Australian Open 2017

walshb

ziggyman17 wrote: »

All the big ATP events will be on Sky,

Like always. Eurosport get the slams!

RosyLily

Eurosport usually have Davis Cup as well. And they show the majority of grass court tournaments in the summer.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Yeah the history of tennis is unfortunate in that it was basically 2 different sports until 1968. So Laver e.g. might not have won the calendar slam in '62 if the professionals had been involved. An unanswerable question really.

Why not? He went on and won a calendar pro slam and dominated the pro circuit. He's won 19 slams altogether, Federer is one short. Laver would have won more had there been 4 pro slams a year as opposed to 3. As for who's the best ever, no one will really know. Federer's 18 slams flatter him imo, when you factor in the competition until Nadal became a top all court player circa 08 and the 3 slams Federer won in Nadal's absense. I think these days we're too quick to call the top modern athletes and teams in their respective sport the best ever when no one will really know

The Golden Miller

Why are posts getting deleted all over the place on this thread and forum?

RosyLily

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Why are posts getting deleted all over the place on this thread and forum?

Banned poster trying to bypass their ban so they create different accounts to post. Particularly prevalent this year.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

The Golden Miller

RosyLily wrote: »

Banned poster trying to bypass their ban so they create different accounts to post. Particularly prevalent this year.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

No worries. Thanks

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Why not? He went on and won a calendar pro slam and dominated the pro circuit. He's won 19 slams altogether, Federer is one short. Laver would have won more had there been 4 pro slams a year as opposed to 3. As for who's the best ever, no one will really know. Federer's 18 slams flatter him imo, when you factor in the competition until Nadal became a top all court player circa 08 and the 3 slams Federer won in Nadal's absense. I think these days we're too quick to call the top modern athletes and teams in their respective sport the best ever when no one will really know

But all the best players weren't playing in all the tournaments back then, also in the past players seemed to miss an awful lot more grand slams than they do now.The Australian Open is a much bigger tournament now than it was in the past.

Chivito550

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But all the best players weren't playing in all the tournaments back then, also in the past players seemed to miss an awful lot more grand slams than they do now.The Australian Open is a much bigger tournament now than it was in the past.

+1

Borg never bother with Australia and Agassi only started going in the mid 90s.

Jan_de_Bakker

Well Well Well ....


Wow ... couldn't watch it, kept an eye on things on the phone.

Just watched the highlights, amazing comeback from Federer in the 5th set - doing what Nadal usually does best - fighting back and turning it around !
18 slams, he truly is the GOAT .

Also was happy Nadal didn't get that double career slam stat ...

Rikand

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Ah I like Mac and that cameo stuff tbh. He's kinda like the Eamon Dunphy of the tennis world - great entertainment but no one really takes what he says seriously.

You cannot be serious!

JohnFalstaff

RosyLily wrote: »

Banned poster trying to bypass their ban so they create different accounts to post. Particularly prevalent this year.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

There was a fairly lengthy Federer/Nadal thread I had posted in this week and I was looking for it in light of today's result. Has the entire thread been deleted?

RosyLily

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

There was a fairly lengthy Federer/Nadal thread I had posted in this week and I was looking for it in light of today's result. Has the entire thread been deleted?

Yes. It was set up by a rereg account so it was deleted.

More than welcome to start a new one.

Ardillaun

Chivito550 wrote: »

walshb wrote: »

A quality one handed backhand is one of the most beautiful sights in sport.

Best I've ever seen was Justine Henin.

That stroke was truly inexplicable. Incredible preparation and timing. She wasn't a big girl but she could power them back with topspin from ridiculous spots on the court.

Ardillaun

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

RosyLily wrote: »

Banned poster trying to bypass their ban so they create different accounts to post. Particularly prevalent this year.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

There was a fairly lengthy Federer/Nadal thread I had posted in this week and I was looking for it in light of today's result. Has the entire thread been deleted?

I find it hard to locate my old posts here.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Why not? He went on and won a calendar pro slam and dominated the pro circuit. He's won 19 slams altogether, Federer is one short. Laver would have won more had there been 4 pro slams a year as opposed to 3. As for who's the best ever, no one will really know. Federer's 18 slams flatter him imo, when you factor in the competition until Nadal became a top all court player circa 08 and the 3 slams Federer won in Nadal's absense. I think these days we're too quick to call the top modern athletes and teams in their respective sport the best ever when no one will really know

A lot of silliness in there but Nadal was certainly haunted to be the only clay court specialist of his generation. In the 90s there was Chang, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi, Keurten, Courier, Moya - Nadal would still have been the best but no way would he have 9 titles against that mob.

The Golden Miller

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But all the best players weren't playing in all the tournaments back then, also in the past players seemed to miss an awful lot more grand slams than they do now.The Australian Open is a much bigger tournament now than it was in the past.

They were in the pro slams that Laver subsequently went on to dominate.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

+1

Borg never bother with Australia and Agassi only started going in the mid 90s.

