Wimbledon Men’s final 2024: Alcaraz vs Djokovic

[Real McCoy]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

The majority of Sampras's career overlaps with Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Chang, Kafelnikov, who were like 40-60 odds against him. But more importantly, you had plethora of players like Korda, Rusedski, Muster, Martin etc. who had much better odds against the above than anyone outside Murray, Wawrinka and DelPo had against the big3. 
Look it up if you dont believe me, up to 2006/7, top 4 lost to the #16-20 far more often. 

 

Oh don't ask him to look things up. Expect a boomer lecture about how he heard radio when Rosewall played. He has been following for so long but couldn't grasp the zeitgeist of those times. Imagine telling such a person about players retiring at 30 in the 90s. Most people who followed tennis in the 90s would accept such a statement. Not this guy

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

 

Oh don't ask him to look things up. Expect a boomer lecture about how he heard radio when Rosewall played. He has been following for so long but couldn't grasp the zeitgeist of those times. Imagine telling such a person about players retiring at 30 in the 90s. Most people who followed tennis in the 90s would accept such a statement. Not this guy

yeah that was strange. Except for connors, who also went pretty much part time in his last 3-4 years ( playing only slams and skipping 2/3rds of the masters of their time), only rosewall played that late and Rosewall's days tennis was a lot more sedate paced than the 80s onwards. 

And even by his day's standards Rosewall was an exception. 

 

[AKane]

37 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

Hey boomer try Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Ivanisevic, Rafter

 

Ok kiddo look at this - Edberg 6 slams, Becker 6, Agassi 8, Courier 4, Ivanisevic 1, Rafter 2  - add them all up and you have 27 slams between them. Do you realize that each of the big 3 almost equals all of these?

 

Think of a Federer with 20 slams dealing with 2 guys with 24 and 22 and then Wawa with 3, Murray with 3 and JMDP with 1.

 

depth of competition indeed!!

 

 

[AKane]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

But more importantly, you had plethora of players like Korda, Rusedski, Muster, Martin etc. who had much better odds against the above than anyone outside Murray, Wawrinka and DelPo had against the big3. 

But the Big 3 had each other to contend with and that is important too.... which you all seem to write off. Korda, Muster, Rusedski and Martin types(2 GS) were hardly better than the Danill Med, Thiem,  Zverev or Tsonga types (2 GS and counting... 6+ finals and counting) .

 

Edited July 16, 2024 by AKane

[Real McCoy]

15 minutes ago, AKane said:

 

Ok kiddo look at this - Edberg 6 slams, Becker 6, Agassi 8, Courier 4, Ivanisevic 1, Rafter 2  - add them all up and you have 27 slams between them. Do you realize that each of the big 3 almost equals all of these?

 

Think of a Federer with 20 slams dealing with 2 guys with 24 and 22 and then Wawa with 3, Murray with 3 and JMDP with 1.

 

depth of competition indeed!!

 

 

 

You are still sticking to numbers. Who's the kiddo here? You're making a lame attempt at recapturing your youth boomer . At your age, you should be focused on the richness of competition than just numbers. The 90s especially the early part was more competitive than the ones faced by big 3.

[rkt.india]

11 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

 

You are still sticking to numbers. Who's the kiddo here? You're making a lame attempt at recapturing your youth boomer . At your age, you should be focused on the richness of competition than just numbers. The 90s especially the early part was more competitive than the ones faced by big 3.

If current Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh play each other, it is going to be as competitive as 90s tennis. Fed, Nadal, Novak is like three Australian teams of early to mid 2000s playing each other.

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, AKane said:

But the Big 3 had each other to contend with and that is important too.... which you all seem to write off. Korda, Muster, Rusedski and Martin types(2 GS) were hardly better than the Danill Med, Thiem,  Zverev or Tsonga types (2 GS and counting... 6+ finals and counting) .

 

having 2 people who have a 50% chance of beating you, while you are at 80% chance of beating another 2 and then 95% chance of beating everyone else is an easier time than having 5 players with 40% chance of beating you and another 10 with 25-30% chance of beating you. 

Meddy is the only one in the class of the korda-muster-rusedski. Theim was till his wrist died and the others never were even close to having the same success rate as korda-muster-rusedski types had vs their top 10 as Tsonga or Zverev against their top 10 ( when zverev is not in the top 10 that is).

 

[AKane]

2 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

 

You are still sticking to numbers. Who's the kiddo here? You're making a lame attempt at recapturing your youth boomer . At your age, you should be focused on the richness of competition than just numbers. The 90s especially the early part was more competitive than the ones faced by big 3.

richness of competition with finals with Jim Courier playing Edberg/Sampras  or Stich playing Becker or Andres Gomez playing Agassi? Yeah..... better than the Fed/Nadal 2008 or Djokovic/Fed 2019 or a bunch of their 4/5 set matches with each other.

 

BTW one of the best matches I have seen was 5 sets Nadal vs Fernando Verdasco - AO 2009 SF - 5 sets and 5 hours of incredible winners from both. Then Nadal played a 5 setter in final to beat Federer. 

 

They took tennis to a different level - 90s are not even close.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, rkt.india said:

If current Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh play each other, it is going to be as competitive as 90s tennis. Fed, Nadal, Novak is like three Australian teams of early to mid 2000s playing each other.

 

Not quite accurate. 

Its more like imagine having two ICC world cups. 1 has the WI of the 80s, the Aussies of the 90s-2000s and Saffies of the 90s, with the other teams being Sri Lanka ( Murray), Afghanistan ( DelPo) and 7 Nepals. The other is having Aussies of the 2010s, 5 sri lankas of the 90s and 6 India of the 90s. 

Thats the difference. 

 

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, AKane said:

richness of competition with finals with Jim Courier playing Edberg/Sampras  or Stich playing Becker or Andres Gomez playing Agassi? Yeah..... better than the Fed/Nadal 2008 or Djokovic/Fed 2019 or a bunch of their 4/5 set matches with each other.

 

BTW one of the best matches I have seen was 5 sets Nadal vs Fernando Verdasco - AO 2009 SF - 5 sets and 5 hours of incredible winners from both. Then Nadal played a 5 setter in final to beat Federer. 

 

They took tennis to a different level - 90s are not even close.

 

 

all of the big 3 would struggle to win the # of slams they won if they played in the 80s & 90s. 

 

[Real McCoy]

7 hours ago, rkt.india said:

If current Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh play each other, it is going to be as competitive as 90s tennis. Fed, Nadal, Novak is like three Australian teams of early to mid 2000s playing each other.

 

You have no idea man. 90s tennis was more competitive than that. In fact if the big 3 were playing in the early 90s, their numbers won't be that impressive.

[Gollum]

Easier to be consistent in homogenized surface era. 90s variation across surfaces was too much, deep runs not easy, not as upset proof.

[coffee_rules]

Great moment captured of legends.