Wow, break for Thiem. He has looked really good yesterday and today so far. He might take Nadal to a fourth set.
Read a stat earlier in the week that only three players have won a Slam by beating two of the big three en route - and two of the three to have done it were big three themselves (Nadal and Djokovic). Del Potro (US Open ‘09, defeated Nadal in the semifinals and Federer in the final) is the only player outside the big three to do it.Early times, but if Thiem somehow dethrones the King of Clay after beating peak Djokovic in the semis, is that one of the great tennis feats ever?
Wawrinka beat Federer and Djokovic to win the 2015 French Open.Read a stat earlier in the week that only three players have won a Slam by beating two of the big three en route - and two of the three to have done it were big three themselves (Nadal and Djokovic). Del Potro (US Open ‘09, defeated Nadal in the semifinals and Federer in the final) is the only player outside the big three to do it.
Right you are. Either the stat was wrong or I misread/misremembered it or maybe it was specifically SF-F. Anyway, Thiem is not joining that group today.Wawrinka beat Federer and Djokovic to win the 2015 French Open.
The other 11, for fun. Combination of memory and Wiki, hopefully it’s right. It starts with Federer’s first Slam, 2003 Wimbledon.53 out of 64 Grand Slams for the big 3 now, including the last 10 in a row again, simply amazing.
So since Nadal won his first French in 2005, 5 players have won all but 2 Grand Slams, 55 of 57 (Del Potro and Cilic the only outliers).The other 11, for fun. Combination of memory and Wiki, hopefully it’s right. It starts with Federer’s first Slam, 2003 Wimbledon.
Roddick 2003 US
Gaudio 2004 French
Safin 2005 AO
Del Potro 2009 US
Murray 2012 US
Murray 2013 Wimbledon
Wawrinka 2014 AO
Cilic 2014 US
Wawrinka 2015 French
Murray 2016 Wimbledon
Wawrinka 2016 US
Edit: switched order of AO/US 2014 to make it chronological.
This to me is the more interesting discussion while we let their careers finish, has Novak passed Sampras and Laver and whoever else? IMO yes, these are the three greatest (male) players of all time.All three are elite, inner circle HOFers, and maybe the three greatest players of all-time.
Ha! Fair enough.The qualifier was there to try to avoid that discussion, not start it.
Also IMO Navratilova is still #1 over Serena (whose competition has been awful for a long time now) but I’ve made that argument here many times already.
For me, Martina gets the edge based on her ridiculous doubles career, 31 women's doubles Grand Slam titles, including at least 7 at all four majors (!!!) plus 10 mixed doubles titles including one at the US Open when she was a couple months short of 50 years old (!!!).Ha! Fair enough.
Martina over Graf? That's a pretty good question. Martina/Graf/Serena are all on the obvious short list for the women. But Martina and Graf didn't overlap a ton - some yes (9-9 head to head) but Martina is 12 1/2 years older than Graf. And neither was contemporary with Serena, so who knows. That's why these three on the men's side are so compelling. All in peak form when they've played each other.
Yep, that's a good argument. What do you think about the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic question? Yes, I understand that all three still have years to go.For me, Martina gets the edge based on her ridiculous doubles career, 31 women's doubles Grand Slam titles, including at least 7 at all four majors (!!!) plus 10 mixed doubles titles including one at the US Open when she was a couple months short of 50 years old (!!!).
I think it's Fed currently and hopefully will be Novak (I have always rooted for him over the other two, even when he seemed to be hopelessly stuck at #3 early in his career) by the time they're all done.Yep, that's a good argument. What do you think about the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic question? Yes, I understand that all three still have years to go.
Isn't part of the answer to this question that, because Federer is five years older than Novak and four years older than Nadal, Fed's prime didn't precisely overlap with the others, so the H2H record is not a perfect comparison?So the question is: How can Federer be considered the greatest of all time when he has a losing head-to-head record against the other two guys who are his contemporaries? And this isn't like Brady-Eli. Eli is 2-0 against Brady in championships, but his overall resumé isn't even on the same planet as Brady's. It would be like if some dude won two grand slams on clay, both against Federer (and had a winning record against Federer on clay and hardly played him outside of clay), but wasn't heard from again on any other surface. That guy, despite having that winning record against Federer, wouldn't be considered by anyone to be at the same level. It's different with Djokovic and Nadal, however, who clearly are right there with Roger.
