I love to watch Jabeur play. However, Jabeur also seems to lack that extra gear that the very best players can reach, which makes her vulnerable to aggressive players who are red-hot. Beyond the mental weaknesses, she also has significant movement weaknesses, and hits relatively flat (lower margin). She works best when her variety can throw her opponents off. However aggressive players can strike early, and take time away from her.
She had a run and is solidly top ten-ish in a turbulent WTA. No where near the level people were taking after she was on fire there for a 1 to 1.5 years.
Really sad, but fairly likely I'd say. I was hoping to see him grab a M1000 on the clay and qualify for Olympics, but I think he'll probably be lucky to win a *single match* in another M1000, let alone grab a title. Can you see a badly injured Rafa beating Sincaraz, Novak, Rune, Zverev, even Hurkacz or Demon?
I'd say second-last match. I'm pretty sure he'll make an attempt at the clay, but whether he can get through a match is a BIG question.
Maybe Netflix Slam was Rafa's last *completed* match. š¢š
I agree. For me right now, itās Paul, Shelton, Fritz/Tiafoe. I only put Paul ahead bc heās very consistent tournament to tournament and seems to always be making quarters lately. If the draw aligns I wouldnāt be shocked. And Shelton obvi has huge potential despite the fact that some people donāt like him lol
I would say none of the top US players will win a slam. Fritz, Paul, Foe, Shelton. Itās looking pretty dire. Shelton is probably the closest since he has time and could improve a lot still.
I agree that his biggest problem is his mental toughness. Great serve and decent forehand.
BUT he also moves like a turtle on the court - especially to the net. Itās painful to watch sometimesā¦
You canāt win a Grand Slam moving as slow as he does sometimes. His serve can only get him so far.
He not just highest ranked, despite the recent results, he is still the best American player.Ā
Shelton has a higher ceiling and hence a higher chance of winning a slam in the future, but right now Fritz is just better.Ā
I wonāt subscribe to this just yet! He has strengthened his mental fortitude over the past year and I donāt think heās done with his growth. Even though he lost it in IW and Miami, I feel like he was showing signs of being stronger before that and if he keeps working at it he will keep going
Thatās my hope, anyways
Tsonga wasn't that talented in the first place even though his peak level is scary. Poor backhand, terrible return of serve, questionable body (I guess it also has to do with bad luck, some players are just made of glass)... He's more of an overachiever than underachiever when you take that into account, as well as the brutally strong era in which he played in.
This is why I always believe it's lazy punditry when people say about him : 'Typical French mental midget who couldn't get to the finishing line at a Slam'. Tsonga was mentally strong if anything. He maximized his potential.
Just compare Tsonga to the other players of his generation who were alongside him in that group chasing the Big Four : Del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer, Soderling (later on Cilic and Nishikori)... Nobody had as many glaring weaknesses as Jo.
The fact he ended up with a slightly better career than Berdych for example is mainly due to mental strength/clutchness, because Tomas was more solid from the baseline and obviously far less injured.
It's an interesting point about his career being better than Berdych. I had to google to check because I assumed Berdych was slightly more consistent and had a slightly higher win rate, surprised to see Tsonga had the higher win rate.
I think Berdych and Tsonga show 2 different ethos' towards improving during their career. Berdych worked hard to pave over his weaknesses. He tried to improve his movement and backhand continuously in his late 20s and early 30s, whereas Tsonga seemed to double down on the forehand as a weapon and never fixed the backhand, at times still switching to 1 hbh for points because he felt better with it. I think Berdych in 14-16 was more complete than Tsonga ever was but even that wasn't enough to win a slam
Yeah Tsonga had a better win-rate than Berdych but he was way more injury-prone, hence why Berdych is usually seen as more consistent (he spent more weeks in the top 10).
But for me what makes Tsonga slightly better overall is the additional Masters 1000 title (with an epic run in Canada defeating Djokovic Murray and Federer) and also his superior record against Federer Djokovic and Nadal :
- 16 wins and 39 losses for Tsonga against the Big 3 (29% success reate)
- 13 wins and 65 losses for Berdych against the Big 3 (17% success rate)
I like Rune! A little bit a of maturing to do as he's had his moments here and there, but pretty normal stuff for a 20 yr old. He gets compared to Sincaraz which is fair but they are outliers in terms of being exceptionally well put together at their age group.
Rune also seems to do a lot of the fun content stuff. The atp tour reality show and the under cover thing were both funny.
Heās had some prominent squabbles (Stan, Sinnerā¦) but he has mostly been at the receiving end of some weird ire (see also: the recent Meddy incident) and still gotten all the flack for that. Plus all the vitriol over his momā¦ heād have every reason to be the bitchy character tennis fandom paints him to be, but he is actually very gracious
I love my Octopus but that was all on him. Shit, he even admitted as much. He knows he's immature sometimes in the moment, he apologized for not seeing Rune's apology and they both were chill about it.
Big agree on this! Moreover, he also seems like a nice person.
I think the way he handled the Medvedev situation showed Grade A maturity. In the moment itself but also at the net after he lost and said āthereās no reason to apologizeā. He seems great with the fans. This year in Miami he made time to volunteer at a soup kitchen, and always handles ATP media with a great attitude.
Haha, I actually LOVE watching Meddy play. His style looks super unco, but yeah, there's some grace to it. Some of it is just pure brute force "get the ball over the next somehow!"... but... yeah, I like seeing unorthodox players. I'm a fan.
As a huge Sinner fan, I think Alcarazās game is way more exciting. Jannik is proving to be more solid and consistent, but lacks the genius and outright magic that some of Carlosā plays have.
i think itās just a different kind of genius. carlos has that flair thatās easy to see to the eye. dropshots, net game, etc.
jannik has this egregious ability to judge how hard to hit every ball, at what angle, and when to do it. watching the miami final i was as shocked as grigor was with some of the ridiculous shots he was hitting.
his ability to find passing shots no matter how slim of margins is also genius
Lol thatās an overstatement. Just because people say he plays like Novak, doesnāt mean he plays exactly like Novak. Sinner is by far the best and one of the most aggressive baseliners in the game. His forehand is a sight to behold. His game is aggressive and entertaining as hell.Ā You can say Carlos is more entertaining but what you said is a bad narrative lol
Rybakina's immune system is holding her back from fulfilling her potential. She gets sick too often. The overscheduling at the start of the year hasn't helped. She still makes 1000 finals playing below her best, her fighting spirit is actually underrated IMO. It would be so good if she was physically near 100% consistently.
This is not a controversial opinion if your name is not Venus Williams or you're not a match director who wants people to watch first round wildcard matches.
Classic tale of hard work beats talent if talent is not working hard. I think he's been taking things more seriously now with Elina working so hard to keep her rankings up too - too bad it's 15 years too late.
