Federer loses 13-11 in the 5th set at Wimbledon after being up 2 sets
garnettstyle
Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
What a match.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
0
Comments
He has been on top for a loooooong time. It could be the beginning of the end. Tennis is a young man's game.
He's the oldest man to ever win Wimbledon. By a lot.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
And he is still ranked #2 in the world with Nadal #1. Neither is a spring chicken. Both are still dominant. Federer just won last years Wimbleton right?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yes, Federer won Wimbledon last year. I think he has won 8 times there total. He is an amazing player.
GOAT? Oh yeah tennis, sorry. ;-)
He definitely would be in the running.
you sure about that?
Joker - 31
Anderson - 32
Rafa - 32
Isner - 33
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I haven't paid much attention since Connors, McEnroe, Borg played.
And they were old and winning as well
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I have seen the new guys. Probably hit the ball harder, but like watching machines. Conners and especially Mac were a hoot, Borg not so much.
"You'e GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!"
I didn't know the Joker was playing Tennis!
Connors still holds the record for the most championships. Federer is not too far behind.
If you combine both singles and doubles championships, McEnroe is the all time leader. McEnroe is 60 and still competes on the senior tour.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
In those days, tennis players were like rock stars.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
men's tennis is worse than baseball so damn slow , they need to go to a best 2 out of 3 like the women . I mean its fine for the last two guys to have a long match but everything leading up to it being 3 out of 5 is the issue.
Exactly like 162 5 hour baseball games during the regular season kind of mind numbing.
Also with women's tennis you get to look at women which takes the sting out of it. Sure some are a bit frightening but overall its a selling point. If there is at least one babe out there you don't even mind that its all rigged to suit some degenerate gamblers , you can watch it anyway.
Good post, agree 100%
I agree with everything here except:
1) They don't need to change the tennis setup.
2) Baseball games do NOT take 5 hours.
3) women's tennis is NOT rigged.
Everything else is right on.....wait a minute...….
I actually meant that both men's and women's tennis is rigged. Singles tennis is the easiest sport to fix , just offer one person money to throw a set or a match and the other person doesn't have to be in on it.
Tennis gamblers are the dregs of gambling society , worse than fantasy football tweakers even . They will bet on 20 different things in one game, you don't have to rig the whole game either. They could pay a guy to throw one set but still win his match.
Please tell me you are kidding. (sigh)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/sports/tennis/match-fixing-wimbledon-mens-doubles.html
Signs of Possible Match-Fixing in Wimbledon Men’s Doubles
WIMBLEDON, England — For the second time at a tennis major, a doubles match involving the Spanish player David Marrero has been flagged for suspicious betting behavior, a possible sign of match-fixing.
A men’s doubles match at Wimbledon last week — Marrero and Fernando Verdasco’s loss to João Sousa and Leonardo Mayer — was reported to anticorruption investigators after a bookmaker observed suspicious betting.
Pinnacle Sports observed “a series of bets from accounts with a history of wagering on suspicious matches” in the hour before the match in question began. It was first reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Just wait until sports betting in the US gets legalized in many more states, and the money pools become huge.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Never heard of David marrero. Who cares about watching doubles?
The men's semifinal yesterday between Isner and Anderson lasted six and a half hrs. No match fixing there. Lol
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
He's a clear #1 in my eyes. Nadal is close, having completed a double career Grand Slam but Federer has 20 Grand Slams (vs 17) and is more well-rounded.
Nadal has a winning record against Federer. 23-15. A winning record in the grand slams as well.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Some of the Wimbledon matches this year was just ridiculous. VERY long 5th sets. The semifinal 5th set match between American John Isner and Kevin Anderson lasted 50 games, 26-24. That's like playing 5 extra sets LOL. Match lasted over 6 1/2 hrs. I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the scoring, and make it a 5th set tiebreaker, like they do at the U.S. Open.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Nail bitter.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Nadal has won 11 French Opens and is 6-7 in all other Slam Finals. He is unbeatable on the clay at Roland- Garros in the finals. I agree with you on Federer being more rounded. Both are sick
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
When you can talk Federer-Nadal you have to acknowledge the edge Nadal has on clay - 13-2. If they played as many tournaments on grass - Federer's best surface - as they do on clay then the head to head would be much closer.
If head to head is the barometer then Joker is the best because he has a superior record, 27 - 25, against Nadal. Federer is the GOAT and Nadal is the King of clay.
Robb
Conners and Johnny Mac were always my favs. I don't know how they would have done against these guys.
Connors and that group from his era would have lost to today's top players, and lost badly. And it's not even debatable.
Not that I disagree, but what are you basing that on? The equipment is better, but that would help both.
They are faster on the court, and their volleys are more accurate.
I'm amazed at how on tough shots, today's top players can still hit the ball close to the line. I don't recall those from the Conners era being able to do that on a consistent basis.
