Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
On The Ball
On The Ball

Episode 8 · 2 years ago

Men's Tennis - Episode 7

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Tennis experts, Josh Brown and Christian Pilcher, join host, Hamish, to discuss the last decade of men's tennis and identify who were the top 10 players of the decade.

Crowd Cheese, he settle. Welcome back to episode seven of the on the ball podcast. Today I'm joined by once again the tennis expert of the Channel, Josh Brown. Welcome, thank you. Happy to be here again and regular to the channel WHO's also himself a tennis expert. Specializes in the men's gender of tennis, maybe not so much the women's. Christian Pilcher, welcome back mate. Hey Boys, how are we good? Good, mate, let's just there's no real point pissy. What is that same piss footing? Piss faring? I don't know. She's fighting around. Yeah, no point Piss F there we go, no point, he's fighting around. We may as well get into it. So we're going to discuss our top ten men's tennis players of the decade. That is just finished. So the two thousand and ten S. Yeah, we'll just make our way from ten to one and we'll just discuss tennis on our way through the list. So let's just waste no time. Really, John A, start us off pilled with your number ten, mate. Sure thing, mate. So I've actually gone with a bit of a more recent player who only came onto the scene two thousand and sixteen, but I've gone with Dominic team a number ten. Yeah, well, I've you gone with him there. Well, his although he hasn't played as much as some other players who played the whole decade, what is achieved so far as already pretty much better than most players. So like to Grand Slam finals in the French Open, anyone. Indian Wells as well, and he's entrenched himself in that top five over the past four years. Really. Yeah, he's made his way into my top ten. Yeah, is team in your lis branding? Yeah, he just squeezed into number ten. Sweat as well. Just made it in there and yeah, same similar situation. I was a bit torn because he didn't quite have the wreck like results spanning over the entire decade. Just use a bit younger, but he's the fact that he has made the two Grand Slam finals and been definitely up there. That's a like top five top ten contender consistently over the last four years with some and probably a much more competitive against the top for top three guys and lots of the other guys have been over the decade then. Yeah, that's what, for me, squeezed him in there. Yeah, I think he's probably really stood out as well, since Marie's had his injury issues and stuff. The fourth best. I think he's kind of stood out as the best of the rest at times, likes Vere of MED for Devans. It's a passive all kind of challenge for that position, but I would say it is still team and that was highlighted by his performance at that was open earlier this year. It's fair to say he's like a clay court, dominant player, despite having a master's went on hard. So I think it's obviously without the big three, or even the big for a lot of these players lower down would have a grand slam or maybe even more than one. So I think it'd be safe to say if Rafa wasn't around, team would already have one or two rolling garrises in the bank. And if our need a three,...

...yeah, that would completely change the way we look at definitely definitely the second best player what it comes to the clay in the world, that's for sure. Yeah, so I think he's been unlucky. I'm sure eventually he'll have his time to dominate on clay when Raffi retires, but I think he's been unlucky to kind of be about the same time that's the greatest clay tennis player of all time. So why did you both have team attend? Yes, yeah, okay, team he was twelve for me. So you didn't make my ten, but it was very close. Number Ten, I've actually I don't I feel like this is pretty rogue. When I made this list I was actually kind of thought he was lucky to even make the list, but upon doing the stats, that just showed how consistent he is. I wrote down their ranking coming into the decade and at the end of the decade and he was, I think, one of three players, apart from the top five, who are clearly better than the rest. I think he was one of only three others to have a top fifty ranking both at the start of the decade and at the end. so He's been like he's had great longevity and he's really been good throughout the whole decade, unlike someone who is a bit younger like team, or was variable something. So I've gone with Joe Wilfrid Songer, quite quite a shock, I would say, pretty our rageous pick. When I worked out the median end of year averages, his median average was twelve, which is, I think, like the third or fourth best apart from the big four. It's actually better than stands, which is pretty impressive. He hasn't made a grand slam final, so he's definitely lacking in that department, but he's made five semi finals. He made a tour finals as well, but lost to Roger. He is one of masters which, although you would think is not that impressive over ten years, that's actually it's not as common as you would think amongst the not so dominant players of this decade, and he is been pretty consistent in the masters. Like he's made for Semis and lost two finals. He has great records in five hundreds and two Fifi S, with heaps of tournament titles and something that I really like as a man who loves the Davis and Fed Cup. He has a Davis Cup torn title to His name and also two finals losses, so it's been pretty dominant in that tournament. So do you guys think that's pretty outrageous pick? I actually I write the pick. He would have been close for me just because he's he's been a great player throughout the whole decade and I'm a big fan of song. I reckon he's one of the most talented players on tour just from raw talent. Yeah, yeah, big fan of them as well. He didn't quite he pocked in number thirteen for me. So he made the shortlist. Of thought about him, but for me, even though the consistency was there, there was no like like he's never really been in the top five for any considerable length of time. Doesn't really have many grant like big Grand Slam performances over the last decade either. So nothing that really stands out enough to get him up there for me. Yeah, he's had a couple of injuries as well, so he's been yeah, he's been pretty unlucky. Yeah, you can is kind of fallen away a bit in the last two years of the decade. He was, I think, injured in the two thousand and eighteen season, as he ended up with the year end ranking of two hundred and forty. But apart from that, aid of the years he was in the top twenty at the year end and then in the other year he was twenty nine. So pretty consistent. But yeah, as you said, Brownie, he never finished a year inside the top five, which is like, although pretty impressive achievement, that's like not really...

