In one match on a medium-speed hard court, if you had to pick your opponent at their respective peaks, I find it hard to believe anyone would pick Nadal or Djokovic over Federer (editing for clarity: I mean Federer would be less feared/easier as an opponent - Nadal or Djokovic would be tougher to beat, I can’t decide which of those two are the overall favorite).
Though Medvedev’s performance yesterday did at least show Nadal is beatable by a non-huge server in such a match, that was some absurd grinding and thinking you’d have to play better than that is quite a hill to climb.
You know you’re reaching in a sports argument, when you have to resort to, “well, the way he plays the game is just so much more beautiful, so he’s the best”, whatever that means. Beauty is subjective, winning games, sets, and matches is not. Roger made the most of his opportunities before Novak and Rafa showed up, so he has the win totals for now, but that can only last as long as his body does. Kudos to him for playing at this level for so long, but his rivals are finally closing in. He’ll need freak injuries to save his records now.
Novak is the best of this era if you look at it objectively, and when they’re all retired, he’ll likely have the numbers on his side, unless Rafa shows up to play the French only for a few more years to get to something like 15-16 French Opens alone.
Regardless of who you favor the most of these three, though, players from past eras don’t get their full due, when the Aussie Open wasn’t really respected as a major, or the pre-open era (before 1968) only allowed amateurs to compete for majors. Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzales, and Bjorn Borg all deserve to be in the GOAT discussion but don’t get mentioned enough because all of the attention is on these current 3 at the top of the game now. But given his all around game with virtually no weaknesses when he’s been in his prime, not to mention the greatest returner of all time, I’ll take Novak over everybody. Although, if you had to bet your life on anybody and you got to choose the court, take Nadal at the French Open, because it’s like betting on the Globetrotters. Oh yeah, by the way, Novak is one of two men to beat him there (not to mention he’s beaten Roger in 3 Wimbledon finals).
Lots of great tennis being played. Is Andy Murray back? Is Djokovic so bored in the opening rounds he’s playing with his off hand? Can Serena grab 24, or is Naomi Osaka simply too good? Why is the broadcast of this US Open so much better than the broadcast of the other one?
I’m not even sure it’s lowkey, but tennis tournaments are some of the best sports TV I get all year. Special shoutout to the late nights watching the Aussie Open and this one and getting completely caught up in the fireworks of a random match.
Because tennis is extremely easy to broadcast. Two (maybe even one) fixed cameras and a graphic showing the score before point is all you really need to cover a match. It’d be almost impossible to screw up tennis coverage in the way golf coverage is fucked up. No complaints because watching tennis is great.
Slugger thinks this is overly harsh, says Novak was a total class-act during this incident, and now doesn’t know how he’ll be able to send his kids to college.
What’s the golf equivalent? Rahm, fuming after dunking on in the water and taking a double, intends to throw his ball into the pond beside the green but inadvertantly plunks the walking standard bearer? Would he be DQ’d?
Yeah I guess that would be the closest thing. Or really anything that would injure a volunteer. Golf balls hit spectators at full speed quite a bit and nothing happens there but I guess they know the risk. Maybe a club toss?
Brady needs to wake up and get working. Lots of winners but really needs to pull a break together here and close the second set out fast if she wants a chance.
