Roger’s Records To Stand Test Of Time - Do MTF stats people agree/disagree? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roger’s Records To Stand Test Of Time - Do MTF stats people agree/disagree?

barbadosan
02-03-2010, 11:25 AM
Roger’s Records To Stand Test Of Time

1. Winning five consecutive titles at two different Grand Slam tournaments

About The Feat: Since the abolition of the Challenge Round [when the defending champion was automatically placed in the following year’s final] Federer is one of just four players to win the same Grand Slam tournament five consecutive years. [Tilden six at the US Open 1920-25; Emerson five at the Australian Open 1963-67 and Borg five at Wimbledon 1978-81]. But Federer is the only player in history to win two different Grand Slam titles [Wimbledon 2003-07 and US Open 2004-08] for five consecutive years.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 1%


2. Winning 16 Grand Slam titles in the span of 27 majors

About The Feat: After going titleless in his first 16 Grand Slam tournaments, Federer has made up for lost time, winning 16 of his next 27. Beginning with his 2003 Wimbledon breakthrough, the Swiss has won more than 50 percent of the majors he has contested. In contrast, Pete Sampras won his 14 majors over a span of 45 Grand Slam tournaments.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 2%


3. Reaching 18 of 19 consecutive Grand Slam finals between Wimbledon 2005 and Australian Open 2010

About The Feat: This record goes beyond consistency. It speaks to Federer’s unrivaled excellence at the pinnacle of the sport – the Grand Slams – and his ability to play his best under pressure and when it counts most. No other player has come even close to a streak of Grand Slam finals appearance like this – and no one likely ever will.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 3%


4. Reaching 23 consecutive Grand slam semi-finals (or better) from Wimbledon 2004 to Australian Open 2010

About The Feat: To put this feat into context, Federer’s ongoing streak of contesting 23 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals is more than double the length of Ivan Lendl’s 10 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals reached – the next best streak. The last time Federer didn’t make the last four at a major was in 2004 at Roland Garros, when he was beaten by three-time champion Gustavo Kuerten in the third round.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 3%


5. Winning 24 consecutive finals

About The Feat: In 2004 and 2005 Federer won 22 consecutive finals in which he appeared for a streak of 24 straight finals won. That’s astonishing considering that Federer was going up against the second best player in each of those particular tournaments. In finals, you not only have to play well, you have to play clutch. Federer’s finals streak ended at the last event of 2005, the Tennis Masters Cup. Although he came into the tournament with an ankle injury, Federer led arch rival David Nalbandian two sets to love and later, in the fifth set, was two points from the title on his own serve before Nalbandian rallied to win a fifth-set tie-break. It was all down hill from there for Federer, who in 2006 lost in four finals (all against Rafael Nadal) and only won 12 titles :)

[I]Chance of Feat Being Topped: 4%


6. Reaching all four Grand Slam finals in the same season three times

About The Feat: Only two singles players have ever reached all four Grand Slam finals in the same year: Rod Laver, who did it twice when he completed calendar-year Grand Slams in 1962 and 1968, and Federer, who did it a remarkable three times in the past four years. Considering also that Federer is the only man to reach all four Slam finals in the same year on three different surfaces (hard court, grass and clay), it seems even more unlikely that someone will top that feat in Federer’s lifetime.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 4%


7. Three-year period of dominance

About The Feat: Between 2004-2006 Federer went on a tear that is unlikely to be matched during any future three-year period, compiling a 247-15 match record. His season records during that time were 74-6 (2004), 81-4 (2005) and 92-5 (2006). He won a stunning 34 titles, including eight Grand Slams, nine ATP World Tour Masters 1000s and two Tennis Masters Cup titles. Had he served out the 2005 Tennis Masters Cup final against David Nalbandian Federer’s season record that year would have been 82-3, the same as John McEnroe’s unrivaled match record in 1984.

[I]Chance of Feat Being Topped: 5%


8. Holding the No. 1 South African Airways ATP Ranking for 237 consecutive weeks

About The Feat: Federer’s 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1 in the South African Airways ATP Rankings (from 2 February, 2004 to 17 August 2008) is best contextualised by looking at the next best streaks: Jimmy Connors at 160 weeks, Ivan Lendl at 157 weeks and Pete Sampras at 102 weeks. Federer, who has been No. 1 a total of 268 weeks (as of 1 February, 2010), is now within reach of Sampras’ all-time (non-consecutive) record of 286 weeks at No. 1. [Federer has five times finished as ATP World Tour Champion, just one year shy of Sampras’ six finishes as year-end No. 1. But Sampras finished No. 1 six consecutive years - a separate feat that Federer, now 28, is unlikely to ever match.]

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 7%


9. Sixty-five consecutive grass-court match wins

About The Feat: Federer’s 65 straight wins on grass could so easily have ended at 39 when he saved four match points against Olivier Rochus in the Halle quarter-finals in 2006. But history shows that Federer scratched out a win and ultimately extended his record streak to 65 before he lost 9-7 in the fifth set to Rafael Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final. With modern-day grass-court tennis no longer favouring a dominant serve-volleyer like a Sampras, Becker or Edberg, it will be more difficult for one player to dominate on the surface and threaten Federer’s streak.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 12%


10. Winning one Grand Slam title a year for eight consecutive years

About The Feat: By winning the 2010 Australian Open in January. The Swiss has now won at least one Grand Slam title for eight consecutive years, equaling the record streak of Pete Sampras and Bjorn Borg. What are the chances that someone (other than Federer) will extend the record to nine or more seasons? It sounds a tough record to break, but Rafael Nadal is already riding a five-year streak. And despite his lapse at Roland Garros last year, the Spaniard is likely to be the leading contender for that title for many years to come, as well as at the Australian Open and Wimbledon, where he is a former champion.

Chance of Feat Being Topped: 25%

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/DEUCE-Australian-Open-2010/Roger-Federer.aspx

________

The author freely admits to an unscientific methodology in arriving at his conclusions. Was wondering if the MTF people who are into stats (Duong, Judio, StatRacket to name a very few) agree or disagree with these percentages, and whether it would indeed be possible to develop some rational methodology to determine the likelihood of any particular record being broken?

stebs
02-03-2010, 11:38 AM
The percentages can't begin to be quantified. I guess as far as one could get is to rank them likely, very likely, not likely etc...

The thing is, over what timeframe are we talking? I would think that many of these records will be under threat at some point in the future of tennis.

JediFed
02-03-2010, 12:14 PM
Personally, I'd think 18 of 19 finals will be the last record of his to fall.

Ibracadabra
02-03-2010, 12:37 PM
If we ever see any of these records bettered i think the person who does one will do them all.

Lopez
02-03-2010, 01:21 PM
Fed himself can extend many of these records, i.e. "break" them, but this is meant to assess whether someone else will do it? If so, will we update this list if/when Fed extends some of the records here?

Commander Data
02-03-2010, 02:04 PM
your % are completely arbitary/useless.

But thanks for pointing out Feds records.

prafull
02-03-2010, 02:06 PM
4th one will never be toppled. Remaining are possible.

barbadosan
02-03-2010, 02:20 PM
your % are completely arbitary/useless.

But thanks for pointing out Feds records.

Thanks for pointing out that the ATP author's percentages are completely arbitrary; but as I pointed out, he himself has said up front that his methodology was unscientific.

Sophocles
02-03-2010, 02:24 PM
Some records do seem unbreakable. In cricket, you've got Bradman's batting average of 99.94, possibly the greatest achievement in any sport, along with Laker's 19 wickets in a Test at Old Trafford in 1956. With homogenization of surfaces, Federer's slam finals & semis streaks don't seem as unbreakable as those. That doesn't mean they'll be broken though.

barbadosan
02-03-2010, 02:34 PM
Perhaps an analogy to the slam total might be found in the same arena, where Gary Sobers record of most runs in one innings of a Test stood for a very long time; then in quick succession it was broken by Lara, then an Australian batsman whose name escapes me right now, and then even more quickly again by Lara... though in the last instance Lara went past it far enough that it might stay for a very long time this time. Guess it depends whether he finishes at 16 GS or gets much closer to 20

Sophocles
02-03-2010, 02:37 PM
^ Hayden? Yes, good point. 20 would be hard to break. Not impossible though. Imagine how many Fed would have already if Nadal hadn't been around.

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 02:46 PM
Some of them? Possibly.. Since players wont actually be shooting to break some of these. Though even question that. The slam count, consecutive weeks at Number 1 etc? Absolutely. All it takes is for someone to dominate his/her era. Every other era seems to have someone who stands above and dominates. It may take a while but most if not all of those records will not stand the test of time. Its just the natural evolution of any sport where records are meant to break. If not in the short term, long term all these records will be shattered. There will be someone who eventually comes along and dominates the game even more than Roger ever did and destroys he even his closest competition (Something Roger could never do with Nadal). Hell, it only took 7 years for Pete's slams record to be broke and now the 286 weeks will be broke,. DId you think the 14 slams would be broke in such a short time?

So in essence, its not as hard as it sounds or incomprehensible. Especially in todays game where all u have to do is dominate from the baseline and dominate on slower conditions primarily. Its easier to dominate where there is no polarization of the conditions. We live in an age where someone with Nadal's game can dominate all throughout the season. Try that in the 70s, 80s and 90s? It would never happen due to the condtions and the diversity of players to be dealt with. A big key is to stay injury free of course. Who knows what Nadal would have accomplished and took from Federer if he stayed injury free? Fed could still possibly be stuck back on 13 slams and still stuck at #2 in the world. So staying healthy is a big part of it

bokehlicious
02-03-2010, 02:51 PM
Some of them? Possibly.. Since players wont actually be shooting to break some of these. Though even question that. The slam count, consecutive weeks at Number 1 etc? Absolutely. All it takes is for someone to dominate his/her era. Every other era seems to have someone who stands above and dominates. It may take a while but most if not all of those records will not stand the test of time. Its just the natural evolution of any sport where records are meant to break. If not in the short term, long term all these records will be shattered. There will be someone who eventually comes along and dominates the game even more than Roger ever did and destroys he even his closest competition (Something Roger could never do with Nadal). Hell, it only took 7 years for Pete's slams record to be broke and now the 286 weeks will be broke,. DId you think the 14 slams would be broke in such a short time?

So in essence, its not as hard as it sounds or incomprehensible. Especially in todays game where all u have to do is dominate from the baseline and dominate on slower conditions primarily. Its easier to dominate where there is no polarization of the conditions. We live in an age where someone with Nadal's game can dominate all throughout the season. Try that in the 70s, 80s and 90s? It would never happen due to the condtions and the diversity of players to be dealt with. A big key is to stay injury free of course

Every generation has its Samprasses... Roger is in another league though... :o

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 02:54 PM
Every generation has its Samprasses... Roger is in another league though... :o

And Laver is in a league all by himself miles ahead of Roger. Roger can't duplicate Lavers 199 tournaments won and 2 calendar slams. This thread was created in essence of implying Roger has the best resume of all time.. But in truth its Laver.. Hell even Pancho Gonzales has a better resume than Federer.. Rosewall has a better resume. Tilden has a better resume

bokehlicious
02-03-2010, 02:55 PM
Roger can't duplicate Lavers 199 tournaments won

Get real and stop comparing oranges to apples...

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 02:57 PM
Get real and stop comparing oranges to apples...

We're going by Resumes bud and the only resume that can possibly stand the test of time is Laver's with 200 tournaments. Roger isnt evne at 60. And probably Pancho's since no one is going to get 8 years as Number 1. Or Rosewall's 23 slams. These are feats that will never be broke


But since Federer doesnt have these accomplishments nor ever get them.. I guess we shouldnt compare and they dont count according to the Federphiles

Dini
02-03-2010, 02:59 PM
Since when was GOATness measured by the amount of MM tournaments you win? :scratch: Laver is GOAT by measure of his big match wins, a.k.a his GS achievements - the 2 CYGSs.

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 03:02 PM
Since when was GOATness measured by the amount of MM tournaments you win? :scratch: Laver is GOAT by measure of his big match wins, a.k.a his GS achievements - the 2 CYGSs.

GOAT is measured by dominance coinciding with longevity of wins. Number of tournament wins should be an aspect of this.. It coincides with his dominance and longevity. You have to be dominant and maintain playing winnning tennis for a very long time to duplicate what Laver did

barbadosan
02-03-2010, 03:03 PM
Oh for Pete's sake, SetSampras, the article merely focuses on 10 factual records of Federer's. It is clearly not designed to make comparisons between players - the only reference to Nadal, for instance, is to point to the real possibility he could at least equal the one slam a year for 8 years. Yet somehow, you manage to bring up Fed v. Nadal, Laver's calendar slams and a whole host of stuff that the article doesn't pretend to be about.

Honestly, I'm beginning to believe that even if someone created a thread to discuss the taxidermy of the loxolophodon, you would somehow manage to weasel in your your hobby horse theories, no matter how irrelevant.

rocketassist
02-03-2010, 03:04 PM
Fed forum.

Dini
02-03-2010, 03:05 PM
I think those small tournaments were different back then. The draws were smaller (8 man draws or something like that). I don't think MM tournaments should be a big factor. Winning the CYGS at 31 is enough proof of longevity and dominance as far as I can see.

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 03:09 PM
Oh for Pete's sake, SetSampras, the article merely focuses on 10 factual records of Federer's. It is clearly not designed to make comparisons between players - the only reference to Nadal, for instance, is to point to the real possibility he could at least equal the one slam a year for 8 years. Yet somehow, you manage to bring up Fed v. Nadal, Laver's calendar slams and a whole host of stuff that the article doesn't pretend to be about.

Honestly, I'm beginning to believe that even if someone created a thread to discuss the taxidermy of the loxolophodon, you would somehow manage to weasel in your your hobby horse theories, no matter how irrelevant.

But the artcle was no doubt created by some federphile trying to subtely convince the world that "Oh Roger has the best resume who CAN POSSIBLY duplicate it?" When in fact, he doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. I see Fed's picture on the tennis mag which is all black with GOAT next to his name? He hasnt a GOAT career... Its been GOAT like but certainly the greatest. Greatness is represented by numbers and when u look at the numbers Fed isnt the greatest. He may be the best.. But best does not equal to be the greatest


He has had a "GOAT-like" career but its not as though his career has been hands down GOAT like. Same thing with biased articles. If some of these guys would check their tennis history they would know that Federer doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. Laver, Pancho, Tilden,Rosewall have all had a greater one. But again.. shit like this is created for people who havent studied tennis history and have no clue tennis was played before 2003

barbadosan
02-03-2010, 03:12 PM
But the artcle was no doubt created by some federphile trying to subtely convince the world that "Oh Roger has the best resume who CAN POSSIBLY duplicate it?" When in fact, he doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. I see Fed's picture on the tennis mag which is all black with GOAT next to his name?


He has had a "GOAT-like" career but its not as though his career has been hands down GOAT like. Same thing with biased articles. If these dumbasses would check their tennis history they would know that Federer doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. Laver, Pancho, Tilden,Rosewall have all had a greater one. But again.. shit like this is created for people who havent studied tennis history and have no clue tennis was played before 2003

I take it by your first paragraph that you have personal knowledge of the writer and that he actually spoke to you about his intention to do more than look at 10 records and the probability of them being broken. Either that, or you and your biases are assuming an awful lot, to the point of being downright presumptuous.

Edit: May I suggest a more credible approach on your part would be to write similar articles on whatever players you choose to, assessing the possibilities of their records being broken.

Bazooka
02-03-2010, 03:13 PM
3 is an impossible feat. In fact, applying pure logic and Occam's razor, I think Fed has tricked us all and really he hasn't been in all slam finals but one in the last 5 years. It seems equally plausible than he has mental powers and made us all believe it.

Sophocles
02-03-2010, 03:16 PM
He has had a "GOAT-like" career but its not as though his career has been hands down GOAT like. Same thing with biased articles. If some of these guys would check their tennis history they would know that Federer doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. Laver, Pancho, Tilden,Rosewall have all had a greater one. But again.. shit like this is created for people who havent studied tennis history and have no clue tennis was played before 2003

It depends how much weight you give each item on the resume. Until Federer broke the slam record, Samprastards tended to give overwhelming weight to that, & when others gently pointed that Laver, Rosewall, & Gonzales were barred from slams at the height of their careers, those same Samprastards would splutter indignantly that what-ifs didn't count - only the raw numbers.

Bazooka
02-03-2010, 03:26 PM
But the artcle was no doubt created by some federphile trying to subtely convince the world that "Oh Roger has the best resume who CAN POSSIBLY duplicate it?" When in fact, he doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. I see Fed's picture on the tennis mag which is all black with GOAT next to his name? He hasnt a GOAT career... Its been GOAT like but certainly the greatest. Greatness is represented by numbers and when u look at the numbers Fed isnt the greatest. He may be the best.. But best does not equal to be the greatest


He has had a "GOAT-like" career but its not as though his career has been hands down GOAT like. Same thing with biased articles. If some of these guys would check their tennis history they would know that Federer doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. Laver, Pancho, Tilden,Rosewall have all had a greater one. But again.. shit like this is created for people who havent studied tennis history and have no clue tennis was played before 2003

While it's true that it would be more wise to refer only to the open era, and with due respect to Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez and Tilden, to Mr. Doherty, and to the king Henry the VIII, sorry but it's not the same sport anymore.

Also, it's not the same achievement to be on top of a sport with a base of maybe 1.000 people trying to be a pro, than nowadays when we the sport is ultra-professionalized and we have hundreds of thousands of athletes trying to enter the top 100.

buzz
02-03-2010, 03:31 PM
But the artcle was no doubt created by some federphile trying to subtely convince the world that "Oh Roger has the best resume who CAN POSSIBLY duplicate it?" When in fact, he doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. I see Fed's picture on the tennis mag which is all black with GOAT next to his name? He hasnt a GOAT career... Its been GOAT like but certainly the greatest. Greatness is represented by numbers and when u look at the numbers Fed isnt the greatest. He may be the best.. But best does not equal to be the greatest


He has had a "GOAT-like" career but its not as though his career has been hands down GOAT like. Same thing with biased articles. If some of these guys would check their tennis history they would know that Federer doesnt even have a top 5 resume of all time. Laver, Pancho, Tilden,Rosewall have all had a greater one. But again.. shit like this is created for people who havent studied tennis history and have no clue tennis was played before 2003

may be they meant open era GOAT. Wich he probably is if you count only open era results.

Commander Data
02-03-2010, 03:32 PM
And Laver is in a league all by himself miles ahead of Roger. Roger can't duplicate Lavers 199 tournaments won and 2 calendar slams. This thread was created in essence of implying Roger has the best resume of all time.. But in truth its Laver.. Hell even Pancho Gonzales has a better resume than Federer.. Rosewall has a better resume. Tilden has a better resume

Maybe the Greek also had something similar to tennis and i guy stayed no. 1 for 30 years? That might be the real GOAT that owns Laver. might wanna check on that....

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Jeu_de_paume.jpg&filetimestamp=20050916155425

didn't the MAYA have a smilar games as well :confused:

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 03:33 PM
may be they meant open era GOAT. Wich he probably is if you count only open era results.

Numbers wise I will probably agree. Though I dont feel his top even nearly competition stacks up with the the likes of Mac, Borg, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Sampras etc. But thats entirely different argument. Its tough to compare eras and I know people don't want to compare Roger's era with Laver's era. But in reality, its tough to even compare Roger's era with say McEnroe's. The game has changed entirely tenfold just from the 80s to today. No having to worry about changing strategies for different surfaces, racket technology, slow conditions, primarily baseline play. There isnt a whole of diversity in the game anymore which in some ways I think makes it easier to dominate in this regard. Just my own personal opinion.

barbadosan
02-03-2010, 03:44 PM
(sigh) I clearly still have a lot to learn about MTF, and how a straightforward look at one player's records and the possibility of them being broken, can be hijacked, twisted and tortured into yet another GOAT diatribe. No blasphemy intended, but Jesus rising from the dead after 3 days pales into insignificance next to the ardour with which the long since beaten-to-death discussion on the GOAT is constantly resuscitated, even in threads that clearly have nothing to do with said debate.

