Saturday, 15 July 2017

110 Things You Ought To Know About Professional Tennis

Of course, these are 110 things you ought to know - IF you're interested in tennis (obviously). This list is intended essentially for tennis fans, i.e. people who know something about the sport but probably not enough, and for self-proclaimed experts who might want to have their views challenged a bit. It's not a beginner's guide. It's not a "birds and bees" take on tennis.

The content is varied: the current mini-crisis in men's tennis, the validity and weight of certain titles and tournaments, and interesting/unusual trivia that relates to on-court as well as off-court activities. I also question and deflate many popular and absurd myths. 

Important: I am very honest and direct hence someone who doesn't beat around the bush, so if you are looking for a politically-correct, phony-baloney sugar-sweet cherry-on-top all-is-nice-sugar-and-spice don't-offend-anyone look at pro tennis - skip this text. You can find that can kind of safe drivel on any "regular", polished and sterile tennis site or column. I write about things that sports journalists wouldn't dare touch, for fear of losing their jobs or being stigmatized as chauvinists, homophobes, racists or whatever other censorship-fueled fashionable idiotic labels the Political Correctness Fascist Media Police would stick on them to ruin their careers with. This is just a blog, not a job, so I don't give three shits what anybody thinks of me or the blog - which is why this list might very well interest anyone seeking an unfiltered look at the sport.

All data in the following text is updated until and including the 2016 Wimbledon
I shall not be updating this list anymore because around that time I'd finally realized that the entire ATP tour uses illegal substances. Doping has become rampant on the tour and the prime reason the average age of pros has gone up drastically over the past decade. Widespread drug-use is a fact that disappointed me to the extent where I don't follow pro tennis anymore. I am not interested in watching drugged-up fanatics slug it out using various substances. Yes, that includes all of the Big 4 too.

I was brought to my senses in 2016. When will you? Tennis is just about the only notable sport left without major doping scandals. Squeaky-clean or hiding something? The year 20?? will give all the gullible people out there the answer they don't want to know. Yes, everyone in modern pro tennis is doped up to the hilt. That's why the average age for domination and slam-winning has gone up so drastically in the shortest amount of time, and why veterans dominate. In the past, pros would start struggling in their late 20s already and by 30 they'd usually retire, unable to compete at the highest level as they used to. But now? Veterans now have the chance to extend their careers into their mid and even late 30s, and that's certainly not a result of "advanced diets" or "quantum leaps in science". The only question remains: who will be the whistle-blower and when will he/she blow the whistle on this laughable charade?

110 Facts & Rants About Pro Tennis

1. Winning Grand Slams is (far) more important than being no. 1 in the world.

When it comes to men's tennis, becoming no. 1 is not nearly as important as winning a Grand Slam trophy. The retarded sports media certainly overplays the relevance of rankings, hence this misconception among many tennis fans, especially casual followers of tennis.

Rankings are just something a computer spits out every Monday and doesn't always reflect the reality on the court, whereas winning a grueling and tough two-week event in which the entire elite participates is a concrete achievement, and the biggest there is in this sport, by far. 
Not to mention that male players are rated by how many slams they win, first and foremost, not so much by the number of weeks they'd been no. 1, or whether they'd even been that high. 

Rafael Nadal could give three shits that he's been no. 1 for much less time than Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl, when he's won far more slams than either of them.

Ask Guillermo Villas (who was never no.1) whether he'd rather be a 4-time Slam winner or a slam-less former no. 1 such as Marcelo Rios. I think Rios would give away his top ranking achievement in a second for "just" one of Villas's 4 majors. Boris Becker was at the top for only 12 weeks, but has 6 slams, whereas Lleyton Hewitt finished two seasons as no.1 but has "only" two slams. Who's the greater player? Becker, obviously.

If you asked men's pros whether they'd rather be no. 1 or lift their first slam trophy, probably at least 90% of them would prefer a slam. Winning a slam title anyway automatically drastically increases the odds of becoming no 1 within the following 52 weeks, whereas becoming no 1 without a slam doesn't get you an inch closer to a slam title.

2. Wimbledon's grass courts used to be much quicker in the 90s.

Hence why big servers there dominated almost completely. Nowadays, the likes of Sampras and Becker would struggle to win Wimbledon - at least if they only relied on serve-and-volley - whereas Agassi would find it much easier, with offensive baseline play being the only winning formula in modern tennis. In fact, I doubt Sampras and Becker would lift more than 1 title between the two of them. Their baseline games were inconsistent and Becker moved too slowly. To win Wimbledon today, you can't just rely on your service, and the volley is less important than it used to be.

In fact, it is questionable whether a young Becker would even have a top 10 career these days. His lack of agility would have made him an easy target for the top players of today. Ironically, he would have had to go on a similar diet as his protege Djokovic.

3. On the women's side, Grand Slam wins are overrated.

Women only play best-of-3 matches in slams, so they're basically going through the same motions as when playing regular WTA events.

Winning seven matches is a much smaller achievement when having to play only best-of-3 matches.

Furthermore, only during slam events do women get to have a day's rest after nearly every match, which makes their GS tournaments actually easier to play than the regular WTA events, at least from a fitness perspective. 

If women want the same prize money as men they should play best-of-5 slams, at least in the semis and finales. After all, the Marathon is 42 km for both men and women.

4. Why the Big 4 era is somewhat overrated, hence why eras aren't comparable. 

The great thing about this era is that there are many close slam finales and semis between these rivals (rarely 3-0 blow-outs), and that all 4 play spectacular tennis from a technical point of view.

However, there are two reasons why the dominance of the Triumvirate has been made a lot easier.

a) Homogenization of courts and balls - which made the surfaces a lot less dissimilar - has made it much easier for a dominant player to sweep the entire season because adjustments to surface seasonal changes are no longer that much of an issue. More on this in fact 17.

b) Never in the history of the game has there been such a weak crop of young players. No player born after 1988 has won either a slam or a M1000 title yet. More on that later.

These factors are key in allowing Djokovic, Nadal and Federer to break nearly all records in a small amount of time. It is no coincidence that three players reached a double-digit slam count in a small space of time, that they all managed to win 3 slams per season - Djokovic and Federer more than once - and that all three already the entire slam collection (with Djokovic even winning what was thought of as nearly impossible - all 4 in a row).

So next time somebody goes on about these three being the best players of all time, remind them that in the 90s it would have been a lot tougher for them to dominate and win so many majors because they would have had to deal with huge differences in surface speeds and have stiffer competition to deal with - including a constant emergence of hungry young players capable of beating them at big events.

There will be a lot more evidence concerning this subject later on.

5. The media and ITF organizers have conspired against Djokovic in order to help Federer win more slams. 

It's not an organized conspiracy in the KGB/CIA/UFOs/Bermuda-Triangle Oliver-Stone-on-mushrooms sense or anything like that, but there is undoubtedly a compounded effort to tilt the balance toward Federer. The evidence:

During 2015 Wimbledon, the international press made a big deal out of a non-incident in which Novak allegedly screams at a ball-girl. The (yellow) press was all over him for other things too, such as his alleged "hand-signal cheating" with coach Boris Becker during matches - something practiced by a whole array of players; standard practice on the tour. Nobody said a single solitary negative word against Federer on any issue, past or present, as if he were flawless, as if RF had been a cosmic baby sent here by a superior alien race. (Some of his fans actually believe that sort of thing.)

During the 2016 Australian Open, the organizers misspelled Djokovic's name on the Rod Laver arena as "Novack". Now, let me put that "honest error" into perspective: he had won the event 5 times previously, is the dominating no 1 for half a decade already, has been a top 5 player for almost twice that long, and this sort of thing has never happened to any other top player at a slam, to my knowledge. Or does anyone remember ever reading Bjork Bork, Johannes McEnroe, or Andre Eggasi on Wimbledon's score-board?

During the 2016 Australian Open, during a central stadium tribute to retiring Aussie Lleyton Hewitt, Novak's video message to Hewitt was mysteriously omitted, while messages from the other Big 3 were played in their entirety. On its own this doesn't constitute evidence but combined with all the other suspicious stuff a clear trend can be noticed. 

During the 2016 Australian Open, Djokovic was relegated to playing a round on no 2 court. Federer's and Kyrgios's matches were placed on court no 1 that day.

The day 2016 Australian Open started, the entire international media started bombarding Novak with questions about him allegedly fixing a match for money in 2007 when he lost to Fabrice Santoro. This was such a cretinous accusation, I don't even know where to begin: Firstly, why did they bring this up 9 years later, and precisely at a time when Novak's strongest slam was starting? Is there any law that forbids the yellow press from bringing up bullshit a week before a slam starts? Secondly, those bird-brained "journalists" offered zero evidence that Novak lost this match on purpose, let alone for financial gain. Thirdly, the media conveniently omitted the fact that Santoro had beaten Roddick, a top 5 player back then, just a week before taking out Novak at Paris Indoors. Fourthly, using this "logic", literally any top 5 upset on the men's tour can be treated as suspicious. Theoretically, we might have thousands of examples of match-fixing in tennis. Fifthly, how ironic that this moronic, 100% unsubstantiated rumour originated in Italy, the country most associated with match-fixing in tennis (and other sports) not to mention the bedrock of organized crime, along with Russia. Sixthly, match-fixing only makes sense at the lower levels, by players who are anyway not likely to go far at a tournament, or top players might do it (for example Davydenko) - but at small events where there isn't much money or many points awaiting them. Djokovic lost to Santoro at Paris Bercy, a M1000 event that brings a lot of money, prestige and points. Considering Novak had won a M1000 title beating players no 1, 2 and 3 (!) just a few months prior, why would he sell himself short by taking in mob money when he can earn that money - and the points - on his own?

Santoro had always been a sort of mini-giant-killer, with his unorthodox style of play; he pretty much hits only the serve with one hand, everything else is played with two-hands - including volleys off both sides and the forehand. Former no 1 Safin, for example, has a very negative H2H against him: 2-7. Marat had often expressed his disdain for playing Santoro, for vaguely similar reasons why some current top players hate playing Gilles Simon, for example.

 In fact, tell you what: why don't you check out the long list of slam champions and top 10 players that Santoro had beaten during his career: 
Goran Ivanisevic, Pete Sampras (3 times), Andres Gomez, Andre Agassi, Michael Stich (several times), Thomas Muster (several times), Marcelo Rios, Boris Becker, Sergi Bruguera, Lleyton Hewitt, Tim Henman, Patrick Rafter, Tommy Haas, Roger Federer, Carlos Moya, Juan-Carlos Ferrero, David Nalbanidan, Gaston Gaudio, and Andy Roddick. Virtually a who's who of modern era tennis.

So OBVIOUSLY it was such a mysterious event when he beat a 20 year-old Djokovic who, might I add, hadn't been a slam champion at this point nor was he anywhere close to dominating the tour as he's been doing this decade. The fact that Santoro beat a young Federer as well doesn't seem to have registered in the heads of corrupt liars of the Italian press that concocted this fairy tale in the first place (a non-story then eagerly embraced by the rest of the world press). The great irony is that Italian players have been constantly brought in connection with match-fixing in recent years. Why didn't the Italian press address that?

 Also, how convenient that the BBC (a corrupt institution that had been protecting celebrity pedophiles for decades and which promotes the Marxist agenda) had found a "list" of 16 top 50 players who were allegedly involved in match-fixing - and that none of those names leaked. But Novak's name did? 
The anti-Djokovic media bias is so blatant that it takes a custom-made imbecile to not realize that.

There is simply no point in listing all the other incidents, press articles, not to mention how outrageously and unashamedly pro-RF the media has been for a decade, building around the Swiss the image of a flawless player, and what's worse, that of a flawless human being. (Some third-world dictators don't get that much press adulation from the local media.) There is too much circumstantial evidence for coincidences or random chance to neutralize the blatant anti-Djokovic sentiment among "professionals" who work in or around pro tennis, people who are supposed to be impartial, objective and fair. People in Serbia, a traditionally paranoid nation, are convinced that the western press and its corporate world are out to get Novak just because he is a Serb and of Christian Orthodox faith. This is of course utter nonsense. The truth is far less spectacular than that and obvious: there is more money to be made in Federer winning slams, and there is more money to be made from fedtards reading about how vile and corrupt Novak is alleged to be.

More on real and imagined conspiracies in facts 90-92.  

6. Marat Safin is now a gangster. 

And I don't mean that in any kind of "cute" way. Marat Safin, former no 1 and crowd and media darling, is now a member of Putin's notorious far-Right United Russia Party, and since 2011 even a member of the Russian Duma - despite having no qualifications or necessary education for such a political function. 

Safin had been brought in connection with match-fixing and Russian mobsters during his tennis career, so nobody should really be surprised that he decided to make his immoral and illegal activities official.

Be mindful who you root for. The extroverts are often the worst ones.

7. Menstruation on the WTA. 

Periods must be a factor in the outcomes of certain matches, perhaps even key matches, and yet they never get discussed. Some women are lucky to have fairly unobtrusive periods, whereas others struggle for an entire week each month.

No WTA player with extreme menstruation can tell me that aches, pains, and blood dripping down her legs don't occasionally affect her game.

This is yet another reason why it is unfair that Sereno Williams gets to play on the WTA instead the ATP where he belongs: the bastard doesn't have any of those typical girl problems.

8.  Men's tennis is not necessarily experiencing it's Golden Era currently. It's in a mini-crisis, and it isn't quite clear why.

Men's tennis during the past decade may be as competitive as it's never been before - but only at the very top, the Top 5. We all enjoy watching the Big 4 slug it out - but what about the others? The rest of the field has never been weaker; they rarely make upset wins at the majors and the Masters 1000s and haven't won any high-tier titles. Possible reasons:

a) Increasing costs to bring young talents to the pro level. No sport is as expensive at the junior level (car-racing and golf don't count as sports) as tennis. Training, equipment and especially travel costs combine to make the sport a luxury only a minority can afford for their talented kids.

Increased costs = Less kids get to play = less competitiveness at the pro level. 

Quite a simple, logical equation.

The problem with this explanation is that tennis was always an expensive, elitist sport. How much more expensive it may have become in recent decades is hard to say.

b) The increased athleticism of the game means that a smaller number of journeymen players can keep up with the best, meaning that the talent pool needs to increase - something that is prevented by the elitist/expensive nature of the sport.

The problem with this argument is that the 90s were very athletic too, with players sprinting like crazy to run down fast balls. Perhaps not as athletic as the current era, but 90s tennis was hardly the slow ballet that it used to be in the 60s, not to mention in the 30s or earlier.

c) Perhaps new generations of young players are overall more spoiled, less motivated, and have been showered with too much attention and money by tennis federations and management companies before achieving anything on the pro tour. Many young talents clearly don't have the kind of hunger that older generations of former young upstarts had. Bernie Tomic is a perfect example of that; hardly any player in the Open Era pissed away his talent to that extent.

9. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: has tennis become too elitist again?

Tennis has become more elitist recently, or at least that's a possibility. An increasing number of top players, especially on the men's side, stem from privileged backgrounds. Nearly all come from middle, upper-middle, and upper classes. Many of them were born into millionaire families.

The NBA and FIFA have an abundance of examples of dirt-poor working-class kids becoming superstars. Lionel Messi is just one of very many examples, or the many black basketball players in the States who stem from the lower class. How many Messis are there on the ATP tour? I don't know of any.

For this reason more than any other, men's tennis might be seeing a huge slide in quality when it comes to up-and-coming young players. When the talent pool is only limited to 5% of the richest people (or even less), then obviously the number of super-talents is going to be low, while many journeymen i.e. mediocre non-talents fill up the gaps in the top 100 - and offer no real resistance against the best players. Even Federer has recently stated that "players outside of the Top 30 are somewhat exchangeable".

This has been the biggest problem in male tennis for several years now, but only recently has the catatonic media started addressing it - somewhat. They want us to believe that 3 players dominating for a decade is a sign that the game is in great shape. Personally, having a dozen strong players dominate a decade - the Big Dozen - would be far more interesting because less predictable, not to mention a lot more competitive. Or are tennis fans actually against variety? Are they too stupid to focus on more than a handful of players? Surely, if dumb football fans can memorize hundreds of players, tennis fans should be able to deal with a dozen.

All sons of millionaires. The bottom three were all no. 1. Imagine the amount of talent and the quality of ATP's top 100 if talents from working-class families started getting financed as well. Obviously, this will never happen.