...what you'd expect for someone making the top ten at the decade. So, yeah, I'm willing to admit he's probably at his peak, not as good as some of the players who've missed out of my list. But yeah, I just rewarded the longevity inconsistency. So yeah, let's just actually, when I was thinking of my list, I kind of over looked at how good he had been, though, like I genuinely thought this is probably recency buyers playing a part, but I thought mumpies had been better than songer in this decade. Well, earlier in the decade, Song was definitely one of the main early on the decade when it was like a definitive top fourth at the at the beginning. He was definitely one of the top guys, challenging alongside like for air and Burdick and a couple others, contending and get in those quarterfinal spots and stuff, but it was never really able to consistently be one of those top ten players. are like top six or seven guys as much as the other guys in my list have been. So was impressive. Have has been impressed over the last ten years. But yeah, not quite there for me. Yeah, I'm not really surprised at his Davis Cup performance because it's been a pretty elite French Gen yes, that's true. Yes, gay, even pui, he's not like he's not even in his prime yet, but he's added something to the to the country's reputation is a tennis powerhouse. And then you just had that heaps of like just mid performers, like even like Julian benettone's stuff like that. They've got a good doubles pairing yellow and there as well, which helps. Yeah, it's true. Yeah, so they're, or I feel like them and Spain and I guess America. They probably have like the best volume of tennis players in terms of I would say that almost have like ten and the top hundred most times. Yeah, and I'd say songer has really spearheaded that generation of French tennis players, maybe with gas guy as well. So who do you guys have? A nine? Then number nine? At Number Nine, I've actually gone with sashes very of yeah, and he's only been around the last three or so years and he's probably one of the most frustrating players on tour because just as just as he just as we think he's finally breaking out and he goes and loses in the third round of a slam and then everyone thinks he's bad and then he goes and wins the tour finals. So it's definitely had consistency issues. But I mean he's already won three masters, two on clay and and too finals as well. So just based on what he's already achieved, it was a pretty easy placing into number nine for me. Did you have him, Brownie or no? He was for me. He was asked from my list pretty early on because he was him. I've originally put him up there to give get some stats, but for me it's just too recent for player to be in the top ten. Like combination of how recently is and his lack of performances in grand slams. The combination those two things means that for me I was yeah, he wasn't really a contender in the top ten. Yeah, he's, yeah, he's slam performances definitely aren't appealing, but I value the tool finals win pretty highly and also players like will ring our del Potro haven't even they're only one one masters and he's already won three. So that's what he has the most. He has the most other than the big four for this decade, unless someone's just somehow on. Everyone who's one of masters is in...

...my list. So that's not wrong. That's that's pretty well. That's pretty whack, though, that the fifth most masters wins by player is three. Three, yeah, it's ridiculous in the dull, just a bit greedy. But Um, you know, I see why you've gone with him. I've kind of favored longevity, as you were saying, Brownie in my thing, as suggested by my pick of Sommer. So people like Severe Evan Team, who are probably better than some of my players at their peak. So in that in the decade, were kind of yeah, I've just preferred longevity to it, even though they were probably worse players at the top of their powers. But yeah, I see how he picks there. If I just couldn't really look past the fact that he'd never made a grand slam semifinal. Like to me that was yeah, it's a bit of a struggle apt but, as you said, the ATP Finals Win and the three masters, they're very impressive. So I do see how you picked him, but for me he was down at like fifteen if most. Yeah, for sure, for sure. Next decade he'll be making a list. Yeah, easy, yeah, yeah, so who have you got it? N I'm brand. For me I've got one, my tin del Potro at number nine. He's made made the one got, the one lasts win in the one Grand Slam final over the last decade and he has had some consistency in the top ten. But he has had an injury plagued he's pretty injury prone guy, so he's been a bit in and out with some injuries at the beginning, in the middle and then at the end of the decade. So three major injuries there for him. But for me he's just made the list just off the basis if he's just been a round in and around, and I think if it wasn't for his injuries he definitely would be much higher up on this list. Also some very incredible individual performances, like his Indian Wells victory. You want Indian Wells, I want to say in two thousand and eighteen, yea twenty, even with an impressive victory over Roger fetter in the final, or maybe Roger Fetter in the semi. I want to say a big win. And it's just being able to produce some of the most impressive individual match performances outside of the maybe the top five guys of the decade, in my opinion, some of the like, some of the top match of the deck, all the top match the decade, you're going to be those top five guys, and del Poto, I think, in my opinion. So that's what got him in there. For me, just at his peak is very, very good. He has been finished three years in the top ten and one two years in the top five. So when he gets a role he's definitely, definitely very high up there if you can get string a year or two together. But just an injury plagued kind of guy who's just been a bit unlucky in that sense. So came it. Came in at number nine for me. Did you have him pilled? I did have him in my list, did you? Yeah, you're well, you haven't met. I've this is fairly controversial, but I've got him all the way up at number six. I actually do as well, and that's that's the most outrageous peak, I think. For me, let's see, for me it's just because, although he doesn't have the massive amount of achievements because of his injuries, I think that based on his ability. He is easily in the top six players of the decade. Yes, and he has he's got a better win percentage than we're Inca top five win percentage and also win percentage against the big three and top ten. So that's what that's why I put him at six. Yeah, and we haven't mentioned it, but his Olympics performance. He has a silver medal and a bronze medal, so it's kind of surprising that he was healthy for both those torn yeah, and at Rio he beat Jokovic and Nadal,...

