|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16143
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3. |
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes. |
Yeah, at the time, I'm sure people felt he belonged. But right now looking back, it's just silly to call it the era of the big 4. |
You're underestimating Murray. Look at this and tell me with a straight face it wasn't the era of the big 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_Masters_1000#ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000
BIG 4 just means those four guys cornered the semifinals of every major tournament. And they did.
It went something like this:
Djokovic/Nadal/Fed > Murray >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone else
No reason to chop Murray down. Look at how many Masters 1000 he won and also how many GS finals he played in. |
That's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone here. This is my opinion.
When you look at the legacy of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic all having surpassed Sampras and being in the conversation as GOAT, it seems kind of silly, TO ME, that there was a big 4.
I mean, when they make a documentary about it - it'll probably be boiled down to the big 3.
Legacy wise, Murray doesn't belong in that conversation. But again, that's how I see it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. That's just how I see it. I'm not saying it wasn't deserved at that moment in time as it was happening. I'm saying, it's not holding up over time and the further away we get, it's going to look sillier and sillier. Especially now that they've all got 15 Grand Slams and Murray's stuck on 3 and about to retire. It's just not holding up well. |
You're thinking about this wrong. Big 4 does not mean they were equal. If none of the other 3 existed, you'd favor Murray for every single tournament, right? |
Again, you're trying to convince me otherwise. I don't know what to tell you? That's just how I feel.
I don't think that big 4 moniker will stand the test of time. I don't think people will remember Murray. And maybe 10 years later, when people mention the big 4, some people will ask, "well, who's the 4th?"
I don't think history will be kind to Murray. The way Djokovic is going, he's going to get close to Federer. Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer are all going to have around 20 Grand Slams when it's all said and done.
No one's going to remember Murray and no one's going to remember that there used to be a big 4.
But again, that's my opinion. That's how I see it. You can convince me otherwise but I can't change how I feel inside. When I hear the words "big 4" it just feels silly to me. Don't know what else to tell you?
I remember one time, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, and Pete Sampras were mentioned together. History hasn't been kind to Jim Courier. Now, he's basically nothing, like he never existed.
Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3. |
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes. |
Yeah, at the time, I'm sure people felt he belonged. But right now looking back, it's just silly to call it the era of the big 4. |
You're underestimating Murray. Look at this and tell me with a straight face it wasn't the era of the big 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_Masters_1000#ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000
BIG 4 just means those four guys cornered the semifinals of every major tournament. And they did.
It went something like this:
Djokovic/Nadal/Fed > Murray >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone else
No reason to chop Murray down. Look at how many Masters 1000 he won and also how many GS finals he played in. |
That's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone here. This is my opinion.
When you look at the legacy of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic all having surpassed Sampras and being in the conversation as GOAT, it seems kind of silly, TO ME, that there was a big 4.
I mean, when they make a documentary about it - it'll probably be boiled down to the big 3.
Legacy wise, Murray doesn't belong in that conversation. But again, that's how I see it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. That's just how I see it. I'm not saying it wasn't deserved at that moment in time as it was happening. I'm saying, it's not holding up over time and the further away we get, it's going to look sillier and sillier. Especially now that they've all got 15 Grand Slams and Murray's stuck on 3 and about to retire. It's just not holding up well. |
You're thinking about this wrong. Big 4 does not mean they were equal. If none of the other 3 existed, you'd favor Murray for every single tournament, right? |
Again, you're trying to convince me otherwise. I don't know what to tell you? That's just how I feel.
I don't think that big 4 moniker will stand the test of time. I don't think people will remember Murray. And maybe 10 years later, when people mention the big 4, some people will ask, "well, who's the 4th?"
I don't think history will be kind to Murray. The way Djokovic is going, he's going to get close to Federer. Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer are all going to have around 20 Grand Slams when it's all said and done.
No one's going to remember Murray and no one's going to remember that there used to be a big 4.
But again, that's my opinion. That's how I see it. You can convince me otherwise but I can't change how I feel inside. When I hear the words "big 4" it just feels silly to me. Don't know what else to tell you? |
You're just wrong about what the Big 4 means. Not sure what else to say. Sorry.