For the first time in the Open Era, no player younger than 27 is a holder of a grand slam title, and no player younger than 29 is a holder of a Masters 1000 title. Very telling facts about the state of men's tennis. The youngest current M1000 title holders are Murray and Djokovic - both aged 29!

10. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: young (ATP) players currently offer almost nothing.

On both the ATP and the WTA tours, young players used to dominate, or at least played a crucial role at the top, alongside the veterans. This was the case in the 70s, 80s and 90s, when even teenagers managed to win slam titles (Becker, McEnroe, Borg, Wilander, Chang, Sampras, and Graf, Seles, Hingis, Sanchez, Austin).

However, in mid-2013 for the first time ever there was a men's Top 10 devoid of players younger than 25. (More on that later, in fact 71.) Only now, in 2016, with Thiem's entry into the top 10 has that slightly changed. (He is 22 and will undoubtedly win slams.)

The last male teenager who won a major was Nadal in 2005. That it's been over a decade since this happened is an astonishing fact, and further proof that men's tennis is in a crisis rather than experiencing a Golden Age, as so many clueless and daft sports journalists claim.

In the 90s on the men's side, every year brought 2-3 promising new talents to the forefront. Nowadays, we maybe get one every 2-3 years. And so far none of them deliver.

Here is a list of the ages of Grand Slam winners since 1976. I decided to define "young winners" as all players younger than 23. They are in bold.

             AO      FO     W    USO

1976       21      25      20      23
1977                 24      21      25
1978       26      22      22      26
1979       27      23      23      20
1980       26      24      24      21
1981       23      25      22      22
1982       24      17      29      30
1983       19      23      24      31
1984       20      24      25      25
1985       19      20      17      25
1986         -       26      18      26
1987       20      27      22      27
1988       23      23      22      24
1989       28      17      21      21
1990       29      30      24      19
1991       23      20      22      25
1992       21      21      22      26
1993       22      22      21      22
1994       22      23      22      24
1995       24      27      23      24
1996       28      22      24      25
1997       25      20      25      24
1998       30      22      26      25
1999       24      29      27      29
2000       29      23      28      20
2001       30      24      29      20
2002       26      26      21      31
2003       32      23      21      21
2004       22      25      22      23
2005       25      19      23      24
2006       24      20      24      25
2007       25      21      25      26
2008       20      22      22      27
2009       22      27      27      20
2010       28      24      24      24
2011       23      25      24      24
2012       24      26      30      25
2013       25      27      26      27
2014       28      28      27      26
2015       27      30      28      28
2016       28      29      29

Amazing, or? Until recently, only two seasons (1995 and 1999) had no young winners, and in 1993 there was even a slam sweep made by young players. But in the past 6 seasons (2010-2016) there is a totally unprecedented and extremely lengthy period during which no players younger than 23 won slams. This is very clear proof of a huge drop in quality of up-and-comers. 

Nobody can tell me that the Big 4 are such supermen that they don't "allow" the young guys to win. In fact, these young guys haven't even won any Masters 1000 events. There will be more on the current crop of failures later. 

11. WTA and ATP: amazing role reversal.

Men's and women's tennis have reversed roles, so-to-speak. Men's tennis used to be extremely unpredictable during the 1989-2003 period, whereas women's tennis used to be quite predictable up until the new century.

Sereno's occasional dominance is a result of him being a man, i.e. unfairly competing among women. He's got more testosterone than Mike Tyson. Hence if we take him out of the equation, women's tennis is quite unpredictable.

Nowadays, there are only 2-3 favourites to lift the male slam trophies, whereas on the women's side surprises happen every year. 

In the past 11 years, only 7 men won slam titles (three of them just one each), whereas 17 women won slams in the same period, a number that would have been a lot higher had they not allowed a man called Sereno to dominate the WTA tour.

By comparison, in the 90s 16 men won slams, whereas 12 women won them. Role reversal.

Long-lasting slam-finale rivalries don't exist on the WTA anymore, with Sereno and Sharapova contesting only 3 slam finales in the past 10 years, Henin and Clijsters playing 3, Muguruza and Sereno plus Henin and Mauresmo only 2. 

On the other side of the coin, Nadal and Federer have met a record-breaking 8 times in major finales, Nadal and Djokovic 7 times, Djokovic and Murray 7 times, Federer and Murray 3 times, and Djokovic and Federer 4 times; it's quite clear that at least one of these rivalries will continue on the level of slam finales.

I.e. it is easy to predict winners and finalists on the men's side, quite difficult on the women's side (except when Sereno is on a testosterone cocktail).

"Strong is beautiful". It is to latent gays.

The most disliked WTA no. 1 of all time - a fact the media try to hide with vigour. The PC media have the need to constantly to defend her from a barrage of mostly deserved criticism. Hingis nailed it on the head when she said that "Serena has it easier because she is black" because "every time she gets criticized she can say it's racism". (Hingis is a bit like me, she says it like it is.) If Sereno were white, she'd have lost most of her sponsors by now.

Speaking of sponsors, the politically-correct media even bitch that Sharapova makes more money than Sereno despite a gulf in their levels of success - as if the free market should dance to their left-wing tune. Popularity is a major factor in a player's market value, not just their success, and popularity does largely depend on how likable or good-looking an athlete is - and how the media portrays them. And yet, despite Sereno's media protection and his huge levels of success, he makes a lot less money than any normal female player would in her place.

12. The Swiss "Gentleman" had a lot of luck on his way to breaking the slam records, hence isn't GOAT.

There is no denying Mr. Wawrinec's talent, but the element of luck is underestimated when it comes to Roger's achievements.

His first slam finale opponent (Wim 2003) was the over-achieving, mentally weak, and inconsistent Philippoussis. His second slam-finale opponent (AO 2004) was the exhausted Safin, who had to play back-to-back 5-setters on his way to the finale. This helped Federer, who wasn't mentally tough at all before his first slam wins, to gain much-needed confidence which later helped him win most of his early major finales. If he had for example faced Agassi in both those finales, I very much wonder how his career would have continued.

One cannot over-emphasize how important it is for the further career of a top player to get (relatively) easy opponents in his first slam finales.

Djokovic and Murray, on the other hand, faced Federer as their first slam-finale opponent, and lost. Their road to slam glory was hence much tougher, especially Murray's. In his 11 slam finales to date, Murray has faced only once an opponent who wasn't either Federer and Djokovic. Federer's finale opponents? Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Soderling, Roddick (four times), and Philippoussis. I.e. a lot of beatable opponents, not quite worthy of slam glory.

Not to mention the fact that Roger Federer won at least 2-3 slam titles directly as a result of Nadal's injuries. In other words, with a fit, uninjured Nadal, Mr. Wawrinec wouldn't now have the 17 record-breaking majors, but more likely around 14 at the most.

For a lot more detail why he isn't GOAT, go to link.

13. Very tall ATP players never dominate the game. 

All male slam champions taller than 191 cm (6 foot 3) have either won one or two slam titles, not more.

Safin is the only one that tall to win multiple slams, namely two. Del Potro and Cilic, both at 197 cm (6 foot 5), are the tallest men ever to lift a major, one each.

14. The ideal height for the men's game in the modern era seems to be between 183-188 cm (6 feet to 6-foot-2). 

Pete Sampras (14) and Roger Federer (17), who won the most slams and dominated for many years, are both 185 cm. Novak Djokovic (12) is 188 cm, Rafael Nadal (14) is 186 cm, Jim Courier (4) is 185 cm, Stefan Edberg (6), Bruguera (2) and Ivan Lendl (8) are 188 cm, Wawrinka (2) is 183 cm, and Pat Rafter (2) is 186 cm.

Less than 180 cm is too short, more than 190 is usually too tall. Short players lack power on the serve, i.e. have to work harder to keep their serves, whereas overly tall players don't cover the court as well and are probably more injury-prone.

Obviously, as power tennis replaced push-tennis, heights of champions increased during the Open Era. Borg, Connors and McEnroe are all 180 cm or less.

Players taller than 191 cm that won majors: Krajicek (1), Ivanisevic (1), Safin (2), Delpo (1), Cilic (1). That's it. Just 6 majors in the Open Era won by very tall players. 6 out of a possible 165. Nevertheless, 5 of those 6 came in the last 16 years, which might be showing a gradual shift upwards. Many young players are quite tall.

Similarly, Hewitt in 2002 and Gaudio in 2004 are the last players shorter than 180 to win majors. 

This is just one of the ways to predict who might and who might not become a dominant player.

15. As far as professional tennis is concerned, ignore all results prior to the Ranking System Era.

Pro tennis essentially didn't exist before the 70s, so when somebody compares the success of 30s players with players of today, they're talking utter shit. Apples and oranges. Like those mindless sports journalists and TV commentators who treat ancient tennis as if it had actually been played on a serious level, competitiveness-wise. 

The number of active tennis players - pro and amateur - in the Ancient Times numbered in the thousands as opposed to millions as it does now. Not to mention the fact that for most of those "pro" players tennis was more of a hobby, so they didn't dedicate themselves fully to it; partly because the financial gain just wasn't there. Very few players could afford to travel around the world to all those tournaments, thereby decreasing the talent-pool significantly, rendering the draws in the slams quite weak. Tennis was a sport played almost exclusively by the rich.

The fact that the Davis Cup was being won by just the U.S. and Australia for a number of decades shows how elitist the sport had been - i.e. far more elitist than now even.

Hence all records made before the 70s should be ignored, as they were achieved by amateurs and pseudo-pros in a flawed, non-competitive, non-profit environment in which some of the best players weren't even allowed to compete in certain Grand Slam events.

For example, Wimbledon used to have a policy of not allowing pros to compete. This means amateurs won many of its titles where otherwise they wouldn't have. Hence these results represent very little and make a mockery of professional tennis.

Go to Fact 100 to read why Rod Laver's Calendar Slam is vastly overrated.

16. Fred Perry was not the last British man to win Wimbledon.

Murray is the first. Because of what I said in fact 15, Perry merely won some dingy little amateur event that just happened to be played at Wimbledon's courts. As soon as he turned pro, he wasn't allowed to play at Wimbledon again. 

If we disregard those ridiculous (because confusing and uncompetitive) results from the ancient tennis past, we have to accept the fact that the British had been mistakenly believing that they'd been waiting for 77 years until Murray won, when in fact the Brits had never had a slam champion until recently.

Hence they still lack an English champion. Deeply embarrassing. Murray is a Scot. The cliche that the English are great at inventing sports but suck at playing them is confirmed yet again.

17. Around the turn of the century, surfaces have been homogenized, making it easier for domination and enabling the Big 3 to break nearly all records. 

Indoor and grass courts had been slowed down significantly, mainly due to slower balls but also surface changes on hardcourts. At Wimbledon, the grass length had been changed to enable real tennis to be played again, after over a decade of dull, short rallies. At the same time, slow clay courts had been sped up with faster balls. This enabled (top) players to get accustomed to seasonal surface changes more quickly and efficiently - which had always been the main obstacle for top players to be more consistant. This homogenization of tennis surfaces decreased greatly the difference between the speeds on clay, hard and grass courts. Before surface homogenization, many indoors events were as quick as grass.

This is the main reason why Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic dominated so much more than any generation in the Open Era. This is also why different eras and players cannot be compared and one of the main reasons why the GOAT debate is pointless.

Djokovic has 28 consecutive QFs in slams. Federer has 36. Nadal has 11. 
Even Murray who is nowhere close to the Big 3 has 18. 
Ferrer - who's never won a slam - has a wopping 10.
Compare that to pre-homogenization slam streaks: Sampras with 11, Agassi only 5, Edberg 6, Courier 5, and Becker 5. Obviously, making the surfaces much more similar than ever before, players find it easier to be much more consistent - hence dominate/win a lot more when in top shape.

Another telling fact: from 1981 to 2007 only Sampras managed to reach double-digit slam wins, but since 2007 THREE players have done this, and despite playing in the same era.

18. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: too many records are being broken on the men's tour recently.

Homogenization of surfaces isn't the only reason why nearly all records have been broken during the Big 4 era. In a sport such as tennis records can only be broken when the level of competition is low, i.e. when lower-ranked opponents don't offer much resistance.

The fact that nearly all relevant records have been broken in just the past few years by a handful of players (Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic) has to make one wonder: is it too easy for them to win?

It is. They hardly ever get beaten before the QF or SF of a major. In the 90s, it was nothing unusual when a top 5 player lost in the early rounds of a slam. Nowadays it is treated as a sensation.

The Big 4 today nearly always reach the SFs of slams and Masters 1000 events. Not because they're supermen, as you're lead to believe, but because the average quality in the top 100 has dropped significantly in the past decade or so.

19. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: the number of outsiders reaching the end-stage of Grand Slams has fallen drastically.

In the 90s and early 00s it was nothing unusual for all 4 semifinalists of a major to be outside of the Top 4. This has happened a whopping TEN times between 1994-2003.

For comparison, in the following 12 years, between 2004-2015, it has NEVER happened.

This is a crucial statistic that proves that men's tennis has been in trouble for a number of years. Yet, journalists twist that fact around to make us believe that it is "great" that the same 3 players dominate almost every grand slam finale. There is nothing great about stagnation. Novak, Roger and Rafa produce some amazing tennis and their rivalries are stuff of legend, but they rarely fall in the earlier rounds, and even at a time when they're all older than 28 there is no young player to challenge them.

20. Men's tennis in mini-crisis: the 16 seeds have a much easier time now in reaching the end-stages of Grand Slams.

From 1991 to 2003, the number of unseeded players who reached the semifinals of majors is 51. This is an average of 0.98 unseeded players per GS semifinal, i.e. one unseeded player per semifinal.

From 2004 to 2013, the number of unseeded players who reached the semifinals of majors is only 19. This is an average of 0.49 unseeded players per semifinal. That's one unseeded player for every other semifinal.

In other words, there used to be twice as many unseeded players reaching the semis before. This is clear proof that the competition level on the ATP has fallen drastically all across the board, and that surface homogenization has made it easier for the best players to be consistent.

The great benefit of these statistics is that they prove that the Big 3's talent isn't the main reason why they dominate to such a never-before-seen extreme extent. These numbers show that the number of players capable of going far in majors has fallen drastically, enabling Roger, Novak and Rafa to advance more easily.

(Just to keep the comparisons fair hence valid, I have taken into account the expansion of seeds from 16 to 32 in the early 00s hence counted only the first 16 seeds for that period as being seeded players.)

21. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: the gap between the no. 1 and the no. 10 has risen dramatically.

Figures I have accumulated (not those lazy sports journalists) show that the number of points that an end-of-year no. 1 player had have grown rapidly compared to the number of points an end-of-year no. 10 had.

1994. 1. Sampras    5097     10. Martin     2307    Point Percentage: 45%
1995. 1. Sampras    4842     10. Ivanisevic 1861    Point Percentage: 38%
1996. 1. Sampras    4865     10. Ferreira   2149    Point Percentage: 44%
1997. 1. Sampras    4547     10. Rios       2317    Point Percentage: 51%
1998. 1. Sampras    3915     10. Krajicek   2548    Point Percentage: 65%
1999. 1. Agassi     5048     10. Krajicek   2095    Point Percentage: 42%
2000. 1. Kuerten    4195     10. Henman     2020    Point Percentage: 48%
2001. 1. Hewitt     4365     10. Sampras    1940    Point Percentage: 44%
2002. 1. Hewitt     4485     10. Roddick    2045    Point Percentage: 46%
2003. 1. Roddick    4535     10. Grosjean   1610    Point Percentage: 36%
2004. 1. Federer    6335     10. Gaudio     1920    Point Percentage: 30%
2005. 1. Federer    6725     10. Gaudio     2050    Point Percentage: 30%
2006. 1. Federer    8370     10. Gonzalez   2050    Point Percentage: 24%
2007. 1. Federer    7180     10. Robredo    1765    Point Percentage: 25%
2008. 1. Nadal      6675     10. Blake      1775    Point Percentage: 27%
2009. 1. Federer   10550     10. Tsonga     2875    Point Percentage: 27%
2010. 1. Nadal     12450     10. Youzhny    2920    Point Percentage: 23%
2011. 1. Djokovic  13675     10. Almagro    2380    Point Percentage: 17%
2012. 1. Djokovic  12920     10. Gasquet    2515    Point Percentage: 19%
2013. 1. Nadal     13030      10. Tsonga    3065    Point Percentage: 24%

The "point percentage" is the number of points the no. 10 has compared to the no. 1, i.e. if he has half the points of the no. 1, then it will be 50%.

