Any tennis fans out there?

Denis Shapovalov is someone to watch out for. 18 and just beat Tsonga. Tsonga isn't what he once was but still. Junior Wimbledon and US Open winner, would be surprised if he wasn't a future Slam winner. I'm happy that either him or Edmund will be in the 4th Round.



Think Venus has to be the favourite in the Ladies but i'm rooting for Mug, sorry CiCi haha.

I'm no athlete at all. But I used to enjoy watching Tennis as a kid, especially as my Uncle used to play a lot, and he would, actually take me to matches in Forrest Hills, NY. I can remember going once and seeing Billy Jean King, Jimmy Connors, and several others there. I also used to enjoy watching the Wimbledon coverage (Back in the days of Borg, Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Nastase, Everett, Navratalova, etc.). I recall watching the Wimbledon finals with Virginia Wade (who won). It was the only time the Queen was in attendance, that I recall. In fact, because Wade won, it was her majesty that presented the trophy, as opposed to the Duke of Kent. This was, of course, when the awards ceremony was "private" and they didn't have microphones to hear it.

But I don't seem to watch anymore.

If it's a match-up between Nadal, Federer, Djokovic -- yeah, I'll watch it...... If not, I might FF the Men's Finals, and stop it when it's close.

Don't you like anyone else? There's lots of entertaining players out there. Also Djokovic is out.

I'll admit I actually haven't seen tennis, except a Grand Slam final here and there ever since Pete retired. I'm no big fan of anyone after him. Except Roger and Rafa maybe. And I actually couldn't give a toss about US open.

That's a shame. This has easily been the best era for Men's Tennis.

I have seen some, though.

Here it is:

The Pete - Roger Wimby 4th round was out of this world. It's the match that was a breakthrough for Fed. He beat the 7/8 last years champion. There was some spectacular shot making.

Do you remember Fed - Safin AUS '05? Insane. I think it is still the match that's the most bitter for Fed. It was a major, he hasn't suffered a loss like that ever, imo. Not even '08 Wimby. Because of the conditions. He said he could barely see the ball in the end. Nor '09 Aus, because he wasn't beaten, he fell appart. Poor guy. Nor anything after he broke Pete's record, because, let's be frank, goal was achieved, and the motivation must drop, even for him.







I saw all those, and

Wimby '05, 06, 07, 09, 10, 11, 13, 14 finale
RG '05, 06, 07, 08, 10, 14, 16
US '05, 13, 14
AUS '07, '08 semi (worst I saw Fed play) '10.

From here on out, I wish nothing but Nadal-Federer, especially with age, etc.... Seems like Nadal is always hurt, and has a much better head-to-head than Roger. I think he'd be #1 (currently #2 all-time) in Grand Slams if he was healthy, and if he wouldn't lose to fellow Spaniards

I saw all those yeah. I definitely think 08 Wimbledon was won on Nadals great performance rather than a bad one from Federer. Fed kind of coasted without a challenger between his first Wimbledon win and then as Nadal hadn't fully matured yet and the rest of the field was lacking to say the least. I'd say 08 Wimbledon until the end of 2013 was the best Men's Tennis has ever been. Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are three of the best ever and that was the period their primes crossed the most, Murray while nowhere near their level was a solid #4 then the depth of the rest of the field was incredible: Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, Verdasco, Wawrinka, Soderling, etc, etc. Most of them at their best, players who could have been slam winners in less tough era's IMO.

Saddest thing for me as a fan is that Nadal has been perpetually injured since like 2012 . He hasn't been 100% in about five years. Oh well he's still my favourite male player and second favourite after Henin.

I'm biased as Nadal is my favourite but i think it would be closer at least. As i just said he hasn't been 100% since around 2012. He has better win-loss record against both Fed and Djok, a ridiculous one against Federer actually. Him and WIllander are the only players to win two Slams on all three surfaces, he's the best at the Masters, Gold Medalist something Djok and Fed haven't done. Federer still has to be #1 but there's not as much of a gap as people say IMO>

Should make a correction. Nadal doesn't have a winning record against Djokovic; it's 26-24 to Djokovic, it has just changed fairly recently so i didn't realize. Nadal does have a 9-4 record against Djokovic in Grand Slams however.

He has a 23-14 winning record against Federer and a 9-3 Grand Slam winning record.

