Wimbledon Men’s final 2024: Alcaraz vs Djokovic

[Real McCoy]

Just now, AKane said:

Sampras 14, Federer 20, Nadal 22, Djokovic 24. 

 

Get over it, deal with it. 

 

Even Sampras will admit he is not in their league.

 

What should I deal with? I have no issues with those numbers. You do. So now you deal with it

[AKane]

2 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

 

Ivanisevic won in 2001 Even that was viewed as a surprise. So was Sampras winning in USO 2002. Lendl was among the first to train real hard. Even he was not impressive in the 90s when he was over the hill (past 30). Its now crystal clear that you did not follow tennis at all back then. If you did, you would know that these things were a rarity

  What is clear now is that you did not follow tennis then.

 

Lendl lost in 1991 final at age 31 to Becker at AO.

 

In 1992 - Ivan Lendl beat Becker in 5 sets. Then he lost to Edberg in 5 sets in QF. Edberg then beat Sampras in 4 sets in final.

 

From 1993 onwards Lendl fell off with scar tissue in hand and back issues.

 

 

 

[Real McCoy]

9 minutes ago, AKane said:

  What is clear now is that you did not follow tennis then.

 

Lendl lost in 1991 final at age 31 to Becker at AO.

 

In 1992 - Ivan Lendl beat Becker in 5 sets. Then he lost to Edberg in 5 sets in QF. Edberg then beat Sampras in 4 sets in final.

 

From 1993 onwards Lendl fell off with scar tissue in hand and back issues.

 

 

 

 

ok boomer

[AKane]

2 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

 

ok boomer

welcome sonny.

[Real McCoy]

13 minutes ago, AKane said:

welcome sonny.

 

what for?

[AKane]

2 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

 

what for?

For the education sonny - want some more?

 

Jimmy Connors retired at age 40+ from tennis. Played 1991 SF at USO at age 39. I remember his run to SF that year. BTW Lendl also made the other SF.

 

Ken Rosewall born 1934 - won 2 USO, 2 FO and 4 AO but never won Wimbledon.   Rosewall lost Wim finals in 1954(at age 20), 56, 70 and 74(at age 40).

 

Rosewall played his last Wimbledon final at age 40  in 1974 - loosing to Jimmy Connors in Final. Same year he made the US Open final again loosing to Connors...     

 

People have been playing past age 30 for a long long time. Not everyone is Bjorn Borg.

 

 

[Gollum]

5 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

 

Oh come on give it a rest. Acknowledge greatness when you see it. Don't get embroiled in debates. Peak for peak is a useless argument. Federer during his peak lost to teenage Nadal and Nadal during his peak got pwned by Davydenko. Djokovic actually suffered less humiliating defeats among the three.

Imagine someone downplaying Australian Open Nole 

 

I thought by now, former Big 3 fanboys would have matured and started to see the greatness in each of them. 

[Gollum]

6 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

 

I don't know who said this - Courier or Agassi, but one of them had the opinion that Sampras was a cold blooded killer when serving. He has never lost serves at important moments like Federer. It was not just the quality of the serving but the instinct behind them.

Sampras serve was the single greatest weapon in tennis history. His second serve was better than many elite players' first serve. Not just the firepower but so reliable and clutch. 

[Real McCoy]

8 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Sampras serve was the single greatest weapon in tennis history. His second serve was better than many elite players' first serve. Not just the firepower but so reliable and clutch. 

 

Yeah tell this boomer in chief who thinks he knows it all because he watched some games in the 90s.

[Real McCoy]

18 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Imagine someone downplaying Australian Open Nole 

 

I thought by now, former Big 3 fanboys would have matured and started to see the greatness in each of them. 

 

AO 2019 was a complete destruction of Nadal, who himself was destroying others in his path. Nadal faced Tsitsipas in the SF who was upbeat after defeating Federer in the round of 16. Rafa proceeded to destroy his will in the SF. Then he faced Nole in the final which was a repeat of the serving he meted out to tsitsipas. That Nole was something. Nole basically gave zero chances for Rafa in that match. It was a comprehensive victory. Rafa had to make up some injury excuses in the presentation ceremony. I dont know how Nole could hide his laughter at that excuse. That was funny to see.

[Chaos]

What u folks doing? @Laaloo @Real McCoy @Frustrated@Ultimate_Game @Nikhil_cric @Lord @Lone Wolf

 

[Ultimate_Game]

4 hours ago, Chaos said:

What u folks doing? @Laaloo @Real McCoy @Frustrated@Ultimate_Game @Nikhil_cric @Lord @Lone Wolf

 

 

Not stuffing my face the way you are 

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, AKane said:

That is your opinion - his own pigeon rival Agassi played until 2006 - age 36. 

 

Sampras after the defeats to Safin and Hewitt was lucky to play his pigeon again in 2002 US Open final.

 

With 14 slams he is considerably behind the Big 3 - deal with it.

 

That is not an opinion but a fact. Agassi lasted till age 36, big part of which is he took a 2 year hiatus from the tour to do drugs and bang a hollywood hottie. 

Agassi is literally the one who broke the mould and went into his mid 30s competetively, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, lendl, Wilander, McEnroe, Krajicek- heck practically everyone in tennis up to that point- retired when they were 30-32 years old or continued to play part time after 30 and retired when they were 33-34 years old. 

 

One reason why Sampras is behind the big three, is because the big three simply didnt have as much depth of competition or court conditions to have very many challengers. 

Up until the 2005/2006 period, when balls were made bigger and tennis slowed down a lot, it was common for world #20 to beat world #1  if the former had a great day and the latter was not on his best day. 

 

Sampras however, is one of those guys who'd win 14-15 slams in any era, given that he is the best server ever in the game by a country-mile and also one of the best forehands in the game, along with the best net game since Edberg. 

 

[kruiser]

On 7/14/2024 at 12:59 PM, AKane said:

Has no weaknesses and will only get better and stronger in 2 more years.

 

Peak Federer had the great serve and forehand but the backhand was weaker, much weaker. Nadal serve and backhand were adequate but that is all.

 

Djokovic stands on line and keeps the ball deep. Period. That is his game. If you can overcome the deep ball - you can beat Djokovic. Not easy to do but Stan Wawrinka and now Alcaraz have shown it can be done with DTL shots on both wings.

 

I think that was the issue of Federer and Nadal - they both could not hit the DTL backhand well. Crosscourt yeah but not DTL. Djokovic cleverly exploited that. When in trouble many times he put it on their backhand and covered the crosscourt side.... dare them to hit DTL.  He could not do that with Stan in 4 GS defeats and now with Alcaraz.

Disagree. Federer's down the line one handed backhand was a work of art .. magnificent to watch 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, AKane said:

For the education sonny - want some more?

 

Jimmy Connors retired at age 40+ from tennis. Played 1991 SF at USO at age 39. I remember his run to SF that year. BTW Lendl also made the other SF.

 

Ken Rosewall born 1934 - won 2 USO, 2 FO and 4 AO but never won Wimbledon.   Rosewall lost Wim finals in 1954(at age 20), 56, 70 and 74(at age 40).

 

Rosewall played his last Wimbledon final at age 40  in 1974 - loosing to Jimmy Connors in Final. Same year he made the US Open final again loosing to Connors...     

 

People have been playing past age 30 for a long long time. Not everyone is Bjorn Borg.

 

 

 

 

In Rosewall's days, tennis was a lot easier on the body, without all the power shots. Connors, Rosewall and Agassi are pretty much the only pros till the last 15 years to play till 35 years old in tennis for high level players. 

Most pros retired in the 30-32 year mark. Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, etc. they all mostly retired in the 30-33 year old range as well. 

[Kron]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

In Rosewall's days, tennis was a lot easier on the body, without all the power shots. Connors, Rosewall and Agassi are pretty much the only pros till the last 15 years to play till 35 years old in tennis for high level players. 