Commander Data
02-03-2010, 03:48 PM
Lavers win-loss ratio of 413-107 casts some doubt on him being th GOAT.

Laver: "We played professional tennis for five years, you know, just maybe six, eight, ten guys traveling around the world."

"We played three of the Grand Slam tournaments on grass."



Laver on CYGS 1962:

“I was an amateur then. Roy Emerson and I were the best amateurs, but there was a whole world of pros out there who weren’t allowed to compete at places like Wimbledon and Forest Hills. I probably wouldn’t have won those titles against the likes of Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales.”

1969 the field was still only 48 players and 5 rounds..

oh yeah! seems like a awesome idea to compare Lavers resume with Federer ;-)

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 05:01 PM
Lavers win-loss ratio of 413-107 casts some doubt on him being th GOAT.

Laver: "We played professional tennis for five years, you know, just maybe six, eight, ten guys traveling around the world."

"We played three of the Grand Slam tournaments on grass."



Laver on CYGS 1962:

“I was an amateur then. Roy Emerson and I were the best amateurs, but there was a whole world of pros out there who weren’t allowed to compete at places like Wimbledon and Forest Hills. I probably wouldn’t have won those titles against the likes of Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales.”

1969 the field was still only 48 players and 5 rounds..

oh yeah! seems like a awesome idea to compare Lavers resume with Federer ;-)



Laver had plenty of great victories on hardcourt and wood at non slam events

Arkulari
02-03-2010, 05:24 PM
Laver had plenty of great victories on hardcourt and wood at non slam events

:D

Laver was a GREAT player, but I have always thought that the GOAT concept is silly, you can be the greatest of your OWN ERA, but not the greatest of all times, the sport has changed way too much to stand a basis for comparation :shrug:

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 05:38 PM
:D

Laver was a GREAT player, but I have always thought that the GOAT concept is silly, you can be the greatest of your OWN ERA, but not the greatest of all times, the sport has changed way too much to stand a basis for comparation :shrug:

I pretty much agree. I think thats all u really CAN gauge is the best of an era objectively. Unless we developed a time machine, put all the greats at their peak on neutral grounds and have them duke it out and see who the real greatest is. But Im just commenting on the intricacies of this situation. All I hear is how Fed is the greatest, hes had the best career, the best resume yet people are too lazy or naive to go back and look back at someone like Laver with tons of years on top, most tournaments won, 2 calendar slams, something Roger couldnt accomplish regardless of how dominant hes been.


ITs when people start throwing out Fed's resume as implying how he can never be duplicated over broken and forget totally about those who dominated the game before him. Its more or less a resume aspect. Fed's resume looks impressive. Its not the greatest though. So why do people have to use his resume to compare with everyone that will come after him?

bokehlicious
02-03-2010, 05:42 PM
:banghead: SetSampras, Fed could have 50 slams, 1500 tournaments wins and stayed 2000 weeks at #1 you would still claim that Great Pete had more competition so is still better in the end :yawn:... Get a grip dude :tape:

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 05:46 PM
:banghead: SetSampras, Fed could have 50 slams, 1500 tournaments wins and stayed 2000 weeks at #1 you would still claim that Great Pete had more competition so is still better in the end :yawn:... Get a grip dude :tape:



Sampras had to deal with more difficult circumstances.. Yes in many ways I also think sampras was a better player than Federer was. More of a bigger match player.. Never got bullied by a rival. Never allowed another player to get the best of him and take him on every surface at a grandslam. Thats not to say Fed hasnt dominated the game more than Pete. But Pete also played in an era with more diverse conditions than Federer. Could u imagine if all Sampras had to play on was courts that suited his game perfectly like fast Wimbeldon grass and decoturf and/or indoor carpet and never had to deal with any attacker? Just pushers and baseliner? One style of player? Sampras would have Federer to the limit no doubt about it.. Much more than even Nadal did because Sampras could maintain his high level for many years due to how easy the game came to him. You could only get a short period of time where Nadal could keep at a high level.

Federer is also more consistent then Sampras.. But at the same time Fed doesnt play a high risk game. Its easier to be consistent when u live at the baseline and when the game is all primarily played from a baseline perspective

barbadosan
02-03-2010, 06:09 PM
I pretty much agree. I think thats all u really CAN gauge is the best of an era objectively. Unless we developed a time machine, put all the greats at their peak on neutral grounds and have them duke it out and see who the real greatest is. But Im just commenting on the intricacies of this situation. All I hear is how Fed is the greatest, hes had the best career, the best resume yet people are too lazy or naive to go back and look back at someone like Laver with tons of years on top, most tournaments won, 2 calendar slams, something Roger couldnt accomplish regardless of how dominant hes been.


ITs when people start throwing out Fed's resume as implying how he can never be duplicated over broken and forget totally about those who dominated the game before him. Its more or less a resume aspect. Fed's resume looks impressive. Its not the greatest though. So why do people have to use his resume to compare with everyone that will come after him?

You really have NO concept of newsworthiness and timeliness, do you? The article is updated 2 days after Fed wins a record 16th GS. Who on earth do you think the articles in the following days are going to be about? Singh Singh from Katmandu? If Murray had won, the focus of the articles on ATP in the following days would have been about him, not Federer. If Laver had just won the AO, the articles would be about him, not Federer. That is the way news works. sheesh

PS: From time to time writers will do what are called period or stock pieces, but those are usually only run in down times when nothing much else is going on.. fill pieces. They will NEVER take precedence over time-relevant stories.

Sunset of Age
02-03-2010, 06:19 PM
SetSampras, I understand you're bitter, but wouldn't it be time to change the record by now? :rolleyes:

MatchFederer
02-03-2010, 06:26 PM
SetSampras is surely tenacious.

Corey Feldman
02-03-2010, 06:33 PM
Sampras clay court record for one of the best of all time was embaressing and its why he cant be compared to Federer, even one of his biggest bitches, Kafelnikov, drubbed him the one time he made a semi there

someone give the bitter & jealous SetSampras the memo

MatchFederer
02-03-2010, 06:35 PM
Sampras clay court record for one of the best of all time was embaressing and its why he cant be compared to Federer, even one of his biggest bitches, Kafelnikov, drubbed him the one time he made a semi there

someone give the bitter & jealous SetSampras the memo

Heh heh heh.



Anyway in response to the thread; I find it unlikely that these records will stand if we were to presume that tennis may yet be played professional for 100's more years. However, Roger may yet extend many, still.

Corey Feldman
02-03-2010, 06:35 PM
Lavers win-loss ratio of 413-107 casts some doubt on him being th GOAT.

Laver: "We played professional tennis for five years, you know, just maybe six, eight, ten guys traveling around the world."

"We played three of the Grand Slam tournaments on grass."



Laver on CYGS 1962:

“I was an amateur then. Roy Emerson and I were the best amateurs, but there was a whole world of pros out there who weren’t allowed to compete at places like Wimbledon and Forest Hills. I probably wouldn’t have won those titles against the likes of Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales.”

1969 the field was still only 48 players and 5 rounds..

oh yeah! seems like a awesome idea to compare Lavers resume with Federer ;-)exactly

nothing against Laver and those legends but shows how daft ppl are when they compare records now to a time when the game was part time and full of amateurs

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 06:37 PM
Sampras clay court record for one of the best of all time was embaressing and its why he cant be compared to Federer, even one of his biggest bitches, Kafelnikov, drubbed him the one time he made a semi there

someone give the bitter & jealous SetSampras the memo



The clay court field during Fed's time was nothing short of embarrassing either. Who are his biggest conquests at the French Open? Soderling? Haas? Hanescu? Moya? Nalbandian? Monfils? LOL!! In Sampras' day was more than just one legit clay court player to contend with. You had Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Medvedev, etc. While Nadal may be the clay court GOAT arugably the field has been lacking in deed of serious clay court depth.

Sampras also won Rome and the Davis Cup single handily on slow slow clay (something Roger has never done!!!). Sampras wasnt great on clay but he was no joke. During his prime (92-96) he reached a couple quality QF appearances and a semis. He beat Courier and Bruguera in a row. Hardly embarrassing.. But I can recall much of Federer's French Open draws during the years a joke as well.

At the end of the day, Sampras much deeper clay court competition to contend with than Federer ever had. Bottom line. When he had to go up against legit quality clay court players he was wiped out at RG by Nadal or even plastic hipped wheelchair Guga in straight sets

Voo de Mar
02-03-2010, 06:48 PM
IMO comparing different eras is pointless. We can sensibly compare Lendl with McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg; Sampras with Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov; Federer with Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal etc.

Corey Feldman
02-03-2010, 06:54 PM
At the end of the day, Sampras much deeper clay court competition to contend with than Federer ever had. yeah like Gilbert Schaller or Ramon Delgado

Roamed
02-03-2010, 06:57 PM
The clay court field during Fed's time was nothing short of embarrassing either. Who are his biggest conquests at the French Open? Soderling? Haas? Hanescu? Moya? Nalbandian? Monfils? LOL!! In Sampras' day was more than just one legit clay court player to contend with. You had Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Medvedev, etc. While Nadal may be the clay court GOAT arugably the field has been lacking in deed of serious clay court depth.

Sampras also won Rome and the Davis Cup single handily on slow slow clay (something Roger has never done!!!). Sampras wasnt great on clay but he was no joke. During his prime (92-96) he reached a couple quality QF appearances and a semis. He beat Courier and Bruguera in a row. Hardly embarrassing.. But I can recall much of Federer's French Open draws during the years a joke as well.

At the end of the day, Sampras much deeper clay court competition to contend with than Federer ever had. Bottom line. When he had to go up against legit quality clay court players he was wiped out at RG by Nadal or even plastic hipped wheelchair Guga in straight sets

So you're saying, in essence, that Sampras is just as good/better than Fed on clay and Fed only looks good because of the weak field. Sampras won three clay titles, didn't he? Fed's won nine. Also you seem to be saying Sampras reaching a semi at the FO is equal to four finals and a win for Fed. So for all of this to fit together the game now would have to have about 1/4 of the strength that it did in Sampras' time, something that the zillions of experts and former pros commentating on today's game seem to have mysteriously missed. Is that what you're saying? :lol:

Arkulari
02-03-2010, 06:59 PM
The clay court field during Fed's time was nothing short of embarrassing either. Who are his biggest conquests at the French Open? Soderling? Haas? Hanescu? Moya? Nalbandian? Monfils? LOL!! In Sampras' day was more than just one legit clay court player to contend with. You had Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Medvedev, etc. While Nadal may be the clay court GOAT arugably the field has been lacking in deed of serious clay court depth.

Sampras also won Rome and the Davis Cup single handily on slow slow clay (something Roger has never done!!!). Sampras wasnt great on clay but he was no joke. During his prime (92-96) he reached a couple quality QF appearances and a semis. He beat Courier and Bruguera in a row. Hardly embarrassing.. But I can recall much of Federer's French Open draws during the years a joke as well.

At the end of the day, Sampras much deeper clay court competition to contend with than Federer ever had. Bottom line. When he had to go up against legit quality clay court players he was wiped out at RG by Nadal or even plastic hipped wheelchair Guga in straight sets

you can only beat what is in front of you, it's not Roger's fault that he was born in the era of one of the greatest claycourters, same with other players, it's not their fault that they were born in Roger's era, someone like Duck would have had 5 Slams in other era, Hewitt would have gotten two more, Safin the same, Nole, Murray, etc

Roger's clay game is way superior to Sampras and it's not a matter of the field he faced, it's a matter that his movement in the surface is much superior and he can adapt much better to those conditions than Sampras was ever able to, that's why he won Hamburg (a very slow clay) 4 times

abraxas21
02-03-2010, 07:04 PM
moreover, Sampras would probably not had won as many Wimby titles in today's slower grass conditions. He also wouldn't have won so many titles in general given that many courts are slower and don't really favour much the boring S&V style.

SetSampras
02-03-2010, 07:07 PM
you can only beat what is in front of you, it's not Roger's fault that he was born in the era of one of the greatest claycourters, same with other players, it's not their fault that they were born in Roger's era, someone like Duck would have had 5 Slams in other era, Hewitt would have gotten two more, Safin the same, Nole, Murray, etc

Roger's clay game is way superior to Sampras and it's not a matter of the field he faced, it's a matter that his movement in the surface is much superior and he can adapt much better to those conditions than Sampras was ever able to, that's why he won Hamburg (a very slow clay) 4 times

Federer grew up playing on clay.. Most forget.. Sampras didn't. Im not saying Pete is better on clay then federer. Obviously his spin and safe style of play is going to translate better on clay.. Im merely saying Sampras had more to deal with on clay then Federer did in terms of overrall threats, It helps when u grow up playing on certain surface obviously



And for people say Sampras wouldnt win as many wimby titles today.. Well Nadal probably wouldnt have won anything outside of the French Open in Pete's day.. So again.. its a moot point

abraxas21
02-03-2010, 07:10 PM
And for people say Sampras wouldnt win as many wimby titles today.. Well Nadal probably wouldnt have won anything outside of the French Open in Pete's day.. So again.. its a moot point

It's just reality...It's just how the game changes and favours a particular style over other. Back in the day the conditions favoured S&V and fortunately (for a matter of personal taste) the current conditions favour a mostly baseline playing style.

For the record, I don't think Nadal wouldn't have won "anything" outside of RG in Pete's day but he would have probably been less succesful. For one thing I don't think he would have won Wimby in the fast & low bounce grass conditions.

MatchFederer
02-03-2010, 07:11 PM
Athletes will adapt to their surroundings and scenarios. This is why I find it utterly hilarious when I hear discussions like so n so would have sucked with a wooden racket or would win bugger all in another era and such. I've heard a fair amount of that over the last few years.

It's definitely quite amusing and also entertaining.

Excuse my smug arrogance.

Thanks.

edit:

Also to elaborate on other similar such tennis discussions, it is always funny to watch people try and split Federer's slam victories amongst the other players who were the losing finalists.. or semi finalist.. or whomever.

If Federer hadn't existed, apart from the draws likely being different and generally the course of the history, but also various levels momentum for various players would likely be rather different.

I suppose that what happens, happens.

Sophocles
02-03-2010, 07:13 PM
I'm beginning to think we may have an ACC winner here.

MatchFederer
02-03-2010, 07:16 PM
I'm beginning to think we may have an ACC winner here.

That's interesting.

All this ACC stuff is a load of epic, worthless bullshit anyway. I didn't think something would become more irritating on this forum than constant fail images and the like. Actually thankfully that fad seems to have quietened somewhat, much like 2000's UK indie rock music.

Sophocles
02-03-2010, 07:19 PM
That's interesting.

All this ACC stuff is a load of epic, worthless bullshit anyway. I didn't think something would become more irritating on this forum than constant fail images and the like. Actually thankfully that fad seems to have quietened somewhat, much like 2000's UK indie rock music.

It wasn't you I had in mind.

abraxas21
02-03-2010, 07:20 PM
Athletes will adapt to their surroundings and scenarios. This is why I find it utterly hilarious when I hear discussions like so n so would have sucked with a wooden racket or would win bugger all in another era and such. I've heard a fair amount of that over the last few years.

It's definitely quite amusing and also entertaining.

Excuse my smug arrogance.

Thanks.

Is it even possible not being smug while being arrogant? :)

It's just the way I see it. Nadal is in essence a baseline player who seems to feel more comfortable defending than attacking and who uses heavy topspin that allow his shots to bounce a lot. I really don't think that style would have granted him a Wimby title under the old conditions in which the ball barely bounced and the grass was supper quick.

Conversely, I don't think Sampras would have won so many Wimby titles under today's slow conditions. His S&V style was perfect for the fast Wimby conditions of his era but I hardly see that style imposing itself in Wimby again.

Arkulari
02-03-2010, 07:21 PM
Federer grew up playing on clay.. Most forget.. Sampras didn't. Im not saying Pete is better on clay then federer. Obviously his spin and safe style of play is going to translate better on clay.. Im merely saying Sampras had more to deal with on clay then Federer did in terms of overrall threats, It helps when u grow up playing on certain surface obviously



And for people say Sampras wouldnt win as many wimby titles today.. Well Nadal probably wouldnt have won anything outside of the French Open in Pete's day.. So again.. its a moot point

IMO, Rafa is more than Courier, Bruguera put together, so Roger's competition on clay consisted of a guy who didn't lose in Roland Garros for 4 straight years and whom won MC five times in a row, what is worse: to have a few good but beatable claycourters around or having one really strong claycourter who usually sweeps the titles? it can go both ways really ;)

Roger didn't grow up playing in grass or in hard and look how well he did on those, same could have been said about Sampras if he did well on clay :p

I'm not trying to demote Sampras' accomplishments, while I was never a fan of the guy, I do recognize him as a great player

MatchFederer
02-03-2010, 07:25 PM
Is it even possible not being smug while being arrogant? :)

It's just the way I see it. Nadal is in essence a baseline player who seems to feel more comfortable defending than attacking and who uses heavy topspin that allow his shots to bounce a lot. I really don't think that style would have granted him a Wimby title under the old conditions in which the ball barely bounced and the grass was supper quick.

Conversely, I don't think Sampras would have won so many Wimby titles under today's slow conditions. His S&V style was perfect for the fast Wimby conditions of his era but I hardly see that style imposing itself in Wimby again.

lol. Who has any clue what would have happened with a Nadal equivalent born 15 years previously. His techniques may have been entirely different. His scenario would have indeed been very different.

I suppose the speculation is fun but all that could really be argued is that hi scurrent 'style' would not translate well... rather than to say that Rafa himself would have not translated well to that grass had he somehow been born 15 years earlier.

Ho hum.

edit: ...same things apply to Sampras.

abraxas21
02-03-2010, 07:30 PM
lol. Who has any clue what would have happened with a Nadal equivalent born 15 years previously. His techniques may have been entirely different. His scenario would have indeed been very different.

I suppose the speculation is fun but all that could really be argued is that hi scurrent 'style' would not translate well... rather than to say that Rafa himself would have not translated well to that grass had he somehow been born 15 years earlier.

Ho hum.

Of course. You won't find me disagreeing with you on that. Maybe Nadal would have been a totally different player had he had to play in Pete's era. I don't think he would have been so succesful with another style though but that's just my opinon.

There's a reason why a player like Nadal hasn't managed to "adapt" to hardcourts as well as he does in claycourts. By the same token, there is also a reason why Sampras wasn't able to adapt to clay as well as he did adapt to grass courts.

Federer is probably one of the few good players that I'm aware of who can adapt to pretty much all conditions and be almost as equally good in spite of the differences. He just happens to be good at everything whereas Sampras, in spite of being great players, had their marked preferences regarding playing style, surfaces and conditions.
I think this is basically what Connors had in mind when he asserted "you can be a clay court specialist, a hard court specialist or a grass court specialist - or you can be Roger Federer"

MatchFederer
02-03-2010, 07:30 PM
However it isn't that sort of speculation I have any real problem with. It's when one sometimes hears funny things that are really out their such as X would have definitely sucked in the era of wooden rackets etc.

Funny shi' right dere.

abraxas21
02-03-2010, 07:34 PM
well, to my awareness, no-one has said that although i wouldn't be surprised if someone did...

BlackSilver
02-03-2010, 08:17 PM
and we have hundreds of thousands of athletes trying to enter the top 100.

Prove it.

electronicmusic
02-03-2010, 08:45 PM
I'm beginning to think we may have an ACC winner here.

What does ACC mean?

Olorin
02-03-2010, 09:18 PM
ACC = Attention Celtic C*nt

Hmmm....my golly, that's what I thought.

paseo
02-04-2010, 12:30 AM
A serious question to SetSampras : If Nadal can adapt and win a hardcourt GS, why can't Sampras adapt and win the RG?

MatchFederer
02-04-2010, 12:34 AM
A serious question to SetSampras : If Nadal can adapt and win a hardcourt GS, why can't Sampras adapt and win the RG?

He has already alluded to why...

wackykid
02-04-2010, 12:40 AM
GOAT is measured by dominance coinciding with longevity of wins. Number of tournament wins should be an aspect of this.. It coincides with his dominance and longevity. You have to be dominant and maintain playing winnning tennis for a very long time to duplicate what Laver did

oh if "number of tournament wins" should be counted... roger can easily do that if he wanted... so can several of the next best players... just participate in every Challenger or Futures series possible... where you are several leagues better than the number 2 seed... that pretty much guarantees your win... possibly clock up 52 tournament wins a year u can break 200 tournament wins in 4 years...


regards,
wacky

Arkulari
02-04-2010, 01:21 AM
let's see, Roger has won tournaments for about 10 years now and has been winning Slams 8 years in a row, he is 28 and already has 62 titles, if he plays till his mid thirties, how many titles more would he win? ;)

Jimmy Connors won a gazillion tournaments, does that mean he was a better player than Roger if one were so inclined to compare? ;)

and for Laver, well, he won quite a few tournaments with very small draws (8,16) and the field back then wasn't very large like it is today ;)

it's all a matter of perspective

aulus
02-04-2010, 02:30 AM
probability %'s are arbitrary.

i doubt very much that many thought Sampras' 14 would be broken so soon.



Lavers win-loss ratio of 413-107 casts some doubt on him being the GOAT.

Laver: "We played professional tennis for five years, you know, just maybe six, eight, ten guys traveling around the world."
there were more than 10 pro players. the pro tour was basically the best pros traveling around the world playing matches.
there were also pro tournaments, like Wembley, the French Pro, Wimbledon Pro, US Pro, etc.

"We played three of the Grand Slam tournaments on grass."


Laver on CYGS 1962:

“I was an amateur then. Roy Emerson and I were the best amateurs, but there was a whole world of pros out there who weren’t allowed to compete at places like Wimbledon and Forest Hills. I probably wouldn’t have won those titles against the likes of Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales.”

1969 the field was still only 48 players and 5 rounds..

oh yeah! seems like a awesome idea to compare Lavers resume with Federer ;-)
that is why it is very difficult to compare players from such different eras. so i generally do not rank players from different eras against each other.




but the field was much smaller. many events were 8 or 16 man draws. Connors won many of those type of small events, too.



Rosewall was able to win AO at age 37. 2 years later, Connors annihilated Rosewall 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 in USO final.

41 year old Pancho Gonzalez came out of retirement and beat #1 ranked Laver in a 5 set match in '71 at Madison Square Garden.

the kind of longevity that players had 40+ years ago would be extremely unlikely today, because the game is so much more physical. that players were still elite near the age of 40 may testify against the depth of tennis at the time.


serve and volley was dominant, even on clay. players were not allowed to leave the ground during serves.



i have seen video of Laver, though, and he was a really incredible player.

the only player i have ever seen with similar shotmaking ability is Federer, and Laver was using a small, heavy, wooden racket. he had a amazing sense of court positioning, was very quick and was an excellent volleyer. he was a genius.



here is a video of an exhibition match of 37 year old Laver vs #1 ranked Connors from '75. it seems both players wanted to win, and Connors won in 4, 6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 7-5.

Laver hit some amazing volleys and passing shots in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcRNZeo70P4&feature=related


and here is Laver vs Borg in '76. Borg won 6-3, 7-5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMfBpkUJeKE&feature=related



i think Laver's height could be a problem in the modern game. not only in serving, but also in handling high balls. in the video vs Borg, Laver misses an easy short high ball, giving 2 break points to Borg.



What does ACC mean?
arseclown contest

swebright
02-04-2010, 03:26 AM
So Lendle still owns that 18 consecutive finals record??:worship:

kengyin
02-04-2010, 03:28 AM
SetSampras is ridiculous, but its very funny reading his posts attempting to underrate federer and his achievements!!!!

BigJohn
02-04-2010, 03:28 AM
Federer grew up playing on clay.. Most forget.. Sampras didn't. Im not saying Pete is better on clay then federer. Obviously his spin and safe style of play is going to translate better on clay.. Im merely saying Sampras had more to deal with on clay then Federer did in terms of overrall threats, It helps when u grow up playing on certain surface obviously


Wow. Words of a very dedicated fanboy.

Most forget? I would say most don't find that relevant or a pertinent observation to make.

Federerhingis
02-04-2010, 03:39 AM
The percentages can't begin to be quantified. I guess as far as one could get is to rank them likely, very likely, not likely etc...

The thing is, over what timeframe are we talking? I would think that many of these records will be under threat at some point in the future of tennis.

One needs to definitely agree with what Roger has been saying himself for years now, records are made to be broken and his will be no different. But some of the above will be very hard to break.

Dimitra
02-04-2010, 03:53 AM
bwahaha so this is where the legendary GameSampras went after we banned him from TW!!:lol: :D good luck you guys.

kengyin
02-04-2010, 03:57 AM
Tw?

Dimitra
02-04-2010, 04:02 AM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php
another tennis forum..where sooner or later the trolls are banned..sort of.:p
Our buddy SetSampras here has been quite a legend.The best example of a Samprastards in all its glory.

SetSampras
02-04-2010, 04:49 AM
A serious question to SetSampras : If Nadal can adapt and win a hardcourt GS, why can't Sampras adapt and win the RG?

Well lets see... Nadal managed a slow hardcourt slam. He was actually very good slow hardcourt player. He does post a win over Fed on hardcourts at only 18 years of age. But lets take into perspective, Nadal has only managed one hardcourt slam and probably the only one he will manage due to injuries. Sampras gave up trying for the french Open after he was 25-26 years of age or so. But when he was at his prime he was going out to Agassi, Muster, Bruguera, and Kafelnikov (After beating Bruguera and Courier in a row in 96). So during his prime he was going to some legit great clay court players who have all won the French Open and have impressive clay court results. And it all depends on the draw as well. If Sampras had cakewalks to every RG semis or quarters of Finals during his prime we would be talking Sampras with one French Open to his name. Again he HAS WON on clay. A big rome title and a Davis Cup title in 95 on clay. Two different scenarios that are difficult to explain. Lets see Nadal win at the USO and we can guage it better but most players who have been reasonably successful on clay translate their game better to a slower hardcourt like the AO. Sampras deal with all types of styles and conditions.. Has Nadal? Kind of different circumstance IMO

Art&Soul
02-04-2010, 05:12 AM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php
another tennis forum..where sooner or later the trolls are banned..sort of.:p
Our buddy SetSampras here has been quite a legend.The best example of a Samprastards in all its glory.

So MTF should ban his as well :devil: coz even TW can't bear his sh*t :o

Sophocles
02-04-2010, 10:05 AM
i have seen video of Laver, though, and he was a really incredible player.

the only player i have ever seen with similar shotmaking ability is Federer, and Laver was using a small, heavy, wooden racket. he had a amazing sense of court positioning, was very quick and was an excellent volleyer. he was a genius.

Well put. Exactly my thoughts.

For a 5'9" guy who wasn't allowed to leave the ground when he served, he hit a lot of aces.

Commander Data
02-04-2010, 11:34 AM
Some more quotes from Laver:

"There's no ego in Roger."

"Federer proved to be the second best on clay."

"I always thought Roger was the ideal person to pull it off (CYGS), but then along comes Nadal to stop him at the French," Laver says. "It's a pity, really, because I would love to see him win all four tournaments. Believe me, if he did it I would be the first person to shake his hand."

On comparing him with Federer: "Because of the equipment differences [between our eras]... there's not much point."

"I don't know that anyone can wear the title of "best ever." I mean, [Andre] Agassi and [Pete] Sampras played some unbelievable matches. The most you can say is, "I was the best in my era." Roger can say that."


On people that call Laver the GOAT: "...that's very nice of them. But they're probably just looking at my record," he says, with a smile. "I don't think they actually saw much of my tennis."

"I competed hard in the heat of the battle and there were a few occasions where I played my best in the top matches. As for the best ever? I don't think so."

On how he might do today: "Today's game is different. It is easier for a guy like Juan Martin Del Potro, who is larger than 1.90, a guy like him (..) has an array of brutal strokes. Smaller players are no longer options." (Laver is listed as 1.73)

"Generations have been getting better!"

SetSampras
02-04-2010, 04:29 PM
Some more quotes from Laver:

"There's no ego in Roger."

"Federer proved to be the second best on clay."

"I always thought Roger was the ideal person to pull it off (CYGS), but then along comes Nadal to stop him at the French," Laver says. "It's a pity, really, because I would love to see him win all four tournaments. Believe me, if he did it I would be the first person to shake his hand."

On comparing him with Federer: "Because of the equipment differences [between our eras]... there's not much point."

"I don't know that anyone can wear the title of "best ever." I mean, [Andre] Agassi and [Pete] Sampras played some unbelievable matches. The most you can say is, "I was the best in my era." Roger can say that."


On people that call Laver the GOAT: "...that's very nice of them. But they're probably just looking at my record," he says, with a smile. "I don't think they actually saw much of my tennis."

"I competed hard in the heat of the battle and there were a few occasions where I played my best in the top matches. As for the best ever? I don't think so."

On how he might do today: "Today's game is different. It is easier for a guy like Juan Martin Del Potro, who is larger than 1.90, a guy like him (..) has an array of brutal strokes. Smaller players are no longer options." (Laver is listed as 1.73)

"Generations have been getting better!"


If you know Laver and followed him over the years and his comments you will know Laver is the most humble out of any all time great. There is no ego in federer? LOL!!!! Come on now. You dont get to that point with having a tremendous supply of ego and overconfidence. Federer has said some things about player including Rafa which show egomaniacal he is. He had the number 15 stiched on to his apparel before he even won 15 slams? There's no ego in that?

Laver is the classiest and most humble guy there is. He was saying the same about guys like Sampras, about Lendl etc long before Roger ever came around. Laver would give anyone else credit before he ever would himself. He was that much of a class act

abraxas21
02-04-2010, 04:33 PM
SetSampras, the more I read your posts the more I get convinced that you're just another hater jealous of Fed's success which happens to be overshadowing Sampras' achievements.

manadrainer
02-04-2010, 04:38 PM
If you know Laver and followed him over the years and his comments you will know Laver is the most humble out of any all time great. There is no ego in federer? LOL!!!! Come on now. You dont get to that point with having a tremendous supply of ego and overconfidence. Federer has said some things about player including Rafa which show egomaniacal he is. He had the number 15 stiched on to his apparel before he even won 15 slams? There's no ego in that?

Laver is the classiest and most humble guy there is. He was saying the same about guys like Sampras, about Lendl etc long before Roger ever came around

It's called marketing. Deal with it. Nike wanted it to show the most successful player in Grand Slams wears Nike. In fact you can see some guy giving it to Roger to wear it right after the end of the final...

barbadosan
02-04-2010, 05:48 PM
If you know Laver and followed him over the years and his comments you will know Laver is the most humble out of any all time great. There is no ego in federer? LOL!!!! Come on now. You dont get to that point with having a tremendous supply of ego and overconfidence. Federer has said some things about player including Rafa which show egomaniacal he is. He had the number 15 stiched on to his apparel before he even won 15 slams? There's no ego in that?

Laver is the classiest and most humble guy there is. He was saying the same about guys like Sampras, about Lendl etc long before Roger ever came around. Laver would give anyone else credit before he ever would himself. He was that much of a class act

It's called marketing. Deal with it. Nike wanted it to show the most successful player in Grand Slams wears Nike. In fact you can see some guy giving it to Roger to wear it right after the end of the final...

Don't waste your breath. NBC showed the silver-haired guy coming out tapping Roger on the shoulder and giving him with the jacket; it showed Roger briefly searching around for where the jacket opened - yet he continues to throw that line in his posts ever so often. Sets up the strawman and then proceeds to make an argument against it. Makes you think he works on the theory that a lie repeated often enough will eventually become accepted as truth

Sunset of Age
02-04-2010, 05:55 PM
SetSampras... some three months ago I took your opinions quite seriously at times. By now, you've become Sawan #2.

:rolls:

SetSampras
02-04-2010, 06:09 PM
SetSampras... some three months ago I took your opinions quite seriously at times. By now, you've become Sawan #2.

:rolls:

Ahhh its alright... You cant be loved by everyone.. Nor will everyone agree with what I say.. But I stand by my convictions and say whats on my mind

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 07:07 PM
Ahhh its alright... You cant be loved by everyone.. Nor will everyone agree with what I say.. But I stand by my convictions and say whats on my mind

Ive been reading your posts for a while on MTF and now that ive joined i have to say something. I think you seriously need to consider coming off the 'weak era' bandwagon and face the fact that Roger is gonna smash every single record that Sampy set. Make a decision now to change your ways in order to save yourself from further embarrasment in teh future. Believe me its teh wise thing to do old sport.

DrJules
02-04-2010, 07:12 PM
And Laver is in a league all by himself miles ahead of Roger. Roger can't duplicate Lavers 199 tournaments won and 2 calendar slams. This thread was created in essence of implying Roger has the best resume of all time.. But in truth its Laver.. Hell even Pancho Gonzales has a better resume than Federer.. Rosewall has a better resume. Tilden has a better resume

You certainly should do well in the 2010 ACC.

It is difficult to compare each generation for many reasons and statistics is probably the most objective criteria. The fact RF has 16 GS and PS has 14 GS and that RF won FO and PS did not obviously seems to trouble you, but based on statistical criteria RF is greater than PS. Please give details of what you consider a more objective criteria that we could apply to support your assertion that PS greater than RF.

Vida
02-04-2010, 07:17 PM
well by all likeliness it was a 'weak era'.... nalby, safin, ljubicic, blake... they'd suck balls in any era :shrug:

aulus
02-04-2010, 11:09 PM
Well put. Exactly my thoughts.

For a 5'9" guy who wasn't allowed to leave the ground when he served, he hit a lot of aces.

i don't know when the rule of staying on the ground while serving started or ended.

i noticed, though, that Laver's serves were generally very well placed. often right into the corner.


he is really an amazing player to watch. he could hit almost any shot from anywhere on the court at any time.

marcRD
02-04-2010, 11:53 PM
Sampras had to deal with more difficult circumstances.. Yes in many ways I also think sampras was a better player than Federer was. More of a bigger match player.. Never got bullied by a rival. Never allowed another player to get the best of him and take him on every surface at a grandslam. Thats not to say Fed hasnt dominated the game more than Pete. But Pete also played in an era with more diverse conditions than Federer. Could u imagine if all Sampras had to play on was courts that suited his game perfectly like fast Wimbeldon grass and decoturf and/or indoor carpet and never had to deal with any attacker? Just pushers and baseliner? One style of player? Sampras would have Federer to the limit no doubt about it.. Much more than even Nadal did because Sampras could maintain his high level for many years due to how easy the game came to him. You could only get a short period of time where Nadal could keep at a high level.

Federer is also more consistent then Sampras.. But at the same time Fed doesnt play a high risk game. Its easier to be consistent when u live at the baseline and when the game is all primarily played from a baseline perspective

Ok, time for me to go into this debate. You shoot yourself on the foot when you ask if we can imagine Sampras had to play on fast wimbledon grass and fast indoor carpets....

Guess what, Sampras actually got to play only on fast grass and gpt to play in a time with alot of fast indoor courts, imagine now if he had to play on slow grass like Federer needs to play today? What is to say that Sampras would beat Nadal on slow grass, would he even beat Agassi on slow grass? Federer prefers the fast grass courts where he played his best tennis in 2003 wimbledon but had to adjust to new conditions and change his game to baseline tennis, would Sampras be able to make such an adjustment?

Federer beat Sampras playing serve and volley 2001, he won Wimbledon 2003 playing mostly serve and volley and adjusted his game as the grass slowed down to more tennis from the baseline.

Now imagine if Sampras had to play Agassi everytime on either slow grass, Australian open or clay. 4 matches on clay, 1 match in Australian Open and 3 matches on slow grass. Agassi would win all clay court matches and would win in the Australian Open against him ofcourse, now Agassi would win one match on slow grass and Sampras would prob get 2 matches.

Well, all these speculations gave us a h2h of 6-2 for Agassi against Sampras. Speculating is alot of fun and leads to unexpected conclusions, but it is ofcourse also completely worthless. But I think I made my point, Federer has never played Nadal in USOPEN or fast grass. Sampras played Agassi 6 times on conditions which gave extreme advantage to him and Agassi played him only once in RG and twice in Australian Open and beat Sampras everytime. So to compare h2hs is extremly stupid, because a one dimensional player might never even play enought on surfaces where his only weapons are neutralised and never play his opponents on conditions where he will lose.

Federer played Nadal 11 times on his worst surface, 4 times in a grand slam, he lost over all 9 matches and won 2 matches. Without this piece of information they are actually quite equal, 2-2 on slow grass and slow hardcourt slams and 5-4 for Federer overall. Federer never got closer to the ultrafast conditions of Wimbledon of old than the indoor carpet tournaments where he never lost a set against Nadal and its also the only place where he humiliated Nadal (6-4 6-1 2007 master cup).

Greatness has never been meassured by h2hs, it doesnt make sense when h2hs depend on which conditions the players face each other.

I need to add that Sampras was very fortunate to live in a time with 2 grand slams played on very fast conditions because Sampras was not a player who could adapt to different situations but he knew only one way to play the game, Federer is in my opinion a much, much more adaptable player who can use different tactics to find a way to win tennis matches. Personaly I think Sampras is the fortunate one who would not win as many slams in any other era than in his era with fast courts, few good returners and alot of big servers (where he was the biggest one), he would have more trouble in any other tennis era, today I really dont think he would be able to win any tournaments outside USOPEN maybe as he wouldnt be able to adapt to new conditions and great returns/passing shots of players today (in his late 20s he even had big trouble with teenage Hewitt).

paseo
02-05-2010, 12:38 AM
Well lets see... Nadal managed a slow hardcourt slam. He was actually very good slow hardcourt player. He does post a win over Fed on hardcourts at only 18 years of age. But lets take into perspective, Nadal has only managed one hardcourt slam and probably the only one he will manage due to injuries. Sampras gave up trying for the french Open after he was 25-26 years of age or so. But when he was at his prime he was going out to Agassi, Muster, Bruguera, and Kafelnikov (After beating Bruguera and Courier in a row in 96). So during his prime he was going to some legit great clay court players who have all won the French Open and have impressive clay court results. And it all depends on the draw as well. If Sampras had cakewalks to every RG semis or quarters of Finals during his prime we would be talking Sampras with one French Open to his name. Again he HAS WON on clay. A big rome title and a Davis Cup title in 95 on clay. Two different scenarios that are difficult to explain. Lets see Nadal win at the USO and we can guage it better but most players who have been reasonably successful on clay translate their game better to a slower hardcourt like the AO. Sampras deal with all types of styles and conditions.. Has Nadal? Kind of different circumstance IMO

Why did he do that?

And IMO, on clay Nadal >>>>>>> Agassi, Muster, Bruguera, and Kafelnikov.

serveandvolley80
02-05-2010, 01:47 AM
Why did he do that?

And IMO, on clay Nadal >>>>>>> Agassi, Muster, Bruguera, and Kafelnikov.

LOL to anyone that lists Kafelnikov as some kind of clay court force in order to defend an era being stronger.

SetSampras on suicide watch since Wimbledon 09.

If you know Laver and followed him over the years and his comments you will know Laver is the most humble out of any all time great.

You dont get to that point with having a tremendous supply of ego and overconfidence

You are such a weak debater that you can't even go 2 sentences in a row without a huge contradiction and making yourself look like a fool.

Of course i trust that you are old and mature enough to have followed Laver's entire career spanning all the way from the 1950's. Especially anyone being a Sampras fan, where the mid 90's started an abomination in tennis where one dimensional giants just hoped to win 7-6 in tie breakers because all they could do is serve, could not move worth a damn, and got winded after a 10 shot rally.

For a guy saying Sampras did not even try for a clay court title is kind of insulting to the guys legacy, did you happen to know he stopped trying? Maybe he was too weak to play on a surface that actually required stamina, defensive skills and actual tennis.

Claycourt tennis in the 90's over all serve mugs in the Sampras era. Damn its easy to sound bitter with irrational arguments is it not?

Arkulari
02-05-2010, 02:05 AM
this is a bit old, but some of the things stand for today:

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/NB_Compare.html

such a weak era... :rolleyes: :retard:

serveandvolley80
02-05-2010, 02:13 AM
this is a bit old, but some of the things stand for today:

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/NB_Compare.html

such a weak era... :rolleyes: :retard:

That just goes to show you that the competition for those guys was weak, below the Roddick's and Safin's you had players who were ranked 15 or 20 in the world and they were horrible.

Not like the 90's were it was ultra competitive and talented. of course the Federer era players made themselves look good by playing amateur quality tennis players.

Sorry just trying to take over for SetSampras, its my shift and hes not here yet.

Arkulari
02-05-2010, 02:18 AM
That just goes to show you that the competition for those guys was weak, below the Roddick's and Safin's you had players who were ranked 15 or 20 in the world and they were horrible.

Not like the 90's were it was ultra competitive and talented. of course the Federer era players made themselves look good by playing amateur quality tennis players.

Sorry just trying to take over for SetSampras, its my shift and hes not here yet.

Ok, just let me know when it is my turn :lol:
the guy needs all the help he can get :p

RogerFan82
02-05-2010, 03:12 AM
SetSampras must have bawled in agony the last 6 years, as Fed won slam after slam with ridiculous consistency and closed down and eventually broke the sampras slam record. :D:D

SetSampras, now you can watch in agony as Fed eclipses yet another sampras record of 286 weeks of world number 1 in the next few months. As a bonus you can also watch him win his 7th wimbledon title too. :p:p

barbadosan
02-05-2010, 03:12 AM
LOL at serveandvolley80 and Arkulari... wunna too wicked! :rolls:

rocketassist
02-05-2010, 09:03 AM
LOL to anyone that lists Kafelnikov as some kind of clay court force in order to defend an era being stronger.

SetSampras on suicide watch since Wimbledon 09.




You are such a weak debater that you can't even go 2 sentences in a row without a huge contradiction and making yourself look like a fool.

Of course i trust that you are old and mature enough to have followed Laver's entire career spanning all the way from the 1950's. Especially anyone being a Sampras fan, where the mid 90's started an abomination in tennis where one dimensional giants just hoped to win 7-6 in tie breakers because all they could do is serve, could not move worth a damn, and got winded after a 10 shot rally.

For a guy saying Sampras did not even try for a clay court title is kind of insulting to the guys legacy, did you happen to know he stopped trying? Maybe he was too weak to play on a surface that actually required stamina, defensive skills and actual tennis.

Claycourt tennis in the 90's over all serve mugs in the Sampras era. Damn its easy to sound bitter with irrational arguments is it not?

People will argue about Sampras era and Federer era, but no one with a brain can say the current clay court crop is anywhere near the 90s/2000-04, no way.

bokehlicious
02-05-2010, 09:17 AM
but no one with a brain can say the current clay court crop is anywhere near the 90s/2000-04, no way.

:lol: :hug: :p

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 09:44 AM
People will argue about Sampras era and Federer era, but no one with a brain can say the current clay court crop is anywhere near the 90s/2000-04, no way.

Except the current clay crop includes teh clay GOAT, which makes up for all those clowns that played in the 90s/2000-04. Im so tired of hearing about this era crap. Its just an MTF thing.

paseo
02-05-2010, 10:18 AM
Except the current clay crop includes teh clay GOAT, which makes up for all those clowns that played in the 90s/2000-04. Im so tired of hearing about this era crap. Its just an MTF thing.

Yeah, it's like in the 90's they have a bunch of T-Rexs, King Kongs, Mammoths, etc. But, now in this era we have a GodZilla. Or should I say, RafZilla :cool:

Corey Feldman
02-05-2010, 10:24 AM
People will argue about Sampras era and Federer era, but no one with a brain can say the current clay court crop is anywhere near the 90s/2000-04, no way.Nostalgic

you are a muppet if you think evolution goes backwards every 10 years

players back then were just more decorated coz Sampras/Agassi allowed a few more GS's out than Fed/Nadal

.. also partly because alot of the golden oldies from the 80's hung around till they were 30-33

nobama
02-05-2010, 11:11 AM
It's such a week era that Fed has played five 5-set grand slam finals, to Pete's one. I guess in tougher eras it's easier to win in straights.

nobama
02-05-2010, 11:16 AM
Nostalgic

you are a muppet if you think evolution goes backwards every 10 years

players back then were just more decorated coz Sampras/Agassi allowed a few more GS's out than Fed/Nadal

.. also partly because alot of the golden oldies from the 80's hung around till they were 30-33you had surface specialists back then. Not any more as the tennis gods have homogenized all the surfaces.

Action Jackson
02-05-2010, 11:19 AM
you had surface specialists back then. Not any more as the tennis gods have homogenized all the surfaces.

Then again you started watching tennis in 2004.

rocketassist
02-05-2010, 11:28 AM
Nostalgic

you are a muppet if you think evolution goes backwards every 10 years

players back then were just more decorated coz Sampras/Agassi allowed a few more GS's out than Fed/Nadal

.. also partly because alot of the golden oldies from the 80's hung around till they were 30-33

I'm on about clay mate.

Corey Feldman
02-05-2010, 11:35 AM
I'm on about clay mate.the 90's was a golden era for clay, no doubt

decorated by the likes of Courier, Muster, Bruguera

what i wonder is does that somehow prove its easier to win a Roland Garros title in 2000's than 1990's just because of that

Action Jackson
02-05-2010, 11:37 AM
Fact is Federer would be a champion in any era and anyone who doesn't think the surfaces have changed and there is less difference believes the centre of Judaism is in Mecca.

bokehlicious
02-05-2010, 11:42 AM
The surfaces have changed, granted, but that doesn't make it easier to dominate since nowadays you have to be an all rounder to dominate, in the past you could either be a moonballing retriever and win on clay or an all-serve mug and win on faster surfaces... Now you need to have all the tools to win consistantly...

Action Jackson
02-05-2010, 11:49 AM
If a player is good enough then they will dominate irrespective of how different and how similar the surfaces are, but not acknowledging they have changed is just spin doctoring to suit a particular point of view.

The ITF state that they use a faster ball on clay to speed it up and Wimbledon the composition of the grass has changed and they admitted it.

If there are less differences in the surfaces, then the one game suits all surfaces is prominent. As for Federer he has different dimensions to his game, which lead to my original point, he'd do well in any era.

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 11:52 AM
So what if the surfaces has changed though, it makes no difference. Like P. Antonius said, it just means its harder to dominate on a specific surface, cos all surfaces are much more similar these days.

rocketassist
02-05-2010, 11:55 AM
The surfaces have changed, granted, but that doesn't make it easier to dominate since nowadays you have to be an all rounder to dominate, in the past you could either be a moonballing retriever and win on clay or an all-serve mug and win on faster surfaces... Now you need to have all the tools to win consistantly...

Nadal is a moonballing retriever and still wins on clay ;)

serveandvolley80
02-05-2010, 11:58 AM
but no one with a brain can say the current clay court crop is anywhere near the 90s/2000-04, no way.

Is that because it was a stronger era, or because of surface specialists and lack of complete players?

Was it perhaps that clay court players never bothered too much with hard court tournaments and vice versa? Its interesting to note that the clay court season was longer as well, less incentive for players to need to travel and win hard court tournaments outside of their respect continents.

What i am getting at is, a player like Sampras never had to work on his defensive and retrieving game because the fast courts suited his serve and volley style and he did not need to adapt or improve other areas, same with Clay court players not needing to adapt a better serve or volley game because it was just too slow to penetrate the court with a great serve, approaching the net was difficult.

So in conclusion would that not make players today better? because the surfaces are more similar and they have to develop all court games? How many players today can have a huge booming serve, have great defense, offense, volley skills all in one package, most of them i would say have the ability to do it all, at least the top players for sure. So what that tells me is today's crop of players is much more talented because they cannot be multiple champions with one facet of their game only. So in effect would the homogenization of the surfaces actually contribute to an all around better game for all? That theory seemed to have worked when the gradual change happened, the game is so much better and more athletic today.

If grass courts were allowed to stay as fast as they were combined with today's racquet technology you would be seeing 2 or 3 stroke rallies at best.

rocketassist
02-05-2010, 12:24 PM
Is that because it was a stronger era, or because of surface specialists and lack of complete players?

Was it perhaps that clay court players never bothered too much with hard court tournaments and vice versa? Its interesting to note that the clay court season was longer as well, less incentive for players to need to travel and win hard court tournaments outside of their respect continents.

What i am getting at is, a player like Sampras never had to work on his defensive and retrieving game because the fast courts suited his serve and volley style and he did not need to adapt or improve other areas, same with Clay court players not needing to adapt a better serve or volley game because it was just too slow to penetrate the court with a great serve, approaching the net was difficult.

So in conclusion would that not make players today better? because the surfaces are more similar and they have to develop all court games? How many players today can have a huge booming serve, have great defense, offense, volley skills all in one package, most of them i would say have the ability to do it all, at least the top players for sure. So what that tells me is today's crop of players is much more talented because they cannot be multiple champions with one facet of their game only. So in effect would the homogenization of the surfaces actually contribute to an all around better game for all? That theory seemed to have worked when the gradual change happened, the game is so much better and more athletic today.

If grass courts were allowed to stay as fast as they were combined with today's racquet technology you would be seeing 2 or 3 stroke rallies at best.

Both. Guys like Courier, Gomez, Chang, Bruguera, Muster, Berasategui, Medvedev, Moya all had the ability to hit vicious strokes with topspin that suited the clay game of the time, it was like having five or six Nadal-esque players, except with different traits. for example Beto's serve was weak, Muster hated net rushers while Chang grinded and fought.

In the 90s complete players were, for me, Rios and Agassi in terms of natural ability and Andre managed to achieve RG albeit with a whole lotta luck going for him.

In the 2000s I would class Federer, Safin and Nalbandian as players with a 'complete game' of anyone but I judge a clay era on the quality of surface specialists and only Nadal currently plays a clay court game to a high standard as to what those guys and also what the early 2000s of Guga, prime JCF, Coria, Gaudio did.

Davydenko is a strong player on the surface himself but when he came up against re-ignited Puerta just back from his ban the naturally strong clay courter came out on top.

I just feel on clay truly strong dirtballers will always have the edge on all round ballstrikers, see Rios' failure to pass the RG quarters and Federer's failure to trouble Nadal at RG or in a best of 5 clay format.

marcRD
02-05-2010, 01:43 PM
Well, in my opinion the 90s clay just lacked great top players who were really good at the surface. Mostly that was because Europe really lacked real top players in the 90s and the few big european names like Becker and Edberg just didnt play good enought on clay. So what we had instead was a bunch of specialists dominating, I am quite sure the Brugueras and Musters would not be so succesfull in the 80s when top tennis players like Wilander and Lendl dominated the surface or in the 70s when Vilas and Borg dominated clay or even the 2000s when Nadal just does whatever he wants on the surface and allround top players like Federer and Djokovic are there to do their best to stop him.

2000s really is not that exceptional, the 90s was the exceptional decade of specialists. 90s was the odd decade, surely I agree that today tennis players have adapted to play more allround games on all surfaces because of changes in surfaces and raquet technology but that doesnt change the fact that we have a 3 players at the top (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic) who all have grown up playing on clay, which wasnt the case in the 90s. Look at the 70s and 80s:

1970 Jan Kodes CZE
1971 Jan Kodes CZE
1972 Andres Gimeno ESP
1973 Ilie Nastase ROM
1974 Björn Borg SWE
1975 Björn Borg SWE
1976 Adriano Panatta ITA
1977 Guillermo Vilas ARG
1978 Björn Borg SWE
1979 Björn Borg SWE
1980 Björn Borg SWE
1981 Björn Borg SWE
1982 Mats Wilander SWE
1983 Yannick Noah FRA
1984 Ivan Lendl CZE
1985 Mats Wilander SWE
1986 Ivan Lendl CZE
1987 Ivan Lendl CZE
1988 Mats Wilander SWE
1989 Michael Chang USA

You have only 2 clay specialists in 20 years winning the slam and that is Panatta and Gimeno, you may include Noah too as a clay specialist. Now 90-2004:

1990 Andres Gomez ECU
1991 Jim Courier USA
1992 Jim Courier USA
1993 Sergi Bruguera ESP
1994 Sergi Bruguera ESP
1995 Thomas Muster AUT
1996 Yevgeny Kafelnikov RUS
1997 Gustavo Kuerten BRA
1998 Carlos Moya ESP
1999 Andre Agassi USA
2000 Gustavo Kuerten BRA
2001 Gustavo Kuerten BRA
2002 Albert Costa ESP
2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero ESP
2004 Gaston Gaudio ARG

You have almost only specialists, 11 out of 15 slams was won by players who didnt win any other slams than RG.

Now 2005-2009 you are back to the times when great european players dominate the world and ofcourse also the clay courts:

2005 Rafael Nadal ESP
2006 Rafael Nadal ESP
2007 Rafael Nadal ESP
2008 Rafael Nadal ESP
2009 Roger Federer SWI

Personaly I can understand why people loved 90s claycourt, without any truly great players it became very unpredictable who would win tournaments. Alot of 5 set battles even in early rounds, many players could beat anyone on clay. It was the time where avarage players could truly specialise and win RGs because of the lack of great players who knew how to play on clay. Albert Costa, Sergi Bruguera, Andres Gomez and Gaston Gaudio would probably not win RG in any other era, but it sure was entertaining to watch these players battle it out with each other and it meant so much for them because it was the only part of the season where they could win big titles. Specialists dominating clay however is just a result of an era of big servers and americans who dominated tennis but couldnt adjust to clay, you have to agree that the 70s, 80s and late 2000s have produced greater champions on clay.

Sophocles
02-05-2010, 02:08 PM
You have only 2 clay specialists in 20 years winning the slam and that is Panatta and Gimeno, you may include Noah too as a clay specialist.

Excellent posting, but I'd say Kodes was more of a clay specialist than Gimeno was. Yeah he won Wimbledon in 1973, but that was the boycott year. Gimeno would have had a better record at non-clay slams if he hadn't been professional in the 1960s. He was a very good pro, competing well against Laver, Gonzales, & Rosewall on fast indoor courts, & was actually somewhat past it by 1972.

marcRD
02-05-2010, 02:35 PM
Excellent posting, but I'd say Kodes was more of a clay specialist than Gimeno was. Yeah he won Wimbledon in 1973, but that was the boycott year. Gimeno would have had a better record at non-clay slams if he hadn't been professional in the 1960s. He was a very good pro, competing well against Laver, Gonzales, & Rosewall on fast indoor courts, & was actually somewhat past it by 1972.

Then I wouldnt call neither of them a clay specialist because beyond his wimbledon title Jan Kodes had 2 runner ups in USOPEN, it would be impossible to call him a clay specialist.

My conclusion is that a clay specialist or grass specialist only can have great success when the best players dont know how to play on the surface. I mean Goran could only win Wimbledon when Sampras was gone and there was a vacuum between great players who knew how to play on grass. In the 90s the great players were Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Edberg and Becker. Three serve and volleyers and 2 american baseliners who didnt grow up on red clay. Specialist appeared who took advantage of the lack of knowledge among top tennis players of how to play on clay. Today we have 4 great tennis players who know how to play on clay and grew up there, 2 alltime greats in Nadal and Federer and also Djokovic and Del Potro. I really dont think there is any room for specialists, lets say we would make the surface slower and bring back the raquet technology to the 90s level and I think there would be more specialists out there for sure, but still I dont have any doubt that the top players (Federer, Nadal and to a lesser extent Djoko, Del Potro) would dominate clay and I really dont think the Brugueras and Musters would win any RG 2005-2009 even on slower clay.

king_roger
02-05-2010, 04:30 PM
Both. Guys like Courier, Gomez, Chang, Bruguera, Muster, Berasategui, Medvedev, Moya all had the ability to hit vicious strokes with topspin that suited the clay game of the time, it was like having five or six Nadal-esque players, except with different traits. for example Beto's serve was weak, Muster hated net rushers while Chang grinded and fought.

In the 90s complete players were, for me, Rios and Agassi in terms of natural ability and Andre managed to achieve RG albeit with a whole lotta luck going for him.

In the 2000s I would class Federer, Safin and Nalbandian as players with a 'complete game' of anyone but I judge a clay era on the quality of surface specialists and only Nadal currently plays a clay court game to a high standard as to what those guys and also what the early 2000s of Guga, prime JCF, Coria, Gaudio did.

Davydenko is a strong player on the surface himself but when he came up against re-ignited Puerta just back from his ban the naturally strong clay courter came out on top.

I just feel on clay truly strong dirtballers will always have the edge on all round ballstrikers, see Rios' failure to pass the RG quarters and Federer's failure to trouble Nadal at RG or in a best of 5 clay format.


That is not right. I bet that the guys like Del Potro, Soderling or Djokovic ( and Fed, of course) would hit of the court any of those above mentioned. Today's players hit much harder on consistent basis. Besides, Federer's failure to trouble Nadal at RG is only because of the matchup (Nadal's forehand to Fed's backhand).

SetSampras
02-05-2010, 06:24 PM
Well, in my opinion the 90s clay just lacked great top players who were really good at the surface. Mostly that was because Europe really lacked real top players in the 90s and the few big european names like Becker and Edberg just didnt play good enought on clay. So what we had instead was a bunch of specialists dominating, I am quite sure the Brugueras and Musters would not be so succesfull in the 80s when top tennis players like Wilander and Lendl dominated the surface or in the 70s when Vilas and Borg dominated clay or even the 2000s when Nadal just does whatever he wants on the surface and allround top players like Federer and Djokovic are there to do their best to stop him.

2000s really is not that exceptional, the 90s was the exceptional decade of specialists. 90s was the odd decade, surely I agree that today tennis players have adapted to play more allround games on all surfaces because of changes in surfaces and raquet technology but that doesnt change the fact that we have a 3 players at the top (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic) who all have grown up playing on clay, which wasnt the case in the 90s. Look at the 70s and 80s:

1970 Jan Kodes CZE
1971 Jan Kodes CZE
1972 Andres Gimeno ESP
1973 Ilie Nastase ROM
1974 Björn Borg SWE
1975 Björn Borg SWE
1976 Adriano Panatta ITA
1977 Guillermo Vilas ARG
1978 Björn Borg SWE
1979 Björn Borg SWE
1980 Björn Borg SWE
1981 Björn Borg SWE
1982 Mats Wilander SWE
1983 Yannick Noah FRA
1984 Ivan Lendl CZE
1985 Mats Wilander SWE
1986 Ivan Lendl CZE
1987 Ivan Lendl CZE
1988 Mats Wilander SWE
1989 Michael Chang USA

You have only 2 clay specialists in 20 years winning the slam and that is Panatta and Gimeno, you may include Noah too as a clay specialist. Now 90-2004:

1990 Andres Gomez ECU
1991 Jim Courier USA
1992 Jim Courier USA
1993 Sergi Bruguera ESP
1994 Sergi Bruguera ESP
1995 Thomas Muster AUT
1996 Yevgeny Kafelnikov RUS
1997 Gustavo Kuerten BRA
1998 Carlos Moya ESP
1999 Andre Agassi USA
2000 Gustavo Kuerten BRA
2001 Gustavo Kuerten BRA
2002 Albert Costa ESP
2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero ESP
2004 Gaston Gaudio ARG

You have almost only specialists, 11 out of 15 slams was won by players who didnt win any other slams than RG.

Now 2005-2009 you are back to the times when great european players dominate the world and ofcourse also the clay courts:

2005 Rafael Nadal ESP
2006 Rafael Nadal ESP
2007 Rafael Nadal ESP
2008 Rafael Nadal ESP
2009 Roger Federer SWI

Personaly I can understand why people loved 90s claycourt, without any truly great players it became very unpredictable who would win tournaments. Alot of 5 set battles even in early rounds, many players could beat anyone on clay. It was the time where avarage players could truly specialise and win RGs because of the lack of great players who knew how to play on clay. Albert Costa, Sergi Bruguera, Andres Gomez and Gaston Gaudio would probably not win RG in any other era, but it sure was entertaining to watch these players battle it out with each other and it meant so much for them because it was the only part of the season where they could win big titles. Specialists dominating clay however is just a result of an era of big servers and americans who dominated tennis but couldnt adjust to clay, you have to agree that the 70s, 80s and late 2000s have produced greater champions on clay.




And you dont tink the conditions have anything to do with that nor the diverse conditions and the era without the "cheating" technology. Agassi said it himself. Today's racket technology is as good as cheating. Today's style is baseline or nothing. Mindless drone tennis if you will by the majority. Very very very little strategy in the game due to the technology. Where you can hit winners from 20 feet behind the baseline. The racket and strings do the talking today where as decades ago a player had to develop more strategic planning because they didnt have this luxury. Today's players may be more fit (which is due to nutrition and entourage of trainers) but the strategy of the game, the mental toughness the smarts is very much almost obsolete by the majority. The game is played primarily one way today. Years ago try and get away it. You may conquer slow RG clay, but just a couple months later you are stuck on lightning fast grass having in which the ball provides an odd bounce and you have attackers attacking you from any angle like a Goran, Sampras, Edberg, Becker etc.

Its not that players today have no WEAKNESSES. But the game is operated and played in the same realm of homogenized conditions damn near everywhere on every surface. What would someone with Nadal's game accomplish before outside of clay and without the luxury of the racket technology and slow conditions at every whim?


Thats why I think what accomplished was head and shoulders above what any other player like Kramer, Laver, Budge, or Federer accomplished. Why? Well Agassi had to adapt to the most diverse conditions. Laver could but the slams were played on only grass and clay though he did win on wood and hard. Agassi had to deal with slow grinding specialists on slow as molasses clay, go to rebound ace at the AO, decoturf at the USO, and lightning fast grass having to triumph big attackers like Becker and Goran at wimbeldon. 10 times more difficult than it would be today. He didnt have the use of racket technology, nor the luxury of playing primarily baseliners where he could grind it all day which was his bread and butter and dictate from the baseline. He had the luxury to do that at the AO and RG. But it came to the USO and wimbeldon he had to deal with the attackers on these surfaces where their games flourished

Action Jackson
02-05-2010, 07:32 PM
So what if the surfaces has changed though, it makes no difference. Like P. Antonius said, it just means its harder to dominate on a specific surface, cos all surfaces are much more similar these days.

Not a surprise you missed the point.

luie
02-05-2010, 11:37 PM
well by all likeliness it was a 'weak era'.... nalby, safin, ljubicic, blake... they'd suck balls in any era :shrug:
They were not the strongest bunch,but federer & his old time crew usually showed up for the MAN's game @ GRAND SLAM level for the odd upset of the young guns.
From you list ;Blake defeat nadull 2005 USO 6-4,4-6,6-3,6-1. the same year he won RG.

Safin def fakervic 2008 wimbledon 6-4,7-6,6-2 the same year he won his monoslam.
Others of note:
Roddick def fakervic 2009 AO 6-7,6-4,6-2,2-1 "give-up"
Kohlschreiber def fakervic RG 2009 6-4,6-4,6-4.
Haas def fakervic 2009 wimbledon 7-5,7-6'4-6'6-3.
Verdasco def murray 2009 2-6,6-1,1-6,6-3,6-4, months after he made the USO final
gonzalez def murray 6-3,3-6,6-0,6-4.
roddick def murray wimbledon 2009,6-4,4-6,7-6,7-6.
Hewitt def del-potro 2009 wimbledon 4-6,6-3,7-6.
MY PERSONAL favorite soderking DEMOLISHES nadull RG 2009 6-2,6-7,6-4,7-6. revealing the fake "spartan" for what he truly is a wimpy little moonballer.:sad: He never recovered,after being expose like the emperior with no clothes.
I don't have to go into how much nadull was beaten on HC over the years.
While theses players were not the best in history by a long shot they are STILL good enough past their prime to school the young guns.:worship:

Arkulari
02-06-2010, 12:20 AM
Roger's generation was actually pretty good: Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick all slam winners and #1, Nalbandian, Coria, Gonzalez (slam finalists, MS champs, TMC champ)...

The Rafa generation: Nole, Muzza, Juan, Tsonga, Gasquet, etc is nowhere as good (or as consistent at their peak) as these guys were :shrug:

If anything the current era is muggier than the peak era of the guys in Roger's generation :shrug:

Compare (even if that was a bit old, all these guys were slam winners at the age the current generation is now or even younger) :

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/NB_Compare.html

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/YG_Compare.html

serveandvolley80
02-06-2010, 12:44 AM
Lol@ Setsampras claiming there is no strategy in today's game.

Do us all a favor and stop watching tennis, with bias over the top untrue facts like that, its a wonder you have not gone crazy yet after your boy Sampras is getting every one of his records shattered.

luie
02-06-2010, 12:59 AM
Lol@ Setsampras claiming there is no strategy in today's game.

Do us all a favor and stop watching tennis, with bias over the top untrue facts like that, its a wonder you have not gone crazy yet after your boy Sampras is getting every one of his records shattered.
You shouldn't be too had on that poster he/she just ran out of options & started to panic ,making wild accusations thats all.Sampras deserved better.

serveandvolley80
02-06-2010, 01:22 AM
You shouldn't be too had on that poster he/she just ran out of options & started to panic ,making wild accusations thats all.Sampras deserved better.

Pete, an all time great, a nice guy, and a great tennis player, too bad most fans of a said player have to be creepily supportive.

Arkulari
02-06-2010, 01:26 AM
Pete, an all time great, a nice guy, and a great tennis player, too bad most fans of a said player have to be creepily supportive.

that's the norm with the really great players, some of Roger and Rafa's TARDS are also :retard:

abraxas21
02-06-2010, 01:59 AM
Roger's generation was actually pretty good: Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick all slam winners and #1, Nalbandian, Coria, Gonzalez (slam finalists, MS champs, TMC champ)...

The Rafa generation: Nole, Muzza, Juan, Tsonga, Gasquet, etc is nowhere as good (or as consistent at their peak) as these guys were :shrug:

If anything the current era is muggier than the peak era of the guys in Roger's generation :shrug:

Compare (even if that was a bit old, all these guys were slam winners at the age the current generation is now or even younger) :

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/NB_Compare.html

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/YG_Compare.html

Gotta disagree with you there. I actually find the current generation better than Roger's one. Safin and Nalby were awesome players who could have beaten virtually anyone in a good day but they were too inconsistent to reach their full potential throughout time. Coria -athough less talented than those 2- was also in a similar category.

Imo, Hewitt in his best days would have been beaten by any of the top 4 today. Same goes for Roddick. The fact that those 2 managed to get to the very top for quite a long time doesn't speak so well of the past era in comparison to the one we are experiencing, tbh.

dabeast
02-06-2010, 02:15 AM
They were not the strongest bunch,but federer & his old time crew usually showed up for the MAN's game @ GRAND SLAM level for the odd upset of the young guns.
From you list ;Blake defeat nadull 2005 USO 6-4,4-6,6-3,6-1. the same year he won RG.

Safin def fakervic 2008 wimbledon 6-4,7-6,6-2 the same year he won his monoslam.
Others of note:
Roddick def fakervic 2009 AO 6-7,6-4,6-2,2-1 "give-up"
Kohlschreiber def fakervic RG 2009 6-4,6-4,6-4.
Haas def fakervic 2009 wimbledon 7-5,7-6'4-6'6-3.
Verdasco def murray 2009 2-6,6-1,1-6,6-3,6-4, months after he made the USO final
gonzalez def murray 6-3,3-6,6-0,6-4.
roddick def murray wimbledon 2009,6-4,4-6,7-6,7-6.
Hewitt def del-potro 2009 wimbledon 4-6,6-3,7-6.
MY PERSONAL favorite soderking DEMOLISHES nadull RG 2009 6-2,6-7,6-4,7-6. revealing the fake "spartan" for what he truly is a wimpy little moonballer.:sad: He never recovered,after being expose like the emperior with no clothes.
I don't have to go into how much nadull was beaten on HC over the years.
While theses players were not the best in history by a long shot they are STILL good enough past their prime to school the young guns.:worship:

Actually I think Fed's generation was one of the most talented bunch out there. Safin and Nalbandian are two incredibly talented players, Safin should have won 2 more GSs and I'm still waiting for FitDave to show up and win at least one GS, that guy has seriously underachieved for all that talent he has. Coria was great as well. And Hewitt, well the guy has the heart of a lion, true champion he is, despite not having enough weapons in his game.

Arkulari
02-06-2010, 02:31 AM
Gotta disagree with you there. I actually find the current generation better than Roger's one. Safin and Nalby were awesome players who could have beaten virtually anyone in a good day but they were too inconsistent to reach their full potential throughout time. Coria -athough less talented than those 2- was also in a similar category.

Imo, Hewitt in his best days would have been beaten by any of the top 4 today. Same goes for Roddick. The fact that those 2 managed to get to the very top for quite a long time doesn't speak so well of the past era in comparison to the one we are experiencing, tbh.

Murray better than Hewitt in their respective primes or Nole being better than Safin at both of theirs? I gotta disagree with you, both men excelled at what they did and managed much consistent results

Players nowadays might be more complete, but I think they are so consistent, they kinda fear success, they don't take risks and that's not the way to win things

Heck, even underachievers like Nalby are >>>>>>> than people like Gasquet :shrug:

abraxas21
02-06-2010, 03:09 AM
Murray better than Hewitt in their respective primes

Yes, imo.


or Nole being better than Safin at both of theirs?

No. Safin at his best would certainly beat Nole at his best. However, Safin's prime was somewhat inconsistent and short lived for all the talent he had whereas Nole is a lot more consistent which has allowed him to be a main force on the tour for quite a few years now and probably more are to come.

Heck, even underachievers like Nalby are >>>>>>> than people like Gasquet :shrug:

Gasquet is probably a big underachiever as well but I'd agree that Nalby is more talented than Gasquet... You see, like Safin, I think Nalby at his best could have beat pretty much anybody, Gasquet included, but how often was he at his best? One or two months for a whole season? In my book that doesn't make a truly great player.
In any case, I don't think it's fair to compare Gasquet and Nalby as if they were on equal terms. Nalby has won a few MS, TMC, got to top 3 in the world (if I remember correctly) while Gasquet only got to be top 9 in his best days...

Anyhow, we'll see how Gasquet fares in the future. He has a beautiful game, kind of similar to Federer's but lacks the consistency to make the wins. I'd make the same case for Haas (so much wasted talent!)...

Arkulari
02-06-2010, 03:17 AM
then it is a matter of opinion, because in each style (Murray, Hewitt = Defense, Safin, Djokovic = Offense) I prefer the early 80's generation than the current one ;)

lessthanjake
02-06-2010, 04:37 AM
GOAT is measured by dominance coinciding with longevity of wins. Number of tournament wins should be an aspect of this.. It coincides with his dominance and longevity. You have to be dominant and maintain playing winnning tennis for a very long time to duplicate what Laver did

Haha do you realize that a HUGE portion of Laver's tournament wins were in tournaments with 4 man fields?

SetSampras
02-06-2010, 04:37 AM
Murray better than Hewitt in their respective primes or Nole being better than Safin at both of theirs? I gotta disagree with you, both men excelled at what they did and managed much consistent results

Players nowadays might be more complete, but I think they are so consistent, they kinda fear success, they don't take risks and that's not the way to win things

Heck, even underachievers like Nalby are >>>>>>> than people like Gasquet :shrug:




Murray may be a tad bit better than Hewitt. Murray will most likely have the superior career to Hewitt. Murray has difficulty winning slams at this point. He isnt ready for the big time. As he matures more he should grab around the same. Murray will no doubt have the longevity of winning tennis. Hewitt's jets cooled in only 3-4 years or so and then he turned into a shell of his former self or hurting all the time. Hewitt couldnt beat Federer anywhere at any time. Hewitt may did grab 2 slams but once Fed hit his stride, Hewitt couldnt win anywhere at any time. Murray has at least managed to beat Fed a few times

SetSampras
02-06-2010, 04:40 AM
Haha do you realize that a HUGE portion of Laver's tournament wins were in tournaments with 4 man fields?



If it was always 4 man field for Laver than why he is renoundly categorized as the greatest to ever play the game and not Fed? Ask any REAL historian of the game and have actually followed the game of tennis before 2003 and ask them who the greatest ever was to play the game?

SetSampras
02-06-2010, 04:41 AM
Lol@ Setsampras claiming there is no strategy in today's game.

Do us all a favor and stop watching tennis, with bias over the top untrue facts like that, its a wonder you have not gone crazy yet after your boy Sampras is getting every one of his records shattered.


Ill stop watching tennis today when you START watching tennis these days. Since, you think the game has so much strategy makes me wonder if you do. Dude... Its a baseline borefest primarily.. Gimme a break. Players dont even know what a net game is.. Its never been taught. Its return, return, return, until the opponent makes an Unforced error

Commander Data
02-06-2010, 08:38 AM
If it was always 4 man field for Laver than why he is renoundly categorized as the greatest to ever play the game and not Fed? Ask any REAL historian of the game and have actually followed the game of tennis before 2003 and ask them who the greatest ever was to play the game?

HUGE portion does not equal always.
Just like Sampras does not equal Federer. :p

Ask any REAL historian? And I guess you determine who the REAL historians are, right? :rolleyes:

It is not so much about Laver being the GOAT or not it is more about refuting your stupid arguments for that case. for example bringing in his 200 tournament wins, of which a huge portion was a 4-men field and compare them to Roger's tournament wins these days.

doesnt make much sense dude.

electronicmusic
02-06-2010, 09:17 AM
goat - discussions about players of different eras are fucking useless.

JediFed
02-06-2010, 10:38 AM
Well if you compare Eras:

Federer - Nadal (Federer)
Safin - Del Potro (Safin)
Hewitt - Murray (Hewitt)
Roddick - Djokovic (Roddick)
JCF - Malisse (JCF)
Gaudio - Tsonga (Gaudio)
Nalbandian - Gasquet (Nalbandian)

So far the Federer generation is far superior.

JediFed
02-06-2010, 10:41 AM
I can't be hating on the 1980 generation. The only stronger one is Sampras/Agassi.

1950, Connors/Vilas/Panatta/Tanner/Orantes/ = 7 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 14
1955, Borg/Teacher/Gerulaitis/Edmondson (11+4+1+1+1) = 14
1960, Lendl/McEnroe/Kriek/Noah (8+7+2+1) = 18
1965, Wilander/Becker/Edberg/Cash/Gomez/Muster (7+6+6+1+1+1) = 22
1970, Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Bruguera/Korda/Chang/Krajicek/Ivanisevic/Stich = 14+8+4+2+1+1+1+1+1 = 33
1975, Kuerten/Rafter/Kafelnikov/Moya/Costa/Johansson = 3+2+2+1+1+1 = 10
1980, Federer/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Ferrero/Gaudio (16+2+2+1+1+1) = 23
1985, Nadal/Djokovic/ = 6+1 = 7
1990, De Potro = 1

nobama
02-06-2010, 10:43 AM
I thought Bill Tilden, Lew Hoad and Pancho Gonzalez were the GOAT's.

JediFed
02-06-2010, 11:34 AM
WRT to longevity.

1950 Generation:

1980 - Jimmy Connors (3) -- hit number 1 in 1983.
1985 - Jimmy Connors (4)
1988 - Jimmy Connors (7),
1989 - Jimmy Connors (14), fell out of top 10 in April.

1980 - Guillermo Vilas (4)
1983 - Guillermo Vilas (3)
1984 - Guillermo Vilas (11), fell out of top 10.

1955 generation

0 players in top ten by 1985.

1960 generation.

1990 - Ivan Lendl 3
1993 - Ivan Lendl 7
1994 - Ivan Lendl 20, fell out of top 10.

1990 - John McEnroe 5
1991 - John McEnroe 11, fell out of top 10.

1965 Generation:

1995 - Thomas Muster 3
1996 - Thomas Muster 1
1997 - Thomas Muster 2
1998 - Thomas Muster 10

1995 - Boris Becker 3
1997 - Boris Becker 6
1998 - Boris Becker 62

1995 - Stefan Edberg 7
1996 - Stefan Edberg 30

1970 Generation

2000 - Sampras 1
2001 - Sampras 3
2002 - Sampras 12

2000 - Agassi 1
2005 - Agassi 8
2006 - Agassi 12, finally falls out of top 10.

1975 generation

2005 - Moya 5, falls out of top 10.
2006 - Moya 31

2005 - Johansson 8, recovered
2006 - Johannson 13

1980 generation:

Federer - 1
Roddick - 7

There have only been five players at number 1 past 30 years of their generation: Agassi, Connors, Muster, Sampras, and Federer.

Agassi, like Connors, managed to outlast all players in the generation after him, by close to a year. Federer, since 2006, has only had players his age or younger in the top ten, and now, has only 2 of his generation, (Davydenko and Roddick) who remain.

Arkulari
02-06-2010, 03:31 PM
I can't be hating on the 1980 generation. The only stronger one is Sampras/Agassi.

1950, Connors/Vilas/Panatta/Tanner/Orantes/ = 7 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 14
1955, Borg/Teacher/Gerulaitis/Edmondson (11+4+1+1+1) = 14
1960, Lendl/McEnroe/Kriek/Noah (8+7+2+1) = 18
1965, Wilander/Becker/Edberg/Cash/Gomez/Muster (7+6+6+1+1+1) = 22
1970, Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Bruguera/Korda/Chang/Krajicek/Ivanisevic/Stich = 14+8+4+2+1+1+1+1+1 = 33
1975, Kuerten/Rafter/Kafelnikov/Moya/Costa/Johansson = 3+2+2+1+1+1 = 10
1980, Federer/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Ferrero/Gaudio (16+2+2+1+1+1) = 23
1985, Nadal/Djokovic/ = 6+1 = 7
1990, De Potro = 1

Thanks for the stats!!!! :D

Fed=ATPTourkilla
02-06-2010, 08:20 PM
Thanks for pointing out that the ATP author's percentages are completely arbitrary; but as I pointed out, he himself has said up front that his methodology was unscientific.

"Unscientific" implies some sort of methodology has been used to come with these percentages. "Completely made-up and silly" would be better.

