So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16
years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 1:58:41 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

Well, Rosewall at about same age did F-W-W combo in slams.. (Wimb 70 -USO 70 - AO 71)

But as good this Alcaraz is:

1) This had to happen eventually, right?
2) CEIBS, right :)

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 11:58:41 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

PWL tells me that what you don't understand is that Nadal had it easiest out of everyone cos he only had to deal with "at peak" young Fed and then rising peak young Djoker and Murray, whereas Fed had it much more difficult cos he was almost a year
younger than Nikolay Davydenko whilst less than a year older than David Ferrer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:41:08 PM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 11:58:41 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

PWL tells me that what you don't understand is that Nadal had it easiest out of everyone cos he only had to deal with "at peak" young Fed and then rising peak young Djoker and Murray, whereas Fed had it much more difficult cos he was almost a year

younger than Nikolay Davydenko whilst less than a year older than David Ferrer.

Yep, Nadal had it easier, he had nothing but proven lapdogs like Fed......(who had even lesser folks to worry about)

Until Djoker got his acts up 2011....

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r

So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age difference?Gotta love rst, you don't see

this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

I am not sure I said any of what you said.
Do you have links?

Still you didn't answer my question, if Federer isn't great and he beat no one to win his 20 slams, who did Djokovic and Nadal have to beat to win their slams?

I expect an answer here since you are avoiding to answer this question in any thread and you are a big tennis fan.

Now I am not sure what your post means, and what does "doesn't count" mean?

Djokovic lost, he lost to a younger player, you know very well that Djokovic would kill himself not to lose a match like this. Other than this, I am not sure I understand your post.

Let's first start by answering my question.
--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 11:58:41 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:> So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 > years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a > calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't

count because of age difference? > > Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )PWL tells me that what you don't understand is that Nadal had it easiest out of everyone cos he only had to deal with "at peak" young Fed and then
rising peak young Djoker and Murray, whereas Fed had it much more difficult cos he was almost a year younger than Nikolay Davydenko whilst less than a year older than David Ferrer.

Never said anything about Nadal. Nadal got more than 60-70% of his
slams in the FO.


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/18/2023 5:58 AM, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz?  This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 years older?  It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

All results count of course, regardless of age difference, but there is something to this.

I've always said Fed was not of the same generation as Nadal and Joker.
He is 5 years older, and IMO that makes him a half-generation prior.
Like Becker and Edberg were a half-gen prior to Agassi and Sampras.

Fed's full generational peers were the players who entered the scene at
the turn of the millennium - Safin, Hewitt, JC Ferrero, Coria, Roddick.

Those guys are all long gone from the scene of course, but that is a
testament to Fed outlasting his generation and playing long in to later
ones - like Joker and Nadal are doing now too.

But that generational half-gap is why I always thought Nadal and/or
Joker had a good chance to catch and surpass Fed for open era GOAT (the
slam race), even when it seemed like Fed was out of reach. They had five
years on him age-wise. Lots of slam chances to catch up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/07/2023 2:00 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 11:58:41 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:> So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 > years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a > calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't

count because of age difference? > > Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )PWL tells me that what you don't understand is that Nadal had it easiest out of everyone cos he only had to deal with "at peak" young Fed and then
rising peak young Djoker and Murray, whereas Fed had it much more difficult cos he was almost a year younger than Nikolay Davydenko whilst less than a year older than David Ferrer.

Never said anything about Nadal. Nadal got more than 60-70% of his
slams in the FO.

Outside of Wimbledon Federer only beat Nadal once in a slam, from 1-3
down in the 5th set. At least he got him once.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/07/2023 1:58 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r

So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age difference?Gotta love rst, you don't see

this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

I am not sure I said any of what you said.
Do you have links?

Maybe increase your fish intake? You always excused Fed's losses to
Novak/Rafa due to age and being of 'different era', implying he only
lost because he was peak.

Still you didn't answer my question, if Federer isn't great and he beat no one to win his 20 slams, who did Djokovic and Nadal have to beat to win their slams?

I never said Fed wasn't great, just that he was 3rd best of his era.

I expect an answer here since you are avoiding to answer this question in any thread and you are a big tennis fan.

Now I am not sure what your post means, and what does "doesn't count" mean?

Djokovic lost, he lost to a younger player, you know very well that Djokovic would kill himself not to lose a match like this. Other than this, I am not sure I understand your post.

What I'm saying is results are all that matter, there is no excuse. Who
cares Connors was 7 yrs older than McEnroe? Everyone considers they
were great rivals and of the same era. If you take the court the result counts.

Let's first start by answering my question.

I've answered it many times, not that complicated.

Djokovic came within 1 match of calendar slam at age 34 and may well win
3 slams at age 36 + narrow 5 set loss at Wimbledon. Nobody cares he was
16 yrs older than Alcaraz and 10+ v the field.

Just accept Fed was 3rd best of his era and watch his old matches for
pleasure. Forget about him being considered the goat, that horse bolted
many years ago.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/07/2023 9:47 am, stephenj wrote:

On 7/18/2023 5:58 AM, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz?  This result doesn't count as Novak is
16 years older?  It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way
to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age
difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

All results count of course, regardless of age difference, but there is something to this.

I've always said Fed was not of the same generation as Nadal and Joker.
He is 5 years older, and IMO that makes him a half-generation prior.
Like Becker and Edberg were a half-gen prior to Agassi and Sampras.

Fed's full generational peers were the players who entered the scene at
the turn of the millennium -  Safin, Hewitt, JC Ferrero, Coria, Roddick.

Those guys are all long gone from the scene of course, but that is a testament to Fed outlasting his generation and playing long in to later
ones - like Joker and Nadal are doing now too.

But that generational half-gap is why I always thought Nadal and/or
Joker had a good chance to catch and surpass Fed for open era GOAT (the
slam race), even when it seemed like Fed was out of reach. They had five years on him age-wise. Lots of slam chances to catch up.

Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals.
Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams.
Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very closely so for him it's a
tangible goal. If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r

On 19/07/2023 1:58 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:> Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r>> So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is 16 years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way to a calendar

slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age difference?Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )> > I am not sure I said any of what you said.> Do you have links?> Maybe increase your fish intake? You always
excused Fed's losses to Novak/Rafa due to age and being of 'different era', implying he only lost because he was peak.> Still you didn't answer my question, if Federer isn't great and he beat no one to win his 20 slams, who did Djokovic and Nadal have to
beat to win their slams?I never said Fed wasn't great, just that he was 3rd best of his era.> > I expect an answer here since you are avoiding to answer this question in any thread and you are a big tennis fan.> > Now I am not sure what your post means,
and what does "doesn't count" mean?> > Djokovic lost, he lost to a younger player, you know very well that Djokovic would kill himself not to lose a match like this. Other than this, I am not sure I understand your post.What I'm saying is results are
all that matter, there is no excuse. Who cares Connors was 7 yrs older than McEnroe? Everyone considers they were great rivals and of the same era. If you take the court the result counts.> > Let's first start by answering my question.I've answered it
many times, not that complicated.Djokovic came within 1 match of calendar slam at age 34 and may well win 3 slams at age 36 + narrow 5 set loss at Wimbledon. Nobody cares he was 16 yrs older than Alcaraz and 10+ v the field.Just accept Fed was 3rd best
of his era and watch his old matches for pleasure. Forget about him being considered the goat, that horse bolted many years ago.

You just keep going in circles, and getting into topics that are irrelated to each other.
But I will take an ADHD pill and start talking like you. I think Federer would have won three cygs if Nadal was not around being the clay monster he has been in his prime. Does this sound correct? It was always one match? Right?

Stephenj reiterated what I have been saying in his own words, you can go attack him as well.

To add to his, Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a little of his peak while djok was peaking in older age.

I don't remember which Wimbledon final in which Federer and djok met, Federer said before the final that djok is the favourite because he is simply in his prime. He always said before these finals that he will try to give djok a tough match. Everyone was
aware that Djokovic being in his prime or much closer to his prime than Federer, who is 6 years older, gave Djokovic the edge in these finals and forced Federer to play more of extremely aggressive style to have some chance instead of playing higher
percentage consistent tennis that he can't do at his age.
In the last Wimbledon, djok coaches said they knew djok would win because they knew Federer was getting tired.

Again, Federer had two great champs that were 5 and 6 years younger than him and were stopping him in slams, while they have had no one except each other until Alcaraz showed up in this Wimbledon.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:59:33 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:

Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals.
Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams. Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very closely so for him it's a
tangible goal. If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?

I say it once:

Total bullshit.

No athlete train for goatness, but boatness.

Some historic records are just impossible to achieve nowadays (imagine some newbie posting "But Laver won 200 titles", that is fun and arguable, but actually degrades whole point, when folks start to analyze deeper)

Best of era is enough, historic references vs current numbers/values ... cannot be compared.

