Tennis Top-10: #2 Margaret Court and #1 Steffi Graf

2) Margaret Court

Between both men and women, Margaret Court holds the most Grand Slam singles titles all-time with 24.  From 1969-1971 Court won 6 consecutive Grand Slam singles titles, a Calendar Slam-and-a-half.  A native Australian, Court owned her homeland Australian Open, winning it a record 11 times.  She claimed the French Open 5 times, the US Open 5 times, and Wimbledon 3 times.  Also a winner of what is called the “box set,” meaning to win the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles championships at every single grand slam, Court is one of three players in history to do so.

Overall combining singles, doubles, and mixed doubles Court claimed a flabbergasting 62 Grand Slam titles in her career, giving her not only the most accomplished career of any singles player ever, but the most combined Grand Slams of any player in history.

By any measure, Court was the most consistently and statistically proficient player of all-time. I simply feel she was never quite as purely dominant as my number one, nor did she play in as competitive of an era.

#2 Margaret Court

1) Steffi Graf

This is a unisex list, and at the top a woman reigns supreme.  Though Steffi Graf’s overall numbers may not be as aw- inspiring as Court’s, her sheer dominance over her career makes her the clear choice as the best tennis player of all time.

Graf claimed 22 grand slam singles titles—7 Wimbledons, 6 French Opens, 5 US Opens, and 4 Australians—from 1987-1999, doing most of her damage in a nine-year window from ‘87-‘96.  That Graf was equally brilliant on grass and clay, the two most drastically different surfaces in tennis, is proof of her versatility, immense talent, and extreme will to win.

In 1988 Graf won all four Grand Slam singles titles, plus the Olympic Gold Medal in singles—referred to as the Golden Slam—and is the only player man or woman to  ever have done so.  Perhaps the punctuation on her year of absolute brilliance in 1988 was her demolition of Natalia Zvereva: 6-0, 6-0 in the French Open Final.

From 1987-1990 Graf made thirteen-consecutive Grand Slam finals, again a mark that is unequaled by any man or woman in tennis history.  In terms of her career ranking, she holds the following records for both men and women: Most consecutive weeks ranked # 1 (186), most times finishing the year ranked #1 in the world (8), and most total weeks ranked #1 over her career (377).   She is also the only player to win every Grand Slam singles title at least four times.

With the main weapons in her arsenal being a devastating forehand, tremendous athleticism, and a deadly serve, Graf is certainly an easy choice as the greatest tennis player of all time.

Of course arguments can be made for nearly anyone on my list to take the top spot, but Graf’s dominance over her career and especially in her prime where so overwhelming that she is my pick.  When she was at her best, no person ever played a better brand of tennis, and the numbers bear that out.

#1 Steffi Graf

--from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: #4 Martina Navratilova and #3 Roger Federer

4) Martina Navratilova

Tennis measures its all-time greats by results in the four major tournaments and almost nothing else. Certainly Martina Navratilova answered the bell in Grand Slams time and again. Overall Navratilova won 18 Grand Slam singles championships, including nine Wimbelodons, the tournament many consider the crown jewel of the tennis world. At one point she won six-consecutive Slam singles championships, tying Margaret Court, Maureen Connolly Brinker, and Don Budge on the men’s side for the longest such streak.

From 1983-1988, Navratilova made 19 consecutive Grand Slam semifinal appearances, a record that is unmatched by any man or woman in tennis history. Martina had streaks of making 6- and 11-straight women’s Grand Slam finals. Thus, for a stretch of 17-straight tournaments, she was either the best or 2nd-best player in the world. She also won slams in three separate decades, the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s. Perhaps the most astound statistic to me was the fact that four times she won Wimbledon without dropping a set the entire tournament!

Between mixed doubles (10), doubles(31), and singles (18), Navratilova compiled 59 Grand Slam championships. Such a number is frustrating to all writers because there simply aren’t words to sum up how impressive that kind of domination is. “Versatility,” “perseverance,” “intelligence,” “commitment,” and “excellence” are inadequate to describe the career of Martina Navratilova, but they will have to do.

#4 Martina Navratilova

3) Roger Federer

I have to borrow from my cohort/mentor/life coach Eric to sum up the debate raging in my head over the top men’s player of all time, Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal? As he eloquently put it, “How do you reconcile the fact that the ‘greatest of all-time’ wasn't even the greatest of his own time?” Perfectly said, and a really hard argument to crack.

