Who do you think has aged most gracefully from this picture. My picks are:

Rod Laver.

Ivan Lendl.

Sabatini.

Worst? Vilas. Can he even be considered a human now?

Federer getting introduced at the opening ceremony. From m. Thanks.

More opening ceremony photos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federer vs Maximo Gonzalez. Are we there yet?

I mean the guy not only just plays the challenger circuit, he loses there in the first freaking round. He has never played here ever in his freaking life. Is barely 5’9″ and has never won a title in his six years as a pro. He is ranked 118. Has not even cleared $50K per year earnings on the tour. Has anyone even checked the pulse?

He does not even qualify as a freaking tomato can, for crying out loud. He is a watermelon that Jackal used for target practice for his fancy machine gun.

Can you ask for anything more for your first match after all the Olympic BS, from jet lag to poor air quality?

But with Simon, Karlovic and Blake in such close succession, is it any wonder that people are still anxious? Logically he is the next step down, but it cannot happen now, can it?

This should be wrapped up in about an hour with a flurry of break chances with none being offered. Anything else and it may be time for Djokovic to step up to the No. 2 spot right here.

Moron, you forgot to wear those gloves, Botox people threw at you.

Who freaking cares if you have wrinkles. No one except your own freaking self does. Age gracefully and without being freaking vain. Geeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!

Sampras was the legitimate year end No. 1 for all those six years. From Mike. Good work. Thanks.

MIKE

Did some research and here’s what I found. Pete accumulated the most points in the final year-end rankings each December from 93-98 so logically, he was the best overall performer for that calender year (52 week system). He was also named the ATP “Player of the Year” during those same 6 years (93-98).

ATP Points
1993 Pete – 4128 points (Wimbledon and US Open Champion)
Runner up Stich – 3445

1994 Pete – 5097 (AO and Wimbledon Champion)
Runner up Agassi – 3249

1995 Pete – 4842 (Wimbledon and the US Open Champion)
Runner up Agassi – 4765

1996 Pete – 4865 (US Open Champion … no one dominated in the Slams this year. Becker, Kafelnikov, and Krajicek won the other Slams)
Runner up Chang – 3597

1997 Pete – 4547 (AO and Wimbledon Champion)
Runner up Rafter – 3210

1998 Pete – 3915 (Wimbledon Champion … again, 4 different Slam winners this year – Korda, Moya, Rafter)
Runner up Rios – 3670

**MY GUESS IS THAT YES, PETE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RACE CHAMPION AS WELL FROM 93-98**

US Open opening ceremony photos.

 

 

 

 

 

Can Nadal ever become a GOAT? If yes, what’s the cut off point that will put him in that discussion.

Nadal stepped onto the GOAT periphery the moment he completed the widely agreed ‘most difficult’ duo in tennis: Winning both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in one year.

While slowing down of the courts may have aided Nadal, it’s still an astounding achievement, considering he also won almost everything in sight on clay this season.

But for Nadal to actually step ON to the GOAT turf, he will have to pass at least 11 Grand Slams. If those Grand Slams includes a career slam, it will obviously help that cause. If that includes a calendar slam, he is almost there.

So six more majors with a US Open and a Australian Open, even without a calendar Grand Slam, will raise Nadal beyond Sampras in that debate. Duh!!!

He is 22 now. Conservatively speaking, Nadal should win at least three more titles at Roland Garros, two Wimbledon titles and one each at the US Open and the Australian Open. That should get him to 12 Grand Slams with a career slam – enough to pass even Federer as the greatest to ever play the game.

He should be 25 by then. Based on current stats and showing, that should be the end of his Grand Slam winning years except maybe Roland Garros. If he can squeeze two more Roland Garros for a total of nine altogether, he will not only equal No. 14, he will have at least levelled with Laver, if not surpassed him in that discussion.

The most progress he can make towards this GOAT goal will be next season, when Federer will have receded to an annoyance and Djokovic may have still not found his footing. Beyond that there’s very little certainty with three teenagers already knocking at the door: Del Potro, Gulbis and Cilic.

Of course, all this is heavily contingent on Nadal’s fitness and knees carrying him through age 25 and beyond. But what he has shown this season, it’s not a stretch now, to expect him to pull it off. After all, he has the best support scaffolding that has ever existed in this sport around him.

Conversely, it will be a pity if Nadal does not achieve his full potential because he is a true sportsman in more ways than one, at such a young age.

Nadal takes three freaking hours to win his opening freaking match.

 

Was that the ‘opening match’ syndrome in play coupled with the No. 1 rank jitters, or is there more to it than what meets the OK eye? Jet lag must have been a big part of it too.

