Comparable to Tennis Superstars

[sunnyIce]

I dunno, I sometimes see a lot of likeliness to what's happening in today's tennis world and for the past few years as well. I'm a huge tennis fan btw and always see some comparable characteristics, style, panache, fight, gusto, hype, etc.

I look at the current crop and can't help but think:
Alberto is comparable to Federer,
Froome to Nadal,
Nibali to Djokovic.

Maybe Qyintana to Murray? And so on.

What do you guys think. Ever found yourself making these comparisons in your head?

Should I do a poll?

 

[cellardoor]

Contador = Ivan Lendl
Froome = Jeremy Bates

 

[valentius borealis]

Tony Martin's pain face reminds me of Radek Stepanek.

 

[Red Rick]

Depends a lot on who's who. Normally i'd say Canc is federer, but if you go with Contador as Federer, Purito has to be Roddick (one trick pony who lost the chance on this biggest victory to the best of his generation) and the Vuelta 2012 is Wimby 2009

 

[SeriousSam]

So Contador is old and done, Froome young and done, Nibali dominant but unlucky and Quintana dour?

 

[Echoes]

Re:

Contador = Ivan Lendl

The thread is already silly but this ...

I mean when I think of Ivan Lendl, the first thing that springs to my mind is ... prolificness ... The exact opposite of Contador ...

94 ATP tournament wins... 53 non-ATP tournament wins including 37 with an 8-man field or more. 5x the Antwerp ECC. The only player to win the diamond racquet. 1071 match wins in ATP sanctioned tournaments. 270 weeks as World #1. Lendl, it's a rider who wins all classics, 5 World championship and the Tour of Italy but no Bore de France. But of course, on a forum that does not know what classics are, you can't expect posters to know about non-Grand Slam tennis.

Lendl was a true competitor, not a showman with a lame victory salute. He was very influential for the next generations. He brought fitness into the game, the inside-out forehand was a Lendl revolution made possible by the new racquets. Sampras never denied he owed a lot to Lendl. He's the greatest baseliner of all time and if it wasn't for his poor net game, I'd say the greatest player in graphite era. The Father of Modern Tennis.

I wasn't even a fan of his because I'm a serve & volley fan but have to accept he was the best player of his generation.

 

[cellardoor]

Re: Re:

but have to accept he was the best player of his generation.

I see we basically agree then.

 

[Gloin22]

Comparison of Nibali and Djokovic is the most amusing one.

Would be equivelent of Djokovic only doing well in 1 Grand Slam and failing other tournaments

Yea definitely accurate

 

[gunara]

GT wise, if Contador is almost Federer, Nibali and Froome are not yet Nadal or Djokovic, not close enough.

 

[Asero831]

Cancellara - Serena Williams

 

[The Hitch]

Nibali- Djokovic? lololol.

More like Cillic. Decent player who can get a big win if the stars align and all the better guys go missing for some reason.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Cancellara - Federer
The great swiss superstar personality
Albasini - Wawrinka
"That other Swiss who' actually also pretty damn good"

Djokovic reminds me of Sagan, if anybody.

 

[sunnyIce]

Some good ones here. Purito = Roddick. Lol Lol.

Well, I went with the Top 3 currently comparison. Some of the logic was;

Contador = Federer - Top dog for several years, one of the seniors on the tour. Has a great palmares. Good with media Wide arsenal of skills and very good all around the calendar on various GTs. Also stylish and has some panache on the field.

Froome = Nadal - The next top dog who commands attention and respect from fellow peeps. Has a slightly lesser range than AC, but what he does he does really well. Puts his head down and grinds it out, doesnt give up. Also, less pleasing on the eye Well know for the stamina and of course some clinic talks in the background

Nibs - Djok - To me he doesnt quite resemble the presence of the top 2. Yes, I realize this forum is big fans of his and they immediately show his resume. But when the Top 2 are in song, more often than not, I would think he comes second behind them. Has better range than froome but can be less gritty. Also has aggresiveness to back it up like Djok. Good all around the calendar.