This isn't up for interpretation. These 4 men were in the semifinals of every single major tournament pretty much and were heads and shoulders better than everyone else. 3 were better than the last, but all 4 were MUCH MUCH better than anyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16143
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3. |
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes. |
Yeah, at the time, I'm sure people felt he belonged. But right now looking back, it's just silly to call it the era of the big 4. |
You're underestimating Murray. Look at this and tell me with a straight face it wasn't the era of the big 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_Masters_1000#ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000
BIG 4 just means those four guys cornered the semifinals of every major tournament. And they did.
It went something like this:
Djokovic/Nadal/Fed > Murray >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone else
No reason to chop Murray down. Look at how many Masters 1000 he won and also how many GS finals he played in. |
That's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone here. This is my opinion.
When you look at the legacy of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic all having surpassed Sampras and being in the conversation as GOAT, it seems kind of silly, TO ME, that there was a big 4.
I mean, when they make a documentary about it - it'll probably be boiled down to the big 3.
Legacy wise, Murray doesn't belong in that conversation. But again, that's how I see it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. That's just how I see it. I'm not saying it wasn't deserved at that moment in time as it was happening. I'm saying, it's not holding up over time and the further away we get, it's going to look sillier and sillier. Especially now that they've all got 15 Grand Slams and Murray's stuck on 3 and about to retire. It's just not holding up well. |
You're thinking about this wrong. Big 4 does not mean they were equal. If none of the other 3 existed, you'd favor Murray for every single tournament, right? |
Again, you're trying to convince me otherwise. I don't know what to tell you? That's just how I feel.
I don't think that big 4 moniker will stand the test of time. I don't think people will remember Murray. And maybe 10 years later, when people mention the big 4, some people will ask, "well, who's the 4th?"
I don't think history will be kind to Murray. The way Djokovic is going, he's going to get close to Federer. Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer are all going to have around 20 Grand Slams when it's all said and done.
No one's going to remember Murray and no one's going to remember that there used to be a big 4.
But again, that's my opinion. That's how I see it. You can convince me otherwise but I can't change how I feel inside. When I hear the words "big 4" it just feels silly to me. Don't know what else to tell you? |
You're just wrong about what the Big 4 means. Not sure what else to say. Sorry.
This isn't up for interpretation. These 4 men were in the semifinals of every single major tournament pretty much and were heads and shoulders better than everyone else. 3 were better than the last, but all 4 were MUCH MUCH better than anyone else. |
Ok, I'm wrong and it's not up for interpretation. Sorry for being wrong?
I'll try to train myself to view the "Big 4" the correct way as you do. It'll take some time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | Man, can you believe Sampras was just passed over by 3 guys from this era. That's crazy!
And it's crazy how Andy Murray was considered one of the big 4. He's nowhere near these 3. |
Don’t underestimate Murray. They call it the big 4 because those guys were in every masters 1000 and slam semi/final for more than a decade. Murray had a lot of success and was clearly better than everyone else but the top 3, and was competitive with them at least, winning sometimes. |
Yeah, at the time, I'm sure people felt he belonged. But right now looking back, it's just silly to call it the era of the big 4. |
You're underestimating Murray. Look at this and tell me with a straight face it wasn't the era of the big 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_Masters_1000#ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000
BIG 4 just means those four guys cornered the semifinals of every major tournament. And they did.
It went something like this:
Djokovic/Nadal/Fed > Murray >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone else
No reason to chop Murray down. Look at how many Masters 1000 he won and also how many GS finals he played in. |
That's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone here. This is my opinion.
When you look at the legacy of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic all having surpassed Sampras and being in the conversation as GOAT, it seems kind of silly, TO ME, that there was a big 4.
I mean, when they make a documentary about it - it'll probably be boiled down to the big 3.