I believe, and almost beat Murray for gold. Yeah, and you also wanted Davis Cup. I think it was with one Monaco, and he also lost a final the Davis Cup. So He's been like pretty good in every kind of tournament category you have really so I am willing to admit it's a pretty outrageous pick, but given the fact that like chill its just won a grand slam, stands one hundred and three. But yeah, I've got him at six. For me, pretty like I don't even know if it's a good call, but yeah, I just maybe a bit of subconscious bias because I really like del Potro. I honestly think if he wasn't injured throughout this decade he would have been the fifth best player. Like I think it would even been higher, to be honest. Yeah, I reckon really know been better than stand because he'd honest said to obviously that this doesn't count towards this list, but the two thousand and nine US Open was his Grand Slam win and he would have been only about twenty years old and he beat Roger Federer in the final and Roger Federer was undefeated for five years at the US Open. So that was like the major break out. And then almost immediately after that he was injured and, as I've got here, finished two thousand and ten it ranked two hundred and fifty eight. So very unlucky if you manage to string all of those years of the last ten years to get up, because he has had a few solid couple of years on the two where's managed to get back to the top five. With all the ten years, definitely would have challenge the top four. If he was healthy that entire time, I think he would have won another slam. Yeah, for sure, I agree. Yeah, and it like obviously these are stuff we can't take into account for this list. Yeah, I didn't happen, but also very stiff that he won the last Grand Slam in the last decades. Yes, yeah, like, yeah, I didn't take that into account, but maybe subconsciously I couldn't help but think about it. Yeah, here, as you were saying, Brownie, he had four year end rankings of above a hundred. So just shows how like crippled by injury he had been over this decade. Yeah, yeah, he's one number six. I'm willing to admit that. I don't know if it's the smartest decision or the most accurate, but yeah, that's who up. Yeah, I reckon. He's definitely should be higher based on his ability, but just back based on his titles and he's consistency. I had him at number nine, but he had to be, was always going to be in the top ten. For me, there's no way I could exclude him. Yeah, I made my original list of ten before I compared the stats and he actually wasn't in it. But then here men's song up kicked some people out who I thought we're definite S, like Kanashikori and stuff. So it's a little sneak peak on WHO's missed out, but my number nine hasn't been said yet. I'm going with Thomas Burdisch of the Czech Republic, a country you probably associate with women's tennis and there Fed Cup dominance, but he is the flag bearer of the men's game, along with the beautiful Raddick Stephanich. Thomas Burdich had a median year end rank of seven, which is like very impressive. That was so him. Endeavid for are both had seven and then the next highest was Andy Murray with for so. That just so shows how consistent he was. So yeah, he was better in Chilichan Stan in thus that aspect. He made a Grand Slam semi final seven times. One of those times he went on to the final and lost. So unfortunately didn't get a grand slam to his name Masters. So this kind of seems to be a trend with Birdisch, but he was just consistent. He didn't necessarily have this like the x factor to beat the the big four, but he made twelve masters semi finals and lost three matches in finals. So although he doesn't have a master's win, which is a big like...

...x next to his name, the fact that he got to the semi Finals Fifteen Times shows how competitive he was and he was probably clearly better than the rest of the tour but just couldn't match it with the Big Four. He also like I know I keep popping on this, but he also has two Davis Cups to his name, which, once again, I really like in a players resume. So that's why I've got him at number nine. Do you guys have him in your tens? Yes, for me he came to number eight, just above del Potro. See was my next on the list. Um, yeah, yeah, just for all the same reasons that you've talked about. Extremely consistent over the entire decade, except for the last couple of years where he just faded just before his retirement, but you know that's to be expected. And Yeah, just never able to beat he never able to really challenge top four guys. You know, consistent sense compared to guys like team or del Potro who were below him, who have been had definitely been up to challenge the top four guys better. But just the consistency over the entire decade and be able to perform week in week out, and always managers, always reliable kind of. He's always a super reliable guy. To beat the people that he should beat. Yeah, that's why it's the top ten for me, a number eight. Yeah, bird it's, but it's just missed out for me, like Songer, because he's shown superb consistency. But, as as Brownie just said, it didn't really challenge the top guys and didn't hit didn't win a master's. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, no, you're right there. Yeah, so and then he in songer were unlucky, I think, because they had to play the big for Murray included all in there throughout their primes, whereas the next Gen a sort of getting them when they're on the decline. I feel like, or especially like Roger. Yeah, not so much. Yeah, but even no vack in the dull. I think their primes were two thousand and ten to two thousand and fifteen. Yeah, and like the blackadds injury and stuff. Yeah, they would have played him coming back from that. But yeah, just the fact that they they never really were able to beat them. So that's why I got missed out for me. Yeah, I do see that train of thought. I think based on your two picks so far, it's kind of clear that you've gone for who was best at their peak. When me and Brownie of maybe letter preferred longevity. Yeah, that's way. Have we've done everyone number? Everyone's number nine? Correct? Correct, correct. Have we touched on your number eight, pilch? We have not, and for me the toughest, the toughest selection was deciding between my seven and eight chiligh and for a correct yeah, and I've that was my toughest. I have decided on placing Marin Schilich at number eight, and he's at his peak. He's shown some absolutely unreal performances the usoken thirty one where he smashed Federer, smash Nishikori, who would just smashed Jockovich, and two other grandson finals as well. But if you look at his head to head records against the big four or even players like del Potro, he's just absolutely shocking. It'side. It's just ten percent against all those guys, and his overall win per ennage as well just isn't great. So I have put him at number eight, despite the slam. Do you have him, Brown yeah, I've got him at number seven. Yeah, yeah, yes, a similar so he's gotten above the other guys just based on his Grand Slam pretty much, although it's probably fair to say that the other three have a bit more consistency in their game,...