Another reason he's my favorite player is that despite being constantly injured, he's #2 in Grand Slams, and yeah, has Roger's number, and does well against the Djokovic... He doesn't have the fastest serve, so it's pure hustle, and I love that.

There's also the fact that no player has ever dominated a surface like he has Clay. There's absolutely no credible arguments against him as best Clay Court player while you could still make reasonable ones against Fed in Grass or Hard Court. He's also one of the best Hard Court players and has been very good on Grass,

I mean Nadal lost once in his first 10 French Opens; which was a really weird loss to Soderling. He also won the Monte Carlo masters 8 times in a row. Incredible.

I agree, Matt.

But then again, fitness, being fit is also a part of it all. That's one of the reasons I think tennis is the most complete sport. My favorite sport overall, though, is chess. Too bad not much chess enthousiasts and discussion going on here. Not to mention math, but you reported there, so thanks.

I also prefer Nadal over Fed, simply character wise, and yes, I actually do think he's better. Head to head 8-3 on Slams now. It's been 8-2 for years, until this years AUS. And that's the best way to tell who's better of the two, imo. It's just that, again, you have to take everything into account. In terms of the absolute raw talent and feel for the ball, it's McEnroe, imo. I think many would agree on that. A category even above Fed. OK maybe not, but Fed has just such an unbelieveble view of the court. Here's my two cents.

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. McEnroe

Laver over Nadal? Yeah, i can't agree with that. Laver played during a very weak era, one where all of the best players rarely played in the grand slams. It'd be like Nadal playing in an era where he never had to play in a Grand Slam with more than one of Federer, Djokovic, Murray or Wawrinka. Think he's one of the best but i don't see much reason for him being above Nadal. My opinion:

01.Federer
02.Nadal
03.Djokovic
04.Sampras
05.Laver
06.Connors
07.McEnroe
08.Borg
09.Agassi
10.Willander

Sampras vs Djokovic is a tough one. The problem IMO is that at one point Sampras just started turning up for the Slams he could win, that's why despite his high amount of Grand Slams he's behind those three in total tournaments. Was easier to win so many Slams when you weren't playing that much the rest of the year. Pete also never won the French Open which is a mark against him, actually he didn't do anything on Clay at all. His best was one semi in the French Open. Those other three have proven themselves on all three surfaces which is a big thing for me. I'm fine with someone having Sampras over Djokovic but i think he should be top five at least.

After Laver i'm not really sure of the order, McEnroe and Connors is a tough one to decide, i prefer McEnroe but Connors proved himself over all surfaces. I personally think Borg is a bit overrated, he stuck to two surfaces and played in a very weak Clay era.

Yeah, i think you're right. But why in the hell did Laver not play all those years? I heard JohnnyMac say he would've win at least 5 or 10 more slams, which would obviously possibly put him even above Fed.

Đoko completely slipped my mind...I like him too. He's very flexible, and yet very firm when it's needed.

So I stand corrected:

I'm copying and pasting your list. Case closed.

It's not case closed mate, your opinion is as valuable as mine. These things are all subjective, was just saying that was my personal opinion.

I'm not sure exactly what happened with Laver, he was banned from Slams for five years for some reason. He certainly could have won more Grand Slams than Federer but IMO you have to consider the difficulty of the era and IMO his was alot weaker. Still an amazing talent and one of the great 'what if' cases in sports.

Camo... How could you? We are not worthy to be blessed with the presence of Veesus Christ and you want Muguruthless to win? I still think about what could have been if Venus had converted that set point in the Wimby final

haha. Nah, as i've told you i've always liked Venus. Not a fan of Serena but Venus was my second favourite after Henin (who is my all-time favourite male or female) during the 2000's, always rooted for her when Henin was out and it was great seeing her coming back from nearly dying to show she's still one of the best.

It's just personally i want to move on from the Williams sisters, they're all i've ever known in the WTA. They've been winning Slams since 1999 and other than Henin and maybe Kleisters no one has really challenged them during all that time. Kinda want to see a new generation of champions. Mug is my personal favourite right now, she's not like close to Henin in that way but i like her alot. She's still young and has two slams, would like to see her get more. I would be fine with Venus winning but i'd prefer Muguruza personally.

I like Garbine as well, she's very cute. She has the charisma to actually be a star as well when the WTA is in desperate need of new faces, especially after Genie flopped in epic fashion.