Oz Open Tennis 2009

Fed loses in 4 tight sets to the Greek dude.  could be his last game at the Oz Open.

Who cares. Ash Barty beat the drug cheating, grunting Russian bitch.

Serena gone.

JGK wrote:Serena gone.

JGK wrote:Serena gone.

same old media. Serena lost/choked, not enough credit given to her opponent.

Cracker of a final for the chicks. Osaka wins and goes to No 1 but Kvitova could have a big year as well.

A stroll in the park for Djokovic... I think he could end up with 25+ Slams if he can stay fit, as potentially the last man standing of the big three/four/five, and with a younger generation who constantly flatter to deceive and fail to impose themselves over five sets.

Nice one DJoker. Not inconceivable that he could pass Nadal this year but it would be dependent on Nadal either being injured during the French Open or having a bad day whilst another player has the match of a life time (Soderling).

Wouldn't mind if he overtook Federer to be honest, Federer has always been for me the best player to watch, but his record against Novak and Nadal does leave a slightly sour taste to describing his as the best of all time whereas if Djoker overtook him it would leave him with a better head to head record against both the top players of his era, and the most slams.

But really, I don't give a f*ck as long as Nadal doesn't get to 20.

Federer has always had the disadvantage (in terms of judging by head to head records) of being 5 or 6 years older than the other two, he’s been written off time after time ever since he lost to Nadal in the Wimbledon final in 2008, and has still kept coming back and competing with the others.

I think there’s little doubt now that they are the three greatest players of all time, though. It’s all there, number of titles, consistency and durability. They’ve been helped by a very weak generation following, but to an extent the reason that generation has failed is probably the massive shadow cast over them in trying to dethrone the legends. Occasionally someone will have an inspired match and catch one of them on an off-day, but most opponents are beaten as soon as they step onto the court with them.

Don't get me wrong, I love Federer, and him winning 3 slams in the last couple of years has been absolutely amazing (and thank goodness he did or Nadal would already be level).

There's no denying Nadal's greatness either, I just can't stand the style of tennis he plays, how slow he is between points and also he was a c*nt to one of my friends who was a ball girl years ago (I only found this out recently so it isn't the source of my dislike).

Federer has actually only won 5 Slams since 2010... and yet he refuses to go away, you still wouldn’t back against him landing another Wimbledon or US.

Nadal is the Bradman of clay, but some way behind the other two on other surfaces.

There was a semi or quarter final Nadal played at Wimbledon the year before last against Gilles Simon - started just after midnight Oz time and eventually i watched every shot until Rafa won in the fifth at some time a way past 5am.

While I was watching Rafa go through that bloody unending pre-point routine where he bounces the ball exactly 329 times then fiddles with his headband then bounces another 26 times then serves, I wanted him to lose just as badly as I've ever wanted Collingwood or Chelsea to lose. Then he'd finally start playing tennis again and the effort and the shotmaking were just exceptional and for him to lose to this French hack (by comparison) would have just been ludicrous. At one stage in the middle of the fifth, he was staring at two break points and he had not served an ace for over an hour but he then put three plus a near-unplayable past Simon to hold and regain momentum which he never lost.

Yes Nadal can be bloody annoying, but no denying he's up there with the other two.

As I said, it’s hard to compare Nadal with the other two, because of the way their successes are skewed.

Looking at clay court tennis alone, Nadal is a lap ahead of the whole field, in historic terms. He might finish with 15 French Open titles if his knees hold out for a few more years. But on the faster surfaces he has only 6 Slams, to Djokovic’s 14 and Federer’s 19. Of course, if two of the four were played on clay he would be a long way clear overall, but how do you take balance of surfaces into account in deciding who is the best ever?