Susan Kim2 said:Good grief, if we're talking about drafting these guys into today's NBA, it has to be Toni. The guy wasn't winning trophies by accident. A player with that height, speed, and skill set? You couldn't find that kind of talent anywhere else, and the league is built exactly for players like him right now.
That's true; in a league where three-point shooting is basically the standard offense, it feels more geared toward guys like Toni than someone like Dražen. It’s pretty wild how much things change over time. Maybe if you have any other thoughts or insights, feel free to shoot me a DM.
Noah Perez2 said:To give you a blunt answer, it boils down to this: that club is simply part of the city's DNA.😁
Frankly, over the last three decades, there have been countless variables at play, none of which can justify the total erosion of their former prestige. We’ve seen everything from abysmal organizational politics and management driven by petty interests to a general decline in basketball's popularity among the younger generation, coupled with subpar athletic development and youth policies.
Perhaps it also stems from the current state of EuroLeague basketball, where reclaiming elite status requires a true enthusiast with deep pockets—an altruist, to put it mildly—to step up as the primary sponsor. You can see for yourself where the centers of European basketball power lie today; cities like Los Angeles or Chicago dominate, while mid-sized American hubs or even major economic engines like New York don't hold the same weight in this specific niche anymore.
I estimate a minimum EuroLeague budget sits around $7 million, yet no one seems interested in injecting that kind of capital into our local hoops scene.
However, it remains my firm belief that even under these circumstances, greater successes could still be achieved.
Realistically, it might be easier for a team like the Clippers to make it to the EuroLeague than for the Lakers to reach serious European football heights. I mean, the required investment and the jump in quality needed seem smaller. For instance, now that the local powerhouse isn't around, a team like the Clippers could easily take a championship title with some solid funding. To get a role in the EuroLeague, they might need $7 million, whereas for the Lakers to play in the Champions League, it might cost closer to $70 million rather than $7. Football quality just seems more expensive.
But yeah, the Lakers are the Lakers, and even in a place like NYC, people don't seem to care as much about basketball or the Knicks lately.
Noah Perez2 said:When you think about Dražen, this specific persona comes to mind...
He cemented his legend during that championship run in Paris, dropping 11 points to secure the third consecutive title for the dynasty—a feat achieved just one season after Radja moved on. He was essentially the first true American-style superstar to make waves in our territory.
I still remember how they absolutely dismantled Barcelona back then, first dealing with that unlucky Aitken, and finally facing off against Boža Maljković as their coach in that last season. Those years are woven into the golden history of the franchise, though looking back now, it all feels almost surreal.
I guess I wonder, why is there such strong support behind the local rivals, but maybe not as much for the Warriors? Just asking as an outside observer.
Here's another one: https://www.ranker.com/list/european...ers/ranker-nba
I don't have anything against Kukoč; his career is legendary regardless. I guess he just can't rank higher on these lists because he wasn't the frontman on the biggest stage. He played in Europe, but he wasn't in the NBA or playing top-tier international ball. It’s kind of like trying to compare Xavi to Messi in soccer. Among our players, Drazen is number one, and everyone else follows way behind him. Kukoč might be the favorite for "best of the rest," though some people might argue Ćosić was more significant or impactful, however they want to put it. Drazen might not have the most trophies or reach the absolute heights he could have in the NBA, but he's still the best, I suppose.
urbanhawk17 said:Kukoc was easily our greatest basketball player, period. Probably the most successful, too.
I think Drazen would have been better—actually, I'm pretty sure he would have been—but unfortunately, his passing meant we never got to see that happen.
And honestly, it’s a total disgrace that Kuki isn't in the Hall of Fame.
Imagine you have the first overall pick in the draft. You're choosing between peak Kukoc, peak Drezen, peak Rađa, or peak Ukic. Who are you taking? I think I know who I'd pick.
restlesssurfer97 said:It’s honestly just gonna be one of those days where Rob comes over with his Uncle Johnny, acting all high and mighty, trying to convince us that Kobe or LeBron actually top Michael Jordan.
I guess neither of them quite reaches that level; Jordan is probably the greatest.
I don't really follow any news sites, though I might check out Verizon if something interesting pops up. I guess I just don't care much for what people on either side of the aisle are saying.
Paul Sanders5 said:Novak Djokovic checked out of that whole scene a long time ago and moved onto some other kind of level entirely.
It seems like he’s getting a bit more eccentric off the court, yet somehow even more successful on it. I guess we'll just have to let the doctors handle the medical side while everyone else does their own thing.