I settled on Federer for a mixture of reasons: part personal bias, part logic, and part historical analysis. In the broadest context, looking at tennis as a whole, Federer has to be considered the best men’s player ever because he has dominated the history of the game. He owns the record books, so he must take precedence over every other man that has ever picked up a racket. Nadal is no doubt great, but he does not yet have the number of Grand Slams to match up with Federer. In addition, the more recent dominance of Novak Djokovic over Nadal has helped accentuate the fact that domination of one personal matchup does not mean dominance of the entire historical landscape of tennis.

Nadal and Federer are going to be forever inseparable when we debate greatness and this era of tennis because of their thrilling rivalry, but I have to look at Nadal’s career conquests over Federer as more of a matchup problem for Roger than proof that Rafa is the greater all-time player. The best comparison I can draw is the year the Patriots went 16-0 and then lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl. The Giants could not claim they were the better team, but they matched up well enough to emerge victorious Super Sunday. Of course, Nadal is obviously a much greater figure in his respective sport than the 2007 Giants, but the comparison is valid.

Federer has a variety of shots and an artistry to his game that simply overwhelms nearly every person he has ever faced on the court. Nadal counters with perhaps the best defensive game we have ever seen, able to track down Federer’s miraculous strokes and answer with thundering forehands, impossible angles, and blinding speed. Federer also began his dominance at a time where absolutely nobody stood up to him, nor could they. Nadal was the first player to have the mental fortitude to stand up to Roger and believe that he could—and should—beat him.

Nadal could be number one only by virtue of his relative domination of Federer, but we can’t really compare how he would have fared against Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, or Roy Emerson, men Federer has surpassed on the all-time Grand Slam list, since Nadal has yet to reach the career accomplishments of those players.

Simply put, Roger Federer is like Jack Nicklaus, and until somebody surpasses his number of Grand Slam titles, he is the greatest. Nadal may be the equivalent of Tiger Woods chasing down the legend, but he has yet to get there.

Federer has won every single major tournament, and has 16 total slams, two more than second all-time Pete Sampras, who was widely regard ten years ago as the best male player ever. Federer has won the 6 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens, and 1 French Open. He won Wimbledon and the US Open each five years in a row and the Australian three out of four years during a stretch of his career. Nadal’s domination has spread to every major, and he has 10 total, but six of them have come at the French Open, showing that he’s not as versatile a player as Federer.

Comparing Federer and Sampras is a relatively simple exercise. Number two all-time in men’s singles Grand Slams, Sampras never advanced past the semi-final round at the French Open. Federer’s career winning percentage is just over 80%, while Sampras is right at 77%. In 2004, 2006, and 2007, Federer won three out of the four grand slam tournaments, excluding just the French Open, which he claimed for his first and only time in 2009. In 2005 he slacked off, winning just two out of the four possible Slams.

His numbers are undeniable as is his domination, but what is really the tipping point for me is the way Roger plays the game. So refined, so precise and yet not without emotion. He cares, he falls to the court in ecstasy even after his sixteenth major win, and his variety of shots is something nobody has ever seen. Sampras thrived off of a great serve, good net game, and stunning forehand. Nadal is great because of his speed, strength, baseline game, and mental toughness.

Yet nobody in the history of the sport has had quite the variety, nor displayed the true essence of tennis beauty quite like Federer has on the court. Moving effortlessly, mixing slice, with power, and unbelievable top spin combined with a deadly accurate and powerful serve. He also possesses a type of “oh by the way” beautiful net game that he uses only when necessary. Whatever skill you can think of, whatever talent you could possibly want on a tennis court, Federer has to the fullest.

Federer may not have quite the numbers of some of his female counterparts lower on this list, but you have to measure him at least in some extent relative to the standards of men’s tennis. Since he has been by far the gold standard in the history of the men’s tour, it merits his high placement on the list. Heck, he could be the top player given his historical domination relative to other men, but our top two spots were so statistically impeccable that I had to bump the most aesthetically pleasing and dominant male player ever to number three on my unisex list.

