Tennis: Australian Open 2016 II

[Sports Enthusiast]

What is the difference between tiger and jordan (generally speaking)? Both were the undisputed best players in their respective sport for a prolonged period of time.

Novak is the undisputed #1 of his sport for the first time since roger himself. It was Roger by himself, then he got older, and it became roger/novak/nadal, but its clearly novak by himself now.

Tigger isn't the best golfer ever. He could be if he wins 4-5 more majors. Won't happen. He's the 2nd best player ever in golf. I think a better comparison would be LBJ over Woods.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

You think Nole, the best returner in the game, would do worse than Murray facing the new Raonic? As for Wawrinka, yeah, he has beaten Nole more than anyone maybe, but he is still 2 and 4 against him in that time period, and 2 and 8 over their last ten meetings. I also think that one could well argue that Stan, at 30 years of age, though still dangerous, has peaked.

I'd like to see Raonic return. Going to the net and all. He's got the serve to ace it when he needs to. The fact he can now actually move is compelling.

 

[ghosted plover]

Novak is the undisputed #1 of his sport for the first time since roger himself.

Sure seems like he's on the way to become at least the #2 of all time.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Sure seems like he's on the way to become at least the #2 of all time.

Hard to compare eras in my opinion. Its not like there's much for him. Yes he had Rafa and Fed for awhile but in Fed's case he's much younger than him. Nobody young and impressive coming up. Only thing in his way is an injury.

 

[Vamos Rafa]

I sense some racism behind that "Tigger" nickname.

 

[kihei]

I'd like to see Raonic return. Going to the net and all. He's got the serve to ace it when he needs to. The fact he can now actually move is compelling.

Wimbledon would be the Slam of opportunity if it turns out Milos' serve and volley game is for real, though it is well to keep in mind that so far grass has been Raonic's least effective surface.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Wimbledon would be the Slam of opportunity if it turns out Milos' serve and volley game is for real, though it is well to keep in mind that so far grass has been Raonic's least effective surface.

He did make the semi's there didn't he?

I'd think on clay his game would be a bust.

 

[kihei]

He did make the semi's there didn't he?

I'd think on clay his game would be a bust.

He did make the semis in 2014.

So far his lifetime record is better on clay, a respectable .600%, than on grass, an also respectable .581 (39/26 versus 18/13).

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

Grass requires better movement/agility, so it's not all that surprising that Raonic hasn't had as much success on grass yet.

He has significantly improved his footwork, though, so grass could end up being his best surface if he keeps improving his confidence at the net.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Grass requires better movement/agility, so it's not all that surprising that Raonic hasn't had as much success on grass yet.

He has significantly improved his footwork, though, so grass could end up being his best surface if he keeps improving his confidence at the net.

Perhaps but on hard court a big serve can carry you through alone. That is his biggest weapon.

 

[Hackett]

Grass requires better movement/agility, so it's not all that surprising that Raonic hasn't had as much success on grass yet.

He has significantly improved his footwork, though, so grass could end up being his best surface if he keeps improving his confidence at the net.

Was ivanisevic considered a good mover? He was certainly a huge server, and he picked up a Wimbledon title in his career.

That may be some inspiration for raonic.

 

[kihei]

Was ivanisevic considered a good mover? He was certainly a huge server, and he picked up a Wimbledon title in his career.

That may be some inspiration for raonic.

As I remember him, he was a good mover for his size and style of play, but not really a good mover by general standards. He was sort of the Ivo Karlovic model, somewhat shorter version, that God got right. His best tournament was Wimbledon, where he went to the finals three times before finally winning it in 2001 at 29, which was late to win it back in those days and definitely in the downside of his career. Everybody was happy for him. All three of his previous finals were excruciating losses, two in five sets, one in straight sets to Sampras whose scores tell the tale, 6-7, 6-7, 0-6. In the other three Slams, he went as far as the semis only once. In the French Open, where good lateral movement is a necessity, he got as far as the quarters only three times in a 12 year career. In fact, the year Goran won Wimbledon he already had stopped playing at Roland Garros, where he had lost in the first round five times in the previous six years.