Quint = Murray; really, only becuase he is the closest outsider looking in. WIll probably take the chips when the others are out. But on a serious note, can he take on all 3 and win. I dont think so.

Others....

Valverde = Ferrer
Mollema/Rogers = Berdych
Cancellara = Tsonga
Gasquet = Bardet
.
.
.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Some good ones here. Purito = Roddick. Lol Lol.

Well, I went with the Top 3 currently comparison. Some of the logic was;

Contador = Federer - Top dog for several years, one of the seniors on the tour. Has a great palmares. Good with media Wide arsenal of skills and very good all around the calendar on various GTs. Also stylish and has some panache on the field.

Froome = Nadal - The next top dog who commands attention and respect from fellow peeps. Has a slightly lesser range than AC, but what he does he does really well. Puts his head down and grinds it out, doesnt give up. Also, less pleasing on the eye Well know for the stamina and of course some clinic talks in the background

Nibs - Djok - To me he doesnt quite resemble the presence of the top 2. Yes, I realize this forum is big fans of his and they immediately show his resume. But when the Top 2 are in song, more often than not, I would think he comes second behind them. Has better range than froome but can be less gritty. Also has aggresiveness to back it up like Djok. Good all around the calendar.

Quint = Murray; really, only becuase he is the closest outsider looking in. WIll probably take the chips when the others are out. But on a serious note, can he take on all 3 and win. I dont think so.

Others....

Valverde = Ferrer
Mollema/Rogers = Berdych
Cancellara = Tsonga
Gasquet = Bardet
.
.
.

Actually Djokovich has been the best of the big four in recent years. The Federer-Contador comparison doesn't hold too, as Federer is, unfortunately ( ) a bit too much past his prime.

 

[qwer]

Contador is djokovic/federer. Froome is stan the man because he has a great acelleration, nibali is murray because he will never be the best and quintana is bouchard, good but way overrated

 

[Red Rick]

Thread's pointless anyway, too many variables and sports are too incomparible. Big 4 comparison sucks completely.

Closest things you can get are things like Schleck/Coria or Nalby comparisons

 

[ninjadriver]

I dunno, I sometimes see a lot of likeliness to what's happening in today's tennis world and for the past few years as well. I'm a huge tennis fan btw and always see some comparable characteristics, style, panache, fight, gusto, hype, etc.

I look at the current crop and can't help but think:
Alberto is comparable to Federer,
Froome to Nadal,
Nibali to Djokovic.

Maybe Qyintana to Murray? And so on.

What do you guys think. Ever found yourself making these comparisons in your head?

Should I do a poll?

Federer and Nadal are washed up, and Contador and Froome aren't.

Nibali and Djokovic are at the top of their games, so I like that one. Quintana still has something to prove, but he will prove it shortly. Murray has perpetual emotional and mental inconsistencies, still has a lot to prove, and possibly will not.

Forgetting about retirement issues, Contador is Sampras, Borg or Laver, whichever is your GOAT.

Ullrich is Serena, supremely talented, but not always in the best shape???

Vinokourov might be Connors, moody, dour, sour and temperamental.

 

[SeriousSam]

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

 

[Arredondo]

Re:

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

You're right. Although Nadal is the GOAT, not because his h2h against Fed is 23-10, but because he beated Federer in his prime at his tournament/kingdom (Wimbledon 2008). Federer never beated Nadal on his kingdom, Rolland Garros, during his career. He won RG 2009 because Soderling knocked Nadal out.

 

[Arredondo]

Re:

Depends a lot on who's who. Normally i'd say Canc is federer, but if you go with Contador as Federer, Purito has to be Roddick (one trick pony who lost the chance on this biggest victory to the best of his generation) and the Vuelta 2012 is Wimby 2009

To even call a rider like Purito a one trick pony is beyond stupid .

And i don't know why you call Roddick a one trick pony? Because of his style of play? Or because he only won a US open?

 

[staubsauger]

So Pantani is Monica Seles and Virenque is Gabriela Sabatini!?

