2019 Roland Garros Men's Final: Rafael Nadal vs. Dominic Thiem

[don_fabio]

The 3 of them far exceeded expectations in terms of slam count, including Roger. I know many Roger fans don't feel that way but 20 majors is nuts. You can argue he should have won more, and I'd say the same about Nadal who definitely left a few on the table too (these things have a way of balancing out, you lose some you should have won, you win some you should have lost)

This is well said. It's a sport and you can't expect a player to win all.

What amazes me too is how the careers of the best players are now much longer. They get better treatment nowadays than the Queen of England. Even when they get injuries it looks like something they will manage (unless it's a hip) and keep going strong for more years, which eventually makes a breakthrough of young guys way more difficult.

 

[Moxie]

I know some will claim I'm biased but I just find it odd to look at a guy who won 18 majors and go "but the YEC." I know this might seem like it goes against my "we shouldn't blindly look at major numbers" thing but these guys have such insane overall resumes that these small shortcomings don't matter much to me.

Again, you're giving good perspective. There is a difference between an amazing career, and how it's viewed in the Fedalovic Wars. Even those that pretend not to trade in it, do. As a Nadal fan, if he quit tomorrow, I'd be proud and amazed. Federer fans and Djokovic ones should be, too. But we get caught up in the GOAT race, and comparing resumes. And bare-knuckle it over details. Too much is never enough. I appreciate your notion that we sit back and just enjoy.

 

[MikeOne]

Maybe it sounded that way to you but that was never my point. The basketball players may not run at full speed every time up the court, but even going on average at 60-70% speed for an extended period of time is very demanding when you consider the half-court work players have to do.

what do you mean extended period of time? 38 mins of playing b-ball is considered a lot for 1 game. How much of that 38 mins do they run up/down the court? 15-20 mins? you consider that at the same level as a 3-4 hour tennis match? there is A LOT more running here... a lot more than a mere 15-20 mins, even with the cheap points, changeovers etc...

Fair point, but not everyone who plays tennis copes with unbearable physical breakdown either. If you look at ex-tennis players, they are by and large in excellent health.

Hewitt has hip problems, Agassi has a f-ed up back, Sampras had shoulder, back problems, Federer has recurring back issues, Del Po shot both wrists, Murray has a massive hip problem, Milos hamstring, Nadal has had issues all over, on/off.. The list of bad injuries for tennis players is crazy high... more so that for avg. Basketball player. Name me one tennis player who hasn't dealt with injuries? It's extremely demanding to 1. Play all year long w/o breaks 2. play 3-4 hour matches on a regular basis (yes, for men, it's regular stuff), explosive running (side to side, front, back) and hitting thousands of serves, groundstrokes etc... I guarantee you that if we analyzed, tennis players suffer from injuries more than basketball players

DB's, wide receivers, and running backs in high-level football are also much more athletic, on average, than tennis players.

no-one is talking about raw athleticism, it's physical demands. Basketball is NOT more physically demanding than tennis. Basketball requires more wingspan, height, this doesn't mean it's more physically demanding in terms of stamina and how tough the sport is on the body. Requiring more Athleticism is not necessarily = more physically demanding. One thing about basketball is height of the rim, 10 feet. This means that it is extremely important to be tall. Lebron James isn't that impressive athletically if you reduced his size to 6'1... it's his combination of size and athleticism that makes him formidable. Just because he's much bigger than Nadal doesn't mean he's much more athletic, he's just much bigger. Let's do a test. Let's put rim at 5 feet in height. How much of an advantage would Lebron James have now on Nadal? In fact, he would probably be at a disadvantage as he would have to go through Nadal to dunk or shoot as Nadal is the smaller guy who would be in the way, whereas Nadal could possibly go under Lebron to score... So the height of the rim is a big factor in why height is so important, take that away and basketball players don't have much of an advantage against shorter guys. Height alone is not athleticism... it's just an unfair advantage on a basketball court. Make all those guys 6'1 whilst maintaining their raw athleticism (speed, strength, leaping ability) and all of a sudden they aren't so impressive when compared to tennis players, soccer players etc...

 

[DarthFed]

what do you mean extended period of time? 38 mins of playing b-ball is considered a lot for 1 game. How much of that 38 mins do they run up/down the court? 15-20 mins? you consider that at the same level as a 3-4 hour tennis match? there is A LOT more running here... a lot more than a mere 15-20 mins, even with the cheap points, changeovers etc...