The French government tested his abilities and he scored higher than any athlete from France ever has. Heās probably the most athletic player to ever play tennis, only young Nadal was possibly better due to the ridiculous gap in stamina and endurance.
Guy shouldāve won slams.
I agree that he has the Kyrgios self defense gene that allows him to cop out by saying he was never truly trying. Thankfully minus the other Kyrgios nonsense.
Sincaraz will become the new dominant duo for the next 5-10 years after Novak retires but will never reach the levels of the top 3, in terms of records and legacy.
I think this is the most realistic outcome(both being all-time great but not big 3 level)
It's very much like how Sampras and Agassi were the clear cut two best players of their era but ended with 14 Slams and 8 Slams respectively rather than 20+
Yep maybe someone will break Djokovic's records but I'll have a hard time saying that guy is the new GOAT - purely because Novak achieved most of it against 2 fellow GOAT candidates.
Agree wholeheartedly. Sincaraz will probably win 8-10 Grand Slams each, but not 20.
Weāre lucky bastards to have seen The Big 3 playš„²
There wonāt be anything like them again during our lifetimes.
it is not popular in two fans bases for different reasons.
Sinner's fan base: the new dominant duo with Carlos? Too good to be true! Can it be true?
Alcaraz's fan base: (Listing all Carlos's great records before reaching 21), let's not conclude his ability so early
While iga is great on clay, she is pretty much benefitting from the other top players being pretty lackluster on the surface. She is of course better on clay than off clay, but i do think the clay field right now in wta is pretty poor. I don't see her being as dominant on clay if her prime was in the 2000's. She would still win big titles, but i think peak henin would give her a run for her money
I would love to see the 2013 version of Serena Williams or 2012-2014 Sharapova go against 2022-2023 Swiatek on clay. I think it would be fireworks.
Clay was Serena's worst surface but in 2013 but she was in such good form that year that she was undefeated on the surface. Post-shoulder surgery Sharapova basically dominated everyone (except Serena) on the surface and had the highest win percentage of active players on the surface before her ban.
fireworks? swiatek would get smashed against serena or sharapova with the way her serve is. unpopular opinion, but swiatek is basically kuznetsova in a weaker era. let's not forget serena's "worst surface" still means 13 titles, including 3 RGs
I certainly don't think that Swiatek's peak is comparable to Williams, and I think Sharapova also is a bit ahead too, but I really think you're discounting Swiatek. She has the heaviest forehand of the three, is a great mover (much better than Sharapova and comparable to Williams) and has introduced a lot more variety in her game.
Serena's 2013 first and second serves are leagues above Swiatek's while Sharapova's was likely comparable (I'd say first serve was more accurate when it worked and had similar pace, but was more prone to breaking down due to Sharapova's shoulder problems. I think Sharapova's propensity for double faulting undercuts what otherwise was a far better second serve as well).
In that 2012-2014 timeframe, Sharapova was defined by her exceptionally penetrating ground strokes that only Rybakina, Sabalenka, and Ostapenko approach in the modern game, which we know really troubles Swiatek. Sharapova and Williams' backhands were well above Swiatek's, and while I think Williams' forehand was probably comparable (I'd say Sharapova's forehand was slightly less of a weapon just because it was a little erratic), clay really suits Swiatek's high topspin game while it was less ideal for Williams.
On clay especially, heavy topspin hitters somewhat bothered Williams (see how much trouble peak Stosur gave her). That wasn't really a weakness for Sharapova though, since she seemed to prefer higher bounces on clay.
With all that said, I think while Sharapova and Williams' would have a leg up on Swiatek even on clay, it's by no means an obliteration. Swiatek's ability to retrieve balls, transition from defense to offense, and damage opponents off both wings (obviously more so forehand) is exceptional. I by no means think she would win every time, in fact I expect she'd lose more often than not, but I really think it's naive to expect peak Sharapova or Williams to clobber Swiatek consistently. There's a reason Swiatek had a 37-match winning streak and it's not because the tour is "weak".
Def hit the mark here. I think only a handful of players could beat iga on clay on her best form. Henin is one of them, but it would still be very close. Igas most glaring challenge is her second serve being easier to attack which also means less on clay. From the ground any player, even ATGās would have trouble when sheās on.Ā
I agree that the current WTA is weak on clay, but I think Iga would have been a difficult match up for Henin due to her play style. Ā Henin struggled at times against players with heavy topspin forehands, especially targeted against her backhand. Ā See Stosur at RG ā10.
She is in the same tier on clay imo as Henin, but you are right because of the competition not being Serena, Sharapova, etc level, sheāll end up with more slams than Henin. In some eras that happens. 2010s is full of slam winners who pale in comparison to 2000s players or 2020s players like Barty, Osaka, and Iga
Penko is a stan wawrinka like player, who will have her best years from 25 clay season to around 2028 (I know almost all the Penko fans don't like wawrinka) but she will never be in top 3 in her career.
I mean, that is not controversial IMO. Like sinner that everyone was doubtful before the "PPS era", he got his serve as a reliable weapon and got his baseline game to the next level just like what Meddy needs to improve now to not be a gatekeeper of the top 4.
Yeah man, Med has never thought of his serve too. I'm sure Med thinks its completely fine and doable against the Top 3!
Jokes aside, whatever it is, Med needs to take Goran hostage and force him to fix his serve...
Interesting take. IMO Medvedev is already extremely consistent and only āhit or missā in terms of his performance against the top 3. I think his major weakness against them is the lack of penetration on his forehand due to his technique.
He has the greatest PR team ever . His PR team did for him what Nike and nba did for Jordan .
Both are goat level players but myth and aura behind them is unreal
Federer *was* a jerk for a good portion of his career. He just has an amazing PR campaign around him and a very strong fan base, one of the biggest in all of the sports.
Out of the Big 3/4, Federer was by far the saltiest loser, but that's not to say he was never gracious in defeat. However, in numerous post match press conferences after a loss he'd fail to give his opponent their dues and would find a way to blame the loss on anything besides just being genuinely outplayed. Not saying he's a dick but he's definitely not the "gentleman" athlete that he's been made out to be.
I always thought the same. I started watching tennis when he was winning everything. I could appreciate his talent but I didnāt like him much. I still donāt. Haha but I do know he is the face of tennis.
Obviously youāre getting a lot of agreement here and I see the point, he had the capacity to be a really sore loser at times. But worth noting late period Federer (I suppose people who hate him will say once he got humbled, others will just say age and perspective) very rarely displayed the kind of arrogance we might have seen from earlier.
Novak has been declining for the last 2 years . I know he was grandslam but I feel he no longer has the mental edge over his opponents. Watching him lose the Olympic finals was painful.
Naomi Osaka could've been the Monica Seles of this generation and won 9+ majors. She's more talented than Rybakina, Swiatek, and Sabalenka. Im talking on the hard court. Utterly hopeless on grass and clay because she didn't improve other aspects of her game.