...because he's definitely at it when he's performing. When he's on, he's very much on. But he does have a bit of I feel like he has a bit of a habit of just being a little bit up and down and not be able to piece the results together and be able to go deep in tournaments consistently. Yeah, but that Grand Slam goes very far in this decade because they were very hard to come by if you're not one of the top three or not one of the top four guys. So, yeah, getting a grand slam in this decade is something that is extremely impressive and he did. Yeah, he did have him, and it's not like he got through that Grand Slam without playing any of the top guys either. So that puts him at number seven for me. Yeah, Chile it was. For me he's almost like a male version of Petricka Viama, but probably a little bit more inconsistent in his like if you take a month of Chiliche, I'd say it would be more in considered Ston than Kavitava. But when he's on, he's on, like, I think, what do you call it? Pilche when he read lines at or something. That's how you used to describe my run. Yeah, that's how you described his run in the two thousand and eighteen I was open, where he would just any ball he would see. He would just try and hit a winner, basic backet. Yeah, yeah, and he hit a really rich fan of form in that tournament. I remember where. I think about me in his semi final match, or maybe his quarter final match, but it was kind of like you genuinely thought he was going to win another slam. So when he's on he can be destructive, but he's not on at all, like much at all really, or at his very peak, so he usually plays within that level. So that's why. Well, he is above for are. For me. Did you guys put him above for are? No, he's below foreth me. Yeah, I've got for are seventh. I've got four at six, so just above Chilich. Yeah, for me, Chili first. For Air was the hardest choice of the whole list, to be honest. Chilich. I've got chilch above for are. For are's basically better than him in every single stat except for the Grand Slam. So I can definitely see why for are would be above him. But for me, as you guys were saying, the Grand Slam was so hard to come by in this decade. And for are, although he made a Grand Slam final, he got absolutely whipped. So I don't think he was ever really that close to spite making lots of semi finals in one final. So yeah, that's why I had chillage above for are, but I can definitely see why you put for are above chillage. So do you guys have chillage at seven? And then, Brownie, you haven't six. I know I've chill it. Note story are. Sorry and I've forget six correct. Yeah, you want to talk a bit about for A. Yeah, so Dave Forres just missed consistency, it's fair to say, and even if like talked about birds before, but for as that, but I'm another level. Really just always be in the guys that he should be beating and then losing to the guys you should be losing two pretty much. Did he win a Master's title? I think he won one. He won Paris and I'll six finals. Yeah, and then also, of course, got smashed by Rapha in the only ground slam finally ever made just a perennial kind of guy who gets through all the rounds that he should win and then comes across one of the big four guys and doesn't even think he has stands a chance and then doesn't stand a chance and then, you know, gets absolutely destroyed. But the one stat that I've I used it in our last episode about women's tennis and I'm using it again here, was I tallied up all the ranking points for the last ten years from the end of each year, just to see how you know, the consistency in the overall performances. I feel like it's a good measure of that. And he dad came in it and I'm even though I have I haven't met number six in...

...the rankings, he came up at number five in that sense because, just because, if he's supreme consistency similar to that of Birdich. So yeah, and he was fair way above, like right next to, just above burdisch and Warrinka, but well clear of everyone else and of course well behind the top big four guys, but just so consistent over the last few years and he probably the only thing that heard him in that sense was just the last two years he kind of faded away and retired. So but yeah, it's fair to say that I reckon definitely deserves that spot for me. But definitely there was no question he wasn't going to be going any higher either. pilled, you want to say anything that way, you had fore above chiliche. Yeah. Well, for me it was just as Brownie said, the ultra consistency that he showed all the way up until around two thousand and seventeen ish, and he does. He did do well in a lot of masters as well, and he made the slam final, and so for me I favored the longevity in this time and I think that when you when you just way up Chilich versus for air, for me I just straightaway I think for airs the Superior Player. Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I'm just looking at chiliche down. I'm trying to kind of write my head around wave him. Put Him above him in the first place. But he, as I was talking about with Song A, Chilich, is one of the few players to enter two thousand and ten and leave two thousand and nineteen with the top fifty ranking, and all ten of these end of year rankings were top forty. So, as you guys are saying for air fell away in the last two years. So that's probably one of the reasons why I put chiliche about for are, that's true. Yeah, but forever, forever had that number five spot downpat for a long time. Yeah, and even though Chilichen for air both have one masters each, for air has six finals losses to his name, where Chillich has none. So it's fair to say Chilich maybe capitalized on his moments more. But yeah, forever was probably consistently the better player. Yeah, I think for air just obviously lacked the bit of x factor. Yeah, that's some of these other guys have. Yeah, like I like him, but it's fair to say he's probably one of the war boring tennis players. Yeah, well, I think it's clear that I have them a number six. You guys have met seven and eight, do you? But yeah, it's fair to say that number six is like he's definite Max like, there's no question that. Yep, he didn't does, no way any there's no way he was ever going to get any higher than that, despite his consistency and everything. And for me I always kind of rated for are, even though like half his titles were the Auckland Open. But team. This kind of a weird point, but I feel like team coming in and kind of he hasn't he did last year, but kind of challenging the dial at the French kind of put into perspective that for are wasn't even that close. Ever. Yeah, so it's true, but for being in my mind a little bit, I almost viewed for are as like the second clay player in that earlier part of the decade. But then team coming in kind of put into perspective that Frere actually was just better than other players who were, yeah, top four, and he couldn't even get close to rere wasn't better than Jokovic or Federer on quay, even if it wasn't clay, whereas team is. But so yeah, probably in like looking back on for as create, I do feel like team, even if it's subconsciously maybe low as my thoughts towards for a interesting so have we covered everyone six to ten...

