2021 U.S. OPEN. The Quest for THE GRAND SLAM: The Final Leg

coolstanley

It's here! For the first time in 52 years a man has a shot at the Grand Slam. (Novak Djokovic) It's been a long wait for old-timers like me!

craig44

I think he is going to do it. I believe it will take him to 21 majors with a win. a record.

does this make Djokovic the GOAT tennis player?

LandrysFedora

On the womens side watch for American Jessica Pegula. She may make a deep run in this tournament.

Tabe

@craig44 said:
I think he is going to do it. I believe it will take him to 21 majors with a win. a record.

does this make Djokovic the GOAT tennis player?

He's already there. Other than the French, he's won every Grand Slam at least 3 times. He's got the most weeks at #1. He has the most Grand Slam titles (tie). He has a winning record head-to-head against the other guys with 20 Grand Slams. He has a winning record against nearly every top 10 player he's ever played, with a losing record against just 3. He had maybe the greatest year ever when he won 10 titles in 2011. He almost certainly would have won the US Open last year if he doesn't brain cramp and hit an official with a ball accidentally.

So, yeah, he's already the GOAT.

lanemyer85

and luckily for him, unlike the Olympics where he had to take a WADA PED test, and promptly got ousted by a clay court specialist on a hardcourt, he'll just magically be in top form without tiring, like always.

coolstanley

@craig44 said:
I think he is going to do it. I believe it will take him to 21 majors with a win. a record.

does this make Djokovic the GOAT tennis player?

He's the GOAT.

coolstanley

Only two wins away from completing the calendar Grand Slam,

Its only happened one time in Golf. 1930 Bobby Jones.

craig44

@Tabe said:

@craig44 said:
I think he is going to do it. I believe it will take him to 21 majors with a win. a record.

does this make Djokovic the GOAT tennis player?

He's already there. Other than the French, he's won every Grand Slam at least 3 times. He's got the most weeks at #1. He has the most Grand Slam titles (tie). He has a winning record head-to-head against the other guys with 20 Grand Slams. He has a winning record against nearly every top 10 player he's ever played, with a losing record against just 3. He had maybe the greatest year ever when he won 10 titles in 2011. He almost certainly would have won the US Open last year if he doesn't brain cramp and hit an official with a ball accidentally.

So, yeah, he's already the GOAT.

You have convinced me. He already is the GOAT.

I wonder how many more he can win. It seems he may put the record far out of reach as he is still playing so well

coolstanley

One win away from 21 in 21.

Tabe

Great win from Emma Raducanu today. First time a qualifier has ever won a major. And she did it without losing a set in any of her 10 matches and losing just 34 games in her 7 matches in the main draw. That's incredible.

keets

in truth, he hasn't really played against very good competition. his chief rivals during his professional career have been Raphael Nadal and Roger Federer, nobody else of any stature unless you count Stan Wawrink and Andy Murray. for all his prowess, Djokovic can't seem to play well on clay at the French Open.

professional tennis is interesting because the Major tournaments are played on different surfaces, hard court, clay and grass. Djokovic has never lost(9-0) in the Australian Open Finals but is only 3-5(oops!) in the US Open, both played on a hard court. that's sort of strange. further, while he's definitely a great player he hasn't played against the caliber of players that competed from the 1970's through to the beginning of his career. that is reflected in his dominance in majors.

Tabe

"can't seem to play well on clay at the French Open"

He's won the French twice.

5-4 in finals at the US Open is somehow a bad thing?

He's the only one of his contemporaries to win the career slam twice.

The idea that he's played inferior competition is nonsense.

Joker losing today changes nothing. He's the best ever.

Mickey71

@keets said:
in truth, he hasn't really played against very good competition. his chief rivals during his professional career have been Raphael Nadal and Roger Federer, nobody else of any stature unless you count Stan Wawrink and Andy Murray. for all his prowess, Djokovic can't seem to play well on clay at the French Open.

professional tennis is interesting because the Major tournaments are played on different surfaces, hard court, clay and grass. Djokovic has never lost(9-0) in the Australian Open Finals but is only 5-3 in the US Open, both played on a hard court. that's sort of strange. further, while he's definitely a great player he hasn't played against the caliber of players that competed from the 1970's through to the beginning of his career. that is reflected in his dominance in majors.

Federer is my favorite; but you have to be kidding ?? Djokovic's competition has been simply stellar. Except for Federer being 5 years older....the 3 greatest players of all time playing in almost exactly the same era. They are the 3 greatest and it's not even open for discussion. But thank you for the nice chuckle this morning.

coolstanley

Disappointing loss, but 27-1 record at Grand slams this year is pretty remarkable. He will have a great chance to get slams #21 and 22 next year. He should be the favorite to win the Australian Open once again in January. And he's won Wimbledon 3 straight years.

craig44

straight foolishness saying Djokovics competition has been weak.

disappointing finish yesterday

Tabe

@Mickey71 said:

Federer is my favorite; but you have to be kidding ?? Djokovic's competition has been simply stellar. Except for Federer being 5 years older....the 3 greatest players of all time playing in almost exactly the same era. They are the 3 greatest and it's not even open for discussion. But thank you for the nice chuckle this morning.

