Euro 2016 Fantasy League + Discussion Thread

[no country for old wainds]

I don't know if I'd go this far. I think he was a severely underrated player and much better than he got credit for. Thinking back though, I agree with your point of him not being physical enough. He was often blasted off the court.

i may be exaggerating a bit tbf. he was just a total throwback though, a specialist serve-volleyer can't survive at the very top level today even with exceptional technique unfortunately. i think the way the game was decades ago he'd at least have been a dominant force on grass, the kind of players that were his kryptonite didn't really exist back then and the surface would've been way more tailor-made for him (it's a lot more like hard courts these days). on the flipside, if he was around right now instead of his era, he'd probably struggle to make the top 10.

Obviously they're both amazing and can be counted among the best ever. Djokovic fans do annoy me, though. They say how Federer was dominating in a 'weak era' (ridiculous to me, Federer was just on his own level), but then they use the fact that Djoko is now beating Federer this past few years to validate their claims of Djokovic being the best? This makes no sense.

i think nadal fans have more of an argument than djokovic fans in this respect, as nadal obviously got the better of federer during fed's prime, whereas there wasn't much overlap between fed and djoko's primes. i do think federer dominated a weakish era toward the start of his run, if you look at the opponents he beat in finals before nadal - philippoussis, safin, roddick, hewitt, roddick, an old agassi, baghdatis - it's not a particularly impressive list. then again, i'm not sure there's anyone in the open era who HAS dominated a strong era - certain guys have done so on one surface, but not all of them. all i will say is that federer is the most astonishing player to watch in my lifetime, and i trust the scores of older people who say the same thing despite having witnessed other golden eras. it's incredibly rare for older folks to claim that a modern player is better than the ones they remember with rose-tinted glasses from their youth.

As for Nadal/Federer, I feel that this needs to be qualified by saying that almost half (15 out of 34) of their matches have been on clay, which is by far Nadal's best surface. He's probably the greatest clay court play ever. 9 French Open wins is ridiculous. There have been times throughout their careers where one has been stronger than the other I'd say. I'm a big fan of both, but overall I'd give it to Federer, except on clay.

nadal has a 9-7 record against him on hard too for what it's worth. i don't find h2h to be the be all end all of evaluating who the best is though - i'm a firm believer in the idea that "styles make fights" to use a boxing phrase. nadal's style gave federer problems, but federer dealt with certain other players far more easily than nadal did.

You didn't answer my question about watching the women's.

i'd be more interested if they played 5 sets, and if the standard was high, which it hasn't been in a long time now. i'd like to see a top 5 or 6 properly establish itself rather than wildly fluctuating every year, that'd be a sign that things are improving. these days i usually only watch in the hope of serena losing haha.

 

[Phylactery]

Fair point about the women's tour. I can't remember fully, but when we first started discussing tennis in some snooker thread or whatever it was, wasn't your main issue with the men's game that the top players were very stable in their rankings and results were predictable. Now you're saying that the women's fluctuates too much? Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, though.

The main reason I asked about this is because quite a few great female players have also been victims of the increase in power/physicality. Hingis was a graceful, technical tactician around the court and was dominating, until Davenport and the William's sisters came around and overpowered her. Switzerland produced 2 of the greatest players around the same time it seems. There is also Radwanksa these days who is quite the tactician, but struggles to deal with how hard the ball is being crushed at her. A shame really. Federer is one of the few who has managed to hit as hard as the hardest hitters while still being graceful. As you said, a truly astonishing player.

As for the woman playing 5 sets, I still think it's ridiculous that they get the same tournament prize money as the men while only playing 3 sets! However, I've been looking into why they don't play 5 sets lately and there are some articles suggesting that the players are all for it, but it's the tour organisers that won't allow it. Maybe due to issues with scheduling that they would run into. I've also seen people say that due to women winning a lot less free points on serve than men generally, then the matches would be really long. Having said that, even at the top of the game a lot of women's matches don't seem to be close. Even the 3 set matches generally have a set or 2 where one set is a complete domination of like 6-2 so I'm not sure the matches would be that long at 5 sets.