...already? YEA, yeah, yeah, so they are the top five. I feel like all of us have the same people in the same order. I'm confident about yeah, I know, Pilch, you were flirting with the controversial pick, but I feel like you've probably gone with logic and stuff to you've conformed. I did, for I did flirt with it. Yeah, but we can discuss it. Maybe why you'd put someone above one else. But number five rowned. You want to talk to us about him? Yeah, stand, stand, the man comes number five. Yes, just the three grand same titles. That's all you really need to say, to be honest. So his consistency on across the board, in the all the other it's ranking or in his ranking, in his all of the other tournaments in the year, in his master's everything else, he's on par with the rest of the list below him, with the six to ten. He's in pretty much in every other sense other than Grand Slams. He's a number sixty, he's a number six to ten on this list. But those three Grand Slam titles definitely clearly l elevate them above the rest because he and in all those Grand Slam titles, he beat those some of the at least one of those top three guys. I want to say I don't know that as a facts, but I'm pretty sure it's the case. He did. He did. So it's fair to say that the fact that he was able to bring it to those guys and beat them on the biggest stage, not just once, but consistence, consistently over the pier that he wants. Grand Slams easily get them in the number five spot without a question, in my opinion, and I think you guys also have him there at the number five. Yeah, obviously do as you are saying. If you take away's Grand Slam wins, he's not really got an outstanding record. Like I was just looking at it. If I covered his Grand Slam win number, I would genuinely prefer songs starts, because he's basically got similar or just a bit better and every single thing. But those three Grand Slam wins are so impressive. Yeah. So, on a bit of a more technical tennis point, as I don't really watch tennis to depthely in terms of like the technique and stuff, why do you think stand had the ability to beat like the top for whereas someone like a Chilich or, for are just couldn't really even get close? Like what did Stan have in his play? That maybe anessing will. First of all, he has the firepower. Yeah, yea, the serious firepower on both sides. So doesn't really have a weaker side in terms of you sawhand and backhand, like he can smack with us off both wings consistently. And then it just a bit more I can't think of the word, but compared to someone like chiliche or Birdisch, he's just a bit more, I want to say a bit more with it. I'm not sure if that really makes sense, but I just feel like he's a bit more switched on and a bit more just a high it Hann as Ike, and also just has a bit more like a can. His game is just a bit more adaptable, if that makes sense here. Can Use it, has the ability to like perform on all services and just adapt his game and chain in things up. And whereas burditch and Chiliche, which are just the two guys I'm just comparing too, because they both have also a bit massive firepower. Just, yeah, can't switch things up enough and can't throw at anything different at like the big four. Guys know what they're going to get when Burtich and chill it step out on the court and they and they can deal with that the best they can. And of course, if Chilich is on at his best, maybe Chili can get them, but probably not, because they know what they're going to get. The only other guy that can do that is del Potro, alongside rinker. But of course they'll. Poto has had all of these injuries and such, which is why he's not on that same level. But yeah,...

...that's what I think. That's my opinion on that matter. But of course he probably I don't haven't checked this stat but he, assume, still has a losing record against all of those guys and hasn't been able to consistently put it up, but across the entire year of offcross the entire decade at all really. But on the big stages he just knows what to do. Yeah, yeah, he's he's record against the big four is pretty terrible overall. But yeah, it's but, as Brownie said, is firepower and just the fact that if he's redlining and not missing balls then he's going to hit. He can hit anyone off the court, but it's just a matter of doing it consistently. Yeah, obviously the impressive thing is the fact that he is able to do it for this land him. Yeah, that's impressive. Yeah, and are the case to me made that he's his French Open wind is possibly the greatest level of tennis ever seen, because he's beaten an absolute peak Djokovic, who beaten a dal in the quarterfinal and straight sets at rolling Garris. He's absolutely destroyed him. But yeah, anyway, yeah, he's him and he him and his peak is as good as the top four, for sure. He's just not a descent peak concern as consistently of those guys. Like what was happened to him. He's just not as I don't think he is determined. I'm going to be honest. He's not real terribly. He doesn't have the determination or the will power to really be bothered to be that good all the time throughout the entire year, like I'm sure he's wouldn't. I'm sure, like he was, still wants to win. But like, when it really comes down to it, he can just really step up his game and he definitely has done that in some epic Jockovich. Well, I mean just look at the matches. Just look at the Brinka Djokovic matches the Australian Open. The fats are absolutely incredible matches and Jockovich at his peak at the Australian Open is what like other than adult. The French Open. Problem one of the hardest places to beat someone over five sets and we're INCA has taken him to five a few times and gotten over him just because he just steps up and, you know, can really take it to them. Yeah, the level he gets to is ridiculous. Yeah, and the one like, on a more technical note, the fact that he can read line massively off both sides. He's back hand. It's the best backhand, the best one hand to back hand on in the game, that's for sure. And then he all of course, on the forehand he can smack it as well, so that helps as well. Yeah, he's a bit of a cult hero in Australia, I feel, like stand the man. I think most people who tennis fans, or even casual tennis fans when the Australian summer rolls around, would know who stand the man is. He's pretty iconic. And just that three or four year period where you were pretty much guaranteed to have a five set semi final, no matter like the combination of who is playing, but the big four and stand always put on a show in the semis and you couldn't really miss it if you're a sports fan. So now on to number four. Do we all have Andy Murray. Yes, Pilch, I have gone with any Murray, but I felt like it was actually very tight between him and Federer. Why have you gone with Murray? It for Peach? Well, firstly, five slams, two, three. When Federer came back in one those three slams, that probably got him over the line. He's all heat federer. Also one more masters and had a better record against Jock, of which in Adal then Murray did, and also just but I think he was leading Murray seven to five in the decade and more weeks at number one. So that's all got him over the line for me.