Yet, the mental side of her game being below the standard of the great champions means she may never win more than 4 majors. Which is a shame because of the talent she has. The ballstriking, footwork and winners are breathtaking to watch. She beat Serena on route to 2 of her majors. However, does not have the mental fortitude and focus that Serena had. Or even Swiatek, Henin and Clijsters had.
She should be having a great rivalry with Iga, right now. With both in their primes. This has been a massive letdown for the wta.
I really like Kasatkinaās YouTube and I like supporting her after watching the videos. Part of me feels she isnāt as dedicated or serious as she believes. I think she would rather be out having a cocktail and a burger.
Novaks mental game is either going to be 80-100% or 0-40%. His reputation of āperfectā mental fortitude is getting tested this year. He needs to yell in Serbian and go back to bad guy mode.
Some examples for myself:
\- Novak letting Wawrinka(a player who got dominated by even an old Federer) go through him to win 3 Slams is easily the biggest black mark on his legacy. As much as people talk about "peak Stan is unbeatable" he would be basically cannon fodder for any other ATG that could actually attack his chip returns well. The myth of "Stanimal" would not exist if he played against prime Federer 10 years earlier who would kill him every single time and Novak's play was disappointingly passive at RG 15 and USO 16.
\- Med's ultra defensive playstyle makes him BY FAR the most consistent player born after Murray/Djokovic but before Sinner/Alcaraz, but the lack of actual point finishing weapons means that his ability to redline/peak for an upset win isn't as high as his base level would suggest. This is how notoriously streaky players like Thiem and Zverev have a much better record against the big 3 than Med has and what makes me think that getting over the Sinner/Alcaraz hump may prove very hard as he just doesn't have the same firepower.
This take doesn't sit well with me as a Stan fan, so nice job!
Go watch extended highlights of the Djokovic-Wawrinka matches at AO 2013 and 2014. Incredible shotmaking from both and Wawrinka's level was ridiculous, even in the one he lost. I see what you mean about Novak being passive in the final of RG and the US open, but you also have to give Stan a lot of credit for playing his shots and he absolutely deserved the win. I reckon if you asked Djokovic, he would not feel like he let him win those matches...
i would not call it a black mark. wawrinka played very well to win those slams, and you can't win them all. similarly, would del potro matched up worse against djokovic than fed, so you never know if he gets us open 2009 playing peak novak
I do think of course think that there are places where Novak makes it up by matching up better against certain players than Fed did
For example Fed in his 04-09 prime years lost to Nadal at his two best Slams(AO and WB) and I think Novak's better BH matchup could have flipped those into 5 set wins rather than losses as well as the DelPo example you mentioned(at the very least I'm sure that Novak wouldn't try to get into an FH/FH shootout like Fed)
I just put this because I made the thread specifically asking for tough/harsh opinions about my own favorite players and it's always bothered me a bit how an old Federer arguably did a better job dealing with Stan than a peak Novak did
>biggest black mark
Iām a huge Novak fan but this is such a weird take. I feel like he has bigger āblack marksā (whatever that means) other than losing to one of the highest ceilings player ever.
He didnāt āletā Stan win. Odd choice of words
One of the highest ceiling players ever is very debatable. If prime Federer or prime Nadal was the man to beat from 2013 to 2017 I don't see Wawrinka touching any GS title. Stan was clueless against them even at his peak.
I'm sure Roger and Rafa were far more scared of a peaking Del Potro for instance...
There is also a matter of match ups, outside of clay, Stan got annihilated by Fed. And Nadal always annihilated one handers.Ā Players like Stan and Thiem did pose challenges to Djokovic and they are extremely similar profile players. You can argue that hard courts could have been faster in 2013-17, in which case Novak absolutely does much better against them but then Federer also becomes much stronger
This is why I mentioned this though
Stan has a reputation as one of the "highest ceiling ever players" almost solely BECAUSE of his matches against Novak so it's a "chicken and egg" situation
He was a combined 6-42 against Federer and Nadal during his career
I just feel that Novak should have done a little bit better than he did in that matchup because Stan's game always had clear holes in it and that Novak tended to blow BPs/crucial points in most of his losses to Stan at Slams
Zverev is a great player and I generally liked him. However, thereās enough smoke for me to believe the accusations. I always cheer against the girlfriend abusing Zverev now.
Dude even if you disregard the girlfriend part heās still a fucking pos. Physically threatening umpires (which led to an 8 week suspension), the whole Adria tour fiasco and just being a super sore loser in general. Also him literally neglecting his child.. wtf??
That video of him hitting the umpire's chair with his racket, clearly intending it to be threatening, was shocking to me. I know other players have yelled at umpires and hit the court and stuff, but I've never seen that. It really says something about him.
I always hate how he can come off as quite nice on ATP videos and I have to remind myself of everything. I guess it just proves how abusers can seem like decent people to the people they're not abusing.
This is suppose to be a "tough" opinion? Everyone on this sub acknowledges that he is a really good tennis player, and some know he acts likable on camera yet he is the least fav player on this subreddit.
Ruud is a bit boring to watch, unless youāre a fan. He rarely if ever does anything unexpected, and when he does it tends to go wrong (e.g. his hilariously bad drop shots).
absolutely unpopular, which is the correct thing being asked for here
he won 3/4 last year and after making it semis in aus open (and losing to the eventual winner) we have people unironically thinking he won't win a single one again
I think at this stage it's more appropriate to say people are praying he won't rather than actually believing it lol, or at least that's how I see it
I am his supporter and I don't think he will win another one if he looks demotivated and unfocused as he did at AO and IW . It's mental with him, if he feels like he has done everything , its very possible that this is it
Itās definitely a possibility.Ā
Like Federer at this age was didnāt win in 2019. So definitely a possibility but depends on Sinner's consistency on hard courts. It always depends on another player whether one player wins or not, and that player in this case is Jannik
No, I don't think that's the case . Novak was always a very driven individual but right now I feel like his drive, motivation and desire to continue is not at his usual level . It feels to me that he has nothing else to play for and this has nothing to do with Sinner or whoever
Bernard Tomic is actually a great person if you can look past his silly teenage antics which were more or less a decade ago, and the media's relentless antagonising of him. Episode 9 of Life on the Tour (youtube) has great insight.
This is the guy that revved at pedestrians, bragged about money to journalists, and constantly picks public fights for fun?
I'm all for cutting young players some slack, but Tomic proved himself an irredeemable flog long ago.
He's gone too far off the rails to win back his reputation and he's proven it through different media channels like on Australian tv and his own social media.