These numbers clearly show a major drop in the percentage, i.e. a huge increase in the amount of points the no. 1 won compared to the rivals sitting 9 places behind them.

This is yet more evidence that the players behind the Top 5 are becoming weaker and weaker with every generation. And that in turn helps partly explain why and how Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were able to dominate to such an extreme extent.

I am absolutely convinced that similar percentage drops would be observed if we were to compare the points of the no. 1 with the no. 20, the no. 5 with the no. 30, the no. 10 with the no. 50, etc. The rifts are widening on all fronts.

22. Andre Agassi wore a wig until 1994.

In his autobiography, he stated that the biggest fear he had was that it would fall off his head during a match. 

He is a bit of a buffoon sometimes. More on him later.

This is what happens when you shop for wigs in a Duran Duran hair salon.

23. Does tennis need rule changes?

It sure does. Like everything that evolves, the sport too needs to adapt and that means to adopt new rules.

As the game changes and evolves, due to technological breakthroughs predominantly, since the 80s or 90s every few years there is a rekindling of the debate "how to improve tennis". Idiotic suggestions such as "a higher net" and "larger balls" were actually put on the table by some high-ranking tennis ATP-yuppie morons.

Here are the dumbest suggesstions:

1) Higher net. Why it's dumb? A higher net messes with the physical properties of the game, i.e. the court itself changes. A higher or lower net would completely change the game, turning it into a different sport. Not to mention that it would be financially unfeasable. There are millions of tennis courts: who's going to pay for all the new-and-"improved" nets? We would end up with two types of courts: those with traditional nets and those with new nets. It would be a mess in every way possible.

2) Smaller or larger court. Why it's dumb? Do I even need to explain? Pretty much the same as the explanation I gave for higher nets, but even more expensive to implement. This suggestion is proposed by stark-raving lunatics. There's a huge difference in trying to improve a game and trying to destroy it by turning it into a different sport.

3) Larger balls. Why it's dumb? Aside from the fact that it messes with the physical properties of the game, it would result in the tennis elbow making a comeback.

4) Best-of-3 matches at the slams. Why it's retarded? Because it would completely negate the relevance of grand slams, rendering them like glorified, ridiculously over-drawn 2-week versions of regular events.

But not all suggestions are stupid. Some changes might even be necessary to save tennis.

Recently, the game has been speeding up - yet again. Slowly but surely, cyborg rackets and sci-fi strings are rapidly evolving hence threatening to ruin the game, to turn it once again into a dull power-slugfest. There are more male pros over 195 cm (or thereabouts) than ever before in the top 100, and the veteran big servers are extending their careers deep into their 30s (Federer, Lopez, Karlovic, Mahut and others) - due to this technological change. How to counteract this trend before we - yet again - end up with boring 3-shot rally grass and hardcourt tennis the way it was played in the mid and late 90s?

Very simple: abolish the 2nd serve finally. WHY should a player get another chance to rectify a screw up of his own making? Players don't get that privilege for a missed backhand or volley, and yet the serve, for some dumb traditionalist reason, is the exception. Is there a 2nd serve in badminton, table-tennis or volleyball? No. Dumber still, a player has 25 seconds to execute this shot (about 24 seconds longer than he has to play any other shot) -  yet he gets another go at it, another 25 seconds, rather than lose the point. A missed 1st serve is the only shot in tennis that doesn't give the opponent a point. It gets a special treatment, and there is no logical reason whatsoever why that is.

The average height has been rising since the beginning of the Open Era, due to the speeding up of the game. From an average top 20 height of 182 cm in 1975, to the average top 20 height now which is almost 189 cm.

The number of very tall players currently is unprecedented. Karlovic, Isner, Anderson and Janowicz are all taller than 2 meters (an extreme rarity before this century). Fritz, Del Potro, Berdych, Cilic, Tomic, Kokkinakis, Zverev, Kyrgios - just to name a few more who are quite tall.

In the 90s there was also an onslaught of tall players (though not quite as tall), but the introduction of homogenization of courts and balls at the turn of the century prevented a complete takeover of tall players, hence why smaller players like Hewitt, Gaudio, Agassi and Coria were allowed to have great success again. But now that racket/string technology is speeding up the game again, tall players are experiencing a new surge and threatening to destroy the game with their generally one-dimensional game.

The benefits of one serve

a) Less aces, less domination by the serve, which translates automatically into more domination of other shots, which in turn means that an overall skill-set is required to win, not just one shot. Tennis experts usually talk about how vital the serve %s are in deciding/predicting the winner, they rarely talk about volley or forehand %s and how decisive they are to the outcome. This definitely needs to change, because the game cannot deteriorate to the point when it becomes 90% serve and 10% all the other shots. It's already too serve-based as it is.

b) More action. Less waiting around for the server to finally find the courage for the 2nd service means less boredom for the fans.

c) Shorter matches. Self-explanatory. I believe we can all agree that shorter matches are a goal.

Just look at how Federer has improved since 2015, once he got used to his new racket. Being a player who always had a big serve (despite his non-exceptional height), adapting to new racket-string technology gave Federer a much-needed boost, especially regarding cheap service points and additional baseline power. It is no coincidence that he reached his first consecutive slam finales in 2015, a whole 6 years since the last time he reached a few slam finales in a row. Nor is it a coincidence that many experts believe that since 2015 he's been playing better than he did a decade ago when he was dominating.

Of course, players like Isner might get angry at any such changes to the game, but is the ATP primarily about the players or the fans? Besides, many shorter players would be thrilled by the new rule. Players with excellent touch but without the height could profit massively, and the fans could only benefit from that.

“I think players like me, around my height, are going to be extinct. People have evolved physically, and they hit the ball a lot harder than before.” - David Ferrer, in a recent interview.

Nadal also had warned in 2016 that if nothing is done, soon pro tennis will be reduced to a bunch of giants competing who serves hardest. Here's what he said about it:
"There is a tendency now in tennis that the harder you hit, the less you think. At the end of the day, that is a problem.
Players that can come up with a strategy, that think how to play the points, that analyze… I think that is all becoming history. Players now are hitting 300km/hr serves, the next ball is also 300km/hr and if they fail, then they just move on to the next point.
I think that the next generation are of that type of player. One must adapt. Since I arrived on the tour I believe that the tendency is like this. I don’t know if the viewer will like to watch in a few years’ time. 
It’s not a question of talent. It’s a question of equipment; of racquets, of speed. The taller the people, the bigger impact they can make with their serve. And the tour dictates that there are more and more tournaments on hard court and less on clay. That’s where the serve matters.
For me as a spectator it doesn’t excite me. You have to ask the spectators if that’s what they want for the future of our sport."

 I personally don't want to watch ace-bash-and-smash tennis. If it comes to that, I will certainly stop watching tennis.

24. 3-Slam domination per season used to be extremely rare in men's tennis. 

Now an ATP player holding 3 slams at once is as common and normal as Sereno punching a lineswoman. I have included also 3-slam holders in overlapping seasons:

1974          Connors: won AO/W/USO

1988          Wilander: won AO/FO/USO

1993/94    Sampras: won W/USO/AO

1999/00    Agassi: won FO/USO/AO 

2004          Federer: won AO/W/USO 

2006          Federer: won AO/W/USO 

2007          Federer: won AO/W/USO

2008/09   Nadal: won FO/W/AO 

2010           Nadal: won FO/W/USO

2011            Djokovic: won AO/W/USO

2015            Djokovic: won AO/W/USO

The numbers speak clearly. From 1973 (when the rankings system started) to 2004, there had been only two such one-sided seasons (plus 2 overlapping seasons), but since then, in just over a decade, there have been six (plus one overlapping seasons). Since 2004, on average every other year someone wins 3 slams. At almost any point in time from 2004 onwards, one player was holding 3 slam titles at the same time.  

But the height of modern-era domination was reached when Novak won all 4 in a row! Which Novak achieved 2015-2016, something I always believed was impossible or at least highly unlikely. A magnificent achievement, but not possible before homogenization or in the stiff competition of the 90s.

People who claim that a Calendar Slam somehow has more relevance than winning 4 in succession across two seasons are morons. What possible rational reason could they give for arguing for the superiority of the Calendar Slam
How humans count years is totally artificial; our ancestors could have chosen the month of March to be the starting point of a new year, in which case Novak would have the Calendar Slam. Winning all 4 slams in a row is the whole point of this achievement, not which order you do it in. It is entirely irrelevant whether one starts with USO and finishes with Wimbledon or one starts with FO and ends with AO. Holding all 4 at the same time is the unifying theme of all 4 possible combinations. It'd be like saying "winning the Euro and then the World Cup two years later is tougher than winning the World Cup and then the Euro". Some people have no capacity for rational reasoning.

25. Slavic girls are more about quantity than quality.

There is an enormous number of Slavic women on the tour, coming mainly from Russia, the Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and former Yugoslavian countries. Some of them are quite talented, but only a handful of them have actually won majors or become no. 1 players.

From 2000 onwards, only 3 Russian women have won majors, 8 titles altogether. One Serb won a major, and two slams each for a Czech and a Belorussian. That makes 13 major titles for Slavic women in the last 15 years, i.e. 13 out of a possible 63. This is a solid number, but nowhere close to dominance.

Like sending infants into a ring to box Mike Tyson. Simply ridiculous, makes a mockery of the WTA tour, this tendency to allow semi-male she-beasts to play the WTA. Every sane tennis fan can hardly wait for her-him to leave the tour and step into the Ultimate Fighting ring where he-she belongs.

In the 70s, the WTA allowed a former man Renee Richards (i.e. a transsexual) to compete, and this "woman" managed at age 43 to reach the top 20. As a young man in the 50s, this player never managed to go past the 2nd round of slams. As if we needed proof how much more successful a man plays among women than men.

We have a similar situation now with Sereno, who is for all practical purposes a man - the main reason he dominates at age 34, which is unheard of. Everyone knows she/he shouldn't be competing with women, and yet she/he is now even supposed to be the best WTA player ever. This is one of that main reasons I and many other people cannot take the women's tour very seriously. They need to get their shit together and make it a female tour. However, this politically correct age is preventing that.

26. Statistically, first-time male slam winners have a 3-year period in which to win a second slam title.

Statistics I've compiled show that if an ATP player doesn't win another major within 36 months of winning his first, then he will never win that elusive 2nd slam title.

The only player who had ever broken this unwritten rule is Marat Safin, who won his 2nd major a whole 4 and a half years after winning the 1st one.

Players who won their second slam title "at the last moment" so-to-speak, i.e. exactly 3 years after their debut major win, are Djokovic and Kuerten. Sampras and Kafelnikov needed a little less than 3 years.

For more predictions about who will win male slams, check Fact 65.

On the women's tour, the limit between the first and second slam titles is 5 years.

Marat Safin, the only player to have ever broken the unwritten rule about 2nd slams. Now a bored, lazy, corrupt politician on Lord Putin's payroll.

27. Del Potro will not win a 2nd slam title.

Because of what I wrote in fact 26, I predict (in 2013) that Delpo will remain a one-slam champion, because over 6 years (2016) have already elapsed since his debut win in 2009.

Plus, keep in mind that very tall players almost never win multiple slam titles, and very rarely win majors in general. And he is constantly talking off time from tennis due to his awful wrist injury.

Additionally, Delpo struggles to win against the Big 4 and has very negative H-to-Hs against them. Considering they're still the ones to beat in order to win majors, that's not a promising fact for Delpo's follow-up slam success.

In fact, Delpo has yet to win a Masters 1000 title. I am not even sure whether he will succeed in that.

As I mentioned, Safin is the exception. Hopefully I'm wrong, and Delpo does win another major. Like Safin, he does have a huge game and age on his side. And tennis needs charismatic figures like him.

A year-long wrist injury ruined a highly promising climb to the top. Arguably the most fun-to-watch player in the top 10.

28. On the ATP, Spanish players are on average probably the mentally toughest. 

Whether Bruguera, Nadal, Moya, or Costa, Spanish players have been acquiring high percentages of won finales against non-Spanish players, and are more likely to win close matches than their non-Spanish opponents.

Fernando Verdasco is an obvious exception. Here we see him showing us how many titles he's won out of the 18 finales he's played. He seems none-to-pleased about it. (He's won several more since, but I can't find any photos of him holding up seven fingers.)

29. On the ATP, French players are by far the mentally weakest.

Most top French pros are very gifted, but generally have very low success rates in finales and in close matches. 

They are underachieving disappointments who never win slam titles in spite of reaching QFs and SFs repeatedly. In fact, in spite of the masses of French players to have reached the top 10 over the past few decades, no player from France has won a major in 32 years. 

And if we consider that it was Yannick Noah, a black guy raised in Cameroon who won a slam in 1983, the argument could even be made that the French have never won a major in the Open Era.

They even rarely win Masters 1000 events. Tsonga, Grosjean, Leconte, Pioline and Forget - all top 10 players in the past 20 years or so - have won just one apiece (Tsonga winning two), and that's it.

From the time Noah lifted RG in 1983, the French hold a 0-5 record in Grand Slam finales, easily the worst of any nation that reached multiple major finales in the past 32 years.

Several French players hold negative records for the number of finales they'd lost before finally winning one. Cedric Pioline (0-9) and Julien Bennetau (still at 0-8) come to mind.

One can only guess what the reason(s) might be. Perhaps the French Tennis Federation chooses to finance and push only highly talented players while ignoring the less talented but hard-working and motivated grinders, some of whom might be more likely to achieve better results as pros. Or perhaps it is part of the French character to lack confidence and to be mentally wobbly in key moments during important matches.

30. Due to the extremely quick grass and balls, Wimbledon used to be by far the dullest-to-watch slam from the late 80s to the early 00s.

Most points lasted 2-3 shots, especially between the top players i.e. during the semis and finales, and points were mostly decided by aces, service winners or easy put-away volleys. Only since the balls and the courts had been slowed down in London has the quality of tennis drastically improved there, giving players finally the chance to play long and spectacular baseline rallies, and giving tennis fans the possibility not to break their jaws from yawning so hard.

Hence Wimbledon has only managed to match its long-overblown reputation in the last decade or so. It was a truly shitty tournament in the 90s, despite the great atmosphere. Whoever doesn't believe me should watch a few finales from that period on YouTube.

31. Which grand slam is the toughest to win?

The French Open. The slower clay surface means longer rallies, which in turn means a bigger variety of shot-making is required, not to mention better fitness and even more mental strength than is needed anyway. Similarly to grass, clay has a more unpredictable bounce than hard surfaces which makes it more challenging.

In fact, Wimbledon, with its overrated reputation, had been for a long time the easiest slam to win (easiest, I didn't say easy), with its very short points and short matches, and ace-slamming big servers not having to do much other than blast their serves as hard as they can and then walk a few meters to serve again. Almost like golf. Additionally, there are usually less favourites to win Wimbledon than there are on other slams, which reduces the competitiveness levels at the grass slam courts.

For this reason, Agassi's lone feat of managing to win both the French and London (a feat not achieved from 1981-1998) - at a time when these two slams required completely different styles of play for success - should be noted as one of the greatest achievements in the Open Era.

It is not a coincidence that it's the French Open that's always been the most elusive slam to win for so many of the biggest names.

Jim Courier, one of many underrated Roland Garros champions.

32. Pete Sampras is somewhat overrated.

I am not saying he wasn't a great player. Just saying he wasn't as great as the 14 slam titles might mislead you to believe. Mainly because of what I stated in fact 31, Sampras's reputation is overblown, and he isn't anywhere close to being the Best Ever. Consider the following facts.

Half of his 14 major titles had been won at Wimbledon, which was just about aces and service winners during the 90s. 5 more majors came at the U.S. Open where the courts and balls were quicker than today, and where he rarely had to work hard to win. I.e. he just fired a bunch of aces and service-winners, and profited from the fact that 90s players still struggled to bring the return to the high new level of the modern serve. (For this reason ace-machine players don't dominate anymore, because the quality of the return had caught up with the advanced serve, and because balls and courts have been made slower.)

