Tennis 2016 - Page 14 - Other Sports - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Tennis 2016


Donaldo87

Recommended Posts

On 20/11/2016 at 8:29 PM, Caledonian Craig said:

Off the top of my head the ones that come closest are Jackie Stewart, Sir Chris Hoy and perhaps boxer Ken Buchanan. I know Stephen Hendry dominated snooker in the 90s but it isn't really a global sport.

Jackie Stewart isn't even the greatest Scottish racing driver (and that isn't intended as a slight on Jackie).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

Would it be Harsh to point out that Djokovic is going through a bad spell, Nadal is made of chocolate and Federer is about 50?

:lol:

*Sigh* 

What a ridiculously sad post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Parklife said:

*Sigh* 

What a ridiculously sad post. 

I thought it was one that you'd be proud of.

:lol:

Was slightly tongue in cheek, I really admire the guy and what he's achieved. It's a gruelling sport at that level. I always think he's a great example to look at when footballers moan about playing "3 times in a week".

There was no shame in being consistently in the top 4, then top 2, but to get to number 1 is something to be proud of. Apparently he should stay there for 6 months too if he has a steady 1st half of the season, as Djokovic can't massively improve on his points from 1st half of last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

I thought it was one that you'd be proud of.

:lol:

Nah, i'd like to think that my posts have at least a semblance of insight. Your post was just nonsense and an attempt to put down an outstanding achievement. 

I'd suggest Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are 3 of the best 5 players in the history of tennis. Murray has won slams and become World No.1 when they are active (remember Nadal is only a year old and Djokovic is the same age). I don't understand the attempt to put him down. 

My initial thoughts remain, ridiculously sad post. 

Quote

Was slightly tongue in cheek, I really admire the guy and what he's achieved. It's a gruelling sport at that level. I always think he's a great example to look at when footballers moan about playing "3 times in a week".

There was no shame in being consistently in the top 4, then top 2, but to get to number 1 is something to be proud of. Apparently he should stay there for 6 months too if he has a steady 1st half of the season, as Djokovic can't massively improve on his points from 1st half of last season.

Yeah, Djokovic was unstoppable in the first half of the season. His first real defeat was in the Rome Masters final in May to Murray, which he went on to avenge in the French Open Final. Djokovic won the first two slams of the year and also 4 of the first 6 masters 1000 events (losing 1 final and not participating in the other). 

It's incredible that this, combined with getting to the US Open final and the WTF Final wasn't enough to get him to World No.1 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlueGaz
10 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

Would it be Harsh to point out that Djokovic is going through a bad spell, Nadal is made of chocolate and Federer is about 50?

:lol:

Is that not how it always works though?  Did the guy that got no1 in the world after Borg only get it because Borg started to wither? The game evolves and you take your chance when its your turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

Is that not how it always works though?  Did the guy that got no1 in the world after Borg only get it because Borg started to wither? The game evolves and you take your chance when its your turn.

No.  Borg, Connors and McEnroe swapped World number 1 for a 5 year period, then Connors, McEnroe and Lendl held it almost exclusively for the rest of the 80's until Wilander and Edberg appeared on the scene.

Being part of the exclusive club of Male ATP Tour World number 1's is an incredible achievement for any player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BremnerLorimerGray said:

No.  Borg, Connors and McEnroe swapped World number 1 for a 5 year period, then Connors, McEnroe and Lendl held it almost exclusively for the rest of the 80's until Wilander and Edberg appeared on the scene.

Being part of the exclusive club of Male ATP Tour World number 1's is an incredible achievement for any player.  

To be fair, it's a good bet that McEnroe and Connors wouldn't have had as much time as number one if Borg hadn't retired at 26. He would have probably swapped it around with them for the next three or four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

Would it be Harsh to point out that Djokovic is going through a bad spell, Nadal is made of chocolate and Federer is about 50?

:lol:

No it would be nonsense. Or else you can disqualify Roger Federer of about 5 to 10 of his slam wins which came when Sampras had retired, Agassi was on his way out and nobody else of note were on the scene and then Rafa came along as a teenager, soon to be followed by Djokovic then Murray. Eras have peaks and troughs is my point. Federer's began in a trough and he filled his boots with the majority of his slam wins then the peak came along and the regularity of his slam wins slowed and gradually stopped. Murray's career started as that peak was at its beginning and towards the end of that peak he won his first slams. We may be entering a trough now and Murray may fill his boots but like Federer he has had his peak era to deal with now it is his turn for a trough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caledonian Craig said:

No it would be nonsense. Or else you can disqualify Roger Federer of about 5 to 10 of his slam wins which came when Sampras had retired, Agassi was on his way out and nobody else of note were on the scene and then Rafa came along as a teenager, soon to be followed by Djokovic then Murray. Eras have peaks and troughs is my point. Federer's began in a trough and he filled his boots with the majority of his slam wins then the peak came along and the regularity of his slam wins slowed and gradually stopped. Murray's career started as that peak was at its beginning and towards the end of that peak he won his first slams. We may be entering a trough now and Murray may fill his boots but like Federer he has had his peak era to deal with now it is his turn for a trough.