Purple Rainbow
02-06-2010, 08:28 PM
The author freely admits to an unscientific methodology in arriving at his conclusions. Was wondering if the MTF people who are into stats (Duong, Judio, StatRacket to name a very few) agree or disagree with these percentages, and whether it would indeed be possible to develop some rational methodology to determine the likelihood of any particular record being broken?

[NERD mode]
The likelihood of every one of Federers records being broken is, given enough time, by definition 100%.
[/NERD mode]

luie
02-06-2010, 11:53 PM
While we are on the topic of records,on a purely statistical basis is federer the most successful 28 year old in the history of the game, including both era's including laver & rosewall etc.I think laver had 10 majors at the time(amature/professional) I'am not sure.To be honest I'am not sure what was regarded as pretigious or not, during that time frame.Of course I know age is not the deciding factor,for eg nadal might be the most sucessful 23 year so what? However I'am just curious to know if federer is ahead of the pack statistically @ this age.Responses from the stats people & "old times" (fans of old time days) could respond like marcRD,cyborg,har-tru,voo de-mar etc.

Choreos
02-06-2010, 11:55 PM
[NERD mode]
The likelihood of every one of Federers records being broken is, given enough time, by definition 100%.
[/NERD mode]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability Yeah, definition of a logical fallacy. :rolleyes:

goat15
02-07-2010, 12:01 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability Yeah, definition of a logical fallacy. :rolleyes:

Ah but the above poster said "given enough time" - in an infinite amount of time, every possible outcome must occur, including each of Federer's records being broken. Nothing fallacious about that. ;)

yuri27
02-07-2010, 12:23 AM
Anyhow, we'll see how Gasquet fares in the future. He has a beautiful game, kind of similar to Federer's but lacks the consistency to make the wins. I'd make the same case for Haas (so much wasted talent!)...

Haas has at least won a MS.
Gasquet has not even been able to do that.
Hell,i'm not even sure he has won an ATP 500!

Purple Rainbow
02-07-2010, 12:38 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability Yeah, definition of a logical fallacy. :rolleyes:

You've created an account on a tennis forum just to post that? :worship:

As Goat15 said, in an infinite amount of time the probability of Federers record being broken is 1. I'm very sorry I erroneously used the phrase "given enough time" in my initial post. :rolleyes:

Choreos
02-07-2010, 12:40 AM
Ah but the above poster said "given enough time" - in an infinite amount of time, every possible outcome must occur, including each of Federer's records being broken. Nothing fallacious about that. ;)

Oh, indubitably. Unless you were being serious.

barbadosan
02-07-2010, 12:49 AM
Ah but the above poster said "given enough time" - in an infinite amount of time, every possible outcome must occur, including each of Federer's records being broken. Nothing fallacious about that. ;)

Wouldn't that be assuming the human race will exist for infinity?

Commander Data
02-07-2010, 08:50 AM
[NERD mode]
The likelihood of every one of Federers records being broken is, given enough time, by definition 100%.
[/NERD mode]

Only if certain assumptions hold. For example: If tennis is banned in 2 years, some records will never be broken even in an infinite time span.

If the ATP circuit is assumed to go on forever with similar rules then today. then yes, all Records are gonna be broken 100%.
It is like playing lottery for infinite times, the chance of you winning diverges toward 100%. But does it serve as an argument to start playing lottery? No!

goat15
02-07-2010, 09:07 AM
Wouldn't that be assuming the human race will exist for infinity?

Ah tu chez.

There are different ways of seeing this. But I'd say, that given an infinite amount of time, the human race would exist, die out, and come back into existence so many times (and tennis the same), that his records would certainly be broken.

After all, infinity contains the realisation of all possibilities. To say that "the human race will die out, tennis will end, and Federer's records will always stand", is to deny the possibility that "Federer's records will be broken". A positive possibility tends to be favoured over the negation of a possibility regarding infinity.

Purple Rainbow
02-07-2010, 10:25 AM
Only if certain assumptions hold. For example: If tennis is banned in 2 years, some records will never be broken even in an infinite time span.

If the ATP circuit is assumed to go on forever with similar rules then today. then yes, all Records are gonna be broken 100%.
It is like playing lottery for infinite times, the chance of you winning diverges toward 100%. But does it serve as an argument to start playing lottery? No!

I'd go even further. In an infinite amount of time, Federers records will be broken an infinite number of times.

goat15
02-07-2010, 10:33 AM
I'd go even further. In an infinite amount of time, Federers records will be broken an infinite number of times.

That's my interpretation of infinity!

Commander Data
02-07-2010, 11:27 AM
I'd go even further. In an infinite amount of time, Federers records will be broken an infinite number of times.

correct.

Although, there are some pitfalls to this argument. For example: There is also a possiblity that a god like creature arises that loves Federer so much, that (with his godpowers) it prevents Federers records from being broken for all times.

If we assume inifite time the possiblity of this creature coming into existence diverges towards 100%

:devil::devil::devil:

Commander Data
02-07-2010, 11:32 AM
Ah tu chez.

There are different ways of seeing this. But I'd say, that given an infinite amount of time, the human race would exist, die out, and come back into existence so many times (and tennis the same), that his records would certainly be broken.

After all, infinity contains the realisation of all possibilities. To say that "the human race will die out, tennis will end, and Federer's records will always stand", is to deny the possibility that "Federer's records will be broken". A positive possibility tends to be favoured over the negation of a possibility regarding infinity.

But an infinite amount of time is not certain.
In the contrary if the end of time has a possiblity >0% , then time will end 100% sooner or later.

:devil:

goat15
02-07-2010, 11:43 AM
correct.

Although, there are some pitfalls to this argument. For example: There is also a possiblity that a god like creature arises that loves Federer so much, that (with his godpowers) it prevents Federers records from being broken for all times.

If we assume inifite time the possiblity of this creature coming into existence diverges towards 100%

:devil::devil::devil:

Haha absolutely (as Mats Wilander would say)

But an infinite amount of time is not certain.
In the contrary if the end of time has a possiblity >0% , then time will end 100% sooner or later.

:devil:

Yeah, surely time isn't infinite. What's more likely, is that time as we know it is finite (i.e. as part of the space-time contiuum). At the 'beginning' and 'end' of time as we know it, time probably still exists, but in a different form (divergent from space).

Purple Rainbow
02-07-2010, 12:19 PM
There's of course also the possibility that in a parallel universe Oscar Hernandez has reached 45 Grand Slam semifinals in a row and that he's won Wimbledon 11 times (consecutively, no less).

This would mean that Federer isn't even the record holder, making this whole discussion redundant.

Commander Data
02-07-2010, 01:49 PM
There's of course also the possibility that in a parallel universe Oscar Hernandez has reached 45 Grand Slam semifinals in a row and that he's won Wimbledon 11 times (consecutively, no less).

This would mean that Federer isn't even the record holder, making this whole discussion redundant.

A possiblity which over time becomes near certainty, if i might add.

Demiloy
02-07-2010, 01:57 PM
But isn't there a breaking point for records? I mean, even given eternity/infinity, there must be a point that you still can't go past, no matter how hard/long you tried.

However, I doubt Federer is that good.

MatchFederer
02-07-2010, 07:47 PM
All of the time and space stuff loses validity if one was to imagine for a moment that tennis might not stay the course and be abolished by or in 2174.

wackykid
02-08-2010, 06:31 AM
I'd go even further. In an infinite amount of time, Federers records will be broken an infinite number of times.

and the record by then will stand as infinite number of slams and infinite number of #1 weeks and infinite of anything and humans will never die... :silly:


regards,
wacky

kengyin
02-08-2010, 06:46 AM
theres also a probability that in the paralell universe oscar hernandez is an average person, and that universe's version of federer has made 100 slam semis and 30 wimbledons in a row

fsoica
02-08-2010, 06:50 AM
move this to the scifi-holics thread, pls. ;)

Sophocles
02-08-2010, 01:23 PM
It's a misconception that the probability of anything's happening in an infinite time period is 1. From Wikipedia:

Probabilities
Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 2620 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 (almost 2 × 1028). In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small they can barely be conceived in human terms. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters.[note 3] Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10183,946,[note 4] or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10360,783.[note 5]

Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.[3]

marcRD
02-08-2010, 02:26 PM
In the near future, that is within 100 years we will see a shift in the human race to an imrovement of the brain with the help of nanotechnology, so we will create a hybrid between robot and human and these will be able to calculate perfectly how to hit a ball coming at 250 km/hrs and always hit the lines. Never again will players hit an UE and they will play the sport of tennis and many other sports so perfectly that the need to compete will become meaningless. Without the human factor sport will become boring and at the same time no one will want to watch sports which bans the technology because we have already seen the great androids play and will be ourselves part robotic and all we need to do to play to perfection in any sport is download the software to our brain in 0,01 seconds (which will be connected online 100 petabytes/second 24 hrs/day), so everybody will be playing perfect tennis and the all human players will be the greatest clowns in the planet.

If that is to happen in 50-100 years competition will be impossible for anyone to dominate and Federer's records will probably stand, if they decide to ban android players the sport will collapse as no one will want to go watch players who play much worse tennis than themselves. So Federer's records need to hold another 50 years before the whole android situation destroys the sport for infinity.

Purple Rainbow
02-08-2010, 02:52 PM
It's a misconception that the probability of anything's happening in an infinite time period is 1. From Wikipedia:

Probabilities
Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 2620 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 (almost 2 × 1028). In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small they can barely be conceived in human terms. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters.[note 3] Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10183,946,[note 4] or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10360,783.[note 5]

Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.[3]

The article says nothing about infinity, though.
The calculation is based on a finite (though huge) number of monkeys in a finite amount of time (history of observable universe). By extending the amount of time (or monkeys), the chance of a monkey eventually typing Hamlet will approach 1.
Given an infinite amount of time or monkeys, the odds of one of them typing Hamlet is 1. In fact, in an infinite amount of time, all monkeys will type Hamlet. They will all break Federers records too.

wackykid
02-08-2010, 03:24 PM
the direction that this thread is heading is making me :rolls: :silly:

so i'll just add that... a very VERY VERY LARGE number is still infinitely smaller than infinite... well then you might want to say instead that infinite doesn't really exist...


regards,
wacky

Sophocles
02-08-2010, 03:42 PM
The article says nothing about infinity, though.
The calculation is based on a finite (though huge) number of monkeys in a finite amount of time (history of observable universe). By extending the amount of time (or monkeys), the chance of a monkey eventually typing Hamlet will approach 1.
Given an infinite amount of time or monkeys, the odds of one of them typing Hamlet is 1. In fact, in an infinite amount of time, all monkeys will type Hamlet. They will all break Federers records too.

If every monkey is immortal.

Choreos
02-08-2010, 05:04 PM
You guys are assuming there's a chance that someone can break Roger's record. I'm not being a fanboy, but it's never been established that it's even possible at this point. If it is possible, then the probability, given enough time, does approach 1.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:09 PM
You guys are assuming there's a chance that someone can break Roger's record. I'm not being a fanboy, but it's never been established that it's even possible at this point. If it is possible, then the probability, given enough time, does approach 1.

No one thought it was possible Pete's 14 would be broke in 7 years. The point is the odds are in favor that almost EVERY RECORD set will broke at some time. All it takeas is for a player to dominate his/her era. If it doesnt happen in the next 10 years it probably will in the next 20-30. ITs the law of averages and the odds are infinite.


Someone will come along even more dominant than Roger ever was who destroys the field along their main rival on a consistent basis

Everko
02-08-2010, 05:11 PM
Dimitrov will.

Right Forehander?? haha

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 05:27 PM
No one thought it was possible Pete's 14 would be broke in 7 years. The point is the odds are in favor that almost EVERY RECORD set will broke at some time. All it takeas is for a player to dominate his/her era. If it doesnt happen in the next 10 years it probably will in the next 20-30. ITs the law of averages and the odds are infinite.


Someone will come along even more dominant than Roger ever was who destroys the field along their main rival on a consistent basis

Well a lot of this will depend on how much further Roger can extend his various records.

Somebody might break them in the the next 10 year, or the next 30 years. On the other hand it could take 100.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:37 PM
Well a lot of this will depend on how much further Roger can extend his various records.

Somebody might break them in the the next 10 year, or the next 30 years. On the other hand it could take 100.

Well.. Considering it only took 7 years for someone to overtake 14 slams. It does depend on how many more slams Roger wins.. Even 20 can be surprassed. It takes the one player who can stand out 50 miles ahead of his contemporaries. Its not as difficult as it seems really. If you can dominate your era, stay healthy, you have a great chance. Every era or every other era seems to produce an all time great in tennis. The only record I think will NOT be broke is Laver's 200 tournament wins and Pancho's 8 years of Number 1. The rest is breakable even Roger's consecutive semis streak

marcRD
02-08-2010, 05:46 PM
No one thought it was possible Pete's 14 would be broke in 7 years. The point is the odds are in favor that almost EVERY RECORD set will broke at some time. All it takeas is for a player to dominate his/her era. If it doesnt happen in the next 10 years it probably will in the next 20-30. ITs the law of averages and the odds are infinite.


Someone will come along even more dominant than Roger ever was who destroys the field along their main rival on a consistent basis

Yeah, but some records like the 23 straight semifinals are just really, really hard to beat. I mean lets say there comes along a superdominant player that is 95% to get to semifinals in each grand slam, he will still have the odds against him to beat Federer's record because 0,95^23=0.31! That is he will still only have a 31% chanse to win 23 straight semifinals. I think even Federer had the odds against him to get this record. But then I thought so also about the 10 straight finals and he is on his way to beat it with a new streak of 8 straight finals.

In the end the question is if Federer is a once in a century player or just like all other GOAT contender champions who have appeared in almost every decade (except the 80s: 50s we have Gonzales, 60s Laver, 70s Borg, 90s Sampras and 00s Federer).

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:50 PM
Yeah, but some records like the 23 straight semifinals are just really, really hard to beat. I mean lets say there comes along a superdominant player that is 95% to get to semifinals in each grand slam, he will still have the odds against him to beat Federer's record because 0,95^23=0.31! That is he will still only have a 31% chanse to win 23 straight semifinals. I think even Federer had the odds against him to get this record. But then I thought so also about the 10 straight finals and he is on his way to beat it with a new streak of 8 straight finals.

In the end the question is if Federer is a once in a century player or just like all other GOAT contender champions who have appeared in almost every decade (except the 80s: 50s we have Gonzales, 60s Laver, 70s Borg, 90s Sampras and 00s Federer).



23 straight semis are going to be tough to beat.. But is it really a record other greats in the future will be striving for? I mean its not something someone would say "hey I gotta overtake that record". It either happens or it doesnt. The greats in the future will be going for the big time ones.. Like the calendar slams, the grand slams, the consecutive and number of weeks at Number 1 or Year end #1 etc.

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 05:54 PM
Well.. Considering it only took 7 years for someone to overtake 14 slams. It does depend on how many more slams Roger wins.. Even 20 can be surprassed. It takes the one player who can stand out 50 miles ahead of his contemporaries. Its not as difficult as it seems really. If you can dominate your era, stay healthy, you have a great chance. Every era or every other era seems to produce an all time great in tennis. The only record I think will NOT be broke is Laver's 200 tournament wins and Pancho's 8 years of Number 1. The rest is breakable even Roger's consecutive semis streak


Who knows. Federer could go on to win about 22 majors and that figure might prove to last for a long time, whereas perhaps 14 will become the standard sort of figure for a dominant player of an era to achieve. I think Roger has a chance to equal Pancho's 8 years at number 1, but a much lesser chance to break it. I seem to remember though that some of the number 1 years for Gonzales are not so easy to define absolutely. If the same system was in place today one can essentially argue that Roger already has 6 years as number 1; counting 2003 as either joint or sole. Anyway that's a small point, but I reckon Federer has a shot at 8.


Edit: Essentially Pancho was equally ranked in 2 of his 8 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings

Using the same discretion we can more or less say Federer and Roddick were equally ranked in 2003 especially with even the existing h2h of the time which If I remember correctly was in favour of Federer in that year. One could also mention Ferrero here. I think this is a valid point actually, however for many years now there has been a strict computer system and according to it Roddick of course was the number 1 player of 2003.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 05:56 PM
Who knows. Federer could go on to win about 22 majors and that figure might prove to last for a long time, whereas perhaps 14 will become the standard sort of figure for a dominant player of an era to achieve. I think Roger has a chance to equal Pancho's 8 years at number 1, but a much lesser chance to break it. I seem to remember though that some of the number 1 years for Gonzales are not so easy to define absolutely. If the same system was in place today one can essentially argue that Roger already has 6 years as number 1; counting 2003 as either joint or sole. Anyway that's a small point, but I reckon Federer has a shot at 8.

Shame on that the rest of the field if they actually let that happen though:) Especially considering Roger is not nearly at the level he was before. I think Roger has played well over the last year. But there isnt once Ive seen Roger play at some unbeatable level though. I really do blame alot of the guys in the field for letting this happen and not doing something about it. Back in 04-06 I would have said.. Nothing the field can do right now.. Roger is just too good at this point. But I dont think he is too good these days and in fact... he should have went out a few slams like Wimbeldon and the French Last year the two he did win where he was on the ropes

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:04 PM
Shame on that the rest of the field if they actually let that happen though:) Especially considering Roger is not nearly at the level he was before. I think Roger has played well over the last year. But there isnt once Ive seen Roger play at some unbeatable level though. I really do blame alot of the guys in the field for letting this happen and not doing something about it. Back in 04-06 I would have said.. Nothing the field can do right now.. Roger is just too good at this point. But I dont think he is too good these days and in fact... he should have went out a few slams like Wimbeldon and the French Last year the two he did win where he was on the ropes

You don't have to be unbeatable to be at number 1. Federer's level is still clearly high enough to at least be 'fighting' for that coveted spot. It isn't the fields fault at all that Federer might get another year or 2 at number 1; it's Federer's fault for playing a very high standard of tennis. There might not be a destroyer right now of the likes of say Fed 04 - 07 but then, how often is there?

Federer has declined slightly and that's taken him from being a clear, easy and emphatic number 1 to a potential 'normal' number 1, in terms of computer points earned and Slams won and such.

marcRD
02-08-2010, 06:06 PM
Who knows. Federer could go on to win about 22 majors and that figure might prove to last for a long time, whereas perhaps 14 will become the standard sort of figure for a dominant player of an era to achieve. I think Roger has a chance to equal Pancho's 8 years at number 1, but a much lesser chance to break it. I seem to remember though that some of the number 1 years for Gonzales are not so easy to define absolutely. If the same system was in place today one can essentially argue that Roger already has 6 years as number 1; counting 2003 as either joint or sole. Anyway that's a small point, but I reckon Federer has a shot at 8.


Edit: Essentially Pancho was equally ranked in 2 of his 8 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings

Using the same discretion we can more or less say Federer and Roddick were equally ranked in 2003 especially with even the existing h2h of the time which If I remember correctly was in favour of Federer in that year. One could also mention Ferrero here. I think this is a valid point actually, however for many years now there has been a strict computer system and according to it Roddick of course was the number 1 player of 2003.

True, if Pancho had 8 years as nr1 with that ranking system Federer has 6 years as you need to count 2003 as divided between Roddick, Ferrero and Federer. Federer can be nr1 this year and maybe one more year, I cant expect him to do more than that but Federer has a tendency to sometimes go beyond your expectations.