From the two slower majors, i.e. the French and the Aussie Open, he "only" won two, both in Melbourne. This is a strong indication that with today's slower courts, heavier/slower balls, and modern rackets allowing baseliners heavier topspin Pete would have been much less successful.

He never even managed to reach the finale of the French, where baseline consistency - i.e. actual tennis with rallies - and high-level fitness are required. He only reached one SF there, when he was beaten in straight sets.

In other words, he often lost when the surface he played on did not allow his serve to dominate play.

If he had been born 10 years later, i.e. played in Federer's era, he'd be nothing more than a top 10 player in the Berdych mould, regularly losing to the Big 4.

Sometimes being born at the right time is crucial. Luck plays a role in how many slams champs win, not just ability.

In the 90s, Pete had his tongue out flapping even more often than Rafa pulls his shorts. Did Pete use his tongue to test the direction of the wind before serving?

33. The most obnoxious scream-queens aren't Azarenka and Sharapova.

Whatever you may think of either Azarenka or Sharapova, their screams are hysterical screams, not battle-cries or actual words. It's annoying, yes, but not nearly as insane or cretinous as what Frankie Schiavone and Bojana Jovanovski do.

Schiavone does an untranslatable, mystifying "HAYYY-HEEE" shout nearly every time she hits the ball, perhaps impersonating a caveman throwing a spear at a mammoth, I really don't know.

Jovanovski, on the other hand, yells a very prolonged "ATCHKA" after every shot. Every? Not really. Bojana's fascinating barrage of ACHKAs only start once a match gets tight score-wise.

My guess is that Schiavone is naturally manly hence doesn't yell HAAAYYY-HEE to psyche out her opponent but to express her testosterone level, which is always high (even during her menstruation - assuming she has one). Bojana is a bitch, so I believe she does it to annoy her opponents.

Loony or just naturally evil? Bojana may be both. Her tactical use of ATCHKA indicates she is an underhanded bitch without a sense of fair-play. After losing in R3 of 2014 Wimbledon, she told a Serbian journalist that the opponent who beat her (Smitkova) "nema sta da trazi u cetvrtoj rundi Vimbldona" which basically means "she is too crap to be in R4 of Wimbledon". So she is a sore loser as well - and not even bright enough to hold her real thoughts away from the press. There is also something about Ms. Jovanovski, i.e. the empty look on her face off-court, that makes me suspect she might be just slightly cuckoo.

34. Federer's controversial new SABR tactic is unsportsmanlike. 

SABR: Sneaky Attack By Roger. Taking the ball on the rise on return while going very early to the net.

Becker and McEnroe have both criticized Roger's new return-of-serve tactic as "disrespectful". For those who disagree with them - i.e. fedtards - you need to read between the lines to understand why they say this.

Back in the 80s, a long time before political correctness was the tyrannical force it is today and before Federer ushered in the overly polite and sanitized "gentleman's era", it was fair game to hit the opponent's body at the net. Lendl did it, he simply didn't give a crap. If Roger had tried the SABR against him in the 80s, Roger would have stopped doing it straight way, right after getting hit in the balls on the first attempt. If I recall correctly, Becker and McEnroe also had no qualms about punishing a pompous attack similarly.

Federer enjoys such immense crowd support anywhere he goes, which means that if any opponent decided to counter the SABR by going for Fed's body, he would get booed off the court and receive bad press by the biased pro-Federer sports journalists. Federer uses this fact, knowing that in modern tennis it is far less acceptable for a player to aim for the opponent's body at the net: this is what's sneaky about it. Especially sneaky against Novak because Novak anyway has to fight 90% of the crowd nearly every time he plays Roger - and Roger knows this also.

Federer is not the goody-two-shoes the press and his PR machine have made him out to be. He is an underhanded asshole.

35. Are there weak eras, or are all tennis eras of the same competitive quality?

Anyone who actually believes that there are no fluctuations between tennis eras must also believe in Santa Claus because both in nature and in human society there is no total equality or exact consistency in anything. Does every grand slam title weigh the same? No. Is every batch of 7 beaten opponents of the same standard, same skill level? No. Does anyone really believe in Marxist Utopia in which all people could live in harmony, having the exact same amount of material possessions? Only morons do.

Just as there are good and weak wine years, just as there are good and weaker movie decades, just as there are good and bad watermelon seasons, so tennis eras fluctuate also, because athletes are not robots mass-produced by an alien life-force nor is the ATP part of some perfectly orchestrated divine cosmic plan, and the universe doesn't give a shit about our noble dreams of equality. Things evolve and devolve constantly.

36. Nadal was injured when he suffered his only pre-2015 "defeat" at the 2009 French Open.

Anybody who thinks that Soderling was actually too good for Nadal in 2009 needs to see a tennis shrink. Nadal actually had to skip Wimbledon because of that injury, and in fact was pretty much handicapped most of the rest of that season.

Rafa entered the FO that year with knee problems, and had the same problem at Rome a few weeks earlier also. The fact that he even won 3 matches in that state and took a set off Robin is proof of his amazing professionalism and unheard-of determination.

Furthermore, Nadal had trashed the Swede on clay just a month earlier 6-1 6-0. A year later, in the 2010 FO finale, Nadal again whooped him in easy straight sets. When fit, there is no way in hell someone like Soderling could even get close to beating Nadal at the French Open, and this should be obvious even to the biggest imbeciles and Rafa-hating fedtards among tennis fans.

So in a sense, Nadal never really lost at the French before 2015.

37. Gaston Gaudio is the only Open Era men's player to have reached the QFs of a slam only once in his career, and won.

In a sense, he is the complete opposite of perennial slam failures, players who have reached countless QFs and SFs at the slams, yet never won one. Players such as Martin, Tsonga, Grosjean, Henman, Ferrer, Berdych, Leconte, Pioline, Corretja, or Nalbandian.

Gaudio came from nowhere to win a major, and never came anywhere close to doing well in another major since. Unfortunately, such surprising feats are no longer existent in men's tennis, which has become extremely predictable. Gaston's spectacular Roland Garros success in 2004 is the last big surprise in men's slam tennis.

38. There is no such thing as a "one-slam wonder".

People who consider that the winning of a single GS title is a coincidence or has to do with luck or isn't impressive enough have no clue about tennis and don't have an inkling what it takes to win one of those titles.

There is no doubt that not every slam trophy is won with the same amount of skill or luck, or that certain years at certain slams are less competitive than others, or that an easier draw might favour the eventual champion. (Just look at the 2003-2006 Weak Era which Federer benefited from to break records.) However, every ATP player who has managed to come out of a 7-match best-of-5 event as the winner deserves a lot of respect, and is a huge talent.

As for luck, even the best players benefit from it all the time, as they rake up slams. Just look at Federer: profited from Nadal's injuries, weak finale opponents, the Weak Era, and Murray's inexperience, time and time again. Nadal profited from the heat in the FO finale 2014 which prevented Djokovic from completing the slam, Wawrinka was lucky to have an injured Nadal in the Aussie Open final, etc. Luck does play an important factor, but nobody who every came out on top in a slam event did so by being an average player.

39. Who are the best Open Era ATP players never to win a grand slam title? 

I touched on this in fact 37. Here's a complete list of the 10 most successful players in slams who failed to win one. The number shows how many combined QFs, SFs and Fs they reached in slams.

Ferrer              16 
Berdych          13 
Tsonga            12
Martin             10
Nalbandian    10
Henman         10
Davydenko     10
Leconte             9
Grosjean           9
Pioline              9

Obviously, we can add other players into this discussion: Rios who was no. 1 in the world and won 5 Big 9s, Enqvist who is a slam finalist and won 3 Big 9s, Medvedev who has one slam final and 4 Big 9s, Corretja who won the Masters Cup and is a two-time slam finalist etc.

40. Wimbledon crowds nearly always root for the former or defending champion, nearly always for the favourite.

Especially if he/she is an asshole/bitch.

London's yuppie tennis fans are such sheep, they root for the multi-slam champ even when he or she plays against their own players.

In the 2012 men's finale, the crowd was actually rooting more for Federer (a Swiss man who had 6 Wimbledon titles at that point, and 16 slams altogether) than Murray (who didn't have ANY major titles, was fighting his slam-loser reputation, and is British).

Oh, well, Britain ain't what it used to be. Yobtannia is way past its glory days.

41. Only total losers root just for top favourites and multi-slam champions. 

Fedtards - the freaks and misfits among the tennis fans. Not all Federer fans are fedtards, however.

People who root exclusively for champs and top favourites, and never support the talented outsider or the guy who is close to winning a slam but doesn't or an up-and-coming young talent, are mentally unstable weaklings who have the need to be behind the most successful player(s) because only a dominant winner can make them forget for a moment what losers they are in their private lives. You will find this profile of humanoids mostly among Sereno and Federer fans.

These kinds of fans have a powerful need to identify with someone who very rarely loses, and this imaginary connection they make with such hard-to-beat champions lets these confused boneheads feel better about themselves, hence the joy they experience after their idol wins has to do with themselves only, not with the players, who are utter assholes impossible to like. Or is anybody sane out there going to seriously argue that either Federer or Sereno are charismatic, likable people? Especially Sereno is an irredeemable, egotistical, immoral psycho-bitch. Her fans are deranged, morally suspect.

Fedtards and serenocretins cannot deal with any kind of defeats because these on-court losses remind them of the failures that they are. It is partly for this reason that fedtards are so hateful of Nadal and Djokovic: especially the former has ruined their idol's once-perfect run toward glory and has erased the possibility of Federer being considered GOAT, something they will never forgive Nadal for. They take it very personally - because they identify with their chosen champ to such an extreme extent. 

The reason why serenocretins hate every good-looking female pro is due to their full 100% identification with their ugly monster idol who is insanely jealous of Sharapova and others like her. Besides, serenocretins are often themselves ugly - or at least feel that way - hence put themselves in Sereno's position who hates her feminine opponents (what few there are) with a burning passion.

It is quite obvious that there would be almost no fedtards and serenocretins at all if those two players had been top 10 players without any slams (or with "just" 2-3 majors, which is not anywhere near enough for such mentally fragile tennis fans who require nothing less than total domination in order to emotionally attach themselves like parasites to their chosen idols).

Of course, not all Federer fans are fedtards, but most of them are. However, all Sereno fans are mental cases.

Typical fedtards: usually either bored middle-aged women with excessive weight, Asian students (I don't know why), and insecure nerds. They hate Nadal (and now Djokovic as well) with a passion - but had Nadal started raking in majors BEFORE Federer, they would all have been Rafa fans instead. Should someone amass more than 17 slams in the next decade, fedtards will completely forget that Federer even exists and dedicate themselves fully to this new champion, their new "infallible superman" hero. The psychological profile of a fedtard or a serenocretin is that of a loser with low self-esteem - and often with a low IQ.

42. Four men's players in the Open Era started off as constant slam losers. 

Lendl (0-4), Agassi (0-3), Ivanisevic (0-3) and Murray (0-4), in that order, lost their first 3 or 4 slam finales before finally triumphing in the 4th or 5th.
Interestingly enough, 3 of those 4 players went on to become multiple-slam champions. Also, all four of them broke their losing streak by triumphing in 5 sets.

Goran Ivanisevic, the grumpiest slam champion of all time? Hated the crowds, hated referees. hated line-judges, hated ball-boys and hated himself.

43. Three men's players started off with a win in their first slam finale, only to lose all their subsequent major finales.

Chang (1-3), Stich (1-2), and Roddick (1-4), in that order, have experienced the reverse of Lendl, Murray, Agassi and Ivanisevic. They started off as debut-finale winners, but afterwards just kept losing all their other major finales.

Chang in particular is a very odd case. He is the youngest-ever slam champion (FO, 17 years old) - and yet he never followed it up with more major titles.

44. The nation most often caught doping at the ATP is Argentina.

Coria, Canas, Puerta, and Chela are 4 Argentinian players that I know of who got caught - and all of them within a brief period of just a few years. Three of them were in the top 10. The Czech Republic is in second place, with Korda, Minar, and Ulihrach.

Others caught: Rusedski (CAN/UK), Volandri (ITA), Beck (SVK), Bogomolov (RUS), Dupuis (FRA), Melo (BRA), Kendrick (USA), Odesnik (USA), and Cilic (CRO).

Additionally, Gasquet, Novacek and Wilander were caught with cocaine, which is a jet-set party drug, hence to me does not count as "performance-enhancing".

Chela, Canas, Puerta, and Coria. The Argentinian doping program in full swing.
This is what happens when your idol growing up is a coca-sniffing drug cheat of an idiot like Maradona.

45. The British can't shake off their reputation of being unathletic pansies.

British tennis gets over 30 million pounds each year to invest into new talent (due to staggering profits from Wimbledon) and still they can't produce more than one top player per decade, not to mention a decades-long total lack of major talent prior to Tim Henman. Worse yet, Murray isn't even a direct product of that money; he took a different route.

This is a nation of 60 million people, mind you. And they also stink at other popular sports such as basketball.

The current generation of young Brits are to a large extent loud-mouthed yobs; overweight, mostly drunk, and stupid. Unfortunately, the once-legendary winning British spirit is all but gone. So perhaps the British should enjoy every second of Murray's successes, because once he retires there won't be another Brit to win a slam for decades.

The future of British tennis?

Murray had once commented that young British tennis talents are over-financed, "spoiled and lazy", and appear to have the wrong attitude.

46. In women's tennis it isn't uncommon to be no. 1, yet never win a slam.

There are 3 WTA players who reached the no.1 spot fairly recently, but still haven't won any slam titles: Jankovic, Safina, and Wozniacki. It is also abundantly obvious that none of those three ever will.

This serves as additional proof that female slam wins don't hold (nearly) as much weight as the male ones, i.e. that slam events aren't much different than Tier I tournaments. Jankovic and Wozniacki even dominated as no. 1 players, ending several seasons at the top spot. 

On the men's side, only Rios reached no. 1 without ever winning a slam, but the time he spent at the top spot was only a few weeks. 
Marcelo Rios from Chile was voted "Most Obnoxious Asshole" (or something like that) by the press several years in a row. An underachieving talent of huge potential.

47. Monica Seles was stabbed in the back with a knife during a QF match in Hamburg by a crazed Steffi Graf fan in 1993.

But then again, you'd have to be crazed in order to be a Graf fan, don't you.

Seles was the no. 1 player at the time. As a result, her career was pretty much destroyed, and she didn't play for almost 3 years since the incident, a period during which she could have won countless additional majors. Until then, she had dominated women's tennis, winning 3 slams per year, beating Graf most of the time.

48. The biggest injustice in the Open Era was Steffi Graf profiting from her insane fan's attack.

Graf lifted many extra majors that she otherwise wouldn't have won due to this abhorrent incident.

Due to the knife-attack on Seles, Graf went on to break all GS records, as there was barely anyone who could challenge her the following 4 years. 
Instead of Seles raking up slam after slam - as she undoubtedly would have - Graf took them. The result was as unfair as it is misleading: Graf ended up winning 22 majors, with Seles stuck at 9. Without the attack, the two players would most likely now have the same number of slam titles.

There is even the possibility that Seles would have broken the 20-slam mark, given how much she'd dominated until the attack, and given the very young age at the time of the stabbing (only 19 at the time).

Whenever a tennis "expert" or some dumb TV commentator says that Graf is the most successful WTA pro of all times because of her 22 slam titles, you will now know that this is bullshit. The big-nosed bitch got the most unfair advantage in all the history of sports.

49. The 2nd-biggest injustice in the Open Era was Seles's attacker not getting a prison sentence for his vicious, cowardly attack on a teenage girl.

Germans have a "justice" system in which pedophile rapists and murderers walk away scot-free or receive light-weight sentences, so perhaps nobody should have been too surprised that Monika's attacker walked away unpunished. 

Of course, given the Germans' hatred of Monika Seles and Serbia (and this was at the height of the Croat-Serb conflict), the verdict gave conspiracy theorists even more ammunition.

Imagine an incident like this occurring in America. The perpetrator would receive a 20-year prison term, at the very least. I guess the conclusion is obvious: stabbing foreign teens in front of thousands of witnesses is ALLOWED in Germany. No wonder they gassed millions of people.

50. Germany's media had been involved in a vicious years-long anti-Seles campaign prior to the attacks.

Furious that a Serbian player (and remember: Germans generally hate the Serbs whom they fought in both WWs and lost) stopped the dominance of their precious darling Graf, the German media went to great lengths to discredit Seles both as a person and as a player.