Hewitt has hip problems, Agassi has a f-ed up back, Sampras had shoulder, back problems, Federer has recurring back issues, Del Po shot both wrists, Murray has a massive hip problem, Milos hamstring, Nadal has had issues all over, on/off.. The list of bad injuries for tennis players is crazy high... more so that for avg. Basketball player. Name me one tennis player who hasn't dealt with injuries? It's extremely demanding to 1. Play all year long w/o breaks 2. play 3-4 hour matches on a regular basis (yes, for men, it's regular stuff), explosive running (side to side, front, back) and hitting thousands of serves, groundstrokes etc... I guarantee you that if we analyzed, tennis players suffer from injuries more than basketball players



no-one is talking about raw athleticism, it's physical demands. Basketball is NOT more physically demanding than tennis. Basketball requires more wingspan, height, this doesn't mean it's more physically demanding in terms of stamina and how tough the sport is on the body. Requiring more Athleticism is not necessarily = more physically demanding. One thing about basketball is height of the rim, 10 feet. This means that it is extremely important to be tall. Lebron James isn't that impressive athletically if you reduced his size to 6'1... it's his combination of size and athleticism that makes him formidable. Just because he's much bigger than Nadal doesn't mean he's much more athletic, he's just much bigger. Let's do a test. Let's put rim at 5 feet in height. How much of an advantage would Lebron James have now on Nadal? In fact, he would probably be at a disadvantage as he would have to go through Nadal to dunk or shoot as Nadal is the smaller guy who would be in the way, whereas Nadal could possibly go under Lebron to score... So the height of the rim is a big factor in why height is so important, take that away and basketball players don't have much of an advantage against shorter guys. Height alone is not athleticism... it's just an unfair advantage on a basketball court. Make all those guys 6'1 whilst maintaining their raw athleticism (speed, strength, leaping ability) and all of a sudden they aren't so impressive when compared to tennis players, soccer players etc...

First of all you can admit you don't watch basketball at all. As far as raw athleticism goes there is no comparison between the average basketball player and the average tennis player. Of course both sports require different skill sets. Jumping ability means very little in tennis as an example. But as far as pure athleticism goes there is no comparison. If you think Nadal, Federer and Djokovic can jump as high or run as fast as LeBron or other elite athletes in the NBA...I can't help you.

Also, exactly how long do you think the actual game action is in a 3 hour tennis match. The average basketball game takes 2.5 hours or 150 minutes for 48 minutes of game time. I think we can say with absolute certainty that the average 3 hour match has way less than 90 minutes where the ball is actually in play. Players take over 20 seconds between serves, changeovers, even time between first and second serve. It'd be interesting to see if they ever kept the stats but I bet in a 3 hour match the ball is in play less than an hour.

 

[DarthFed]

Again, you're giving good perspective. There is a difference between an amazing career, and how it's viewed in the Fedalovic Wars. Even those that pretend not to trade in it, do. As a Nadal fan, if he quit tomorrow, I'd be proud and amazed. Federer fans and Djokovic ones should be, too. But we get caught up in the GOAT race, and comparing resumes. And bare-knuckle it over details. Too much is never enough. I appreciate your notion that we sit back and just enjoy.

Unrealistic and flawed viewpoint. In individual sport it is all about comparing the resumes. And if your career is weaker than one of your contemporaries how great was it truly? And if your career is weaker than 2 guys from your era...

These guys are rich beyond their dreams but they are chasing glory and in one-on-one sports glory is about proving yourself superior to the rest. Most likely two of the big 3 will finish majorly disappointed with tons of regrets. I don't feel sorry for them, money is a great thing and they will still enjoy a bit of fame despite being inferior.

 

[Moxie]

Unrealistic and flawed viewpoint. In individual sport it is all about comparing the resumes. And if your career is weaker than one of your contemporaries how great was it truly? And if your career is weaker than 2 guys from your era...

These guys are rich beyond their dreams but they are chasing glory and in one-on-one sports glory is about proving yourself superior to the rest. Most likely two of the big 3 will finish majorly disappointed with tons of regrets. I don't feel sorry for them, money is a great thing and they will still enjoy a bit of fame despite being inferior.

You really have a zero-sum-game view of the world. If one wins, another loses. You think that one will come out on top, and the others will fall into obscurity. This is a ridiculous notion. The narrative is already all-but written. They are all 3 in the HOF. That's done. And this era will be remembered for all of them, like it or not. The Federer/Nadal rivalry will be one for the ages, like it or not. The rest of the narrative will be down to fine points as to how the 3 finish up in the next few years that are left to them. You want Roger to finish up the clear GOAT, but I think that's already a difficult proposition, in this era.

 

[DarthFed]

You really have a zero-sum-game view of the world. If one wins, another loses. You think that one will come out on top, and the others will fall into obscurity. This is a ridiculous notion. The narrative is already all-but written. They are all 3 in the HOF. That's done. And this era will be remembered for all of them, like it or not. The Federer/Nadal rivalry will be one for the ages, like it or not. The rest of the narrative will be down to fine points as to how the 3 finish up in the next few years that are left to them. You want Roger to finish up the clear GOAT, but I think that's already a difficult proposition, in this era.