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:59:33 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:> Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals. > Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams. > Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very

closely so for him it's a > tangible goal. If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?I say it once:Total bullshit. No athlete train for goatness, but boatness.Some historic records are just impossible to achieve nowadays (imagine some newbie posting "But
Laver won 200 titles", that is fun and arguable, but actually degrades whole point, when folks start to analyze deeper)Best of era is enough, historic references vs current numbers/values ... cannot be compared..mikko



Yeah they all aspire to dominate their own peers and that's all they can do.


As for Laver, you have to acknowledge his 198 singles titles, it's the all-time record and he's done it in era when winning a lot meant a lot, it's how they played back then. He was denied a chance at winning most slams, and likewise, modern guys don't
really have a chance of equaling some of the stuff from that era.

That's why I'm in favour of observing several ultimate categories. I found these 8 to be it.


1. Most CYGS (Laver)
2. Most GS titles (Djokovic)
3. Best CGS (Djokovic)
4. Most Wimbledon (Federer)
5. Most YE#1 (Gonzalez or Djokovic)
6. Most titles (Laver)
7. Most match wins (Rosewall)
8. Most Olympics golds (Murray)


So it's, the guy on top is the goat, others have claims too.

2.5 pts - Djokovic
2.0 pts - Laver
1.0 pts - Federer, Rosewall, Murray
0.5 pts - Gonzales


Indeed Wimbledon would have been huge for Djokovic, but FO was even bigger deal.

Before his 3rd FO, he shared "best CGS" with Emerson, Laver and Nadal. Taking away record in that category away from Laver is/was more important than.

Federer "only" has Wimbledon, Laver was tops otoh in 3 categories, he's now in 2.



Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.

--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a little of his peak while djok was peaking in older age.

Djokovic beat Nadal at FO at the age of 28 first time.

What are you saying, nothing post age 27 counts?

Then why do all these guys play I wonder?





Besides, do you know how dumb does this sound?

"Djokovic beat Nadal 2 times at FO and the rest of the tennis tour has done it just once, but Djokovic did it too late".


Lol







--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:

Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.

As good as Alcaraz already is; these longevity records also require a) motivation b) luck with injuries c) no one equal/better rise up from the ranks.....

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:> Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.As good as Alcaraz already is; these longevity records also require a) motivation b) luck with injuries c) no one equal/better rise

up from the ranks......mikko


True but he's already got 2 years at #1 (unlikely that Djokovic surpasses him this year).


So he's at 2, needs just 5 more to tie Djokovic and he's only 20.

He needs 9 more (including shared years) to tie Gonzales for all-time stuff.






--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:22:34 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:

MBDunc was the wise king in message:r

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:> Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.As good as Alcaraz already is; these longevity records also require a) motivation b) luck with injuries c) no one equal/better rise

up from the ranks......mikko

True but he's already got 2 years at #1 (unlikely that Djokovic surpasses him this year).

number #1 for 2023 is still open though (alcaraz, djoker, meds)

Last year it looked that Nadal will cakewalk for #1 2022, but .... not so.....)

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:18:13 AM UTC-4, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:

Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.

As good as Alcaraz already is; these longevity records also require a) motivation b) luck with injuries c) no one equal/better rise up from the ranks.....

