Polarization happens when you have cheaters (gamesmanship) against legit sportsmen. I would put shelton in the latter camp, and I would also say that his shots are not penetrating enough.
Haha, you are really going for some wild statistics. Michelsen being the youngest to win ONE (!) match at a Masters 1000 level since Fritz (!). Wow, what an achievement for the record books😂😂😂😂😂
Nope, you don't ask for a shirt straight after a loss. At least if you are serious about wanting to win ergo your job. But maybe that is what seperates Jiri from Cachin. And honestly, it makes me respect him much more after this comment.
Would anyone also consider Djokovic or Federer the best pickleball player? Comparing tennis in 1970s vs tennis in 2010s is like compare picket ball to tennis. To say Djokovic is better than Laver is like saying Djokovic is also better than X pickle ball player despite Djokovic never play a singe pickle ball match.
IMO luck does a lot. When sports unique players (like MJ, Pele, Maradona, Big3, Magnus Carlsen, etc) overlap their eras, the oldest is always in disadventage, as they set records in the years prior the irruption of the younger players and retire before, leaving an easier competition to the younger ones. For example, we all agree Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi are players that are at the top level in football history, but even thought Cristiano became the best player in the world in 2007~2008, he didn't join the bests of entire football history until he had to compete with Messi, as both pushed each other. I feel like in tennis it's quite the same. Federer dominated without competition and was an awesome generational player just starting to be considered a competitor to Sampras, setting a goal for Nadal and Djokovic that came a couple of years after. That also pushed Federer further and surpassed all of the goat debate before himself and made it to be only after him (no player prior to Federer could be considerer goat since he irrupted). So, what would have happened if all of the big 3 had the same age? We can't know, but just as a good season was 30 goals per season before CR/Messi and now even players that wouldn't be considered in the top 40 of history can score 40 per season; I feel like Roger also showed to the world that winning a lot of slams is possible, and so comes Djoko and Nadal. It's much easier to navigate when you have a destination. IMO Federer is the goat, but it's absolutely understable that a lot of people consider Nole for his numbers or Nadal for being in the middle of both. For me, the numbers difference in slams is not on a relevant scale between themselves (20,22 and 24) and I give more importance to highest w/l ratio and Federer has the 92/5 year wich is just insane. Someone else can give more importance to grand slams, and that's fair. What I want to say to conclude is that we will never certainly know wich is the best, and as it's subjective, wich is fine.
They are all the same. The difference is that they are from different periods based on technology, nutrition, and MONEY! I do not doubt that if Sampras had been born 1 decade later, he would have amazingly competed with Roger. The reality is that all the great players follow the same prototype. Borg, Vilas, Muster, and Nadal are wood from the same tree. Djokovic is just a more current version of Agassi, who was at the same time a more current version of Connors. Lacoste spoke wonders about Rosewall, who spoke wonders about McEnroe, who spoke wonders about Sampras, who spoke wonders about Federer. For those of us who saw Laver live, I can tell you that the top spin he generated from a continental grip was incredible. It is not comparable to tennis today, but he was a top spin power hitter from the forehand side. In other words, speed, power, professionalism, and longevity have changed, but what makes a great player has always remained the same.
The 80s probably the hardest time to play tennis. We talk about Federer, Nadal and Novak who all kept one another from winning titles. But the 80 even early 90s its was two Federers, two nadals and two novaks and then probably two Maury’s. A great time to be a tennis fan
Nadal in his prime was the all court beast. Early injuries prevented him from getting more GS and other ATP titles. Still 14 RG, 12 Godo, 11 Montecarlo, 10 Rome....most dominant player ever to exist. This record is simply unbreakable
Nadal is a coward. Actually all the players are. Novak is the greatest of all time. He is the greatest athlete of all time. And he is the greatest person of all time. An absolute legend who will go down in history until the end of time. No one can touch Novak in tennis period. He has no weakness and he's a literal genius.
I’m a new tennis fan and I love your channel! Been bingeing through the latest videos. I really enjoy the analytical videos as well as the weekly roundups 🎾 Also, merch sounds nice!
I can see you don’t watch much rublev but just follow stats. For him it all comes down to confidence - in practice his net play is actually really good even compared to top opponents. The returns you were comparing were during his slump. Okay he’s not gonna be Djokovic but you’re doing what you’re saying you’re not - you’re limiting him to “few tools”. I think he needs a coaching change to expand that and instil that confidence outside of practice and I think ivanisevic would be the right guy. He knows how to work with temperamental top players and convert their game to their highest degree - maybe you’ve heard of Novak Djokovic. Bc of his family the Spanish team he built is his real family but it would be wise to bring an actual ex top player and coach into the team.
Favourite player on tour <3 When he's on, he's unstoppable. Consistency is definitely an issue though. Also, do you ADR all the audio in all your videos? I've always wondered that 😅
Federer is the GOAT by his records and way of playing. He is also the reason the Big 3 went this high and was unfortunate to compete in an era where surfaces were slower and slower. He also had to deal with prime Nadal during his whole career and broke the record in first which means it's easier to chase it than to keep it for the two others.
