TSR Tennis Society III

Wouldn't that be a ridiculous coincidence if the three best players of all time were all playing at the same time. Also in what way is Djokovic above Federer? Also how can you not spell their names, it's really not that hard.

Still think Djocovich is the greatest player of all time, followed by federrer and Nadal in joint second (and i am a huge fedal fan).

Verdasco played far better tennis today, and lost because of the errors he made, but credit to Murray for never giving up.

Still think Djocovich is the greatest player of all time, followed by federrer and Nadal in joint second (and i am a huge fedal fan).

Verdasco played far better tennis today, and lost because of the errors he made, but credit to Murray for never giving up.

1 - Having a full time job is well annoying. Whatever happened to the old today at wimbledon which was like 3 hours long? This hour long is a joke.
2 - Andy looks to have played pretty defensively from what I've seen of his match, but hey. Verdasco looked pretty good in the first 2 sets. I hope he can get it together a bit to get back to somewhere near the top 10.
3 - I love Mac and Boris but I want to see Del Potro smash some forehands. Put it on BBC!

Yep, Djokovic is not the greatest ever, however much I love him - he may be in 5-10 years but he's got more to prove still.
If he wins another AO and wins the French at some point, then he's in the discussion.

He's 11 grand slams behind Federer. I'm not saying he has to win 11 more to be considered better as Federer was at his peak in a weaker time, but he needs 5 or so more, including the French and 1 or 2 more at both Wimbledon and the Australian.

How could you possibly consider Djokovic better than Federer?

Is there any statistic that Nole beats Fed in? Djokovic has been stronger at the Australian Open, I think. But apart from that, Federer has a clearly superior record.

Wouldn't that be a ridiculous coincidence if the three best players of all time were all playing at the same time. Also in what way is Djokovic above Federer? Also how can you not spell their names, it's really not that hard.

Yep, Djokovic is not the greatest ever, however much I love him - he may be in 5-10 years but he's got more to prove still.
If he wins another AO and wins the French at some point, then he's in the discussion.

How could you possibly consider Djokovic better than Federer?

Is there any statistic that Nole beats Fed in? Djokovic has been stronger at the Australian Open, I think. But apart from that, Federer has a clearly superior record.

Federrerr prime could be par on par with Djocovich , and federer off this prime has beaten djoker many times.

However, the fed-ex , despite playing beautiful tennis has won the majority of his grandslams in a far weaker Era. Credit to him, he has beaten novak several times - in novaks prime late 010-013 in GS's- but he has not managed to beat a prime nadal since 07 in GS's.

He is still by far the most naturally talented, skilled player that is as good as nadal and djoker if he was in his prime. His game is far less never say die which is why he hardly has had injuries, so he relies on skill rather than brawn.

I don't think , as a result, saying that Novak has to win x more G Slams is justified. In my view, that is a very simplistic way to look at it- and strangely quite popular.

You need to look at the Era and the Slams hand in hand. Novak has beaten a prim nadal and a prime murray several times in G'Slams. This Era is far stronger then before, and so, Novaks slams are worth more to me, and any Slams the fed-ex has won between 09-013.

The other issue is, federerr today is a match for nadal and djoker and murray, as we saw in wimbeldon. However, federrerr 07 would in my view, be as good as nadal and djoker, BUT we don't have that luxury to bring him back from 06/07, and so, djocovich is the greatest player of all time for completely subduing Nadal (even though their matches could have gone either way).

My favourite two players will always be the federer and nadal though.

Nice idea, but cannot compare eras of tennis like that. We cannot say for sure how people would have fared in different eras. All we have to go upon to even try to say who is the GOAT is records and statistics. Otherwise there's no point even comparing.

1 - Having a full time job is well annoying. Whatever happened to the old today at wimbledon which was like 3 hours long? This hour long is a joke.
3 - I love Mac and Boris but I want to see Del Potro smash some forehands. Put it on BBC!

If we could bring players from two era's to face off, who would win?

A Prime Federer would destroy sampras, aggasi, mcnroe quite easily.

A prime Federer would share a 50/50 record with a prime Nadal.

A prime Nadal would be slightly worse off than a prime Djocovich.

A prime Federrer would probably share a 50/50 record with a prime djocovich.

It is a joke indeed - particularly when half an hour of it is dedicated to Murray. The bias has been more pronounced than I can ever remember it being because there were other big stories today with Janowicz being the first Polish male to make a Grand Slam semi final, and del Potro producing a sensational performance against Ferrer - if you haven't seen the match point, it was quite possibly point of the tournament.

djoker is djocovich's nickname

fedex is federer's nick name

This isn't meant to sound patronising, but my spelling online has always been terrible, and i usually save my A-Game spelling for exams, and not light-hearted internet discussion. Communication and clarity is key, but i make sure i am clear, without being obsessive.

I would hardly say Murray was playing the 'more rounded game'. Look at the final set - he was just pushing the ball back into court against Verdasco with little pace. He wasn't forcing errors, he was waiting for them., He let Verdasco beat himself at the important moments.

When Verdasco dictated, Murray was at his mercy, that's the truth; when his game dropped off Murray outlasted him in the final set. Murray spent the match about 20 feet behind the baseline and he wasn't even counterpunching to force errors. Overall was Murray good enough to win? Yes. Was he the better player on the day? No. It's a moot point we can argue over all day but that's how I saw it, and obviously a lot of other people in this thread agree with me.

If so, why was he never ahead at any point in the final set or in any danger on been ahead.

Pointless debating with you, it's obvious you've got something against Murray.

Haterz' gon hate

He's 11 grand slams behind Federer. I'm not saying he has to win 11 more to be considered better as Federer was at his peak in a weaker time, but he needs 5 or so more, including the French and 1 or 2 more at both Wimbledon and the US.

I actually wanted Murray to win, but verdasco was far superior. In the fourth set, Verdasco could have won and taken it. In the fifth set too, but it was close.

Verdasco played far better tennis, and Murray is more talented than what he showed today - maybe he played it smart and safe in the last three , who knows?

I actually wanted Murray to win, but verdasco was far superior. In the fourth set, Verdasco could have won and taken it. In the fifth set too, but it was close.

Verdasco played far better tennis, and Murray is more talented than what he showed today - maybe he played it smart and safe in the last three , who knows?

Verdasco was superior in the first two. After that he wasn't. How did Verdasco play far better tennis if it didn't work?