.mikko

And match ups. There could be a guy who is not better in absolute terms but matches badly against you. Like Rafa vs Fed and later on Djoker vs Rafa. Wawrinka vs Djoker. Wawrinka vs Murray (It seems Wawrinka loved to blow grinders off the court).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMTkvMDcvMjAyMyA2OjEyIHBtLCBQZXRlV2FzTHVja3kgd3JvdGU6DQo+IFdoaXNwZXIg PHdoaXNwZXJAb3plbWFpbC5jb20uYXU+IFdyb3RlIGluIG1lc3NhZ2U6cg0KPj4gT24gMTkv MDcvMjAyMyAxOjU4IGFtLCBQZXRlV2FzTHVja3kgd3JvdGU6PiBXaGlzcGVyIDx3aGlzcGVy QG96ZW1haWwuY29tLmF1PiBXcm90ZSBpbiBtZXNzYWdlOnI+PiBTbyB3aGF0IGFib3V0IE5v dmFrIHYgQWxjYXJhej8gIFRoaXMgcmVzdWx0IGRvZXNuJ3QgY291bnQgYXMgTm92YWsgaXMg MTYgeWVhcnMgb2xkZXI/ICBJdCBkb2Vzbid0IG1hdHRlciBpZiBOb3ZhayB3YXMgbmVhcmx5 IDMvNCBvZiB0aGUgd2F5IHRvIGEgY2FsZW5kYXIgc2xhbSBhdCBhZ2UgMzYsIGl0IHN0aWxs IGRvZXNuJ3QgY291bnQgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBhZ2UgZGlmZmVyZW5jZT9Hb3R0YSBsb3ZlIHJz dCwgeW91IGRvbid0IHNlZSB0aGlzIGtpbmQgb2YgJ2FuYWx5c2lzJyBhbnl3aGVyZSBlbHNl IDsgKT4gPiBJIGFtIG5vdCBzdXJlIEkgc2FpZCBhbnkgb2Ygd2hhdCB5b3Ugc2FpZC4+IERv IHlvdSBoYXZlIGxpbmtzPz4gTWF5YmUgaW5jcmVhc2UgeW91ciBmaXNoIGludGFrZT8gIFlv dSBhbHdheXMgZXhjdXNlZCBGZWQncyBsb3NzZXMgdG8gTm92YWsvUmFmYSBkdWUgdG8gYWdl IGFuZCBiZWluZyBvZiAnZGlmZmVyZW50IGVyYScsIGltcGx5aW5nIGhlIG9ubHkgbG9zdCBi ZWNhdXNlIGhlIHdhcyBwZWFrLj4gU3RpbGwgeW91IGRpZG4ndCBhbnN3ZXIgbXkgcXVlc3Rp b24sIGlmIEZlZGVyZXIgaXNuJ3QgZ3JlYXQgYW5kIGhlIGJlYXQgbm8gb25lIHRvIHdpbiBo aXMgMjAgc2xhbXMsIHdobyBkaWQgRGpva292aWMgYW5kIE5hZGFsIGhhdmUgdG8gYmVhdCB0 byB3aW4gdGhlaXIgc2xhbXM/SSBuZXZlciBzYWlkIEZlZCB3YXNuJ3QgZ3JlYXQsIGp1c3Qg dGhhdCBoZSB3YXMgM3JkIGJlc3Qgb2YgaGlzIGVyYS4+ID4gSSBleHBlY3QgYW4gYW5zd2Vy IGhlcmUgc2luY2UgeW91IGFyZSBhdm9pZGluZyB0byBhbnN3ZXIgdGhpcyBxdWVzdGlvbiBp biBhbnkgdGhyZWFkIGFuZCB5b3UgYXJlIGEgYmlnIHRlbm5pcyBmYW4uPiA+IE5vdyBJIGFt IG5vdCBzdXJlIHdoYXQgeW91ciBwb3N0IG1lYW5zLCBhbmQgd2hhdCBkb2VzICJkb2Vzbid0 IGNvdW50IiAgbWVhbj8+ID4gRGpva292aWMgbG9zdCwgaGUgbG9zdCB0byBhIHlvdW5nZXIg cGxheWVyLCB5b3Uga25vdyB2ZXJ5IHdlbGwgdGhhdCBEam9rb3ZpYyB3b3VsZCBraWxsIGhp bXNlbGYgbm90IHRvIGxvc2UgYSBtYXRjaCBsaWtlIHRoaXMuIE90aGVyIHRoYW4gdGhpcywg SSBhbSBub3Qgc3VyZSBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgeW91ciBwb3N0LldoYXQgSSdtIHNheWluZyBp cyByZXN1bHRzIGFyZSBhbGwgdGhhdCBtYXR0ZXIsIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIGV4Y3VzZS4gIFdo byBjYXJlcyBDb25ub3JzIHdhcyA3IHlycyBvbGRlciB0aGFuIE1jRW5yb2U/ICBFdmVyeW9u ZSBjb25zaWRlcnMgdGhleSB3ZXJlIGdyZWF0IHJpdmFscyBhbmQgb2YgdGhlIHNhbWUgZXJh LiAgSWYgeW91IHRha2UgdGhlIGNvdXJ0IHRoZSByZXN1bHQgY291bnRzLj4gPiBMZXQncyBm aXJzdCBzdGFydCBieSBhbnN3ZXJpbmcgbXkgcXVlc3Rpb24uSSd2ZSBhbnN3ZXJlZCBpdCBt YW55IHRpbWVzLCBub3QgdGhhdCBjb21wbGljYXRlZC5Eam9rb3ZpYyBjYW1lIHdpdGhpbiAx IG1hdGNoIG9mIGNhbGVuZGFyIHNsYW0gYXQgYWdlIDM0IGFuZCBtYXkgd2VsbCB3aW4gMyBz bGFtcyBhdCBhZ2UgMzYgKyBuYXJyb3cgNSBzZXQgbG9zcyBhdCBXaW1ibGVkb24uICBOb2Jv ZHkgY2FyZXMgaGUgd2FzIDE2IHlycyBvbGRlciB0aGFuIEFsY2FyYXogYW5kIDEwKyB2IHRo ZSBmaWVsZC5KdXN0IGFjY2VwdCBGZWQgd2FzIDNyZCBiZXN0IG9mIGhpcyBlcmEgYW5kIHdh dGNoIGhpcyBvbGQgbWF0Y2hlcyBmb3IgcGxlYXN1cmUuICBGb3JnZXQgYWJvdXQgaGltIGJl aW5nIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgdGhlIGdvYXQsIHRoYXQgaG9yc2UgYm9sdGVkIG1hbnkgeWVhcnMg YWdvLg0KPiANCj4gWW91IGp1c3Qga2VlcCBnb2luZyBpbiBjaXJjbGVzLCBhbmQgZ2V0dGlu ZyBpbnRvIHRvcGljcyB0aGF0IGFyZSBpcnJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gZWFjaCBvdGhlci4NCj4gQnV0 IEkgd2lsbCB0YWtlIGFuIEFESEQgcGlsbCBhbmQgc3RhcnQgdGFsa2luZyBsaWtlIHlvdS4g SSB0aGluayBGZWRlcmVyIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgd29uIHRocmVlIGN5Z3MgaWYgTmFkYWwgd2Fz IG5vdCBhcm91bmQgYmVpbmcgdGhlIGNsYXkgbW9uc3RlciBoZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBpbiBoaXMg cHJpbWUuIERvZXMgdGhpcyBzb3VuZCBjb3JyZWN0PyBJdCB3YXMgYWx3YXlzIG9uZSBtYXRj aD8gUmlnaHQ/DQo+IA0KPiBTdGVwaGVuaiByZWl0ZXJhdGVkIHdoYXQgSSBoYXZlIGJlZW4g c2F5aW5nIGluIGhpcyBvd24gd29yZHMsIHlvdSBjYW4gZ28gYXR0YWNrIGhpbSBhcyB3ZWxs Lg0KPiANCj4gVG8gYWRkIHRvIGhpcywgRGpvayBtYW5hZ2VkIHRvIGJlYXQgbmFkYWwgb24g Y2xheSB2ZXJ5IGxhdGUgaW4gdGhlaXIgY2FyZWVycywgYmVpbmcgZnJvbSB0aGUgc2FtZSBn ZW5lcmF0aW9uIGFuZCBkam9rIGlzIGV2ZW4gb25lIHllYXIgeW91bmdlciB0aGFuIE5hZGFs LCBOYWRhbCBzbGlkaW5nIGEgbGl0dGxlIG9mIGhpcyBwZWFrIHdoaWxlIGRqb2sgd2FzIHBl YWtpbmcgaW4gb2xkZXIgYWdlLg0KPg0KDQpOYWRhbCBkaWRuJ3QgbG9zZSBhdCBGTyB0byBO b3ZhayBkdWUgdG8gYWdlLCBkb24ndCBiZSBibG9vZHkgcmlkaWN1bG91cy4gDQogIE5vdmFr IGlzIG1heWJlIGdvYXQvYm9hdCBzbyBoZSdzIG5vdCBnb2luZyB0byBsb3NlIHRvIFJhZmEg MTAgb3V0IDEwLCANCmV2ZW4gYXQgRk8uDQoNCg0KPiBJIGRvbid0IHJlbWVtYmVyIHdoaWNo IFdpbWJsZWRvbiBmaW5hbCBpbiB3aGljaCBGZWRlcmVyIGFuZCBkam9rIG1ldCwgRmVkZXJl ciBzYWlkIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgZmluYWwgdGhhdCBkam9rIGlzIHRoZSBmYXZvdXJpdGUgYmVj YXVzZSBoZSBpcyBzaW1wbHkgaW4gaGlzIHByaW1lLiBIZSBhbHdheXMgc2FpZCBiZWZvcmUg dGhlc2UgZmluYWxzIHRoYXQgaGUgd2lsbCB0cnkgdG8gZ2l2ZSBkam9rIGEgdG91Z2ggPm1h dGNoLiBFdmVyeW9uZSB3YXMgYXdhcmUgdGhhdCBEam9rb3ZpYyBiZWluZyBpbiBoaXMgcHJp bWUgb3IgbXVjaCBjbG9zZXIgdG8gaGlzIHByaW1lIHRoYW4gRmVkZXJlciwgd2hvIGlzIDYg eWVhcnMgb2xkZXIsIGdhdmUgRGpva292aWMgdGhlIGVkZ2UgaW4gdGhlc2UgZmluYWxzIGFu ZCBmb3JjZWQgRmVkZXJlciB0byBwbGF5IG1vcmUgb2YgZXh0cmVtZWx5IGFnZ3Jlc3NpdmUg c3R5bGUgdG8gaGF2ZSBzb21lID5jaGFuY2UgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiBwbGF5aW5nIGhpZ2hlciBw ZXJjZW50YWdlIGNvbnNpc3RlbnQgdGVubmlzIHRoYXQgaGUgY2FuJ3QgZG8gYXQgaGlzIGFn ZS4NCg0KDQpXaGF0IGEgc3RpbmtpbmcgbG9hZCBvZiBob3JzZXNoaXQuICBZb3UndmUgb3V0 ZG9uZSB5b3Vyc2VsZiB5ZXQgYWdhaW4uIA0KS3Vkb3MuDQoNCg0KPiBJbiB0aGUgbGFzdCBX aW1ibGVkb24sIGRqb2sgY29hY2hlcyBzYWlkIHRoZXkga25ldyBkam9rIHdvdWxkIHdpbiBi ZWNhdXNlIHRoZXkga25ldyBGZWRlcmVyIHdhcyBnZXR0aW5nIHRpcmVkLg0KDQpSb2RkaWNr IGxvc3QgMjAwOSBXaW1ibGVkb24gdG8gRmVkZXJlciAxNi0xNCBpbiA1dGggc2V0IGJlY2F1 c2UgaGUgZ290IA0KdGlyZWQsIG5vdCBiZWNhdXNlIEZlZCB3YXMgYmV0dGVyIHJpZ2h0PyAg U2FtcHJhcyBuZXZlciBsb3N0IGEgbWF0Y2ggaW4gDQpoaXMgbGlmZSB3aGVyZSBoZSB3YXNu J3QgdGlyZWQuICBZb3VyIGRlYmF0aW5nIHN0cmF0ZWd5IGlzIHZlcnkgDQpzb3BoaXN0aWNh dGVkLg0KDQoNCj4gDQo+IEFnYWluLCBGZWRlcmVyIGhhZCB0d28gZ3JlYXQgY2hhbXBzIHRo YXQgd2VyZSA1IGFuZCA2IHllYXJzIHlvdW5nZXIgdGhhbiBoaW0gYW5kIHdlcmUgc3RvcHBp bmcgaGltIGluIHNsYW1zLCB3aGlsZSB0aGV5IGhhdmUgaGFkIG5vIG9uZSBleGNlcHQgZWFj aCBvdGhlciB1bnRpbCBBbGNhcmF6IHNob3dlZCB1cCBpbiB0aGlzIFdpbWJsZWRvbi4NCj4g DQo+IA0KDQoNCkZlZGVyZXIgc2ltcGx5IHdhc24ndCBhcyBnb29kIGFzIE5vdmFrIGFuZCBO YWRhbC4gIFNvcnJ5IHlvdSBoYXZlIG5vIA0KY2hvaWNlIGJ1dCB0byBhY2NlcHQgcmVhbGl0 eS4gIEl0IHdpbGwgdGFrZSB0aW1lIGJ1dCB5b3UnbGwgbGVhcm4gYXMgeW91IA0KbWF0dXJl IGEgYml0Lg0KDQo=

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/07/2023 6:54 pm, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:59:33 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:

Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals.
Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams.
Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very closely so for him it's a
tangible goal. If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?

I say it once:

Total bullshit.

No athlete train for goatness, but boatness.

Novak, Rafa and Federer sure did. So did Sampras.

Some historic records are just impossible to achieve nowadays (imagine some newbie posting "But Laver won 200 titles", that is fun and arguable, but actually degrades whole point, when folks start to analyze deeper)

Best of era is enough, historic references vs current numbers/values ... cannot be compared.

.mikko

You can be best of your era with 6 slams, that's not going to put you in
the goat/boat conversation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/19/23 3:18 AM, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:

Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.