And of course we never got to find out where Monica Seles would have been in this discussion because of the stabbing. She never won Wimbledon, but had eight GS titles by age 20. There’s a pretty good chance we could have been calling her the GOAT. What might have been.Ha! Fair enough.
Martina over Graf? That's a pretty good question. Martina/Graf/Serena are all on the obvious short list for the women. But Martina and Graf didn't overlap a ton - some yes (9-9 head to head) but Martina is 12 1/2 years older than Graf. And neither was contemporary with Serena, so who knows. That's why these three on the men's side are so compelling. All in peak form when they've played each other.
From where I'm standing, this argument seems to be in Nadal's favor, not against him. Clay is probably the most under-represented surface as far as slams are concerned, assuming you ignore "indoor" as its own surface: looking at the 2020 ATP Tour calendar, for example, there are 8 weeks in which tournaments are held on grass, 15 on clay and 23 on hard courts. By that logic, a perfectly fair calendar would have 1 slam on grass, 2 on clay and 3 on hard courts, but of course the ratio is 1-1-2. And the ratio of clay vs. hard court Masters events is also in a 2:1 ratio in favor of the latter, not 3:2 as it perhaps should be. (Although by that logic there should really be one Masters level event on grass, which I suspect there would be if a facility large enough to host a Masters-sized event on grass other than Wimbledon existed.) I think I'm also right in saying that a disproportionate amount of tennis is also played on clay around the world - particularly in Europe and South America - relative to hard courts?The more I think about it, the more I feel that Rafa might somehow end up as the third-best men’s player of his era when it’s all said and done, which is just mind-boggling.
His dominance on clay is other-worldly, and his early-career success at Wimbledon is incredibly impressive for someone of his tennis background (making his first final at 20, two titles, five finals in six years). But his GS titles (12-3-2-1) are less evenly distributed across tournaments/surfaces than either Federer (8-6-5-1) or Djokovic (7-4-3-1, with probably more to come).
Two of the four slams and six of the nine (current) Masters 1000 events are played on hard courts, and Nadal falls well short of the other two here, both in slams (Fed 11, Novak 10, Rafa 4) and Masters titles (by quick calculations: Fed 25, Novak 24, Nadal 9).
Nadal has also spent less time at No.1 (196 weeks) than either Fed (310) or Novak (255 and counting).
Yep, that's Andy Murray's music. 3 slam titles, 8 slam runner-ups, 14 Masters titles and 2 Olympic singles golds is a hell of a career...but you could double or triple those figures (Olympic golds excepted) had his career overlapped with, say, Pat Rafter's instead of the Holy Trinity's.We were talking about this the other night. Imagine being the 4th best guy in the time period? I mean you gotta be thinking wtf have I done to deserve this shit, right? You're born 10 years earlier/later and you probably have a handful of majors and a pretty damn good career. But these 3 fucking guys...
Wimbledon randomly determines whether semi final is #1 vs. #4 or #1 vs. #3. So by being seeded 3rd, Nadal was at risk of having to potentially play Djokovic in a semi final if the latter scenario was randomly drawn this year. But now that it’s 1vs4 draw, it is a moot point.So Nadal is complaining about being dropped to the #3 seed behind Federer, but unless I'm missing something, isn't the #2 seed the exact same thing as the #3 seed at a Grand Slam? They are on the same side of the draw either way and the seeds they draw in the quarters and round of 16 and third round are randomly selected from that tier anyway, so I don't see how there is any difference between the two. Am I missing something?
Oh, OK, now I get the complaint at least, but that's the part they should complain about. #1 should play #32, then #16, #8, #4, #2, there's no reason to randomly draw it, but I bitch about this here literally every Grand Slam.Wimbledon randomly determines whether semi final is #1 vs. #4 or #1 vs. #3. So by being seeded 3rd, Nadal was at risk of having to potentially play Djokovic in a semi final if the latter scenario was randomly drawn this year. But now that it’s 1vs4 draw, it is a moot point.