It's actually a little tough to judge the depth of the competition beyond the big three because the big three are so good. I agree with you that they're the three greatest players ever. That means other players are having to get through a ridiculous gauntlet to win titles and be a top guy. Who's to say some of the guys playing today wouldn't be #2 in the world if they were playing in the Chang/Courier/Edberg era instead? These three guys are so good they make their competition look worse.

Mickey71

@Tabe said:

@Mickey71 said:

Federer is my favorite; but you have to be kidding ?? Djokovic's competition has been simply stellar. Except for Federer being 5 years older....the 3 greatest players of all time playing in almost exactly the same era. They are the 3 greatest and it's not even open for discussion. But thank you for the nice chuckle this morning.

It's actually a little tough to judge the depth of the competition beyond the big three because the big three are so good. I agree with you that they're the three greatest players ever. That means other players are having to get through a ridiculous gauntlet to win titles and be a top guy. Who's to say some of the guys playing today wouldn't be #2 in the world if they were playing in the Chang/Courier/Edberg era instead? These three guys are so good they make their competition look worse.

It is very hard to compare eras; but a few stats... Federer beat Sampras in only match, Federer beat Agassi the final 8 times they played after Fed turned 21, 4-1 against Chang, 21-3 vs Roddick ....etc. I think the big three would actually have dominated any era.

craig44

@Mickey71 said:

@Tabe said:

@Mickey71 said:

Federer is my favorite; but you have to be kidding ?? Djokovic's competition has been simply stellar. Except for Federer being 5 years older....the 3 greatest players of all time playing in almost exactly the same era. They are the 3 greatest and it's not even open for discussion. But thank you for the nice chuckle this morning.

It's actually a little tough to judge the depth of the competition beyond the big three because the big three are so good. I agree with you that they're the three greatest players ever. That means other players are having to get through a ridiculous gauntlet to win titles and be a top guy. Who's to say some of the guys playing today wouldn't be #2 in the world if they were playing in the Chang/Courier/Edberg era instead? These three guys are so good they make their competition look worse.

It is very hard to compare eras; but a few stats... Federer beat Sampras in only match, Federer beat Agassi the final 8 times they played after Fed turned 21, 4-1 against Chang, 21-3 vs Roddick ....etc. I think the big three would actually have dominated any era.

that is an interesting take. of course it is impossible to know how Federer would have done against a prime Agassi or Sampras.

Mickey71

@craig44 said:

@Mickey71 said:

@Tabe said:

@Mickey71 said:

Federer is my favorite; but you have to be kidding ?? Djokovic's competition has been simply stellar. Except for Federer being 5 years older....the 3 greatest players of all time playing in almost exactly the same era. They are the 3 greatest and it's not even open for discussion. But thank you for the nice chuckle this morning.

It's actually a little tough to judge the depth of the competition beyond the big three because the big three are so good. I agree with you that they're the three greatest players ever. That means other players are having to get through a ridiculous gauntlet to win titles and be a top guy. Who's to say some of the guys playing today wouldn't be #2 in the world if they were playing in the Chang/Courier/Edberg era instead? These three guys are so good they make their competition look worse.

It is very hard to compare eras; but a few stats... Federer beat Sampras in only match, Federer beat Agassi the final 8 times they played after Fed turned 21, 4-1 against Chang, 21-3 vs Roddick ....etc. I think the big three would actually have dominated any era.

that is an interesting take. of course it is impossible to know how Federer would have done against a prime Agassi or Sampras.

Correct; but I'm quite confident Fed/Doj/Nadal would have done quite well if they were all in their prime. All great players in this conversation. Sampras and Agassi were great. Murray was a terrific player at one time also that the big three had to contend with.

coolstanley

@craig44 said:

@Mickey71 said:

@Tabe said:

@Mickey71 said:

Federer is my favorite; but you have to be kidding ?? Djokovic's competition has been simply stellar. Except for Federer being 5 years older....the 3 greatest players of all time playing in almost exactly the same era. They are the 3 greatest and it's not even open for discussion. But thank you for the nice chuckle this morning.

It's actually a little tough to judge the depth of the competition beyond the big three because the big three are so good. I agree with you that they're the three greatest players ever. That means other players are having to get through a ridiculous gauntlet to win titles and be a top guy. Who's to say some of the guys playing today wouldn't be #2 in the world if they were playing in the Chang/Courier/Edberg era instead? These three guys are so good they make their competition look worse.

It is very hard to compare eras; but a few stats... Federer beat Sampras in only match, Federer beat Agassi the final 8 times they played after Fed turned 21, 4-1 against Chang, 21-3 vs Roddick ....etc. I think the big three would actually have dominated any era.

that is an interesting take. of course it is impossible to know how Federer would have done against a prime Agassi or Sampras.

When Sampras serve was on, nobody would beat him. Best serve in history.

