Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity? - MensTennisForums.com
View Poll Results: Tennis Majors: Is quality more important than quantity?
Yes 10 20.41%
No 39 79.59%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 11:55 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 478
                     
Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

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 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.
william_renshaw is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 12:02 AM
.
 
rocketassist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,700
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

William Renshaw won a bunch of CLOWN slams. Great my arse.

unbiased analyst extraordinaire
rocketassist is offline  
post #3 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 12:06 AM
Registered User
 
Ben.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 26
Posts: 12,897
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

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.
Ben. is offline  
post #4 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 12:07 AM
Registered User
 
Freak3yman84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12,417
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

I voted no, mostly because your point was more hating than actually making a logical point

Oh Sheesh Y'all, 'Twas A Dream

Number of Times I've Cried Over Sucking at FITD: All but seven

W Houston and Samarkand Singles W Charlottesville W Lermontov W ATP Bastad W Bol Fut W Orleans (w/MathMul) W Cordenons (w/dinkulpus) Tashkent S&D (w/ Mr Brightside)

Quote:
Originally Posted by @Sweet Cleopatra View Post
I like how you make me appreciate my life by comparing it to yours then I take a deep breath and say: Thank God..
Freak3yman84 is offline  
post #5 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 12:26 AM
Registered User
 
Looner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 13,127
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

Even if it does, you'd need people to live for years and years for quality to be judged and even then most fans won't agree.


The "Who plays tennis?" thread


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Rod Laver
Roger is like a good red wine, he’s getting better with age.
Looner is offline  
post #6 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 12:29 AM
Registered User
 
Mark Lenders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 16,631
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?



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?
Mark Lenders is offline  
post #7 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 12:54 AM
Registered User
 
Quadruple Tree's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 872
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

Oh, cool, this thread again.

Football is one of the few areas of life where even if you're untutored, you can go to a ground and see George Best beat three men, and you can realise, 'I have seen genius.'
Quadruple Tree is offline  
post #8 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 01:01 AM
Registered User
 
ossie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 30
Posts: 6,377
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

as good as federer is, he won most of his slams in a pathetic era. delpo, nadal and djokovic have shown us his true colours.
ossie is offline  
post #9 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 01:12 AM
Banned!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sen'jin Village
Age: 31
Posts: 18,509
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

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.
Topspindoctor is offline  
post #10 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 01:12 AM
Registered User
 
Mountaindewslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,692
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ossie View Post
as good as federer is, he won most of his slams in a pathetic era. delpo, nadal and djokovic have shown us his true colours.
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

<3 Roger Federer <3 David Ferrer <3 Juan Martin Del Potro <3 Ernest Gulbis <3

------------------------ <3 Richard Gasquet <3

Rafael Nadal
Mountaindewslave is offline  
post #11 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 01:13 AM
Registered User
 
BauerAlmeida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Argentina
Age: 23
Posts: 5,313
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topspindoctor View Post
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.
He had the luxury of playing in the same surface all year
BauerAlmeida is offline  
post #12 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 01:14 AM
Registered User
 
Mountaindewslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,692
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topspindoctor View Post
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.
Federer in his prime would and could beat any opposition, do not be silly Topspindocter, and make no mistake, Hewitt at his best played very similarly to Nadal and Roddick at his best was insane at the baseline. I can show you some youtube clips if you would like, but I'm sure you already aware of the talents the two possessed at times.

Federer's prime is unparralled, and this is coming from a die hard Nadal fan. Just watch how he played from 2004-2007, it is absolutely insane, never seen anything like that in decades in tennis

<3 Roger Federer <3 David Ferrer <3 Juan Martin Del Potro <3 Ernest Gulbis <3

------------------------ <3 Richard Gasquet <3

Rafael Nadal
Mountaindewslave is offline  
post #13 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 01:14 AM
Registered User
 
abraxas21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Age: 29
Posts: 12,839
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

nadal's 11 GS exactly equal to 1 GS QF once you apply the MEC (mug era coefficient).

abraxas21 is offline  
post #14 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 01:17 AM
Banned!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sen'jin Village
Age: 31
Posts: 18,509
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave View Post
Federer in his prime would and could beat any opposition, do not be silly Topspindocter, and make no mistake, Hewitt at his best played very similarly to Nadal and Roddick at his best was insane at the baseline. I can show you some youtube clips if you would like, but I'm sure you already aware of the talents the two possessed at times.

Federer's prime is unparralled, and this is coming from a die hard Nadal fan. Just watch how he played from 2004-2007, it is absolutely insane, never seen anything like that in decades in tennis
Wrong. Nadal is the greatest baseliner the sport has ever seen. Hewitt was a flat hitting grinder with no serve and girlie forehand. Roddick was always an all serve mug, which explains his failure to win more than 1 slam.
Topspindoctor is offline  
post #15 of 176 (permalink) Old 06-13-2012, 01:19 AM
Registered User
 
Mountaindewslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,692
                     
Re: Number of majors: Does quality matter more than quantity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topspindoctor View Post
Wrong. Nadal is the greatest baseliner the sport has ever seen. Hewitt was a flat hitting grinder with no serve.
he's not a better baseliner than Djokovic or Federer and like I said at moments players have paralleled Nadal on the baseline, even the likes of Hewitt at their best. Nadal excel's more than anyone else on the clay because of his spin and speed, not because he is the most complete baseline player ever. he's great, sure, but it would be hard to argue that he is the best ever from the back of the court

<3 Roger Federer <3 David Ferrer <3 Juan Martin Del Potro <3 Ernest Gulbis <3

------------------------ <3 Richard Gasquet <3

Rafael Nadal
Mountaindewslave is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome