Thank you Sam Querrey

In the tour that we see nowadays where a vast majority of players have little personality, no guts and, frankly speaking, very small balls. Where the Mannarinos of the day go out on court thinking they have no chance to beat the world n.1, it took the most unlikely opponent to finally declare that the king is naked, and that, yes, Djokovic is beatable. How he did it? Through many aces yes, but very little more. Most importantly he didn't choke. And that was, probably, what set Querrey apart from the many players that were apparently happy to give the match away with no battle, no fight and no belief.

So, thank you Sam, the man, Querrey for playing, for once, like professional tennis players should!!

He refused to be bossed around this week, unlike all of Murray's opponents only turning up for the cheque.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: it took the most unlikely opponent to finally declare that the king is naked, and that, yes, Djokovic is beatable.

I think the allusion is the Emperor has no clothes, but you got pretty close.

socal1976 wrote:

I think the allusion is the Emperor has no clothes, but you got pretty close.

  
Don't feed the Hyenas

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

I think the allusion is the Emperor has no clothes, but you got pretty close.

  
Don't feed the Hyenas

Cmon Banbro, where is the fun in that, Hyenas need their attention to.

Tut-tut some big words here for what seems to me a very reasonable article..... I doubt this make me an hyenas, but tell you that it will never make me: a stupid fanboy. That's for sure.

Went on Safari once.. the hyena is very a maligned creature he does a useful job out there in the wild and eats the bones after the vultures have picked off the last of the flesh.. Four legged refuse disposal... Not pretty that's for sure... but they laugh a lot

Play it again Sam !!!!!

One would like to think that an in-form Querrey on a grass surface could beat Djokovic.  But apparently not.  If one factors in Djokovic not being 100% then this was a Djokovic victory according to most professional observers.  For me the answer must lie with the second set where Djokovic lost it 6-1.  I can easily understand Querrey winning sets 7-6 on tie breakers, but a 6-1 set loss is difficult to explain.

Of course using these arguments one can also say that Nadal only started losing at Wimbledon when he was injured / permanently physically impaired and similarly Federer when age and a wonky back impaired him.

Etc Etc.  That is why on another thread I did declare Borg as the Goat (although others suggest Rod Laver or Pancho Gonzales) and that there is nowt further Djokovic can do in terms of the Goat debate.  But in terms of GOTE debate there is still more he can do.

In a tennis singles match IMO the better player on the day nearly always wins. The obvious exception being if they get a bad injured when ahead and have to retire. Djokovic was pretty clear in his post match conference that Querrey was the better player and deserved his win.

I saw the match and would agree with the above. Djokovic was moving well at least in the last two sets. He did some amazing gets and defensive shots on the run throughout the match that imho exclude the possibility of serious injuries. If he had some niggles going on, well that's norm rather than the exception, as most of them have.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tut-tut some big words here for what seems to me a very reasonable article..... I doubt this make me an hyenas, but tell you that it will never make me: a stupid fanboy. That's for sure.

The article is a dig at Novak for daring to challenge your darling Roger's GOAT status.

Does anyone who knows you think that this would have been posted if Federer had lost

Done with your usual talent, which I must admit you have a certain degree

banbrotam wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tut-tut some big words here for what seems to me a very reasonable article..... I doubt this make me an hyenas, but tell you that it will never make me: a stupid fanboy. That's for sure.

The article is a dig at Novak for daring to challenge your darling Roger's GOAT status.

Does anyone who knows you think that this would have been posted if Federer had lost

Done with your usual talent, which I must admit you have a certain degree

I am fine with what Fed has won thanks, he's achieved just right, maybe he's slightly overachieved as I have personally no doubt that had he played in a a stronger era, like in the mid 80s, he would have won a lot less than what he has. My concern instead, and the main reason why I wrote this, was to see a player like Djokovic, all in all a great player yes, but certainly not a phenomenal one, and no better than other past greats like Connors and Agassi imo, go through the various tournaments draws seemingly without any opposition whatsoever, such is the scarcity of quality players on tour atm.

If anyone benefitted from a weak era between Djokovic and Connors it was Connors. In his mythic 1974 where he won almost 40 percent of the slams he would in his entire career he played 7 matches against top ten players. In the last 52 weeks Djokovic has played 35 matches or 500 percent more matches against top ten players. Connors and Borg both came up in the original weak era the early to mid 70s you know when Rosewal at 38 was still a top ranked player.

Brainless nostalgia is a problem whenever looking at the past. No football wasn't better when all the defenders smoked 20 cigarettes a day, no tennis wasn't better in the infancy of the tour when basically the good Europeans hardly ever played the good Americans or South Americans except at slams. The competition is so much tougher due to the standardization of the calendar and the birth of mandatory 1000ers now that any comparison to infancy of the tour is laughable and often made by people who don't actually know or are alternately driven by nostalgia, a creeping illness that affects all of us as we get older to destroy our actual perceptions of reality.

1  Jimmy Connors (USA) 1239 88.50   Steady =
2  Björn Borg (SWE) 1106 79.00   Increase +1
3  Guillermo Vilas (ARG) 830 55.33   Decrease –1
4  John McEnroe (USA) 871 43.55   Increase +17
5  Vitas Gerulaitis (USA) 574 41.00   Decrease –1
6  Eddie Dibbs (USA) 1096 40.59   Steady =
7  Brian Gottfried (USA) 856 34.24   Decrease –2
8  Raúl Ramírez (MEX) 895 33.15   Steady =
9  Harold Solomon (USA) 892 33.04   Increase +5
10  Corrado Barazzutti (ITA) 728 30.33   Increase +1
11  Roscoe Tanner (USA) 647 29.41   Increase +4
12  Manuel Orantes (ESP) 553 29.11   Decrease –5
13  Arthur Ashe (USA) 720 27.69   Increase +117
14  José Higueras (ESP) 635 27.61   Increase +16
15  José Luis Clerc (ARG) 546 27.30   Increase +263

This was more and less the field Connors had to compete against throughout his career, and you call it a weak era? Facts speak by themselves and for the rest of your post, I am sorry Socal but it's too stupid to reply to.

Now Americans struggle to play outside the US because quite simply money from the lower end events is not enough to get a coach, let alone to cover travel expenses for a new comer. So much ignorance my friend.

Oh and don't forget to add Ivan Lendl to the lot!!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:1  Jimmy Connors (USA) 1239 88.50   Steady =
2  Björn Borg (SWE) 1106 79.00   Increase +1
3  Guillermo Vilas (ARG) 830 55.33   Decrease –1
4  John McEnroe (USA) 871 43.55   Increase +17
5  Vitas Gerulaitis (USA) 574 41.00   Decrease –1
6  Eddie Dibbs (USA) 1096 40.59   Steady =
7  Brian Gottfried (USA) 856 34.24   Decrease –2
8  Raúl Ramírez (MEX) 895 33.15   Steady =
9  Harold Solomon (USA) 892 33.04   Increase +5
10  Corrado Barazzutti (ITA) 728 30.33   Increase +1
11  Roscoe Tanner (USA) 647 29.41   Increase +4
12  Manuel Orantes (ESP) 553 29.11   Decrease –5
13  Arthur Ashe (USA) 720 27.69   Increase +117
14  José Higueras (ESP) 635 27.61   Increase +16
15  José Luis Clerc (ARG) 546 27.30   Increase +263

This was more and less the field Connors had to compete against throughout his career, and you call it a weak era? Facts speak by themselves and for the rest of your post, I am sorry Socal but it's too stupid to reply to.

Now Americans struggle to play outside the US because quite simply money from the lower end events is not enough to get a coach, let alone to cover travel expenses for a new comer. So much ignorance my friend.

Yeah, Connors played a lot of great players in 21 year pro career, and that means what exactly? Doesn't change any of my post. You can't compare the infancy of the tour to today's level of competition favorably with today's tour. Connors won 3 of his 8 slams in 74. Between Novak and Connors, Connors feasted on weak competition not Novak. In fact, he was notorious carnivore who would play in your grandmother's backyard against your kid sister for a trophy if you paid him well enough.

Here is a hint, if reaching the semis or quarters of wimbeldon would get you a certificate for some tennis shorts, well that is a sign that the tour ain't that great, at least not yet.

Connors may have had few easy slams, far less than Djokovic tbh, that were more than compensated by the outstanding golden era of players that came after 1975. No it wasn't infancy, players that were great in the late 70' continued to be great throughout the 80s like Evert and Connors and McEnroe are great examples. Infancy was in 1920-1950s, and perhaps in the mind of certain 606 poster still is..

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Connors may have had few easy slams, far less than Djokovic tbh, that were more than compensated by the outstanding golden era of players that came after 1975. No it wasn't infancy, players that were great in the late 70' continued to be great throughout the 80s like Evert and Connors and McEnroe are great examples. Infancy was in 1920-1950s, and perhaps  in the mind of certain 606 poster still is..

The open era didn't start in the 1950s, the tour started in the early 70s when all the slams finally allowed professionals, the first mandatory masters type events that required a significant amount of mandatory participation was the 84 I believe. Nice one liner, but regardless of your practiced lines that took you six years to come up with it doesn't change the facts of the game. The tour was not found in the 20s, hence the term open era. There were few professionals and not even a standardized schedule like we have where all the big guys played each other. That is why Connors played very few matches against top ten players, I think Novak in many less years has well over double the top ten wins. He has 100 matches against Federer and Nadal alone, go back to telling us how Novak only had 4 volleys in a five set final against Murray, you missed that count by oh a factor of 10 to 1. So sorry if anyone wants to be wrong they would rely on your "legendary"lol! ability to observe a tennis match, how many volleys was that JK, oh that is right 4 volleys, right.

Socal, you do realize, I hope, that for people like me and you that weren't even born in 1975, it's a dangerous/ futile exercize to engage in a debate on how was tennis back in those years. I started watching tennis in the early 80' and can tell you that the difference between now and than are so vast that is totally pointless to make the statistical comparisons you seem to suggest. All the important tournaments were best of five, game was slower because of racket technology and strings, much harder on the body, each surface had a number of specialists that could potentially challenge the top guys. Even the relative importance of tournaments was totally different as the AO was far less important than other evens with bigger prizes. As a result of all of this I hope you don't get too upset if I prefer to learn about the history of the game from tennis experts, past champions and journalists who do have some first hand knowledge of what they are talking about, rather than from the creative mind of a Djokovic fanboy.

Oh so right... to me there is only one GOAT and that is Connors.. like or loath the man for who he was is one thing.. do not even begin to believe he was not an amazing player.

He was a bully and a loud mouth but it did not stop him playing incredible tennis
I loved him !!

So easy when you have an unhealthy obsession with one player to ever believe there was anything near good that went before.. and Connors never had an Egg Chamber either !!!

Jimmy Connors: the shot of a GOAT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvgVgnCqaKw
Don't mess with the GOAT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYYUtb4GUHE

Yep he was all of that and then some.. but where he and Mac were concerned it was always deuce ... 6 for him and half dozen for him
Both wums
But they could both play tennis !!!

Was he a showman  ?? Yes
Was he an athlete  ?? Yes
Was he Conceited?? you bet
But watch that movement.. eat your heart out Novak



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e38U3Oa3s5s