And with today's top women players, the difference in the Chris Evert era players is even more dramatic.
Some of the woman’s players today hit and serve like the men did back in the day
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I used to play a lot of tennis. I think i was fairly good at it, although I never played on an organized or tournament level like I did in baseball, football, handball, and billiards.
I recall watching the women on TV back then and thinking, yes, they would definitely beat me, but i could stay with them and at least give them sort of a competitive match.
I'd get slaughtered by the women playing today, even on my best game.
I agree with what you are saying, but Conners and Johnny Mac had excellent court coverage.
That’s because the ball wasn’t coming at them at 180 mph like it is today ; )
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Come on Mark! First off......nobody hits the ball 180.
I think Conners and Johnny Mac would do well with the current players. They would have the modern rackets too you know. 
Nadal is 13-3 against him on clay, 10-12 on other surfaces. That kind of reiterates my point.
Connors run at the U.S. open back in the early 90s was electrifying.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
And Connors played in a much tougher era. It was kinda like the 70's era of heavyweight boxing. In the 70's , You had Borg, McEnroe, Ashe, Vilas, Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, etc.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The 70’s were awesome. My jam was Ilie "Nasty" Năstase. He was actually number 1 for a short while in that era
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
True...great era. Lendl was also pretty good. I never was for him, but the guy could hit a winner down the line on a dead run.
Another one of my favs that over lapped careers with these guys was Agassi(sp). Best return of serve ever! He could have played with the big boys of today.....no problem.
Another great not mentioned here was Sampras.
Here is a list of the top 100 tennis player (men and women mixed) by the experts.
Rank Name Gender Nationality Grand Slam
tournaments Pro Slam
tournaments Total Slam
tournaments
1 Roger Federer Male.svg SUI 20 0 20
2 Rod Laver Male.svg AUS 11 8 19
3 Steffi Graf Female.svg GER 22 0 22
4 Martina Navratilova Female.svg TCH/ USA 18 0 18
5 Pete Sampras Male.svg USA 14 0 14
6 Rafael Nadal Male.svg ESP 17 0 17
7 Björn Borg Male.svg SWE 11 0 11
8 Margaret Court Female.svg AUS 24 0 24
9 Chris Evert Female.svg USA 18 0 18
10 Billie Jean King Female.svg USA 12 0 12
11 Don Budge Male.svg USA 6 4 10
12 Andre Agassi Male.svg USA 8 0 8
13 John McEnroe Male.svg USA 7 0 7
14 Serena Williams Female.svg USA 23 0 23
15 Jimmy Connors Male.svg USA 8 0 8
16 Bill Tilden Male.svg USA 10 4 14
17 Roy Emerson Male.svg AUS 12 0 12
18 Ivan Lendl Male.svg TCH 8 0 8
19 Monica Seles Female.svg YUG/ USA 9 0 9
20 Ken Rosewall Male.svg AUS 8 15 23
21 Boris Becker Male.svg GER 6 0 6
22 Venus Williams Female.svg USA 7 0 7
23 Fred Perry Male.svg GBR 8 2 10
24 Suzanne Lenglen Female.svg FRA 8 0 10
25 Stefan Edberg Male.svg SWE 6 0 6
26 Justine Henin Female.svg BEL 7 0 7
27 Maureen Connolly Female.svg USA 9 0 9
28 Arthur Ashe Male.svg USA 3 0 3
29 Helen Wills Female.svg USA 19 0 19
30 Martina Hingis Female.svg SUI 5 0 5
31 John Newcombe Male.svg AUS 7 0 7
32 Lew Hoad Male.svg AUS 4 1 5
33 Mats Wilander Male.svg SWE 7 0 7
34 Jack Kramer Male.svg USA 3 2 5
35 Pancho Gonzalez Male.svg USA 2 12 14
36 René Lacoste Male.svg FRA 7 0 7
37 Evonne Goolagong Cawley Female.svg AUS 7 0 7
38 Maria Bueno Female.svg BRA 7 0 7
39 Althea Gibson Female.svg USA 5 0 5
40 Novak Djokovic Male.svg SRB 13 0 13
41 Guillermo Vilas Male.svg ARG 4 0 4
42 Jim Courier Male.svg USA 4 0 4
43 Lindsay Davenport Female.svg USA 3 0 4
44 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario Female.svg ESP 4 0 4
45 Kim Clijsters Female.svg BEL 4 0 4
46 Henri Cochet Male.svg FRA 7 1 8
47 Jean Borotra Male.svg FRA 4 0 4
48 Frank Sedgman Male.svg AUS 5 2 7
49 Ilie Năstase Male.svg ROU 2 0 2
50 Tony Trabert Male.svg USA 5 2 7