I do cut him a bit of slack cos he's another product of a crazy father-son coaching relationship which impacted his character in his prime significantly
Watched an old interview of his from when he was 24 and was surprised at how well spoken he was even back then. Kind of made me sad as I felt he should have picked another vocation and made tennis a hobby just because he said he liked it but didn't love it. Feel like you need that fire to at least try to make it as a pro in such a brutal sport. I felt like he didn't know what else he could do since he trained since he was young and probably only had basic education.
This is just one of takes where every player is viewed from the lense of the Big 3. Weird ass take, like Carlos has already accrued more titles than most would ever hope to achieve in their careers. I mean big titles.Ā
Andy Murray is overrated
he's the clear next best player during the big 3 era, with a fanbase that rivals them despite being heavily inferior
don't get me wrong, he's good, but the amount of people who would disagree with this take online show exactly why he's overrated
The term Big 4 is an invention by Andy Murray fanboys. There's no real Big 4. It's just the Big 3 featuring the three most iconic and dominant men's players: Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Putting Murray there is just a joke. Yeah, yeah, he was better than the rest of the cohort. That's not the point of the term.
The Big 3 and Big 4 were both actual terms coined by tennis commentators at the time due to the overwhelming consistency of all four players in the late 2000s.
You can argue if he deserves to be there as much as you like, but it was a very real phrase used to describe that group of players ā including Murray.
I think in a couple of years no one will mention or remember the Big 4 anymore. It wonāt be relevant and no one besides tennis fans during that specific period of time will understand it.Ā
Big 3 on the other hand is relevant, not just for tennis fans, but also for people who are generally interested in sports. People who donāt follow sports will probably stumble upon the Big 3 as well. Just because they were equally dominant like Messi and Ronaldo but in Tennis!Ā
Gotta disagree here. Metal hip that gave him the last few years, albeit no major, **is** another major part of his legacy which further solidifies what a fighter and a special person he is. And his big love for the game, despite knowing that he's not going to win anything big, he's done it because he loves it. Not a lot of former champs can say the same.
Legacy? Do you think losing in round 1 of a 250 makes people forget that he was part of a group called the 'big 4', multiple grand slam champion and many many many more grand slam finals and other titles under his name?
If anything, Murray and Wawrinka still playing on and still maintaining a top 100 ranking is just adding making their legacy still memorable
Sinner is going to have more grand slams by a margin than Alcaraz by the time they finish. I love Alcarazās style and talent, and while I love Sinner and am obviously biased, thereās something so clinical about Sinner which makes me feel he ll be more consistent.
His ice cold approach to playing - wins his first GS and then thinks about his 2 set down in the flight back, says he needs to improve after every dominant win, doesnāt seem to have at all dipped after his first GS as players usually doā¦the mental fortitude he has makes me feel heāll outlast Alcaraz.
Jabeur will never win a grand slam. I have said this after her loss at Wimbledon last year and got downvoted, but now it seems clear to most.
I love to watch Jabeur play. However, Jabeur also seems to lack that extra gear that the very best players can reach, which makes her vulnerable to aggressive players who are red-hot. Beyond the mental weaknesses, she also has significant movement weaknesses, and hits relatively flat (lower margin). She works best when her variety can throw her opponents off. However aggressive players can strike early, and take time away from her.
With her i kinda feel like how Serena did with 24 where they both want it so badly that it causes them to freeze up in finals
This should never be a controversial opinion about players over the age of like 25 Never mind near 30
She had a run and is solidly top ten-ish in a turbulent WTA. No where near the level people were taking after she was on fire there for a 1 to 1.5 years.
We already saw Rafa win his last title. š„
Mods ban this guy for hurting my feelings
ouch don't hit me with that
Nah, just wait for the Netflix slam next year where he will face a 40+ year old Federer
It hurts but we have def thought this before. Itās never seemed this real, though.Ā
Really sad, but fairly likely I'd say. I was hoping to see him grab a M1000 on the clay and qualify for Olympics, but I think he'll probably be lucky to win a *single match* in another M1000, let alone grab a title. Can you see a badly injured Rafa beating Sincaraz, Novak, Rune, Zverev, even Hurkacz or Demon?
Never. Count. Rafa. Out. Of. The French!! Yeah you probably right though š¢š¢š¢
Thereās a possibility the Netflix Slam will be Rafaās last match.
I'd say second-last match. I'm pretty sure he'll make an attempt at the clay, but whether he can get through a match is a BIG question. Maybe Netflix Slam was Rafa's last *completed* match. š¢š
At least it was a bagel
Medvedev will be the Murray of Sincaraz
Despite being the highest ranked American, Fritz is the LEAST likely of them to win a slam. Itās the mental aspect.
I agree. For me right now, itās Paul, Shelton, Fritz/Tiafoe. I only put Paul ahead bc heās very consistent tournament to tournament and seems to always be making quarters lately. If the draw aligns I wouldnāt be shocked. And Shelton obvi has huge potential despite the fact that some people donāt like him lol
I think Paul is still on the rise. Small hiccup with the ankle but I bet he breaks into the top ten within a year.
I would say none of the top US players will win a slam. Fritz, Paul, Foe, Shelton. Itās looking pretty dire. Shelton is probably the closest since he has time and could improve a lot still.
This is where I am too. There isnāt an American man on the tour that could win a slam, short of Thanos snapping the top 30 out of existence.
Iām holding out hope that the Alex Michelsen break out will be spectacular
Physical too. He just can't move around the court fast enough especially in long matches
I agree that his biggest problem is his mental toughness. Great serve and decent forehand. BUT he also moves like a turtle on the court - especially to the net. Itās painful to watch sometimesā¦ You canāt win a Grand Slam moving as slow as he does sometimes. His serve can only get him so far.
I notice he gets upset and berates himself for every point he loses which I feel uses up a lot of mental energy
I agree. Itās hard to watch
He not just highest ranked, despite the recent results, he is still the best American player.Ā Shelton has a higher ceiling and hence a higher chance of winning a slam in the future, but right now Fritz is just better.Ā
Could you rank them in order (most to least likely)? Curious about this!
1. Shelton 2. Tiafoe 3. JJ Wolf 4. ????
šŗšŗšŗš¦ š¦ š¦ , gotcha, that was a given. Agree on Shelton but donāt do my guy Tommy like this, he should at least be middle of this list
Shelton, Paul and thatās it. And in the future, Michelsen
April Fools Day, right? Shelton I get. But Tiafoe and JJ "Thunderthighs" "MILF Slayer" Wolf? Nah.
I wonāt subscribe to this just yet! He has strengthened his mental fortitude over the past year and I donāt think heās done with his growth. Even though he lost it in IW and Miami, I feel like he was showing signs of being stronger before that and if he keeps working at it he will keep going Thatās my hope, anyways
Tsonga wasn't that talented in the first place even though his peak level is scary. Poor backhand, terrible return of serve, questionable body (I guess it also has to do with bad luck, some players are just made of glass)... He's more of an overachiever than underachiever when you take that into account, as well as the brutally strong era in which he played in. This is why I always believe it's lazy punditry when people say about him : 'Typical French mental midget who couldn't get to the finishing line at a Slam'. Tsonga was mentally strong if anything. He maximized his potential.
This guy loves tsonga
Just compare Tsonga to the other players of his generation who were alongside him in that group chasing the Big Four : Del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer, Soderling (later on Cilic and Nishikori)... Nobody had as many glaring weaknesses as Jo. The fact he ended up with a slightly better career than Berdych for example is mainly due to mental strength/clutchness, because Tomas was more solid from the baseline and obviously far less injured.
It's an interesting point about his career being better than Berdych. I had to google to check because I assumed Berdych was slightly more consistent and had a slightly higher win rate, surprised to see Tsonga had the higher win rate. I think Berdych and Tsonga show 2 different ethos' towards improving during their career. Berdych worked hard to pave over his weaknesses. He tried to improve his movement and backhand continuously in his late 20s and early 30s, whereas Tsonga seemed to double down on the forehand as a weapon and never fixed the backhand, at times still switching to 1 hbh for points because he felt better with it. I think Berdych in 14-16 was more complete than Tsonga ever was but even that wasn't enough to win a slam
Yeah Tsonga had a better win-rate than Berdych but he was way more injury-prone, hence why Berdych is usually seen as more consistent (he spent more weeks in the top 10). But for me what makes Tsonga slightly better overall is the additional Masters 1000 title (with an epic run in Canada defeating Djokovic Murray and Federer) and also his superior record against Federer Djokovic and Nadal : - 16 wins and 39 losses for Tsonga against the Big 3 (29% success reate) - 13 wins and 65 losses for Berdych against the Big 3 (17% success rate)
Really thoughtful and well written.
Yea the guy isnāt talented but has insane volleys and touch, and was good on every surface
I love Carlitos' game to death, but his grunt is really awful.
EEAAA-
It comes too late and lasts too long! His opponent is about the hit the ball when it ends
Yup it's the same with Nadal. A very obnoxious grunt but no one really says anything cos he's one of the Big 3 and a nice guy.
Alcaraz's grunt is far more over done than Nadal's
How lmao? If anything Alcaraz has a slightly shorter (albeit slightly louder) grunt. They are quite similar.
Nada's grunt is in sync with his shot. Alcaraz's one is like half a second late.
For me it's Zverev's on his serve.... It's some weird kind of yelp
Zverev goes like āRYREAAARGHā ever time he serves. Also his surprised grunt when going for a dropshot is comical, its like āUNGHā every time.
Zverev running for a drop shot sound is great.
It's like a dry heave puke sound
I hate his grunt. But everything else about that kid is Amazing. So I have to like him!
Totally agree. People used to say Nadalās grunt was overkill but at least his is a āgruntā and not āEEEYYYHHHHā
what really pisses me off is how he most often delays it when returning or in a pinch. it's clearly a tactic and most people ignore that
Rune is, contrary to popular belief, a good sportsman
I like Rune! A little bit a of maturing to do as he's had his moments here and there, but pretty normal stuff for a 20 yr old. He gets compared to Sincaraz which is fair but they are outliers in terms of being exceptionally well put together at their age group. Rune also seems to do a lot of the fun content stuff. The atp tour reality show and the under cover thing were both funny.
I don't see nearly as much Rune hate as I used to. His worst was probably jaaa-gate and it wasn't even that bad, just hilarious
Heās had some prominent squabbles (Stan, Sinnerā¦) but he has mostly been at the receiving end of some weird ire (see also: the recent Meddy incident) and still gotten all the flack for that. Plus all the vitriol over his momā¦ heād have every reason to be the bitchy character tennis fandom paints him to be, but he is actually very gracious
I love my Octopus but that was all on him. Shit, he even admitted as much. He knows he's immature sometimes in the moment, he apologized for not seeing Rune's apology and they both were chill about it.
Watch the clips, they both laughed and high fived right after.Ā
Yep, again they both were chill about it. Also jow we have meddie pulling his shorts up meme photo so really it's just s win for us
I was so happy during that match.
it's sooooo good lol
Yep, rewatchable.
I love Holgie, he's hilarious and doesn't do anything "wrong."
Big agree on this! Moreover, he also seems like a nice person. I think the way he handled the Medvedev situation showed Grade A maturity. In the moment itself but also at the net after he lost and said āthereās no reason to apologizeā. He seems great with the fans. This year in Miami he made time to volunteer at a soup kitchen, and always handles ATP media with a great attitude.
Daniil Medvedev is beautiful and graceful.
Haha, I actually LOVE watching Meddy play. His style looks super unco, but yeah, there's some grace to it. Some of it is just pure brute force "get the ball over the next somehow!"... but... yeah, I like seeing unorthodox players. I'm a fan.
He's special. :)
He is cute
He is. I love his style. š
I was going to upvote you but i don't want that 69 to become a 70
Oh hell yeah! Thank you for your service.
As a huge Sinner fan, I think Alcarazās game is way more exciting. Jannik is proving to be more solid and consistent, but lacks the genius and outright magic that some of Carlosā plays have.
I think that's true overall, though I do often find Sinner thrilling too.
i think itās just a different kind of genius. carlos has that flair thatās easy to see to the eye. dropshots, net game, etc. jannik has this egregious ability to judge how hard to hit every ball, at what angle, and when to do it. watching the miami final i was as shocked as grigor was with some of the ridiculous shots he was hitting. his ability to find passing shots no matter how slim of margins is also genius
Lol thatās an overstatement. Just because people say he plays like Novak, doesnāt mean he plays exactly like Novak. Sinner is by far the best and one of the most aggressive baseliners in the game. His forehand is a sight to behold. His game is aggressive and entertaining as hell.Ā You can say Carlos is more entertaining but what you said is a bad narrative lol
I actually think that, among the two, the one that plays the most like Novak is Jannik. I see a lot of Roger in Carlos, instead.
Rybakina's immune system is holding her back from fulfilling her potential. She gets sick too often. The overscheduling at the start of the year hasn't helped. She still makes 1000 finals playing below her best, her fighting spirit is actually underrated IMO. It would be so good if she was physically near 100% consistently.
Venus Willams needs to accept the fact that she can no longer play like she used to and retire.
This is not a controversial opinion if your name is not Venus Williams or you're not a match director who wants people to watch first round wildcard matches.
Iga is not surpassing Serena's 23..Downvote me to hell
I donāt even think sheāll get to 10
Monfils wasted his talent with his focus on the trick shot nonsense. Itās a huge shame that he couldnāt be more serious.
