ReplyDelete
  71. ***Brad Gilbert says Djokovic: "My eyes have never seen anybody play tennis better." ...he doesn"t have as broad a fan base as the others and he believes so many people root for him to lose j/b how incredibly good he is. ...
    ---

    Novak is the same age-range as Nadal. What kind of fucked up logic do some of you have? Nadal had plenty of X and chances to rule tennis, but he couldn't. He had his chance after '10, but what are you gonna do, punish Nole b/c he was better? Nadal has not had it tougher than anyone. He has competed under the same era as Djokovic. I can understand that it was hard during Fed's prime cause he was too young, but you cannot call it tougher just cause Nadal failed to be consistent every year and found out by Djokovic. The logic is strong in here.***

    When it comes to Rafa, no other player throws people into such confusion and hypocrisy! They give him all due credit for his accomplishments b/c he was so young, then can't acknowledge Roger was a lot older throughout! Then when he doesn't maintain any sort of consistency in the rankings, they blame injury! It's never just Rafa and his over-physical game that he chose as his technique! W/ Nole, they make it seem like he's some kid and Rafa's the aging veteran when they're about the same age! It's so irrational and I gave up long ago trying to understand it! From McEnroe's slobbering all over to him to his inevitable change of heart, it makes little sense to me!

    ***J/b they are the same age range doesn't mean they are at the same mileage or point in their career. Nadal was a top player by the age of 18 in '05 and was consistently a top player since then. Nole came in at the tail end of '07 then dropped off in '09 after winning his first Slam in '08. In '11, he started producing his best more consistently and it's been that way since then. Nadal has only dropped off since '14, giving him 10 yrs @ the top of the game. While Djoko has been around for 7-8 yrs.***

    Are you kidding me? No other top player has had so many breaks & vacations to rest their weary bones more than Rafa! If he decides to hang back 20 yards behind the baseline and allow nobodies, also-ran, qualifiers, & wildcards to extend him to the limit even in early rds, that's on him! He can volley I'm sure! Nole has a lot more mileage by actually playing the game while Nadal takes frequent breaks due to so called injuries, exhaustion, and what I believe to be suspensions! Who s/b more tired right now other than Nole who's been in final after final in EVERY tournament he plays? Give me a break! ;-)

    ***Nadal has nothing left to prove to anyone. He's 25-8 in majors vs other members of the "Big 4." ...Nadal's domination on clay is the greatest ever surface domination and he's won HC & grass majors vs Djokovic & Federer.***

    History; we've moved on! Rafa's an afterthought these days allowing the next gen. to push and even beat him in early rds! That doesn't happen much to Roger or Nole at all; even when subpar! Rafa WAS great; I'd go look for another venue or thread if you want to talk about past accomplishments w/ nothing to maintain his present status! The rankings will catch up to him and he should drop out of the top 10 w/i a few months if there's any justice! ;-)

    ***...At NO TIME during 2011-present was Rafa ever at peak form on ANY of the surfaces. Sorry. He was primed in '11, but not at his peak on the surfaces. You can already argue he was already on the downhill slide post '12 AO.***

    Excuse me; maybe Nole was just better! Rafa made final after final, losing 6 str. to his rival (7 if you add '12 AO)! Cry me a river; he was fine, just not as good as Djokovic! If Nole wasn't there, Rafa might have reigned for years! Those are the facts just like when Roger was losing finals to Rafa! Let's try t/b consistent at least w/ our BS! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  72. ***I think it's a valid pt, but where Nadal loses pts is w/ his ability to have longevity & sustain his style of play t/b competitive in his later yrs and to continue to win slams. In that sense, Federer wins. We'll have to see if Djokovic can attain the same level of longevity and stay at the very top of the rankings competing for Slams as Federer has been able to do.***

    No one's sustain this top level of play better than Nole IMO! I can't remember him dropping below #3 over the last 8 yrs or so! Roger & Rafa can't say that!

    ***But will Djokovic be able to do it into his mid 30s the way Federer has? That's my point. Djokovic is 28. Let's see where he is at 30. A lot can happen. You never know. Don't get too cocky.***

    I have no dog in this hunt for greatness! I'm more into past era w/ Sampras who I thought was the GOAT until the current crop took over! His #'s are inferior in comparison unfortunately, but I'd rather watch old matches w/ him than deal w/ the boring baseline play of today!

    ***What I got from that was that Federer, Nadal AND Murray don't have a title yet in this season. Pretty ridiculous.***

    You have to get to a final to win it! lol! Nole owns AO, even w/ 100 errors in match vs Simon, he got through to the final! Nole was home in the final and took Murray out in strs; that's been it! Qatar was a beat-down and it's hard to even count as a legitimate title shot; more exh. of Nole's greatness! Since Roger, Rafa, & Andy have been having so much trouble, we've had the benefit of different finalist against Nole! I couldn't be happier! Been looking forward to Kei & Milos making their mark & they've been doing a good job of late; very impressive indeed!

    ***Let's say that Novak right now is about as good as Roger was in '04-07. Consider who they have been beaten by:

    ROGER
    '04: Henman, Nadal, Costa, Kuerten, Dominik Hrbaty, Berdych
    '05: Safin, Richard Gasquet, Rafael Nadal, Nalbandian
    '06: Nadal x4, Murray
    '07: Guillermo Canas x2, Nadal x2, Filippo Volandri, Djokovic, Nalbandian x2, Gonzalez

    NOVAK
    2015: Karlovic, Federer x2, Wawrinka, Murray
    2016: Feliciano Lopez

    The Lopez victory was a retirement, w/ Novak injured. In '15, he only lost to the best players in the sport, plus Ivo--who can beat anyone in a bo3.

    Looking back at Roger's losses, you can see how in '04 he was still struggling a bit on clay, w/ 3 of his losses to clay-court specialists. The Hrbaty, Henman, & Berdych losses seem like brain-farts, or maybe Roger simply not reaching his full dominance. In '05 he lost to 2 very dangerous players in Safin & Nalbandian, Rafa on clay, & Gasquet on clay. Since that loss to Gasquet, their 1st match, Roger has dominated him 15-1.

    In '06, his best year, he only lost to Rafa--4 X's--& a surprise loss to Murray. In '07, he started getting upset more. Volandri, really? But the others were either young players coming into their own (Nadal & Novak), or est. players who were very dangerous (Canas, Gonzalez, Nalbandian).

    Anyhow, I don't see the equivalent of Safin or Nalbandian on tour, except for perhaps Wawrinka - a player who is capable of beating anyone on a given day. OTOH, it may also be that Novak is more dominant now b/c his "B-game" right now is > than Roger's ever was. I might give Roger's A-game a slight edge--it is unfortunately that we'll never get to see '06 Roger vs. '15-16 Novak--but Novak's B-game is just so damn good right now.***

    ReplyDelete
  73. ***There are 14 "big tournaments" a year--4 Slams, the WTF, & 9 Masters. Novak has currently won 7 in a row. This is unparalleled in Open Era history. Roger never won more than 3 in a row; Rafa 5. He's also won 15 of the last 19 biggies going back to the Paris Masters of '14. That's the most dominant year and a half in Open Era history, or at least going back to Laver in the late 60s.

    He also just won his 28th Masters, which puts him in the lead all-X, although this is a record that really only has meaning from '90 to the present, as the tour was structured a bit differently before then (the GP tournaments were = to Masters, but I don't think the tour was as cohesive). It was also his 63rd title, which puts him 1 behind Borg & Sampras; 4 behind Nadal.

    He's got 193 wks @ #1, which is 5th on the all-X list going back to '73. Here's who is ahead of him:

    302 Federer
    286 Sampras
    270 Lendl
    268 Connors
    193 Djokovic

    And that is 193 wks & counting. Right now he has 16540 points to Andy Murray's 7815 - that's 8725 more! Let's say that he stops playing and Andy wins every single tournament until he gets the #1 ranking. By rough estimation, Novak would still be assured the #1 ranking through April, May, June, and lose it around Wimbledon or in August - so another 12-15 guaranteed wks at #1. And of course chances are he won't get injured and he'll play reasonably well, so I think the year-end #1 is almost a sure thing - which would give him another 40 weeks and put him over 230.

    If his dominance continues through '17, he has a chance of passing Connors, Lendl, & Sampras someX in '18, and even a chance at Roger later that year. Given all of that, I would offer 3 variant futures for him, w/ my rough guess of the % change of each occuring:

    Pessimistic (10%): He loses RG again this year, doubt sets in, and while he still remains very good for the next 2-3 years, he's more like '13-14 for the next year or 2, & loses the #1 ranking someX in '17 and doesn't get it back. Career stats: 13-14 Slams, 30-35 Masters, 75-80 titles, 230-250 wks @ #1, 5 YE #1's.

    Moderate (60%): His current dominance continues through the year, although he still loses a Slam and "only" wins 3-4 more Masters. He does finish #1, is still the best player next year, although starts t/b challenged, maybe losing the #1 at some pt, at least for a X, before eeking out the #1 in '17 as well. But in '18, significant decline is noticeable. From '18-20 he remains a Slam threat and a top 5ish player. By '21 he's rapidly decline, even retirement. Career stats: 15-17 Slams, 35-40 Masters, 80-90 titles, 250-300 wks @ #1, 6 YE #1's.

    Optimistic (30%): '16 makes '15 look like yesterday's news. He wins all 4 Slams, 12+ titles, and is an easy #1 his year and next, winning 2-3 more in '17. In '18 he passes Roger Federer's 17 Slams, wins a couple more and has a nice slow decline, retiring someX in his mid-30s. Career stats: 18-20 Slams 40+ Masters, 90+ titles, 300+ wks @ #1, 7+ YE #1's.

    So what do you think? The moderate prediction has the highest probability, but I think the optimistic is far more likely than the pessimistic. Even if the pessimistic occurs, he still ends his career w/ terrific stats, and is right there w/ Rafa & Pete. The moderate prediction and he vies w/ Federer for Open Era GOAT, and the optimistic puts him as probably the clear greatest ever, or at least w/ Rod Laver.***

    ReplyDelete
  74. ***...Nole was just outplayed in Paris. He's lost in Cinci everyX he's played it. Is he tanking the clay Masters so to win RG? No! He's won some fair and square and lost the others just the same way and still never won the FO. And that has nothing to do w/ the preceding events.***

    It's all in the timing IMO! In the 2nd 1/2 of the season, he had t/b tired and those weren't easy wins to make those finals in Canada & Cincy; that's all I was thinking of! He was more fresh to win those clay events before the FO where he was extended by Murray unnecessarily in the semi before losing final to Stan! Even when he won the 1st set, I thought he was in trouble and wasn't surprised he lost it in the end! He seems to have a mental block at the FO; even in command, it's just not over until it's over!

    ***You want to talk about mental blocks....try watching Federer in finals or semis vs Djokovic for the last 7 yrs save for a few here and there where he hasn't wimped out. If 34 yo Federer can beat Djokovic to win Cinci and still make the final of the '15 USO, I think that's a losing argument right there. Djokovic has his trusty CVAC in New Jersey just btw for the USP so that's a nonsense excuse and you know it. And he wasn't tired against Wawrinka at the FO. lol. The guy just played insanely well and deserves a lot more credit than that. Novak can't & doesn't win everything.***

    He's come the closest since the days of Laver & Rosewall; 6 of 8 Masters (all finals) & 3 of 4 majors & took his pet 500 in Beijing! His '15 actually was better than '11 where he lacked the YE Chp. in London! He doesn't need all of those wins, but he seriously seems to be trying!

    ***I have Fed currently @ having achieved nearly 28% > than Nole - if you quantify the pts they have won at 500 level & above, using current ATP weightings. That 28% gap though is shrinking fast:

    That is:
    For ease I have reduced the weighting pts down by a factor of 1000; eg. Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

    Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0.75) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

    Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (12 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 111.14

    Djokovic = (11 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0.75) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 87.1

    Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0.75) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (16 x 0.50) = 84.11

    The current ATP weightings.