So in a sense they had a part in the attack too. Do not underestimate the effects that an extensive smear-campaign of that kind can have on Graf's numerous psychopath fans.

The slight irony is that Seles is actually of Hungarian descent. She isn't a Serb at all, and in fact became an American citizen in the 90s.

51. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario also profited from Seles's attack, winning a couple of slams she otherwise never would have won. 

Far from being distressed that a colleague was brutally attacked during a tennis match, Arantxa continued playing Hamburg and won that tournament, happy as a clam when she won the match point against Graf in the finale.

What a self-centered, greedy little ugly bitch. She's built like a little Orc and obviously has the mentality to match.

Calls for the tournament to be canceled after the attack were numerous, but the German organizers were ecstatic that Graf would dominate the tour now, and were not going to allow their joy to be spoiled by "needless" cancellation. The players still in the tournament didn't show much more backbone or decency either; the very greedy players saw their chance to win Hamburg with Seles the favourite lying in a hospital bed.

You forgot to thank Gunter Parche for that trophy, bitch!

52. Life is a bitch shaped like a boomerang: Sanchez-Vicario's spectacular financial downfall.

In 2012 Arantxa released an autobiography in which she blames her parents for mismanaging her earnings. She has lost all the millions she'd won, and even owes Spanish authorities millions of Euros in taxes.

On the male tour, Bjorn Borg, Boris Becker, and Mark Philippoussis faced financial ruin, as a result of bad investments and other poor choices.

53. The WTA is overflowing with lesbians, whereas the ATP has very few gays.

This is a particularly striking fact considering that in the general population gays outnumber lesbians anywhere between 5-1 to 10-1.

The reason for this extreme "disproportionality" of male and female homosexuals on the tennis pro level is simple: athletic excellence requires high levels of testosterone, strength and stamina - all characteristics ideally found in a man, not a woman. Masculine women, i.e. tomboys, are statistically far more likely to be lesbian, which is perfectly (bio)logical from every standpoint, whereas very manly men are generally less likely to be gay.

Hence it is natural for a man who excels in sports to be viewed as the "ideal representative" of what a man should look like and be.

On the other hand, top female pros are often very masculine-like hence steer very far from the female ideal of beauty, or what even constitutes a "normal" female appearance. This has nothing to do with intolerance, homophobia, subjectivity or narrow-mindedness - it's simple biology and psychology, and it's all related to how the human race has evolved.

This is also one of the main reasons male sport will always be more popular than female sport. Male sports stars represent the male ideal, i.e. the look which men strive towards and which women seek in their male partners, whereas female sports stars are generally unrepresentative of typical members of the female sex hence attract relatively few male fans and don't offer themselves to other women as "proper" role models.

In other words, girls and women are far less likely to identify with female athletes than men and boys who massively identify with male ones.

I am sure this annoys and frustrates the rigid Politically Correct establishment and the feminists out there, but these are all (bio)logical facts which we cannot escape from.

54. How many lesbians does the WTA have?

Rennae Stubbs, doubles expert and Steffi Graf's long-time "best friend", stated that "4 out of 10" WTA pros are lesbian. Perhaps a far-fetched claim, but she certainly knows more than I do.

Known WTA lesbians: 

Martina Navratilova, Hana Mandlikova, Gigi Fernandez, Conchita Martinez, Amelie Mauresmo, Sam Stosur, Jana Novotna, Rennae Stubbs, Ilana Kloss, Lisa Raymond, Akgul Amanmuradova, Eleni Daniilidou, Mary Carillo, Pam Shriver, Billie Jean King, Nicole Pratt, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Maria Bueno. These are just the ones who came out or who hadn't succeeded in keeping it secret. There are many more that are highly likely to be lesbian, such as Henin or Schiavone.

I am not condemning lesbians in sport. Just stating facts.

Rennae Stubbs with her long-time "best pal" Steffi Graf, joined here by a gay icon. There were many rumours about Graf's sexuality, so she is still a question mark. For a number of years, all the way into her late 20s, Graf had never been seen with a guy. The marriage to Agassi doesn't prove anything, of course - other than that Andre is insane and likes large, crooked noses. It's highly likely that Steffi is bisexual.

55. What is the sum total of slam trophies won by known lesbians?

All those (known) lesbians I listed in fact 54 have altogether won 48 Grand Slam titles.

That is 12 years worth of majors.

We can conclude from this that not only are lesbians numerous on the women's tour, but that they play a major role at the top of the game.

As if you didn't know that already.

56. Extra testosterone brings another, lesser known, advantage to the more butch WTA players.

Aside from giving a person more strength, studies show that testosterone also gives a person more confidence and determination, which is another reason why butch players tend to beat the (more) normal-looking girls, and are mentally stronger in key match moments. Sereno's success says it all.

57. Serbia, in spite of having Djokovic at the top, currently doesn't host any ATP or WTA tournaments.

Not only does Serbia have Djokovic, it has Tipsarevic who was a top 10 player until recently, not to mention Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic, both former no. 1 players.

To make the embarrassment even deeper, Serbia doesn't currently even host any Challenger events. The highest level it has are Futures. Until recently, Serbia had one ATP tournament (Belgrade, 2009-2012).

This means that Serbia is the first ever nation which has a player at the no. 1 spot, i.e. Djokovic, who doesn't have any chances to play in front of a home crowd (aside from Davis Cup and exhibitions). 

The reasons for this are incompetence, corruption, and stupidity among the country's politicians and Serbia's tennis federation, but also the country's perpetually weak economy.

58. Before men's tennis became so predictable, the French Open was the slam with the most surprises and surprise champions.

Before Nadal became the only man able to win Roland Garros, dominating it in a manner never seen before, there was a plethora of surprises that made the Paris tournament exciting and unusual.

The biggest one of them all occurred in 1997 when Gustavo "Guga" Kuerten won it at the age of 20 as a total unknown, ranked only 66th in the world. To make this feat even more fascinating, Guga had never even reached the QF stage of any tour event prior to the French Open, so his first major title was at the same time his first truly successful tournament.

Additionally, Guga beat THREE former champions on his way to the trophy: Bruguera (1993-94), Muster (1995) and Kafelnikov (1996). In other words, he beat the last three champs who held the previous four titles. He also won three 5-setters.

Furthermore, Kuerten holds an Open Era record for least Grand Slam events played before winning his first major. In other words, already his 3rd appearance in a GS event brought him a title. For comparison, Ivanisevic needed 48 slam events to win his first.

Can anybody imagine something like that happening today? Nobody can, and it can't happen because today's top 100 is significantly lower in quality, overall, than 10-20 years ago, and young players are far from slam material.

The 90s, a time when major surprises in men's tennis were actually possible, and common. Guga, a true nice guy of the game, proved that assholes don't always have to finish first.

59. Goran Ivanisevic, the 2001 Wimbledon champion and former ATP buffoon, had made extremist anti-Serb statements in the early 90s.

In a 1992 interview, Ivanisevic (from Croatia) stated that he'd "rather be in the war now, killing Serbs with a machine-gun, than playing tennis". Of course, nothing was stopping him from throwing the racket away to rush to the Front.

Prior to the women's 1992 finale at Wimbledon between Steffi Graf and Monica Seles (who had played for Serbia i.e. Yugoslavia back then), he stated how he hoped "that Seles loses, because she is a Serb". The idiot didn't even know that she isn't a Serb, but 100% Hungarian.

I know, he's a fucking moron, always was. I am not making this stuff up. The real shame here is not that an imbecile uses hate speech - because that's what imbeciles do - but the western media's silence on his comments. There was basically no negative backlash at all. However, if Novak so much as farts at an inopportune moment, he gets hammered by the media for doing it. Extreme bias. No wonder the Serbs are so paranoid.

Goran was one of the major talents in the 90s, an underachieving clown that tennis experts thought would win many majors. In fact, he barely won the one in 2001, at the age of 29 (which was a ripe old tennis age back then). His tactical stupidity on the court was legendary (once viciously mocked by Gunther Bresnik, current coach of Thiem), as was his permanently grumpy facial expression, and the many matches he tanked.

A Croat "hero" ready to combat Serbs in a bloody, dirty Civil War - but only in his vivid imagination. There is a not-so-fine line between harmless patriotism and retarded nationalism. This hateful idiot wouldn't have lasted three seconds in that war.
Ironically, Goran's ethnic roots are Serbian, something his name clearly proves, though he'd probably punch anybody in the face who'd dare tell him that.
Goran, you're a Serb. Get used to it. Stop hating yourself.

60. Andre Agassi could easily have won more slams, and become the so-called GOAT.

If Agassi hadn't made so many dumb decisions, his Grand Slam tally might have been in the neighbourhood of Sampras's 14.

Aside from choosing to give up in some key matches early on in his career, the single-biggest blunder was his unwillingness to play two Grand Slam events.

To be precise, the Aussie Open and Wimbledon. He'd been a top player since 1988, and yet he only started playing Wimbledon from 1991. He won it the following year, kicking himself in the ass for trying it there so late.

Even more damaging was his moronic decision not to bother traveling to Melbourne. His first appearance there occurred a whole 9 years after he turned pro, i.e. in 1995. Of course, he won it that same year, again kicking himself that he didn't go there for so many years prior. To add insult to injury, Melbourne turned out to be his easily most successful Slam, which he went on to win 4 times, 3 of them won when he was already past 30.

One would think he would have learned his lesson from Wimbledon 1991 and gone on to play Australia straight away in 1992, but some people are just born to shoot themselves in the foot.

In other words, Agassi was willfully/stupidly absent from no less than TEN Slam events from 1988 to 1994, thereby robbing himself of the chance to win more majors.

Of course, another reason he didn't win more majors was his unofficial break from tennis, from 1996-1997, plus the occasional injury break, 1993 being his wrist injury year. During this period he didn't play much, usually lost early, and fell out of the top 100. But he did have time to use crystal meth - allegedly.

Agassi won 8 majors, which is a lot (yes, fedtards, it is), but considering his unique talent, the longevity of his career, and the fact that he was the first man ever to win all four majors (we don't count the pre-70s amateur era), he would easily have qualified for GOAT pre-Federer had he won several more Slams.

Obviously, another reason he didn't many more than 8 was the higher competition level that existed in the 90s. Federer didn't have that problem for a long time, because Roger won a lot of his slams in the Power Vacuum Era of 2003-2006.

One more thing. He shit in his pants whenever he played Sampras in a slam finale, which is why he won only one out of the 5 that they played. He was afraid of playing Sampras much like Federer fears playing Nadal.

61. Ion Tiriac, ex-pro and former manager of Boris Becker & Goran Ivanisevic, is a gangster.

The former 70s tennis and ice hockey pro who successfully managed the careers of top players in the 70s, 80s and 90s, and ran (and still runs) ATP tour events (Stuttgart, Madrid), is a mobster who runs (or had run) a chain of car-theft "businesses" in Europe, and is/was involved in God-knows how many other shady dealings.

But considering that he was a close bear-hunting buddy of Romania's mass-murdering former Communist dictator Ceausescu, this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anybody. McEnroe referred to him as "one of the biggest low-lifes" and said some other very critical things about him, how he ripped off the players he represented etc.

Would you trust this man to babysit your child? The currently richest man in Romania is also known as "Count Dracula": because he was born in Transylvania or because he does actually suck his victims' blood?

62.  Which generation of male players is the most successful?

The most successful generation of male players was born in 1970-71.

6 players born in this period are Slam champions - the most of any generation: Jim Courier (4), Andre Agassi (8), Pete Sampras (14), Sergi Bruguera (2), Goran Ivanisevic (1) and Richard Krajicek (1). That's a total of a staggering 30 slams - almost a decade's worth, the most of any generation.

In terms of Masters 1000 (or Big 9) titles won:

Courier 5 + Agassi 17 + Sampras 11 + Bruguera 2 + Ivanisevic 1 + Krajicek 2 = 38 titles, and 2nd overall

Three of them held the no. 1 spot, for almost 450 weeks combined, the best of all generations. 

Furthermore, the birth-year 1971 holds the record for most players becoming Slam champions, namely 4.

The second-most successful generation of male players was born 1986-1987.

This is a generation very likely to take the top spot at some point, due primarily to three exceptionally successful players:

Nadal 14 + Djokovic 12 + Murray 3 = 29 slams, 2nd-most

Their combined number of weeks at the top spot is over 340 weeks and rising.

Their M1000 titles sum is by far the highest:

Nadal 28 + Djokovic 29 + Murray 12 = 69

Federer's generation has 35 M1000 titles (4 players), yet despite that lags far behind in 2nd place.  

The third-most successful generation of male players was born in 1980-1981.

4 players born in this period are Slam champions: Roger Federer (17), Lleyton Hewitt (2), Marat Safin (2), and Juan-Carlos Ferrero (1). A total of 22 Slam titles, and 35 Masters trophies. All 4 were no. 1 at some point, with combined no 1 weeks of 399.

Of course, the brunt of this generation's success belongs to Federer. Nevertheless, it is very rare for 4 or more players born within 2 years to become holders of majors.

63. The two least successful generations of male players in the Open Era are those born between 1977-1979 (the "Late Bloomers" generation) and 1983-1985 (the "Federer-Fodder" generation).

Most birth-years have at least one Slam champion, and yet here we have not one but two 3-year generations with only one slam title each. Interestingly and ironically, both slam titles were won against final opponents who were injured.

Wawrinka's (b. 1985) win at the AO 2014 came against an injured Nadal. Gaudio's (b. 1978) win at the FO 2004 came against an injured Coria. Hence even these two sole wins, one for each of these loser generations, were reliant on luck in order to happen. If Nadal and Coria had been physically 100% fit during those finales, most likely both of these loser generations would have been slam-less, because who knows if Wawrinka could have played a confident game against Djokovic at FO 2016 had he lost his previous finale.

Strangely enough, all three birth-years 1980-82 have Slam champs, so it is fascinating that the 3 years before and the 3 years after it are so weak. In fact, the 1980-1982 generation has 5 GS champs with a combined slam tally of 23 majors, whereas the 6 birth-years before and after that generation (1977-1979 and 1983-1985) have only 2 GS champs, with just 3 majors. 

Generations    Slams   Players   No1s

1959-1961      17      4         2  
1962-1964       7      1         1
1965-1967      13      4         3
1968-1970      14      4         2
1971-1973      21      6         2
1974-1976       8      5         4
1977-1979       1      1         -
1980-1982      23      5         5
1983-1985       2      1         -
1986-1988      30      5         2
1989-1991       0      0 ***     -
1992-1996       0      0         -

***  For the first time in the Open Era, a generation in its mid-2os has won nothing of significance, not even a Masters 1000 title. Further proof that the talent pool is drying up.

Furthermore, generations 1977-1979 and 1983-1985 have won only 4 and 5 Masters 1000 titles respectively i.e. their fairly obvious lack of success doesn't only extend to GS titles.

Why this failure, and who are the best players of each generation?

The Federer-Fodder generation, 1983-1985. Verdasco, Ancic, Simon, Soderling, Tipsarevic, Tsonga, Baghdatis, Isner, Almagro, Wawrinka, and Berdych are all current or former top 10 players and belong to this pitiful generation that failed to significantly challenge the older Federer and the younger Nadal and Djokovic, essentially allowing just three players to take away more than a decade's worth of majors - 43 slams. The record-setting success of the Big 4 is in large part a result of the failure of the 1983-1985 guys to step up.

I think we can all agree that most of these Federer-Fodder players have two things in common: underachieving disappointments, and mental weakness. Tsonga and especially Ancic have the excuse that they struggled with major injuries, and so did Soderling, but only late in his career. Why did it take the Swede so long to climb into the Top 10? And what excuse do Berdych, Verdasco, Wawrinka and Baghdatis have? Huge games, but mental weaklings. In Baghdatis's case, an unprofessional attitude and sheer laziness are the reasons for failure. Berdych is the most consistent of the bunch, and given his talent and lack of injuries should have won a slam. Isner and Almagro are overachievers who reached the Top 10 only because their competition was so weak, so they cannot be criticized.

This rather pathetic generation, which all combined managed to win no more than just five notable titles, is one of the main reasons why Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were allowed to break so many slam records. This was the slightly younger new guard that was supposed to challenge Federer but failed almost completely, not because Federer is superman (as some of you seem to believe) but partly because those players didn't man up, and even more so because the talent pool in men's tennis seems to be decreasing with every new generation.

