I love the concept of Thursday night footy. I agree that it can’t be done every week with six day breaks providing a significant disadvantage for teams, especially if they occur regularly. It may also loose some of it’s novelty factor if it happened every week, but i’m not going to lie, i’d still watch every time.

For us die-hard fans, it is also very nice to know that you only have to wait four days until the next game is on. It provides a nice introduction to the weekend of footy and only gets your more excited for the Friday night fixture. I do believe that almost all Thursday night games will have to be attractive games to make the concept work, as two bottom teams playing will most likely weaken not strengthen the appeal, especially in it’s early stages.

The point you made about the commercial value and breaking into a new time slot is a good one. With no other major Australian sport broadcast on a Thursday night, except for the rare event, this could really break new ground. It could be a hit with advertisers, be ingenuitive, and lead the way forward for other new ideas to come.

All in all, I love the idea and hope it is back for 5-6 games in season 2016.

I have a good feeling about Rafa this year at Wimbledon, however that may be coming from my heart, not my head.

Despite losing in the first round at Queens to Alexandr Dolgopolov, who on his day has the game to beat any of the top players, I think there are a few things going Rafa’s way this year for Wimbledon.

Firstly, claiming the title in Stuttgart, can only do positive things for Rafa’s confidence. This was his first title on grass since his Wimbledon triumph in 2010 and should give him some much needed confidence, particularly in the early rounds over less talented opponents. It will also give him some much needed match practice on the grass which is so hard to become accustomed to.

Secondly, not winning a European clay court title will also have him much fresher for Wimbledon than at any time in the last decade. This effect is cumulative, when you take into account all the tournaments he didn’t have extra matches compared to previous years in.

Thirdly, his body and mind must be getting better with each match he plays. If you think back, it really took Andy Murray 18 months to get back to peak form, mentally and physically. Rafa’s 2013 comeback season was an aberration and one of the most remarkable things that has even happened in professional tennis. It may not seem like it on the surface of things, but it really was. So when you take into account a full 6 months of recovery, getting through some close matches on the grass in Stuttgart as well as in the European clay season, although he didn’t win any events, this can only be good for his 2015 comeback.

All in all, I think Rafa will have high expectations for Wimbledon this year. Not necessarily to win it, but to make a much stronger push than in the last three years. If he can avoid Novak and Murray until at least the quarter finals, I truly believe his game can come together and give him at least a legitimate shot at taking out one of the big guns. If you can do that, who knows what can happen from there.

That is a great read Mike. Very funny but also so true!

I quite like the predictions you have made. Most of the favourites getting through with a couple of relative outsiders sneaking in who you have identified well.

The 7th section of the draw is probably the hardest to pick.

Honestly, I can’t see Pouille getting through Simon in the first round. I actually do rate Pouille quite highly but Simon is getting back towards some of his form of old and is a brick wall, especially on clay. I would actually predict Simon and Garcia-Lopez in the fourth round.

Garcia-Lopez is playing career best tennis and if you remember back actually knocked off Wawrinka in 4 sets in the first round of the French last year. On natural talent and ball striking alone Wawrinka should get through but i’m just not too sure. He’s the kind of player who could get knocked out early or with this draw even make it through to the final. Like I said i’m predicting knocked out early.

I’m going with the Djoker over Rafa. Surely it has to be his time right?

I think Fed will get knocked of by Monfils as well. If this occurs it will be interesting to see Monfils in the next round against Wawrinka or otherwise. How far he can actually take it? On natural talent alone (giving Federer’s age and recent form against him and on clay in general) I think he has the talent to make the final. I don’t think he will but I also wouldn’t put it past him.

I am actually going to go a Berdych-Djokovic final. Berdych has been playing unreal lately and has only been denied by Djokovic In Monte Carlo and Rafa in one of his best performances all year in Madrid.

If Djokovic does play Berdych it could get real ugly. A drubbing similar to, or worse than Nadal-Ferrer in 2013 could be on the cards.

Can’t say I see I very much of a resemblance to Fyfe, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t more than I see Jax!

Bontempelli is a beast. He really is the young gun of the competition who could be truly great.

I agree that Kyrgios is a star of right now.

That being said, I still don’t believe he is ready to legitimately contend at majors for another 2-3 years.

He has the firepower in his game and the ability to lift for the big moment that will take him very close to the top of the game in years to come. It is a totally different thing backing this up match after match however, particularly at Grand Slam level. Winning 7 matches in a row to win a Grand Slam and beating a number of top 10 players along the way is virtually impossible for someone of his age and experience, regardless of how talented he is.