    •Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP pts
    •Slam R-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP pts
    •Slam SF's (SSF) 720 ATP pts
    •'Season End' final victories w/ no loss b4 F (SEFNL) 1500 ATP pts
    •SE final victories w/ 1 loss b4 F (SEFOL) 1300 ATP pts
    •SE final R-ups w/ no loss b4 F (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP pts
    •SE final R-ups w/ 1 loss b4 F (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP pts
    •SE final SF's w/ no loss b4 SF (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 pts
    •Masters 1000 = victories (Top 9) ATP 1000 pts
    •Masters 1000 = R-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 pts
    •OG Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 750 pts
    •500 Series = (500S) ATP 500 pts***

    ReplyDelete
  75. ***Murray is a champion, incredibly determined and dedicated above most others. Going through a hard X right now, I back him to figure it out & respond.***

    He's just not professional IMO! He really infuriates me when he does his "come ons" when his opp made an error or DF; that's classless! They all do it, but he hasn't done enough to get away w/ it! He's a troll on the court; always someone else's fault if he loses when it's on him and the stupid way he performs! He illicits weak & short shots from his opp to approach the net & put away, but like Roger, he thinks he can hang 10 yards behind the baseline & outlast all comers! He's a real idiot as far as I'm concerned! ;-(

    ***You don't see how he's a better #2 than whom?***

    Well of this error, you got us! Past #2's were more impressive and won a lot more!

    ***He's an intelligent player, but the way he's playing now, he won't be #2 for long.***

    He has the game, just not the confidence to utilize it to the fullest! He proved he could slay all comers 3 or 4 yrs ago, but he's regressed for some reason I can't fathom!

    ***Is it me or have there been players who were worse than Murray who got to #1?***

    IMO Rios did it and Lendl was just a smidge away back in the early 80's before winning FO in '84! Murray's accomplished more, but it was short-lived!

    ***It's a weak era. A clown like Nishikori was able to reach the Miami final. Murray's ranked #2 and is not worthy of that seed.***

    Neither was Roger if you check the #'s; more like #6 until he made Wimbledon & USO finals which finally brought him up to respectability! Murray has points to defend and he'll begin to drop himself if he doesn't turn it around soon! Madrid is coming up and he really needs every pt or someone else will take his place!

    ***I definetely believe Murray's a better #2 than Nadal at the moment.
    ---

    Based on current form, I believe that Murray is a poor #2 and must improve drastically. Amongst top 10 players, he's currently 2-1 this year vs the rest of them which, while that pales into insignificance compared to Djokovic's 9-0, it's still a better ratio than anybody else's (Federer's 1-1 and everybody else is in neg. figures). I certainly agree w/ you that Murray can do better, but he's still arguably doing better this year than anybody not named Djokovic.***

    Everybody's better than Nadal at the moment babe! How humiliating for him to have MP's vs a kid on clay and frittered the match away; just unbelievable!

    ***Which past #2's (who never got to #1) were more impressive and won more?***

    OTTH, I mentioned Vilas! Back in '77, he won USO & FO, not to mention about 130 matches and wound up being a footnote to Borg & Connors!

    ***Vilas was really a #1. Had the rankings been calculated the same way in his day as they are today that would almost certainly have been the case.***

    But it wasn't and he never really attained the top ranking; GP a lot different back then over current ATP system! It was unfair, but he was working it himself accumulating "B" tournament wins in Orange NJ and other out of the way places where Connors & Borg weren't playing!

    ReplyDelete
  76. ***VILE LIBERAL SCUM see anybody vs progressive, liberalism, fascism, Islam as RIGHT WING. Liberals or progressives or whatever other moniker they make up have much in common w/ fascism, Hate America, & Jesus Christ; the enemy of Western society based upon Christianity.***

    And < than intelligent and hypocritical conservative losers see anything vs their beliefs as evil and detrimental to the security of the US! It's pathetic! It's progressives that freed the slaves, gave women the vote, & encouraged a building up of the country! Cons are the ones that HATE America and only use Jesus Christ as a political tool to keep STUPID people in line! The real enemy of society are these nimrods who'd rather the country go back to the 50's, separate the races for our own good, & close the borders to outsiders! There's so much more they do to the detriment of their own country, but I have a life & need to move on!

    ***...So glad Andy read these bitches on their implicit homophobia!***

    IDK why, but minorities are always like "death" on gay people; Black, Latin, Greek! It doesn't matter! Not sure if it's an inferiority complex they need to feel better about themselves or it was heaped on them as kids that "you don't want to assoc. or be that way!" I've never understood it even w/ all my years on this rotten planet!

    ***As a gay black male, you learn very quickly what hypocrites different groups are and not to defend any group of people but yourself. I cannot tell you how many X's non-black gays will whine and whimper to how horribly they are treated by homophobes and in the next breath spew out the filthiest of anti-black hate speech and behaviors. I cannot tell you how many anti-black slurs and hate speech I have heard from non-black gays, particularly white gay men, Asian gay men and Latino gay men. This has happened when the individual in ?? didn't realize I was black, thought I was mixed, and figured it would be ok to trash black people. Case in point, a gay white man who was recently asking t/b my BF and didn't realize I was black stated and I quote, "I am not attracted to black people. Well, I guess they c/b attractive if they aren't burnt cookie black. If they're burnt cookie black, hell no!"

    Honestly, the same thing goes on in the black community. Last year, I worked at this place w/ this str8 black dude who constantly complained about issues of racism, CONSTANTLY. Yet in the next breath he was using the f word and bashing homosexuality and bashing black women while dating an Asian woman. I often come across the same types of str8 black men online, who whine up and down about racism yet in the same breath trash homosexuality. I thought it was largely str8 black men only who did this, but I'm seeing more and more thru this program where a lot of str8 black women seem to have sort of a 2-faced attitude regarding homosexuality. In 1 min., Phaedra is representing a gay client in a lawsuit and whooping it up w/ him and in the next, she's using "sassy" homosexuality as a way to ridicule people as though there's something wrong w/ it.

    This is why I think I should stop supporting Black Lives Matter and the gay rights movement. All people seem to mean when they complain to discrimination is their own groups while they are perfectly fine w/ discriminating against other groups. From now on, I'm out for #1 and not defending any group any longer beyond my own since it's what everyone on this Earth seems to do. I am tired of defending groups only for them to engage in that same bad behavior.***

    Well done! THX!

    ReplyDelete
  77. ***How could you NOT want OJ to get away w/ it after hearing that Tape of Fuhrman? = Those are all terrible and like this terrible murder of 2 innocent people, all s/b prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The guilty should go to jail. You can't forgive 1 case b/c of all of the rest. They ALL are terrible things.***

    Sure I can! Unfortunately @ my age, I've seen & heard the worst! Where was the defense of innocent men being lynch for no other reason than their color? My history books of the 60's had children all but sucking on lollipops while some guy was swinging by a rope from a tree! It was virtually condoned when it was found cops, sheriffs, & officials of towns made up the audiences! Screw anyone who can't see the justifiable animus; esp. since Rodney King was brutalized on live TV and those scumbag cops got off until the Feds prosecuted under "civil rights legislation!" Cops, just having themselves a good ol' X on the side of the rode w/ witnesses, video, & the outrage of the world and those guys WALKED initially! My hands still shake over it! I don't care who murdered who; you live by this court system, you die by it! It's nothing new when guilty people go free; LIVE W/ it! I know I have for almost 60 yrs!

    ***Many police are thugs and have the highest rate of domestic abuse out of any profession.

    Police misconduct we have over the past few days:

    New Mex. Police Pay Victim $3M Settlement, Detective Raped Teenage Girl on Ride-Along, was HIV Positive

    VIDEO: NYPD Cop Shot & Killed Dog Wagging Tail, Hand Owner $265 Burial Fee

    ◾Montg., AL.: An officer was charged w/ 2nd-degree sodomy for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman while he was on duty. ow.ly/108xpJ

    ◾Columbus, Ind.: An officer was charged w/ official misconduct and X felonies for stealing drugs from evidence. ow.ly/10b0Xp

    ◾Douglas Cty, Neb: A deputy was arrested for public intox. after an incident at a casino. ow.ly/10b1vC

    ◾Wagoner Cty, OK.: A sheriff & deputy were indicted for extor. in an alleged civil asset forfeiture scheme. ow.ly/10bbzU

    ◾Melbourne, FLA: An officer was arrested for solicitation after a sex worker complained to police. ow.ly/10bdPv

    ◾Aiken, SC Dept. of Public Safety: Officers shown on video conducting an illegal stop & performing cavity search of a black driver. No contraband was discovered. A civil suit's pending. ow.ly/10bpmu

    ◾Tulsa Cty, OK: An officer was arrested for using a stolen credit card while in uniform. ow.ly/10bAfJ

    ◾St. Charles Cty, MO: A deputy pled guilty to stealing items from a bait car while responding to a call. He's slated to be sentenced May 16. ow.ly/10bTXf

    ◾Update: Nesquehoning, Penn. (1st rept. 05-19-15): The officer driving 113 mph when he killed a woman in a resulting car accident has been fired. ow.ly/10bUC5***

    ReplyDelete
  78. ***Since, when have you been under the belief that Novak will surpass Federer's 17? - I never believed that Rafa or Nole were going to do it, but hey I can dream.***

    I thought it was too big a # as well! Even w/ the weak comp., it's still a difficult road to hoe! Nole's been almost unbeatable of late, but 7 more majors in the next 3 yrs c/b trying IMO! The older you get, the more your confidence fails you! Lendl was still physically able after 30, but his confidence had to slump w/ all that was coming at him from Becker, Edberg, Sampras, and so many others! He held them off as long as he could, but those last few years were pretty much a waste w/ only smaller events and some Masters going into his win column!

    ***We all talk about how weak the tour is right now, Djokovic dominates etc...but like Fed in his prime, the aura of invincibility Nole currently has means most matches are already won w/o playing. Players in general, simply respect Djokovic too much. If you're going to win, do it on your own term and take it to him. W/ the way things are going now, Djokovic's next loss will probably be more about him having a bad day at the office rather than someone really "beating" him. The 2 Swiss that beat him last year did it by outplaying him and making him doubt himself. Stan blasted him off court and put his ground game under pressure to steal the FO away. Federer's best victory vs him was in Cinci when he dared attack the Djokovic serve w/ SABR which put more pressure on him. To me, the strategy is obvious, make Djokovic 2nd guess himself on serve by attacking it. His serve is good, but it's not a missile like Raonic/Isner or precise stroke like Federer's; needs t/b attacked. And no, Rafa standing 15 feet behind the baseline won't cut it.
    ---

    Djokovic - nope, realistically no chance of getting 17 majors. It's good to dream though. Dreams don't come true. First of all I didn't even think of Novak reaching 11 slams in his life. Any win after RG is considered a bonus for all the opportunities he wasted btw '12-14.
    ---

    ^^^ pretty much this. Only the naive Djoker fans talk of the inevitability of Djoker getting 17. The reality is it's VERY unlikely. 6 more slams is a TON. He probably missed his window in '12-14. Needed to snag 3 more slams during those years.
    ---

    You will never know if Djokovic is going to surpass Fed or not. But I think fans started to believe he CAN after epic run of '15 til RG & winning Wimby after that disappointment of RG. That's where GOAT THEORIST McEnroe claimed Djokovic is top 5 men's player of all X. So yeah, since then.
    ===

    ...Actually, the point I wanted to make is that Zverev might also stagnate once he gets into the 30-50 range, just like Coric is now.***

    There are plenty of guys w/ physical ability and have all the shots; most of the problem is inside their own heads! They need someone to build up their confidence; someone they respect like Murray had for Lendl! That's the problem, most can't or won't see it as a weakness w/ their own confidence or lack thereof! They're obviously topflight or they wouldn't be ranked in the elite 100! It's not like they're going to lose to a scrub no matter how poorly they play, but to take that next step, they need t/b fearless! When Zverev didn't finish off Rafa a couple weeks ago, it was a crisis of confidence and nothing else! Rafa didn't beat him, Zverev beat himself!