It will take awhile for any of them to fade into obscurity. It just will happen quite a bit faster for 2 of them...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You really have a zero-sum-game view of the world. If one wins, another loses. You think that one will come out on top, and the others will fall into obscurity. This is a ridiculous notion. The narrative is already all-but written. They are all 3 in the HOF. That's done. And this era will be remembered for all of them, like it or not. The Federer/Nadal rivalry will be one for the ages, like it or not. The rest of the narrative will be down to fine points as to how the 3 finish up in the next few years that are left to them. You want Roger to finish up the clear GOAT, but I think that's already a difficult proposition, in this era.

HOF does not mean anything in tennis. Michael Chang and Andy Roddick are also inducted into HOF.

 

[Moxie]

It will take awhile for any of them to fade into obscurity. It just will happen quite a bit faster for 2 of them...

This is delusional. They will all be remembered forever.

 

[DarthFed]

This is delusional. They will all be remembered forever.

Forever is a long time my dear

 

[Moxie]

Forever is a long time my dear

There are barely any youtube videos of Rod Laver, and yet we venerate him. FFS, people still talk about Pancho Gonzalez and Bill Tilden. Do you really think that one or two of Fedalovic is going to sink into obscurity? Not a snowball's chance. Tennis holds onto its traditions and its champions. Forever is a long time. But it doesn't seem to be too long for tennis memory.

 

[MikeOne]

First of all you can admit you don't watch basketball at all. As far as raw athleticism goes there is no comparison between the average basketball player and the average tennis player. Of course both sports require different skill sets. Jumping ability means very little in tennis as an example. But as far as pure athleticism goes there is no comparison. If you think Nadal, Federer and Djokovic can jump as high or run as fast as LeBron or other elite athletes in the NBA...I can't help you.

Also, exactly how long do you think the actual game action is in a 3 hour tennis match. The average basketball game takes 2.5 hours or 150 minutes for 48 minutes of game time. I think we can say with absolute certainty that the average 3 hour match has way less than 90 minutes where the ball is actually in play. Players take over 20 seconds between serves, changeovers, even time between first and second serve. It'd be interesting to see if they ever kept the stats but I bet in a 3 hour match the ball is in play less than an hour.

i played a lot of basketball in high school and college and you yourself show you don't know anything about basketball. Lebron James, who is considered iron man, averages 38 mins of play time and this 38 mins is not non-stop running. Even within the 38 mins, there are a lot of stops and mini-breaks..

Take the time to read before responding, i very clearly stated the core argument was not about raw athleticism but physical demands on body... two different things. Even so, height is not athleticism and many in basketball have height as an advantage over tennis players. You really think a 6'1 version of Lebron is much more athletic than nadal, djokovic. murray? it's his sheer size + athleticism that makes him special, you must know that. But my core argument is not about raw athleticism, basketball players are on avg more athletic but the game is not more physically taxing than tennis; in fact, injury stats and logic shows tennis is more physically taxing. There are more injuries in tennis, they get no breaks all year round, b-ball players get a massive break throughout the year. Tennis is more physical taxing, no question about it. Not sure why it's so difficult for people to understand a sport can require raw athleticism but doesn't mean it is more physically taxing. A marathon runner doesn't have to athletic, nor someone on tour de france, yet these sports are extremely physically taxing.

 

[Ricardo]

HOF does not mean anything in tennis. Michael Chang and Andy Roddick are also inducted into HOF.

i am sorry but what high standard do you think a mere tennis fan should set for the players? they may be nothing if you just mouth off, but anyone objective can see that they are truly one in a million greats....its just easy for people sitting behind screen to write them off in a mere few words, as if they know anything about the sport.

 

[Ricardo]

It will take awhile for any of them to fade into obscurity. It just will happen quite a bit faster for 2 of them...

I just don't buy this all or nothing thing, so if one is not the GOAT regarded by everyone then he is nothing? first there is not a universally accepted criteria for it, its always subject to interpretation one way or another. you want to be simplistic about it and think its either be all or be zero, that's just wrong and that's not how reasonably experienced fans look at these things.

 

[Ricardo]

First of all you can admit you don't watch basketball at all. As far as raw athleticism goes there is no comparison between the average basketball player and the average tennis player. Of course both sports require different skill sets. Jumping ability means very little in tennis as an example. But as far as pure athleticism goes there is no comparison. If you think Nadal, Federer and Djokovic can jump as high or run as fast as LeBron or other elite athletes in the NBA...I can't help you.