#3 Roger Federer

--from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: #6 Chris Evert and #5 Pete Sampras

6) Chris Evert

Besides being perhaps the best looking player on this list—apologies to Pete Sampras—Chris Evert had an unbelievable career. Like Martina Navratilova, Evert won 18 Grand Slam singles titles, but she wasn’t the doubles player that Navratilova was. Additionally, their head-to-head matchup, which was like cocaine mixed with Wonka Bars for tennis fans, ultimately tipped in Martina’s favor. They faced each other a total of 80 times, 14 of those matches coming in Grand Slam finals, where Navratilova won 10 of those contests. In all tournament finals (slams and non-slams) in which the two titans matched up, Navratilova won 36 to Evert’s 25. That’s enough rationale for Navratilova exceeding Evert on this list, but taking away from someone who had the immaculate career of Chris Evert is not what I’m here to do. With that in mind, let’s travel on to her numerous and astounding career accomplishments.

From 1973-1988, Evert set a record by reaching the most Grand Slam singles finals of any player in tennis history with 34. Meaning, over a 15-year stretch, Evert appeared in over half of all the Grand Slam finals played, a decade and a half of being the best or second best player going. She also stands alone as the queen of the French open, winning 7 singles titles at Rolland Garros. For good measure she also tossed in 3 Grand Slam doubles championships, which people tend to toss away as an “also” kind of stat. Such thinking is foolish. Doubles is perhaps harder than singles, especially for a player of Evert’s magnitude, because it requires majorly adapting one’s game, and in her case, trusting an inferior talent with half of the work load.

Evert also made the semi-finals of the U.S. Open at the age of 16. At the point when most of us are trying not to run over mailboxes with a newly garnered driver’s license, Evert was challenging Billie Jean King in the U.S. FREAKING Open!

Of her 17 years as a pro, Evert finished the year ranked number one in the world five different times. She also won 31 consecutive matches and 4 straight titles at the U.S. open, both records that are unmatched by any man or woman. Perhaps my favorite stat, because I believe not just simply in the importance of longevity but of sustained excellence over time, is that Evert won at least one slam in 13 consecutive years.

Had Evert’s career gone slightly different or her matches against Navratilova been closer to her favor, she certainly could have moved up on this list, and even so, her résumé stacks up with anyone from any era of tennis.

#6 Chris Evert

5) Pete Sampras

I said this list would be woman heavy, and it is, but I have to rank Pete Sampras ahead of Evert on my list simply because of the dominance he exhibited over the men’s draw. Evert was tremendous but did not overshadow her era to the extent that Sampras did. Though Sampras didn’t play much doubles, which I dock him points for, I can’t knock him too much for focusing on dominating men’s singles, which is exactly what he did.

For a long time, and I remember this well because I grew up during the Sampras era, tennis seemed boring. Serve out wide, Serve down the center, a sizzling forehand and perhaps a volley to finish the point, and Pete Sampras had defeated his opponent before anyone knew what was going on. But if you can make the highest level of professional sports seem boring, that’s a sign you’re pretty damn good.

It seemed unthinkable to me when I was younger that I would ever see a player near as dominant as Sampras, and then Roger Federer came along. Federer is essentially the same guy with a little more versatility to his game and an ability to play on clay that Sampras never had. In fact, that is the one major demerit on Sampras’ career. The furthest he ever got in the French open was a semi-final loss. But again, I point out the negative only to justify the ordering of my list, and now on to the positives.

Sampras won 14 Grand Slams and was runner up four times in an era where Andre Agassi, Michael Chang, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg provided Hall of Fame-level competition. His most heated rivalry was against Agassi, in which Sampras claimed 20 of their 34 career matchups.

Sampras went eight-straight years with at least one Grand Slam title and eleven-straight years with at least one Grand Slam finals appearance, records only Federer, Ivan Lendl and Bjorn Borg can match. He was also the undisputed king of Wimbeldon, winning it a record 7 times, done in a span of just 8 years. He won the U.S. Open three-straight times, five times overall, and tossed in two Australian Open championships for good measure.

Lacking the personality of Agassi or the artistry of Federer, but when he was in his prime you simply did not beat Pete Sampras, and that in the end is all that matters.