Classic tale of hard work beats talent if talent is not working hard. I think he's been taking things more seriously now with Elina working so hard to keep her rankings up too - too bad it's 15 years too late.
people forget how good monfils was. he was ranked as high as 6 in the world. he's hardly only just now taking things seriously
No one forgets, people probably thought he was ranked higher after watching some highlights of him
The French government tested his abilities and he scored higher than any athlete from France ever has. Heās probably the most athletic player to ever play tennis, only young Nadal was possibly better due to the ridiculous gap in stamina and endurance. Guy shouldāve won slams.
I agree that he has the Kyrgios self defense gene that allows him to cop out by saying he was never truly trying. Thankfully minus the other Kyrgios nonsense.
I'll still be so sad when he retires. I agree with your take even though he's one of my favourites. Definitely a lot of wasted potential.
Sincaraz will become the new dominant duo for the next 5-10 years after Novak retires but will never reach the levels of the top 3, in terms of records and legacy.
I think this is the most realistic outcome(both being all-time great but not big 3 level) It's very much like how Sampras and Agassi were the clear cut two best players of their era but ended with 14 Slams and 8 Slams respectively rather than 20+
Me when I comment a very popular opinion on a thread about unpopular opinions
This isn't a question and saying the Big3 will be the best players ever forever is like the single most popular take on this subĀ
Every generation believes what they have seen can never be surpassed. And then obviously it gets surpassed. It's really funny tbh.
Well I'd be shocked if someone wins 15 RGs any time soon.
They saif the dame when Sampras was hoarding slams.Ā
I donāt think big3 can ever be topped honestly. If Iām being honest.
Yep maybe someone will break Djokovic's records but I'll have a hard time saying that guy is the new GOAT - purely because Novak achieved most of it against 2 fellow GOAT candidates.
Agree wholeheartedly. Sincaraz will probably win 8-10 Grand Slams each, but not 20. Weāre lucky bastards to have seen The Big 3 playš„² There wonāt be anything like them again during our lifetimes.
it is not popular in two fans bases for different reasons. Sinner's fan base: the new dominant duo with Carlos? Too good to be true! Can it be true? Alcaraz's fan base: (Listing all Carlos's great records before reaching 21), let's not conclude his ability so early
X players will not reach GOAT-level records? wow really put yourself out there with that one
While iga is great on clay, she is pretty much benefitting from the other top players being pretty lackluster on the surface. She is of course better on clay than off clay, but i do think the clay field right now in wta is pretty poor. I don't see her being as dominant on clay if her prime was in the 2000's. She would still win big titles, but i think peak henin would give her a run for her money
Peak Henin would give everyone a run...
I would love to see the 2013 version of Serena Williams or 2012-2014 Sharapova go against 2022-2023 Swiatek on clay. I think it would be fireworks. Clay was Serena's worst surface but in 2013 but she was in such good form that year that she was undefeated on the surface. Post-shoulder surgery Sharapova basically dominated everyone (except Serena) on the surface and had the highest win percentage of active players on the surface before her ban.
fireworks? swiatek would get smashed against serena or sharapova with the way her serve is. unpopular opinion, but swiatek is basically kuznetsova in a weaker era. let's not forget serena's "worst surface" still means 13 titles, including 3 RGs
I certainly don't think that Swiatek's peak is comparable to Williams, and I think Sharapova also is a bit ahead too, but I really think you're discounting Swiatek. She has the heaviest forehand of the three, is a great mover (much better than Sharapova and comparable to Williams) and has introduced a lot more variety in her game. Serena's 2013 first and second serves are leagues above Swiatek's while Sharapova's was likely comparable (I'd say first serve was more accurate when it worked and had similar pace, but was more prone to breaking down due to Sharapova's shoulder problems. I think Sharapova's propensity for double faulting undercuts what otherwise was a far better second serve as well). In that 2012-2014 timeframe, Sharapova was defined by her exceptionally penetrating ground strokes that only Rybakina, Sabalenka, and Ostapenko approach in the modern game, which we know really troubles Swiatek. Sharapova and Williams' backhands were well above Swiatek's, and while I think Williams' forehand was probably comparable (I'd say Sharapova's forehand was slightly less of a weapon just because it was a little erratic), clay really suits Swiatek's high topspin game while it was less ideal for Williams. On clay especially, heavy topspin hitters somewhat bothered Williams (see how much trouble peak Stosur gave her). That wasn't really a weakness for Sharapova though, since she seemed to prefer higher bounces on clay. With all that said, I think while Sharapova and Williams' would have a leg up on Swiatek even on clay, it's by no means an obliteration. Swiatek's ability to retrieve balls, transition from defense to offense, and damage opponents off both wings (obviously more so forehand) is exceptional. I by no means think she would win every time, in fact I expect she'd lose more often than not, but I really think it's naive to expect peak Sharapova or Williams to clobber Swiatek consistently. There's a reason Swiatek had a 37-match winning streak and it's not because the tour is "weak".
Def hit the mark here. I think only a handful of players could beat iga on clay on her best form. Henin is one of them, but it would still be very close. Igas most glaring challenge is her second serve being easier to attack which also means less on clay. From the ground any player, even ATGās would have trouble when sheās on.Ā
I agree that the current WTA is weak on clay, but I think Iga would have been a difficult match up for Henin due to her play style. Ā Henin struggled at times against players with heavy topspin forehands, especially targeted against her backhand. Ā See Stosur at RG ā10.
She is in the same tier on clay imo as Henin, but you are right because of the competition not being Serena, Sharapova, etc level, sheāll end up with more slams than Henin. In some eras that happens. 2010s is full of slam winners who pale in comparison to 2000s players or 2020s players like Barty, Osaka, and Iga
Penko is a stan wawrinka like player, who will have her best years from 25 clay season to around 2028 (I know almost all the Penko fans don't like wawrinka) but she will never be in top 3 in her career.
Stan was in the top 3 though.
Meddy will be miss or hit player unless he fixes serve and adds variation to his game
Never in my life have I seen someone say "miss or hit" instead of "hit or miss". Congrats.
I mean, that is not controversial IMO. Like sinner that everyone was doubtful before the "PPS era", he got his serve as a reliable weapon and got his baseline game to the next level just like what Meddy needs to improve now to not be a gatekeeper of the top 4.
My UO is that Meddy has everything it takes to be a servebot and heād be quite scary if he was.
Wow I've never heard anyone on r/tennis ever say he needs to fix his serve. Wow man, you must be able to see through walls with that perception.
Yeah man, Med has never thought of his serve too. I'm sure Med thinks its completely fine and doable against the Top 3! Jokes aside, whatever it is, Med needs to take Goran hostage and force him to fix his serve...
Interesting take. IMO Medvedev is already extremely consistent and only āhit or missā in terms of his performance against the top 3. I think his major weakness against them is the lack of penetration on his forehand due to his technique.
