Tennis

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Are you not entertained?
\
7srfix.gif


Spaniard...Spaniard...Spaniard...!


7svsvk.gif
 
Last edited:
It happens eventually, the changing of the guard. Djokovic has more trophies to come but we're watching the future of the sport in alvarez, what a great champion
It did feel a little bit like that. Novak; The last of the big 3 still standing. Novak played an exceptional match, Alcaraz was his equal. You just felt there were some key point where Novak was just not moving his feet fast enough. Im sure Novak was thinking to himself ' if I was a few years younger you wouldn't stand a chance kid'!

Still think Novak has more Slams in him but he probably realises all his younger competitors are just going to keep getting better as they reach their peak and unfortunately for Novak he is well past that now.

Novak is still the GOAT! Although my favourite will always be Roger, his shot making and the way he conducted himself on court.
 
Yeah we've failed again this year lol

Well Skupski did win the men's doubles title! :lol

She might have been able to get over that if there was more time. Best of 3 sets just isn't enough. To be honest I think it's unfair.

Agreed! Yep, best of seven should make it more fair to everyone ;):lol
 
Well Skupski did win the men's doubles title! :lol



Agreed! Yep, best of seven should make it more fair to everyone ;):lol
:lol F that. Best of 5 is sufficient. I'm sure even the best male players can fall prey to their own nerves on the big stage but there's time enough for them to settle down and focus and eventually the rightful winner emerges. The women's game is arguably less forgiving. You can't afford to be jittery at all or you're gone in just 2 sets - all for something that can affect anyone and was maybe only going to be temporary. But if they play to minimum 3 sets you can more safely say that a player who loses 3 in a row was simply not going to find what they needed to beat their opponent and the right player definitely wins.

I think this is why the women's game lacks dominant players compared to the mens. Granted I'm not sure why this seems to be the case now moreso than it was in the past where you had Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Venus & Serena...so there may be other factors.
 
That's a good point as it's the female that composes themselves the best from the outset that will likely win a best of 3. I still think everyone should play best of 5, although that's maybe another argument, and not all events have this for men either
 
:lol F that. Best of 5 is sufficient. I'm sure even the best male players can fall prey to their own nerves on the big stage but there's time enough for them to settle down and focus and eventually the rightful winner emerges. The women's game is arguably less forgiving. You can't afford to be jittery at all or you're gone in just 2 sets - all for something that can affect anyone and was maybe only going to be temporary. But if they play to minimum 3 sets you can more safely say that a player who loses 3 in a row was simply not going to find what they needed to beat their opponent and the right player definitely wins.

I think this is why the women's game lacks dominant players compared to the mens. Granted I'm not sure why this seems to be the case now moreso than it was in the past where you had Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Venus & Serena...so there may be other factors.

Just imagine seven sets of Simon - Murray :lol ( just kidding! Lol )

Agreed!

That's a good point as it's the female that composes themselves the best from the outset that will likely win a best of 3. I still think everyone should play best of 5, although that's maybe another argument, and not all events have this for men either

Yeah I think only the Men's singles section in slam tournaments is BO5. I remember reading Indian Wells used to be best of five.
 
Wow well done Alcaraz for taking the title! His first Wimbledon and his second grand slam title!! I had predicted for Djokovic to be the victor but Djokovic didn't have it after the start, and Alcaraz capitalized on that, certainly a tremendous feat in a grand slam final!

View attachment 650179View attachment 650180View attachment 650181View attachment 650182
Yeah I had Nole down as the winner to, simply thought Alcaraz was too raw but boy did he prove me wrong. Incredibly mature performance from such a young player. I suppose the old saying is true, if your good enough your old enough. Novak was also 20 when he won his first Slam, Rafa was even younger at 19, Roger was positively ancient at 22 when he won his first Slam :lol

The US open should be interesting, Looks like Novak was hurting at the end of the final, he threw everything he had at the kid and still came out second best. Pretty sure he will be desperate for a re-match pretty soon.
 
I agree, Carlos Alcaraz's victory at Wimbledon was incredible. He played a mature and dominant game, and he was able to capitalize on Djokovic's early struggles. Alcaraz is a special talent, and he is sure to be a major force in tennis for years to come.
 
Back
Top