That's my point. If you add all the pro slams and grand slams together Federer isn't the GOAT. So calling him the GOAT based on slams is a flawed concept to begin with. What could Borg have won if he played Aus seriously and didnt retire early? Was Federer really better because he won more slams? Imagine Borg grew up with today's generation and all the subsequent benefits of rackets, court conditions, diets, training, science of the game etc. Would you really put your house on Federer to beat Borg? I just think we're too quick to call modern athletes the GOAT. For the record, Djokovic in 2011 is the best I've ever seen. Aggression and hitting for the lines, a Nadal at his best couldn't beat him once that year. McEnroe at his peak was the only other player to play to that level for a sustained period of time imo. Can't remember Laver at his best but he put it up to Borg several times at the tail-end of his career which is telling. They were all up there, Laver, Connors, Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampres, Nadal, Federer, Roswell etc. There is no GOAT (bar Safin when his head was in haha. What could Hewitt have achieved if he was bigger???), they are all up there

RobertKK

Happy Federer won, he is such a great champion, and it is the friendship with Nadal that despite being rivals makes it all the more special.
Federer said he hopes Nadal wins the French Open as he deserves to win just as much as he does.
Personally I love these two players.

The Golden Miller

RobertKK wrote: »

Happy Federer won, he is such a great champion, and it is the friendship with Nadal that despite being rivals makes it all the more special.
Federer said he hopes Nadal wins the French Open as he deserves to win just as much as he does.
Personally I love these two players.

That's what I don't like about Federer. Whatever about their graciousness in defeat on the court and their antics, off court Nadal speaks of Federer in the highest of regards without a "but". Federer only seems to talk about Nadals greatness with an underhanded "but"

Rob2D

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Nadal was certainly haunted to be the only clay court specialist of his generation.

I dunno, Federer isn't too far behind. Doesn't Fed hold the record for most Roland Garros match wins???

Not to mention the all the other clay tournaments he won/made finals. If Nadal didn't exist, Federer would probably be considered the greatest clay court player ever along with everything else.

I reckon Nadal would have owned the clay scene in whatever era you care to put him in.

Super pleased with the result today. Certainly didn't see Fed taking it. And in 5 no less; crazy stuff. Can't wait to watch the match. Waiting on a full upload that doesn't have Russian commentary all over it! :pac:

walshb

Truth be known Fed is a top 5 clay courter ever, and really, I'd back to beat all but Nadal, who is the greatest on clay.

Jan_de_Bakker

Good point, still think Nadal would have won easily.

Remember peak Clay Nadal at French in 2008 ?

He beat Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0

Federer wasn't too shabby a player in '08 ...

Jan_de_Bakker

walshb wrote: »

Truth be known Fed is a top 5 clay courter ever, and really, I'd back to beat all but Nadal, who is the greatest on clay.

And even myself couldn't begrudge him a 10th FO title ...that would be something - just to cement it .

walshb

The YouTube highlight reel is available. Well worth a watch. Over 100 winners in the match. It's beautiful to watch. For the first time in their 35 matches I rooted against Federer, yet I am more happy for him than any of his big wins over Nadal.

Watched a lot of Fed, and for me his complete play yesterday is as brilliant as I have ever seen. Movement, grace, accuracy, variation, concentration, serving, power, defence etc. Fed was never the kind of player to suffer with age like some others. Maintained his grace and fluidity. It may sound odd but his play yesterday was up there with any calendar year previously.

Nobody plays a baseline half volley off either wing like Fed. It's effortless. I could watch it all day.

mickmackey1

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Good point, still think Nadal would have won easily.

Remember peak Clay Nadal at French in 2008 ?

He beat Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0

Federer wasn't too shabby a player in '08 ...

Picking one match out of dozens doesn't really make much sense. After all Federer schooled Nadal 6-3 6-0 in the 2011 ATP finals but Nadal didn't always put up such a poor show.

Jan_de_Bakker

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Picking one match out of dozens doesn't really make much sense. After all Federer schooled Nadal 6-3 6-0 in the 2011 ATP finals but Nadal didn't always put up such a poor show.

Sorry, that was in response to a question regarding Kuerten.

so peak Kuerten v Peak Nadal ... I still think Nadal would win - on clay - my point using this match was just to show how unstoppable on clay he was at his best.

Rob2D

Jeez, Nadal's hair is desperate isn't it?! Just watching the match now. Let it go lad.

Rob2D

Rob2D wrote: »

Jeez, Nadal's hair is desperate isn't it?! Just watching the match now. Let it go lad.

He probably has a Samson complex thing going on, especially for a man known for his locks.

certainly a difference from this....



to this....

yerwanthere123

He's had a hair transplant, so within six months to a year it'll be back apparently.

yerwanthere123

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

He's had a hair transplant, so within six months to a year it'll be back apparently.

hair transplants can only do so much!