    ReplyDelete
  79. *** - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics#ATP_Tour_career_earnings -
    ---

    I'm fascinated by all aspects of Rafa's game and, as you likely know, enjoy statistical analysis. Rafa is one of the greatest players in the history of the sport, so watching his decline IS fascinating and worthy of conversation. And yes, if Rafa bounces back I'll be happy to talk about it. Actually, I'm hoping he can challenge Novak during clay season, even if I don't think it will happen.***

    The only reason I make mention is due to the endless fawning; esp. from past champs that were so over the top! It was ridiculous to think of Nadal as A GOAT of any era due to several obvious shortcomings; never able to defend a title off dirt, the endless upsets of late by "has beens, WC's, qualifiers, & never-weres," and of course his ranking bouncing up & down over the yrs w/ little consistency due to various reasons we may never fully know for sure! Even though behind Roger in major wins, so called experts (McEnroe & Wilander) thought he was > since he literally owned the man on any surface; esp. clay! Then those same experts went down a litany of reasons Nole could never catch up due to his coming into his own so late; "Nole can't beat Rafa on clay (dispelled), he can't beat Rafa in Bo5" (dispelled), & he won't get by Rafa in his path @ the FO (also dispelled in '15)!

    ***I hear you, Fiero, although back in late '13 I thought Rafa had a chance of passing Roger, and also laying sole claim to the GOAT title. Dial back after say the USO, and there was a clear path towards such heights for Rafa. He was 27 yo w/ 14 Slams. Then the flaws in his record were just aspects of his uniqueness, reminders that even the greatest players aren't perfect, and the gaps in his record still had a chance of being filled.

    Now he's almost 30, still w/ 14 Slams. I think b/c he dropped off like he did, his flaws stand out more b/c now it's clear that he'll ever rectify them. The biggest gap in his record is his lack of a Tour Finals title. While it isn't a Slam & shouldn't be viewed as such, it's the closest thing to a "5th Slam" that there is. Rafa's the only 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era who doesn't have a WTF title. ...But I think Novak will win it, maybe even more than once.
    ---

    I just realized that Mats Wilander also never won it. Laver, Rosewall, & Newcombe didn't either, but it only started in '70 so it's hard to penalize them for that. Connors (1), Borg (2), McEnroe (3), Lendl (5), Edberg (1), Becker (3), Agassi (1), Sampras (5), Federer (6), & Djokovic (5) all won it at least once.***

    Like Djokovic these days, Lendl literally owned the Masters Final (WTF); winning it twice in '86 when they decided to move the Chp. up from Jan.! Navratilova did the same after their season-ender was shifted from March to Nov. as well! This is something unique to those 2 greats that may never be duplicated!

    ***Interesting stat there, Fiero. More of a historical anomaly than a real accomplishment, but interesting nonetheless. - By my account, only 9 players have won 2 or more Slams at age 28 or later, and several great players didn't win any Slams that old. Roger has won only 2 Slams since turning 28, as did Sampras & Lendl, while Novak has won 3 (and counting) - the same as Connors. Actually, Novak will almost certainly surpass Agassi & Laver's Open Era record of 5 Slams at age 28 or older. I also think that this m/b the last year that we see 1 or both of Roger & Rafa in the top 5.***

    ReplyDelete
  80. ***Surely Djokovic is going to win the FO this year. Murray, Federer, & Nadal are all in decline. stan is surely not gonna play like last year again; too early for Thiem and the young guns too I think.***

    Upsets occur! The problem w/ attaining the lone slam missing in a resume is long & dismal; Lendl @ Wimbledon, Borg @ The USO, & of course Sampras @ The FO! They worked hard to make finals only to have victory snatched from them; Sampras just 1 semi in '96 even though he beat 3 or 4 past champs along the way!

    ***Novak's definitely the overwhelming fave, but there's always the possibility of an upset. In particular, I'll be watching: Thiem, Kyrgios, Nishikori, & old Rafa himself.
    ---

    So all this X these 2 guys have not been trying hard enough? Is this your pt? Maybe you should tell them that; seems you have figured it out for them.***

    I've been saying the same thing for years; "no, players like Berdych, Wawrinka, & Ferrer have not max'd out their ability!" If they're just running back and forth retrieving balls instead of "taking it to" their opps, they'll lose vs elite players; even get upset by players w/ < ability! IMO, it's a stupid way to play when they're more than competent at the net if they only tried to push the issue! It's easy to say, they might get their heads taken off or passed, but hanging back doesn't even get them sets off Nole, Federer, & Murray for the most part!

    ***None of the other great champions on clay may present comparable #'s to those of Nadal´s ones. Guillermo Vilas is still who has more ATP victories & titles on clay - 681 and 49 respectively-, but his % is considerably lower, 79,84% vs 91,58% of the total of Nadal's career. Indeed, no other player of the Open era has been able to cross the threshold of 90% victories in a specific surface.

    In addition, at the X of Vilas it was possible to build a whole season playing almost exclusively on clay; in '77, his best season, the legendary Argentine played 101 of the 148 total matches on clay. Vilas won in RG, Rome, MC & Hamburg, but he could not do it in Barcelona, where he lost at the final in 4 cons. X's, from '80-83, while in those years the tournament was played in Oct.

    Bjorn Borg also has an flawless curriculum in the European spring. 6 titles at RG in 8 entries; as Nadal, he only lost twice in the Parisian GS, both facing Adriano Panatta; '73 & '76. He won 3 X's in the Principality ('77, '79 & '80), 2 at the Foro Italico ('74 & '78) and 2 others, '75 & '77, at the Real Club Tennis of Barcelona. The Swede, who always competed in a very particular calendar, replete of exhibits, only played in Hamburg in '79 where, after winning a couple of matches, he retired in the round of 16 vs Eliot Teltscher.

    The Swede has the 2nd best winning % mark on clay, 85,89% and his ratio of titles/entries, 41.10% w/ 30 titles of 73 possible. He's also 2nd in cons. titles on this surface, 10, from RG '79 to Geneva '81. Nadal precedes him in all these classifications.

    The only player who, like Nadal, was able to complete the 5 victories in the European classics is Ivan Lendl. The Czech, 3rd in the ATP rankings in titles/entries ratio on clay, repeated in all of them - at RG he even reached a 3rd victory — to complete a magnificent track records of 11 titles. Lendl, a complete player that dominated all surfaces, also starred in 1 of the most memorable finals of the FO when he came from 2 sets down vs John McEnroe in '84, a match that remains in the memory of all those who saw it.***

    ReplyDelete
  81. ***There's so much talk about Djokovic potentially breaking the slam record of 17. IMO too much talk as such talk s/b when someone is really already in striking range (eg- 3 slams or < and still going super strong; so not Nadal today) However there's no talk about Nole possibly breaking Federer's 302 wks @ #1, or even Sampras's 6 YE #1's.

    I personally do think Djokovic has a decent shot @ the slam record. I would go as far as to say Djokovic is extremely likely to get both those records. If he's still #1 (w/o having lost it at any point) when the new rankings came out on 5/6/18, he'll have tied Federer's wks @ #1. Is there even a soul here who thinks barring a HUGE (like missing 5 months of tennis minimum) injury Djokovic will lose #1 at any point before then? Furthermore Djokovic being YE #1 in '16 is a slam dunk already; '17 is extremely likely. At least tying Sampras' YE #1 mark (and passing him in ITF #1's) is very likely. Should he still be #1 at the end of '18 (IMHO late '18 is the earliest I could possibly see someone else even challenging for #1) breaking it.
    ---

    Most wks @ #1, most YE #1's, most M1000's, most WTF Titles, most Career Prize Money, Nole Slam, CGS, Golden Masters slam. These are very realistic records Djokovic is gonna set. So, even if Djoker gets to 16, he has a gr8 chance to win the GOAT debate! - Basically the way I look at it is who else c/b #1 in the next 2+ years from today?

    Wawrinka, Federer, Nadal- hell no on each one. I think even the most ardent fans of each of these would fully concede there is virtually no chance of any of those ever being #1 ranked again (or in Wawrinka's case ever of course).

    It w/b pretty much a major shock if Djokovic doesn't break most of the #1 records. Much more obvious than the slam record which yes, some think he has a good shot at (some others think the complete op.), but is practically a big "who knows" at this point.
    ---

    I don't think Nole'll win more than 8 AO's. If I had to guess now it w/b that he ends up w/ exactly 8. While it's his best slam, he'll play 1 < in the future than the other slams as it has already taken place, and eventually you have to think some people who haven't won there will. ...He still has more to prove at the other slams, imparticular RG & the USO. I think he'll be hungrier at those moving forward, & combined that he has 1 more to play at both, he could well at least as many future slams at those 2 venues as the AO.
    ---

    The CYGS is enormously difficult to pull off. As dominant as Djokovic seems, he has shown himself vulnerable in the past even when people assumed he would win. The field "appears" weak, but the more Djokovic is hyped, the more pressure w/b placed on his shoulders and the more fired up guys like Kyrgios, Thiem, & Zverev w/b to knock him off.***

    It's the beginning of the end for both Rafa and Roger! The longer they stay on the tour, the more it hurts their legacies IMO! Borg left in '81, but had still won the FO over Lendl! Losing the finals of Wimbledon & USO were used as an excuse, but he didn't really want to retire! The ATP wouldn't give him much needed X away after so many yrs on tour; since he was 15 IIRC! He was always under pressure due to the way he played & then giving him an early high seeding due to Wimbledon boycott of the men in '73! They've revised the rules to accommodate the top players so this shouldn't happen to Nadal and Roger, but both might want to leave the tour anyway due to precipitous drops in results; esp. Roger not winning any majors since Wimbledon 4 yrs ago!

    ReplyDelete
  82. *** - http://i762.photobucket.com/albums/xx263/zvelf/Misc/Djokovic_v_Federer_era.jpg -

    Djokovic only won a slam in '12, '13 & '14. ...There has been some stroke of luck in the fact that Roger can compete, but has no stamina to take it the distance. Nadal's style of play has finally caught up to his body, and Andy's still that same moody kid who pouts when things head South. Occasionally, those 4 men break out of their particular afflictions & score a win over Djokovic, but very rare & growing even rarer on the big stages.***

    Near perfection in '11 almost killed Nole! ...I give him a break in those yrs where Roger got his 17th @ Wimbledon & Andy came into his own, Rafa's reprieve in '13 taking back the #1 ranking, & '14 adjusting to Becker's enlightenment & encouragement getting him ready for Wimbledon!

    ***Did you watch USO '11 F? Novak demolished Nadal w/ his BH & FH. I think Novak won over 50% return pts. He CRUSHED Peak Nadal in '11.***

    That USO & subsequent AO in '12 tells you all you need to know about how comp. those yrs were; sets taking well over an hr, matches going 4+ hrs, saving of MP's, breaks when serving for it, etc.! I think Nole had learned to "give back" all that stalling to Nadal to teach him a lesson & all it did was punish the fans! Almost 6 hrs; 11 hrs w/ the semi vs Murray! How could Nole be anything but drained for the next yr trying to win that 1 title?

    ***I think that match affected both Nadal & Nole. Nadal had a fresh start & advantage, but Novak served & returned better.***

    Not me! I've been trying to push him off the tour since his last major win 4 yrs ago! I really think he's hurting his legacy even making final after final only to go down in flames to the current #1! It's starting t/b like Connors in his later yrs; more a placeholder than a true champ.! He needs help like Soderling at '09 FO! His last definitive win IMO was AO in '10! His Wimbledon in '12 was a gift!