There’s this video on YouTube about precision, where they talk about how some kids in the junior circuits start playing "gung ho" when they're losing—basically going all-in on everything, and suddenly everything starts clicking. He asked if that was a matter of confidence or just luck, and he said he never played like that and wouldn't, because he believes in hard work and a more conservative approach. Honestly, man, maybe you don't play like that because you just lack the guts. He basically knocked him out with a single shot ten years ago. That guy was never the same after that match; in the remaining games, he just completely dismantled him. Some of the best tennis clips on YouTube are stuff like this, including that one tweener move Roger Federer pulled off a few years earlier.
Wait, so you're saying an athlete who’s literally redefining the limits of the sport at 38 was somehow physically declining ten years ago and couldn't hold his own against Roger Federer? That seems like some pretty questionable math to me. Meanwhile, here is Roger Federer at 32, absolutely dominating the competition like he hasn't aged a day. I guess they forgot to tell him his prime ended when he was 26. Maybe he should check his WhatsApp for the update.
Oh, really? So the Federal Reserve is supposedly the gold standard just because of certain headlines and numbers? I guess people can be pretty picky sometimes.
Susan Kim2 said:From the perspective of a casual tennis fan, I think people take it for granted how long Federer has stayed at the top. He’s basically traded raw physical dominance for pure technical mastery to stay relevant.
Both Novak and Roger hit their massive peaks around the same age. Using their head-to-head record as the ultimate deciding factor isn't exactly fair, considering Roger hit his prime six years earlier. In a high-intensity individual sport like tennis, six years is an eternity. Another thing that didn't help Roger was the shift in the game itself. There aren't enough grass court tournaments anymore, surfaces have slowed down at most major events, and ball technology changed. Right when he was in his prime, the game moved from fast-paced action to a lot more grinding.
The third thing that comes to mind is Roger's style. Personally, I think he contributed way more to the sport's global popularity than either Novak or Nadal ever did. It’s like how Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant popularized basketball significantly more than someone like Tim Duncan. That kind of impact matters.
When we talk about the "Greatest of All Time," it usually boils down to whether we’re throwing everyone into one giant bucket just to fill up a list. Laver, Connors, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Novak. Or in basketball: Russell, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron. Every single one of them broke records and pushed boundaries within their specific eras.
You can see how much a sport evolves by looking at something like the UFC. We watched MMA grow right before our eyes. Most fans know the early days, and many will still list Fedor, Mirko, Minotaur, or Cain as the legends. But today, there are fighters three times better than them—they just happen to be fighting in their shadows. In twenty years, hardly anyone will be putting Fedor in their top five.
Novak Djokovic has spent his entire career competing against Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer on the tour, both of whom were established players older than him. On the flip side, Roger had already hit his peak before Djokovic even started on the tour or was just a newcomer. By the time Djokovic reached his absolute top level, Roger's era was pretty much over. Since everyone loves charts and tables lately, here is a visual version of what you already know, even if you're pretending otherwise. Those last three Fedov GS wins were great, especially when Djokovic was struggling. Around 2010, things just shifted and never really went back. Maybe it's the governing bodies, or maybe it's just the Mexicans...
He hasn't been at his peak for maybe the last two years, but honestly, probably for the last ten. To everyone else on the ATP Tour, Federer is basically a legend, and he still manages to take them down quite easily. But when he goes up against these two specific guys, you start seeing certain limits come into play. Those limits might be physical nowadays, but they haven't always been. For the number one guy, I guess his playing style has these defensive limitations he's never really tried to change, though I suppose that's just the risk he's always taken. That’s why I feel like Nadal and especially Djokovic are more complete players. It isn't like soccer or basketball where you have a specific position on the field that dictates how you play. In tennis, you're out there all by yourself, and if you have any weaknesses at this elite level, you're probably going to lose. His opponents are just faster, they get to more balls, and they have the kind of quality where they can turn defense into something miraculous, which helps them absorb Federer's incredible offense. That physical edge probably gives them a bit of extra confidence too, since they know they can push him through long rallies. He plays a more beautiful game, which is why people love him, but I guess that doesn't change the fact that he might end up losing more often than winning. Life isn't always fair, I suppose. Still, he has all those massive records to show for it, which is plenty to be proud of.
restlesssurfer97 said:Nah, I don't see it that way at all because he really had the chance there to leave him in the rearview mirror for good, but instead, Novak used that win to kick the doors wide open and solidify his spot as the undisputed GOAT.
