Federer

[ThunderRam]

On 7/14/2019 at 11:21 AM, 954gator said:

Don't like that last set tiebreaker rule.   Let them play!

 

12 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

Caught me off-guard... I was at first wondering wtf they were talking about a tiebreaker in the 5th set.  That totally blows.   NHL does it right in playoffs, sudden death.

 

This is reactionary. It was done to protect the players. Can't have them out there for 6, 7 hours or longer. The players were largely in favor of it. Not only did 70-68 happen once, but also 26-24 between Isner and Anderson just last year. There are numerous other examples.

If a player can't separate themselves after 12-12 in the Final set, a tiebreaker makes too much sense. There's plenty of time and points to do something and not allow it to come down to a tiebreak.

Think if a player involved has to play the next day --- or even 2 days later. It pretty much takes them out of it from that point on. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Besides, if you're gonna bitch about it going to a tiebreak at 12-12, why not bitch about sets 1-4 going to a tiebreak after 6-6? Why not let all the sets go on forever?? I mean, Fed might have beaten Djoker if sets 1 and 3 didn't have a tiebreak. Right?

The new rule is a great rule IMO.

[ThunderRam]

On 7/13/2019 at 4:55 PM, Mjd33 said:

Right now Roger is the GOAT imo. If Rod laver says Federer is the best of all time then that’s good enough for me. 

 

There is no GOAT right now, as far as I'm concerned. Proclaiming one right now is akin to proclaiming a winner in a single game when the game is far from complete.

These guys need to finish their careers first. Fed's not done yet and the 2 guys behind him are 5 years younger and on a better pace, in terms of Slams. There's a lot left to play out.

Besides, Fed's really never been GOAT IMO. It's a mirage. Dude had 4-5 years with no real competition where he piled up the majority of his slams. What Rafa and Djokovic have done is more impressive to me considering that they did it when all three were at or near the top of their games. They've had to navigate deeper fields. Not only each other, but the likes of Wawrinka and Murray who have won 3 each.

Same goes for Serena too. She's racked up titles without a true rival or someone to steal titles away from her for a very long spell. Her sister Venus won the vast majority of her slams 10+ years ago. I've never bought into Serena being better than Martina Navratilova or even Chris Evert who each would have won a lot more had the other not been in the way.

Even though Steffi Graf sorta falls into the same category as Serena (racking up titles after Chris and Martina's prime and w/o a true rival) I'd still argue she's a better player than Serena despite having 1 slam less.

IMO most fans are too hung up on accomplishments and stats without fully understanding context, such as differences in eras, rules and depth of competition. Same thing happens with all the records being broken in the NBA, MLB and NFL.

It's just not as easy as the person with the most trophies is the undisputed GOAT. It doesn't work that way.

You mentioned Rod Laver, who doesn't have the most GS titles but is still widely considered in the discussion. Although as for what Rod himself believes doesn't mean a damn thing. Pete Sampras might have an opinion too but it's no more valid just because he played as was great.

I mean, John McEnroe openly admits to being a Laver fan. Says he was his role model and all-time favorite. But he recently went on record to say that he believes the 3 best players of all-time are still playing today. His opinion carries no more weight than Laver's or anyone else. But it does go to show that another great champ has a slightly different view of it.

[ThunderRam]

On 7/14/2019 at 12:33 PM, Mjd33 said:

Two match points. 

Thats what he will be thinking in bed tonight. 

 

Yeah, for a guy that has won as much as he has, you could see the nerves show big time in that spot. It's like he suddenly realized he was going to win and tightened up a bit.

Just goes to show that no matter how good or accomplished someone is, the pressure of winning at that level can still get to these guys. I thought Novak showed nerves as well.

It simply came down to who handled it better. When Djoker's back was against the wall, he played his very best tennis. While I'm admittedly a Rafa guy, I greatly appreciate and admire what I've seen out of both Fed and Djoker over the years. IMO, the greatest attribute Novak has is the ability to step his game up when he's on the brink of losing. I've seen him do it so often that I'm no longer surprised by it.