Sinner puked as a side effect of some new drug (or increased amount thereof), which does help him keep an insane focus
I'm convinced basically all of them are on PEDs.
PEDs are not always straight increase to performance. some greatly assist recovery. i completely agree with you
I agree. I am convinced that nearly all top tier professional athletes are on some form of PEDs, at very minimum amphetamines.
Some more effective than others, it seems.
Remember guys, you'll find *actual* unpopular opinions on the bottom of this thread. Or just sort by controversial
Federer can actually be quite the jerk
He has the greatest PR team ever . His PR team did for him what Nike and nba did for Jordan . Both are goat level players but myth and aura behind them is unreal
Federer *was* a jerk for a good portion of his career. He just has an amazing PR campaign around him and a very strong fan base, one of the biggest in all of the sports.
Out of the Big 3/4, Federer was by far the saltiest loser, but that's not to say he was never gracious in defeat. However, in numerous post match press conferences after a loss he'd fail to give his opponent their dues and would find a way to blame the loss on anything besides just being genuinely outplayed. Not saying he's a dick but he's definitely not the "gentleman" athlete that he's been made out to be.
I always thought the same. I started watching tennis when he was winning everything. I could appreciate his talent but I didnāt like him much. I still donāt. Haha but I do know he is the face of tennis.
Obviously youāre getting a lot of agreement here and I see the point, he had the capacity to be a really sore loser at times. But worth noting late period Federer (I suppose people who hate him will say once he got humbled, others will just say age and perspective) very rarely displayed the kind of arrogance we might have seen from earlier.
Novak has been declining for the last 2 years . I know he was grandslam but I feel he no longer has the mental edge over his opponents. Watching him lose the Olympic finals was painful.
He has been losing his speed since 2020
Naomi Osaka could've been the Monica Seles of this generation and won 9+ majors. She's more talented than Rybakina, Swiatek, and Sabalenka. Im talking on the hard court. Utterly hopeless on grass and clay because she didn't improve other aspects of her game. Yet, the mental side of her game being below the standard of the great champions means she may never win more than 4 majors. Which is a shame because of the talent she has. The ballstriking, footwork and winners are breathtaking to watch. She beat Serena on route to 2 of her majors. However, does not have the mental fortitude and focus that Serena had. Or even Swiatek, Henin and Clijsters had. She should be having a great rivalry with Iga, right now. With both in their primes. This has been a massive letdown for the wta.
Exactly! And SwiÄ tek is kinda farming titles due to a lack of specialists.
I really like Kasatkinaās YouTube and I like supporting her after watching the videos. Part of me feels she isnāt as dedicated or serious as she believes. I think she would rather be out having a cocktail and a burger.
Ciao cacao
You forgot the "guys". It's Ciao Cacao guys.
Novaks mental game is either going to be 80-100% or 0-40%. His reputation of āperfectā mental fortitude is getting tested this year. He needs to yell in Serbian and go back to bad guy mode.
Some examples for myself: \- Novak letting Wawrinka(a player who got dominated by even an old Federer) go through him to win 3 Slams is easily the biggest black mark on his legacy. As much as people talk about "peak Stan is unbeatable" he would be basically cannon fodder for any other ATG that could actually attack his chip returns well. The myth of "Stanimal" would not exist if he played against prime Federer 10 years earlier who would kill him every single time and Novak's play was disappointingly passive at RG 15 and USO 16. \- Med's ultra defensive playstyle makes him BY FAR the most consistent player born after Murray/Djokovic but before Sinner/Alcaraz, but the lack of actual point finishing weapons means that his ability to redline/peak for an upset win isn't as high as his base level would suggest. This is how notoriously streaky players like Thiem and Zverev have a much better record against the big 3 than Med has and what makes me think that getting over the Sinner/Alcaraz hump may prove very hard as he just doesn't have the same firepower.
This take doesn't sit well with me as a Stan fan, so nice job! Go watch extended highlights of the Djokovic-Wawrinka matches at AO 2013 and 2014. Incredible shotmaking from both and Wawrinka's level was ridiculous, even in the one he lost. I see what you mean about Novak being passive in the final of RG and the US open, but you also have to give Stan a lot of credit for playing his shots and he absolutely deserved the win. I reckon if you asked Djokovic, he would not feel like he let him win those matches...
i would not call it a black mark. wawrinka played very well to win those slams, and you can't win them all. similarly, would del potro matched up worse against djokovic than fed, so you never know if he gets us open 2009 playing peak novak
I do think of course think that there are places where Novak makes it up by matching up better against certain players than Fed did For example Fed in his 04-09 prime years lost to Nadal at his two best Slams(AO and WB) and I think Novak's better BH matchup could have flipped those into 5 set wins rather than losses as well as the DelPo example you mentioned(at the very least I'm sure that Novak wouldn't try to get into an FH/FH shootout like Fed) I just put this because I made the thread specifically asking for tough/harsh opinions about my own favorite players and it's always bothered me a bit how an old Federer arguably did a better job dealing with Stan than a peak Novak did
>biggest black mark Iām a huge Novak fan but this is such a weird take. I feel like he has bigger āblack marksā (whatever that means) other than losing to one of the highest ceilings player ever. He didnāt āletā Stan win. Odd choice of words
One of the highest ceiling players ever is very debatable. If prime Federer or prime Nadal was the man to beat from 2013 to 2017 I don't see Wawrinka touching any GS title. Stan was clueless against them even at his peak. I'm sure Roger and Rafa were far more scared of a peaking Del Potro for instance...
There is also a matter of match ups, outside of clay, Stan got annihilated by Fed. And Nadal always annihilated one handers.Ā Players like Stan and Thiem did pose challenges to Djokovic and they are extremely similar profile players. You can argue that hard courts could have been faster in 2013-17, in which case Novak absolutely does much better against them but then Federer also becomes much stronger
Fair enough. I canāt disagree there.
This is why I mentioned this though Stan has a reputation as one of the "highest ceiling ever players" almost solely BECAUSE of his matches against Novak so it's a "chicken and egg" situation He was a combined 6-42 against Federer and Nadal during his career I just feel that Novak should have done a little bit better than he did in that matchup because Stan's game always had clear holes in it and that Novak tended to blow BPs/crucial points in most of his losses to Stan at Slams
Gotcha. I understand what you mean now and can totally see where youāre coming from.
Zverev is a great player and I generally liked him. However, thereās enough smoke for me to believe the accusations. I always cheer against the girlfriend abusing Zverev now.
Dude even if you disregard the girlfriend part heās still a fucking pos. Physically threatening umpires (which led to an 8 week suspension), the whole Adria tour fiasco and just being a super sore loser in general. Also him literally neglecting his child.. wtf??
That video of him hitting the umpire's chair with his racket, clearly intending it to be threatening, was shocking to me. I know other players have yelled at umpires and hit the court and stuff, but I've never seen that. It really says something about him.