#5 Pete Sampras

--from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: #8 Rafael Nadal and #7 Serena Williams

8) Rafael Nadal

With apologies to Bjorn Borg, who does have one more Grand Slam than Rafael Nadal, I have to put the Spaniard ahead of him on this list because with a reasonable projection, Nadal could end up the best of all-time. Certainly, with the emergence of Novak Djokovic, Nadal’s dominance has taken a step back—Nadal has been runner up to Djokovic in three consecutive Slam finals—yet only 25 and still the king of clay, I believe Nadal has probably a handful of Grand Slam championships left in the tank.

When Nadal first burst onto the scene he was certainly fun to watch, but many thought he was just a clay-court sensation along the lines of a Gustavo Kuerten or Carlos Moya. While clay is undoubtedly Nadal’s premiere surface, he has won four Grand Slams off the red stuff, including two Wimbledons—grass the most alien surface compared to clay. Not to mention, he won those Wimbledons against the god of grass courts, Roger Federer.

It’s impossible to take in Nadal’s career without looking at what he’s done against Roger Federer, and I will detail said matchup when I reach Federer in the countdown. So for now let it suffice to say that Nadal has dominated his head-to-head battle with Club Fed.

Nadal won the French Open six times in a row, and from 2008-2011 won 7 of the 12 total Grand Slam championships, as well as finishing runner-up twice. His record at the French open is 45-1, and his overall grand slam record is 149-21, an 88% winning rate in the biggest tournaments in the world—a slightly better percentage than Federer (81%) has compiled.

With 10 total Grand Slams, and Federer seemingly unable to beat Djokovic or Nadal right now, Rafa has a chance to make a run at least to surpass Pete Sampras’ 14 Slams and maybe to reach the golden number of 16 currently held by Roger.

To conclude, what makes Rafa so great is his mental toughness. So often tennis is a sport where a player will win the first set 6-2 and then lose the following set. There’s a natural ebb and flow for most tennis players, and momentum fluctuates easily. Nadal, on the other hand, creates his own momentum. Seizes it, and never lets it go. He never relaxes, never gets comfortable, and never gives away even a single point. Nadal is perhaps the best player of all-time at chasing down impossible balls, and not only returning them, but hitting winners. I have never seen a player that could run 50 feet to retrieve a ball and then have the balance, strength, and focus to carve out a perfect forehand winner down the line.

Rafa’s conditioning, athleticism, and mental fortitude are what make him the 8th-greatest tennis player ever, and will also likely move him up this list with time.

#8 Rafael Nadal

7) Serena Williams

I can’t help but start with the negative here. What’s tragic to me about Serena Williams is that she is perhaps the most athletically gifted tennis player I have ever seen, but she has never loved the sport enough to dominate it to her fullest potential. If she was as committed as Federer or Martina Navratilova or Chris Evert, perhaps we have her at the top of our list. For now she sits at 7.

In terms of singles Grand Slam titles, Williams has 13—behind only Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Evert, Navratilova, and Hellen Wills Moody—and plenty of time left in her playing career. Williams’ 12 Grand Slam doubles titles and 2 mixed doubles Grand Slam championships also speak to her versatility and enormous talent.

Williams is probably the strongest, most powerful woman to ever play and is capable of dominating in a fashion that no other player could, in men’s or women’s history. I compare her a little bit to Shaquille O’Neal. Physically, both were probably the most impressive athlete their respective sport has ever seen, but mentally from both you get excuses, distractions, endorsements, and the allure of being “bigger than the sport.” Serena wants to be an icon, a celebrity as much if not more than she wants to be great at tennis, saying most recently that she doesn’t even love the game. Given all that, her accomplishments are incredible, and it just would have been fun to see what a fully committed Serena could have been.

Another interesting dynamic to Serena’s career has been the presence of her tremendous sister Venus and their overbearing father Richard who casts a shadow over every event in which the ladies participate. Serena vs. Venus finals always were awkward, and some felt almost pre-arranged. Such a dynamic always bothered me; the family seemed to interfere instead of letting Serena and Venus’ career arcs play out naturally.

From 2002-03 she completed the “Serena Slam,” winning the French, Wimbledon, US Open, and Australian Open consecutively. It didn’t happen in a single year, but winning all four big tourneys in a row is a great accomplishment no matter how the calendar divides it.

In 2002 Serena won the US Open and Wimbledon both without dropping a set. This is the kind of domination I always felt Serena could have sustained had she truly committed to tennis and nothing else. Perhaps though, much like other physically dominant athletes, Williams relied on her ability more than her technique, which inevitably leads to inconsistency. And as those types of players age, they don’t have the bag of tricks, the guile, or the variety in their game to continue to thrive.