[ThunderRam]

12 hours ago, 954gator said:

I dunno man on grass I take Fed because Novak and Rafa’s service games are weaker IMO.   

I think Novak on hard court

Rafa on Clay (easy)

Fed on grass.

Fed and Novak would be right there with each other though on hard and grass courts.  

 

Rafa has fared better against both Fed and Djokovic on grass and hard court than they have against him on clay. That means something to me.

I said this before and will say it again. The US Open was played in clay from 1975 through 1977 (it was on grass before that). Imagine if it had remained that way and 2 of the Slams were on clay rather than 2 on hard court as it stands now?

Nobody seems to want to acknowledge that players whose games translate better on faster surfaces have a big advantage when it comes to accumulating Slams. It's be like one NFL team playing 12 road games versus 4 home and another getting 12 at home versus 4 on the road.

IMO, the fact that Rafa is even close to Fed right now is remarkable. His career is several years shorter and he's played at a surface disadvantage. Yet he's gone through Fed to win Wimbledon and the Australian while Fed has never beaten him at RG.

[ThunderRam]

Another dude that doesn't get his due IMO is Bjorn Borg. He won 11 slams and retired by the age of 25.

He also only played at the Australian Open one time, as most players didn't play it prior to 1987 due to subpar court conditions.

[ThunderRam]

12 hours ago, nptb17 said:

Novak is 3-0 against Fed at Wimbledon.  He Djoker be playing spades while them other guys are playing rummy.

 

There's no doubt that Novak is the #1 player in the world right now. He's playing lights out. But the other guys have had their runs too. Rafa nearly beat Novak at Wimbledon last year. These things tend to run in spurts. The way Fed is and has been playing, he might be capable of another couple slams.

 

6 hours ago, steeler01 said:

He was outplayed, and still found a way to win the match.  A true sign of a champion. 
 

I thought Roger outplayed him for the most part. The statcast backs that up. He won a lot more games over all and more total points. But he lost the most crucial points, specifically when at double-match point.

That was a match either could have won. It just so happened that Novak did. But he could have lost just as easily. Roger just needed to hit one good serve.

That said, major props to Novak for stepping up his game to accomplish something that hadn't happened in 70+ years.

 

6 hours ago, 954gator said:

If Novak had a killer serve it would be over for everyone. 

You could say that for a lot of former champs, and even non-champs. What if Andre Agassi had a killer serve? Or Rafa Nadal??

 

On 7/13/2019 at 8:20 AM, maxchoboian said:

On the women's side, 23-time Slam champion Serena was worked pretty good by Halep in the final. Serena has certainly worked a lot of others in her career. Not today though. It was strange seeing Williams as the #11 seed. She can still play a bit.

I was thrilled to see Simona Halep win that match! I've become a big fan the past 3-4 years and she's come so close only to find a way to lose. I'm hoping this win, on top of the French last year, will springboard her to bigger and better things. It should boost her confidence.

 

On 7/14/2019 at 10:28 PM, steeler01 said:

He has more slams, but the Joker is something else. At everyone's peak, that's who I'm taking

If we're talking 'peaks', it's hard to go against Bjorn Borg who won at a higher rate than all these guys despite only playing 3 slams per season and retiring at 25.

I'd also make a case for Andre Agassi -- the only men's player to accomplish a Career Super Slam -- who was among the best player's I've ever seen when focused, enjoying the game and taking it seriously.

Of course, I'm partial to Nadal too.

But I can't argue against Novak and Fed either.

IMO, you couldn't go wrong with any of those 5.

 

16 hours ago, Mjd33 said:

Their primes didn’t overlap. That’s the problem.

Primes may not have overlapped, but Roger had the advantage of several years w/o a deep field or significant rivals. Rafa and Novak never had that benefit. That should matter.

When Roger first came up and started dominating, Pete and Andre were shells of themselves. Rafa didn't really develop into a threat away from clay until 2008 and Djokovic didn't hit his stride until 2011.

If you took either of those guys (even before their peaks) back to 2004 to switch places with Roger -- they'd have accomplished something similar over that 4 year period.

 

13 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

and a picture of the stadium grass at the start of the 5th set on the last match on the court of the tourney... and the "T" was immaculate... really shows you how tennis has changed from the past, when serve and volley was so common in singles play on the grass.   It's become a standing joke almost when Mac sees a serve and volley. 

I don't think a lot of casual fans are aware that a new variety of rye grass was introduced in 2001. The idea was the slow down play, which it has. In fact, it's been said by many that the grass courts play more like hard courts now in terms of bounce height and speed.

Thus Wimbledon has transformed from a serve and volley game into a more traditional base liner's game.

Had Pete Sampras or Martina Navratilova's careers happened this millennium, they wouldn't have been able to win it by playing the exact same way.

Conversely, had the surface not been tampered with and left as is, it's highly possible some of the multiple champions of today might not have won as often since it used to be common for a grass court specialist to play out of their minds to upset a better overall player. The chances of those types of upsets happening now has drastically decreased.

[golfaddict1]

5 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

 

 

This is reactionary. It was done to protect the players. Can't have them out there for 6, 7 hours or longer. The players were largely in favor of it. Not only did 70-68 happen once, but also 26-24 between Isner and Anderson just last year. There are numerous other examples.

Tell that to Guy Forget, the only logical administrator left... who was a pro tennis player and feels luck is more involved with tiebreakers.   Now Roland Garros has the only true finish, the slowest surface of all.   Good for them.  

If a player can't separate themselves after 12-12 in the Final set, a tiebreaker makes too much sense. There's plenty of time and points to do something and not allow it to come down to a tiebreak.

Plenty of time to win in the NHL also... let them play.   Kudos to the few who do it right still.  Protect the players lol.   Maybe in baseball we should have the catchers have an Ottoman to sit on past inning 14?    Or maybe we should allow wild pitches or past balls on any count with a batter to allow the batter to try and steal first base?  Sure, great new rule idea!       It's tennis on grass, the fastest surface with the most garbage points.   Pussification of sports continue.  

Think if a player involved has to play the next day --- or even 2 days later. It pretty much takes them out of it from that point on. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

This happens already with straight sets vs 5 set battles meeting up next round (on clay, the worst example of punishment). 

Besides, if you're gonna bitch about it going to a tiebreak at 12-12, why not bitch about sets 1-4 going to a tiebreak after 6-6? Why not let all the sets go on forever?? I mean, Fed might have beaten Djoker if sets 1 and 3 didn't have a tiebreak. Right?

The less rules changed the better.    The discussion was always set 5 and congrats again to Guy Forget and Roland Garros for keeping tradition in place and taking the most luck out of the equation by playing a different format than normal play.  

The new rule is a great rule IMO.

Shame on the Aussie Open to follow Wimbledon.    Well done France.  

 

 

[golfaddict1]

5 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

I don't think a lot of casual fans are aware that a new variety of rye grass was introduced in 2001. The idea was the slow down play, which it has. In fact, it's been said by many that the grass courts play more like hard courts now in terms of bounce height and speed.

I think the main change was truer bounces... you don't see as many weird bounces and thus you can stay back and be more comfortable.   I think the style of tennis has changed more than the slower play of grass.   Hard court play you see less serve and volleying than in the past.    I can't say if it's any specific racket technology, string enhancements or ball change but the trend is clearly not in favor of the serve and volley.   

Thus Wimbledon has transformed from a serve and volley game into a more traditional base liner's game.

 You still had T mark dried grass after 2001, albeit less as the years went by.   Interested to hear other opinions on this subject from the younger guys, who grew up playing with equipment and strings like @954gator and also played with the older stuff.  

Had Pete Sampras or Martina Navratilova's careers happened this millennium, they wouldn't have been able to win it by playing the exact same way.

I think great is great in any era, but it's sure likely they wouldn't come in on 2nd serves as much.  But you can be sure both would be at the net as quickly as possible, not caring about truer bounces or slower surfaces.  

Conversely, had the surface not been tampered with and left as is, it's highly possible some of the multiple champions of today might not have won as often since it used to be common for a grass court specialist to play out of their minds to upset a better overall player. The chances of those types of upsets happening now has drastically decreased.

I think the main problem is that no youngsters have stepped up to challenge the top players.    Djokovic is really in an ideal spot right now.  Wawrinka has been the only player to have slam success during this amazingly long run.   Murray has unfortunately bowed out due to injuries.   Will anyone step up or will Djokovic and Nadal ping pong slams for the next few years?   

 

[golfaddict1]

 

[Cal 14]

On 1/28/2018 at 10:55 AM, 954gator said:

Dude is a BEAST.   I hesitated to say this before, but he truly is the GOAT in my opinion.    Won his 20th slam at the age of 37.   

 

I saw Federer play something like 16 years ago in southern California.  He'd stalk the court. 

Amazing that he's still going at this level. 

[golfaddict1]

3 hours ago, Cal 14 said:

I saw Federer play something like 16 years ago in southern California.  He'd stalk the court. 

Amazing that he's still going at this level. 

Saw an epic finals in Key Biscayne with Federer all but toasted, but come back to win in 5 sets vs Rafa many moons ago.  Also saw Fed beat Agassi handily.  

My son enjoyed Roddick’s play and style and we got to see him beat Fed in 3. Fed smashed his racket on a changeover during that one, a rarity for sure.  

 

[ThunderRam]

19 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

Plenty of time to win in the NHL also... let them play.   Kudos to the few who do it right still.  Protect the players lol.   Maybe in baseball we should have the catchers have an Ottoman to sit on past inning 14? 

 

You've mentioned the NHL twice now, but there's a gigantic difference you're not at all considering. The NHL is a TEAM sport. There are substitutions. Lots of them. It's also 'sudden death'. Same with other TEAM sports.

Tennis is not a team sport and there are no substitutions. Novak Djokovic once quit a match at the Aussie Open due to heat and how it affected him. Imagine playing non-stop in a 5th set down there until someone finally won by 2 games. It doesn't make any sense. Same with the US Open where it's often hot and humid.

While it's obviously much cooler at Wimbledon and the French, it's too much to ask anyone to play at a high level for 5, 6, 7 or more hours. What typically ends up happening in those marathon matches is the players go full out on their service games then try to recuperate on the return. It doesn't make for good tennis.

I also dismiss the notion of 'luck'. If a match goes 5 sets and 12 games a piece in the final set, it's clearly obvious the players are even. Nobody was able to separate themselves over 3-5 hours and 5 sets. What does potentially playing another couple hours going to do? All it sets up is increased health risk and a lesser level of tennis. And puts the winning player at a greater disadvantage in their next match -- should it occur before the Finals. That's unfair to the player and the fans.

Why do you think the NFL and the NHL play sudden death rather than allow the entire OT period to play out? A tiebreak in tennis is akin to playing sudden death.

Do you ever cite 'luck' when a team wins by scoring a goal or TD right off the bat in OT? I don't understand why you see this any differently.

I can see an argument for playing a longer tiebreak. But not for playing until one player wins by two games or drops dead trying.

I kinda like the idea of combining the Wimbledon and Aussie Open tiebreak. If they get to 12-12, play a 10 point tiebreak and you're done. That's plenty of time in the set and the tiebreak. The loser has no excuses.

[ThunderRam]

18 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

I don't think a lot of casual fans are aware that a new variety of rye grass was introduced in 2001. The idea was the slow down play, which it has. In fact, it's been said by many that the grass courts play more like hard courts now in terms of bounce height and speed.

I think the main change was truer bounces... you don't see as many weird bounces and thus you can stay back and be more comfortable.   I think the style of tennis has changed more than the slower play of grass.   Hard court play you see less serve and volleying than in the past.    I can't say if it's any specific racket technology, string enhancements or ball change but the trend is clearly not in favor of the serve and volley.   

Thus Wimbledon has transformed from a serve and volley game into a more traditional base liner's game.