Were you considering it, Brownie, or not at all? Know Fair to say. I mean when you brought it up earlier in the week when we were having when we were chatting about it, I'd had a quick think and then I looked at all the stats and I was like, we're Federa didn't have his two thousand and seventeen run, and or two thousand and seventeen early twenty and eighteen run, then it's very much possible. But once you know, once the end of two thousand and seventeen rolled around, there was no, no coming back then Andy Murray in that sense like he's just on it. He's just, you know, perennially going to forever going to be the number for number four man. You can't match with though. He his stats just don't as good as those three in any way, to be honest, except for his just incredible Olympics performances. And then it that. I've stops about there. Yeah, I'm unfortunately for Murray. I do feel in a couple years the big four will no longer be a term used in tennis and before it's three. It's be pretty much been the big three the last since ever, I want to say since like Twenty Sixteen or twenty two thousand and sixteen, since or since Andy Murray got injured in two thousand and seventeen, it's pretty much just been the big three. Yeah, so I do. I do feel for mother there. But let's do we have been a bit sour on Marie, but let's talk about why he's good enough to be a number four. So in my little median end of view rank thing he has for his median rankers for which was most surprisingly higher than like the fifth who was seven, who was seven with for a and birdish so that's clearly better than the rest. And then he's got three slams like stand but has seven finals losses where stand and they had one. So it does show, although he was playing probably the best three tense players of all time, it does show that he was a bit of a choke artist for a little bit there. He's got a win in the end of year. To finals. He has ten masters wins. He as we have said, probably the greatest thing in his resume is his to gold medals at the Olympics. No one else was allowed a gold medal in this decade. So he's probably pissed a few people off there, but they can come and he's he's got a Davis Cup as well. He carried Carl Edmond by the scruff of the neck to get to the title for the United Kingdom. Forty one weeks and number one I've got here. So pretty outstanding player really. Twenty sixteens this year. Yet his quick it was a two thousand and sixteen. He's quick claim he won. When would anyone the world to a final? Spent most of the year at world number one and then, yeah, and he got the your number one as well. Yeah, it was a bit of a shout of him it becoming a top four, of big four, but then, you know, just injury since then and but also that year. It's fair to say two thousand and sixteen wasn't the most competitive year because Djokovic and, sorry, Nadal and Federer weren't around for lots of that year either. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, and Djokovic didn't. Jockovich get surgery only a couple years maybe a year or two after that, so he was probably playing through pain, you could say. Yeah, well, potentially Dakovich, Djokovic. In the second half of two thousand and sixteen his level dropped off a lot. Was that the year he won the French Open? Yep, he just went it, won the French Open and then kind of lost bit of motivation after that. Exactly. Yeah, so, looking back with hindsight, it's probably nice that Murray had, he's two thousand and sixteen of dominance after three or four years where he couldn't get the win at home. He was losing all these finals. He would just cry every time the ceremony would happen. He was a bit of a joke really. So I'm happy for him that a player of his caliber got that celebrity kind of run and at the in...