As good as Alcaraz already is; these longevity records also require a) motivation b) luck with injuries c) no one equal/better rise up from the ranks.....

.mikko

This is interesting.

For quite a while I've tried to evaluate whether a player is out there
and *likes* it, or is out there and is ambivalent, or actively does not
like it.

Consider Borg. He certainly never gave off any body language that he
enjoyed being out there, and his sudden retirement sorta looks like he
was escaping from the game.

Sabalenka, for all her histrionics, enjoys being out there. Zverev and Shapovolov wish they were somewhere else. Tsitsipas has moments when he
looks that way, too. Fritz really likes being out there.

Alcaraz is almost always happy about it.

--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Ayatolla of Rock and Rolla!" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/19/2023 12:59 AM, Whisper wrote:

On 19/07/2023 9:47 am, stephenj wrote:

On 7/18/2023 5:58 AM, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz?  This result doesn't count as Novak is
16 years older?  It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way
to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age
difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; )

All results count of course, regardless of age difference, but there
is something to this.

I've always said Fed was not of the same generation as Nadal and
Joker. He is 5 years older, and IMO that makes him a half-generation
prior. Like Becker and Edberg were a half-gen prior to Agassi and
Sampras.

Fed's full generational peers were the players who entered the scene
at the turn of the millennium -  Safin, Hewitt, JC Ferrero, Coria,
Roddick.

Those guys are all long gone from the scene of course, but that is a
testament to Fed outlasting his generation and playing long in to
later ones - like Joker and Nadal are doing now too.

But that generational half-gap is why I always thought Nadal and/or
Joker had a good chance to catch and surpass Fed for open era GOAT
(the slam race), even when it seemed like Fed was out of reach. They
had five years on him age-wise. Lots of slam chances to catch up.

Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals.
Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams. Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very closely so for him it's a
tangible goal.  If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?

I agree it helps to have targets, the possibilities that prior players
have opened.

I think the moral of this is try and win as many slams as you can. Even
if you become king of the hill, try to top yourself by winning more.
Better for you to break your own slam record than to have the next guy
or girl behind you do it, or at least retire knowing you tried to win
every one you could.

Because history shows that usually the player who is going to de-throne
you as open era GOAT is right around the corner. You probably even
played them.

I think Fed can rest easy on that point, he was tireless in his pursuit
of slam wins, heck really of wins everywhere.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

To add to his, Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a little of his peak while djok was peaking in older age.

Yes, Nadal may not have been at his peak when Djokovic first beat him at the FO(actually I believe Nadal was injured at the FO in 2015 and far from his best) but since that time, how many French Open titles has Nadal won? Five? You definitely have a
problem realizing that professional athletes are no longer finished at age 30.

Also, whatever the circumstances, Djokovic did manage to beat Nadal at the FO a couple of times but Federer couldn't do it. Can you really be considered the GOAT if you can't beat EVERY main rival on all surfaces at all slams? But because Federer had a
game so pleasing to the eye and because the media brainwashed us into believing Federer was a God for so many years, it's hard to admit that there's somebody better whose style isn't so easy on the eyes and who is basically a bonehead in many ways. But
it is what it is.

I don't remember which Wimbledon final in which Federer and djok met, Federer said before the final that djok is the favourite because he is simply in his prime. He always said before these finals that he will try to give djok a tough match. Everyone

was aware that Djokovic being in his prime or much closer to his prime than Federer, who is 6 years older, gave Djokovic the edge in these finals and forced Federer to play more of extremely aggressive style to have some chance instead of playing higher
percentage consistent tennis that he can't do at his age.

In the last Wimbledon, djok coaches said they knew djok would win because they knew Federer was getting tired.

Now you're just making stuff up! I remember many times where Federer told the press he was better in his 30s in many ways than he was when he was younger because he had more experience. Also, Federer had a champion's mentality and no champion would think
he couldn't beat a rival because of his age. He was showing up to play wasn't he? There's a six year difference, not a 16 year difference! Also, for the Wimbledon 2019 final Federer was tired? How did he have a couple of match points then? He also said
after that final that he could have played for much longer as he was NOT tired!

Federer was beating everybody else at slams for the most part in his late 30s except for Djokovic. I told you, he didn't have an age problem, he had a Djokovic problem. The fact that you can't admit something so obvious is beyond delusional at this point.



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:r

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: > To add to his, Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a little

of his peak while djok was peaking in older age. Yes, Nadal may not have been at his peak when Djokovic first beat him at the FO(actually I believe Nadal was injured at the FO in 2015 and far from his best) but since that time, how many French Open
titles has Nadal won? Five? You definitely have a problem realizing that professional athletes are no longer finished at age 30.Also, whatever the circumstances, Djokovic did manage to beat Nadal at the FO a couple of times but Federer couldn't do it.
Can you really be considered the GOAT if you can't beat EVERY main rival on all surfaces at all slams? But because Federer had a game so pleasing to the eye and because the media brainwashed us into believing Federer was a God for so many years, it's
hard to admit that there's somebody better whose style isn't so easy on the eyes and who is basically a bonehead in many ways. But it is what it is. > I don't remember which Wimbledon final in which Federer and djok met, Federer said before the final
that djok is the favourite because he is simply in his prime. He always said before these finals that he will try to give djok a tough match. Everyone was aware that Djokovic being in his prime or much closer to his prime than Federer, who is 6 years
older, gave Djokovic the edge in these finals and forced Federer to play more of extremely aggressive style to have some chance instead of playing higher percentage consistent tennis that he can't do at his age. > In the last Wimbledon, djok coaches said
they knew djok would win because they knew Federer was getting tired. Now you're just making stuff up! I remember many times where Federer told the press he was better in his 30s in many ways than he was when he was younger because he had more experience.
Also, Federer had a champion's mentality and no champion would think he couldn't beat a rival because of his age. He was showing up to play wasn't he? There's a six year difference, not a 16 year difference! Also, for the Wimbledon 2019 final Federer
was tired? How did he have a couple of match points then? He also said after that final that he could have played for much longer as he was NOT tired! Federer was beating everybody else at slams for the most part in his late 30s except for Djokovic. I
told you, he didn't have an age problem, he had a Djokovic problem. The fact that you can't admit something so obvious is beyond delusional at this point.



He should be logical about it follow it entirely.

If age is such a factor, we all agree that it is, but he claims it's unsurmountable, then why doesn't he admit and concede that Federer "solved" Nadal late in his career, only when Nadal was 30+ and slower, thus unable to play the retrieving physical
style of the early 20s that caused Federer so much trouble.

Nadal in AO 2017 was definitely somewhat slower than in e.g. AO 2009.

Perhaps it's what changed the equation there?





--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 14:37:40 UTC+1, undecided wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:18:13 AM UTC-4, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:

Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.

As good as Alcaraz already is; these longevity records also require a) motivation b) luck with injuries c) no one equal/better rise up from the ranks.....

.mikko

And match ups. There could be a guy who is not better in absolute terms but matches badly against you. Like Rafa vs Fed and later on Djoker vs Rafa. Wawrinka vs Djoker. Wawrinka vs Murray (It seems Wawrinka loved to blow grinders off the court).

why have you left off Murray vs Djoker? also Murray has a leading h2h vs Wawrinka, you're thinking of that one match at the FO where Stan was on-fire, but Murray had beaten him before too at FO.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 20:34:04 UTC+1, stephenj wrote:

On 7/19/2023 12:59 AM, Whisper wrote:

On 19/07/2023 9:47 am, stephenj wrote:

On 7/18/2023 5:58 AM, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is
16 years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way
to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age
difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; ) >>

All results count of course, regardless of age difference, but there
is something to this.

I've always said Fed was not of the same generation as Nadal and
Joker. He is 5 years older, and IMO that makes him a half-generation
prior. Like Becker and Edberg were a half-gen prior to Agassi and
Sampras.

Fed's full generational peers were the players who entered the scene
at the turn of the millennium - Safin, Hewitt, JC Ferrero, Coria,
Roddick.

Those guys are all long gone from the scene of course, but that is a
testament to Fed outlasting his generation and playing long in to
later ones - like Joker and Nadal are doing now too.

But that generational half-gap is why I always thought Nadal and/or
Joker had a good chance to catch and surpass Fed for open era GOAT
(the slam race), even when it seemed like Fed was out of reach. They
had five years on him age-wise. Lots of slam chances to catch up.

Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals.
Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams. Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very closely so for him it's a
tangible goal. If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?

I agree it helps to have targets, the possibilities that prior players
have opened.

I think the moral of this is try and win as many slams as you can. Even
if you become king of the hill, try to top yourself by winning more.
Better for you to break your own slam record than to have the next guy
or girl behind you do it, or at least retire knowing you tried to win
every one you could.

Because history shows that usually the player who is going to de-throne
you as open era GOAT is right around the corner. You probably even
played them.