    ***Good tournament in MC for Roger. I was hoping he would play 2 matches; played 3.***

    He seemed to play well enough, but X is definitely not on his side! When it gets to the crunch near the end, he looks more his age!

    ***I think we've got 2, maybe 3 more yrs of Roger. I said recently that I think this is his last yr in the top 5. He'll play through '17, & maybe '18 if he's still top 10. But I w/b surprised to see him beyond '18. Same w/ Rafa.***

    Some players just don't know when to bow out! The $$$'s too good I guess! The majors alone cough up $2+ M for the winners!

    ***He enjoys playing & he's still doing well, so why not leave him to it? We're going to miss all these great players when they go. Imagine the tennis world w/o them.***

    I understand what you're saying & agree, but OTOH, I feel you stunt the next gen. thru reverence for past champions' accomplishments! I reference Michelle Kwan in figure skating that hung on for a good yr or 2 too long and it influenced the development of a great skater like Sasha Cohen! You can say, beat her, but psychologically it has to play on other athletes' minds when a legend is hanging around! Sampras left right on X & it changed the next wave, allowing Hewitt t/b #1 for 2 years, extended the career of Agassi, & didn't cast a shadow over the pending genius of Fed.

    ***The next gen. are stunted. They're so stunted, they're barely a stub. They needed to shove Federer out of the way, but they lack cojones. This has been a problem for a long X in the sport, the deference of the makeweights, the also-rans, the rollover jackpots. Fed retiring won't suddenly turn a bunch pigs ears into a shining batch of silk purses.***

    ReplyDelete
  83. ***...My fave read on TTW is "is Djokovic A 1 Slam Wonder?"***

    The experts like McEnroe & Wilander stepped in it for yrs! First Nadal's the best ever! After that, Nole might win over Nadal someX, but it won't ever be on clay, then he won't win in BO5 @ a major!

    ***Trust me, all of these "experts" claiming Novak'll brk every record will change their tune as soon as he loses a couple matches.***

    How perfect does he have t/b for you? He's had 5 years of near great results w/ the last season having him break all kinds records; some set for life IMO! He's inching up the list so fast, it's hard not to think if he keeps it up for 2 more yrs, it m/b in vogue to say "FEDAL who?"

    ***5 yrs of near great results? No, he had a fantastic '11 & then regressed a little bit until '14. He then had another great yr in '15, but it can't go on like that forever; esp. since he's in his late 20s. ...As for people saying FEDAL who? That won't ever happen, no matter what Djokovic manages to achieve. All 3 are greats & their legacies are set.***

    I've never been on Nole's bandwagon saying he won't ever lose, but it's been impressive w/ "runs" @ Masters & the YEC that may never be achieved in my lifeX again! Winning IW & Miami b2b like that the last few yrs & then adding a clay event in MC last season; well Fedal never did that! Hell, Nadal's never defended a title off the clay surface! What all X great has that kind of legacy? Federer's been close, but he needed Soderling to help in his quest for a FO in '09! I hope he got him something nice to fulfill that glaring hole in his resume; say a house back in Sweden! I could go on, but I might sound like a sycophant and I'm not; preferring the game of Sampras as 1 of my all X faves!

    ***I hate fucking Tsonga. Only plays good vs Roger ON CLAY. Retard. "Why don't you beat Rafa or Novak so often?" Aaaaaaaaa. Why does Roger get this idiot in his MC draw all the X. Why didn't Murray get him; or anyone else basically? No, it had to be Fed. Wow.***

    Roger had his chance! He won the 1st set which was key and even though he lost the 2nd, he served 1st in the 3rd! He allowed Jo to get up 15-30 twice near the end on his serve and it finally cost him! It wasn't like he ran away w/ it! There are several telltale signs of age and 1 of them is when it gets tight, misses will come to cost them! He was at the net & missed a routine volley when trying to break back @ 6-5; that's on Roger! He might have salvaged a win if he had gotten into that TB! Jo can get tight as well; still remember him having 4 MP's vs Nole at the FO a few years ago and choked it away on clay! It happens!

    ***Fiero, I'm as anxious as anyone for the next gen. to arrive, but I'm also happy to see Roger, as well as Rafa & Novak, around for as long as possible. Furthermore, if younger players can't beat them, well they don't deserve to reign over the tour. As I've said before, what we're seeing now is similar to what happened in the late 60s, when the younger gen. couldn't compete w/ old dudes like Rosewall & Laver. It wasn't until Ashe, Newcombe, Nastase, & Smith that younger players were able to take over, and these guys were all 6-12 years younger than the old guys. Talent comes in waves. There's a real low point in birth yrs of '89 to '94, w/ only a few semi-bright spots. It won't be until the guys born in '95-98 come into their own that we'll see a passing of the baton.***

    ReplyDelete
  84. ***Federer's peak:

    Clay - 88
    Grass - 97
    Hard - 95

    Nadal's peak:

    Clay - 100
    Grass - 89
    Hard - 91

    Nole's peak:

    Clay - 90
    Grass - 90
    Hard - 97

    I think Djokovic will go down as the greatest player on HC ever.
    ---

    ...W/ all due respect, we are both Novak fans, but your view of what's great and what's not beyond Novak, isn't my cup of tea either. You said Manning was not 1 of the greatest QB's of all X & couldn't play in the off-season. What ended up happening? He won the SB. So IMO, your views are a bit clouded.***

    ...Manning & Favre are supposed t/b so great w/ all the stats, but SB wins have been limited to truly great teams like the Steelers of the 70's, Dallas, & of course NE in this past gen.! You can have the stat kings all you like, but give me Bradshaw, Aikman, Brady, Staubach, & even Montana! Hell, I'd take Jim Kelly w/ no SB's over Favre & Manning!

    ***Murray's a terrible #2 indeed. It's sad, b/c in '12/mid '13, he looked like he could be headed for #1.***

    Murray couldn't keep up the aggressive play that won those majors under the guidance of Lendl! He reverted back to a pusher allowing 2nd & 3rd tier players to take him to the limit before winning! Reminds me a lot of Rafa if you really look at the way they play the game; even though Rafa's a lot more successful!

    ***Nadal's far more dynamic than Murray. He also hits w/ far more margin which makes his game better suited to grinding. But you're right, Murray really was a different player under Lendl though. And we also can't forget his back surgery.
    ---

    B/c Murray was great at being consistent in top tournaments last year. He actually had 4 early losses to Fed's 5; not much of a difference, but 3 of them were in 500s + USO 4R, as opposed to Fed's 4 early losses in 1000s + AO 3R. That's what made the difference, Murray basically saved his losing performances for < tournaments.***

    The same thing happened w/ Roger due to a good '14! He was languishing around #6 for the 1st 1/2 of the '15 season w/ her cal. points, but the previous season saved him until he made more hay w/ 2 major finals at Wimbledon & The USO! The same thing is happening w/ Andy, but making AO final, he's been able to hold onto #2!

    ***Fed was never a weak #1. He was great. But as people like to put down Murray and call him the weakest #2 player ever for reasons like poor h2h vs top op. during a span of X, why not look at other players and apply the same logic? Fact is Murray is #2 and he's earned it by doing what's required t/b where he's at in the rankings. He has performed in tournaments and been consistent which has given him the #2 spot. Having a poor record vs players 1 on 1 during a period of X doesn't tell us how week of a #X player he is.
    ---

    Murray still hasn't improved the statistics vs the top 5 AND started having difficulty beating the <-ranked guys (AO: 5 sets vs Raonic who could have a shot if not for injuring himself; IW & Miami: early loss, MC: played weak vs Paire and barely escaped due to Paire's choking). It might've been a temp. blip.***

    ReplyDelete
  85. ***Fiero, Vilas absolutely shb #1 in '77, no ?? about it. That said, most of his 16 titles that year were low-level tourneys. He won the FO & USO, and 1 Masters-equivalent tournament (Washington), but the rest were lower level (Connors, who was #1, won 1/2 as many titles (8), no Slams, but a Masters = (GP), the WCT Final & the YEC (Masters). Still, I'm just not sure why Connors was given #1 - not only in '77, but also '78 when Borg should have won it.***

    They were lower level tournaments; a tier of events that we used to watch the finals on Monday night during the summer! His best comp. was Brian Gottfried of all players! I think he was also in the final of the FO, so it was pretty much discounted w/ Borg taking off that 1 year getting ready for Wimbledon! Only clay court specialist went to those smaller tourneys when the stars were going to Boston, Canada, & DC! They didn't give Vilas much credit for playing Orange NJ! lol!

    ***...ESPN's tennis coverage has probably been part of the problem w/ the popularity of the sport. It's boring as all get-out. If they hand off a big chunk of it to another carrier that has to do a little more homework to deliver a decent product, we might just see a little more variety on the tube. Maybe not, but I'm looking forward to something.
    ---

    it will all be on Tennis Channel in the next 5 years. Maybe some slam finals on network. Thats where its heading. When I want to watch a match, I auto. turn to TCC. I'm surprised when it's not there, then go looking at ESPN. Every major sport is going to have its own channel soon. Some will have X channels. ESPN will be reduced to talk shows.***

    It's getting harder and harder to watch ESPN; new personalities taking over, changes to existing shows like "First Take," and their concentration on hawking 2 sports over all else; football & b-ball! Even though they show baseball, it's not really that much a topic of conversation except when in controversy like using PED's & conflicts dealing w/ contracts! I never missed "First Take (nee Cold Pizza/1st & Ten), but it's gotten so obnoxious w/ that old geezer Skip Baseless & loudmouth Stephen A. Smith, it's just totally unwatchable! The guests aren't even sports' personalities & athletes, trying t/b cool with actors and rappers hawking their latest projects! At one X, I even taped it to watch later and now I don't even surf by! Sportscenter's not worth watching either; rather just check results online! Anybody else have an opinion on this sorry network?

    ***In defense of their baseball coverage, how can you compete w/ the MLB channel? That's all they do and they have great guys doing it.***

    Baeball fell off my viewing map after Barry Bonds retired! It's all about $$ & IMO how embarrassing it is to see those empty stands! Salaries are going sky high, but IDK anyone that watches or cares; that's the real joke, regardless if they have their own network or not!

    ***Baseball draws > than it ever has. When you play 162 games + playoffs there are going to be empty seats. lol. If it ever interests you go look at attendance figures in baseball over the yrs. It's actually super interesting. In the 40s, 50s, & 60s when baseball was supposedly the most popular sport they drew terribly compared to today. Teams were lucky to get a 6 or 7 100 thousand in a yr. Now adays even the worst teams draw well over a million. - But you also have to figure there were a lot < people then too.***

    ReplyDelete
  86. ***In the last Gen. Election, wasn't Karl Rove ready to take Ohio? He planned to, but it went wrong.***

    That was absolutely hilarious w/ reports calling Rove's behavior "freaking out!" He looked like a dithering idiot trying to rationalize all his BS from beforehand! It was bent logic and I'm surprised they allowed him back on TV he looked so bad that night on Megan Kelly's show! It was over while Rove was still scratching out figures on his white grease-board! It was hard to not laugh at him!

    ***Is “The System” Really Rigged? - Reps figured they had Ohio rigged...***

    OH & FLA; LOST THEM BOTH! As X went on Obama's count went up long after the election was over which couldn't have made these shady people happy; hence their all out assault on the voting process to make it as difficult as possible!

    ***Reps like Rove work behind the scenes to favor the Party like Diebold voting machines, disqualifying 1000s of Dem. votes FLA Election 2000... Tom DeLay hiring actors in Chgo for an all expense paid trip to FLA to rush the Miami Herald recount office posed as "angry locals" that I watched happen on TV here... there were no "angry locals"... They have worked for decades stacking the Supreme Court in Rep. favor just as they are doing today. - Jeb, Kathryn Harris & Co. disqualified 1000s of voters who happened to have the same last name as a convicted felon.***

    They'll never acknowledge their treachery; too busy playing the victim!