 You still had T mark dried grass after 2001, albeit less as the years went by.   Interested to hear other opinions on this subject from the younger guys, who grew up playing with equipment and strings like @954gator and also played with the older stuff.  

Had Pete Sampras or Martina Navratilova's careers happened this millennium, they wouldn't have been able to win it by playing the exact same way.

I think great is great in any era, but it's sure likely they wouldn't come in on 2nd serves as much.  But you can be sure both would be at the net as quickly as possible, not caring about truer bounces or slower surfaces.  

Conversely, had the surface not been tampered with and left as is, it's highly possible some of the multiple champions of today might not have won as often since it used to be common for a grass court specialist to play out of their minds to upset a better overall player. The chances of those types of upsets happening now has drastically decreased.

I think the main problem is that no youngsters have stepped up to challenge the top players.    Djokovic is really in an ideal spot right now.  Wawrinka has been the only player to have slam success during this amazingly long run.   Murray has unfortunately bowed out due to injuries.   Will anyone step up or will Djokovic and Nadal ping pong slams for the next few years?   

 

Great points and discussion.

I agree that "great is great in any era" --- but I still contend that they would have had to find other ways to get it done. Maybe they would have, perhaps they wouldn't have. We'll never know. I'm just saying that it changes things. Perhaps they are still great, but not as great? IDK.

I mean, I'm one that believe the great Dan Marino would be even greater in today's game with today's QB and offense friendly rules. But that doesn't mean he'd have won any SB's now versus then. It's still a team accomplishment.

Individual sports are a different animal though.

[golfaddict1]

7 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

 

You've mentioned the NHL twice now, but there's a gigantic difference you're not at all considering. The NHL is a TEAM sport. There are substitutions. Lots of them. It's also 'sudden death'. Same with other TEAM sports.

Endurance/pain threshold/performance,  individual or team, my focus was on what the ultimate goal is by both sports... which is to 'finish' the right way and the NHL in terms of endurance and physical abuse is imo on par at the least with individual singles tennis.   This varies of course with positions and players (Brian Leetch, an old Rangers defenseman played some wicked minutes in games).  The best defensemen tend to lean on minutes as does the top scoring line of course... and then you have the specialists on short handed and power play situations.    Gretzky in a world competition grueling game had to pee in his uniform on the bench.   Have you seen any tennis player do that?     

Tennis is not a team sport and there are no substitutions. Novak Djokovic once quit a match at the Aussie Open due to heat and how it affected him. Imagine playing non-stop in a 5th set down there until someone finally won by 2 games. It doesn't make any sense. Same with the US Open where it's often hot and humid.

There are breaks every 2 games and at end of set they can take a break.   There is also a period of rest between points.  During that long 5th set, they had a break.   They don't receive a lengthy break of course with intermissions, but tennis players don't get touched by defenders and not in a two hand touch kind of way .  Equipment can do only so much of course.   Defenders blocking pucks,  drawing blood, getting stitched up or barely getting to the bench... only to come back on the ice a few shifts later or next period ready to go.  As the intermissions rise in the NHL playoffs (and that's crucial, playoffs similar to majors in tennis... the pinnacle of the sport), you can be sure that what those guys are dealing with for that 20 minute intermission is imo every bit as painful as a 5th set 12-12 first service.  

While it's obviously much cooler at Wimbledon and the French, it's too much to ask anyone to play at a high level for 5, 6, 7 or more hours. What typically ends up happening in those marathon matches is the players go full out on their service games then try to recuperate on the return. It doesn't make for good tennis.

Have limitations based on weather or let's say quarterfinals on...  it's a rarity when this happens.   Let them play.   NHL is where my point is... it's grueling and it continues until a goal is scored to break a 3rd period tie.   That's how I like it.   We will agree to disagree on this one.  

I also dismiss the notion of 'luck'. If a match goes 5 sets and 12 games a piece in the final set, it's clearly obvious the players are even. Nobody was able to separate themselves over 3-5 hours and 5 sets. What does potentially playing another couple hours going to do? All it sets up is increased health risk and a lesser level of tennis. And puts the winning player at a greater disadvantage in their next match -- should it occur before the Finals. That's unfair to the player and the fans.