I think Fed can rest easy on that point, he was tireless in his pursuit
of slam wins, heck really of wins everywhere.

except this was never considered until Fed got near Sampras' 14, as have said have to give Fed credit for pioneering all this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 17:35:14 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:

On 19/07/2023 6:54 pm, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:59:33 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:

Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals.
Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams. >> Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very closely so for him it's a
tangible goal. If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?

I say it once:

Total bullshit.

No athlete train for goatness, but boatness.

Novak, Rafa and Federer sure did. So did Sampras.

yes Sampras said he was, that's why he practically retired once he broke the record and then went totally AWOL after winning the 14th. Does Mikko not remember what Fed was aiming for back when he started out and became famous?? all the media hype? as for
Nadal, he would've retired years ago otherwise and Djoker same!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 18:02:38 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

On 7/19/23 3:18 AM, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:

Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.

As good as Alcaraz already is; these longevity records also require a) motivation b) luck with injuries c) no one equal/better rise up from the ranks.....

.mikko

This is interesting.

For quite a while I've tried to evaluate whether a player is out there
and *likes* it, or is out there and is ambivalent, or actively does not
like it.

Consider Borg. He certainly never gave off any body language that he
enjoyed being out there, and his sudden retirement sorta looks like he
was escaping from the game.

Sabalenka, for all her histrionics, enjoys being out there. Zverev and Shapovolov wish they were somewhere else. Tsitsipas has moments when he looks that way, too. Fritz really likes being out there.

Alcaraz is almost always happy about it.

yes good observation, think Fed/Nadal always enjoyed being out there, do you reckon Djoker and Sampras see it as kind of job they are very good at and quite like? Agassi said he didn't like it and same with Kyrgios, but they both sound like when famous
people claim they don't like being famous when they obviously 100% do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:14:26 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:

Federer was beating everybody else at slams for the most part in his late 30s except for Djokovic. I told you, he didn't have an age problem, he had a Djokovic problem. The fact that you can't admit something so obvious is beyond delusional at this

point.

Federer had a Djokovic problem in the second half of is career much like Andy Roddick had a Federer problem throughout his career.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/07/2023 1:14 pm, Court_1 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

To add to his, Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a little of his peak while djok was peaking in older age.

Yes, Nadal may not have been at his peak when Djokovic first beat him at the FO(actually I believe Nadal was injured at the FO in 2015 and far from his best) but since that time, how many French Open titles has Nadal won? Five? You definitely have a

problem realizing that professional athletes are no longer finished at age 30.

Also, whatever the circumstances, Djokovic did manage to beat Nadal at the FO a couple of times but Federer couldn't do it. Can you really be considered the GOAT if you can't beat EVERY main rival on all surfaces at all slams? But because Federer had a

game so pleasing to the eye and because the media brainwashed us into believing Federer was a God for so many years, it's hard to admit that there's somebody better whose style isn't so easy on the eyes and who is basically a bonehead in many ways. But
it is what it is.

I don't remember which Wimbledon final in which Federer and djok met, Federer said before the final that djok is the favourite because he is simply in his prime. He always said before these finals that he will try to give djok a tough match. Everyone

was aware that Djokovic being in his prime or much closer to his prime than Federer, who is 6 years older, gave Djokovic the edge in these finals and forced Federer to play more of extremely aggressive style to have some chance instead of playing higher
percentage consistent tennis that he can't do at his age.

In the last Wimbledon, djok coaches said they knew djok would win because they knew Federer was getting tired.

Now you're just making stuff up! I remember many times where Federer told the press he was better in his 30s in many ways than he was when he was younger because he had more experience. Also, Federer had a champion's mentality and no champion would

think he couldn't beat a rival because of his age. He was showing up to play wasn't he? There's a six year difference, not a 16 year difference! Also, for the Wimbledon 2019 final Federer was tired? How did he have a couple of match points then? He
also said after that final that he could have played for much longer as he was NOT tired!

Federer was beating everybody else at slams for the most part in his late 30s except for Djokovic. I told you, he didn't have an age problem, he had a Djokovic problem. The fact that you can't admit something so obvious is beyond delusional at this

point.



Well said. PWL can't seem to realize Rafa and Novak were physical and
mental beasts who were able to retrieve Fed's great shots and come out
on top. We've seen it so many times there's nothing to argue, yet he
keeps on fantasizing it's all due to Fed being a few yrs older. Novak
came within a whisker of a calendar slam at age 34 and can win 3 slams
in a yr now at 36. It doesn't matter that he's slower now than at 26,
he's a better tennis player as he has a huge bank of experience to draw
on and many more ways of winning matches. Same with Federer, that's why
he said he was better in his 30's and was confident he'd beat the 'young
punk' version of himself. Imo PWL has a few loose screws rattling
around in his head.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 5:42:50 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:

On 20/07/2023 1:14 pm, Court_1 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

To add to his, Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a little of his peak while djok was peaking in older age.

Yes, Nadal may not have been at his peak when Djokovic first beat him at the FO(actually I believe Nadal was injured at the FO in 2015 and far from his best) but since that time, how many French Open titles has Nadal won? Five? You definitely have a

problem realizing that professional athletes are no longer finished at age 30.

Also, whatever the circumstances, Djokovic did manage to beat Nadal at the FO a couple of times but Federer couldn't do it. Can you really be considered the GOAT if you can't beat EVERY main rival on all surfaces at all slams? But because Federer had

a game so pleasing to the eye and because the media brainwashed us into believing Federer was a God for so many years, it's hard to admit that there's somebody better whose style isn't so easy on the eyes and who is basically a bonehead in many ways. But
it is what it is.

I don't remember which Wimbledon final in which Federer and djok met, Federer said before the final that djok is the favourite because he is simply in his prime. He always said before these finals that he will try to give djok a tough match.

Everyone was aware that Djokovic being in his prime or much closer to his prime than Federer, who is 6 years older, gave Djokovic the edge in these finals and forced Federer to play more of extremely aggressive style to have some chance instead of
playing higher percentage consistent tennis that he can't do at his age.

In the last Wimbledon, djok coaches said they knew djok would win because they knew Federer was getting tired.

Now you're just making stuff up! I remember many times where Federer told the press he was better in his 30s in many ways than he was when he was younger because he had more experience. Also, Federer had a champion's mentality and no champion would

think he couldn't beat a rival because of his age. He was showing up to play wasn't he? There's a six year difference, not a 16 year difference! Also, for the Wimbledon 2019 final Federer was tired? How did he have a couple of match points then? He also
said after that final that he could have played for much longer as he was NOT tired!

Federer was beating everybody else at slams for the most part in his late 30s except for Djokovic. I told you, he didn't have an age problem, he had a Djokovic problem. The fact that you can't admit something so obvious is beyond delusional at this

point.

Well said. PWL can't seem to realize Rafa and Novak were physical and
mental beasts who were able to retrieve Fed's great shots and come out
on top. We've seen it so many times there's nothing to argue, yet he
keeps on fantasizing it's all due to Fed being a few yrs older. Novak
came within a whisker of a calendar slam at age 34 and can win 3 slams
in a yr now at 36. It doesn't matter that he's slower now than at 26,
he's a better tennis player as he has a huge bank of experience to draw
on and many more ways of winning matches. Same with Federer, that's why
he said he was better in his 30's and was confident he'd beat the 'young punk' version of himself. Imo PWL has a few loose screws rattling
around in his head.

lol, beating everyone in slams means nothing, because everyone except the top three were useless.
You believe six years difference in age above 29 makes no difference in explosiveness, flexibility, and as a result the playing style, it's fine with me, but I know it's not the case. So, we can agree to disagree.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/07/2023 12:51 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 5:42:50 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:

On 20/07/2023 1:14 pm, Court_1 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

To add to his, Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a little of his peak while djok was peaking in older age.

Yes, Nadal may not have been at his peak when Djokovic first beat him at the FO(actually I believe Nadal was injured at the FO in 2015 and far from his best) but since that time, how many French Open titles has Nadal won? Five? You definitely have a

problem realizing that professional athletes are no longer finished at age 30. >>>

Also, whatever the circumstances, Djokovic did manage to beat Nadal at the FO a couple of times but Federer couldn't do it. Can you really be considered the GOAT if you can't beat EVERY main rival on all surfaces at all slams? But because Federer had

a game so pleasing to the eye and because the media brainwashed us into believing Federer was a God for so many years, it's hard to admit that there's somebody better whose style isn't so easy on the eyes and who is basically a bonehead in many ways. But
it is what it is.

I don't remember which Wimbledon final in which Federer and djok met, Federer said before the final that djok is the favourite because he is simply in his prime. He always said before these finals that he will try to give djok a tough match.