    ***The Cons. wing of the rigged US Supreme Court had no business meddling w/ election results in 2000... Scalia said "Get over it!"...***

    Hypocrites s/b on the RNC seal b/c of their constant kvetchin' about "activist judges!" What was more activist than the SC interfering in that election? It changed the course of history & maybe enabled 911, 2 wars started causing 10's of 1000's of deaths, the deaths & misery concerning Katrina, & any other # of calamities that occurred during the Bush 43 admin.!

    ***The word in DC after Election 2000 is that Congress was discouraged from even discussing it.***

    I had lost respect for the SC yrs before when they thought it was perfectly acceptable for the President t/b sued while in office! They didn't think it would cause any disruption during the Clinton admin.; we all knew differently, but those nimrods didn't! They should have known Reps made a scandal out of whole cloth; something like a lawsuit would make them salivate so I lost any respect I could have had for them! They'll be like the Jews wandering the desert for 40 yrs to cleanse themselves before I give them a break, but by then I'll be long since dead Gawd willing!

    ***BALANCE THE BUDGET!! That's a 1st step. But in order to do even that much you have to either increase revenues (i.e., taxes) or you have to decrease spending; or some combination of the 2.***

    Regardless of all that, I think it's important to deal w/ deteriorating infrastructure; roads, bridges, and most of all electric grids! They are ancient and these nitwits in DC don't seem to care until they collapse or fail! How many have to die for these clowns to do their jobs? This isn't being fiscally responsible; more like irresponsible! I still remember Obama giving a speech in Ohio in Boehner's old district w/ a bridge in the backdrop that was obviously teetering and couldn't support trucks! Hard to believe they probably still haven't done anything about it! We're talking about 1000's of bridges in OH alone that need work and it does little good to keep putting off needed repairs!

    ***And that's going to call for some serious increases in spending. BTW, I'm not saying that this isn't something that has t/b done; just that it'll cost $$. And serious $$ at that.***

    Dems call it "investing" in the country's future while Reps call necessities like this "pork!" Idiots indeed! They don't mind living in the dark; been doing it for yrs!

    ReplyDelete
  87. ***...I don't think at the Slams in BO5 anyone's ready to take Novak out at the moment.***

    Funny how the situation has turned; before it was believed Nole couldn't beat Rafa in BO5! It's hilarious now!

    ***It's funny how the situation has turned, alright! I mean, back then when Nole couldn't beat Rafa in BO5, you were a Federer fan!***

    ...and your point is? I'm no shill for Nole, but right now "he's the man" and it only taints Roger's legacy the longer he hangs on embarrassing himself!

    ***How is Roger embarrassing himself? Just b/c he's not winning Slams? He's still 1 of the 2 or 3 best players out there.***

    When does he start hitting "McEnroe & Connors" territory allowing himself to be abused by the rank and file? Roger hasn't won a major since Wimbledon '12; that's 4 yrs & there wasn't much to brag about before that going another 2 years w/o a major title! I love the way he plays, probably doing the best he can, but it hasn't been close going up vs Nole! He has to hope the #1 is either upset or injured to even get a sniff IMO! Like I mentioned earlier, right now it appears he's stunted the growth of the next gen/; just good enough t/b a real annoyance!

    ***Fiero, you imply that winning majors' what tennis is about. I see it more as the pinnacle of the sport, something akin to the dessert, but there's still a whole meal, still a lot of other things going on. Winning majors is like winning the World Series (or Superbowl, World Cup, etc). It's the pinnacle, but the game is still worth playing even if you're not going to win it. I have no doubt that Roger really wants to win another Slam, but I also have no doubt that he enjoys the sport.

    That said, I don't think he'd play for long if he left the top 10. Maybe a year? Probably we'd see a year or 2 in the top 5-10 range, then 1 more partial yr in the top 10-20 range. And if he felt like he simply had no chance at winning a major, that m/b the X he'd hang up his racket. But we're not there yet.***

    By the end of a career, it is all about the majors! That's why Sampras felt fortunate to have his biggest pigeon at the USO in '02 to go out on top as it were! Borg left early! Laver only hung on to acquire a WCT Final Chp, but his last chance was in '75 where Borg took him out in 5! When you're at the top, IMO it can only taint a legend's reputation and legacy if they continue to stay on tour just earning $$$; sorta like Connors who when almost 8-9 years just being a punchline on the tour! He wasn't even able to win small tourneys those last few years going out in finals to players not ranked in the top 50; sorta like Rafa for a while!

    ***...I really have no problem w/ Roger playing out his remaining years in any way he so desires. I'd love to see him play on for 5+ yrs, even if it's only 1/2 dozen tourneys a yr; even if he's ranked outside of the top 100. I don't foresee it, but I'll cherish any Roger we can get. My own prediction is that '16 is the last yr he's in the top 5, but that he'll play at least through '17 and prob. '18. He'll be in the latter 1/2 of the top 10 and maybe slip out on occasion, playing a few less tourneys to preserve his body, but still remaining a dangerous player. He'll slip out of the top 10 for good either in late '18 (at age 37) or someX in '19. I'd guess he'd play a limited sched. through '19 & retire after Basel. ...But again, if he wants to stick around until past his 40th BD & just play a few tourneys, I'd be happy to see it. He's already written himself into the history books of 1 of the GOATs and can't tarnish that record.***

    ReplyDelete
  88. ***Political Cartoons: Pics Tell A Story

    Add the latest advert. on a big sign when entering NC:

    "YOU ARE NOW ENTERING NC. DUE TO LEGIS. CONCERNING THE LGBT COMMUNITY, SET YOUR CLOCKS BACK 100 YRS."

    - http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article71289877.html -

    Billboard near N.C. border suggests visitors ‘set your clock back 100 years’

    Opps of N’s new LGBT law sponsor satiric billboard - Sign placed near SC border to show support for LGBT community, sponsors say***
    ---

    Officials: 3 t/b charged in Flint water crisis

    - http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/officials-3-to-be-charged-in-flint-water-crisis/ar-BBs07FA?ocid=ansmsnnews11 -

    "Michigan's AG will announce criminal charges Wed. vs 2 state regulators and a Flint employee, alleging wrongdoing related to the city's lead-tainted water crisis, according to gov't officials familiar w/ the investigation. The charges — the 1st levied in a probe that's expected to broaden — will be filed against a pair of state Dept. of Environmental Quality officials and a local water treatment plant supervisor, 2 officials told The Asso. Press late Tues. They spoke on the condition of anonymity b/c they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

    The felony and misdemeanor charges include violating Michigan's drinking water law, official misconduct, destruction of utility property & evidence tampering, according to 1 official. For nearly 18 months after Flint's water source was switched while the city was under state financial management, residents drank and bathed w/ improperly treated water that coursed through aging pipes and fixtures, releasing toxic lead. Rep. Gov. Rick Snyder announced in Oct. that the city would return from the Flint River to its earlier source of treated water, the Detroit municipal system. But by that X, dangerously high levels of the toxic metal had been detected in the blood of some residents, including children, for whom it can cause lower IQs and behavioral problems. The city has been under a state of emergency for more than 4 months, and people there are using filters and bottled water.

    ...A supervisor at Flint's water plant, Mike Glasgow, testified at a legis. hearing that Prysby told him phosphate was not needed to prevent lead corrosion from pipes until after a year of testing. Susan Hedman, the director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chicago-based Midwest office, also resigned."

    Hard to have sympathy for these fools who re-elected this jackass last year, now they want to recall him! Real morons! It's not like they didn't know how pathetic and bad the man is! He promised to drink this filtered water of Flint for 30 days; "yeah right!" How do you make decisions & gamble w/ something as basic as WATER? He should join these miscreants in being prosecuted!

    ***Did just 3 people cause this, or are they the fall guys; the scapegoats?***

    The AG of MI and Federal authorities promised more indictments! These 3 were already proved to have tried to mislead officials which is why they were "got" 1st! There was documentation where they altered reports to try and hide the level of contamination! They need t/b put "under a prison!" Like they would have their kids under the same umbrella; I think NOT!

    ***China would have those politicians responsible executed if it happened over there.***

    Executions are too good for these animals! They need t/b punished along w/ wrecking their families and their names ruined for a gen. or 2 like serials killers! - Looks as if some here don't care that babies and seniors were being poisoned & at the same X officials telling them the water was fine! I wouldn't be making excuses for elected or hired officials who would allow something like this to go on for months & yrs! Those children are perm. damaged and Snyder doesn't seem to give 1 jot!

    ReplyDelete
  89. ***Hillary Clinton’s Grand Canyon of Deep Distrust - How her cynical attacks on Sanders have left a sour taste in the mouths of Dems***

    Nauseating! I can't even read this BS! Been listening & reading about the detractors of Hillary Clinton since she was 1st Lady back in Ark.! If they have nothing legit; which is usually the case, they have to make up shit! It's so pathetic that "the white noise" that comes out of FNC and those loudmouths on cons. radio's overlooked and ignored b/c they've been at it for so fk'n long! No one cares about what they say about emails, Benghazi, her speeches to Wall Street, or anything else they say which has been so "overplayed!" I feel sorry for the suckers who get a high listening to that crap day in and day out! It's really just to make themselves feel better about themselves! If it was more effective, her husband wouldn't have served 2 terms as President, she wouldn't have been able to run and win a Senate seat in NY in 2000 & '06, or t/b on the cusp of being the 1st woman President! MUST REALLY make you animals sick? GOOD; choke on it!

    ***...Ok. So where's the stand down order concerning Benghazi? Where's the order to not fight back? You got a source for that?***

    These idiots are so desperate after all this X; you can't argue w/ them! Sev. Rep. committees have issued their findings, an 11 hr hearing w/ Clinton taking on all their stupid ??'s went over like lead dropped in a pool, and they still got nothing! ...It's so sad that after all this demonization, she'll still win since their stalworths are sick in the head and can't decide what side of every issue there is out there! They're more concerned w/ where people go "to the can" than actually solving real problems!

    ***...Women that fear men trying to control them have their own control issues. There isn't a man alive that can control me, nor a woman. You have to be secure in yourself and know that in your determination t/b your own person, you will always come out on top! Confidence is a very important quality to have to feel secure in yourself.

    As to the men here I don't have t/b a feminist to stand up for women's right; I only have to be a woman. ...Is there a man here that would not be worried if they saw another man follow their wife & daughter into a restroom?***

    I keep asking the same ??, but can't seem to get a good answer; "why do women hate other women?" They have more of them to vote, but they seem to select crotchety old geezers like Sen. Sanders over a much more qualified Hillary! The Senate & House have record lows since Bill was in office; again, women have t/b the cause IMO! They have the power, kvetch about how rotten things are running w/ OBSTRUCTION; even in legis. to help them like Planned Parenthood!

    ***I can only speak from my own experience Fiero, but I hate liars & Hillary Clinton is a proved liar. Then so is Trump, but not as blatant as Clinton. As for Cruz & Sander's, they're just great talkers like cult leaders that can get followers to jump off a cliff for them. I've never in my life seen more losers in a Presidential race that are more unbecoming to America than this one.***

    So you're going t/b one of those people to cut off your nose to spite your face? Gotcha! I guess I have to keep on asking! Women seem to have to fabricate reasons why they screw each other over! No Rep. running can say they're 100% honest; esp. that lying sack of shit Trump! Every thing that comes out of his mouth is a fk'n lie, so it doesn't bother you if a man LIES? Again, gotcha; that makes so much sense!