Serena makes this list because at her best she may have been the most dominant force a tennis court has ever seen. She’s merely seventh because she hasn’t committed to being that force for her whole career.

#7 Serena Williams

--from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: #10 Bjorn Borg and #9 Billie Jean King

10) Bjorn Borg

Though Ivan Lendl reached more Grand Slam finals than did Bjorn Borg, I prefer the closers, so Borg takes the final spot on this list.  Borg won 11 of the 16 Slam finals in which he played.  Lendl claimed just 8 of 19.  Also the literal translation of his name according to Wikipedia is “Bear Fortress.”  True or not, that almost led me to putting him number one on this list.

Eleven Grand Slams makes Borg fourth all-time on the men’s list behind Roy Emerson and tied with Rod Laver, but I’ll give Borg the nod over those two since he played in a slightly more difficult era and played only ten true years on tour, though he made a strange comeback ten years post retirement from 1991-1993.

Borg was the opposite of two of his major rivals in that he was the picture of serenity and calm on the court, rarely unraveling or raving like the maniacal Jimmy Connors or the petulant John McEnroe.  Perhaps his even keel is why he enjoyed greater career success relative to those two.

Much like Rafael Nadal today, Borg utilized tremendous groundstrokes, speed, and impeccable conditioning to wear out his opponents both mentally and physically.  Borg was especially unique in an era where serve and volley was the prevailing style of play.

Oddly, Borg never won the US or Australian Opens, though he was a four-time US Open finalist.  He did however show the hallmark of versatility which is winning on both the grass of Wimbledon and the clay of Rolland Garros.  He claimed the French six times and Wimbledon five.

Other stats of note: Borg won two French Opens without dropping a set.  He won five consecutive Wimbledons and is the only player to ever win Wimbledon without dropping a set.  He is the only player to win the French and Wimbledon three years in a row—considered the two most contrasting and thus difficult slams for a single athlete to win.  In his career he was a combined 100-6 at Wimbledon and the French Open.  Lastly, he beat a record eight other Grand Slam champions during the course of his career, proving he could compete with the very best.

#10 Bjorn Borg

 9) Billie Jean King

In the period between 1966 and 1975, Billie Jean King won 12 Grand Slam singles titles, 9 Grand Slam doubles titles, and 10 mixed doubles titles.  Between singles, doubles, and mixed doubles, a player could participate in 12 grand slam competitions per year.  Over a 9-year span, King won 31 of the possible 108 Grand Slam events she could have participated in.  In other words, she won about 29% of everything in every category for nine years—not bad for a single player.

Outside of her main nine-year run of dominance, she added 8 other slam titles, bringing her grand total to 39 for her career.  In addition to King’s 12 Slam singles titles, she was runner up six times, primarily losing to another great you may see on this list, Margaret Court.

Encompassing 4 Wimbledons, 4 US Opens, 2 French Opens, and an Australian singles title, King won on every surface and finished the season ranked Number 1 in the world an incredible six times.

King also famously, and importantly, beat Bobbie Riggs (who had played professionally in the 1930’s and 40’s) in what was called “The Battle of the Sexes” in straight sets.  Like an ass, Riggs had claimed that despite being out of the game for 20 years he could still beat the best the women’s game had to offer.  King swiftly dismissed Riggs and his deluded notions.

An icon, a versatile player, and a résumé to rival any player in tennis history, King deserves the #9 spot.

#9 Billie Jean King

 --from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: Preface

Here I set out to make a uni-sex list of the ten greatest tennis players of all time.  Fortunately tennis, like baseball, makes greatness slightly easier to quantify than sports like basketball or football where so many surrounding circumstances can influence a person’s career.  Though the era in which someone played certainly factors into baseball and tennis discussions, that both sports are mostly individual and has had great players throughout every decade simplifies the discussion slightly.

That said, I really feel that the top 5-7 players on this list could be flipped, mixed, and re-ordered in any fashion and there would still be a very strong list.  In other words, just about anyone on this list has a legitimate claim to the top spot, but I did my best to comb through statistics, rivalries, versatility, and the ever subjective “eye ball test” to create my list of the ten best tennis players ever.
 