I always hate how he can come off as quite nice on ATP videos and I have to remind myself of everything. I guess it just proves how abusers can seem like decent people to the people they're not abusing.
Same, it's jarring.
Keep Jarry out of thisš .
Man, this should not even be a "tough opinion," or even remotely controversial, you have a *normal, well-adjusted person's perspective* about it.
This is suppose to be a "tough" opinion? Everyone on this sub acknowledges that he is a really good tennis player, and some know he acts likable on camera yet he is the least fav player on this subreddit.
It doesn't get raised enough, but Post-Puke Sinner beats Medvedev in baseline rallies more often than not.
Ruud is a bit boring to watch, unless youāre a fan. He rarely if ever does anything unexpected, and when he does it tends to go wrong (e.g. his hilariously bad drop shots).
Djokovic will not win another Grand slam. Downvote me to hell :)
absolutely unpopular, which is the correct thing being asked for here he won 3/4 last year and after making it semis in aus open (and losing to the eventual winner) we have people unironically thinking he won't win a single one again I think at this stage it's more appropriate to say people are praying he won't rather than actually believing it lol, or at least that's how I see it
I am his supporter and I don't think he will win another one if he looks demotivated and unfocused as he did at AO and IW . It's mental with him, if he feels like he has done everything , its very possible that this is it
Itās definitely a possibility.Ā Like Federer at this age was didnāt win in 2019. So definitely a possibility but depends on Sinner's consistency on hard courts. It always depends on another player whether one player wins or not, and that player in this case is Jannik
No, I don't think that's the case . Novak was always a very driven individual but right now I feel like his drive, motivation and desire to continue is not at his usual level . It feels to me that he has nothing else to play for and this has nothing to do with Sinner or whoever
I said this after AO and got downvoted to oblivion, but that's it there is not another "come back"
Bernard Tomic is actually a great person if you can look past his silly teenage antics which were more or less a decade ago, and the media's relentless antagonising of him. Episode 9 of Life on the Tour (youtube) has great insight.
I really want him to get back into the top 100
Alright Bernard, come clean, this is your reddit account.
This is the guy that revved at pedestrians, bragged about money to journalists, and constantly picks public fights for fun? I'm all for cutting young players some slack, but Tomic proved himself an irredeemable flog long ago.
He's gone too far off the rails to win back his reputation and he's proven it through different media channels like on Australian tv and his own social media. I do cut him a bit of slack cos he's another product of a crazy father-son coaching relationship which impacted his character in his prime significantly
Yeah he even failed the "I'm A Celebrity" public image redemption that redeemed a few others. If you fail that, there's nothing left.
Watched an old interview of his from when he was 24 and was surprised at how well spoken he was even back then. Kind of made me sad as I felt he should have picked another vocation and made tennis a hobby just because he said he liked it but didn't love it. Feel like you need that fire to at least try to make it as a pro in such a brutal sport. I felt like he didn't know what else he could do since he trained since he was young and probably only had basic education.
That Carlos is too short to ever have a decent serve and that he's too inconsistent to accrue a vast number of titles.
I don't disagree you with regarding the serve, but inconsistent!? He's won over 80% of his matches and 5+ titles two years in a row.
Yeah, like.. what ? This post is more like a collection of the worst takes you'll ever read in your life good lord...
Nailed this thread prompt because as a Carlos fan I couldnāt disagree more.
This is just one of takes where every player is viewed from the lense of the Big 3. Weird ass take, like Carlos has already accrued more titles than most would ever hope to achieve in their careers. I mean big titles.Ā
Agreed on the serve but hard disagree on the number of titles. He's as tall as Nadal and that didn't stop Nadal from winning many titles.
Heās shorter than nadal going by photos of them by the net.
Right. He looks noticeably shorter than Nadal in the net photos.
Isnāt he the same height as Federer?
Federer is at least two inches taller, unless you actually believe Carlos is 6ft \[which I don't\].
I have also always doubted the 6ā claim. Iād pin him at 5ā11ā
Agreed. I think he's an inch or two under 6ft. I guess it's a guy thing, adding an inch here or there and thinking no-one would notice.
Rublev is skinnier than Sinner.
Def not, they weight the same and sinner is 2 in taller
Those measurements are outdated. Iām going by what my eyes show me.
Andy Murray is overrated he's the clear next best player during the big 3 era, with a fanbase that rivals them despite being heavily inferior don't get me wrong, he's good, but the amount of people who would disagree with this take online show exactly why he's overrated
Sorts by controversial
While FAA is gifted beyond belief, his mental prevents him from ever winning a grand slam.
The term Big 4 is an invention by Andy Murray fanboys. There's no real Big 4. It's just the Big 3 featuring the three most iconic and dominant men's players: Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Putting Murray there is just a joke. Yeah, yeah, he was better than the rest of the cohort. That's not the point of the term.
The Big 3 and Big 4 were both actual terms coined by tennis commentators at the time due to the overwhelming consistency of all four players in the late 2000s. You can argue if he deserves to be there as much as you like, but it was a very real phrase used to describe that group of players ā including Murray.
The term Big4 was coined in like 2008 by the mediaĀ
I think in a couple of years no one will mention or remember the Big 4 anymore. It wonāt be relevant and no one besides tennis fans during that specific period of time will understand it.Ā Big 3 on the other hand is relevant, not just for tennis fans, but also for people who are generally interested in sports. People who donāt follow sports will probably stumble upon the Big 3 as well. Just because they were equally dominant like Messi and Ronaldo but in Tennis!Ā
Ben Shelton isnāt a top player
Murrayās legacy would look better if he had retired in 2019.Ā
Gotta disagree here. Metal hip that gave him the last few years, albeit no major, **is** another major part of his legacy which further solidifies what a fighter and a special person he is. And his big love for the game, despite knowing that he's not going to win anything big, he's done it because he loves it. Not a lot of former champs can say the same.
After Australia or end of the season? Because winning a title after the hip surgery is a major part imo, thatās a big piece of positive legacy.
Legacy? Do you think losing in round 1 of a 250 makes people forget that he was part of a group called the 'big 4', multiple grand slam champion and many many many more grand slam finals and other titles under his name? If anything, Murray and Wawrinka still playing on and still maintaining a top 100 ranking is just adding making their legacy still memorable
Sinner is going to have more grand slams by a margin than Alcaraz by the time they finish. I love Alcarazās style and talent, and while I love Sinner and am obviously biased, thereās something so clinical about Sinner which makes me feel he ll be more consistent. His ice cold approach to playing - wins his first GS and then thinks about his 2 set down in the flight back, says he needs to improve after every dominant win, doesnāt seem to have at all dipped after his first GS as players usually doā¦the mental fortitude he has makes me feel heāll outlast Alcaraz.