Everyone was aware that Djokovic being in his prime or much closer to his prime than Federer, who is 6 years older, gave Djokovic the edge in these finals and forced Federer to play more of extremely aggressive style to have some chance instead of
playing higher percentage consistent tennis that he can't do at his age.

In the last Wimbledon, djok coaches said they knew djok would win because they knew Federer was getting tired.

Now you're just making stuff up! I remember many times where Federer told the press he was better in his 30s in many ways than he was when he was younger because he had more experience. Also, Federer had a champion's mentality and no champion would

think he couldn't beat a rival because of his age. He was showing up to play wasn't he? There's a six year difference, not a 16 year difference! Also, for the Wimbledon 2019 final Federer was tired? How did he have a couple of match points then? He also
said after that final that he could have played for much longer as he was NOT tired!

Federer was beating everybody else at slams for the most part in his late 30s except for Djokovic. I told you, he didn't have an age problem, he had a Djokovic problem. The fact that you can't admit something so obvious is beyond delusional at this

point.

Well said. PWL can't seem to realize Rafa and Novak were physical and
mental beasts who were able to retrieve Fed's great shots and come out
on top. We've seen it so many times there's nothing to argue, yet he
keeps on fantasizing it's all due to Fed being a few yrs older. Novak
came within a whisker of a calendar slam at age 34 and can win 3 slams
in a yr now at 36. It doesn't matter that he's slower now than at 26,
he's a better tennis player as he has a huge bank of experience to draw
on and many more ways of winning matches. Same with Federer, that's why
he said he was better in his 30's and was confident he'd beat the 'young
punk' version of himself. Imo PWL has a few loose screws rattling
around in his head.

lol, beating everyone in slams means nothing, because everyone except the top three were useless.
You believe six years difference in age above 29 makes no difference in explosiveness, flexibility, and as a result the playing style, it's fine with me, but I know it's not the case. So, we can agree to disagree.

Like I said you're on your own. You're a complete nut case. Federer
doesn't care about you at all, would think you're a fruitloop imo.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10:51:28 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 5:42:50 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:

On 20/07/2023 1:14 pm, Court_1 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

To add to his, Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a little of his peak while djok was peaking in older age.

Yes, Nadal may not have been at his peak when Djokovic first beat him at the FO(actually I believe Nadal was injured at the FO in 2015 and far from his best) but since that time, how many French Open titles has Nadal won? Five? You definitely have

a problem realizing that professional athletes are no longer finished at age 30.

Also, whatever the circumstances, Djokovic did manage to beat Nadal at the FO a couple of times but Federer couldn't do it. Can you really be considered the GOAT if you can't beat EVERY main rival on all surfaces at all slams? But because Federer

had a game so pleasing to the eye and because the media brainwashed us into believing Federer was a God for so many years, it's hard to admit that there's somebody better whose style isn't so easy on the eyes and who is basically a bonehead in many ways.
But it is what it is.

I don't remember which Wimbledon final in which Federer and djok met, Federer said before the final that djok is the favourite because he is simply in his prime. He always said before these finals that he will try to give djok a tough match.

Everyone was aware that Djokovic being in his prime or much closer to his prime than Federer, who is 6 years older, gave Djokovic the edge in these finals and forced Federer to play more of extremely aggressive style to have some chance instead of
playing higher percentage consistent tennis that he can't do at his age.

In the last Wimbledon, djok coaches said they knew djok would win because they knew Federer was getting tired.

Now you're just making stuff up! I remember many times where Federer told the press he was better in his 30s in many ways than he was when he was younger because he had more experience. Also, Federer had a champion's mentality and no champion would

think he couldn't beat a rival because of his age. He was showing up to play wasn't he? There's a six year difference, not a 16 year difference! Also, for the Wimbledon 2019 final Federer was tired? How did he have a couple of match points then? He also
said after that final that he could have played for much longer as he was NOT tired!

Federer was beating everybody else at slams for the most part in his late 30s except for Djokovic. I told you, he didn't have an age problem, he had a Djokovic problem. The fact that you can't admit something so obvious is beyond delusional at this

point.

Well said. PWL can't seem to realize Rafa and Novak were physical and mental beasts who were able to retrieve Fed's great shots and come out
on top. We've seen it so many times there's nothing to argue, yet he
keeps on fantasizing it's all due to Fed being a few yrs older. Novak
came within a whisker of a calendar slam at age 34 and can win 3 slams
in a yr now at 36. It doesn't matter that he's slower now than at 26,
he's a better tennis player as he has a huge bank of experience to draw
on and many more ways of winning matches. Same with Federer, that's why
he said he was better in his 30's and was confident he'd beat the 'young punk' version of himself. Imo PWL has a few loose screws rattling
around in his head.

lol, beating everyone in slams means nothing, because everyone except the top three were useless.
You believe six years difference in age above 29 makes no difference in explosiveness, flexibility, and as a result the playing style, it's fine with me, but I know it's not the case. So, we can agree to disagree.