    ReplyDelete
  90. ***Gun violence rampant in Chicago***

    Have lived in Chgo off and on for decades! This is so overblown; true enough it c/b bad, but obviously it's contained! You don't hear about visitors getting gunned down in the streets! This high level of gun violence is centered in bad neighborhoods on the South & West sides of town! No city is immune to this sort of crime, but due to the rotten mayor who's pulled his cops out of those areas, gangs run rampant! He won't be reelected and probably won't even run, thank GAWD! I have no fear about walking around my neighborhood and if FNC and loud mouths in cons. radio would stop trying to demonize to tar and feather Obama w/ this phenomenon, no one would know or care about it! Get over yourselves!

    ***I hear there's a 2 for the price of 1 sale on Obama knee pads.***

    I don't even care for the guy, but I'd rather have Obama than any other scumbag Rep! Everything that's turned around under him w/b in jeopardy from those assholes! People like you forget how bad things were just 7 short yrs ago! The economy had cratered w/ the DOW around 6600, unemploy. over 10% & losing jobs 600-800 1000 a month, 2 wars raging, and hopelessness all around! W/ the Reps in charge, totally dragging their feet in opp., this man still turned the country around; thank GAWD! ...You see how these idiots can't be trusted even w/ WATER; MI's Gov. Snyder poisoned his own constituents w/ LEAD and is taking NO responsibility in what he did! Florida's Scott cut education funds by over a billion $$ to fund his corporate tax cuts when less than 1/2 of their students graduate from HS! That's 1 way to keep them dumb & uninformed I guess! I could go on, but you guys know this already! You just don't give a shit so why bother trying to educate you?

    ***How soon you forget that we had a much healthier economy for much of Bush's tenure than Obama's.

    How soon you forget that the Dow hit a new all X high when Bush was president.

    How soon you forget that many of your fellow Dems (including Hellary) voted for those wars too.

    How soon you forget that gas prices were only $1.78 a gallon when Bush left office and were well over $2.50 for most of Obama's term.

    How soon you forget that Obamacare is a disaster & that millions who thought they were getting 'free' subsidies now have to pay it back.***

    Whatever Chico; another victim I can put on ignore! Gawd save us from these pathetic losers! Never happy and will always try to find fault! If gas was over $4 under Bush, you would talk about how good the tax collection w/b for the city, state, & Fed! The level of delusion is high in your household trying to blame Bush's deficit spending on Obama as well! Anything that happened detrimental to this country occurred b/c of "W!" He just about destroyed this country w/ his incompetence & greedy ass administrators like Cheney & the corruption of Halliburton! Grow the fk up & try t/b impartial instead of being a dick!

    ***I really believe someone should have had to pay for the lack of security and the "stand down" orders and, as far as I know, there's been no penalty or job-loss for anyone. There chb a dozen panels on Benghazi, but that doesn't mean the right ??'s have been asked. ...***

    You people need to get a life and move on! After all the investigations of the Kennedy assassination, you still got nothing! There was no stand down order; Hell it wasn't even the embassy you fk'n idiots! It was the CIA HQ & for your info it isn't permissible to just storm into another country w/ troops & air cover j/b we want! Get a grip! Everyone knows if Hillary's allowed to even breath air you won't be happy! It's pathetic the loathing you have for her; esp. when she's done nothing to warrant it! Why not HATE on W for fk'n up the country and starting 2 wars on a lie? Still waiting to see those weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION! Hypocrites!

    ReplyDelete
  91. ***Do you think Sam really didn't know who Boy George was or did he just mean who's he to critique the designs on "PRA-S?"***

    Comedians have made mention that today's kids aren't aware of history unless it happened since they've been sentient! On FNC, they'll show '20 somethings' pics of Carter, Reagan, and even our current VP Biden and they have no clue! I wouldn't say they're stupid, but they do limit themselves it seems! Pop culture is their obsession and it's gotta be Twittered, Snapshot, or FB'd for it to sink in and I think it's so sad! We need smarter innovative people to bequeath the world to and I'm just not sure about this current gen.!

    ***Coincidentally, someone just sent me this clip of 'politically challenged' college students. Sad indeed!***

    ...It's pathetic the loathing some have for Hillary; esp. when she's done nothing to warrant it! Why not HATE on W for fk'n up the country and starting 2 wars on a lie! Still waiting to see those weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION! Hypocrites!

    ***Charles Koch: 'Possible' Clinton c/b better than GOP nominee***

    What does that say about the Rep. candidates that the sugar daddy of the cons. movement is backing Hillary? That must kill them to do!

    ***What does that say when your fellow Democrat commies who were voting for Bernie will vote for Trump over Hillary?***

    Let those supporters of Sanders go fk themselves! Those losers probably aren't even registered to vote! Hillary can win w/o them the other side is so lame! They constantly beat her up about shit from years ago and it's still doing them no good! Screw 'em; even Congressional jerks playing politics w/ hearings and current investigations! Really, what does that say about the other side? Their guns are trained on her bog X and she's still leading the way! They s/b so embarrassed!

    ***She's a war pig who has already advocated more American boots on the ground. She swings on issues more than a bar room door....it all depends on the polls. As soon as the DNC crowns her she's going to swing right so fast your neck will crack.***

    W/ some of you guys, it's a no win situation! If she turned into a dove, you w/b kvetchin' about her being weak and allowing Putin to run over her! She can't satisfy all of you!

    ***Knowing Charles & David Koch's ideology, I'm guessing they support Cruz over Hillary. They believe in limited constitutional gov't. She doesn't.
    ---

    Is there ANYone here from ANY party or ideology that can explain to me why "4" U.S. citizens dying in Benghazi after Ambassador Stevens twice declined security enhancement to a small U.S. outpost in Africa during a Dem. admin.'s a multi-page story, but orders of magnitude more, ~3K die in downtown Manhattan, some of the most valuable real estate on Earth in the Twin Towers during a Rep. admin. and not even a peep about it?***

    Not even a fig leaf? 8 HOURS and still nothing! The hypocrisy is palpable! There in lies my frustration w/ people like this! Something small makes their heads explode, but if Hillary or Obama aren't wearing a flag pin, stop the presses! People actually died in Katrina while "W" winged his way to AZ to help celebrate McCain's BD; NOTHING! The only good thing that really came out of Bush's withering incompetence was his use of gay marriage as a wedge issue in the '04 election cycle! B/c of him, Rove, and all the homophobes, it's now standard law confirmed by a Scalia court! Talk about something backfiring on bigots! "Thanks idiots; you brought the country into the 20 century!"

    ReplyDelete
  92. ***Trump Uni. Lawsuit Can Go Forward; No Summary Judgement

    - http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-university-lawsuit-forward-summary/2016/04/26/id/725904/ -

    A trial alleging fraud vs Trump University is expected after a state judge declined to give a summary judgement on Tues., Politico reports. NY State AG Eric Schneiderman's office had sought the judgment from Judge Cynthia Kern. Donald Trump's lawyer for the case, Jeffrey Goldman, said he was happy w/ the ruling.

    "I think we will get a fair trial before a jury," he told reporters. "Why would the AG, who's actually representing the constituents of the state of New York, fear the state of constituents of NY determining whether or not he's right?" Goldman said a trial most likely w/b held in the fall of 2017.

    Trump is the front-runner for the Rep. presidential nomination, and when a reporter asked Goldman if he would like to go to trial during the campaign, he replied, "Preferably not."

    Several former students have filed a separate class action case vs Trump Uni., saying the series of seminars took their $$, sometimes in the tens of thousands of dollars, but did not deliver Trump's real estate secrets from hand-picked experts as he promised in a promotional video.

    Trump insists most students were happy w/ Trump Uni. and says it received an "A" rating from the BB Bureau. The BBB counters that Trump Uni. at one point had a "D-minus" rating, but currently has no rating b/c it is not accepting students.***

    Hilarious that FNC & cons. commentators on radio & TV all were talking about Hillary getting indicted! Guess who's likely t/b in court before the election this fall? THE TRUMPster!

    ***I've found occasional mention about how Secretary Clinton teeters on indictment about Benghazi, or some other perceived evil. Interesting how those same drum-pounders fall silent about this.
    ---

    Trump nears nomination - ...This is delusional. Trump, in fact, is on a roll. A few weeks ago, his campaign was said to be losing speed. He had peaked. Even when he won, his margins of victory were shrinking. And he couldn't get to 50%.***

    I'll never underestimate the stupidity, naivete, & outright vindictiveness of the "rightwing" ever again! They truly would cut off their noses to spite their faces! In this case, they would as well see the country go under w/ this nitwit b/c they feel betrayed by the establishment! It's true, Reps lied and made promises they couldn't keep, but at least we're still afloat; barely, but in better shape than other countries believe it or not! I guess they just assume allow it to totally crash and go back to soup lines; IDIOTS!

    ***Yeah, that is the great irony of Trump supporters. Who say they are the "Will of the People?" Yet fail to realize when the day is said and done, they are merely a big minority. 44 million have voted this year and only 22% of them for Trump. There's no stemming the arse whooping Trump will get in the General. It's going to be UGLY. That's probably why Trump is trying to talk Sanders into an independent run. Trump and his new est. handlers know they have to pull off something desperate to even stand a chance in the GE.***

    When Trump and his people see the polls close to election, "scorched Earth" will have a new meaning! This man won't be able to take the humiliation and we m/b in trouble! He will be merciless in undermining the country w/ impunity since he has options to just move away; maybe to Dubai! lol! - If Cruz is bad, what does that say about the sanity of Kasich? He's won his home state and nothing else; some commentators joking about him polling 4th in a 3 man race! He's obviously buoyed by some odd polls that say he does the best against Hillary, but it's not translating in the primaries! HE should save his X & $$$ and go back to OHIO to run that state into the ground!

    ReplyDelete
  93. ***...Courier was 1 of those boys who was mentally maxing out in winning the big titles he won & in getting to #1; grueling game he had. Then Pete rose above him & he sort of gave in. Kafelnikov & Rafter are 2 who came later and who might have been great, but in Kafel's case I think the old Russian mentality of chasing $$ worked against him. The bloke played a ridiculous amount of meaningless tourneys & arrived @ slams wasted & burnt out. He might have won more than 2 otherwise, IMO.***

    That was the problem w/ some players; esp. Davydenko! Being a $$ HO only hurts up & coming players! He looked older than me during his prime & I was twice his age! Courier definitely worked harder than nec. to win matches; on par w/ Agassi & Nadal! ...Chang I couldn't put in this category since he had no real weapon! He got the most out of his game as well; probably overachieved, but no way near the talent & ability of these other great players! He was a poor man's Wilander who just dug deep to outlast his opps; that isn't going to do it for you then or now!

    ***Until the USA gets a top 3 ranked man, ESPN will continue to drop tennis b/c USA non-tennis players won't give a shit to watch.***

    I guess that makes sense! I still remember when they experimented w/ a Monday night final at IW b/c Sampras & Agassi were dueling for #1! I think it mhb in '95 after Agassi had won AO and cut his hair off! BTW, Pete was "zoning" and destroyed Andre in str. sets when it was still B05!

    ***...Djokovic has made the absolute best of the current level of the ATP and elevated his game at the right X. I'm a Nadal fan and will never forget the '11 season. Djokovic took it to Nadal who was coming off of 1 of the best years of his career, 2010.... I also will never forget '12 & '13 where Nadal turned the tables on Djoko. Regardless, let's give credit where credit is due.***

    Bless you for being more rational than most! Djokovic had 2 true rivals over this era where he's just gone in front in H2H unlike this fake rivalry of Nadal & Federer when there's still a huge imbalance! Fedal love is still rampant & quite delusional IMO! Roger has to hope for injury, defeats, or zoning to even come close to winning an event when they're in the draw!

