When looking at slams, how important is it to you that Nadal has won a whopping 11 of his 17 at the French. Not to disparage it, but is it really important to be good on clay anymore? Also, Sampras has 12 at the US Open/Wimbledon, while Nadal has only 5. Just throwing this out there…
Edit: Also, Djokovic has only 7 at US Open/Wimbledon, and 6 of his came at the Australian. Again, not disparaging the Australian, just asking…
Edit: With the dearth of serve/volley and other specialty shots these day, I think Sampras was much more entertaining.
Those particular examples are not “less than Serena did.” Shapovalov sent a ball into the umpire’s eye. He needed surgery. The other guy kicked something into a line judge and the judge left the court limping. And on one occasion a player broke a racquet and a piece of it hit a ball kid–I don’t know if that was the Dimitrov incident there or not. But all those were DQs, not warnings for verbal abuse.
I am not defending Serena here because I think she should have got hold of herself after the second warning and shut up. Knowing that the chair ump has called other players for coaching makes me think that warning wasn’t out of line either. I don’t really agree with the game penalty but it’s possible the ump told her to shut up or she’d get that penalty, and she didn’t. Escalating these things never works out for the player and Serena of all people should know this (“Why does this keep happening to me?”) But the ump is the judge of what is and isn’t verbal abuse.
Re the Sampras v the current Big 3.
Sampras played professionally from 1989 to 2002, last match ever being his victorious 2002 US Open final.
Sampras played 18 finals and win 14.
Of his final opponents 5 were against Agassi, 2 against Pioline and 2 against Goran.
Of his other 9 finals
3 were against Edberg, Becker and Courier, all time greats, men with multiple slams and who also were World number 1 during Sampras career.
3 were against Rafter, Safin and Hewitt, all who were World Number 1 and winner of multiple slams. During Sampras’s career.
And 3 were against Todd Martin, Michael Chang and Carlos Moyà. All reached multiple Slam finals and or won a title and Moyà was even World numbed 1 for a short while.
In addition Sampras also was a contemporary of guys like Kafelnikov and Kuerten, multi slam winners and World number 1. Sergei Brugera, Thomas Muster, Michael Stich and Petr Korda won slams and reached multiple finals.
Sampras was in 14 full seasons, year end no 1, 6 years, all in a row, from 1993 to 1998. None of the big three have been number 1 as many times.
Sampras played against a tougher field and still dominated. No where do Djoker and Rafa come close.
Impossible to say which of the surfaces is more important but certainly if you are going to have a claim to being the best player then you need to show you can win the big tournaments on each surface or at least get to the final. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal all have a better record than Sampras across all surfaces.
This seems like a contradiction in terms. If we are speaking of natural development, what would be responsible for speed peaking earlier than strength? On average, strength peaks around 25-30 and slowly but steadily declines for the next decade or so, with that decline becoming more rapid around 40. Why would speed flucuate noticeably from this timeframe?
It simply wasn’t a tougher field. Of those you mention only Agassi can be thought of as anything approaching the standard of Djokovic and Nadal but I’d definitely rate him as a step below. Becker, Courier, Edberg are the equivalent of Murray, they aren’t even on the same page as Djokovic and Nadal and they’d be the first to admit it. Heck I’d say Murray’s three titles are worth more than Becker, Courier and Edberg’s just because of the era within which they were won.
Sampras never even made the final of the French, he reached the semi final once.
Look at it this way. Federer is head and shoulders above Sampras. His stats and records show this clearly. He assembled this record at a time when there were two other players also busy assembling records that, by themselves, eclipse Sampras.
The number of different GS winners that Sampras played against is an indication that the field was more open at that time, not necessarily that it stronger.
Here’s the kicker for me, In the 15 years of Sampras’s career there were 16 people that occupied the world no.1 spot.
In the last 15 years of Roger Federer’s career? there have been 4, and you know who they are. No-one else has got a look-in because they are so good.
USA Today is citing statistics that men are penalized twice as often than women. Of course that doesn’t really mean much if men are more than twice as ill behaved as women, but it is something:
Making it a sexist thing was a smart move by Serena, but I don’t believe it.
I’d also point out that Osaka is also a woman.
Is this really accurate? You would probably know better than I, but in my understanding men who strength-train can continue to get stronger well into their 30s, and maybe into their 40s, before age starts to overcome the improvement from strength training. In my understanding of powerlifting records, the biggest lifts come from men in their 30s and maybe even 40s.