Mickey71

@coolstanley said:

@craig44 said:

@Mickey71 said:

@Tabe said:

@Mickey71 said:

Federer is my favorite; but you have to be kidding ?? Djokovic's competition has been simply stellar. Except for Federer being 5 years older....the 3 greatest players of all time playing in almost exactly the same era. They are the 3 greatest and it's not even open for discussion. But thank you for the nice chuckle this morning.

It's actually a little tough to judge the depth of the competition beyond the big three because the big three are so good. I agree with you that they're the three greatest players ever. That means other players are having to get through a ridiculous gauntlet to win titles and be a top guy. Who's to say some of the guys playing today wouldn't be #2 in the world if they were playing in the Chang/Courier/Edberg era instead? These three guys are so good they make their competition look worse.

It is very hard to compare eras; but a few stats... Federer beat Sampras in only match, Federer beat Agassi the final 8 times they played after Fed turned 21, 4-1 against Chang, 21-3 vs Roddick ....etc. I think the big three would actually have dominated any era.

that is an interesting take. of course it is impossible to know how Federer would have done against a prime Agassi or Sampras.

When Sampras serve was on, nobody would beat him. Best serve in history.

Terrific player for sure; but I disagree. Many have claimed Djokovic is the best defender in history. Djokovic just about returns anything. I believe the BIG 3 are all ahead of Sampras and by a decent margin and I truly think Sampras was great.

coolstanley

@Mickey71 said:

@coolstanley said:

@craig44 said:

@Mickey71 said:

@Tabe said:

@Mickey71 said:

.

When Sampras serve was on, nobody would beat him. Best serve in history.

Terrific player for sure; but I disagree. Many have claimed Djokovic is the best defender in history. Djokovic just about returns anything. I believe the BIG 3 are all ahead of Sampras and by a decent margin and I truly think Sampras was great.

You need to go back and watch Sampras's Wimbledon runs. He had the best 1st and 2nd serve. Even Djokovic would've been toast.

Tabe

@coolstanley said:

When Sampras serve was on, nobody would beat him. Best serve in history.

Unless, of course, they were playing on clay in which case all three of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal would destroy him. At the French, for example, Pete lost in the 1st or 2nd round 8 times in 13 tries.

coolstanley

@Tabe said:

@coolstanley said:

When Sampras serve was on, nobody would beat him. Best serve in history.

Unless, of course, they were playing on clay in which case all three of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal would destroy him. At the French, for example, Pete lost in the 1st or 2nd round 8 times in 13 tries.

Yes Agassi destroyed him at the French as well. He was not a great clay court player. But the best grass court player in history imo.

Tabe

@coolstanley said:
Yes Agassi destroyed him at the French as well. He was not a great clay court player. But the best grass court player in history imo.

Yeah, I think I would agree with that. Would be interesting to see how he would fare at Wimbledon against Fed or Joker in their prime.

fergie23

They changed how fast the courts played at Wimbledon in 2001 to neutralize big servers. This then allowed baseline players like Nadal and Joker to flourish. With the slow courts and higher bouncing tennis balls they use these days Sampras would get destroyed by the big 3. Tennis is now more homogenized from the perspective of how the surfaces play which has helped Nadal and Joker substantially. This doesn't even touch on the changes in racket technology that allow Nadal and Joker to hit passing shots from 10 feet behind the baseline.

Personally, I don't think Sampras's game would translate very well to modern tennis. That said, I think Agassi would be a force to be reckoned with in the modern game.

Robb

coolstanley

@fergie23 said:
They changed how fast the courts played at Wimbledon in 2001 to neutralize big servers. This then allowed baseline players like Nadal and Joker to flourish. With the slow courts and higher bouncing tennis balls they use these days Sampras would get destroyed by the big 3. Tennis is now more homogenized from the perspective of how the surfaces play which has helped Nadal and Joker substantially. This doesn't even touch on the changes in racket technology that allow Nadal and Joker to hit passing shots from 10 feet behind the baseline.

Personally, I don't think Sampras's game would translate very well to modern tennis. That said, I think Agassi would be a force to be reckoned with in the modern game.

Yes they slowed the courts , but they are still fast. Any grass court will still be fast so I disagree Sampras would get destroyed. He won 7 slams on hard court. Grass court specialists don't exist anymore because there are very few grass tournaments today. So a huge advantage for someone like Novak.

coolstanley

https://www.news24.com/sport/tennis/atptour/tennis-veteran-chardy-suspends-season-after-reaction-to-covid-jab-20210924

thisistheshow

@coolstanley said:
https://www.news24.com/sport/tennis/atptour/tennis-veteran-chardy-suspends-season-after-reaction-to-covid-jab-20210924

............
It is surprising to see this on a mainstream news source. The majority of these types of reactions are not shown to us (unless you know where to look). And even then, many are dismissed and not properly recorded and tracked.

Tabe

Emma Raduncanu has fired her coach. Says she needs a more experienced coach to help her win big events. Uh...