Originally Posted by Tourmalante
I was seeing a similar discussion taking place on another board and thought I
should post the gist of the argument here. Basically Federer has changed the
whole paradigm of thought about what sort of results constitute being a true
uncontested #1 player. Before a number one year was typically one GS and then
5 or so titles. Sampras managed multiple GSs in a year but usually won less then
double digit titles and lost around 20 matches. After Federer's reign though,
losing twenty matches in a year and winning perhaps 6 titiles will be
unnacceptable. Whoever succeeds federer has humongous shoes to fill or risk
being taken for a joke or a transitional # 1.
Sorry to say but this is a ridiculous argument. Nobody has to step into Roger's shoes and try to emulate what he has done ... he is a freak. The next person to hold the #1 ranking will have got there for a reason and that is all that matters. They have been good enough over a 12 month space to earn the #1 ranking. It's that simple. Any other attempts to put your own spin are merely that - your own attempts to try to belittle whoever may have been #1 previously or after Federer's reign. Totally unjustified and unfair. Federer is a freak, a superstar, a player of such talent that he has dominated the past 2 seasons in spectacular fashion. But if Nadal or someone else happens to take his crown, however briefly or with whatever results, then of course they have earnt that position. A simple fact. The rest is totally subjective and many people will try all manner of angles and slants to denigrate players they are not particularly fond of.