So in other words, you say clay is still important. Fair enough. I don’t think so however. The French is the only “important” clay tournament left. I think it would have long ago been taken out of the 4 Grand Slams if there would have been something to replace it with. Since there isn’t, and you can’t have a Grand Slam of just 3…
When looking at all-time greats, I think it makes sense to weight each of the 4 differently, with the French easily being the least important, and one should consider this when ranking them. Yep, I think Nadal is a bit overrated because of this.
Hopefully I don’t need to explain how profoundly stupid this is. (And I stand by my opinion that players should be immediately defaulted for smashing their racquets, but that is not the rule.) The author explains the escalation of code violations in the same article, but apparently doesn’t understand it. It’s not a “double standard” to give Isner (a player I dislike, BTW) “only a warning” for his racquet abuse when Serena got docked a point for hers, because hers was her second violation and Isner’s was his first. (Fine, I guess I did explain it.)
Then there’s this:
Which does not remotely give justice to the way Serena stalked, menaced, and threatened with violence this tiny older woman.
This Guardian profile makes it pretty clear the allegations of sexism are bogus:
Right, he shows such favoritism toward men that three of the top male players have complained about him. :dubious:
He’s obviously just a stickler for rules that other umpires don’t enforce. Is that on him, or them?
BTW, Billie Jean King is a towering figure in tennis, but she should stay out of the psychoanalysis business. Her notion that men are quicker to get angry and defensive about women challenging their authority goes against everything I understand about psychology. It is when another man is challenging you that you are more likely to bristle and feel you have to be tough and establish your dominance, whereas if it’s a woman your sexism is more likely to play out in sort of humoring her and just rolling your eyes.
I wouldn’t strongly argue with any of that, but I would just point out that Ivanisevic (for whom I share your fondness) being mainly a threat on grass doesn’t really undermine my point, since that is where Pete won the lion’s share of his majors. At the same time, I don’t endorse AK84’s take either.
And why is Osaka portrayed as a blonde, white girl?
What are you talking about? Aesthetically and game-playwise, clay is my favorite surface (it’s also easier on players’ bodies, BTW) and Roland Garros is my favorite tournament. But that’s just one person’s opinion. What is a fact is that of the 9 Masters 1000 tournaments on the ATP Tour (formerly called the Mercedes Super 9), which are the biggest tournaments on the tour, three are clay, and six are hardcourt. Zero are on grass. So why aren’t you advocating to get rid of Wimbledon instead? :dubious:
But of course in many ways Wimbledon is the most prestigious of all. Among tennis aficionados, I’ve never known anyone who didn’t rank Melbourne last of the four. Over the years, many of the top players have failed to even show up there. (The U.S. Open is a huge tournament, but it is looked down on a bit by tennis snobs.)
You omitted Federer; I’m guessing that’s because Federer was #1 for longer, and got more Grand Slam wins on grass, and on clay, and on hard courts, and otherwise has a bunch of well-known Holy Crap That’s Amazing feats?
Okay, so name two guys who have at least as many Grand Slam wins as Sampras, but in an era where they racked up a winning record against Federer.
When you put it that way, I agree. I hereby call for removing Wimbledon from the Grand Slam also!
Okay, upon further consideration, I retract my statement about the French. Given the long history of different surfaces in tennis, I suppose the Grand Slam is just as it should be. I will admit there is still a tiny voice in my head saying that while Wimbledon remains of the utmost importance in ranking the greats and the French does not, that that voice is ultimately mistaken. But damn, I still can’t get rid of it.
Well yes, for record-holding/competitive athletes, they can often push past their natural set point with aggressive training (and often drug) regimens. But the same goes for aerobic speed athletes as well. Its not at all uncommon for elite distance/marathon runners to be well into their late 40s. I was referring to “most men”, as that was what SlackerInc was talking about in the post I was responding to.
That’s fair. And yes, you bring up a good reason to keep multiple surfaces, even if you as a fan may not like one or another: it’s part of the tradition of the sport (although hardcourt did not enter the mix until relatively recently), and it rewards players for being well-rounded. Actually, until sometime in the ‘70s, three of the majors were on grass, and the French was the only one providing diversity as it has always been on clay.
