TCU Men's Tennis - 2020-2021
- Thread starter Jared7
- Start date
Jared7
Active Member
Well, in my view, if we're going to have a tennis GOAT discussion, we simply have to divide it into the "modern" or "Open" era v. that which existed prior to 1968 (or really, 1975, after the formation of the ATP and the establishment of the pro Slams as they are now). Before that, it was just a different game, with wood racquets, an emphasis on spins, finesse and placement and, most importantly, almost exclusively amateur in which most players played a few years and then moved on to their real lives. In the Before Era, the French 3 Musketeers, Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzalez and, especially, Rod Laver are the GOAT competitors. Tilden had a .938 WP; Laver won 9 Slams, but for 7 years (in which there were 28 Slams) he was ineligible because he was a Pro (and could have won at least 10 more) and Gonzalez was a shotmaker extraordinaire, who you probably should have bet on to win any given match; even against Laver. And there were other tourneys - the U.S. Pro, the Wembley Pro, the French Pro and the WCT that were at least as important as the Slams - and the Davis Cup was WAY more important than today. It was something else than it is today - not really all that comparable.
Having said that, I think the current crop would have just walloped the older guys because of the racquet technology and the emphasis on speed, size and power. But who's to say? Tilden, Laver and Gonzalez could have adapted - but how well? And the competition is way tougher now too - would Laver have won as many if he had hundreds and hundreds of competitors rather than a mere few dozen?
In the Modern Era, I'm still in the Federer camp. Nadal, like Borg, is too clay-focused and, although great, isn't in the "greatest" category, in my view. Djoker is close; but not there quite yet. Because Fed is still playing and no longer in his prime, we don't think of him the same way we would had he retired. Djokovic is clearly better than Federer now and if he keeps winning all the Slams, he'll pass him. But the jury is still out.
Having said that, I think the current crop would have just walloped the older guys because of the racquet technology and the emphasis on speed, size and power. But who's to say? Tilden, Laver and Gonzalez could have adapted - but how well? And the competition is way tougher now too - would Laver have won as many if he had hundreds and hundreds of competitors rather than a mere few dozen?
In the Modern Era, I'm still in the Federer camp. Nadal, like Borg, is too clay-focused and, although great, isn't in the "greatest" category, in my view. Djoker is close; but not there quite yet. Because Fed is still playing and no longer in his prime, we don't think of him the same way we would had he retired. Djokovic is clearly better than Federer now and if he keeps winning all the Slams, he'll pass him. But the jury is still out.
Jared7
Active Member
This will be a busy week for the Frogs in the pros. Cam Norrie, as noted above, opens up at Queen's Club tomorrow morning (scheduled for 7:20 a.m. (CDT). Alex Rybakov has entered a Challenger in Prostejov (Czechia) and has already won a qualie round to advance to the main draw where he will face Jeroen Vanneste tomorrow morning at 3:30 a.m. (CDT). Both Nick Chappell and Juan Carlos Aguilar are in Tulsa; Nick's into the main draw; Aguilar opens up in the qualies against Nicolas Barrientos tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. (CDT). Tomas Jirousek is in Italy for an ITF tourney and he will face Simon Beaupain in the qualies tomorrow at 2:00 a.m. (CDT). And Jerry Lopez has stayed in the Dominican Republic for another ITF tourney there (although I can't find the draw as yet). Good luck to all Frogs!
Purp
Active Member
It's still not a slam dunk for me b/c part of Fed's career record against those two can be explained by the fact he's 5 years older than them and played 5 years of matches against them on the backside of his prime while they were very much in the middle of theirs. Add in the fact that Fed had Nadal and Djoker in the primes of their careers as his career was waning, but Djoker and Nadal really only have each other at this point to compete against; there's no elite young player/s to come take slams off of the aging GOATs so they'll keep accumulating them more easily where it was harder for Fed.
I'm no Federer apologist. If I'm totally honest, I didn't like Federer most of his career b/c I was a Pete Sampras fan and there was a bit of jealousy that Federer was better than Sampras and I didn't want to admit it so I always rooted against Fed. That said, I'm not sure who I'd take between the three if they're all in their primes. I think I'd clearly take Nadal at the French against anybody who's ever played the game, but I'm not sure between Djoker or Fed who I'd take on a coin flip of surfaces if Federer was 5 years younger and they were both in their primes at the same time.
