You are a highly intelligent man that's been on here for 15 years and you are still bothering with Gunnar's argument clinic?lol. Well, you go back in time ten years and tell everybody that they shouldn’t use it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
You are a highly intelligent man that's been on here for 15 years and you are still bothering with Gunnar's argument clinic?lol. Well, you go back in time ten years and tell everybody that they shouldn’t use it.
That's not an argument.lol. Well, you go back in time ten years and tell everybody that they shouldn’t use it.
From 2008-2013 the Big 4 occupied the top 4 ranking spots. They won 47/54 masters 1000 tournaments (Murray won 9 of them)That's not an argument.
I've explained to you why "Big Four" is/was a misnomer. And your response is what? "Nah people said it". Like that makes any case about whether it makes sense or not?
You claim there was a Big Four in 2009, three years before Murray won a major. What a load of rubbish. I guess there's a Big Four now as well, including Dominic Thiem? He's made 3 major finals, which is more than Murray had managed by 2009. Big Four with Thiem! Right?
You should go back in time and not respond in the first place if you're going to say stupid shit.
So far ahead? He and Wawrinka both won 3 majors.From 2008-2013 the Big 4 occupied the top 4 ranking spots. They won 47/54 masters 1000 tournaments (Murray won 9 of them)
In 2015/16 they won 17/18 Masters 1000, Murray won 5.
Murray has never been as durable as the other 3, but he is so far ahead of every other Males tennis player over that period.
Laver is before my time, but my dad's view on him is that hes over-rated because he won many Grand Slam tournaments due to lack of quality opposition caused by commencement of the split between pro and amateur circuits.Rod Laver won the Grand Slam twice in his career. 1962 and 1969.
Everyone else since is in his shadow.
Enuff said!
I suspect your dad is getting Rod Laver and Roy Emerson confused.Laver is before my time, but my dad's view on him is that hes over-rated because he won many Grand Slam tournaments due to lack of quality opposition caused by commencement of the split between pro and amateur circuits.
Your Dad is wrong. He won 11 grand slams. 6 in the amateur era and then 5 (including his 2nd Grand Slam) in the open era.Laver is before my time, but my dad's view on him is that hes over-rated because he won many Grand Slam tournaments due to lack of quality opposition caused by commencement of the split between pro and amateur circuits.
When Novak won his first title Fed was in his peak.this is a great argument and not as clear cut like cricket eg. bradman.
fed, nadal and joker all have genuine claims and all could have won more slams if they weren't playing in the same era.
laver, emerson and sampras and the like are all there abouts as well.
had one of them played in a seperate era and collect say 30 slams would they be considered the greatest?
the head to head with fed, nadal & joker are again only another indicator as they fed played them while being older.
Jury is still out on the absolute best, chances are Novak and Rafa will overtake Federer.
I haven’t seen any better than the current top 3 and that’s going back till about 1990
If I had to pay money to watch someone play tennis it would be prime John Patrick McEnroe who as far as I can find, still holds the record for the best win - loss record in a season. He might have carried on like a flog at times but he could make that ball talk, the guy was a freak. I include watching him play doubles with Fleming too.
What sets the current 3 apart is the longevity
Contracting covid-19 from a shirtless party is equal to -4 Grand slams
Nadal equal GOAT.Tomorrow night's game seems pretty pertinent to this debate.
Either Nadal matches Federer in total Grand Slams or Djokovic moves one closer, while at the same time being the only one of the three to win all four grand slams at least twice. And he would be beating the king of clay to do it.
Laver could also have won a lot more majors in the Open Era if he had been bothered.Rod Laver is the goat.
Has the titles (including most singles titles at 200), the dominance across a long span (2 calendar slams, separated by 7 years). Undoubtedly more majors would have been won between 1963-67 when he was Pro. And, was also playing doubles and mixed doubles at a high level.