NHL has a great setup.  Make the regular season 5 min. OT with less players on the ice to attract a non tie finish and give the winner via goal or shootout an extra point.  But when the playoffs come, the traditional way kicks in.   We will agree to disagree on this one.  

Why do you think the NFL and the NHL play sudden death rather than allow the entire OT period to play out? A tiebreak in tennis is akin to playing sudden death.

Agree here... and imo playoffs are akin to majors and the right way to finish is to play the traditional way to finish.  It was only about set 5.  I am all for 4 sets of tiebreakers.  

Do you ever cite 'luck' when a team wins by scoring a goal or TD right off the bat in OT? I don't understand why you see this any differently.

Tiebreakers are a variation of regular play, that imo don't belong in a 5th set grand slam event.   I don't like the NFL OT rule at all!  

I can see an argument for playing a longer tiebreak. But not for playing until one player wins by two games or drops dead trying.

Heat is where the US Open and Aussie Open have a point... and I can't defend it other than with temperature limits, more breaks or a limit of tiebreaker max games to force a tiebreaker as they enforce now.  Roland Garros can get hot too and that surface with no tiebreaker is a scary thought for 7 hours... but I don't think they've had anything crazy yet.   I didn't check or recall at least.   

I kinda like the idea of combining the Wimbledon and Aussie Open tiebreak. If they get to 12-12, play a 10 point tiebreak and you're done. That's plenty of time in the set and the tiebreak. The loser has no excuses.

No excuses agreed.  Had Fed won the match, I'd be replying the same way.   Wimbledon of all surfaces... I just don't like it.   Let them wear colors if they want to adjust tradition    The lines crew had some jazzy unis this year.     Was interesting when Fed and Kei played in the quarters, with both guys having the same Japanese sponsored white shirt and red logo on.  Uniqlo is the brand.  

 

[954gator]

11 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

 

You've mentioned the NHL twice now, but there's a gigantic difference you're not at all considering. The NHL is a TEAM sport. There are substitutions. Lots of them. It's also 'sudden death'. Same with other TEAM sports.

Tennis is not a team sport and there are no substitutions. Novak Djokovic once quit a match at the Aussie Open due to heat and how it affected him. Imagine playing non-stop in a 5th set down there until someone finally won by 2 games. It doesn't make any sense. Same with the US Open where it's often hot and humid.

While it's obviously much cooler at Wimbledon and the French, it's too much to ask anyone to play at a high level for 5, 6, 7 or more hours. What typically ends up happening in those marathon matches is the players go full out on their service games then try to recuperate on the return. It doesn't make for good tennis.

I also dismiss the notion of 'luck'. If a match goes 5 sets and 12 games a piece in the final set, it's clearly obvious the players are even. Nobody was able to separate themselves over 3-5 hours and 5 sets. What does potentially playing another couple hours going to do? All it sets up is increased health risk and a lesser level of tennis. And puts the winning player at a greater disadvantage in their next match -- should it occur before the Finals. That's unfair to the player and the fans.

Why do you think the NFL and the NHL play sudden death rather than allow the entire OT period to play out? A tiebreak in tennis is akin to playing sudden death.

Do you ever cite 'luck' when a team wins by scoring a goal or TD right off the bat in OT? I don't understand why you see this any differently.

I can see an argument for playing a longer tiebreak. But not for playing until one player wins by two games or drops dead trying.

I kinda like the idea of combining the Wimbledon and Aussie Open tiebreak. If they get to 12-12, play a 10 point tiebreak and you're done. That's plenty of time in the set and the tiebreak. The loser has no excuses.

Agree on 10 pt tie break if it’s at the end.  7 just seems too quick to end the game.   Too much pressure to win your first two service points IMO.  

[ThunderRam]

On 7/17/2019 at 8:04 AM, golfaddict1 said:

 

 

We disagree on a lot of these points, but I greatly respect your opinion and the back and forth discussion. I love talking tennis with anyone. I often feel like it’s a forgotten and under appreciated sport. Sometimes I feel like I’m the only one watching these matches at 3am!!! Lol. 