Purp
Active Member
I think we might ought to identify more than 2 eras. You're right that the GOAT comparisons in tennis take on a lot of the same attributes as those in any other sport where the old guys are underappreciated b/c of technology and modern fitness regimens, but I think racquet technology and fitness/rehab/diet science has changed so rapidly over the last decade or two that you can't compare guys from the 80s and 90s to guys of the last 10-15 years. Hell, even Fed was starting his career at the turn of the century 5 years before Djoker and Nadal and has 5 years less benefit from modern medicine and racquet technology than do the other 2. Diet and fitness science from 2015 - 2020 > than diet and fitness science from 2000 - 2005. That directly impacts the debate.
Another thing you hit on was the volume of competition between the old timers and the guys today. I think the same is true now versus the 80s and 90s, but in reverse. Maybe it's just because I pay less attention to tennis now than when I was a kid with tons of free time, but aside from maybe a couple peak years from Sampras on the men's side you never knew who was going to win a slam back then b/c there were so many more elite competitors. For the last 20 years it's either been Nadal in the French or Fed up until about 8-10 years ago and then Djoker since on every other surface. But back in the late 80s and 90s it was always and 4-5 man race for every slam between Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker, Rafter, Chang, and even Edberg/Lendl/Borg in the late 80s/early 90s.
I'm not enough of a tennis aficionado to know if these guys were all truly elite or if none of them were except for short periods of their careers, but the level of competition seemed much higher then than it does now. When I watch a slam on the men's side anymore the matches are almost never compelling until the semis and maybe even the finals. The gap between the top tier of players and the next tier was much narrower back then than it is today and the volume of players in the 2nd tier seemed much greater then than it is today. Maybe that's explained by the rapid and tragic decline of American tennis. It just feels to me like this and fitness improvements explains why Fed, Djoker, and Nadal can accumulate 60 slams between them. Their careers last longer, their prime years are longer, and the amount of elite and 2nd tier competition against them is lesser. Would guys like Sampras and Agassi have had the same success with the benefits of modern diet/fitness to elongate their careers and prime years at a time where there were fewer competitors on or near their level? The same could maybe be said for McEnroe, Connors, Borg, etc.
jake102
Active Member
I think the argument is actually stronger the other way. When Nadal and Djokovic were just youngsters getting up to speed, Federer had started his prime. Nadal had success against Federer immediately, but I believe Federer racked up wins against Djokovic when Fed was in his prime and Djokovic was early stages.
Also, for both Nadal and Djokovic, neither of them has had the opportunity to play tennis without another member of "the big 3" being close to their prime. Federer had a few years early on whipping up on Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick in a weak time for men's tennis. When Nadal started hitting his prime, Fed was already in his, and when Djokovic starter to hit his both Fed and Nadal were established. Djokovic will likely get 2-3 years where he's still close to top form and no real competition from Fed or Nadal, you could argue that has started this year.
Assuming Djokovic has the GS record, I don't know how it's really debatable when he will have the GS record, #1 record and winning records against Fed and Nadal.
Purp
Active Member
I think that started 2-3 years ago, actually. It may continue for several more years too b/c I don't see any of the next level guys being a threat to Djoker any time soon unless he totally drops off. I mean, we've seen what Cam was able to do recently against Tsitsipas and Theim. Guys on the cusp of a run of grand slams shouldn't be struggling like that with guys like Norrie based on what you all have suggested about the weaknesses in his game. I'm afraid when Djoker retires we might see a much leveler playing field for a generation with no single dominant player b/c the guys coming up right now don't seem to have that type of potential. As a result we might still see Nadal winning the French into his late 40s. He might play 5 tournaments a year to prevent injury. Seriously, though, I think that will prolong Djoker's GS career in a way Fed wasn't afforded.
Like I said before, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I'm also not an avid enough tennis fan to really make a forceful case either way. I'm just a sports geek who's been a casual tennis observer since graduating college (I watched a lot more before then b/c I had time for it) sharing my less informed observations.
jake102
Active Member
Norrie avenges his earlier loss and beats Vinolas in three sets on grass. He likely gets Karatsev next.... Karatsev is a huge hitter, not tall and his serve isn't great, but he destroys every groundstroke. Probably a bad grass match-up for Norrie... but Karatsev can also lose it and miss a ton.
Jared7
Active Member
The Camster got some nice revenge over Ramos Vinolas this morning at Queen's Club with a 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 W. Karetsev next?
Rybo won his second qualie at the Prostejov Challenger 7-6 (11-9), 7-6 (7-3) over Vanneste and is into the main draw. He'll now play 8th seeded Blaz Rola. If Alex can go deep at a Challenger, he could make a substantial move in the rankings - much more so than at a Futures.