The only and the main stat that has triggered this ‘consistency’ monster from within Nadal faltered big time: Unforced errors. There were 35 of them, when he averages in the teens per match. Even his break point conversion was way off at a mere 15 percent (2 of 13), when he usually hovers around 40. He was also broken in the very first match of the event.

All that despite going over his average ace count and serving at his usual 73 percent.

But Nadal will take it. A ‘W’ in straight sets is still OK, despite two tiefreakingbreaks.

While Nadal can gradually improve on most of the stats that let him down here, the three-hour picnic may stay with him, unless the next two matches bring down that number. Once he gets into the Berdych/Blake/Murray/Federer machine, there will be no let up.

The more fuel he uses in his early matches. the less likely it is that he will survive the four-match ordeal. Duh!!!

Next up will be a thoroughly cooked and tired joker in Rochus or Heart, Nadal SHOULD steamroll.

Shouldn’t ball boys be allowed / required to wear disposal gloves?

They are handling the almost ‘dripping with sweat’ towel for hours at a time. Besides, they are holding the balls, OK tennis balls, which are dirty as well, transferring all that dirt on to the towel and players’ face and body.

Don’t the boxing referees wear gloves for the same reason?

How about mandating that Nadal wear gloves because he is transferring lot more than just dirt onto the balls, towels and handshakes?

Can you imagine Agassi used to blow his freaking nose on the court and then shake hands and everything else? Geeezzz!!!

If this keeps up we may need portable cabins on all four corners of the freaking court.

WTA Anniversary Party in photos.

 

Nadia was a girl, all along?

 

 

Two reasons Clintons are planning and hoping for Obama to fail?

1. Hillary can run for President in 2012/13 again. Can’t do it if Obama is President.

2. Vindictiveness for not even asking or considering her for VP. That’s a ‘more than obvious’ slap across her face.

Logic says that if you select someone who brought in 18 freaking million votes, as your VP, instead of clown with a million votes, likelihood of your election to the highest office being a slam dunk is pretty high.

But the bad taste the campaign generated between the two, coupled with the possibility of getting overshadowed by Bill and Hillary, was so huge that even becoming the first black President was not enough to compensate for it.

Would Hillary have done the same if she was the nominee? Sure. The bickering reached the depth of no return to allow any compromise. Besides, I don’t think Obama would have even accepted it. There was just too much humiliation to overcome.

Obama, upto 30 days ago, felt he can win it without Hillary, despite the huge voter base she commanded. But McCain is catching up. It’s difficult to imagine Obama regretting it if he loses it, because the separation was irrevocable with what the two went through in the primaries, essentially eliminating Hillary, no matter what.

This is a classic case of how far someone will go to not reach out for even the most coveted prize in the world, if it’s over a bruised ego. Playing nice pays dividends beyond what the naked eye can see. Eventually it brings back to you what was yours anyway. Rest is all garbage, isn’t it?

Tracy Botox Austin, your hand is giving it away. Mary, it’s your double chin and your tomato head. Geezzz!!!

Rebuttal to Borg’s GOAT theory. From Andy. Thanks.

ANDY

I just read through this very interesting thread. Nice posts by Gerard and others. I hope I’m not too late to add my 2 cents worth.

I too watched Borg in his prime and do know where you are coming from Gerard.

BUT, three main points kept jumping into my head as I thought about this:

1) My feeling is that once you get past some of those names that you listed outside of the big 3 on top (Vilas, Vitas, Pannata and some others) that, particularly on grass and hard courts, the dropoff in talent and challenging matches is significant compared to more modern times. Probably this difference is not all that significant in the first two rounds of a major, but my guess is that if you look at a list of Borg’s opponents from the 3rd round through the quarters of most of the Slams in that period, and compare them to Rogers opponents in those rounds in his period, you would find a significantly tougher calibre of opposition for Roger, and thereby more hazardous path to the semis of a major for Roger. Just look at some on Wikipedia and I think you’ll see what I mean. In other words, the game has more depth now, so winning a grand slam involves more hurdles than in the 70s when Bjorn, Jimmy and John were almost assured of making it to the semis in Slam after Slam.

2) It is true that the game was very top heavy back then with Bjorn, Jimmy and John. Moreso than in Roger’s period at first glance, sure. But even this point is a bit misleading. A lot of this discussion has to do with matchups. As great as Connors was against many players other than Bjorn, the matchup in styles against Bjorn didn’t work in his favour very well. I remember watching Connors-Borg matches particularly in ‘80 and ‘81 when actually the tide was turning in Mac’s favor amongst the three, and thinking to myself that it was so clear that Mac’s approach to beating Borg was so much better than Connors, who would just bash the ball here and there and let Bjorn go into ball machine mode. Connors was actually not such a difficult an opponent for Borg, style/match-up wise. He played into Bjorn’s rythym as opposed to disturbing it like Mac. Now this is probably the point where you say, “But Connors did beat Borg in the ‘76 and ‘78 USO final.” Well, to me, those losses are losses by a greater player (Bjorn) to a player who just outgutted him for it (Jimmy). I mean, Bjorn should not be losing to Jimmy on clay in 1976 in particular. And the key in this comparison is that you CANNOT say the same thing about Roger vs. Rafa at the FO. You cannot say Roger SHOULD be beating Rafa on clay. Maybe some of us thought that at one time, but in retrospect, looking at the styles, the lefty thing and Rafa’s ability to spin it high to the backhand and all those frustating things for Fed fans like myself, we have to all admit now that Roger has always been behind the eightball BIGTIME in these clay court battles with Rafa, not because Roger is not great, but because, on that surface, with the players respective styles, it is just a hell of a tough match-up for Roger. He has lost 4 times in a row to Rafa there, yes, but you know what, that was the natural order of things. Rafa is a clay monster! So the big asteric beside Federer’s name is because he played a clay monster at that tourney. Borg’s big asteric? Yes, he played all-time greats in Connors and Mac at the USO, but you can’t walk away, from the Connors losses anyway, saying the result was the “natural order of things”, in the same way as you can with Roger-Rafa. Borg was a great legend but he didn’t win the USO even though it was there for the taking, even on his best surface (though not red clay, true). Anyway, what I’m trying to say in nutshell Gerard-san is that Borg’s big asteric is bigger than Roger’s.

3) The last point that comes to mind is what I’ll call the “Ken Dryden Syndrome”. Are you a hockey fan? If so, you’ll get the reference. Look at Ken Dryden’s stats and you’re amazed. Based on them you wouldn’t be crazy to conclude that Kenny was the best goaltender ever. But, they are greatly misleading because he retired at such a young age. The natural drop off in excellence that others suffered doesn’t come into play in his stats (it also helps that he played on perhaps the greatest team ever, but thats another story). The point is that Bjorn’s stats probably would look a lot less impressive overal career wise had he stuck around til his early 30s. That is almost inevitable actually. So I don’t have such a problem with your position that you have to judge the overall career and, if Roger was a slower starter than Bjorn, so what, you have to look at those years too in judging this question. But I do have a problem with a analysis that doesn’t greatly factor in the very likely possibility that there would have been more and more losses to guys like Lendl, and later Becker and more and more upsets to guys like, for example, Curran. That has to be dealt with somehow in the analysis.

Anyway, I too have gone on. I do think you make a lot of good points and that there is absolutely no denying Borg’s superduper greatness. But his right to the GOAT throne is not so clear in my opinion.

Points to defend at US Open. When it rains it pours? Can Djokovic grab No. 2 right here?

Federer: 1000 points.

Djokovic: 700.

Nadal: 150.

Current standing:

Nadal: 6700.

Federer: 5930.

Djokovic: 5105.

Shouldn’t they swap position to show their stronger arm?

Chaks, I think here’s your key to success.

 

First, you have to realize and reconcile with the fact that you are way over matched physically against the current field. You are barely 5’7″ and 128 lbs. Justine is 5’5″ and 126 lbs.

Translation: Your game has to be not just good, it has to be more than good enough, to compensate for that – consistently. Getting Justine’s coach may have been a step in the right direction, but it does not complete the whole cycle.

You see, Carlos worked with what Justine had, to move her past the giants on the court. He can do the same with you. The problem is you don’t have what Justine had, and Carlos cannot train anyone to get there. That’s all locked up inside Justine and no one else.

So you need to do whatever it takes to get together with Justine, in a way that she is willing to spill her beans. Nobody will co-operate without some kind of compensation, although it may not always be in the form of money.

You have to find out what will it take for Justine to get behind you to transform you into a world’s no. 1 player. Until you have that formula and your ability to incorporate it in your game, physically  and mentally – Carlos can only get you so far before the huge physical disparity you have against the top players blocks your progress.

Justine’s 6-7 record against the hardest hitting man of a woman Serena, is ample evidence that she had what it took to take down the brute at a mere 5’5″.

Bottom line: What Justine can teach you is more important than what Carlos can ever draw on that board. What you currently have is just 20 percent of the puzzle.