There is always the argument that one of them might win another major in the future. But what are the odds really? Tsonga and perhaps Berdych are the only ones from this group that have a tiny theoretical chance, but given their age, their choking nature, and Big 4's total domination, the chances for that are almost zero. I hope I am wrong, because both these guys would deserve to win one. Check Fact 65 for slam predictions.

Had Wawrinka not had the luck to win the AO finale because of Nadal's injury, this generation would have been the worst 3-year generation in the Open Era. Although, in all fairness, Wawrinka played a superb finale at the 2015 FO to win a second slam. But it took Stan too many years to finally start fulfilling his potential. As it is, they own just one more title that the even weaker 1977-1979 generation which holds just one GS title.

The "Late Bloomers" generation, 1977-1979. I refer to them as late bloomers because most of these players made their breakthroughs or achieved their best results fairly late in their careers, in their mid-20s or even later.

Clement, Kiefer, Canas, Grosjean, Haas, Gaudio, Puerta, Stepanek, Srichaphan, Massu, Ljubicic, and Blake are the best players of this generation and all of them Top 10 alumni.

I know, there are very few major talents in this batch. Haas struggled with major injuries, fair enough, but was mentally weak whenever healthy. Grosjean was just as talented, but perhaps a little too short for great achievements plus mentally weak - as nearly all French players. Kiefer was a huge talent but a total underachiever, dreaming about becoming a Hollywood actor for much of his early career instead of focusing on tennis; an even bigger talent than Haas, in my opinion, but lacking in motivation. Blake's ultra-aggressive short-points bomber style would have been more suitable for the early 90s when he would have had more success, plus he was mentally weak. Srichaphan had a big game but it never amounted to much; he never even reached a GS QF. Clement, Puerta, Stepanek, Massu, and even Ljubicic were overachievers.

64. The Bryan brothers are definitely NOT the best doubles team of all time. 

During the 70s and 80s many more top singles players participated heavily in the doubles than nowadays. As a result, the Bryan brothers dominate in a field of total unknowns i.e. journeymen, with very few top 50 singles players to oppose them, hence the ease with which they break records.

McEnroe used to win doubles slams, as did Gomez, Kafelnikov, Rafter and others. When is the last time a single's slam champ won a doubles slam? 

Just take a look at the doubles rankings, both individual and team, and you will find a bunch of names you've never heard of, a plethora of guys who've never even reached the top 100 in the singles, and many of them not even the top 200.

When you read "doubles specialist" nowadays that means "a mediocre player who has no chance on the singles tour so he's forced to play doubles to earn a dollar".

65. Which ATP players are most likely to pick up slam titles in the future?

OK, so this isn't exactly a fact, just my opinion. My predictions, given in %. The numbers get updated after every slam, so these %s were made right after the 2016 French Open.

Djokovic: 90%
Murray: 20(90% if he gets again a non-Big4 opponent in a finale which is not likely) 
Nadal: 0%  
Federer: 50% 
Tsonga: 0%
Nishikori: 5% 
Gulbis: 0%
Berdych: 0%
Ferrer: 0%
Monfils: 0%  (Gael is "100% convinced" he will win a slam)
Gasquet: 0% 
Cilic: 0%
Janowicz: 0%
Harrison: 0% 
Pospisil: 0% 
Pouille: 0%  (because he's French and they never win slams)
Wawrinka: 30%  (definitely not at Wimbledon)
Kokkinakis: 30% 
Coric: 30% 
Del Potro: 1 (I explain this in fact 27) 
Kyrgios: 99% 
Tomic: 50  (only if he turns pro)
Zverev: 90% 
Dimitrov: 5% 
Fritz: ? 
Goffin: 1%   (technically terrific, but too small and thin)
Thiem: 95% 
Raonic: 30%

In the upper-right corner of this blog you can vote in a poll regarding debut slam winners. Don't be lazy and pick a name.

This duh-faced gangsta-wannabe clown is a shoe-in for a future multi-slam champ and no. 1. The future of tennis is sad if primitive players such as this infantile imbecile are going to dominate it. He is a reminder of the putrid decadent age we are in and its dumb yo-ho-bro-boyee-whassup children. Nick Kyrgios has a chip on his shoulder plus a persecution complex, looks like an escaped Guatemalan convict and behaves like a narcissistic buffoon desperate for attention. He is even worse than fellow Aussie and possible future dominator Tomic.

66. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: the "next" generation, players born in the 90s (1990-1994), have won nothing of significance at all. 

Will this be the next loser generation?

Dimitrov, Raonic, Tomic, Goffin, Thiem and Janowicz - to name the most obvious ones. Just the fact that I couldn't find more than 6 "worthy" names for a 6-year birth period is astounding in itself.

So what have the "Weak 6" achieved so far (2016), where it counts most? 

Grand Slams: combined, nobody yet reached a F, whereas Raonic, Thiem, Janowicz and Dimitrov reached SFs, Goffin and Tomic just one QF each

Masters 1000s: none of them have won a Masters 1000 event, with Raonic losing two finales, Janowicz one, while none of the others have reached a finale.

Rankings: Raonic, Dimitrov and Thiem reached the Top 10. Only two of them are in the top 10 at the moment, with Goffin being close. 

Head-to-Head "Weak 6" vs. "Big 4":

Tomic: 0-16
Raonic: 6-27
Janowicz: 1-7
Thiem: 3-8
Goffin: 0-12
Dimitrov: 4-21

Altogether 14 wins, 91 defeats.

Additionally, Janowicz hasn't even won a title yet.

Just to remind you, even teenagers occasionally managed to win Slams in the past, and all 6 of these guys are well out of their teens but have won almost nothing. And these are the best ones.

The drastic lack of success of these young players is yet further proof that the talent pool is drying up, most probably due to rising costs of financing young talent i.e. because of the elitist nature of pro tennis. Perhaps there are other reasons too.

The "Weak 6" are talented, but the potential there is a far cry from the Big 4, Tsonga, Delpo, or even the likes of Monfils. Of these 6 Thiem seems to be the only one ready to fulfill his potential, unlike the equally talented Tomic, but so-called "Tomek" is too busy being a retard to kick-start his career.

Considering the rapidly diminishing talent pool of young humans, perhaps the ATP shall have to rummage around zoos in order to find the next generation of players that are capable of beating the Big 4? Bob is a talented young chimp, comes from an athletic tree-climbing family, and Bollettieri has already proclaimed him "the best player I've ever coached". Yeah, Nick always says that, I know.

67. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: how the ideal age has changed on the ATP, and what this really means.

The ages at which players break through and reach their peak have risen. This isn't a natural rise, but only happened recently and by default. It didn't happen because that is a logical evolution (because it isn't) but because the younger players coming up now are simply not good enough, or aren't talented enough. 

It makes no sense for the average age in the Top 10 to rise this drastically at a time when tennis has become more athletic, more endurance-based and faster than ever before. Logically, young players should be profiting from these changes in the game hence kicking the butts of the "elderly" precisely because tennis is more athletic than before, but instead we have the opposite: young guys totally unable to oppose the "older establishment".

For comparison, the late 80s/early 90s were a time when the game experienced a quantum leap, when it evolved from ball-pushing into full-on power tennis. (On the WTA, this occurred about a decade later.) During this period, when the importance of stamina, strength and reflexes rose, young players quickly took over from the old guard. Players as young as 18-19 were beating the established guys at major events. 

Back in the 90s, a player aged 28-29 was typically considered too old, way past his prime, and close to retirement. Exception were rare. Nowadays, players in their early 30s are doing better than the guys in their early 20s. This speaks volumes about the current state of men's tennis.

68. The Paris Open is the easiest Masters 1000 event to win. 

I didn't say easy, of course. Easiest.

The reason for this is that it's the last so-called "Big 9" tournament of the year, and is often played just prior to the Masters Cup and right after Shanghai. As a result, many top players skip it, either to be fit and ready for the Cup, or due to accumulating injuries stemming from the overly long season.

Proof of this can be found in the results in recent years. Until and including 2012 (before Djokovic started dominating it 2013-2015), only 2 titles were won by players from the "Big 4", in 2009 and 2011. The other winners are players like Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, Nalbandian (who admittedly beat Big 4 players when he won it), and Soderling. The finalists are often players outside of the top 10 (at the time) such as Monfils and Janowicz.

Speaking of Paris, it is absurd that one city should host both a Grand Slam and a Masters 1000 event. More nonsense from the ATP officials, nothing unusual.

69. The Paris Open is the unofficial "last chance Masters" for players outside of the Big 4.

It is quite telling that the only Masters 1000 title that players such as Berdych, Ferrer and Soderling won is precisely this one.

In other words, the Big 4 are so ridiculously dominant, that the only way any of the top players ranked behind them can eke out one single Masters title in their entire careers is by conquering the Paris Open - i.e. when most of the Big 4 aren't playing or are exhausted and not in form.

It's almost as if the Big 4 players are letting the others have their leftovers, so-to-speak. "Go on, you can have this one, we're not playing it, fight it out amongst yourselves, you miserable losers."

Hamburg and the Canadian Open used to be the Masters events at which outsiders used to win a lot, back in the 90s. Back then, Paris used to be dominated by the best players.

70. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: the number of no. 1 players has fallen drastically.

From 2004-2016, i.e. in the past 12 years, we have had only 3 players hold the top spot. In the 9 years before that, 1994-2003, there were 11 no. 1 players.

The relative ease with which recent no. 1 players defend their position from other players underscores a basic lack of depth in the top 100. 

It's not just about whom you have to beat at the top, it's also about what kind of players you have to face in the early rounds.

Less talents = less quality players at the very top = frequent domination by those few that do have talent but are lucky enough to be playing in a weak Era.

71. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: the number of players winning majors has drastically fallen.

The last 33 Grand Slam events (2005-2013) were all won by just 5 different players.

By comparison, the 33 Grand Slam events (1995-2002) prior to that were split between 15 different players. That's 200% more.

72. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: for the first time in the Open Era, there are no players younger than 25 in the Top 10.

This table shows how many end-of-year Top 10 players were younger than 25 in the 1990s.

1990. 6
1991.  6
1992. 7
1993. 7
1994. 7
1995. 6
1996. 3
1997. 4
1998. 5
1999. 4

2012. 1
2013. 0
2014. 1
2015. 0

As you can see, young(er) players used to be not only a constant presence at the top, but even constituted the majority in many years. The number of players younger than 25 in recent years are barely to be found.

I think this fact speaks volumes about the lack of quality amongst the young(er) players. Will they be able to succeed only after Federer & co. enter their 40s?

The Weak 6

Everyone is talking about the Big 4, but what about the Weak 6? Will all of these young(er) players remain underachieving disappointments, or will some of them eventually benefit from the Big 4 getting too old to win?
I only see one 100% Slam champion here: the idiot with the yellow bandana. Hopefully I am wrong and somebody from the other 5 does it. Nishikori and Dimitrov seem to have the will and the talent to achieve this so far very distant goal.

Yes, the Weak 6 mentioned a little earlier isn't the same as this bunch. I am constantly updating this list which is why this photo is outdated.

73. The most ridiculous match-up, from the point of view of heights, was between Olivier Rochus and Ivo Karlovic.

Rochus is 165 cm, Karlovic is 208 cm, the tallest tennis pro of all time. I won't give you these numbers in feet and inches; start using the metric system finally.
I don't know why some people in the crowds were smirking, grinning or laughing. Nothing funny here at all, just tennis.
In case you're wondering, Karlovic won the match, proving that size does matter.

Admittedly, Karlovic even makes Nadal look like a dwarf.

74. The second-most ridiculous match-up, from the point of view of heights, was between Olivier Rochus and John Isner.

John stands at 206 cm. (And if you still can't figure that out in feet and inches, I'd suggest you switch to the metric system.) 

Once again, size does matter. Isner won this Newport finale.
This match-up was almost as unfair as Sereno Williams playing against a girl. Isner eats energy bars that are bigger than Olivier.

75. On the men's side, players from 20 different nations won Grand Slam titles in the Open Era.

On the women's side, it's 17 countries.

The number of countries that have both male and female Slam champions is 14. 

76. The best-looking ATP wife or girlfriend in the Open Era stems from Croatia.

Goran Ivanisevic may be a moron, but nothing can be said against his taste in women.

Left: an example of a great choice, Goran's flame around 1993-94, the best-looking tennis girlfriend/wife/groupie of all time. I don't know her name. Right: an example of what not to choose when you're a young, rich, famous tennis star. I won't tell you her name, or whose wife she is, but you might be able to recognize her.

77. The best-kept secret on the ATP today is that Roger Federer is gay.

I am 95% sure of it. How do I know? Let's just say I have a very good gaydar, for detecting lesbians but especially gay guys.

Besides, there is so much circumstantial evidence: 1) he giggles like a girl, 2) sobbed more dramatically about losing a Slam finale than any other male pro ever (see AO 2009), 3) his wife is older than him, 4) she looks crap but this doesn't bother him, 5) they hooked up very early and she's the only female he's ever been seen with, and apparently, never kissed her in public, 6) she's his manager (implying that their relationship is a pure business arrangement anyway - "I impersonate your wife so people don't suspect you're gay, and I get a large % of your earnings"), 7) in an interview he named "Dirty Dancing" as one of his favourite movies, then quickly tried to cover up with a "I love action films" statement. 
Furthermore, 8) Gavin Rossdale - a recently outed bisexual - is his "best buddy" and follows him around on tournaments (and hotels rooms too perhaps?), 9) when asked about his first kiss with a girl, Rog said he didn't remember, 10) Roger has twins (artificial insemination comes to mind, very popular these days in Hollywood for example among middle-aged actresses who often get twins as a result), 11) and AGAIN he got twins! What are the odds? 1 in 70,000 12) his style of play may be construed as "poetry-in-motion" by his Swan Lake tennis fans, but to me it's just a tad effeminate i.e. unmanly, 13) he wears pink way too often.

And, 14) French magazines have been talking about this, so it actually has made it into the news. Or did they get the idea from this blog?

Of course, none of these facts constitute hard proof on their own, but combined they add up as a powerful argument. Or do you really believe that a top male pro cannot be gay? Just ask Bill Tilden who won 10 slam titles. Besides, the question of his homosexuality had been raised way before even I started suspecting it.

This is possibly how it all happened: Roger met Wawrinec in 2000 on an Olympic Village breakfast table. She told him straight away that she knows he's gay because she saw him smooching with a Turkish wrestler the other day. He sobs. She hands him a handkerchief (which she had prepared in advance), calms him down, promises not to tell anyone, and suggests that he use her as a "cover". She explains that her own tennis career is going nowhere (career high no. 76 with zero titles) and that she seeks financial security - while recognizing that Roger is a major talent and potential cash-cow for the cash-chasing WTA cow. Roger asks whether he can still have gay sex. She says yes, and adds that she is an asexual frigid bitch with no interest in either men or women - only money. She insists on acting as his manager, which gives her direct control over his future earnings and serves as a pay-off for her acting as his cover. A few years later he meets Gavin and they fall in love. All Gwen Stefani needs to do is to connect the dots, yet still she has no clue what's going on. Roger told Gavin not to send him kisses while sitting in the stands, just so the cameramen - and Gwen - don't suspect something.

I sincerely apologize to Rog if I am wrong. The chances of me being wrong on this are fairly slim admittedly. He should finally come out of the closet. In this PC LGBT day-and-age, he would have the press fawn over him even more than they already do.

In his youth, Gavin Rossdale was in a 5-year relationship with transvestite "Marilyn". This is the guy whom we see in Roger's box year after year. Just friends? Yeah, right.

78. Novak's younger brothers will not succeed as tennis pros.

I've briefly met both Djordje Djokovic (20) and Marko Djokovic (24), and they seem like very well-mannered, nice guys. 

However, I have also seen them both during several practice sessions (incl. Marko vs. Novak) and in match situations. The by-now old rumours that Djordje has even more talent than Novak (dating from the 2007-2008 period) are completely unfounded and have proven to be simply false. Marko has never won a singles match on the ATP level, and only won one on the Challenger circuit, while Djordje struggles at Futures events, having won only a handful of matches, and with no wins on the Challenger Tour.
They are both solid players, but careers in the top 100 are highly unlikely for them, let alone something even remotely similar to what Novak had achieved.