Yeah, I agree on the 3rd era, with fitness and modern medicine as the main criterion. Agassi, at his early stage, was good, but when he came back after really getting in shape, he was really something. And was at the Fed/Rafa/Djoker level for a brief period. One of the reasons Connors was so dominant was because he was so into fitness in the 70's and 80's and virtually no one else was. Because of fitness, it was like Fed, Rafa and Djoker took the game to a new level. Djokovic could conceivably win all 4 Slams this year - if he does that, that's Laver territory, and he could move past Federer sooner than expected.
Rybo won his second qualie at the Prostejov Challenger 7-6 (11-9), 7-6 (7-3) over Vanneste and is into the main draw. He'll now play 8th seeded Blaz Rola. If Alex can go deep at a Challenger, he could make a substantial move in the rankings - much more so than at a Futures.
Yeah, I agree on the 3rd era, with fitness and modern medicine as the main criterion. Agassi, at his early stage, was good, but when he came back after really getting in shape, he was really something. And was at the Fed/Rafa/Djoker level for a brief period. One of the reasons Connors was so dominant was because he was so into fitness in the 70's and 80's and virtually no one else was. Because of fitness, it was like Fed, Rafa and Djoker took the game to a new level. Djokovic could conceivably win all 4 Slams this year - if he does that, that's Laver territory, and he could move past Federer sooner than expected.
Purp
Active Member
If he doesn't it means he either got hurt or really dropped the ball. There is nobody he should lose to right now for the foreseeable future. Nobody.
Jared7
Active Member
Well, let's see it before crediting him for it. Tsitsipas was up 2 sets on him at Roland Garros and I thought he was going to win it. Djoker's comeback was really impressive; which is why we're all currently saying he's clearly #1 (now and possibly all-time). But things change. I still think the Zverevs and Thiems can beat him on any given day - even guys like Isner or Kyrgios could pull a one-off upset (although I don't expect it). And Rafa and Fed could certainly do it too. He's the favorite to be sure, but he is human; not a tennis machine (like he sometimes seems).
(And he's never beaten Cam Norrie).
Longfrog
Active Member
I think I'm with Jake on this one. Federer passed the torch to Nadal when he was 28. Really no reason to think he (Federer) wasn't still in his prime. You'd probably say Djokovic's prime was in 2015/16 when he won 5 out of 6 slams at age... 28. Even when I didn't know what I was watching, I could tell Roddick was basically one shot and very little else. Federer is an all-time great obv. but he cleaned up in an otherwise barren era.
jake102
Active Member
I could see Djokovic having a Wimbledon letdown. I’m sure he’s aware that this year’s Wimbledon is by far Federer’s best shot at winning a last GS title, so that may motivate him.
I like Djokovic as my favorite, then Federer, then Tsitsipsas, Nadal/Zverev even. I’d be very surprised if anyone outside those five guys win.
Purp
Active Member
It's Norrie's to lose.
Peacefrog
Degenerate
Agassi could never get his head in shape, though, sadly. Imagine if he didn’t fight demons his whole career.
Eight
Member
or marry brooke shields
Peacefrog
Degenerate
Can’t not do that if presented with the opportunity at that time.
Eight
Member
not sure when you consider you are going where nicholas cage has already been before
Jared7
Active Member
Norrie and the Demon advanced 3 and 4 in doubles at Queen's Club in doubles and are now into the 2nd round against 2nd seeded Joe Salisbury and Rajeev Ram. In singles, it will indeed be Aslan Karetsev.
Rybo lost in the main draw opening round at the Prostejev Challenger 1-6, 7-5 to Rola. Competitively, making the main draw after winning 2 qualies is good for Alex, but I don't think he'll get any ATP points for the effort.
Aguilar lost 3 and 3 at Tulsa to Barrientos in the qualies. He's also playing doubles; teaming with Boris Arias. Nick Chappell is into the main draw there.
Tomas Jirousek lost 6-7 (3-7), 4-6 in Italy in the qualies there to Kirill Kavatsev.
I think Jerry Lopez is into the main draw at Santo Domingo but I still can't find his draw.
Rybo lost in the main draw opening round at the Prostejev Challenger 1-6, 7-5 to Rola. Competitively, making the main draw after winning 2 qualies is good for Alex, but I don't think he'll get any ATP points for the effort.
Aguilar lost 3 and 3 at Tulsa to Barrientos in the qualies. He's also playing doubles; teaming with Boris Arias. Nick Chappell is into the main draw there.
Tomas Jirousek lost 6-7 (3-7), 4-6 in Italy in the qualies there to Kirill Kavatsev.
I think Jerry Lopez is into the main draw at Santo Domingo but I still can't find his draw.