I have also seen thoughts that the men's should be brought down to 3 sets to lengthen careers and help prevent injuries. I'm not a fan of that idea. 5 sets give a lot more opportunity to ease into the match and make a comeback, which makes it more exciting.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Fair point about the women's tour. I can't remember fully, but when we first started discussing tennis in some snooker thread or whatever it was, wasn't your main issue with the men's game that the top players were very stable in their rankings and results were predictable. Now you're saying that the women's fluctuates too much? Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, though.

i think my issue is more that the two players currently are djokovic murray, that's not a rivalry that fills me with much anticipation - plus there aren't many great looking prospects on the rise atm. actually, i think i was making a comparison with boxing at the time, because nearly every fight in boxing is a unique event, they aren't constantly fighting each other in lesser tournaments throughout the year and getting to know each other inside out, there's a much greater factor of the unknown in there. even in football, if the same teams play each other over and over the personnel changes over time. i do prefer that and it's probably why tennis isn't my favourite sport or anything (except to play), but i still love tennis.

i think the fluctuation of the women's rankings happens because none of those players aside from serena (and to an extent maria) are very good, but the 3 sets may also have something to do with it - sometimes you're barely warmed up and it's over haha. i tend to think stable rankings are a sign of a higher standard, the players classed as all-time greats through history tended to be consistent in beating opponents from the lower top 10 and below.

The main reason I asked about this is because quite a few great female players have also been victims of the increase in power/physicality. Hingis was a graceful, technical tactician around the court and was dominating, until Davenport and the William's sisters came around and overpowered her. Switzerland produced 2 of the greatest players around the same time it seems. There is also Radwanksa these days who is quite the tactician, but struggles to deal with how hard the ball is being crushed at her. A shame really. Federer is one of the few who has managed to hit as hard as the hardest hitters while still being graceful. As you said, a truly astonishing player.

fair points. sadly for hingis, i don't think we ever saw much of her prime in between her bratty, mentally flaky child phenomenon days and her career-ruining injuries. agassi was another beautiful technician who could nevertheless hold his own with the power guys. safin was another who could do it on his day, most of his problems were psychological i guess. oh and henin brought a lot of natural ability to the table that allowed her to hold her own despite being small as fuck lol. i always like to cheer on the more talented, entertaining players over the huge servers and relentless athletes. although i must admit i'm a big nadal fan, the sheer will and tenacity of the man will live in my memory forever. he was the force of nature to federer's genius magician, that's what made that rivalry so special. i wish i'd been alive to see borg mcenroe because that's another beautiful match-up in styles and personalities.

but yeah, honestly, this issue isn't restricted to tennis. i know you're not so much of a football fan but there's increasingly less and less of a place for spontaneous technical and creative geniuses in the modern game, it's becoming more and more about mechanical team unity, work ethic, athleticism, being drilled and robotic, being good at everything rather than amazing at one thing, etc. boxing is the same - flair and ingenuity are deemphasised in favour of essentially being brainwashed into doing things a certain way, sometimes to the fighter's detriment IMO but i suppose it depends from person to person. unfortunately this is just an inevitable result of evolution, sports are becoming more self-aware and pragmatic. the fun way generally isn't the best way, unless you're so good that you transcend that rule.

As for the woman playing 5 sets, I still think it's ridiculous that they get the same tournament prize money as the men while only playing 3 sets! However, I've been looking into why they don't play 5 sets lately and there are some articles suggesting that the players are all for it, but it's the tour organisers that won't allow it. Maybe due to issues with scheduling that they would run into. I've also seen people say that due to women winning a lot less free points on serve than men generally, then the matches would be really long. Having said that, even at the top of the game a lot of women's matches don't seem to be close. Even the 3 set matches generally have a set or 2 where one set is a complete domination of like 6-2 so I'm not sure the matches would be that long at 5 sets.

I have also seen thoughts that the men's should be brought down to 3 sets to lengthen careers and help prevent injuries. I'm not a fan of that idea. 5 sets give a lot more opportunity to ease into the match and make a comeback, which makes it more exciting.

agree with all the above.

 

[EspaDa]

France should have won this tournament, fuck Portugal! We can close the thread now.