 

[Moviestar]

Contador> Federer. Both have won everything they could win. ( All GT's vs All GS)
Froome> Murray. Both started to win big events not so long ago, recent two years.
Nibali> Nadal. One season in topforma, the next season nowhere. Both have the similarity to focus mainly on one main goal ( Tour vs RG)
Valverde> Djokovic. Both are no.1 in consistancy, but yet they lack one biggie. Tour vs RG
Rodriguez> Wawrinka. Since they stepped out of the shadow of their main competitor Valverde and Federer, they have succesfully build a niche of their own.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re: Re:

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

You're right. Although Nadal is the GOAT, not because his h2h against Fed is 23-10, but because he beated Federer in his prime at his tournament/kingdom (Wimbledon 2008). Federer never beated Nadal on his kingdom, Rolland Garros, during his career. He won RG 2009 because Soderling knocked Nadal out.

That is because Nadal is the best clay specialist ever. Nadal may be better on clay than Federer ever was on grass or hard court, but Federer was all around a better tennis player in his prime. He's also that male tennis player who holds the most records. Federer is arguably the GOAT, from an objective point of view.

 

[Arredondo]

Re: Re:

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

You're right. Although Nadal is the GOAT, not because his h2h against Fed is 23-10, but because he beated Federer in his prime at his tournament/kingdom (Wimbledon 2008). Federer never beated Nadal on his kingdom, Rolland Garros, during his career. He won RG 2009 because Soderling knocked Nadal out.

That is because Nadal is the best clay specialist ever. Nadal may be better on clay than Federer ever was on grass or hard court, but Federer was all around a better tennis player in his prime. He's also that male tennis player who holds the most records. Federer is arguably the GOAT, from an objective point of view.

But Federer is known as a Grass specialist. He holds the record at Wimbledon with Sampras with 7 titles. Nadal didn't won 20 GS's because of all his injuries. But Nadal in his prime was a better player then Fed. He beated Roger on grass (Wimbledon) and hardcourt (AO), in a time when Federer was still at the top of his game. I still think you can't someone name the GOAT if his big rival has a h2h of 23-10 (also on hardcourt Nadal has a better record). And Nadal is 4 years younger, so he can easily get 17 GS's too.

I don't think Federer will win another GS. The only chance he's got imo is Wimbledon this year.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re: Re:

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

You're right. Although Nadal is the GOAT, not because his h2h against Fed is 23-10, but because he beated Federer in his prime at his tournament/kingdom (Wimbledon 2008). Federer never beated Nadal on his kingdom, Rolland Garros, during his career. He won RG 2009 because Soderling knocked Nadal out.

That is because Nadal is the best clay specialist ever. Nadal may be better on clay than Federer ever was on grass or hard court, but Federer was all around a better tennis player in his prime. He's also that male tennis player who holds the most records. Federer is arguably the GOAT, from an objective point of view.

But Federer is known as a Grass specialist. He holds the record at Wimbledon with Sampras with 7 titles. Nadal didn't won 20 GS's because of all his injuries. But Nadal in his prime was a better player then Fed. He beated Roger on grass (Wimbledon) and hardcourt (AO), in a time when Federer was still at the top of his game. I still think you can't someone name the GOAT if his big rival has a h2h of 23-10 (also on hardcourt Nadal has a better record). And Nadal is 4 years younger, so he can easily get 17 GS's too.

I don't think Federer will win another GS. The only chance he's got imo is Wimbledon this year.

Federer had his greatest years from 2004-2009, when he was 23-28 yrs old (the normal age for male tennis players to have their prime). He was beaten by Nadal at Rolland Garros four times in a row and twice in other Grand Slam finals, admittedly.
However, Nadal didn't reach a lot of GS finals outside of Rolland Garros, when Federer was at his best (04-09). That explains why the h2h stats are so much in Nadal's favour. Nadal rarely met federer when Federer was in his prime, because he was not a very versatile player who could reach the SF or Final in all 4 grand slams in one year. That ofcourse changed later, when Federer lost some of his top shape and then both 2 met more often.
I don't think Nadal will ever reach 17 grand slams, to be honest. Maybe one more win in Rolland Garros.