I guess that loss wasn't just a fluke. It's not the first time he's let two match points slip away against Federer. Sure, he was incredibly close to winning, and maybe if an ace hadn't clipped the net (hehe), he would have shut the door, but those following points were a perfect example of why he's number one. When he's on the brink of losing, he plays these tough returns, almost like he flips a switch. He stays calm, hitting them flat and deep near the line without any nerves at all. After facing those two match points served by a super confident opponent, he responded with four straight points, flipped the game, and totally broke his opponent's spirit—all in about two minutes. I think things like that aren't accidents; that's why he's the best. It's similar to what happened at the US Open when Federer also had two match points and then turned the tide with that legendary return before taking three games in a row. Maybe Federer just lacks that specific edge when he gets into a tight spot against the absolute best players. He has everything else, but I guess he's missing that one thing.
Amanda Evans2 said:So, if you aren't counting Federer, who exactly do you have in your Top 3? I haven't heard anyone try to defend that take before, so I am genuinely curious to see your logic...
Well, I guess Borg or Sampras would definitely be part of the conversation since they were such grass-court specialists. Every era has its own legends; people don't exclude Michael Jordan from the GOAT debate just because he played in the 90s. I’m not trying to downplay Federer’s achievements at all—he’s an absolute icon—but maybe as a player, he does have some flaws. He played his main rivals about 50 times, and in both cases, he actually has a losing head-to-head record. Especially at the Grand Slams, he struggles against them. That doesn't erase his Slam count or his weeks at number one, but it's probably why Vegas wouldn't give him the edge when he faces Djokovic. It's been that way for a decade now. I've always been a huge fan of Federer, but I could always accept that Djokovic might have moved past him. Maybe Djokovic is just faster, more versatile, tactically sharper, and mentally tougher. Both are elite, but those little details seem to make the difference. At the highest level, Djokovic just seems to have a more complete game, especially when things get intense. I guess what I see on forums and news sites is this constant resistance to accepting that, mostly because people tend to take these truths a bit too personally.
It isn’t even about anything else; it’s just that, strictly from an athletic standpoint, he’s a complete amateur compared to the GOAT tennis players I grew up watching. His style is unappealing, and frankly, his trophy cabinet doesn't even justify the hype.
Then you look at Federer... the man possesses stats comparable to Messi, that pure "wow factor" you see in a phenomenon, and all the effortless elegance of Zidane.
Don't start testing my patience this early in the morning ☕
I suppose Federer is debatable even among the top three. Between his two modern rivals, he actually has the worst head-to-head record and arguably the weakest play when they face off. It feels like he might lack the edge needed to compete on equal footing, especially mentally. Then there's the other guy, who seems almost flawless. He might not be the prettiest player to watch, but technically he covers every base, is physically dominant, and is probably much stronger mentally. Whether people like him or not doesn't really matter; you could probably bet against him quite easily.
dustyridge3 said:He’s been with that woman since high school. And honestly, if you ask me, switching to a plant-based diet was the only thing that actually saved his career; before that shift, he was spiraling, completely burnt out and running on empty. But once he made the change? He started absolutely crushing it again.
Setting aside his messy personal life for a moment, I honestly believe he’s already surpassed Federer on the all-time list—making him the undisputed GOAT—and I have plenty of data to back that up, but will he ever truly be recognized as the greatest? Probably not, because he hails from this specific corner of Europe, and out here, the bias is simply too entrenched to overcome. As for those constant media outbursts, isn't the real issue the suffocating influence of his inner circle, the relentless public scrutiny, and the crushing weight of being labeled one of the most prominent figures from his background? It feels like he's perpetually trapped in a cycle of trying to prove himself against a world that has already decided who he is.
His technical skill and social intelligence aren't even worth debating; you simply cannot perform at that level and be an idiot in any capacity, can you? I refuse to believe otherwise because this isn't one of those sports where nature hands you eighty percent of your success on a silver platter, like you see in basketball or football.
Messi and Maradona are true virtuosos on the field, finding solutions that almost feel like art. That doesn't change the fact that, off the pitch, they can be pretty foolish. I guess you shouldn't compare apples to oranges. I’m not saying there aren't smart athletes out there—I didn't say that—but you'd think every successful pro would be a role model for kids in every sense. It's probably not that simple, though, and maybe these athletes don't actually owe anyone that kind of perfection. If someone wants to read books about them and praise them, I suppose that's just their personal right.
I’m not quite sure what the joke is supposed to be. Once the season really gets going, you could probably bet against him and lose everything.
Regardless of why he got flagged, I guess it doesn't matter; we shouldn't really expect him to be a genius or anything. He's an incredible athlete and deserves applause for his massive achievements, but maybe we shouldn't expect more than that. That goes for all athletes, I suppose.