Fed like Laver never took any meds, white powder, ginger loops or illegal coaching, he is the most talented!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gNy8xOS8yMyAxMDoxMyBQTSwgKnNrcmlwdGlzIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBDb3VydF8xIDxvbHlt cGlhMDAwMEB5YWhvby5jb20+IFdyb3RlIGluIG1lc3NhZ2U6cg0KPj4gT24gV2VkbmVzZGF5 LCBKdWx5IDE5LCAyMDIzIGF0IDQ6MTI6NDLigK9BTSBVVEMtNCwgUGV0ZVdhc0x1Y2t5IHdy b3RlOiA+IFRvIGFkZCB0byBoaXMsIERqb2sgbWFuYWdlZCB0byBiZWF0IG5hZGFsIG9uIGNs YXkgdmVyeSBsYXRlIGluIHRoZWlyIGNhcmVlcnMsIGJlaW5nIGZyb20gdGhlIHNhbWUgZ2Vu ZXJhdGlvbiBhbmQgZGpvayBpcyBldmVuIG9uZSB5ZWFyIHlvdW5nZXIgdGhhbiBOYWRhbCwg TmFkYWwgc2xpZGluZyBhIGxpdHRsZSBvZiBoaXMgcGVhayB3aGlsZSBkam9rIHdhcyBwZWFr aW5nIGluIG9sZGVyIGFnZS4gWWVzLCBOYWRhbCBtYXkgbm90IGhhdmUgYmVlbiBhdCBoaXMg cGVhayB3aGVuIERqb2tvdmljIGZpcnN0IGJlYXQgaGltIGF0IHRoZSBGTyhhY3R1YWxseSBJ IGJlbGlldmUgTmFkYWwgd2FzIGluanVyZWQgYXQgdGhlIEZPIGluIDIwMTUgYW5kIGZhciBm cm9tIGhpcyBiZXN0KSBidXQgc2luY2UgdGhhdCB0aW1lLCBob3cgbWFueSBGcmVuY2ggT3Bl biB0aXRsZXMgaGFzIE5hZGFsIHdvbj8gRml2ZT8gWW91IGRlZmluaXRlbHkgaGF2ZSBhIHBy b2JsZW0gcmVhbGl6aW5nIHRoYXQgcHJvZmVzc2lvbmFsIGF0aGxldGVzIGFyZSBubyBsb25n ZXIgZmluaXNoZWQgYXQgYWdlIDMwLkFsc28sIHdoYXRldmVyIHRoZSBjaXJjdW1zdGFuY2Vz LCBEam9rb3ZpYyBkaWQgbWFuYWdlIHRvIGJlYXQgTmFkYWwgYXQgdGhlIEZPIGEgY291cGxl IG9mIHRpbWVzIGJ1dCBGZWRlcmVyIGNvdWxkbid0IGRvIGl0LiBDYW4geW91IHJlYWxseSBi ZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIHRoZSBHT0FUIGlmIHlvdSBjYW4ndCBiZWF0IEVWRVJZIG1haW4gcml2 YWwgb24gYWxsIHN1cmZhY2VzIGF0IGFsbCBzbGFtcz8gQnV0IGJlY2F1c2UgRmVkZXJlciBo YWQgYSBnYW1lIHNvIHBsZWFzaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBleWUgYW5kIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlIG1lZGlh IGJyYWlud2FzaGVkIHVzIGludG8gYmVsaWV2aW5nIEZlZGVyZXIgd2FzIGEgR29kIGZvciBz byBtYW55IHllYXJzLCBpdCdzIGhhcmQgdG8gYWRtaXQgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSdzIHNvbWVib2R5 IGJldHRlciB3aG9zZSBzdHlsZSBpc24ndCBzbyBlYXN5IG9uIHRoZSBleWVzIGFuZCB3aG8g aXMgYmFzaWNhbGx5IGEgYm9uZWhlYWQgaW4gbWFueSB3YXlzLiBCdXQgaXQgaXMgd2hhdCBp dCBpcy4gPiBJIGRvbid0IHJlbWVtYmVyIHdoaWNoIFdpbWJsZWRvbiBmaW5hbCBpbiB3aGlj aCBGZWRlcmVyIGFuZCBkam9rIG1ldCwgRmVkZXJlciBzYWlkIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgZmluYWwg dGhhdCBkam9rIGlzIHRoZSBmYXZvdXJpdGUgYmVjYXVzZSBoZSBpcyBzaW1wbHkgaW4gaGlz IHByaW1lLiBIZSBhbHdheXMgc2FpZCBiZWZvcmUgdGhlc2UgZmluYWxzIHRoYXQgaGUgd2ls bCB0cnkgdG8gZ2l2ZSBkam9rIGEgdG91Z2ggbWF0Y2guIEV2ZXJ5b25lIHdhcyBhd2FyZSB0 aGF0IERqb2tvdmljIGJlaW5nIGluIGhpcyBwcmltZSBvciBtdWNoIGNsb3NlciB0byBoaXMg cHJpbWUgdGhhbiBGZWRlcmVyLCB3aG8gaXMgNiB5ZWFycyBvbGRlciwgZ2F2ZSBEam9rb3Zp YyB0aGUgZWRnZSBpbiB0aGVzZSBmaW5hbHMgYW5kIGZvcmNlZCBGZWRlcmVyIHRvIHBsYXkg bW9yZSBvZiBleHRyZW1lbHkgYWdncmVzc2l2ZSBzdHlsZSB0byBoYXZlIHNvbWUgY2hhbmNl IGluc3RlYWQgb2YgcGxheWluZyBoaWdoZXIgcGVyY2VudGFnZSBjb25zaXN0ZW50IHRlbm5p cyB0aGF0IGhlIGNhbid0IGRvIGF0IGhpcyBhZ2UuID4gSW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgV2ltYmxlZG9u LCBkam9rIGNvYWNoZXMgc2FpZCB0aGV5IGtuZXcgZGpvayB3b3VsZCB3aW4gYmVjYXVzZSB0 aGV5IGtuZXcgRmVkZXJlciB3YXMgZ2V0dGluZyB0aXJlZC4gTm93IHlvdSdyZSBqdXN0IG1h a2luZyBzdHVmZiB1cCEgSSByZW1lbWJlciBtYW55IHRpbWVzIHdoZXJlIEZlZGVyZXIgdG9s ZCB0aGUgcHJlc3MgaGUgd2FzIGJldHRlciBpbiBoaXMgMzBzIGluIG1hbnkgd2F5cyB0aGFu IGhlIHdhcyB3aGVuIGhlIHdhcyB5b3VuZ2VyIGJlY2F1c2UgaGUgaGFkIG1vcmUgZXhwZXJp ZW5jZS4gQWxzbywgRmVkZXJlciBoYWQgYSBjaGFtcGlvbidzIG1lbnRhbGl0eSBhbmQgbm8g Y2hhbXBpb24gd291bGQgdGhpbmsgaGUgY291bGRuJ3QgYmVhdCBhIHJpdmFsIGJlY2F1c2Ug b2YgaGlzIGFnZS4gSGUgd2FzIHNob3dpbmcgdXAgdG8gcGxheSB3YXNuJ3QgaGU/IFRoZXJl J3MgYSBzaXggeWVhciBkaWZmZXJlbmNlLCBub3QgYSAxNiB5ZWFyIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UhICBB bHNvLCBmb3IgdGhlIFdpbWJsZWRvbiAyMDE5IGZpbmFsIEZlZGVyZXIgd2FzIHRpcmVkPyBI b3cgZGlkIGhlIGhhdmUgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWF0Y2ggcG9pbnRzIHRoZW4/ICBIZSBhbHNv IHNhaWQgYWZ0ZXIgdGhhdCBmaW5hbCB0aGF0IGhlIGNvdWxkIGhhdmUgcGxheWVkIGZvciBt dWNoIGxvbmdlciBhcyBoZSB3YXMgTk9UIHRpcmVkISBGZWRlcmVyIHdhcyBiZWF0aW5nIGV2 ZXJ5Ym9keSBlbHNlIGF0IHNsYW1zIGZvciB0aGUgbW9zdCBwYXJ0IGluIGhpcyBsYXRlIDMw cyBleGNlcHQgZm9yIERqb2tvdmljLiBJIHRvbGQgeW91LCBoZSBkaWRuJ3QgaGF2ZSBhbiBh Z2UgcHJvYmxlbSwgaGUgaGFkIGEgRGpva292aWMgcHJvYmxlbS4gVGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCB5 b3UgY2FuJ3QgYWRtaXQgc29tZXRoaW5nIHNvIG9idmlvdXMgaXMgYmV5b25kIGRlbHVzaW9u YWwgYXQgdGhpcyBwb2ludC4NCj4NCj4NCj4gSGUgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGxvZ2ljYWwgYWJvdXQg aXQgZm9sbG93IGl0IGVudGlyZWx5Lg0KPg0KPiBJZiBhZ2UgaXMgc3VjaCBhIGZhY3Rvciwg d2UgYWxsIGFncmVlIHRoYXQgaXQgaXMsIGJ1dCBoZSBjbGFpbXMgaXQncyB1bnN1cm1vdW50 YWJsZSwgdGhlbiB3aHkgZG9lc24ndCBoZSBhZG1pdCBhbmQgY29uY2VkZSB0aGF0IEZlZGVy ZXIgInNvbHZlZCIgTmFkYWwgbGF0ZSBpbiBoaXMgY2FyZWVyLCBvbmx5IHdoZW4gTmFkYWwg d2FzIDMwKyBhbmQgc2xvd2VyLCB0aHVzIHVuYWJsZSB0byBwbGF5IHRoZSByZXRyaWV2aW5n IHBoeXNpY2FsIHN0eWxlIG9mIHRoZSBlYXJseSAyMHMgdGhhdCBjYXVzZWQgRmVkZXJlciBz byBtdWNoIHRyb3VibGUuDQo+DQo+IE5hZGFsIGluIEFPIDIwMTcgd2FzIGRlZmluaXRlbHkg c29tZXdoYXQgc2xvd2VyIHRoYW4gaW4gZS5nLiBBTyAyMDA5Lg0KSGUgbm8gbG9uZ2VyIG93 bmVkIHRoZSBjb3JuZXJzLg0KPg0KPiBQZXJoYXBzIGl0J3Mgd2hhdCBjaGFuZ2VkIHRoZSBl cXVhdGlvbiB0aGVyZT8NCj4NCj4NCj4NCj4NCj4NCg0KLS0gDQp+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn4NCiJUaGUgd29ybGQncyB0cnV0aCBjb25zdGl0dXRlcyBhIHZpc2lvbiBzbyB0ZXJy aWZ5aW5nIGFzIHRvIGJlZ2dhciB0aGUgcHJvcGhlY2llcyBvZiB0aGUgYmxlYWtlc3Qgc2Vl ciB3aG8gZXZlciB3YWxrZWQgaXQuIg0Kfn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+DQoNCg==

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/20/23 3:17 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 18:02:38 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

On 7/19/23 3:18 AM, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:

Personally I believe Alcaraz will smash #1 record.

As good as Alcaraz already is; these longevity records also require a) motivation b) luck with injuries c) no one equal/better rise up from the ranks.....

.mikko

This is interesting.

For quite a while I've tried to evaluate whether a player is out there
and *likes* it, or is out there and is ambivalent, or actively does not
like it.

Consider Borg. He certainly never gave off any body language that he
enjoyed being out there, and his sudden retirement sorta looks like he
was escaping from the game.

Sabalenka, for all her histrionics, enjoys being out there. Zverev and
Shapovolov wish they were somewhere else. Tsitsipas has moments when he
looks that way, too. Fritz really likes being out there.

Alcaraz is almost always happy about it.

yes good observation, think Fed/Nadal always enjoyed being out there,

Yes. Fed seemed quietly content and comfortable, except around Nadal or
Djok at certain time in his career. Nadal I never could see him as
happy, but definitely not unhappy, except vs Djok at the AO final a few
years back. He looked almost like Jabeur in this year's final.

do you reckon Djoker and Sampras see it as kind of job they are very good at and quite like?

Yes, more like a guy who can make really good handmade knives that sell
for 1000s.

Agassi said he didn't like it and same with Kyrgios, but they both sound like when famous people claim they don't like being famous when they obviously 100% do.

I think Agassi really liked it early on, when he was a kid who still had
hair. Then he choked some big stuff and did not like it. Then he fixed
that and I think he looked content enough.

Kyrgios likes it when he wins, but when it gets tough he no longer likes it.

Contrast this to the big three (and I'd include Murray here) losing was
now a puzzle to be solved, and in some sense they *liked* it. They felt
like it was something they had some control over, if they just figured
it out and improved some aspect(s).