Legacy wise, Murray doesn't belong in that conversation. But again, that's how I see it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. That's just how I see it. I'm not saying it wasn't deserved at that moment in time as it was happening. I'm saying, it's not holding up over time and the further away we get, it's going to look sillier and sillier. Especially now that they've all got 15 Grand Slams and Murray's stuck on 3 and about to retire. It's just not holding up well. |
You're thinking about this wrong. Big 4 does not mean they were equal. If none of the other 3 existed, you'd favor Murray for every single tournament, right? |
Again, you're trying to convince me otherwise. I don't know what to tell you? That's just how I feel.
I don't think that big 4 moniker will stand the test of time. I don't think people will remember Murray. And maybe 10 years later, when people mention the big 4, some people will ask, "well, who's the 4th?"
I don't think history will be kind to Murray. The way Djokovic is going, he's going to get close to Federer. Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer are all going to have around 20 Grand Slams when it's all said and done.
No one's going to remember Murray and no one's going to remember that there used to be a big 4.
But again, that's my opinion. That's how I see it. You can convince me otherwise but I can't change how I feel inside. When I hear the words "big 4" it just feels silly to me. Don't know what else to tell you? |
You're just wrong about what the Big 4 means. Not sure what else to say. Sorry.
This isn't up for interpretation. These 4 men were in the semifinals of every single major tournament pretty much and were heads and shoulders better than everyone else. 3 were better than the last, but all 4 were MUCH MUCH better than anyone else. |
Ok, I'm wrong and it's not up for interpretation. Sorry for being wrong? |
Just trying to educate you about what is meant by "Big 4" but it appears you don't care and have your mind set. Whatever. I just hate to see Murray's legacy (which is so much better than your Courier comparison) dismissed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16143
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Just trying to educate you about what is meant by "Big 4" but it appears you don't care and have your mind set. Whatever. I just hate to see Murray's legacy (which is so much better than your Courier comparison) dismissed. |
Will you go around the world educating everyone on how the big 4 should be viewed starting with me?
Should we move down the list and discuss other players and what the correct way to view them should be?
Sampras?
McEnroe?
Boris Becker?
Ivan Llendl?
I don't know what else to tell you. Either I'm honest or I'm not. I can lie to you and try and view Murray the way you do, but I don't. I don't really know why my opinion of Murray is so important to you though?
Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Just trying to educate you about what is meant by "Big 4" but it appears you don't care and have your mind set. Whatever. I just hate to see Murray's legacy (which is so much better than your Courier comparison) dismissed. |
Will you go around the world educating everyone on how the big 4 should be viewed starting with me? |
\
I don't need to. Anyone who cares even remotely about tennis knows what it means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16143
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Just trying to educate you about what is meant by "Big 4" but it appears you don't care and have your mind set. Whatever. I just hate to see Murray's legacy (which is so much better than your Courier comparison) dismissed. |
Will you go around the world educating everyone on how the big 4 should be viewed starting with me? |
I don't need to. Anyone who cares even remotely about tennis knows what it means. |
Ok.
If it'll make you feel better, I've changed my mind about Murray. I can see now that I was wrong about the Big 4 and that will never change.
History will always remember Murray as one of the big 4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31912
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | I saw in the argument for Djokovic as the greatest is his record vs. Federer 25-22.
Now, this is a point I don't see alot of people bring up, but I think is quite relevant - Federer's age.
--------------------------------------
Federer is 37 and Djokovic is 31, 6 years younger. I think the younger player always has the advantage.
When Djokovic won his 2nd grand slam title in 2011 - Federer already had 16. Federer started slowing down in 2010. Now, 2010, he was still only 28, and in 2011, he was only 29, so I get that. But that's when he really started slowing down.
Federer's peak was from (21-29) (2003-2010) when he won 16 majors.
From (29-35) (2010-2016) - he won 1 major
And recently, from (35-36) (2017-2018) - he won 3 majors.
---------------------------------------------
Djokovic's career:
From (17-23) (2005-2010) - he only won 1 title. Notice, this is when Federer was at his peak.
Then, from (23-29) (2010-2016) - he won 11 titles. This is his peak
He slowed down for 2 years (29-31) (2016-2018) - 0 titles
Now, a resurgance at age 31 (2018-2019) - 3 titles.
-------------------------------------------------
What's my point? Djokovic never competed against Federer during his peak. Federer had to compete against Djokovic during his peak. So, the numbers are going to be skewed for Djokovic.
But, you can see how the timelines match up that maybe Federer didn't decline but maybe he stopped winning majors because of Djokovic's rise. That's another way of looking at it. Maybe Federer was as good as he was from ages 22-29 but Djokovic was just better. My counter argument to that would be, Federer wasn't just losing to Djokovic during this period. He was also losing to Tsonga, Andy Murray, Stan Wawrinka, etc. I think he definitely lost something after age 29. The only player that could beat Federer from ages 22-29 was Nadal and that was predominantly on clay. Take out the clay surface and Federer had an edge on Nadal on the hard and grass courts.
So, could Djokovic beat peak Federer? We'll never know. But, one thing we know, Djokovic never competed vs. peak Federer (22-29). They might have played some matches, but Djokovic wasn't the player he is today.
So what do you guys think. Did Federer decline after age 29 or did Djokovic get better and Federer couldn't keep up with him?
Could peak Djokovic beat peak Federer?
It does look like Djokovic is going to be a stronger player past age 29 than Federer was. Although, Federer faced tougher competition that Djokovic. By age 29, Federer had to face (peak Djokovic, peak Nadal, peak Murray, peak Wawrinka). Djokovic on the other hand has to face (old Federer, breaking down Nadal, and injured/retiring Murray, declining Wawrinka).
It would be interesting if Djokovic and Federer were the same age and their peaks lined up (22-29). I wonder who would have won more.
I will also admit that peak Federer (22-29) faced far weaker opponents than peak Djokovic. |
For me, this is going to be a big factor when it's all said and done, when all 3 guys are done playing, and when we look back and assess their careers.
At the moment, Djokovic is still 5 majors behind Federer, so if their careers ended today, I think you'd still have to place him third all-time. However, he very realistically could make a run at 20 majors. If Federer doesn't win another one (hardly a given), and if Novak can at least catch Nadal, I think that all 3 of them can craft legitimate arguments as the male GOAT. Djokovic's argument will be that in a one-on-one sport, he's the one with a winning record against BOTH of his chief rivals (though both margins are fairly close), and that he has essentially won all of his majors while both Federer and Nadal were still very highly-ranked players, right at the top of the men's game. Djokovic's peak levels have also been extraordinary. His 2011 season is often considered to be the best in history; he won every major but the French, he won 10 titles, won 5 ATP Masters 1000 events, and he only lost 2 times from the start of the year to the end of the U.S. Open. (He hurt his back at the U.S. Open and lost 4 times after that.) When he won the French in 2016, he held all 4 major titles at once, and no man had done that since Rod Laver in 1969. (And right now he's in the midst of winning 3 Slams in a row). Djokovic has been #1 in the world for 230 weeks, which is 80 behind Federer. He could make a run at that all-time record, too. In addition, he has 32 ATP Tour Masters 1000 tournament titles, which is only 1 behind Nadal's record of 33.
Speaking of Rafa, his most compelling argument will be that he has a strong record against Federer (though most of that is because of his domination on clay), while battling Novak pretty closely. Rafa does actually have the better record overall vs. Novak in the majors, though they are now tied 4-4 in finals; Novak has owned him on hard courts, though, and he has a chance to widen his overall record against Nadal in the coming years. Of course, Nadal is unquestionably the most dominant player on a single court surface of all-time, but some may see it as a negative that he only has 6 major titles on surfaces other than clay. Still, if he can find a way to win the Australian Open one more time, he would have achieved a career Slam two times over. (Of course, if Djokovic wins the French one more time, he will accomplish that same feat, as would Federer with one more title at Roland Garros.)
Federer's argument, at the moment, is not only the major count, but the consistency and longevity. He has been ranked #1 for the most total weeks and also the most consecutive weeks. From Wimbledon 2004 through the end of 2009, he reached at least the semifinals of every major, and he made at least the quarterfinals of every major from Wimbledon 2004 through the French Open of 2013. He has been ranked #1 for the most total weeks and also for the most consecutive weeks, and his 99 titles are 19 more than Nadal and 26 more than Djokovic, though, of course, those margins could lessen in the coming years, and part of that, one could argue, is a function of Roger having less competition than the other 2 did during their 20's. I also think that there's a certain romance with Federer; his game just feels the most effortless and graceful.