Exactly. Federer's first 7 wins were Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Roddick, a 35 year old Agassi, Baghdatis. His next final was against Nadal, which he lost. He then beat Nadal at Wimbledon and then beat Roddick again and Gonzalez. Later he beat Soderling and Roddick once again. And if Andy's not all that, he beat him three times as well. He only beat Djokovic or Nadal in 3 of his Grand Slam tournament finals (and he lost to those two in a combined 9 GS finals). So I make that 15 of his wins don't count if he's held to the same standard as Andy Murray. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, biffer said:

Exactly. Federer's first 7 wins were Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Roddick, a 35 year old Agassi, Baghdatis. His next final was against Nadal, which he lost. He then beat Nadal at Wimbledon and then beat Roddick again and Gonzalez. Later he beat Soderling and Roddick once again. And if Andy's not all that, he beat him three times as well. He only beat Djokovic or Nadal in 3 of his Grand Slam tournament finals (and he lost to those two in a combined 9 GS finals). So I make that 15 of his wins don't count if he's held to the same standard as Andy Murray. 

Since it's about World number ones, of those listed, Federer beat 4 current or former World number 1 tennis players in those 7 finals...

He has beaten 7 past or future World number 1's in Grand Slam finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BremnerLorimerGray said:

Since it's about World number ones, of those listed, Federer beat 4 current or former World number 1 tennis players in those 7 finals...

He has beaten 7 past or future World number 1's in Grand Slam finals.

They were No 1's from an era with no dominant force. Sampras had retired and Agassi was on the wain. It was a time when the No 1 was handed around to a number of players in quite a short space of time. Hewitt as well held No 1 for (80 weeks I think) yet has not the same level of achievements in his career as Murray as. That says it all about the early 2000s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, biffer said:

However, one could turn that round and say Murray is in the best form of his life and Djokovic et al never had to deal with that before. It's so typically Scottish to immediately look to say 'ah, but...' when someone achieves something. 

Correct. :ok:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Charlie Endell said:

Jackie Stewart isn't even the greatest Scottish racing driver (and that isn't intended as a slight on Jackie).

Who is ? Jim Clarke maybe ?  

I guess that further weakens the Murray argument despite how great his recent achievements are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/11/2016 at 3:54 PM, biffer said:

Exactly. Federer's first 7 wins were Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Roddick, a 35 year old Agassi, Baghdatis. His next final was against Nadal, which he lost. He then beat Nadal at Wimbledon and then beat Roddick again and Gonzalez. Later he beat Soderling and Roddick once again. And if Andy's not all that, he beat him three times as well. He only beat Djokovic or Nadal in 3 of his Grand Slam tournament finals (and he lost to those two in a combined 9 GS finals). So I make that 15 of his wins don't count if he's held to the same standard as Andy Murray. 

In cycling they ask "who came second" to judge the value of the win. Not all grandslam wins are of equal difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22 November 2016 at 4:57 PM, BremnerLorimerGray said:

Since it's about World number ones, of those listed, Federer beat 4 current or former World number 1 tennis players in those 7 finals...

He has beaten 7 past or future World number 1's in Grand Slam finals.

Point is people are suggesting number one doesn't mean all that much if you're not beating three all time greats at the peak of their game to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you can do in any sport is beat who there is in front of you. Murray has done that for the last two months or so and merits the No 1. It matters not one jot if Federer or Nadal weren't in the mix. Do we decry Man United's dominance by saying they only won because they weren't up against the Liverpool side of the 70s or 80s? No of course not. Do we say Phil Taylor has only dominated darts because Eric Bristow wasn't around. No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26 November 2016 at 0:09 PM, Caledonian Craig said:

All you can do in any sport is beat who there is in front of you. Murray has done that for the last two months or so and merits the No 1. It matters not one jot if Federer or Nadal weren't in the mix. Do we decry Man United's dominance by saying they only won because they weren't up against the Liverpool side of the 70s or 80s? No of course not. Do we say Phil Taylor has only dominated darts because Eric Bristow wasn't around. No.

If they were Scottish, some people would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...



×
×
  • Create New...