...the end it was kind of like his swan song tour, as injuries took place in two thousand and seventeen and kind of since then he's tried to come back a couple times, but it's not really ever been to six. Yes, I think. Did he get it? Did you win A to fifty last year or some yeah, near the end of last year he got back to win a two fifty, but it's been too late to make any impact on in the year. So we've already alluded to it. But number three, Roger Fedra. Do we all have Roger at number three? Yes, Yep, yeah, so he's arguably the goat of tennis, but that's a debate for another time. I'm sure pilled disagrees as a Jokovic fan boy, but FEDRA is a dead set legend of the game. Here I've got he had about fifty weeks and number one. I'm not sure the exact number, as he had a number one rain from two thousand mid two thousand and nine to two thousand and ten, and I could be stuffed to count the weeks. And I think it was forty eight. Yeah, fuck, I guess forty nine, but I call that. He had five grand slams, five Grand Slam final losses, so dead bang in the middle there to to a fine. He's a beast at the tour finals. Yeah, he's got the record. Yeah, there's only one year where maybe he didn't make it. That you're a sign, but there's only one year he didn't get to the semis or further. He loves those good decade. Yeah. Well, he had two wins, three finals losses and for semi finals losses. So he doesn't relax at the end of the year like Raugher maybe does. And he is well below the others in a few stats. But Masters Twelve wins compared to the dull and jock pitches twenty combined, forty nine. So he was a bit worse than the Masters and those two. However, the five hundreds is a where he takes the PISS. He has sixteen five hundred titles, where the next best is the dial with eleven. So I guess they're easier. So makes sense, but I'm not sure why he's got such a huge dominance in five hundreds compared to those two. Half of them are probably like hull or Hala or whatever you say. Yeah, and but, yeah, but buzzle. I think this one hundred and ten Barzel as. He won ten in Basle and Holla or something. He'd like something. He always he always wins those two. It's grrantly. And he's got the silver medal in the Olympics, which means he lost to marry. Not even sure which year. What year was at two thousand and twelve. Yea, two thousand and twelve. Del Play was two thousand and sixteen, and then I think, I don't know what year was. A might have been like two thousand and fifteen. Him and stand decided to team up a bit like the avengers and they took Switzerland to a Davis Cup title, which is pretty bizarre given the fact that Switzerland. So, would you guys like to say anything else about the great man and number three of probably could have won the Davis Cup six times just they both play. Yeah, they just bots. Neither of them ever play, and then one year they're they just both decided, let's win it this year, and they did. Everyone again this I didn't pick my helped ten on Davis Cups. I'm just saying that. But every one of my top tens want to Dave's Cup, but no one has won it more than twice. So it seems to be a thing in men's tennis that you just go R Davis, cut this year, let's do it, and then maybe that maybe the planet. This is my year and the next you can be a r easy and then jock us and then bit of a rotation. Yeah, it's Roger was a clear three. I'll just yet say this stacks. I think it's interesting the total number of points for the decade. So, for are was fifth in that fifth in that rank with that, with thirty three thousand, Marie fourth with fifty five thousand, and Feder a third with seventy five thousand. So the role like twentyzero apart. So it's all very clear that no one is damn, no one is getting close to the top four and he isn't getting close to number three. And then a rapper...

...comes into eighty five thou. So Roger isn'tetting close to number two. It's all pretty it all like even things out pretty much. That's that's that's pretty good indicator, in my opinion, of how the overall performance of the decade is. Yep, good measure of consistency as well. Yeah, better. I was just always at the time and then the top four, whereas Murray did fall off. Yeah, or the end, but because of injury. Yeah. So, Brown that's enough for Roger. I reckon, Brownie, who if you got it? Number to raper. Oh all, what a shop. Wait, do we all have rapper number two? I will pills, will I Sartn't even have to ask and I can see him my only so yeah, we've all got rapper number two. was very that was all. That was pretty clear to me as well. Yeah, yeah, so let's just chat about in the day. We can't do a disservice to him and just jump over John a discuss his stats. Brownie. Sure. So, one hundred and thirteen grand slams in the decade. I want to say eight of them will roll. And Garrison's I can't confirm that, but I think he lost twice this decaded the French and then he lost six Grand Slam finals. Hasn't won a world to a finals ever. I don't know. He's never never provided any performances there. But and then one hundred and twenty masters titles during the decade. So it's stats are clearly above Rogers but clearly below novacs the same time. Yeah, it's been very consistent over the decade. The only player to finish the year in the top ten or ten years, because he's two thousand and sixteen, which was his year. No, vack and Roger both had nine because two thousand and sixteen, when Roger had some time off, he dipped just outside at number sixteen, and no vac when he had his bit type bit of time off in two thousand and seventeen, dip just outside of number twelve. But rapper managed to stay at number nine when he had his time off in two thousand and sixteen. So the only player finish all ten years in the top ten, which is which is very impressive from him. Yeah, that is impressive. Yeah, not much else to say. Just a clay court master dominates the French Open, which gets all of gets his Grand Slam stats up very highly. Very impressive there. Yeah, and as I'm the Davis Cup lover, he has one two Davis Cups, which makes him him and Thomas Burdett to the only people to have one more than one in this list. So good on him. Not that hard really when you're one of the top three players of all time and you also have like six other countrymen who made the top twenty appearances in the years. I don't even want to credit him for that one. But Spain's actually, would you say Spain has been the best country in this decade? Yeah, in terms of terms of players. Davis Cup, yeah, not Davis cortenter. I'd say so, I guess. Yeah, I guess you can say Switzerland, because they're Switzerland. Yeah, have two that are better, but take following you into the yeah, definitely. And then, because of an adult and for a Spain probably go over France in terms of the total because they have a bit more quality their young France to because they but brands and Spain both have large numbers. They just I don't know how it is. They just always have two or three people in between like rank ten and ranked twenty five, and every three two years it just change, change for the like time. At the moment it's like Crana buster and Batista Good, and then at the start of the decade it was probably Feliciano Low peirs and Finnando Vadasco, and then in between it's been like Nicholas our Magro, and they just have their stall like come in and out. They can't. They can't not have some. All of those plays are been top ten at some point. They'd quick appearances. is at the top ten, which is...