    ***I understand your pt., however, IMO, regardless of the H2H #'s, the Nadal-Federer rivalry will go down as 1 of the best and most breathtaking to watch... You can't deny that '06 thru '10, Nadal v Federer matches were the most anticipated and lived to the hype 95% of the X.***

    People are still in anticipation of them, but they can't happen since 1 or both are on their last legs! - IMO, anyone who thought Nadal was the GOAT had t/b a bit delusional; esp. McEnroe & Wilander who have both retracted that asinine thought! Nadal has so many things going vs him in that respect; the worst being the man has yet to defend a title off his beloved clay! That's so strange; even for the weakest champion in history! It's obvious, his claim to fame now and in the future is being a dirt-devil and nothing else even w/ his CGS! He owned Roger; but that's more on Federer and proves how weak he's in the grand scheme of tennis legend when he owns the true GOAT, but is still behind in so many ways!

    ***Actually that just proves that Federer's in fact NOT the GOAT at all either. Otherwise I agree on Nadal, more or less. - For the record, I don't have any "excuses" planned for Djok, b/c I have no expectation that he'll overtake Fed as GOAT.
    ---

    Well when Djokovic hits 16-19 slams, 300+ wks @ #1, many more Masters titles than Federer (he already has more), 7+ WTF titles, you will need to scramble for your excuse then...***

    ReplyDelete
  94. ***Sampras should never be losing to players like Yzaga in a fast court slam in his prime. Kucera and a then very raw Phillippoussis are pretty bad losses too in a HC slam at the X he was ranked #1. I dont think those defeats s/b put down to "depth." Federer fans don't say his losing to a way past his prime Kuerten in the 3rd round of RG is a sign of the deep clay field or that Federer losing to Shaknovsky in the 2nd Rd of Wimbledon '13 shows the great depth.***

    We've been spoiled by the excellence of Nole, Roger, & Rafa; any loss is overanalyzed! Upsets in the past were quite common; mainly due to the serve being so dominant! If someone had a break, the set was done on grass or other fast courts! W/ today's homogenized offerings, holding serve isn't guaranteed & you see breaks often; even w/ Nole & Rafa! Nadal has had MP's vs players on clay & HC; that's more telling about him than anything!

    ***The ranking system back than was really far from perfect. In today's tennis, a player w/ Guillermo's results from '77 w/b the #1.
    ---

    ...Borg would not take a single set out of Djokovic. Go and check You Tube. They used to play in slow motion.***

    ...and a lot more worthwhile watching!

    ***Sure, if you want to sleep quickly.***

    IMO, the worst is dealing w/ today's tennis; mindless aggression, points that never end, incessant toweling off, and relentlessly challenging calls that a blind person knows is right! I'll take past eras w/ Goolagong, Borg, Navratilova, & Sampras anytime!

    ***It's amazing how Roger's so brutally honest which is in contrast to some of his fan's views.

    - http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/04/federer-djokovic-could-be-favorite-french-nadal-nadal/58215/#.Vx_JETEUXIV -

    Roger had always spoken very respectfully of Rafa and so, this is nothing new. Further, Roger always had some reluctance in showing recognition to Novak and so this is nothing new either. Further, he is giving this interview in Spain to Marca and so there w/b a tendency to give them what they want to hear also, not that he's being dishonest.***

    What's Roger supposed to say and do? It would sound like sour grapes if he wasn't contrite since Rafa's owned him since the beginning! Only Nole has been able to stall his success; 7 in a row sev. yrs ago and nowadays, he's not even dropping sets to the old clay courter! Did you see how he was abused & humiliated in Qatar? I can watch that shellacking over and over again!

    ***Novak will go down as the greatest HC player of all X when his career is done. He beat Federer on HC when he was 20 & Federer was in his prime. The only player you can make a case for being better is Sampras, but I think Novak would also win that H2H.***

    All they need to do is go check the recordbooks! I scan them all the X and Nole's moving up or has already passed many greats from then and now! Winning AO 6 X's obviously helps!

    ***Yeah, which is why Federer's last win over Djokovic @ the USO is in '09 when he was 28. - I think if Nole wins USO & WTF this year, that will seal the deal.***

    Roger will never be able to get past losing those 2 USO semi's w/ MP's on his own racket! It happened in cons. yrs of '10 & '11! No wonder he lauds Rafa over Nole after all this X! Nadal's owned him, so it would sound like sour grapes if he doesn't keep up that facade of mutual respect!

    ***Was it really bad for him to lose those? He was never beating Nadal in the '10 final & at least now he can say Nadal never beat him at the USO. The '11 final is closer to a toss up, but if he loses that, Nadal would gain a slam he ultimately lost to Djokovic, and be closer to him in the race today. Also Nadal could well have won the '12 AO final too if Djokovic didnt end '11 w/ 3 slams and increasing his mental edge over Nadal further.***

    ReplyDelete
  95. ***Trump is ridiculed immensely here in Aus, but I'm starting to get more concerned by Cruz. B/c Trump is such a nutjob, it makes Cruz looks like the better choice, but Cruz may well be worse from what i'm reading.
    ---

    Cruz is better than either Trump or Hillary mate. I don't agree w/ him, he's extremely right-winged, but he doesn't incite hate every day and is not under FBI investigation.
    ---

    You must not be from Ohio. Kasich is a nightmare. He's renowned as a grumpy, mean spirited jerk. He has wrecked Toledo's water siitution, trashed Ohio's schools and is completely beholden to corp. interests. To his credit the acting job he's done on the Nat'l stage to portray "nice sensible guy" has been impressive. But yah, completely a performance.
    ---

    Kasich can't even win OHIO for God-sake - even Cruz will at least win his home state.

    - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/23/trump-kasich-ohio-poll/80792322/ -

    Kasich's strategy is very plainly to position himself as the presumptive VP selection.
    ---

    Mate, you seem a little confused.***

    Well, he did lose his cons. bona fides when he accepted Obamacare (Medicare) funds! "Naughty, naughty Gov'nor!"

    ***That's fine w/ me. The reason that these welfare programs should anger Reps is b/c they're economically unsustainable. All John Kasich did is support 1 of the sev. entitlement programs, Medicaid, & reduce its growth rate from 10% to just 2.5%.
    ---

    Reagan whb considered a centrist in today's GOP, Kasich's a steadfast Cons. from those standards.***

    This is what upsets me the most by Rep. hypocrites who invoke Reagan's name at the drop of a hat when trying to elevate their party! He could never win ANYTHING w/ their extreme belief in "just stopping" anything from getting done! He did something forbidden in today's cons. movement; "compromised!"

    ***Nah. The moderates tend to be extremely pleasant * intelligent in general. It's the extreme right-wing bible thumpers that either look towards the most racist or bombastic candidate b/c they don't understand policy.***

    The problem is those moderates you speak of have been either run out of office, Primaried, or made impotent by 30-40 Tea-Baggers! Anyone who has the nerve to even speak pleasantly about a conversation they have w/ a Dem is instantly worthy of punishment by calling them "the status quo, not listening to their constituency, or worse yet heard from Cruz to Senate Majority leader McConnell; A LIAR!" You're a hero to the cause if you act like Cruz; shut down the gov't, filibuster any spending, & talk disparaging about the President! And now he thinks he's statesman enough to run for the highest office in the land!

    ***Cruz, Clinton, Trump, Sanders. All equally crappy candidates. Vote Gary Johnson and end the 2 party strangle-hold on the USA. It's worth it just for that alone.***

    If only it were that simple! We saw how Congress treated 1 of their own in Obama; even the Dems weren't as united as you would think! Repucklicans tried to stop Gov't in its tracks, trash the economy, and threaten our credit rating in their disgusting plans of obstruction! What would a Socialist in Sanders or Independent in Johnson get out of them in the way of cooperation?

    ***I don't think Sanders would get much of anything from Dems or Repubs. I do, however believe Johnson w/b able to get a lot from both. Have you ever taken a look at him, what he stands for, and what he wants to accomplish? There really isn't much I've seen that w/b a determent to any 1 party or to we the people as a whole. I believe he's the ONLY one that would get bipartisan support from Congress!***

    The best man means nothing; still all about being a part of the 2 big parties; now 1 big & the 2nd on life-support!

    ReplyDelete
  96. ***Trump is just a guarantee that Hillary wins. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.***

    At least by you doing that, it won't be a Nader moment in X sabotaging Gore! "Thanks Ralph; I put 'W,' 2 wars, Katrina, 100's of 1000's of deaths, & most of all "911" all on you!"

    ***Johnson has as much a chance to win as Kasich...a vote for him is a vote for Hillary.***

    ...Reps tried to stop Gov't in its tracks, trash the economy, & threaten our credit rating in their disgusting plans of obstruction!

    ***Almost since the day Obama took office, I've been hearing that R's have obstructed his and the Dem's agenda continuously. Just how did they do that during all the X's they didn't have any majority voting power in those 8 years?***

    Still in denial! You forgot the "record" # of filibusters; everything needing 60 votes to even make the floor for a vote! I can still see Cruz reading "Green Eggs & Ham" on the Senate floor when he knew his tactic trying to stop Obamacare was futile! This is unprecedented behavior IMO! Reps. wound up costing the country $$billions$$ w/ their behavior & even w/ all their obstruction, Obama wound up having the most successful 2nd term!

    ***Obama's news conference: request more infrastructure investment - Thoughts?***

    IMO it only makes sense to invest in the infrastructure of the country! It's crumbling around our feet; roads, bridges, & the most important thing, the aged electric grids! Reps don't want to do it b/c it would only improve the standing of Obama; so they'd rather drag their feet until he's gone! If another bridge collapses, they will be held responsible IMO! It would illicit much needed high paying jobs & the #'s w/b even better than they are; hovering around 5% unemploy't! Even w/ all their obstruction, the economy still "came back" & these petty assholes can't stand it! How can they justify a change when the White House is the only entity actually doing something while Congress is in freefall concerning their rating in the eyes of the people?

    ***Yes Fiero. Just as you say, ours is crumbling. Dangerously toxic levels of lead in municipal drinking water is but the tip of the iceberg. BUT...

    You are correct in citing our comm. power infrastructure. Comments?:

    - much of this commercial electric power infrastructure was designed for a 40 yr life.
    - Some of that infrastructure, not just powerplants, but substations, major grid distribution pts have already exceeded that 40 yrs.

    Some might think the obvious thing to do w/b to replace it with a 3rd Millennium upgrade.

    We m/b approaching the cusp of a decentralized power system. Instead of the inefficiencies of a Nat'l Grid, power destinations could instead generate their own power on site.

    Several advantages:
    - the current system is energy inefficient. Power's lost both in transmission (so called "high tension power lines") and in transformers.

    - We could eliminate much of that inefficiency if the power used only had to travel 100's of inches, instead of 100's of miles.

    - It would help insulate us terrorist attacks. A well placed truck bomb that takes out a substation could cause commercial power failure to 100's of 1000's, if not millions of commercial power consumers. There was such a cascade failure up near the Canadian border w/i the past decade or so.

    - The resulting energy independence could give home owners and local businesses more economic and energy autonomy; even enabling them to supply neighbors, for mutual benefit.

    That will mean some diversity, i.e., both solar for when the sun shines & wind turbines for when the sun does not. It will also benefit from electric energy storage tech; although great progress has already been made.

    But bridges, roadways, & municipal water supplies? It appears that's going to remain a standard venue of conventional maintenance and upgrade for the foreseeable future.***

    ReplyDelete
  97. ***Obama’s Pentagon Sends Shock Letter to Gowdy … Benghazi Families in Disbelief - “The department has spent millions of dollars on Benghazi-specific congressional compliance, including reviews by four other committees, which have diligently reviewed the military’s response in particular,” read the letter from Stephen Hedger, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, to South Caroline GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, head of the Benghazi committee. ...***

    Reps don't want to talk about all the deaths that occurred during their admins; even if it's in the 1000's, but they'll drag these families around on a leash for 4! "Thanks hypocrites; this is why no one listens to your BS!" They've overplayed their hand on ever issue including Benghazi, Hillary's server * emails, and countless other misdirecting issues just to distract, distort, & make them seem more responsible! Unfortunately they aren't and the public has systematically tuned them out! Fk'n idiots!