51 Doris Hart Female.svg USA 6 0 6
52 Jack Crawford Male.svg AUS 6 0 6
53 Tracy Austin Female.svg USA 2 0 2
54 Manuel Santana Male.svg ESP 4 0 4
55 Gustavo Kuerten Male.svg BRA 3 0 3
56 Stan Smith Male.svg USA 2 0 2
57 Jennifer Capriati Female.svg USA 3 0 3
58 Alice Marble Female.svg USA 5 0 5
59 Margaret Osborne duPont Female.svg USA 6 0 6
60 Virginia Wade Female.svg GBR 3 0 3
61 Neale Fraser Male.svg AUS 3 0 3
62 Hana Mandlíková Female.svg TCH 4 0 4
63 Lleyton Hewitt Male.svg AUS 2 0 2
64 Ellsworth Vines Male.svg USA 3 5 8
65 Pancho Segura Male.svg ECU 0 4 4
66 Bobby Riggs Male.svg USA 3 3 6
67 Fred Stolle Male.svg AUS 2 0 2
68 Helen Hull Jacobs Female.svg USA 5 0 5
69 Louise Brough Female.svg USA 6 0 6
70 Patrick Rafter Male.svg AUS 2 0 2
71 Maria Sharapova Female.svg RUS 5 0 5
72 Gottfried Von Cramm Male.svg GER 2 0 2
73 Jaroslav Drobný Male.svg TCH 3 0 3
74 Tony Roche Male.svg AUS 1 0 1
75 Pauline Betz Addie Female.svg USA 5 0 5
76 William Renshaw Male.svg GBR 7 0 7
77 Molla Mallory Female.svg USA 8 0 8
78 Ashley Cooper Male.svg AUS 4 0 4
79 Gabriela Sabatini Female.svg ARG 1 0 1
80 Marat Safin Male.svg RUS 2 0 2
81 Vic Seixas Male.svg USA 2 0 2
82 Yevgeny Kafelnikov Male.svg RUS 2 0 2
83 Jan Kodeš Male.svg TCH 3 0 3
84 Norman Brookes Male.svg AUS 3 0 3
85 Yannick Noah Male.svg FRA 1 0 1
86 Tony Wilding Male.svg NZL 6 0 6
87 Mary Pierce Female.svg FRA 2 0 2
88 Amélie Mauresmo Female.svg FRA 2 0 2
89 Dorothea Lambert Chambers Female.svg GBR 7 0 7
90 Bill Johnston Male.svg USA 3 0 3
91 Shirley Fry Irvin Female.svg USA 4 0 4
92 Svetlana Kuznetsova Female.svg RUS 2 0 2
93 Nicola Pietrangeli Male.svg ITA 2 0 2
94 Andy Roddick Male.svg USA 1 0 1
95 Thomas Muster Male.svg AUT 1 0 1
96 Manuel Orantes Male.svg ESP 1 0 1
97 Pat Cash Male.svg AUS 1 0 1
98 Bunny Austin Male.svg GBR 0 0 0
99 Ann Haydon-Jones Female.svg GBR 3 0 3
100 Michael Chang Male.svg USA 1 0 1
Interesting.
Yes Agassi was great and he was more 90’s. Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander and Boris Becker were also top ten all time type players that played in the 80’s more or less
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Ah....the good ole days...........................
I believe that team sport players from different eras are much more difficult, if not sometimes impossible to analyze when comparing similar caliber great players such as those playing the same position. It's a lot easier to analyze the GOAT in individual sports such as tennis and boxing when there is ample film available, or you've seen them many times and your recollection is still vivid.
I don't think there is any doubt that Roger Federer in his prime would beat Jimmy Connors in his prime. If they played 10 matches, perhaps Connors wins 1 or 2 matches and that's about it.
Same way with boxing. There is no doubt that Muhammad Ali is the greatest heavyweight of all time. Ali in his prime would have smoked the lot of them in their primes, from Joe Louis, to Rocky Marciano, to Mike Tyson, to any of those fighting today. All of them could fight Ali 10 times and Ali would win 10 times...shouldn't be debatable.
That being said, it's literally impossible to compare those such as Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey to others in a different era because of the poor film quality. You cannot possibly visualize Johnson or Dempsey fighting against Ali, and properly decipher in your mind who would likely win.
Maria Sharapova is #1 on my list, and I don't care how well she plays tennis.
I see where you are going here Steve.
It would be like passing on Requel Welch because she can't cook. 
If she couldn't cook, then we would just do a lot of Chinese takeout. LOL
I post this pic only to illustrate a fine example of a PSA/DNA certified autograph of a tennis player
No "like" votes yet for Maria?
I had suspected this thread consisted mostly of homosapiens...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Ali was one of the great ones. Greatest of all time is certainly debatable. I believe some of the other "great ones" could have handled Ken Norton.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph