Mens Tennis Forums banner

Tennis Majors: Is quality more important than quantity?

Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

9K views 175 replies 59 participants last post by  norwood_10 
#1 ·
Year after year, tennis writers and commentators go on about Federer and his 16 majors. At tournaments around the world, Federer gets automatic centre court/prime time billing, sometimes ahead of Djokovic and Nadal, and he has an army of loyal fans who won't hear a word spoken against him, and insist that he is the greatest player of all time without question.

But does the number 16 really have as much relevance when you consider how he got there?

Look at the era in which Federer won most of his majors: a poor era where he was beating reasonably good (but not great) or distinctly average players in semis and finals: Philippoussis, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Haas. For goodness sake, he even had Jonas Bjorkman (no disrespect-a great doubles player-but come on) as a semi-final opponent at Wimbledon one year.
Many refer to the AO match against Roddick in 2007 as one of Federer’s finest. But that sums it up really – watch that match again (it’s on youtube). Roddick charging into the net like a nutcase off a terrible approach shot all the time, and Federer made to look very good by pulling off straightforward passing shots. The era 2003-2007 was pretty average, all things considered.

When he finally came up against serious opposition, (Nadal on clay since 2005, Nadal & Djokovic on other surfaces from 2008 onwards) he hasn’t been able to live with it, and has consistently fallen short. How on earth can people be so ignorant to call Roger the GOAT when his record in majors against Nadal is an appalling 2-8 (and it should really be 1-9, as Rafa was denied the 2007 Wimbledon Crown thanks to some appalling scheduling, with Nadal made to play Soderling across five days while Fed got a walkover into the SF and had a nice little rest).

If you trail one of your main rivals 8-2 in majors, you are not the GOAT, period.

But it’s not just Nadal. Since Djokovic got his game together in 2008, he leads Federer 5-3 in slam encounters, plus the Serb had big chances to win the USO final 2007, sadly choking at crucial moments in every set.

Oh, and when Fed has fallen short since 2008, there’s always been an excuse. Against Djokovic in AO 2008 he was ill, Against Nadal in Wimbledon that year, it was the bad light. Against Nadal in AO 2009 he wept like a baby. Against Soderling in RG 2010 he blamed the weather and heavy conditions. Against Berdych a few weeks later at Wimbledon, he said “I’ve been nursing a back and leg injury for a couple of weeks” despite saying after the Falla five setter :lol: that he had absolutely no injury problems at all. Against Tsonga the following year he said his opponent just took a few swings and got lucky. It’s really sad, but predictable, that he seems to have believed his own hype and couldn’t accept that he is simply nowhere near the best of his generation.

Look at who Djokovic and Nadal have beaten in the latter stages en route to their majors – each other, Federer and Murray – outstanding players compared with the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Haas, Davydenko. Since 2008 Nadal hasn’t been hit off the court by Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling etc except RG2009 when he was clearly injured and suffering personal issues.

Look at it this way – the great William Renshaw won seven Wimbledon titles, William Larned and Richard Sears each won seven US Open titles. Do tennis historians rank them as up there with Sampras and Laver in all-time great discussions? Why not?

Because it’s about quality not quantity.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
The quantity is objective though. Everything else is subjective, as you will see from the responses this thread gets.

What we've seen with Nadal and Djokovic is consistent pressure on Federer and one another, and how it culminated in shifting momentum and changes in dominance. The only person consistently putting pressure on Federer, during the period you mention, was Roddick. The other great talents of that time failed to find consistency, for various reasons.
 
#4 ·
I voted no, mostly because your point was more hating than actually making a logical point :shrug:
 
#6 ·
:lol:

This is some pretty ridiculous bollocks. I actually agree that quality means more than numbers, but your reasoning is some of most fanboyish stuff I've ever come across.

May I ask what you're trying to prove with this?
 
#10 ·
you're an idiot. they showed his true colors when he was 30 years old? you're a fool if you believe that, the reality is that players decline with age. Federer in his mid 20's was a far more complete and better play than Nadal or Djokovic will ever be in their careers or ever have been, except for maybe Nadal on clay. only a clown would say that "Federer was unmasked" when he he got older and started losing, what a joke and so disrespectful.

quality is an extremely subjective thing but what you can be certain of for decades and practically the entire open era, is that there is extremely tough opposition and competition in the field consistantly. there aren't years and seasons when a large amount of players don't have the desire to win, they're always there.

the quantity is what is significant because it means that a player kept winning big tournaments over possibly multiple generations of great players. no grand slam in the open era has been that EASY to win, regardless of the OP's insinuations.

quantity > quality, because you can't really prove that a tournament was of extremely poor quality with the huge number of matches and variables involved.

you can be certain that winning just one Grand Slam in the last 4 decades or more has been an extremely tough task and that every player who accomplished the feat had other very talented players across the net giving it their talent and heart and soul to win.

silly thread, and the remarkable thing is I seriously doubt the OP could come up with any case where a player with a few slams seemed more impressive than a player with many. totally unbased discussion
 
#9 ·
Must have been nice to win most of your slams facing gutless clowns and talentless mugs like Hewitt and Roddick. Nadal didn't have that luxury for sure.
 
#111 · (Edited)
nadal's 11 GS exactly equal to 1 GS QF once you apply the MEC (mug era coefficient).
Always a pleasure to see maths/science references :D. I was going to good rep you but the notification said I needed to spread it around.

So Fed saved 4 set points in 1st set on Djoker's serve with an ace?
You're just being obtuse. His point was that Fed wasn't handed the win on those points. In fact, from memory the first set point Fed saved in the first set was with a forehand winner to the corner of the court.
 
#23 ·
It's always about Federer, right? If Roddick was more talented he'd find a way to win, like Nadal did, not bend down nice and low in every meeting :rolleyes: 2009 Wimbledon final basically underlines this whole "rivalry". Mistress spanks her slave.
 
#24 ·
Federer is a clown who only beat mugs, making his slam victories less meaningful.
Now since Nadal won many of his titles against a clownish Federer, it means Nadal's victories are also cheapened.
And finally, since Nole beat a clownish Nadal in many of his slam victories, his achievements are further cheapened.

Conclusion: everyone is a clown, playing in a neverending clown era.
 
#25 ·
I assume Federer's record against Nadal would be better considering A; He never met prime Federer in the US Open in all those years, & B; 5 of those meetings came at the French Open. Your post is a hating one anyway, you could have a same argument for Djokovic over Nadal pre French Open 2012, or prime Federer over Nole.
 
#26 ·
People talking about how insanely good Federer was 2004-2007: Ask yourself this: who were Federer's main rivals in that era. And compare them to the players at the top of the sport today.

If you believe that Federer's majors 2004-7 count just as much as those of Nadal and Djokovic 2008-12, then you must believe that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Haas, Gonzalez etc. are just as good as Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray & Del Potro. So try and defend that position, because if you can't then your argument is flawed. I know you can only defeat what is put in front of you, but the moment that genuinely outstanding opposition was put in front of him, Federer started to struggle. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is hardly the hallmark of a player who dominated his generation, and to be considered the best of your generation, forget all time great, you have to have a convincing record against your major rivals, not 2-8 and 3-5.

Please, watch again some of the videos of Fed 2004-7. Tell me which of his majors were more impressive than those of Djokovic and Nadal, in terms of calibre of opponent and quality of tennis. Like I say, the average opposition made Federer look good.

And by the way, I don't deny that Roger Federer is a remarkable tennis player who has given the sport a lot over the years. However I am just baffled by the number of people who refuse to acknowledge that that Nadal and Djokovic have taken tennis to a new level and their achievements are far greater than Federer's
 
#30 ·
People talking about how insanely good Federer was 2004-2007: Ask yourself this: who were Federer's main rivals in that era. And compare them to the players at the top of the sport today.

If you believe that Federer's majors 2004-7 count just as much as those of Nadal and Djokovic 2008-12, then you must believe that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Haas, Gonzalez etc. are just as good as Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray & Del Potro. So try and defend that position, because if you can't then your argument is flawed. I know you can only defeat what is put in front of you, but the moment that genuinely outstanding opposition was put in front of him, Federer started to struggle. His record against Nadal and Djokovic is hardly the hallmark of a player who dominated his generation, and to be considered the best of your generation, forget all time great, you have to have a convincing record against your major rivals, not 2-8 and 3-5.

Please, watch again some of the videos of Fed 2004-7. Tell me which of his majors were more impressive than those of Djokovic and Nadal, in terms of calibre of opponent and quality of tennis. Like I say, the average opposition made Federer look good.

And by the way, I don't deny that Roger Federer is a remarkable tennis player who has given the sport a lot over the years. However I am just baffled by the number of people who refuse to acknowledge that that Nadal and Djokovic have taken tennis to a new level and their achievements are far greater than Federer's
The WHOLE lot.
 
#27 ·
(and it should really be 1-9, as Rafa was denied the 2007 Wimbledon Crown thanks to some appalling scheduling, with Nadal made to play Soderling across five days while Fed got a walkover into the SF and had a nice little rest).
Laughably pathetic excuse. Federer was literally ONE point from beating Nadal in the 2008 finals (up 4-3 and a break point in the 5th) and being the first Wimbledon champ to come back from down 2-0 in sets since 1927.
But it’s not just Nadal. Since Djokovic got his game together in 2008, he leads Federer 5-3 in slam encounters, plus the Serb had big chances to win the USO final 2007, sadly choking at crucial moments in every set.
Djokovic lost the 2007 Finals in straight sets. And most of those set points Federer either served a service winner or hit a good shot. I really don't think he blew that. And if you are going to excuse that, Federer SHOULD have won the last two US Open meetings seeing as he held TWO MATCH POINTS in both matches. Djokovic ought to consider himself lucky that he's not 0-5 against Federer at the US Open.
 
#42 ·
Laughably pathetic excuse. Federer was literally ONE point from beating Nadal in the 2008 finals (up 4-3 and a break point in the 5th) and being the first Wimbledon champ to come back from down 2-0 in sets since 1927.

Djokovic lost the 2007 Finals in straight sets. And most of those set points Federer either served a service winner or hit a good shot. I really don't think he blew that. And if you are going to excuse that, Federer SHOULD have won the last two US Open meetings seeing as he held TWO MATCH POINTS in both matches. Djokovic ought to consider himself lucky that he's not 0-5 against Federer at the US Open.
So Fed saved 4 set points in 1st set on Djoker's serve with an ace?
 
#28 ·
New Balls >> Nadal's generation. More slams, more different players winning them and generally higher level of tennis (yes tennis- shotmaking, ball striking, point constructing NOT athleticism, fitness and physical endurance)

ossiemug mentions delpo as usual (whose career CV doesn't touch any of the best of the New Balls)
 
#43 ·
New Balls >> Nadal's generation. More slams, more different players winning them and generally higher level of tennis (yes tennis- shotmaking, ball striking, point constructing NOT athleticism, fitness and physical endurance)

ossiemug mentions delpo as usual (whose career CV doesn't touch any of the best of the New Balls)
LOL what a clown. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (not sure for Delpo) will be winnin slams for next 10 years. Not any new generation is going to spank them like new balls mugs.

On topic: 1 delpo Slam= 5 Fedmug Slams

Delpo to win Slam have to beat:
- QF murray
- SF Djokovic
- F Nadal

this is mission impossible for Fed. Odds would be more than 1000 LOL
 
#36 ·
This is a quality thread. I would rename it Douchey twaddle.

I'm also impressed by the inclusion of del Potro in the discussion. So random...
 
#41 ·
CD, I fear the crack pipe may have to step away from you - that's how ridiculous that sentence is. Until RN wins a few more HC slams on these homogenised courts, he's not even close to Agassi. Both are baseliners but on fast HCs, Agassi would take most wins. In 2005, RN was pushed to 3 sets in Canada by an ancient Agassi.
 
#47 ·
CD, I fear the crack pipe may have to step away from you - that's how ridiculous that sentence is. Until RN wins a few more HC slams on these homogenised courts, he's not even close to Agassi. Both are baseliners but on fast HCs, Agassi would take most wins. In 2005, RN was pushed to 3 sets in Canada by an ancient Agassi.
Nadal was kid back then :rolleyes:
 
#59 ·
that was very early in nadal`s development.

you know me by now. i operate a no spin zone.

lot of people have been able to beat nadal on hard courts over the years.


you can see that he finally turned it around against players like berdych and tsonga for instance. he even went on to win the u.s. open and the australian open against 2 of the greatest hard courts players ever.


now step away slowly from that crack pipe.
 
#62 ·
I would like to comment on the first highlighted part of the opening post.

I really don't understand how can anyone be considered the greatest ever when he's been constantly beaten throughout the years by his closest rival. And not just in Grand slams! 18 times - come on! I would understand if the H2H between Federer and Nadal was, say 18:15, but 18:10??? Rafa has won at least one match against Federer every single year since 2004!!!
 
#65 ·
The stupidity of the OP is so immense that I don't even know where to begin so I won't bother.

Also, CD and Trollspin should have their posting privileges confined to Castle where they can agree with each other's Nadaltard opinions and leave GM alone.
 
#73 ·
Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, Potro haven't beaten Nadal on ANY surface in a best-of-5 since 2008 (except when nadal has been injured/exhausted in RG 09/USO 09)

but all of the above have beaten Federer in best of 5 contests in that period.
The bold words sum it up :worship:

BTW Federer was supposedly injured in 2010 against Berdych (I don't buy it BTW) but surely if the Nadal excuses can stand so can that.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top