All 3 guys are extremely close in terms of overall winning percentage, with Nadal leading the way, Novak very close behind, and Roger not far behind that. (In order, the percentages are 82.94%, 82.78%, and 81.93%.) At this very moment in time, I would give the very slight edge to Roger as the GOAT, but I think both Djokovic and Nadal (in that order) might lay claim to that mythical title in a few years. Personally, I find Djokovic's game the most pleasing. He's the cleanest, most consistent ball-striker of the 3. As I said last night, he hits the ball from the baseline like prime Agassi but with a better serve, a better return of serve, and with far better movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31912
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, and as far as Andy Murray is concerned, the dude was a remarkable player. He just happened to be playing tennis in the exact same era as the three best players who have ever played. Remember when Lleyton Hewitt was #1 for a while? Yeah, fun times. If Murray had been at his peak during that time (say, after Sampras started fizzling out and before Federer reached his level of dominance), he probably wins 3 majors a year for at least a couple of years. Murray's movement and defense were just as good as Nadal and Djokovic, and he had a big first serve. His second serve was weaker, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31912
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wanted to also mention something about Naomi Osaka. I actually don't like her that much, at least, not on the court. (She seems like a shy girl off the court and probably doesn't treat anyone disrespectfully.) But, yeah, I don't like her comportment on the court. She gets really dour when things aren't going right, I don't like how she yells "come on!" after virtually every single point when it's a close match, and she acts like she can't believe when her opponent hits a great shot on a big point, as if she thinks she is entitled to winning those points. I know I'm in the minority here, but I have a couple of tennis friends who feel the same way that I do.
Now, what I won't deny is that she showed a mental fortitude to come back after that 2nd set collapse in the AO Final, and she also had to be pretty tough to stay in the moment when the crowd got pretty unruly in the U.S. Open final last year. She certainly has the firepower from the ground and the serve to win a lot of majors. But I don't necessarily know if this was a changing of the guard. She did go to 3 sets in 4 of her last 5 matches, and was oh-so-close to losing to Hseih, in particular, in straight sets. (Again, that shows her mental toughness, in spite of the attitude that I don't like!) I still think women's tennis is wide open, but that Osaka has the most upside of anyone right now. Even Serena, who probably can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt as being the best player. Still, I don't think Serena is done winning majors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^^^
I am surprised by how much that U.S. Open final soured me on Serena. I was always sort of lukewarm about Serena's persona, but no one could question the quality of her performances. Now I just want her to be gone. She's got a daughter, right? Sheesh. I look forward to the day when Serena and her entitled attitude are off the court for good. I'll never look at her the same way. YMMV, of course. I don't care much about Osaka one way or the other, but at least she isn't one of the Eastern European clones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YSong
Star Player
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 2329
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow you realize if Djoker wins the French he will have won all 4 slams in a row .... the Djoker slam? Like the Tiger slam crossing over 2 yrs but all in succession |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16143
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YSong wrote: | | Wow you realize if Djoker wins the French he will have won all 4 slams in a row .... the Djoker slam? Like the Tiger slam crossing over 2 yrs but all in succession |
It'll be the 2nd time he's done it. Last time he did it was 2016 before he went into his funk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31912
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YSong wrote: | | Wow you realize if Djoker wins the French he will have won all 4 slams in a row .... the Djoker slam? Like the Tiger slam crossing over 2 yrs but all in succession |
He's already done that. This would be the second time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YSong
Star Player
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 2329
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: | | YSong wrote: | | Wow you realize if Djoker wins the French he will have won all 4 slams in a row .... the Djoker slam? Like the Tiger slam crossing over 2 yrs but all in succession |
He's already done that. This would be the second time. |
Wow I didn’t realize that. Was just looking at years but not order |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