In regards to the Federer win, it was a huge performance. As much mentally as anything. Federer is no longer a dominant force on clay, however I do still believe he can contest at majors, particularly at Wimbledon and the US Open. Whether he can actually snag another one however remains to be seen.

The loss to Isner really isn’t that bad in my opinion. Isner is just that kind of player. Anyone with his serve and forehand can beat anyone on their day. Sure, you need to be able to get over players like that in the huge matches but that will come with time.

The loss to Lopez is more of a worry for me as was his inability to adapt to a radically different style of play on the day.

I wish I had seen Mcenroe play Johnno. In everything I have seen and heard about him he really was an artist. It must have been amazing to watch him in his prime.

Very interesting points you make Daryl. I agree with you that Federer is the more decorated of this era. Statistics and facts don’t lie. The more successful? Probably. Of course it depends on what statistics you use but if you go simply on Grand Slam titles and weeks at world number one than Federer has him covered.

Of course I can make counter arguments about why Nadal is greater.

Even the most passionate of Federer fans must eventually admit that Federer has won the majority of his grand slams against weaker opponents than Nadal has. An indication that in Federer’s prime he played in a weaker era than in Nadal’s prime. People often debate this but I don’t really think there is much of a case on their side. Go and look at the players Federer defeated in Grand Slam finals and go and look at the players Nadal defeated and tell me who had it tougher. This isn’t being used to take away from Federer what he has achieved, you can only beat who is put in front of you and he has done it. Over and over. I am using it merely to state that in major finals Nadal had it tougher.

I also understand that head to head isn’t everything. If you made a game from scratch to beat Federer it would most likely closely resemble Nadal’s. You can’t have a champion of the game who loses twice at the end of his career to a journeyman stated as less of a player. But one query that is always in my mind is how can you be the best of your era when you are dominated (and I do class a 23-10 head to head record as a domination) against another player?

People often make the argument that a number of Nadal’s victories against Federer came as he was aging and past his prime. This is true. You can’t deny it. But at the same time a number of Federer’s losses came to a young Nadal while Federer was in his prime. Go look at the statistics. this is also true. Once again they don’t lie. So really I would say this argument more or less equals out both ways, ending with a comprehensive head to head advantage for Nadal over Federer.

The one clear edge that Federer has over Nadal is consistency. I am not talking about during matches but rather his ability to play week in week out. What Federer has achieved in this regard, particularly at grand slam level, may never be matched.

On the other hand however, you could also ponder how many Grand Slams would Nadal of won had he not been so frequently injured. This isn’t something you can use to add to his greatness, to the contrary in fact, It actually adds points in Federer’s favour. Rather what it does is simply state that Nadal hasn’t been able to achieve all he could have because of his body.

What I will finish with is this. I have had the debate between my mates, who are tennis fanatics, dozens of times regarding who is the better player between Federer and Nadal. Most side with you, going with Federer. I completely understand their reasoning. Look at what he has achieved.

in MY opinion however, Nadal is still the greater player. although Nadal has achieved slightly less success than Federer he has dominated his era in terms of the players he plays against more than Federer. Like I mentioned, it is something intangible that I believe separates the two. If you put every player in his prime during the last 15 years into a tournament I believe Nadal would win it.

Of course this is hypothetical and could never occur. In the end you can’t really get passed that different people will have different opinions on who is the greatest ever, or like you whether you should even be having this debate in the first place. What you can say though is that all of these guys mentioned will go down as all time greats.

Just a few quick notes to add to this:

When I wrote the article I was well and truly aware that the majority of people would disagree that Nadal was the Greater player than Federer. I completely understand the reasons people give for this. I also understand the reasons People give for Laver being greater than Nadal. one comment I particularly liked however, was the player I would choose to fight for my life. I have no question in my mind who the player would be. It would be Rafael Nadal. I believe that he would be the player that would be able to step up to that pressure against anybody in history and get it done.

One last thought, I was very close to placing Bjorg at 5th on this list. He missed out by the tiniest of margins. What he achieved in the game was incredible and to retire at just 26, he almost certainly missed out on more major championships. The thing which swayed me ever so slightly in Djokovic’s favour was the fact he has achieved what he has in the Nadal and Federer era. I’m not saying Bjorg didn’t play against greats. He did. Mcenroe and Connors in particular were two of the all time greats. Mcenroe one of the most talented to ever pick up a racquet. It really was a 50/50 call. What I do have is no doubt that Djokovic will end up with a better career than Bjorg. Assuming of course he can stay healthy, which is no guarantee in professional sport.