...absolutely outrageous to think about. Yeah, it's impressive. All right. So, Peach, I'm going to also rougher. Had A hundred and fifty eight weeks at number one. So fair play my dude. Right, peach, I'm going to keep you the honors of presenting the number one player. Sell US mates that we've got them at number one as well, but sell the listeners why no vac should be number one on your list. Well, I don't think there is much to sell. The numbers speak for themselves. But I mean far and away the best player on hard courts, far and away the best player on grass courts, ahead of Federer and Murray, and not even far. But although he doesn't have the French Open titles, but his record against Nadal on clay he's only down ehndred and seven in the decade. So you don't even not even far off in that department either. So I think. I know you guys are brought up team and forever, but I think he's easily the second best Clay Corp player across the decade. Team close between him and team for currently, because Djokovic still wins those Rome Madrid masters. But yeah, just also the weeks at number one, most slams, easily, the most masters, most tour finals. I mean the only thing he doesn't have his Olympics, but you can't really say much else. I wonder if he'll try. Really did he win the two thousand and eight? Did he win a meddle at two in two thousand and eight? Do you know at the Olympics? I think Nadal one gold, but no vac one bronze in two thousand and twelve. That's about you'd have to think next year the Olympics he's going to have a real crack at God. Yeah, he definitely. He definitely is that that's his number one priority. I can could definitely say that. Yeah, that would be something he'd want to tick off because he's pretty much kicked everything else off. Yep, the only question mark on no VAC's name. He hasn't want to hopman cut pilch and I don't know if I can look master me. We've got Roger with two wins, even bloody sager has one win. I think your man is lacking there. Yeah, look, I was hoping you didn't bring up the Hopman Cup because I was hoping touch you some taking. Is regie a clean but yeah, and he's never one of next gen finals either. So I think he's a fraud. But we it. We were talking on the women's podcast the other day with campbells that house dominant sereneries and how there was no question she was number one. She's been number one rank for two hundred and forty one weeks in that decade and Jockovich is just gone and whipped out two hundred and seventy five weeks. So yeah, you would obviously consider this decade to be right ruled by Jockovitch, a Darlin feder it all. You can almost say it's been ruled by Djokovic. If I'm honest, like I don't want to give you that ego boost, peach, but well, he's only got a cup as lamb. That star facts. But yeah, interestingly I don't believe Djokovic has the decade record for most weeks. I believe Sam press or Samption in the S. FIF in the S I think he made him by one week. But yeah, anyway, view he has have averaged over tenzero ranking points a season. That's right. That's ridicular average. Ten thousand five hundred ranking points a season over the decade. Yeah, and I'm his twenty and fifteen. He's two thousand and fifteen season. He won three slams, lost in the final of the other one. One six out of the nine masters and won the tour finals at a win percentage of like ninety four percent or something. Yeah, Finish that year with sixteen thousand five hundred ranking points, which...

...is the most outrageous number of ever. That's probably the most dominant single youth tennis of all time. I'll back myself to steal a point, though. Just rip one, just writ one down the line. Yeah, I he's not a bad player. I'll give that to you, pilch. So that's thrue days right, really, that did you enjoy? The reason? Well, who would you like to whom just missed out on your list that you would like to give a quick shit? Hey, skory, I just like to keep quick shout out to him. Here's my number eleven team and I spent about I finished my list with a number ten team, Nishikori spends about half an hour staring at the two names making a decision, and took me a long time and I couldn't make a decision, so I just chose team because I like him more. I'm going to be brewed, going to be unfortunately honest. Are But NISHIKORI does have lots of consistency over the decade. Just doesn't have doesn't have the big title wins, no Masters Wins, just the one Grand Slam final where he lost to Chilich and just even though he's being consistent, just another one of those guys who can't really take it to the big plays as much as most other other people on the list count. So, yeah, exactly. Just out what happened in that Grand Slam. By the way, Nishi Kori and Chile itch beat Novak and Fed Novac and Roger in the SEMMY's. Yeah, and then played each other. You find it? Yeah, that is oh, yeah, that's straight. As you are raised. It was the most so most outrageous grown slam. Well, I'll say is that sounds like match fixing to me. I'll just throw it out. I wonder if Nishikori can snag the gold at the Olympics next year home crew. Yeah, I think he. I think he won bronze at Rio. Yeah, yeah, you did well. He made the semis. I've got written here, so I don't know if he won the third place. He probably did, though. Yeah, I think you'd beat the die, but knowing you don't, probably pulled out. Yeah, delpe, unnecessary. Yeah, so Nisha Kory and team just missed out for me. Also shoutouts to Robin sodling. A career cut short, I think. I think he has to retire because he had like a heart disease. Yeah, which is quite sad, although I do joke the fact that like he's on my list and because he lost to rough at the French but probably could have been a great player and you never know what he could have done, but unfortunately Korea was cut short. So also like to mention him. But yeah, anyone else who was close to your list apart from Nishikori team? For me, anyone else? Well, my my to were songer and Burdich, for reasons already discussed. Can Yea, my I had three. So Nishikori just missed and then for me, arm round itch and Songer, or my other two that missed out. But they were for me, they were a bit off. So they weren't. Yeah, they missed out, they weren't really there was what wasn't much contention, contention for them getting in there when I truly went through everything for me. Yeah, did you enjoy the research, lads? Yeah, absolutely loved it. Yeah, I'll be honest. I did prefer the women's research because I genuinely going in probably only new five or five or six players who would definitely in it. Where in this list I knew like six people in their exact position before I haven started. So, although it was really fun and I actually made a list of twenty, so the bottom half was fun. But yeah, the the dominance of the big dogs of this decade may be made the men's a little bit less riveting to do the research. But yeah, still fun. So thanks for joining me, boys. I hope you enjoyed it and I'm sure you'll be back on...

...very soon and obviously, whenever it is might be not till next year, but once the tennis gets going again. Will you guys will be on regularly and we'll be discussing the tennis tour as we normally do in our day to day lives. Anyway. So did you enjoy it? Yeah, certainly did. Matt all right, thanks, boys and, if you're still listening, get a life which years. Love you,.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (183)