Of course, should they prove me wrong, I will gladly accept that I've shown poor judgment and will enjoy their successes on the tour.

79. If there is widespread doping on the ATP, then Roger Federer would have to be as suspicious as any other top player - if not more.

Anybody ever seen Federer tired, even in the 5th set? I haven't. 

Many tennis fans (especially the rather brain-damaged fedtards who worship their skinny idol as if he were a divine being who landed in a UFO) seem to think that only large muscles indicate possible use of forbidden substances, hence their fanatical devotion to the belief that Nadal must be all doped up and Roger is out of the question as a suspect. 

Of course, if one looks at the list of caught offenders, a lot of them were skinny, few were very bulky. Just take a look at Korda, Rusedski, Chela, or Coria: all fairly thin. Skinnier pros have more reasons to seek additional power than the more physically imposing athletes.

Petr Korda, 1998 Australian Open champion, weighing 72 kilos (at the time) with a height of 190 cm. That's a BMI of only 19.9. All skin and bones. Fedtards need to know about Korda, who was caught cheating with steroids less than a year after winning his only Slam title.

Roger Federer has played a number of full seasons, in each of which he completed a multitude of matches, and yet - unlike many other top players with a similarly grueling schedule - he has never been exhausted at the year-end Masters Cup but won it 6 times. Where does all that stamina come from? How does such a skinny guy maintain such levels of fitness on the grueling ATP tour? If we are to start pointing fingers, Federer would be where my finger would start.

One doesn't need huge muscles in order to have stamina. Endurance is more blood-related, just ask the very skinny Lance Armstrong. This is a rather dumb myth many sports fans are confused about. Perhaps Fedtards need to consider the possibility that Roger is a blood-doper - if they are going to pin blame on other players who exert themselves in many matches.

Fedtards actually believe that because Roger's style "seems effortless" that it in fact doesn't require much effort! That would make Roger an alien being from a different dimension, because in this universe energy cannot be created out of nowhere and every creature spends a lot of energy when they exert themselves. All humans waste energy while running - it's as simple as that. Federer runs as much as anyone, yet he rarely seems tired. Oh well, I am sure that the fact his parents work in pharmaceutics has nothing to do with anything. 

Korda was one of the most gifted top players in the 90s - another thing he has in common with Federer. I mention that because fedtards seem to think that mega-talented players don't have a need to dope. That's fairly gullible. 

I don't know whether Roger cheats or not, but I also wanted to show you how easy it is to build a case against someone - anyone - on the tour. A little nudge-nudge wink-wink to all the conspiracy-theory Nadal haters.

80. Bud Collins is a behind-the-times pompous clown who lambasted power tennis when it appeared in the early 90s.

Nowadays, hypocritical and much-overrated Bud will applaud the fastest serves and the most powerful forehands, but in the early 90s he blasted Jim Courier and other young players for the new brand of power-tennis that was taking over the ATP tour. Instead of recognizing how much tennis was improving back then, he thought those changes were awful, probably because he wanted to watch two players push a ball at the speed of 15 km/h into infinity.

Bud is a typical American show-biz-type phony and a retard who was never in tune with changes in the sport. He never once admitted to having been a traditionalist jackass, and would probably prefer nobody reminded you what a dumb ass he was and how disrespectful he was to the early power players and the amazing results they'd achieved, who were pioneers in a sense. Well, not was. Still is a clueless buffoon.

Always grinning like a moron, and never failing to state the bleedin'-obvious. Seen here holding a book called "History of Tennis". I wonder if that book mentions how wrong he turned out to be about the changes in men's tennis.

81. Martina Navratilova does not hate Communism. 

There is a misconception as old as Navratilova's steroid use that she hates Communism and that her move to the United States was largely politically motivated.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Navratilova's political views (which she is very open about) are all in line with West's Far Left. Far from being grateful that a Capitalist democracy gave her a new start in life, not to mention gave her real freedom for the first time in her butch-lesbian life, she is a liberal/Socialist extremist who decries the American way of life whenever she can - as if someone had dragged her into U.S. citizenship kicking and screaming.

In that sense, Martina tries to have her cake and eat it too, like so many left-wing hypocrites before and after her: to enjoy the fruits of freedom and democracy (including the vast amounts of money), while promoting Socialist ideals (which bring poverty to most involved). Just another dumb, deluded, self-centered hypocrite who either forgot what it was like to live under a Socialist regime, or isn't educated or smart enough to understand that Communism and U.S. liberalism are closely linked.

She left the Czech Republic simply in order to make more money. It's as simple as that. What an idealist.

82. Nadal is not naturally left-handed. 

At around the age of 10-11, Rafa was pushed into becoming a left-handed player by his uncle Toni. 

Yet another way in which Nadal is unique. I certainly don't know of any other successful pro who had made that kind of switch, and so relatively late at that.

Anybody's who's ever tried switching hands will be able to sense what a monumental achievement this is.

83. What do Bernard Tomic and Caroline Wozniacki have in common? 

Both are ashamed of their Slavic roots, insisting that their Slavic-sounding last names be pronounced falsely, in a manner that fits in with the languages of the countries where they reside.

Caroline isn't Danish at all but 100% Polish, and Bernard isn't an Anglo-Saxon Australian but 100% Croat.

Caroline insists her name be pronounced "Wozni-aCK-i" instead of "Wozni-aCHK-i".

Bernie demands that he be known by a non-existent name, "Tomek". His name is of course pronounced "Tomich". You know... like Djokovic, Tipsarevic, Cilic, and others from the Balkans

Both of them are idiots, and an embarrassment to the sport.

Note how cleverly Novak Djokovic avoids using Bernard's surname during interviews. He always calls him by his first name in order to avoid having to pick between Tomich and Tomek. If he picks Tomich he will piss off the geeky, overly sensitive Aussie, and if he picks Tomek he will feel quite foolish because to Serbs and Croats such a bastardization of a Slavic name sounds incredibly dumb.

84. The U.S. Open and its idiotic schedule. 

The U.S. Open is the only major in which men's finalists don't get a day's rest ahead of the finale. Unbelievably, U.S. Open's retarded organizers insist that the SFs and Fs be played back-to-back, on Saturday and on Sunday, respectively - completely disregarding the fact that slam SFists are exhausted by the time they get to that stage, and that they probably need a day extra, not a day less.

Not surprisingly, this dumb decision had lead to the tournament having just one 5-set finale for almost 20 years, from 1990-2008. For comparison, during this period the French Open had four 5-set finales and Wimbledon had six of them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that too little rest means that there is a high chance that at least one of the finalists won't be fit enough to show his best in the finale. Hence the numerous straight-set blow-outs in U.S. Open finales, namely 11 during that period alone.

The two recent 5-set finales in 2009 and 2012 were both played on a Monday, due to rain-delays. It took rain to give the players some rest. 

For the first time, in 2013, the men's finalists had a day's rest. It took this long for the tournament's cretinous, greedy organizers to realize their own stupidity. But amazingly enough, instead of scheduling the matches in the same way as the other three majors so that SFs are played on Friday and the finale on Sunday, they've left the early-rounds schedule as is. I have no idea where NY's reputation as a nest of intellect comes from: it's the complete opposite. "If you can make it here you can make it anywhere", my ass. Those morons do always vote for liberals, don't they?

85. Does Andy Murray belong to the Big 4? 

In other words, did it make sense to expand the Big 3 into the Big 4? Yes, it did.

Andy Murray, the least successful of the Big 4 but far more successful than the rest, is just as talented as the other three. Yes, perhaps as gifted as the Swiss Ballerina. People who are surprised by his slam wins, from a technical standpoint, are clueless about pro tennis. In another era, Murray might be a dominating player and then all those who are fedtards would be murraytards instead.

Reasons why he is part of the Big 4:

1 - Eleven slam finales, a large number in its own right, and far higher than the next-best player from his era, which is Wawrinka with "only" 2 slam finales.

2 - Won 12 M1000 titles, plus Olympic Gold which makes 13, which is better than Pete Sampras even. The next-best player from the Big 4 era is Tsonga with two such trophies.

3 - Almost single-handedly won the Davis Cup, a feat unrivaled in the Open Era.

4 - Has by far the best overall H2H against the Big 3. He even held a lead against Federer for a while.

5 - Has held a top 5 ranking consistently for almost a decade.  

Monty Python said it couldn't be done: a Scotsman wins Wimbledon.

 And then he wins it again, annoying a number of tennis fans who feel he isn't "worthy". Some tennis fans don't know their asses from their elbows.

86. The worst tennis commentator in the world is Smiljan Banjac who works for Eurosport Serbia.

The vast majority of tennis fan in Serbia hate him with a passion. There are even internet petitions to get him off Eurosport. Of course, Eurosport is notorious for not giving a rat's ass for its viewers so the incompetent, racist jabber-mouth is still employed there, commentating even slam finales.

Banjac is hated for a variety of reasons: his extreme bias, his amazingly dumb and irrelevant commentary, his inaccurate "facts", his mispronounciation and mixing up of names, his annoying whiny voice, his constant jabbering, and his racism.

For example, Banjac once made a racist comment related to Nadal, in the 2013 SF FO match against Djokovic. I quote: "Nadal cheated on that point. But we can't act surprised, we all know what the Spanish people are like." He makes comments of that nature on a regular basis, yet nobody has sacked him yet. The only conclusion and explanation I have is: Banjac is sucking someone's cock at Eurosport. Someone high up in the Eurosport hierarchy gets regular blow-jobs from Banjac and that is why he can get away with his stupidity, incompetence and vileness.

The missing link? A missing link with a high-pitched whiny voice? Proof that sexual services can get you a job commentating tennis.

87. Olympic Gold is overrated.

The only thing that makes the Olympics unique is that it takes place rarely, i.e. every 4 years. However, would making Indian Wells playable only every 4 years make that event also special? Of course not.

However, the Olympic format is almost exactly the same as that of a Masters 1000 event. There are 6 rounds, and all of them best-of-3 sets except the finale which is best-of-5 (which used to be the case for many Masters 1000 tournaments until recently).

Athletically and competitiveness-wise, winning Olympic Gold is the absolute same as winning Cincinnati or Rome. The only difference is that there is greater pressure to win because it comes only every once in a blue moon, i.e. 4 years. That, to me, is not enough to earn it a high status. All that talk of the "Golden Slam" is utter nonsense.

88. The year-end Masters Cup is fun but overrated. 

Three basic reasons why winning the year-end Championship isn't as much a feat as the 1500 points allocated to the winner might suggest:

a) It is played in early or mid-November, when top players have had long, grueling seasons. Often, players appear at the Cup exhausted and not in shape.

b) Nearly every year there is at least one (major) cancellation due to injury.

c) A player can lose a match and still win the event. While this certainly makes the tournament unique and entertaining for fans, it does make its value a little questionable. In 1998, Alex Corretja won the title in spite of winning only one match in the group phase. That's a 3-2 match record for the champion! An amazing fact. More than half of all champs have a 4-1 record, only few a clean 5-0 match record.

Essentially, the Cup is a glorified Masters 1000 event. The fact that only players from the top 10 participate is easily outweighed by the fact that some key players arrive there in poor form or unfit.

89. WTA Tournament of Champions in Sofia is a joke.

A week prior to this pointless "champions" event the actual Masters Cup is being played, with the actual 8 best players. So this happens to be the RESERVE Masters Cup field, essentially, the Failed Players Cup. They throw in another low-ranked player just for the hell of it. What's the bloody point?

If we're having a tournament of FAILED players, then we might as well have an event that directly follows this one, one that has even bigger failures, called WTA Tournament of Champions Who Are Not Really Champions But Were Sort of Close to Qualifying For That Other Absurd Quasi-Masters Where Players Who Failed To Qualify For The Masters Cup Play.

Whoever dreamed up this nonsense needs to leave tennis and join the golf tour.

90. Conspiracy theories regarding tournament draws. 

It is certainly unusual that Novak and Roger had been drawn to play each other in slam semis so often, but this was a mathematical possibility - though a fairly low one. Besides, what would tournament organizers have to benefit from giving Nadal an easier path to title glory than Novak? Higher TV ratings? I find it hard to believe that ITF officials want to prevent Novak from winning more slams by "always" giving him Roger in the semis. This is typical conspiracy-theory bullshit that many Serbs attest to, Serbia being a country paranoid (since the 90s) whenever it comes to the West and how it perceives and treats them.

It's hard to judge whether or not there is manipulation when draws are being made. Perhaps there is more room for cheating in the lower-ranked events that aren't under such media scrutiny.

One thing is certain though. Whenever one RR group in the Masters Cup is tougher than the other one, there are calls of foul play from the enraged fans of the players in the tough group. They simply don't understand that with only 8 players to draw groups from, the chances of one group being tougher always exists, and that the mathematical chance of that occurring is usually high.

Nevertheless, I am starting to wonder how it is that Federer gets easy draws in Wimbledon (and to a lesser extent other slams) year after year recently. London organizers have shown in the past that they are prone to manipulation.

91. Many Serbs believe there was something fishy about the outcome of the 2013 Wimbledon finale. 

Many Serbs had been so shocked by Novak's defeat to Murray in the 2013 Wimbledon finale that they quickly developed a ridiculous theory that the match was fixed! They simply struggled to accept the fact that Novak could lose to Murray - as if Andy were some sort of low-level amateur not worthy of a slam title. Not to mention that Andy had already beaten Novak in a number of matches - including another GS finale, the 2012 U.S. Open, just a year earlier.

Cretins who believe in this conspiracy theory inadvertently accuse Novak of selling the match - without saying it, or even thinking it. So why root for him then, if they believe he would stoop so low? Or how else do they imagine that the match could have been fixed without Novak's approval? The notion that Djokovic would tank a slam finale (for financial gain or whatever other absurd reason) is truly mind-boggling, perhaps the single stupidest conspiracy theory in the history of the sport.

Only true tennis experts understand fully why a grand slam finale can never be fixed (except when a pair of doped-up Jehovas Witnesses sisters play it). There is simply too much at stake for a finalist to lose on purpose. I am convinced that no ATP or WTA player would sell a chance at GS glory for any amount of money - short of being offered a billion dollars (which nobody would ever offer any player for any reason).

But if you think only Serbs doubted the outcome of that finale, check out this bit of blatant idiocy 

92. Fedtards have come up with the stupidest conspiracy theory of all time.

Many fedtards are so angry about Rafa's domination over Federer that they actually accuse the ATP of homogenizing courts in order to end Roger's Weak Era 2003-2007 domination! Nevermind the facts that the ATP yuppie officials love RF or that homogenization started before his domination, or that homogenization helped Roger break so many records. Fedtards truly are the embarrassment of modern tennis.

Is there a connection between Novak's success and an impending alien invasion? As fedtards all know, Federer is so peRFect, he can't possibly lose to any mere human mortal - unless perhaps Novak is an alien sent here by the anti-Swiss intergalactic wing of the ATP Federeration of Planets to ensure that Roger doesn't win 150 slams? What other possible explanation could there possibly be for not one but two players managing to embarrass the alleged GOAT by beating him over and over in slam finales?

93. Men's tennis in a mini-crisis: the year 2013. 

The 2013 season has once again given us new records upon new records, proving once again that the ATP has never been this easily dominated by just 2-3 players. It's as though the rest are merely there to fill in the gaps. DOMINATION has reached absurd levels, as the facts listed prove.

Fact 1: Only THREE players have collected ALL the important titles, i.e. the 4 slams, the 9 Masters 1000, and the Masters Cup. This is an Open Era first.

Fact 2: Several lengthy winning-streaks by Nadal and Djokovic show once again that it's far too easy for the top players to beat the rest. It's almost as if there is no resistance from anyone ranked lower than 5.

Fact 3: Nadal has made a Summer Sweep (Canadian, Cincy, USO), which happened only twice before in the Open Era, and in the same year Djokovic has made an Autumn Sweep (Shanghai, Paris, Masters Cup) which has NEVER been done before. Both these sweeps in the SAME YEAR. First time ever.

Fact 4: No player younger than 25 ends the season in the top 10. First time ever. The young players are useless.

Fact 5: Nadal comes back from a 7-month injury only to win almost everything, including 5 Masters 1000 titles, which tied Djokovic's old record from 2011. An Open Era first.

