ReadingPhilly wrote:I think you have to factor that into it. He couldn't stay on the court for an extended period of time.

That's true, but winning 14 majors is pretty impressive and beating the guy who is considered the greatest of all time more than double the times you lost to him in your matchups when you are both in your prime has to mean something.

I think Novak wins more than 17 anyway and will end up being considered the best of all time when it is all said and done.

phillychuck wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:Outside of Nadal, who did Federer have to go through though? Novak has gone through Roger (Tail end of his career but still an all time great) as well as Nadal and Murray.

I think I saw Federer is 11-23 against Nadal, which isn't a great stat when Nadal was probably the only guy who you can argue is better than what Novak is facing now.

Federer went through Djokovic and Murray at times, plus an older Aggasi, Roddick, and Hewitt. Federer had to beat Nadal pre-injuries in his prime, and Djokovic has had a slightly less ferocious Nadal for the most part. They are maybe the two all-time best. McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Asche, Nastase, and Borg had each other to play against, and it seemed careers in general lasted longer back then. Heck, Connors beat Ken Rosewall in two finals in 1974, and Rosewall was a nemesis of Rod Laver.

I think Murray is better than old Agassi, Roddick and Hewitt were. Young Djokovic is probably equivalent to old Federer. Just so hard to compare different eras. One thing Joker has going for him is he did end Federer's 10 consecutive finals streak by beating him in the Aussie.

If Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic all played tennis at the same time in their primes, none of them would probably be considered the greatest because they would all be stealing majors from each other and probably end up with 10 each.

heyeaglefn wrote:

phillychuck wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:Outside of Nadal, who did Federer have to go through though? Novak has gone through Roger (Tail end of his career but still an all time great) as well as Nadal and Murray.

I think I saw Federer is 11-23 against Nadal, which isn't a great stat when Nadal was probably the only guy who you can argue is better than what Novak is facing now.

Federer went through Djokovic and Murray at times, plus an older Aggasi, Roddick, and Hewitt. Federer had to beat Nadal pre-injuries in his prime, and Djokovic has had a slightly less ferocious Nadal for the most part. They are maybe the two all-time best. McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Asche, Nastase, and Borg had each other to play against, and it seemed careers in general lasted longer back then. Heck, Connors beat Ken Rosewall in two finals in 1974, and Rosewall was a nemesis of Rod Laver.

If Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic all played tennis at the same time in their primes, none of them would probably be considered the greatest because they would all be stealing majors from each other and probably end up with 10 each.

Agreed. If not for Nadal, Fed would probably have 22 to 25 majors. Djokovic doesn't have a true rival and probably never will. I'd be shocked if he doesn't pass Federer's total. He's 29 and will be the favorite at each of the next 8 majors (can't think of a young guy who is ready to come at the king). Still think top Fed beats top Novak but we'll never see it.

And Nadal beat Novak 4 times in GS Finals as well.

Sharapova caught doping apparently

2 year ban

Bye maria

Comment on the ESPN story:

Its probably fair, but interesting the way crime and punishment is viewed by humans...a rapist at Stanford gets 6 months in jail but an athlete who uses banned means to improve performance is banned 2 years

Doesn't the 2 year ban mean that they think she unintentionally took the banned substance?

Ace Rothstein wrote:Doesn't the 2 year ban mean that they think she unintentionally took the banned substance?

Yes, it is pretty certain she knew what she was doing.

This is the same thing from January right? I think she was knowingly taking it, but did not know that it was put on the prohibited list once the new year hit. It had been legal before that.

swishnicholson wrote:Comment on the ESPN story:

Its probably fair, but interesting the way crime and punishment is viewed by humans...a rapist at Stanford gets 6 months in jail but an athlete who uses banned means to improve performance is banned 2 years

Did I miss where she is going to jail

pacino wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:Comment on the ESPN story:

Its probably fair, but interesting the way crime and punishment is viewed by humans...a rapist at Stanford gets 6 months in jail but an athlete who uses banned means to improve performance is banned 2 years

Did I miss where she is going to jail

I get your point but in her shoes given those two options the ban is worse than six months in jail. I would think most athletes would feel that way. Minus the sex offender label.

swishnicholson wrote:Comment on the ESPN story:

Its probably fair, but interesting the way crime and punishment is viewed by humans...a rapist at Stanford gets 6 months in jail but an athlete who uses banned means to improve performance is banned 2 years

dopers are the REAL victims.

#DoperLivesMatter

in all honesty, 2 years seems excessive, but what a horrible point.

ReadingPhilly wrote:This is the same thing from January right? I think she was knowingly taking it, but did not know that it was put on the prohibited list once the new year hit. It had been legal before that.

Yes, this is exactly correct. I feel bad for her because it's not really her job to know what's been added to the doping list (I mean, I know it is in the grand scheme but her manager or trainer or someone should have that on their non-existent job description). It really looks like someone from her team dropped the ball.

JUburton wrote:

ReadingPhilly wrote:This is the same thing from January right? I think she was knowingly taking it, but did not know that it was put on the prohibited list once the new year hit. It had been legal before that.

Yes, this is exactly correct. I feel bad for her because it's not really her job to know what's been added to the doping list (I mean, I know it is in the grand scheme but her manager or trainer or someone should have that on their non-existent job description). It really looks like someone from her team dropped the ball.

Should have said "let"

Nadal out of Wimbledon as well with wrist injury.