    ***Those Billions Obama Gave Iran? Here's What They Funded ...***

    More idiots spouting info they have no idea what they're talking about! For one thing, those Iranian billions weren't here; most in other countries that had already decided to lift sanctions regardless of what we wanted them to do! Most of that $$$; at least half was already spent and destined to go to other places as payments for services and goods negotiated by Iranian leaders! Please have a clue before embarrassing yourselves! I would go on to explain how all this happened and worked, but unfortunately you're too busy trying to undermine Obama to know or care to learn so "fk off!"

    ***North Carolina Leaders Respond To DOJ Threat Over Transgender Bathroom Law - This new NC law says @*%$ local control by forbidding the cities and towns from enacting their own statutes protecting transgender people. And this isn't just an isolated instance.
    ---

    Reps favor whatever approach delivers the outcome they want. Federalism: when they collect more from Washington than they pay in, as w/ federal highway funds.
    ---

    The Supreme Court Decided against NC's Law 20 Years Ago - I know this is confusing to you....but use the one you feel comfortable in. That's not so hard; is it??
    ---

    Ray, if I feel comfortable going into the women's locker room even though the owner of the gym says I can't is that ok? Or should women m/b be allowed their privacy?***

    Typical; Reps creating a law looking for a problem that doesn't exist and now it's going to cost them $millions$; $billions$ if the Fed drops the hammer on them! Is it worth it geniuses?

    ***Fiero...actually it was Charlotte who created a law to create the problem which didn't exist. It said that business COULDN'T make this decision. The state law overrode that law.***

    I just have to agree w/ Sear and others that the hypocrisy is alive and well; only satisfied w/ local laws as long as it's in line w/ how they think nationally! These people are just amazing! Local cities & counties tried to make up their own protections, but the state decided to overrule them; as usual!

    ***All the Charlotte ordinance did was bring the city into line w/ Federal law (not to mention a couple of 100 other municipalities in the US). It was the state legislature that decided to cause a problem. It's already cost the state millions (and counting) and potentially billions depending on what the Feds actually do. Meanwhile the NCAA has told schools in the state that, if they obey HB2, they'll be in violation of Federal law which means they won't be eligible for NCAA membership.***

    ReplyDelete
  98. ***Laver: Djokovic is now Federer's equal - B/c we haven't discussed the GOAT thing enough***

    Other sites feel the same w/ every waning year of Roger just "holding on!" I think if he had retired after Wimbledon win, his stock w/b >, but by staying in there, he's tainting it more & more! He's making major finals, winning a Masters event here & there, but what has he really done but collect $$$ for the last several yrs? I'm sure we'll miss him, but unless someone upsets Nole and other top players, I just can't see him adding to that 17 count even though he's been close 3 or 4 X's!

    ***IDK, Fiero. I might agree that Roger is "tarnishing" his record if he wasn't in the top 5 or even top 10, but he's still the 2nd or 3rd best player on tour. Think Connors in the early to mid-80s. I think what you are saying applies to Lleyton Hewitt somewhat. Not that it tarnishes what he did accomplish in his prime, but that it is easier to remember his relative mediocrity of the last decade than it is his borderline brilliance of 2000-05. But I'm not going to knock Lleyton for never giving up and for playing for love of the game.***

    This just emphasizes how lame the comp. is; not that they don't have skills, but they don't seem t/b able to finish when it comes to upsets! MP's almost mean nothing as evidenced by Zereva letting Nadal off the hook a few wks ago! They also allow old X'rs to hang on who've done little but be consistent like Tsonga, Ferrer, & Berdych! How is this possible w/ the rackets & physicality of play today?

    ***ElDude & Front, both Laver & Fiero are correct. Going by Laver's carefully stated but no BS statement, not just does he seem very lucid to me as of now, but he appears to be answering a journo's ???. Laver is unambiguously referring to success and will you put good $$$ vs his prediction right now? Laver knows that he will appear senile, biased & bitter to even the tennis world if he said otherwise.
    ---

    Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, & Monfils m/b 2 or 3 steps below Fed, Ralf, & Nole, but they're better than the generation immediately after them. Did you ever consider that they mhb able to do more in any other era w/o the big 3 (+ Murray)?***

    Nope; not at all! There's something in their head which is holding them back no matter the era! Like most players of today, they just don't know how to finish!

    ***Could it be that what is holding them back is playing alongside 3 of the greatest players in tennis history?***

    It's not like this is anything new! I've been saying this for years of the "also-rans" of the last decade! They're very consistent, but their upsets of the elite c/b counted on 1 hand and it makes no sense b/c they have the skill, just not the mindset! It's embarrassing to see the same names all over the recordbooks; some going back 35+ years to Borg! That just shouldn't happen; s/b more diversity in results and players!

    ***Fiero, I think you're making too much of it, sort of a variation of "back in my day, when men were men, things were much better," etc. What you're upset about is just a characteristic of the era. This too shall pass. I also am ready for a new age in which the winner of every Slam and Masters isn't a foregone conclusion from only a small handful of players, but this period will end soon enough. Hang in there.***

    ReplyDelete
  99. ***I'm in a very good mood after Novak's win earlier in Madrid over Murray so I'm going to post 5 reasons why I like him so much.

    1- His amazing return of serve which is the best return of all X.
    2- His incredible dedication to the sport.
    3- His brilliant attitude on court and that fact he just never gives up a lost cause.
    4- The fact that he's always gracious in defeat and applauds a good shot played by an opp.

    5- The fact that he doesn't take himself too seriously & always has X for other people.
    ---

    Apart from simply being attracted to his game...- Always wanting to do better, being a very gracious loser, being an extrovert, managing to stay composed when majority wants him to fail and doing great work off the court (the foundation...).
    ---

    - Never stopped believing or working hard to become the best he could be.
    - Outgoing, friendly and approachable.
    - Victorious in the face of virtually impossible circumstances.
    - Always gracious in defeat and credits his opps, even if it's the toughest loss he has ever had.

    -King of the court, knows it and doesn't give a damn what anybody thinks about it.
    ---

    I think at this point it is becoming increasingly clear Djokovic would have to rank over Federer on clay if he wins the RG title this year. He w/b up in Masters titles 8 or 9 vs 6, but along w/ that he has a way better variety w/ 4 Rome, 2 Madrid, & 2 Monte Carlo titles, the 3 Masters avail. to him (considering his final Hamburg was just after turning 21). Federer has 4 Hamburg & 2 Madrid titles but 0 at MC and 0 at Rome, winning only 2 of the 4 avail. to him, while Djokovic has now won all 3 available to him multiple X's. He would be only 1 behind in RG finals (barring the very unlikely event Fed is somehow in the RG final this year), with 3 RG SF losses to Nadal (Federer has 1 of those) so basically the same thing. He now is ahead in clay titles.

    He has performed far better vs the hands down top clay courter of their era and clay GOAT Nadal. Actual clay H2H btw Fed & Djokovic is basically a toss up. There really wouldn't be much case for Federer t/b ahead, at least achievements wise. - Considering Fed's generally believed t/b the 10th best clay courter of the Open Era behind Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, Vilas, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, & Muster, it would probably push him just out of the Open Era top 10 on clay as well.
    ---

    Federer below Vilas, Bruguera, & Muster on clay...Honestly peak for peak only Borg/Nadal are clearly above and good arguments c/b made for Kuerten/Lendl and maybe '92 Courier as well obviously. Djokovic if (when) he wins RG is more accomplished on clay given his MS accomplishments which are very impressive, but given who had to face peak Nadal more, who had more success vs peak Nadal despite matchup difficulties, and their respective peak levels on clay and matchups well that makes things different.
    ---

    Fed was never as scary or intimidating to the field on clay as Muster was those 2 years, despite the huge upset at RG '96. I say that as someone who detests Muster immensely and is almost certain he used massive PEDs at his brief peak (granted as a former pro athlete I'm well aware PED usage is widespread so won't judge him too much for that, but he's far more obvious and blatant than most).

    I do rate Vilas & Muster that highly on clay based on their achievements though, which is what I rate most players on, not subjective views on level of play which are mostly just people being biased towards their own favorites anyway. Would Fed beat Vilas & Muster on clay prime to prime? IDK, but overall he achieved < than both, esp. Vilas. So he ranks behind. ...***

    ReplyDelete
  100. ***Does Federer consider it great? What's it 2-7 or 2-9 vs Nadal in major finals? Doesn't he have to win more to call it a great rivalry, ala how Murray said?***

    I've been saying for yrs, the Fedal so called rivalry has been a fraud for as long as I can remember! You have to win someX & Roger won few & far btw; even when meeting early in a tourney! Roger needed help; a fast court, Rafa having a tough match, or he was in the zone! It just got uglier & uglier as X went on & I hope they never meet again!

    ***You must remember that Federer's prime, where he won 16 of his 17 Slams, is '03-10, which actually is a pretty long prime period. In this period it's 0-4 on clay, 2-1 on grass, & 0-1 in AO; the AO match being a tight 5-setter. They never met at USO, but Fed won 5 in this period. No doubt Fed had problems w/ Nadal, but people tend to focus very much on his last 5-6 yrs, which are past his prime. Don't forget no player in history has ever finished YE #1 after turning 30. You have to judge Federer by his prime yrs; the same w/ Nole & Nadal. If Djokovic starts to decline now, but continues to play until he's 35, does it make his '11-16 period weaker? Of course not, but thats the logic mainly used by Fed-haters.***

    This only proves Nadal was vulnerable to other players, the X of the year, & the surface played! This has nothing to do w/ Roger's ability or lack thereof to tame his so called rival! Rafa was much better early on; esp. during the clay season & owned Roger on that surface beating him again & again in those FO finals! It even carried over in '08, Roger allowing the "clay king" to take him @ Wimbledon! Roger won those USO on a streak b/c Rafa was normally done by the summer; getting upset by obscure players, including a throttling by little known Del Po @ the X in '09! It took Nole taking Roger out in '10 for Rafa to finally acquire a USO of his very own! So I have no idea what your post proves except that Nadal's owned Roger like no other player; even Nole who's finally gone ahead in H2H on both of them!

    ***That's mitigated by a few things.

    1. Djokovic leads the H2H overall

    2. In slams, Djokovic is 3-3 at AO/US/Wimby & has a win at RG vs Rafa

    3. ND won 3 slams in a row vs. Rafa at 3 different slam venues. He has a run of seemingly peak to peak (or what s/b at least very good 25 yo Nadal). Fed has only beat Rafa @ 1 for comparison (Wimbledon)

    4. ND was clearly a diff. player before '11 where he had a loss @ Wimbledon & USO before facing Rafa in 2011/early '12 when both were in their mid 20's & uninjured. ...it's a different paradigm than the Fedal rivalry.

    5. You could argue it's hypocritical to count the Fedal H2H & not the Djokodal slam H2H, although if 1 applies the same mitigating factors to Fed that Fed fans often cite (age, surface, when the players met etc... the common criticisms); you're still left w/ the "close to peak" or at least prime 3 slam meetings in a row beatdown of Fed by Rafa on 08/09, whereas it's the opposite w/ ND over Rafa in 11/12.

    Ultimately, Rafa's a great big match player, & the fact that he leads Novak 9-4 in slams is very impressive no matter how you slice it. However, the domination factor even in slams only is quite a bit more muddied w/ ND than w/ Roger IMO, even if 1 fairly applies the commonly cited mitigating "skewed" factors.
    ---

    Djokovic vs Nadal 25-23 (Dj)
    All finals 14-10 (Dj)
    Masters 1000 matches 15-9 (Dj)
    Masters 1000 finals 7-5 (Dj)
    WTF matches 3-2 (Dj)

    If some Nadal fans want to throw around that inflated GS record due to them meeting 7 X's there and only 6 X's in the other 3 combined, then I guess we have to let them. It really is all they have left as far as H2H goes.***

    ReplyDelete