Like in Formula 1, the car has run really good, but now against the new Mercedes they lose sometimes. Let's see what we can do to our car to
make it better.


--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/20/2023 3:19 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 20:34:04 UTC+1, stephenj wrote:

On 7/19/2023 12:59 AM, Whisper wrote:

On 19/07/2023 9:47 am, stephenj wrote:

On 7/18/2023 5:58 AM, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz? This result doesn't count as Novak is >>>>> 16 years older? It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way >>>>> to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age
difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere else ; ) >>>>

All results count of course, regardless of age difference, but there
is something to this.

I've always said Fed was not of the same generation as Nadal and
Joker. He is 5 years older, and IMO that makes him a half-generation
prior. Like Becker and Edberg were a half-gen prior to Agassi and
Sampras.

Fed's full generational peers were the players who entered the scene
at the turn of the millennium - Safin, Hewitt, JC Ferrero, Coria,
Roddick.

Those guys are all long gone from the scene of course, but that is a
testament to Fed outlasting his generation and playing long in to
later ones - like Joker and Nadal are doing now too.

But that generational half-gap is why I always thought Nadal and/or
Joker had a good chance to catch and surpass Fed for open era GOAT
(the slam race), even when it seemed like Fed was out of reach. They
had five years on him age-wise. Lots of slam chances to catch up.

Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals.
Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams.
Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very closely so for him it's a
tangible goal. If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?

I agree it helps to have targets, the possibilities that prior players
have opened.

I think the moral of this is try and win as many slams as you can. Even
if you become king of the hill, try to top yourself by winning more.
Better for you to break your own slam record than to have the next guy
or girl behind you do it, or at least retire knowing you tried to win
every one you could.

Because history shows that usually the player who is going to de-throne
you as open era GOAT is right around the corner. You probably even
played them.

I think Fed can rest easy on that point, he was tireless in his pursuit
of slam wins, heck really of wins everywhere.

except this was never considered until Fed got near Sampras' 14, as have said have to give Fed credit for pioneering all this.

IMO, Sampras was as much a possibility-opener as was Fed. When Borg won
11 slams, the total slam count just wasn't something that was talked
about. At that time tennis was about winning W, then the USO, then maybe
the year-end events with the big piles of money. But IIRC greatness was
defined by W and then, pretty far back, the USO.

And then for almost 20 years, as the FO and and AO rose in importance, a
"great career", was defined by winning 6-8 slams, the amount that Mac,
Jimbo, Lendl, Wilander and Edberg won. That was what IMO seemed possible
in the mature open era.

And then Sampras just smashed that to smithereens, and set a new bar way
above it.

Just MO.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/07/2023 3:13 am, stephenj wrote:

On 7/20/2023 3:19 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 20:34:04 UTC+1, stephenj wrote:

On 7/19/2023 12:59 AM, Whisper wrote:

On 19/07/2023 9:47 am, stephenj wrote:

On 7/18/2023 5:58 AM, Whisper wrote:

So what about Novak v Alcaraz?  This result doesn't count as Novak is >>>>>> 16 years older?  It doesn't matter if Novak was nearly 3/4 of the way >>>>>> to a calendar slam at age 36, it still doesn't count because of age >>>>>> difference?

Gotta love rst, you don't see this kind of 'analysis' anywhere
else ; )

All results count of course, regardless of age difference, but there >>>>> is something to this.

I've always said Fed was not of the same generation as Nadal and
Joker. He is 5 years older, and IMO that makes him a half-generation >>>>> prior. Like Becker and Edberg were a half-gen prior to Agassi and
Sampras.

Fed's full generational peers were the players who entered the scene >>>>> at the turn of the millennium -  Safin, Hewitt, JC Ferrero, Coria,
Roddick.

Those guys are all long gone from the scene of course, but that is a >>>>> testament to Fed outlasting his generation and playing long in to
later ones - like Joker and Nadal are doing now too.

But that generational half-gap is why I always thought Nadal and/or
Joker had a good chance to catch and surpass Fed for open era GOAT
(the slam race), even when it seemed like Fed was out of reach. They >>>>> had five years on him age-wise. Lots of slam chances to catch up.

Plus I think it's always easier if you're chasing tangible goals.
Sampras would have managed his career differently if Borg had 15 slams. >>>> Carlos grew up watching the big 3 very closely so for him it's a
tangible goal.  If 3 guys could win 20+ why can't he?

I agree it helps to have targets, the possibilities that prior players
have opened.

I think the moral of this is try and win as many slams as you can. Even
if you become king of the hill, try to top yourself by winning more.
Better for you to break your own slam record than to have the next guy
or girl behind you do it, or at least retire knowing you tried to win
every one you could.

Because history shows that usually the player who is going to de-throne
you as open era GOAT is right around the corner. You probably even
played them.

I think Fed can rest easy on that point, he was tireless in his pursuit
of slam wins, heck really of wins everywhere.

except this was never considered until Fed got near Sampras' 14, as
have said have to give Fed credit for pioneering all this.

IMO, Sampras was as much a possibility-opener as was Fed. When Borg won
11 slams, the total slam count just wasn't something that was talked
about. At that time tennis was about winning W, then the USO, then maybe
the year-end events with the big piles of money. But IIRC greatness was defined by W and then, pretty far back, the USO.

And then for almost 20 years, as the FO and and AO rose in importance, a "great career", was defined by winning 6-8 slams, the amount that Mac,
Jimbo, Lendl, Wilander and Edberg won. That was what IMO seemed possible
in the mature open era.

And then Sampras just smashed that to smithereens, and set a new bar way above it.

Just MO.

Good post. Another reason that explains why slam counts tended to be
lower, making direct across era comparisons problematic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Connors says something familiar:

https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-even-greatest-time-era-jimmy-connors-rise-novak-djokovic?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=SKTennisFB&key4=sktenfb&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0-
UR2Bl6g2l8YyXchTYIOguOkiZsatFcH6YIQBvfmLciZmx89snew9ZXI#Echobox=1690174025

""Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal aren't even the greatest of all time in their own era" - Jimmy Connors on the rise of Novak Djokovic"

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 16:43:19 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

On 7/19/23 10:13 PM, *skriptis wrote:

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:r

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote: > To add to his, Djok managed to beat nadal on clay very late in their careers, being from the same generation and djok is even one year younger than Nadal, Nadal sliding a

little of his peak while djok was peaking in older age. Yes, Nadal may not have been at his peak when Djokovic first beat him at the FO(actually I believe Nadal was injured at the FO in 2015 and far from his best) but since that time, how many French
Open titles has Nadal won? Five? You definitely have a problem realizing that professional athletes are no longer finished at age 30.Also, whatever the circumstances, Djokovic did manage to beat Nadal at the FO a couple of times but Federer couldn't do
it. Can you really be considered the GOAT if you can't beat EVERY main rival on all surfaces at all slams? But because Federer had a game so pleasing to the eye and because the media brainwashed us into believing Federer was a God for so many years, it's
hard to admit that there's somebody better whose style isn't so easy on the eyes and who is basically a bonehead in many ways. But it is what it is. > I don't remember which Wimbledon final in which Federer and djok met, Federer said before the final
that djok is the favourite because he is simply in his prime. He always said before these finals that he will try to give djok a tough match. Everyone was aware that Djokovic being in his prime or much closer to his prime than Federer, who is 6 years
older, gave Djokovic the edge in these finals and forced Federer to play more of extremely aggressive style to have some chance instead of playing higher percentage consistent tennis that he can't do at his age. > In the last Wimbledon, djok coaches said
they knew djok would win because they knew Federer was getting tired. Now you're just making stuff up! I remember many times where Federer told the press he was better in his 30s in many ways than he was when he was younger because he had more experience.
Also, Federer had a champion's mentality and no champion would think he couldn't beat a rival because of his age. He was showing up to play wasn't he? There's a six year difference, not a 16 year difference! Also, for the Wimbledon 2019 final Federer
was tired? How did he have a couple of match points then? He also said after that final that he could have played for much longer as he was NOT tired! Federer was beating everybody else at slams for the most part in his late 30s except for Djokovic. I
told you, he didn't have an age problem, he had a Djokovic problem. The fact that you can't admit something so obvious is beyond delusional at this point.

He should be logical about it follow it entirely.

If age is such a factor, we all agree that it is, but he claims it's unsurmountable, then why doesn't he admit and concede that Federer "solved" Nadal late in his career, only when Nadal was 30+ and slower, thus unable to play the retrieving physical

style of the early 20s that caused Federer so much trouble.

Nadal in AO 2017 was definitely somewhat slower than in e.g. AO 2009.

He no longer owned the corners.

AO2009 was 5 sets and AO2017 was 5 sets with Nadal up a break in the 5th, which corners didn't he own?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)