It's not just this way at the Slams. It's this way at every tennis tournament. And I think it's done this way to ensure variety in who plays who from week to week and month to month - and not just among the big four, but also among lesser seeded players.Oh, OK, now I get the complaint at least, but that's the part they should complain about. #1 should play #32, then #16, #8, #4, #2, there's no reason to randomly draw it, but I bitch about this here literally every Grand Slam.
I know, but rankings change all the time. It maybe made sense a few decades back when rankings were more static but now I think it hurts the game.It's not just this way at the Slams. It's this way at every tennis tournament. And I think it's done this way to ensure variety in who plays who from week to week and month to month - and not just among the big four, but also among lesser seeded players.
nadal ended up on the same side as Federer, but in theory a huge difference in quality of draw. He is looking atOh, OK, now I get the complaint at least, but that's the part they should complain about. #1 should play #32, then #16, #8, #4, #2, there's no reason to randomly draw it, but I bitch about this here literally every Grand Slam.
Right, but this is all random, right? If Nadal was #2, he could have ended up with the same draw?nadal ended up on the same side as Federer, but in theory a huge difference in quality of draw. He is looking at
Sugita
krygios
Shapovalov or (Tsonga/Tomic)
Cilic (or Basilashvili )
Theim ( who got a brutal first round match against Querry )
Roger has a bunch of players who've never got past the second round at a major before ( unseeded Gasquet I. The third round potentially is the biggest name) up until he faces a like Nishikori/ Isner winner in the quarters
"Hurts the game" is a bit strong, isn't it? I'd argue that in an era where match-fixing is a worry, players don't need any impetus to try and rig the draw ahead of a Slam by tanking a match in a lesser tournament because they know who they would be playing in a more important tournament.I know, but rankings change all the time. It maybe made sense a few decades back when rankings were more static but now I think it hurts the game.
There's no way in hell Thiem is making it to the quarterfinals at Wimbledon unless they've dug up one of the outer courts, replaced the grass there with clay, and allowed Thiem to pick his choice of courts throughout the tournament without telling anyone. (See, he'd be the sort of player you'd try to rig and get in your section at Wimbledon if seeded players weren't part of tournament draws...)nadal ended up on the same side as Federer, but in theory a huge difference in quality of draw. He is looking at
Sugita
krygios
Shapovalov or (Tsonga/Tomic)
Cilic (or Basilashvili )
Theim ( who got a brutal first round match against Querry )
That's just to reach semis where it gets tough
And yes, this is entirely true - that's just luck of the draw.Right, but this is all random, right? If Nadal was #2, he could have ended up with the same draw?
This is a good point I hadn't really considered, so I'd say just slot in the top 8 players correctly at the Grand Slams, there is zero chance any of them are tanking those matches."Hurts the game" is a bit strong, isn't it? I'd argue that in an era where match-fixing is a worry, players don't need any impetus to try and rig the draw ahead of a Slam by tanking a match in a lesser tournament because they know who they would be playing in a more important tournament.
And this was a good if a bit obvious call, Thiem out just now in the first round, 6-0 in the 4th to Sam Querrey.There's no way in hell Thiem is making it to the quarterfinals at Wimbledon unless they've dug up one of the outer courts, replaced the grass there with clay, and allowed Thiem to pick his choice of courts throughout the tournament without telling anyone. (See, he'd be the sort of player you'd try to rig and get in your section at Wimbledon if seeded players weren't part of tournament draws...)
Not true. Murray isn't retiring - there was talk about that previously, but now he's feeling good and pondering when he might return to singles action.Last chance to watch Murray grace a non-champions-tour event, if he even bothers with those.
That's great news, I hadn't heard anything since that press conference after the Aussie. My god was that brutal to watch, the emotions on his face... you'd have thought he'd just watched his mom get hit by a cement mixer. I figured the question was whether he'd be able to walk unassisted at age 45, not whether he might return to singles action by the end of the year.Not true. Murray isn't retiring - there was talk about that previously, but now he's feeling good and pondering when he might return to singles action.