25 slams would be a record I could label as close to impossible to beat, a once in a century record. 22 slams is maybe a once in 50 years record.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:08 PM
Well historically... Rosewall should have 23 slams. Thats the number to beat in terms of slam counts. I dont think its all about number of slams. For years no one would even play the Australian. Borg wouldnt even go play it. And for years no one though of breaking the slam record. it was never discussed until Sampras began chasing Emerson. Borg should have "on paper" broke it a long time ago. Laver would have demolished had he played the slams in his prime

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 06:10 PM
Well historically... Rosewall should have 23 slams. Thats the number to beat in terms of slam counts. I dont think its all about number of slams. For years no one would even play the Australian. Borg wouldnt even go play it. And for years no one though of breaking the slam record. it was never discussed until Sampras began chasing Emerson. Borg should have "on paper" broke it a long time ago. Laver would have demolished had he played the slams in his prime

yeah, but the what ifs are not reality, what is the reality is that Roger is still playing and has a chance to set up a big number of Slams that can be very very hard to beat ;)

maybe he won't win another Slam, maybe he will win 10 more, you just cannot know the future or change the past :p

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:12 PM
yeah, but the what ifs are not reality, what is the reality is that Roger is still playing and has a chance to set up a big number of Slams that can be very very hard to beat ;)

maybe he won't win another Slam, maybe he will win 10 more, you just cannot know the future or change the past :p

Well its still not fair. Laver was tied at the hands and not able to compete in the slams for his best physical peak years. So we cant by just the slam record in destermining GOAT status cause the emphasis on slams have drastically changed from now to way back then.

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:14 PM
Well historically... Rosewall should have 23 slams. Thats the number to beat

This is misleading because of the major events Laver and Rosewall won when neither were in the others tournament. Given Rosewall's strength as a player in the early 60's it's highly unlikely that Laver achieves the 1962 Slam if all players were allowed to compete. Laver says as much more or less in a post Wimbledon 2009 interview with McEnroe.

In short, Rosewall is worth more than 8 majors and Laver is worth more than 11, but Rosewall is probably worth less than 23 majors and Laver is probably worth less than 19. I don't necessarily think so by much, but I feel the numbers are slightly inflated. One also must account for the fact that during 1963 - 1968 there was no 4th major event equivalent for Laver and Rosewall to play and also the majors which the players were banned from playing from 1970 onwards.

Ultimately it is too hard to really judge, as the momentum and and outcomes and landscapes would have probably been very different not just initially but also in the long run had the tours joined from 1960 or whatever. It's all pretty complicated really.

Thinking about it more, Laver and Rosewall aren't necessarily worth less or more or the same as their alternative major counts but the overall point is that it is really hard to just say, 'historically, Rosewall should have 23 Slams.'

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:21 PM
This is misleading because of the major events Laver and Rosewall won when neither were in the others tournament. Given Rosewall's strength as a player in the early 60's it's highly unlikely that Laver achieves the 1962 Slam if all players were allowed to compete. Laver says as much more or less in a post Wimbledon 2009 interview with McEnroe.

In short, Rosewall is worth more than 8 majors and Laver is worth more than 11, but Rosewall is probably worth less than 23 majors and Laver is worth less than 19. I don't necessarily think so by much, but I feel the numbers are slightly inflated. One also must account for the fact that during 1963 - 1968 there was no 4th major event equivalent for Laver and Rosewall to play and also the majors which the players were banned from playing from 1970 onwards.

Ultimately it is too hard to really judge, as the momentum and and outcomes and landscapes would have probably been very different not just initially but also in the long run had the tours joined from 1960 or whatever. It's all pretty complicated really.

Thats what makes determing the true GOAT damn near impossible of course. But when no big tennis tournaments are going its fun to debate:) Another guy who I dont think gets much credit is Don Budge. The youngest ever to achieve the grandslam at 23 years of age. Not to mention the dominance of Big Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzales. All GOAT contenders with great resumes who are overlooked or Kramer

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:26 PM
Thats what makes determing the true GOAT damn near impossible of course. But when no big tennis tournaments are going its fun to debate:) Another guy who I dont think gets much credit is Don Budge. The youngest ever to achieve the grandslam at 23 years of age. Not to mention the dominance of Big Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzales. All GOAT contenders with great resumes who are overlooked or Kramer

It's Rosewall and Laver I find the hardest to evaluate given how much they won in the going through so much change and split with the tennis tours.

I think it is far more reasonable to debate who the best of the Open Era has been, and I believe it to be Roger Federer and predict that this will be further confirmed over the next 3 or so years.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:29 PM
It's Rosewall and Laver I find the hardest to evaluate given how much they won in the going through so much change and split with the tennis tours.

I think it is far more reasonable to debate who the best of the Open Era has been, and I believe it to be Roger Federer and predict that this will be further confirmed over the next 3 or so years.

Resume wise its hard to argue against Federer for the Open Era yes.. But I can argue the landscape of the lack of great players and diverse conditions. Roger may have the best resume of the Open era but I dont have to believe he is the best. If he was stuck with Sampras for most of his career his achievement would have been significantly less. If was stuck in the 80s or 70s with the likes of Borg, Wilander, Lendl,Edberg, Becker, Mac, Connors etc his achievements would be significantly less IMO. Thus why in the 80s for instance you had great players but no great GOAT resumes because they all took big achievements away from each other

marcRD
02-08-2010, 06:30 PM
Well historically... Rosewall should have 23 slams. Thats the number to beat in terms of slam counts. I dont think its all about number of slams. For years no one would even play the Australian. Borg wouldnt even go play it. And for years no one though of breaking the slam record. it was never discussed until Sampras began chasing Emerson. Borg should have "on paper" broke it a long time ago. Laver would have demolished had he played the slams in his prime

No, 1st of all you would have to take away Rosewalls amateur slams if you want to count pro majors as the true slams and then you have to wonder if it would be as easy for Rosewall to win pro majors if it was 128 players in the draw instead of just 16. Remember that Rosewall and Laver were often challenged in early rounds when they came back 68, even if Laver won all 4 69 he played hardfought 5 set matches in all 4 slams. To conclude it is difficult to say how many slams this duo would have got without the division of the tour but I am sure of two things: It would be more than Rosewall's official 7 and Laver's 11, it would be less than Rosewall's 23 "amateur+pro majors+open era slams" and Laver's 19 "amateur+pro majors+open era slams".

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:32 PM
No, 1st of all you would have to take away Rosewalls amateur slams if you want to count pro majors as the true slams and then you have to wonder if it would be as easy for Rosewall to win pro majors if it was 128 players in the draw instead of just 16. Remember that Rosewall and Laver were often challenged in early rounds when they came back 68, even if Laver won all 4 69 he played hardfought 5 set matches in all 4 slams. To conclude it is difficult to say how many slams this duo would have got without the division of the tour but I am sure of two things: It would be more than Rosewall's official 7 and Laver's 11, it would be less than Rosewall's 23 "amateur+pro majors+open era slams" and Laver's 19 "amateur+pro majors+open era slams".

Great post. Thanks for explaining it in some finer details. My knowledge on this subject is not yet thorough enough for me to really bring up the key terms without referring to some place else. :cool:

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:33 PM
True, if Pancho had 8 years as nr1 with that ranking system Federer has 6 years as you need to count 2003 as divided between Roddick, Ferrero and Federer. Federer can be nr1 this year and maybe one more year, I cant expect him to do more than that but Federer has a tendency to sometimes go beyond your expectations.

25 slams would be a record I could label as close to impossible to beat, a once in a century record. 22 slams is maybe a once in 50 years record.



Perhaps, yeah. I think Federer will win between 21 - 24 Slams by the way.

For the last sort of 3 years I have been saying around about 17 - 20, but I've readjusted my prediction.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:35 PM
Perhaps, yeah. I think Federer will win between 21 - 24 Slams by the way.

For the last sort of 3 years I have been saying around about 17 - 20, but I've readjusted my prediction.

Why did you "re-adjust" it? He still may very well be stuck on 13 had Nadal not gone down at his absolute peak with injuries again. Its no secret Nadal was the best until that happened. Thats the way it goes though sometimes

DrJules
02-08-2010, 06:37 PM
Well historically... Rosewall should have 23 slams. Thats the number to beat in terms of slam counts. I dont think its all about number of slams. For years no one would even play the Australian. Borg wouldnt even go play it. And for years no one though of breaking the slam record. it was never discussed until Sampras began chasing Emerson. Borg should have "on paper" broke it a long time ago. Laver would have demolished had he played the slams in his prime

Factually you are mis-using statistics. Rosewall and Gonzalez would almost certainly have won 14 or more.

Rosewall won his first 4 grand slams as an amateur in fields missing the best players who were professional. Additionally those totals are compiled from adding wins in the 4 grand slams and 3 main professional tour events. The draws were often very small (15 Rosewall wins had a draw of 16 or less):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_male_players_statistics

marcRD
02-08-2010, 06:43 PM
Perhaps, yeah. I think Federer will win between 21 - 24 Slams by the way.

For the last sort of 3 years I have been saying around about 17 - 20, but I've readjusted my prediction.

I have been saying for ages Federer will win 20-22 slams, but people thought I was crazy. You have to think outside the box sometimes, we have a player who is making these impossible feats, 18 of 19 slam finals and 23 straight semifinals, so I dont think we should look at history what other player's achieved and how they declined from Federer's age. Agassi won 5 slams when he was older than Federer is now, who says Federer cant double what Agassi did from now on? He has afterall won more than 5 times what Agassi had at his age (Agassi had 3 slams when he turned 29)!

Let us just examine the possibilities, lets be realistic and say Federer will never again win the french (could be wrong here). Lets say he could win another 2 AOs and I also think he can dominate Wimbledon until he is 32 (not many players can play there), so he could have another 4 (total of 10!) there and in USOPEN I give him a shot at 2-3 more titles. I give Federer a maximum of 9 slams, but probably it will be less than that, 7 more slams to a total of 23 is my prediction (for the first time I increase a prediction I made that he would win 20-22 slams already back in 2004).

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:44 PM
Why did you "re-adjust" it? He still may very well be stuck on 13 had Nadal not gone down at his absolute peak with injuries again. Its no secret Nadal was the best until that happened. Thats the way it goes though sometimes

I readjusted it because I'm pretty convinced now that Federer's motivation is not going to subside anytime soon. I think this is key and will help him to maintain a very high level of form for the next 3 years and also help him to continue to be a contender afterwards. Of course, his body has to hold up and hopefully it will.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:45 PM
I have been saying for ages Federer will win 20-22 slams, but people thought I was crazy. You have to think outside the box sometimes, we have a player who is making these impossible feats, 18 of 19 slam finals and 23 straight semifinals, so I dont think we should look at history what other player's achieved and how they declined from Federer's age. Agassi won 5 slams when he was older than Federer is now, who says Federer cant double what Agassi did from now on? He has afterall won more than 5 times what Agassi had at his age (Agassi had 3 slams when he turned 29)!

Let us just examine the possibilities, lets be realistic and say Federer will never again win the french (could be wrong here). Lets say he could win another 2 AOs and I also think he can dominate Wimbledon until he is 32 (not many players can play there), so he could have another 4 (total of 10!) there and in USOPEN I give him a shot at 2-3 more titles. I give Federer a maximum of 9 slams, but probably it will be less than that, 7 more slams to a total of 23 is my prediction (for the first time I increase a prediction I made that he would win 20-22 slams already back in 2004).



Absolutely.... He can achieve these things... If no one stands in his way and with Nadal out who is the only player who had the ability both physically and mentally to stand in his way this makes his more probable. Federer's been blessed in this regard. His main opposition who has proven he can beat him on just about any surface he is always out injured. If there were 2-3 more capable players in this era of being champions, Fed would be screwed

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 06:46 PM
Resume wise its hard to argue against Federer for the Open Era yes.. But I can argue the landscape of the lack of great players and diverse conditions. Roger may have the best resume of the Open era but I dont have to believe he is the best. If he was stuck with Sampras for most of his career his achievement would have been significantly less. If was stuck in the 80s or 70s with the likes of Borg, Wilander, Lendl,Edberg, Becker, Mac, Connors etc his achievements would be significantly less IMO. Thus why in the 80s for instance you had great players but no great GOAT resumes because they all took big achievements away from each other

then it all comes down to personal tastes? someone can argue that Edberg is the GOAT for them and if it doesn't come down to resumes, who can argue about that? :scratch:

I don't think there's a best player of the Open Era because there isn't really a way to compare: styles, fitness, technology, surfaces, etc; there isn't a point of comparison, who says Roger wouldn't have done well against a prime Borg? we just can't know because they never faced each other and the assumptions can never be close to the real thing due to all the factors involved :shrug:

Roger would have been a great champion in any era, just like Laver or Sampras would have done as well, it doesn't really comes down to opposition, it comes down to their capacities and their self-believe

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:48 PM
I have been saying for ages Federer will win 20-22 slams, but people thought I was crazy. You have to think outside the box sometimes, we have a player who is making these impossible feats, 18 of 19 slam finals and 23 straight semifinals, so I dont think we should look at history what other player's achieved and how they declined from Federer's age. Agassi won 5 slams when he was older than Federer is now, who says Federer cant double what Agassi did from now on? He has afterall won more than 5 times what Agassi had at his age (Agassi had 3 slams when he turned 29)!

Let us just examine the possibilities, lets be realistic and say Federer will never again win the french (could be wrong here). Lets say he could win another 2 AOs and I also think he can dominate Wimbledon until he is 32 (not many players can play there), so he could have another 4 (total of 10!) there and in USOPEN I give him a shot at 2-3 more titles. I give Federer a maximum of 9 slams, but probably it will be less than that, 7 more slams to a total of 23 is my prediction (for the first time I increase a prediction I made that he would win 20-22 slams already back in 2004).


Exactly! I was holding onto historical tendencies too much, but just looking at Federer and hearing how he talks of his career I definitely feel that providing his body holds up that he can be a major contender for several more years.

For the record, I DID predict back in 2004 that Federer would break the Slam record so that's not too shabby ;).

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:51 PM
Absolutely.... He can achieve these things... If no one stands in his way and with Nadal out who is the only player who had the ability both physically and mentally to stand in his way this makes his more probable. Federer's been blessed in this regard. His main opposition who has proven he can beat him on just about any surface he is always out injured. If there were 2-3 more capable players in this era of being champions, Fed would be screwed

There are 2-3 more capable players who can be champions in this era and I am pretty positive this will be proved over time. In order of predictions for success they are; Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic. Unfortunately for them they are having to penetrate through the fortress that is Federer and Nadal. So we'll see over the next few years if Federer will be 'screwed'.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:51 PM
then it all comes down to personal tastes? someone can argue that Edberg is the GOAT for them and if it doesn't come down to resumes, who can argue about that? :scratch:

I don't think there's a best player of the Open Era because there isn't really a way to compare: styles, fitness, technology, surfaces, etc; there isn't a point of comparison, who says Roger wouldn't have done well against a prime Borg? we just can't know because they never faced each other and the assumptions can never be close to the real thing due to all the factors involved :shrug:

No one is to say how Fed would do in other eras. Im sure he would hold his own. But you dont have to actually RELY on personal taste to think who is better between Bjorn Borg or a Hewitt or Roddick for instance. Anyone how has seen Borg, Mac, Connors, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl play will tell you that they are MILES AHEAD in terms of ability then say a Hewitt or Roddick. Thus why I think my point is plausible in this regard. But against stronger field with much bigger talented threats like they had in the 80s, 70s, early 90s u would just have to assume Fed's achievement would have came by probably not to the point so fast or as many so easily.

SetSampras
02-08-2010, 06:53 PM
There are 2-3 more capable players who can be champions in this era and I am pretty positive this will be proved over time. In order of predictions for success they are; Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic. Unfortunately for them they are having to penetrate through the fortress that is Federer and Nadal. So we'll see over the next few years if Federer will be 'screwed'.



Djokovic has proven he doesnt have what it takes. I think hes just happy being where he is. He cant even get through his own draw anymore. he was a better, deadlier more confident player at 19-20 years old than he is now where he should be much better, more confident and more productive. Murray cant even take a set off of Federer in a slam and always go back to his defensive pusher ways when the going agaisnt tough. Hell Roddick provides more of a threat to Federer than Murray has shown at slams. Del Potro out of the bunch probably has the most upside. He seems more mentally tough, has the weapons, and can be very aggressive and dangerous. Only problem with Del Potro is you cant play winning tennis all through the year when u are constantly battling injuries

abraxas21
02-08-2010, 06:54 PM
No one is to say how Fed would do in other eras. Im sure he would hold his own. But you dont have to actually RELY on personal taste to think who is better between Bjorn Borg or a Hewitt or Roddick for instance. Anyone how has seen Borg, Mac, Connors, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl play will tell you that they are MILES AHEAD in terms of ability then say a Hewitt or Roddick. Thus why I think my point is plausible in this regard. But against stronger field with much bigger talented threats like they had in the 80s, 70s, early 90s u would just have to assume Fed's achievement would have came by probably not to the point so fast or as many so easily.

that's the key word in all you've said.

Arkulari
02-08-2010, 06:55 PM
No one is to say how Fed would do in other eras. Im sure he would hold his own. But you dont have to actually RELY on personal taste to think who is better between Bjorn Borg or a Hewitt or Roddick for instance. Anyone how has seen Borg, Mac, Connors, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl play will tell you that they are MILES AHEAD in terms of ability then say a Hewitt or Roddick. Thus why I think my point is plausible in this regard. But against stronger field with much bigger talented threats like they had in the 80s, 70s, early 90s u would just have to assume Fed's achievement would have came by probably not to the point so fast or as many so easily.

there are always two ways of seeing things: one that Roger was too good for his opposition and destroyed many careers in the way and other that the others were downright mugs who couldn't do anything against him

To me it's a combination of both factors, Roddick should have had 4 Slams, Hewitt 4, Murray should have 2, etc, etc, etc

The only thing on their way has been Roger, he's probably the last complete player there is, the style of playing nowadays is either hard and harder or vamos topspin, so of course players wouldn't look as good as these in the past but it doesn't mean they are all mugs, it means tennis like any other sport has finally caught with the human evolution in size and power :shrug:

One thing is for sure: you can't downplay Roger's achievements because of the Era he is playing at, because it's something he wasn't able to choose, same as Laver wasn't able to choose to play in the middle of the amateur/open Era, it's simply not fair because is something out of control of anyone's hands

MatchFederer
02-08-2010, 06:56 PM
Djokovic has proven he doesnt have what it takes. I think hes just happen being where he is. He cant even get through his own draw anymore. he was a better, deadlier more confident player at 19-20 years old than he is now where he should be much better, more confident and more productive. Murray cant even take a set off of Federer in a slam and always go back to his defensive pusher ways when the going agaisnt tough. Hell Roddick provides more of a threat to Federer than Murray has shown at slams. Del Potro out of the bunch probably has the most upside. He seems more mentally tough, has the weapons, and can be very aggressive and dangerous. Only problem with Del Potro is you cant play winning tennis all through the year when u are constantly battling injuries

The three players have reached 5 Slam finals already and will probably reach many more. Federer played very well in the AO 2010 final against Murray and I'm pretty sure Djokovic is going to come on strong and once again show he has championship mentality. Del Potro could be a big force and providing he doesn't go in line with what people are saying about him likely having a career of injuries, he could win 6 + slams.

That's my take. We shall see.

marcRD
02-08-2010, 07:06 PM
No one is to say how Fed would do in other eras. Im sure he would hold his own. But you dont have to actually RELY on personal taste to think who is better between Bjorn Borg or a Hewitt or Roddick for instance. Anyone how has seen Borg, Mac, Connors, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl play will tell you that they are MILES AHEAD in terms of ability then say a Hewitt or Roddick. Thus why I think my point is plausible in this regard. But against stronger field with much bigger talented threats like they had in the 80s, 70s, early 90s u would just have to assume Fed's achievement would have came by probably not to the point so fast or as many so easily.