Records, records, and more records. They can only be made with such ridiculous frequency when the level of competition is low.

We've all enjoyed the duels in the semis and finales between the best 3 players, but what about the early rounds? That's where the real quality of the tour has to be judged. Rafa and Novak win far too many 6-0 sets and far too often win matches in under an hour. Nobody can tell me that the talent pool on the ATP is not lower than ever before.

Bottom line: when just 3 players win ALL 14 most important events in one season, it is time to wonder.

94. Edberg won't do anything to significantly improve Federer's game in 2014. 

The dull Swede might be able to teach Roger to make better snowballs, but that's about it. If Roger does better than in 2013, it will be because of his new racket, not Stefan.

Few of you probably know that Federer hired a MURDERER as coach. When he was only 16, Stefan killed a line-judge during the U.S. Open junior finale when he fired an ace into his gut. Far from being that upset by seeing this old man carried away on a stretcher, Edberg went on to win the match, happy as a clam. When the man died in the hospital a few days later, did this somehow traumatize Edberg in any way? Not really. Just a year later he was making a name for himself on the pro tour. Don't ever let appearances or sportsman-of-the-year awards fool you. After all, mass-murderers get Nobel Peace Prizes every year. Edberg is not the nice guy he seems to be.

95. Match-fixing in earlier rounds of lower-level events seems to be a regular occurrence on both the ATP and WTA. 

Andy Murray is on record for saying that match fixing in tennis is an open secret and that "everyone on the tour knows it's going on". Not only do I trust Murray on this, but for those of you who refuse to believe that their precious sport is heavily tainted and that Murray might be lying, a question: what did he have to gain by making this claim (if it were totally dishonest)? Nothing. And it makes perfect sense, when you start digging into the matter in more detail. Besides, it's not just his statement that raises alarm bells.

If you think drug-testing isn't - or wasn't - serious enough, just take a closer look at tennis pros and gambling houses. A strong link has been found to exist between a number of (unusual) matches and various unusually high bets.  Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to catch any guilty party because a player can bet through any person he chooses, and nobody can force either that person or the player to admit to the conspiracy.

Not long ago, two lists were made public by a Swedish magazine, with 41 male and female pros suspected of foul play. They were divided into two categories: "the black list" (the heavily suspicious) and "the suspicious list" (the less suspicious).

Players on the black list include: Tipsarevic, Schiavone, Seppi, Starace (essentially caught already but let go for lack of evidence), Errani, Azarenka, A. Radwanska, Davydenko (who was actually charged but let go because proof of match-fixing is virtually impossible), Llodra, Kohlschreiber, Odesnik Volandri and Fognini.

Players on the suspicious list include: Bogomolov, Cilic, Karlovic, Troicki, Vinci, Bolleli, Daniilidou, Pennetta, Razzano, Oprandi and Darcis.

For tennis insiders, a lot of these names should come as no surprise. Many of them are proven drug-cheats, for example. And so many Italians, hmm. Just saying.

Knowing human nature i.e. greed and corruption, knowing how many players got caught cheating with drugs, knowing how prevalent arranged matches have been and are in many other sports, knowing how lower-ranked players can struggle financially, and knowing the fact that it is a crime that virtually nobody can be persecuted with due to a lack of solid enough evidence - it makes perfect sense for players to lose matches on purpose in order to make a quick buck on the side. "No effort - big pay-day." 

It's safe to assume that Murray is right. The only question remaining is how prevalent this type of corruption is. So far only a Serb player Savic has been caught (and banned for life). Considering how little I trust the ATP, the WTA and the ITF, we shall never know for sure, and this kind of bullshit will be probably getting worse rather than better as no players get caught and punished.

96. WTA players used to be much uglier until recently.

If you think female pros are ugly, take a glance at the recent past. Back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the WTA was practically 98% ogres and semi-Orcs. Today, aided mostly by the insurgence of Slavic women, we finally have some ladies on the so-called "Lady's Tour" that actually look like ladies.

97. In the 70s and 80s, many top players opted not to play the Australian Open, which is why it was considered an "inferior" slam until the late 80s.

There is absolutely no doubt that one of the reasons Sampras, Federer and Nadal managed to win so many more slams than 70s/80s champs is because they play(ed) in the 90s/00s/10s Era.

Connors: was banned from the FO during 1974-1978, and opted not to play the Aussie from 1976-1992.

McEnroe: during his best years, he only played AO in 1983 and 1985.

Borg: failed to show up from 1975-1981, his prime.

Just imagine how many more slam titles these 3 champs would have won, had they played all 4 slams with regularity as they are played these days.

In light of these facts, we can rule out the Aussie Open as a true grand slam event during the 70s and much of the 80s.

98. Djokovic and his by-now record-setting struggles to win the French Open. 

Many great Open Era champs miss only one or two majors in order to complete the Slam: Lendl never won Wimbledon (7 times in the QF, SF or F), Borg played 4 U.S. Open finales yet never won it (didn't play the AO), Wilander never won Wimbledon, etc. No slam title has proven to be more elusive for the best of the game than Roland Garros, however. Becker, Sampras, McEnroe, Edberg and Connors have all tried but failed. If it weren't for Nadal's knee injury in 2009, Federer would most likely be part of this group as well.

Will Djokovic end his career by joining that elite club, or will he win it and become the 4th man since the rankings system to hold the Slam? Consider this: he is the only player in the Open Era to have gone so far at a specific slam (i.e. QF or more) without winning it: 9 times, to be exact. Only Connors with his 8 at the FO comes close. But Connors never reached the finale, whereas Novak played it three times.

In other words, statistically speaking no champ in the Open Era deserved a particular slam title more than Djokovic. Certainly, this statistic (3 F, 4 SF, 2 QF) might be a strong indicator that he will eventually win it. Personally, I have my doubts, but he does have a chance.

Well, here's the answer.

 I was one of the many who thought that holding all 4 was impossible. So Novak achieved the impossible in a sense.

99. Yevgeny Kafelnikov is the only multi-slam champ who has failed to win any Masters 1000 i.e. Big 9 events. 

In spite of having won 2 slam titles (AO and FO) and having been no. 1 in the world, Kafelnikov has lost in all 5 of his M1000 finales. This whopping 0-5 in M1000 finales is also a negative Open Era record for this category of tournies. The only players who come close are the mentally weak Mardy Fish with 0-4, the perennial French underachiever Richard Gasquet with 0-3, plus Raonic whose 0-3 is symptomatic of his generation's lack of success.

On the other hand, Kafelnikov won Olympic Gold, which is very similar to a Masters 1000.

On the opposite side of the Slam/M1000 spectrum, there are players who won a number of M1000s but never a slam title. The man who has the dubious honour to lead in this table is Marcelo Rios with a whopping 5 M1000 titles, and 0-1 in slam finales. Andrei Medvedev has a similar success-failure rate with 4 M1000 titles and 0-1 in slam finales. Others like them are Thomas Enqvist and Nikolai Davydenko, each with 3 M1000 trophies and no slam titles.

Another category Kafelnikov might be the leader in is "The Player Who Doubled His Weight The Fastest After Retiring". As soon as he quit tennis he ballooned up like a blowfish. Not even that lazy slob Slobodan Zivojinovic fattened up as fast as the talented Russian.

100. Does Djokovic fake injuries sometimes? 

Novak has been often accused of faking injuries - and when someone is accused of something that frequently, usually there is some truth to it. Conclusive proof that he sometimes feigns pain came at Wimbledon 2014. 

This isn't to say that he always fakes injuries. But there is no doubt that Novak, like some other players, occasionally invents injuries for strategic purposes or other reasons. Is that a reason to dislike him? Of course not. There aren't many top players who don't uses certain legal tricks.
Proof of Novak faking injury came at Wimbledon 2014 during his match against Simon. Watch the slow-motion replay of the fall
and you will see that Novak grimaces with pain BEFORE his left shoulder touches the ground. At 2 sets up it doesn't seem to make sense to the average Joe, but he either needed a breather, sought sympathy from the crowd, or wanted to have an excuse later on should he fail to win yet another major. Who the hell knows. Novak is a class A actor, but this time he wasn't convincing enough to fool everyone.

101. Which ATP players managed to win Slam titles after defending match-points on the way to the title? 

Newcombe  1975          AO           SF         Roche 
Orantes        1975        USO          SF         Vilas
Panatta         1976          FO          1R         Hutka 
Kriek            1982         AO         SF         McNamee
Edberg         1985          AO         4R        Masur 
Becker          1989       USO          2R         Rostagno 
Sampras       1996       USO         QF         Corretja
Kuerten        2001          FO          4R         Russell
Roddick        2003      USO          SF         Nalbandian
Gaudio          2004         FO            F         Coria
Safin              2005         AO          SF         Federer
Djokovic       2011        USO          SF         Federer

102. Rod Laver's Calendar Slam is vastly overrated. 

There is no doubt that winning all 4 slams in 1969 was an impressive achievement by Laver. However, the fact that nobody since then has managed to win all 4 in a row (until 2016) leaves us with just two options i.e. possible explanations: either Laver was a unique superman, or there is something that made it easier for him to do this.

It's the latter. Unlike fedtards, I don't believe in supermen. The circumstances and conditions under which Laver won the Slam were such as to make it much easier for him. Here they are:

1)  The Australian Open had only 5 rounds.

2) The Australian Open wasn't a real slam until the late 80s. Until the 80s, many top players (Borg, McEnroe, Connors) continually skipped this slam, making it easier for the others to win it. The reason for this was probably the distance. Back in 1969, prize money was utterly pathetic compared to today, so just buying a ticket to Australia was not an option for many players.

3) The pre-70s era was still more amateur than professional, despite the fact that 1968 was proclaimed as the start of the pro era, i.e. the Open Era.

4) Whereas nowadays the 4 slams are played on 3 different surfaces, in Laver's era 3 of the slams were played on grass, which also happens to be his favourite surface.

Does anyone doubt that Nadal would have won all 4 in a row if 3 slams were being played on clay? Perhaps Agassi could have done it in 1999-2000 if there were 3 hard court slams instead of 2. Even Federer would have had a slightly better chance of doing all 4 in a row if he had had 3 slams on grass (although, Nadal still would have beaten him on clay).

This is yet another example why I do not take pro tennis before the 70s that seriously. 

103.  An absurdity: until recently Roland Garros and Wimbledon were separated by only two weeks.

The fact that these two majors were separated by such a laughably short break reflects the utter incompetence of the ITF.

When these two Slams - as different surface-wise as they can possibly be - had only 14 days between them, Wimbledon favoured those who didn't go far at the French, and that was unfair. There shouldn't be less than a month between any two Slams, but three weeks (from 2015) is certainly a vast improvement.

It took the ITF half a century to finally pull it off. This will prevent players who go far at the French from being punished, i.e. players who lose earlier at the FO will not reap benefits anymore. Also, this decision extends the grass season which had always been too brief.

104. How deserving is Roger Federer of his squeaky-clean good guy image? 

The image of the "peRFect gentleman" is a sham, perpetrated by the corrupt, biased western media. He is much better described as arrogant, spoiled, underhanded and cunning. Far from being the gentleman and nice guy that the retarded sports journalists sycophantically hype him as and which he pretends to be to his armies of fedtards, he is a pompous guy who can't lose with dignity, and uses subtle gamesmanship to psyche out his opponents before a match. He has done this against Djokovic, Murray, and now recently even against Nadal - complaining about Rafa's excessive use of towels.

He often made snide remarks about Murray and especially Djokovic during the 2007-2010 years. That was nothing but insecurity. He knew they were gunning for his ass and was scared they would be like Nadal i.e. players ready to beat him regularly, so he occasionally used the media to make unclassy remarks to ruffle their feathers.

You have to be a rather poor judge of character not to notice all the pompousness, mega-narcissism and arrogance that surrounds most of his actions and words. Nothing about him is modest or down-to-Earth. Especially not the fact that he wears his own initials on his shirts or the pomp involved in wearing that silly white Wimbledon jacket on Center Court like some self-annointed king.

He is the only male player ever to have SOBBED LIKE A GIRL (AO 2009) after having lost a slam finale, in spite of the fact that he had already won a dozen slams beforehand, and the fact he'd won AO 3 times beforehand, without having lost any finales. That kind of astounding immodesty shows his true character. There is a fine line between ambition and megalomania.

It would be understandable for someone who never won a slam title to cry after losing such a finale, or someone who was injured in the finale, but for a 13-Slam champ to act like this - with no dignity at all - is an embarrassment for the sport.

And it proves he's gay.

105. Currently, the biggest buffoon in ATP's top 50 is Bernard Tomic.

I can't be bothered to list all the gaffes and dumb things he's said and done in the past few years, aside from the one about him being embarrassed of his Croat roots. I should think the Croat people should be embarrassed of him, not the other way around.

Look up the rest on Wikipedia.

And like most deluded morons, he's quite arrogant as well. His young age is not an excuse; he takes after his father who is a mega-putz in the finest Jim Pierce or Damir Dokic tradition. Admittedly, he is as much a victim of his father as he is a spoiled brat.

Genetic flaws? None. If grimaces could speak.

Admittedly, countryman Kyrgios is giving him a run for his money.

106. Sereno Williams wins slams more easily than regular WTA events.

Sereno wins slams with more ease than regular events, not just because he focuses more on slams but because he gets to rest every other day. A crucial factor for the fitness-challenged she-beast. 

If slams offered no rest days for the women, she would probably have a half less slam titles than now.

Sereno playing those poor girls is like John Cleese beating up a school-girl in a Monty Python sketch. It would be comical if it weren't so blatantly unfair.

107. It can be argued that WTA's Tier 1 events are tougher to win than slams, or equally hard.

Women get no rest days during Tier 1 events, and most of the elite is there, which makes winning those tournaments at least as tough as winning slams. 

Winning slams presents a tougher challenge for the women mentally, rather than physically, because of the media attention and the historic significance, whereas for men slams present an increased challenge both mentally and physically.

108. Russian tennis commentators are the WORST in the world.

If you miss out on a tennis match and seek to download one from a torrent or see it on YouTube, beware of Russian versions. Russian commentators don't stop talking for a second: they jabber incessantly over points, probably thinking that the tennis match is all about them, not the players.

It is an unwritten COMMON SENSE rule to shut the f**k up as soon as a point starts, and to resume yapping only when the point ends, a rule that most civilized countries' commentators adhere to strictly. Not so the Russians.

109. Nadal winning the Channel Slam twice is one of the most amazing feats in the Open Era.

It hadn't been done in nearly 30 years, since Borg did it several times, nor did anybody aside from Agassi even manage to win both these titles in different years. 

Yet Nadal did it in 2008 and 2010. The only reason he didn't do it in 2009 as well was injury. Federer seized the chance, and won them both that year, but the Swiss Ballerina's feat counts for much less considering the man who beats his ass regularly in majors wasn't fit to play.

Of course, Wimbledon's courts and balls being slowed down in recent years certainly helped both Nadal and Federer in winning them back-to-back. They would not have been able to do this in the late 80s or 90s. Nevertheless, winning two slams that are that close, in a row, twice, is astounding.

110. Jimmy Connors was unfairly prevented from completing the Calendar Slam, or at least from winning all 4 Slams outside a Calendar Year.

Connors, having the good or bad luck to have played his best tennis in the 70s, was not allowed to compete at the French Open for 5 years in a row, from 1974-1978, for some ridiculous reason that I can't even remember.

This also goes to show that the remnants of the moronic rules of the pre-70s Amateur Era still had an impact even in the 70s. 

If we consider the fact that Connors won all three other Slams in 1974, it isn't a huge leap of the imagination that he would/could have won all 4 that year, or at least picked up a French Open title in one of the following years. Hence he was hugely disadvantaged and we shall never know how much greater his career could have turned out.

As a sidenote, Jimmy voluntarily omitted playing the Aussie Open from 1976-1992, which is quite astounding. There is no doubt that a player such as Connors didn't have as many opportunities to win slams as players from the 90s onwards have.

Jimmy Connors, winning a lot in the 70s despite the shitty hair.

Don't forget to check out ENCYCLOPAEDIA GOATANNICA - a detailed analysis of why Federer isn't Best Ever, a must!

Some notable tennis quotes getting de-quoted:

Or perhaps you're wondering how that awfully stupid game known as football could be improved?



No comments:

Post a Comment