Though more women than men will populate this list, I made a concerted effort to include the boys and adjust for the fact that many great men's players simply did not play doubles or mixed doubles to acquire as many championships that their female counterparts may have.  At the same time, a Grand Slam title—whether in singles, doubles, or mixed doubles—is a tremendous accomplishment and ultimately led me to create a slightly more feminine list.

Also, Hellen Mills Moody, Elizabeth Ryan, Doris Hart, Louis Brough Clapp, and Margaret Osborne DuPont will not make my list despite their amazing accomplishments because they simply played too long ago when the game was so different.  More importantly, those players played so long ago that I can offer very little context regarding what their accomplishments meant.  My cut-off line was Margaret Court, who turned pro in the year 1960.

--from @AdamHocking

Pick-Down Final Standings

Final Results	Adam	Eric
Total Points	156	190
Playoff Record	5-6	5-6
Combined Record (Regular Season and Playoffs)	163-104	185-82

Super Bowl XLVI Pick-Down

With a heavy heart this 49er fan must prognosticate the outcome of the Super Bowl thinking of what could have been. But the Giants and Patriots earned their way to the big game, and to the victors go the nauseating amount of attention.

Speaking of nauseating, is it just me, or is the idea that the Giants are the “red-hot” team kind of a misnomer? The Patriots have won ten consecutive games and are 15-3. The Giants have won five-straight and are 11-7. I think people simply can’t resist comparing this matchup and this Giants team to the one that beat up Tom Brady in the 2008 Super Bowl. That’s a mistake.

New England is a completely different team from the one that nearly captured perfection. They don’t have Randy Moss, and their offense is not at all structured around the vertical passing game. The Giants' strength, their pass rush, is most effective when teams want to go deep down the field and the quarterback has to hold the ball longer.

I think in this game you will (1) See the Pats make a concerted effort to run the ball, and (2) Use jumbo and max protect packages even when throwing the ball.

Rob Gronkowski is not going to be 100%, yet I would imagine he’ll be ready to make some plays in the first half, and then his ankle will stiffen over the elongated Super Bowl half-time. I expect New England to feed Gronk when he’s feeling good, and then switch over to Wes Welker, Aaron Hernandez, and Deion Branch later on.

New England has a solid offensive line, and with maximum protection and Brady dialed in, I think they carve up the Giants' suspect linebacking and secondary groups. Everyone seems to think that the Patriots can’t win unless Gronkowski has 9 catches for 150 yards and 2 scores, but they have plenty of other options.

Wes Welker had 122 catches, 1,569 yards and 9 touchdowns this year. Hernandez had 79 grabs for over 900 yards and 7 scores. Meanwhile, Deion Branch chipped in 51 receptions for 700 yards and 5 end zone trips. Gronkowski is important, but he is not the end-all be-all for New England.

When New York has the ball the temptation is to think Eli Manning will go up and down the field on what has statistically been an awful Patriots defense. Manning will no doubt get his yards and make his share of plays, but New England’s defense is as healthy as it’s been all year. Patrick Chung is back in the mix at safety, as is play-making linebacker Brandon Spikes. I think New England will load up to stop the run in an effort to make Manning beat them. As good as Manning has been, I think New England will take their chances in a shootout between he and Brady.

Vince Wilfork is unblockable right now. He should have a huge impact against the run and even collapse the pocket around Manning. Under pressure, Manning has a tendency for making bad decisions. He will give the defense a chance to take the ball away, and I expect New England to capitalize.

Finally, I think Brady with his mastery of the short passing game can win the time of possession battle and wear down the New York pass rush, thus neutralizing the Giants' greatest strength and keeping Manning, Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks, and Mario Manningham on the bench.

The Giants are a good football team, but they lost seven games this year for a reason; they are inconsistent. I think the bye week slows their momentum, and I also think Brady and Bill Belichick just aren’t going to lose another Super Bowl to the same team. Gimme the Pats, and screw the damn Giants.

Prediction: New England 34 – New York 27

--from @AdamHocking

Matchup	Adam's Pick	Eric's Pick
Giants vs. Patriots	Patriots	Patriots
	Adam	Eric
Conference Championship Record	0-2	1-1
Conference Championship Points	-8	8
Total Points	156	190
Playoff Record	5-5	5-5
Combined Record (Regular Season and Playoffs)	163-103	185-81