Edberg never faced Borg, you make it sound like all these players played in the same era. Connors hit his prime when Borg was still a teenager but hanged in there for a long, long time much like Agassi hanged in to lose 8 straight matches against Federer. Borg dominated the tour together with Connors until a really young Mac came up and challenged Borg, then Mac dominated for a while until Lendl took over the scene and Mac got stuck on drugs and got tired of tennis, here we get to the most competitive era of the open era when Wilander, Becker and Edberg turn up (in that order) and together with Lendl make it a fight between 4 greats to win slams in the late 80s, then we get to the 2nd worst era of tennis in the early 90s with teenage Agassi caring more about image than tennis, Courier winning 4 slams and kind of dominating tennis (he would not win slams today or in most eras IMO) and Sampras not figuring out how to win slams. That was a long sentance, continuation:
Sampras dominates tennis and his only rival Agassi takes drugs, hates his sport and gets depressed, early 2000s needs no comment, Federer turns up and the Fed era of mega domination gets started and he finds his rival in Nadal 2005, new generation (Djokovics, Murrays) can only challenge him in small tournaments and Nadals game style as predicted by many cant hold up against the test of time.

Here we are today, comparing eras is so subjective you cant really go further than say "in my opinion", achievments are more reliable to make objective comparasions between players.

goat15
02-08-2010, 08:29 PM
I'd just like to point out that half of Sampras' slams were won from 1996 to 2002. Look at the seedings for the tournaments that he won in that period. People talk about it like he played in a tough era all the way through right until the few years at the end. That's not how I remember it. Half was 'tough', half was 'weak'.

I don't really go along with this whole 'weak era' talk. It's top-level sport, and to win you have to be pretty special at any time. But if we must talk in terms of weak and strong, then half of Sampras' career is invalidated.

Feketepuss
02-08-2010, 09:10 PM
In 15 years time, people will be berating some new tennis star for not playing in a "tough" era, unlike Federer. Roger had to deal with Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Rios, Moya, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic (and quite possibly Tomic, Dmitrov, etc etc). An era of lions! (and nearly all Grand Slam winners!)

I also expect certain people will be looking at recordings of some Nalbandian matches and realising the quality of his play, and perhaps Gasquet's 100 winner display against Roddick at Wimbledon, and come to the conclusion that this is a tremendous era, or at least, use this conclusion to bash some champion of the future!

Living through any era is rather different from summarising it from a distance. And SetSampras (who was 10 years old when his hero was at his peak) is making this common mistake ...

goat15
02-08-2010, 09:14 PM
In 15 years time, people will be berating some new tennis star for not playing in a "tough" era, unlike Federer. Roger had to deal with Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Rios, Moya, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic (and quite possibly Tomic, Dmitrov, etc etc). An era of lions! (and nearly all Grand Slam winners!)

I also expect certain people will be looking at recordings of some Nalbandian matches and realising the quality of his play, and perhaps Gasquet's 100 winner display against Roddick at Wimbledon, and come to the conclusion that this is a tremendous era, or at least, use this conclusion to bash some champion of the future!

Living through any era is rather different from summarising it from a distance. And SetSampras (who was 10 years old when his hero was at his peak) is making this common mistake ...

You've hit the nail on the head.

One that always stands out for me is Ivanisevic. It boggles my mind the way his legacy has increased every year since his retirement. Not to mention the fact that his 'legacy' was only actually cemented right at the end of his career.

We need to be patient when it comes to assessing this current era.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:36 AM
You've hit the nail on the head.

One that always stands out for me is Ivanisevic. It boggles my mind the way his legacy has increased every year since his retirement. Not to mention the fact that his 'legacy' was only actually cemented right at the end of his career.

We need to be patient when it comes to assessing this current era.



As Nadal and Federer took slams from each other and Agassi and Sampras took some away from each other.. Sampras took quite a few wimbledon titles away from Goran.

manadrainer
02-09-2010, 07:40 AM
No, 1st of all you would have to take away Rosewalls amateur slams if you want to count pro majors as the true slams and then you have to wonder if it would be as easy for Rosewall to win pro majors if it was 128 players in the draw instead of just 16. Remember that Rosewall and Laver were often challenged in early rounds when they came back 68, even if Laver won all 4 69 he played hardfought 5 set matches in all 4 slams. To conclude it is difficult to say how many slams this duo would have got without the division of the tour but I am sure of two things: It would be more than Rosewall's official 7 and Laver's 11, it would be less than Rosewall's 23 "amateur+pro majors+open era slams" and Laver's 19 "amateur+pro majors+open era slams".

This.

I really think that in the overall count you should subtract for Laver and Rosewall their amateur slams, if we assume that "real slams" were pro majors. This would make a total of 19 Majors for Rosewall and 13 for Laver.

goat15
02-09-2010, 07:53 AM
As Nadal and Federer took slams from each other and Agassi and Sampras took some away from each other.. Sampras took quite a few wimbledon titles away from Goran.

Certainly true. It's just that Ivanisevic is always used as a character to bolster the 'nineties was a strong era' argument. I wonder if these people watched tennis in the nineties - he was considered a threat, but no one genuinely thought he'd beat Sampras when it came down to it. In fact, if Sampras had got to the semis in '01, no one would have doubted that he'd have beaten Ivanisevic yet again.

Achievements-wise, I'd say he's just behind Roddick. Credibility-wise (at the time) they were similar too. Difference is, Roddick's considered a joke, whereas Ivanisevic is considered an ominous player. I think with time people's perceptions will even out.

I miss Goran, many of us do. There aren't many personalities like his around these days. But we shouldn't overrate his abilities as a tennis player for sentimental reasons.

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 10:09 AM
Achievements-wise, I'd say he's just behind Roddick. Credibility-wise (at the time) they were similar too. Difference is, Roddick's considered a joke, whereas Ivanisevic is considered an ominous player. I think with time people's perceptions will even out.

Not sure: in terms of rankings history, slam performance, & titles won, Roddick is already significantly ahead, I think.

goat15
02-09-2010, 10:22 AM
Not sure: in terms of rankings history, slam performance, & titles won, Roddick is already significantly ahead, I think.

Of course he is, I'm just being nice. :)

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-09-2010, 01:53 PM
I remeber being a teenager, and i was walking through switzerland, looking to buy some clocks... after one particular store, i was walking along with my father and i heard a "thud" sound from across the road

the sound seemed so pure, so true, i just had to find out the cause of this sound... so i motioned to my father i was going across the road, he nodded as he continued to look at the clock shop.

as i crossed the road, the thud sound became louder and louder- rhythmic almost- every few seconds i could feel a deep thud vibrate against my feet- it felt like an elephant was marching in perfect time

perfect time- like a swiss watch

then i noticed it was a tennis court that was making this sound- being a tennis connoisseur of many years, and understanding the deep thud sound i expected the tennis player who was hitting this tennis ball so hard would be some giant colossus, of epic strength and vigor

but what a sight should greet me, when i finally stepped foot in this tennis court

the perfect timing thudding sound was not coming from the tennis strings of a giant colossus but it was coming from a child

a child destined for greatness indeed

i walked over to this child and watched in amazement as he hit his perfect Forehand stroke in perfect time, like precision swiss watch mastery

who was this prodigy who could hit the ball like a master- who was this child mozart?

finally i spoke, slow, delibrate words, so as not to disturb this display of awesome magnificence i beheld before my eyes

"that is quite some technique young lad, almost in perfect time- like swiss watch precision... say, i've heard about a young swiss player who has been called the next pete sampras... this sounds crazy but that wouldn't happen to be you"

the rthymic sounds stopped, and the voice of a child beamed back at me

"no i'm Rafa Nadal- Roger is in the girls dorm playing dress up with his man purse"

:wavey:

goat15
02-09-2010, 02:46 PM
Out of interest, do you have a tiny penis?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-09-2010, 02:48 PM
if that was directed at me

no its huge, not that it would matter

its also very fat- women tend to prefer them thick

i'd ask you, but if you felt the need to ask then you probably aren't very competent in bed, or you are insecure ;)

goat15
02-09-2010, 02:53 PM
Lol. It's just that I wonder how someone cannot appreciate Federer. It really baffles me that people put him down so much. It's the only explanation I can come up with, although even that's tenuous in many ways.

Plus, I'd like to be banned from the forums, as the novelty of posting has waned!

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-09-2010, 03:50 PM
Lol. It's just that I wonder how someone cannot appreciate Federer. It really baffles me that people put him down so much. It's the only explanation I can come up with, although even that's tenuous in many ways.

Plus, I'd like to be banned from the forums, as the novelty of posting has waned!

actually you are correct

there is no reason to not LOVE ROGER FEDERER and his perfect game

even though i am, a red blooded hetrosexual male, i can appreciate that Federer is a perfect specimen of man

aesthetically perfect and has the perfect game

making fun of Roger's mannerisms should be fine though, this isn't the nadal=tard society, we can handle criticism of Rog :D

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:09 PM
Certainly true. It's just that Ivanisevic is always used as a character to bolster the 'nineties was a strong era' argument. I wonder if these people watched tennis in the nineties - he was considered a threat, but no one genuinely thought he'd beat Sampras when it came down to it. In fact, if Sampras had got to the semis in '01, no one would have doubted that he'd have beaten Ivanisevic yet again.

Achievements-wise, I'd say he's just behind Roddick. Credibility-wise (at the time) they were similar too. Difference is, Roddick's considered a joke, whereas Ivanisevic is considered an ominous player. I think with time people's perceptions will even out.

I miss Goran, many of us do. There aren't many personalities like his around these days. But we shouldn't overrate his abilities as a tennis player for sentimental reasons.

I would certaintly never overrate or underrate Goran's abilities on Grass If you were stick him under the 90s conditions on grass today theoretcially. He could beat anyone IMO. He should have had 4 wimbledon titles or so. And Really he should have beat Sampras in 95 I believe where they went that epic 5 setter. Sampras was even amazed he won. It took the grass court GOAT in stopping Goran from possibly grabbing most of the wimbledon titles in the 90s. I dont think anyone else would have stopped Goran to be honest. The way he was playing. I think he is one of the best and deadliest fast grass court players there ever were even if he only had 1 Wimbledon title. Certainly one of the most dangerous. In terms of hardcourts I agree he wasnt all that great. Goran is much better on grass IMO than Roddick ever was but thats just me. I dont think Roddick would have had a snowballs chance in hell of beating Sampras on 90s grass. Roddick has a big serve but not better than what Goran's was at wimbledon. He doesnt have the net game abilities. Something you really needed back then unless you were Agassi. Look at what Goran did in 2001. He dissected Roddick at Wimbledon. He beat Rafter etc. He should have won more and he would have if Sampras didnt stand in his way

Feketepuss
02-09-2010, 04:12 PM
How do you assess Goran's return game?

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:13 PM
Federer or Nadal wouldnt want any part of Goran if he was zoning in on grass

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:14 PM
How do you assess Goran's return game?

Good on grass I believe. On hardcourts not so great. I always thought he never attacked enough and came in on hardcourts. At times he could be a ridiculous headcase but at times he was scary to watch he was playing so well

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 04:15 PM
:lol: having seen Goran playing live at Wimbledon, I can say that even if he was a pretty good grass player of his time, he was no God, and his serve wasn't as good as Sampras was, so I don't think Roger or Rafa would have had many issues with him, his ROS was atrocious at best and his chances usually came on TBs, where he had to rely on his opponents UEs to win more times than not ;)

Overhype much?

elessar
02-09-2010, 04:17 PM
Federer or Nadal wouldnt want any part of Goran if he was zoning in on grass
:spit:

Feketepuss
02-09-2010, 04:19 PM
Good on grass I believe.

It's remarks like this that make me suspect you never saw him.

SetSampras
02-09-2010, 04:31 PM
It's remarks like this that make me suspect you never saw him.

Goran's weakness was on hardcourt not grass. Unfortunately, for Goran he was stuck in an era with the best fast court player that ever lived

Sophocles
02-09-2010, 05:05 PM
Ivanisevic lost to plenty of players other than Sampras at Wimbledon in the 1990s. One reasonably well known is example is the 1992 final against Agassi. There are others. He had a better net game than Roddick's but far less consistent groundstrokes & passing shots.

EDIT: I've looked it up. He also lost to Todd Martin (twice), Jason Stoltenberg, grass-court giant Magnus Norman, & the great Nick Brown.

Arkulari
02-09-2010, 05:11 PM
Ivanisevic is a legend because he won a Slam in Sampras' era, but someone with much bigger accomplisments as Roddick is a clown because he belongs in the Federer era...

That is the logic :rolleyes:

DrJules
02-09-2010, 05:43 PM
I accept the view of many that it is very difficult to compare players from different generations to determine a greatest ever player.

However, it is possible to apply various criteria to form a basis for determining a greatest ever player. Naturally if Federer does win another grand slam, exceed the number of weeks Sampras was world number 1 and ends the year number 1 again it will continue to crystalize the view of Federer as the greatest of all time:

http://apurvadesai.com/2009/06/08/federer-the-best-tennis-player-ever/

Macbrother
02-10-2010, 12:23 AM
Goran's weakness was on hardcourt not grass. Unfortunately, for Goran he was stuck in an era with the best fast court player that ever lived

Goran is much more unfortunate that he had no return game, no baseline game, and no passing shots, than anything regarding the era he played in. Oh but wait, that describes much of your so called "greats."

H2h is something you bring up and hide behind when your favorite isn't or didn't get it done where it counts: the slams. No kid ever grows up dreaming about having a spectacular h2hs or playing in so-called "deep" fields. There's only one thing that matters, holding up that grand slam trophy. Do you think at the '97 Wimbledon Sampras thought to himself "shit, I have Pioline in the final, beating this mug will do nothing for my legacy." Really?

Enough about injuries, illness, draws, either you beat what's in front of you and get the job done or you don't.

oranges
02-10-2010, 12:27 AM
I guess he was breaking Sampras, Edberg etc. with his colorful personality

MatchFederer
02-10-2010, 12:28 AM
I guess he was breaking Sampras, Edberg etc. with his colorful personality

That's exactly it. Without this he doesn't break these players.

:shrug:

oranges
02-10-2010, 12:31 AM
That's exactly it. Without this he doesn't break these players.

:shrug:

:lol: What else could it be. Charm them into sumbission

Arkulari
02-10-2010, 01:44 AM
Goran is much more unfortunate that he had no return game, no baseline game, and no passing shots, than anything regarding the era he played in. Oh but wait, that describes much of your so called "greats."

H2h is something you bring up and hide behind when your favorite isn't or didn't get it done where it counts: the slams. No kid ever grows up dreaming about having a spectacular h2hs or playing in so-called "deep" fields. There's only one thing that matters, holding up that grand slam trophy. Do you think at the '97 Wimbledon Sampras thought to himself "shit, I have Pioline in the final, beating this mug will do nothing for my legacy." Really?

Enough about injuries, illness, draws, either you beat what's in front of you and get the job done or you don't.

Excellent post, people around here talk about people like Ivanisevic or Krajicek like they were awesome all-around players very dangerous in every surface and gods of grass...

Guess these people never actually saw them playing, the 96 Wimbledon final is something that still gives me nightmares, a mug's match if I have ever seen one, Roddick's ROS would look like Agassi's next to Krajicek's and Washington was even worse, so a Wimbledon final in a "strong era"? :spit:

And if the field is injured or doesn't make it far enough to get to a final it doesn't mean a player's accomplishments should be demeaned because of something that is out of his control; same concept applies to the shoulda, woulda, coulda fantasy land of people who cannot see what's in front of them

federersforehand
02-10-2010, 02:06 AM
how the F**K does setsampras hijack EVERY thread regarding federer or nadal and manage to turn is into an era discussion. The guys so insecure about Petes (now waning but still legendary) achievements on court that he has to ruin our appreciation for another tennis legend?

Macbrother
02-10-2010, 02:11 AM
And if the field is injured or doesn't make it far enough to get to a final it doesn't mean a player's accomplishments should be demeaned because of something that is out of his control; same concept applies to the shoulda, woulda, coulda fantasy land of people who cannot see what's in front of them

Well once you run out of objective facts you have to dig deeper in the barrel where all the "excuses" and "what ifs" are as to why their player didn't accomplish X and why the player they dislike did. Which is really a disservice to the player.

Action Jackson
02-10-2010, 02:26 AM
Fed turns wine into water.

Arkulari
02-10-2010, 02:32 AM
Well once you run out of objective facts you have to dig deeper in the barrel where all the "excuses" and "what ifs" are as to why their player didn't accomplish X and why the player they dislike did. Which is really a disservice to the player.

I think the same, I do believe that making excuses for a player is an insult, specially if the player is a great champion and doesn't need them :shrug:

MatchFederer
02-10-2010, 02:41 AM
Fed turns wine into water.

Federer can polish a turd.

abraxas21
02-10-2010, 02:48 AM
Fed turns wine into water.

but he only does it so he can walk -or rather slide- on it.

word on the street is that this conversion works great for his preparation for the clay court season.

Commander Data
02-10-2010, 09:21 AM
Fed turns wine into water.

Exactly.

Some retards seem to argue along the lines of -> if Fed would lose more -> more Slams for his peers-> stronger era -> Feds resume more respectable.

Ergo: If Fed would play worse he would be considered (by them) a greater player.

-> :retard:

Apemant
02-10-2010, 09:57 AM
:lol: having seen Goran playing live at Wimbledon, I can say that even if he was a pretty good grass player of his time, he was no God, and his serve wasn't as good as Sampras was,

His 1st serve was better than Sampras' - just lest clutch, and had far worse follow-up than Sampras. Also Goran's 2nd serve wasn't nearly as good (or as clutch) as Sampras'.

Karlovic is the only guy whose 1st serve is better than Goran's - or possibly Isner as well, but those two guys are giants, their height allows them to hit angles impossible for other people. Goran was 'only' 6'4'', but his ability to hit corner after corner was incredible. He still holds the record of most aces in a season, for example (1400 some). Even though the speed of his serve wasn't spectacular.

marcRD
02-12-2010, 02:34 PM
Just to analyse what is actually beeing said, how can they rank winning 16 of 27 slams as more difficult than 18 out of 19 slam finals?

16 out of 27 is highly possible if a genius like Federer comes around and dominates the tour but 18 of 19 finals is almost impossible to beat. It cant have been a mathematician who made that list and those odds.

18 out of 19 slam finals and 23 slam semifinals is by far the most difficult record to beat, because you cant afford to even have a minor slump or else you wont beat it.

So my list would be:

1. 18 out of 19 slam finals. I can bet my house on this record not beeing beaten during my lifetime. 1% of this beeing beaten in my lifetime

2. 23 straight slam semifinals. Same as above. 1%

3.Win 24 straight finals. Very, very difficult to beat. I give it 2% of beeing beaten in my lifetime.

4. Winning five consecutive titles at two different Grand Slam tournaments. Very difficult record to break, I still think it can be beaten during my lifetime (it has almost been done by Borg), 10%.

5.3 superdominant years like Federer 2004-2006. This is not even a record, but 247-15 in 3 years is pretty sick, you have to play week in and out your best tennis ans have the will to never lose against anyone anywhere for 3 years. I give it another 10% chanse I will see this before I die.

6.Reaching all 4 finals 3 different seasons. Difficult record but you get a new chanse every season, you can afford to have a bad year. Laver could have done it and Borg could have done it if circumstances had been right, I give 20% chanse of happening.

7.16 out of 27 slams. A superdominating allround player without a clay monster stopping him on his weakest surface could get this done. 25% I will see this before I die.

8.237 straight weeks as nr1. 30% I will see this one before I die, without a rival like Nadal a superdominant force could even get to slumps like Federer 2008 and still end nr1 (see Sampras 98).

9.Sixty-five consecutive grass-court match wins. This one is not so difficult, grass is easy to dominate and few know how to play on grass. Borg, Sampras and Laver could have gone on similar streaks and I expect to see some great player challenge this one in the future. I would say the odds are 40%.

10.Winning one Grand Slam title a year for eight consecutive years. Has happened before, will happen again. 65% I will see this again from another champion.