Also, exactly how long do you think the actual game action is in a 3 hour tennis match. The average basketball game takes 2.5 hours or 150 minutes for 48 minutes of game time. I think we can say with absolute certainty that the average 3 hour match has way less than 90 minutes where the ball is actually in play. Players take over 20 seconds between serves, changeovers, even time between first and second serve. It'd be interesting to see if they ever kept the stats but I bet in a 3 hour match the ball is in play less than an hour.

Fedalovic don't need to jump high, what gave you that notion as basis for comparison when we are talking tennis players? tennis players need very subtle set of athleticism which you obviously fail to see, since all you talk about in that regard is really skin deep. I don't understand as a Federer fan you cannot see the amazing athleticism required in tennis, and think it's inferior to basketball......maybe you have been watching the wrong sport. In general, basketball tends to impress the simplistic people, I mean it's really easy to wow at how high a player jumps for a dunk, airtime, etc. Basketball fans are very different to tennis fans, that I am sure of.

 

[Ricardo]

It will take awhile for any of them to fade into obscurity. It just will happen quite a bit faster for 2 of them...

really? exactly how did you deduce that conclusion? fans still talk about Pancho, Laver, Rosewall, Hoad etc passionately from 50 years ago, whats your evidence about fading into obscurity?

 

[Federberg]

First of all you can admit you don't watch basketball at all. As far as raw athleticism goes there is no comparison between the average basketball player and the average tennis player. Of course both sports require different skill sets. Jumping ability means very little in tennis as an example. But as far as pure athleticism goes there is no comparison. If you think Nadal, Federer and Djokovic can jump as high or run as fast as LeBron or other elite athletes in the NBA...I can't help you.

Also, exactly how long do you think the actual game action is in a 3 hour tennis match. The average basketball game takes 2.5 hours or 150 minutes for 48 minutes of game time. I think we can say with absolute certainty that the average 3 hour match has way less than 90 minutes where the ball is actually in play. Players take over 20 seconds between serves, changeovers, even time between first and second serve. It'd be interesting to see if they ever kept the stats but I bet in a 3 hour match the ball is in play less than an hour.

Look... I love basketball but... you simply can't compare the stamina required in tennis to basketball. Tennis has an order of magnitude higher requirement. I'm amazed that this can actually be argued with any seriousness. As for athleticism there are different requirements. I won't say that the ability to jump higher in one sport implies a higher athletic quotient than the other sport. Short burst acceleration and change of direction, while implementing incredible hand eye coordination is deserving of a great deal of respect. And that's without the fact that basketball... and American football is inherently more start stop than tennis. And that's not even bringing up the fact that tennis players don't get plays drawn up for them. The mental toll of being out there and making decisions on the fly by yourself is just a different league of difficulty.

 

[Federberg]

i am sorry but what high standard do you think a mere tennis fan should set for the players? they may be nothing if you just mouth off, but anyone objective can see that they are truly one in a million greats....its just easy for people sitting behind screen to write them off in a mere few words, as if they know anything about the sport.

I totally agree with this. If anything we underestimate how good some top 20 players actually are. In team sports like basketball some relatively mediocre players are elevated because of who they team up with. In tennis these guys are on their own. Their achievements are awesome and frankly tennis players have historically been exposed to greater depth of competition than basketball players. And that's not even taking into account that team players can be deficient in areas but are protected by the team concept. Tennis players are on their own. There is literally nowhere to hide

 

[Federberg]

I just wanted to point out also that Thiem did not get a fair shot at Nadal due to no fault of his own and completely the greed of the tournament organizers. This is why by the way Kermode was ousted

I'm sorry but Thiem is in his peak years of physicality. I can't give him a pass for his journey to the final. He lost, no excuses. Simply can't diminish Rafa's achievement as much as it turns my stomach. 12 is just ridunculous

 

[DarthFed]

Fedalovic don't need to jump high, what gave you that notion as basis for comparison when we are talking tennis players? tennis players need very subtle set of athleticism which you obviously fail to see, since all you talk about in that regard is really skin deep. I don't understand as a Federer fan you cannot see the amazing athleticism required in tennis, and think it's inferior to basketball......maybe you have been watching the wrong sport. In general, basketball tends to impress the simplistic people, I mean it's really easy to wow at how high a player jumps for a dunk, airtime, etc. Basketball fans are very different to tennis fans, that I am sure of.

You clearly didn't read through Mike's posts. The comparison he made is that basketball players are seen as having more raw athleticism because of their height. A point which really doesn't make any sense.

I am well aware that they are two very different sports and that they require different skill sets, different athleticism, but the comparison he's making was down to pure athleticism. And Im guessing you don't bother to watch the "simplistic" sport where people just jump high and dunk so this is a pointless conversation to begin with.