Most pros retired in the 30-32 year mark. Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, etc. they all mostly retired in the 30-33 year old range as well. 

Less flexible and less athletic you are the more you need to compensate by running mire miles hence body will breakdown

 

Sampras was a true great of his era. Only flaw is poor record in French open..hence he is behind big 3

[AKane]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

One reason why Sampras is behind the big three, is because the big three simply didnt have as much depth of competition or court conditions to have very many challengers. 

Geez - the big 3 had the big 3 to contend with. Occasionally a Murray or Wawrinka came along or JMDP or Thiem types? Who did Sampras have to contend with a la big 3 had each other?

 

Fed lost how many French Open finals to Nadal 4 or 5? Same with Djokovic. Nadal lost 5 matches at Wimby to Fed or Djokovic at SF or F level. Nadal lost 3 times to Fed/Djokovic at Aus Open in finals. etc etc. I mean come on.  Depth of competition indeed.

 

Just as a reference....

 

Novak Djokovic has played 37 GS finals - won 24 and lost 13.  

Of those 13 he has lost 5 times to Nadal(3 FO and 2 USO), 2 times to Murray, 2 times to Wawrinka, 2 times to Alcaraz, 1 time to Federer and 1 time to Danil Medvedev.... this is just finals. I don't want to count the GS SFs lost to Nadal and Federer.

 

Roger Federer has played 31 GS finals - won 20 and lost 11.

Of those 11,  6 defeats to Nadal (4 FO and 1 Wim and 1 AO), 4 defeats to Djokovic(3 Wim and 1 USO) and 1 defeat to Juan Martin Del Potro in USO.

 

Say without a Rafael Nadal, a Roger Federer would have made a mockery of tennis with CYGS galore etc. 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2024 by AKane

[Chaos]

4 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Not stuffing my face the way you are 

then get stuffed

[Real McCoy]

24 minutes ago, AKane said:

Geez - the big 3 had the big 3 to contend with. Occasionally a Murray or Wawrinka came along or Thiem types? Who did Sampras have to contend with a la big 3 had each other?

 

Fed lost how many French Open finals to Nadal 4 or 5? Same with Djokovic. Nadal lost 5 matches at Wimby to Fed or Djokovic at SF or F level. Nadal lost 3 times to Fed/Djokovic at Aus Open in finals. etc etc. I mean come on.  Depth of competition indeed.

 

Just as a reference.... Djokovic has played 37 GS finals - won 24 and lost 13.  

Of those 13 he has lost 5 times to Nadal(3 FO and 2 USO), 2 times to Murray, 2 times to Wawrinka, 2 times to Alcaraz, 1 time to Federer and 1 time to Danil Medvedev.... this is just finals. I don't want to count the GS SFs lost to Nadal and Federer.

 

Hey boomer try Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Ivanisevic, Rafter and not to include the clay court specialists such as Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Moya, Rios. the 90s were stacked with world beaters unlike the usual competition the big 3 faced

Edited July 16, 2024 by Real McCoy

[Muloghonto]

21 minutes ago, AKane said:

Geez - the big 3 had the big 3 to contend with. Occasionally a Murray or Wawrinka came along or Thiem types? Who did Sampras have to contend with a la big 3 had each other?

 

Fed lost how many French Open finals to Nadal 4 or 5? Same with Djokovic. Nadal lost 5 matches at Wimby to Fed or Djokovic at SF or F level. Nadal lost 3 times to Fed/Djokovic at Aus Open in finals. etc etc. I mean come on.  Depth of competition indeed.

 

Just as a reference.... Djokovic has played 37 GS finals - won 24 and lost 13.  

Of those 13 he has lost 5 times to Nadal(3 FO and 2 USO), 2 times to Murray, 2 times to Wawrinka, 2 times to Alcaraz, 1 time to Federer and 1 time to Danil Medvedev.... this is just finals. I don't want to count the GS SFs lost to Nadal and Federer.

 

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.