I grew up watching and playing tennis. Even took lessons from a USTA Pro from my early teens through my early 20’s. My fandom began with the Borg, McEnroe, Connors era and Chrissy-Martina. My mom was a huge tennis fan and it rubbed off. Chris Evert and Andre Agassi were her all time favs and players I obviously grew up loving too, among others.

[ThunderRam]

On 7/17/2019 at 11:39 AM, 954gator said:

Agree on 10 pt tie break if it’s at the end.  7 just seems too quick to end the game.   Too much pressure to win your first two service points IMO.  

 

Couldnt agree more. 

[golfaddict1]

20 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

 

We disagree on a lot of these points, but I greatly respect your opinion and the back and forth discussion. I love talking tennis with anyone. I often feel like it’s a forgotten and under appreciated sport. Sometimes I feel like I’m the only one watching these matches at 3am!!! Lol. 

I grew up watching and playing tennis. Even took lessons from a USTA Pro from my early teens through my early 20’s. My fandom began with the Borg, McEnroe, Connors era and Chrissy-Martina. My mom was a huge tennis fan and it rubbed off. Chris Evert and Andre Agassi were her all time favs and players I obviously grew up loving too, among others.

I can relate.  It started for me at the age of 5 or 6 hitting on the street with a heavier base piece attached to a long piece of thin rubber that was attached to a tennis ball.   that allowed to take some nice rips as a kid (especially pretend baseball homer swing rips lol).  My aunt from NY was a big tennis fan and got me hooked using that gadget and I’m glad she did.  

I’m much less of a sports fanatic the last few years, but years back sure... any time day or night I’d plan to watch a USA soccer match, British Open or Aussie Open for example.  Now DVR takes over, but sometimes you just have to watch live.  

You can always talk tennis shop here, no problem.   Jimmy and Chrissy were my 2 favs.   I’m sure you know their history.  Jimbo married a playmate and they are still married I believe.  Chrissy not sure what marriage count she’s up to, but she looks great.  

[golfaddict1]

Super tiebreaker saved Federer today.  
Down 8-4, he won the final 6 points.   

Sure Millman isn’t a household name and elite player, but at age 38 still an epic win for Fed.  Serena wasn’t as fortunate and was upset.   

[Omaha Vol]

Johnny Mac is still the best. Temper and all.....🤣

[golfaddict1]

“Houdini” reaches the semis, with an epic 5 set comeback.  7 match points saved and he even tossed out an F bomb to boot in the 3rd set, when Tennys was in control.  
Now he faces Djokovic in the semis and has a few days off and a night match (lower temp) to try and heal and get into a competitive state.  It won’t be easy for the 38 yr old.as Djokovic will make Roger work for sure.  Raonic would have been an ideal opponent.   Nice to see the other Swiss star Wawrinka doing well this tourney.  

[golfaddict1]

Enjoyed looking back at the tennis comments.  

Djokovic is going for the grand slam at the US Open.  His QF match is tonight (always dug US Open tennis at night).  

Current majors tally: 

20 for the Big 3.  

Murray actually played and lost early to Tsitsipas and his lengthy bathroom break.   

 

 

[golfaddict1]

I’ve never rooted for Medvedev until Sunday and may never again 😊.  Well played final 🏆
 

The big 3 remain tied at 20 majors through 2021.  

[golfaddict1]

On 7/16/2019 at 10:55 AM, golfaddict1 said:

 

Lol.  Had to bump this.  Fed is recuperating from knee surgery I believe.  He’ll have a bionic knee replacement prior to 2059 of course. 😂 

[golfaddict1]

Roger and Rafa will play doubles together I heard/saw on CNBC today.  Roger’s knee must be in pretty bad shape.  I’ll tune in regardless of course.  
 

Seaver ended his career trying to make the Mets squad in 87.  People watched him then too.  
 

Most legends leave on a down note… Jim Brown and Barry Sanders being outliers.