The greatness of Federer's 23 straight GS SFs is overrated. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The greatness of Federer's 23 straight GS SFs is overrated.

daniell
08-21-2010, 03:31 AM
I have seen many people (including "experts") saying that Roger's 23 straight GS SF is one of the greatest records of this game. Some even say that this is the greatest one. Their major argument is that it is nearly impossible for a pro to keep being competitive as well as being consistent in the most important events of such a demanding game for nearly six years.

I have to admit that this record is one of the most difficult record, if not the most difficult one, but difficulty just doesn't automatically translate into greatness. This record looks great because Roger won most of his SFs (20/23) and Fs (14/20). The greatness of the SF record would significantly diminish without Roger's continuous success in the SFs and Fs. Imagine if Roger lost most of his SFs or Fs, would the SF record still be as great as what people are considering it now?

The objective of this game is to win championships, but not entering SFs. As Roger's fan, if you could trade the SF record (that means more earlier exits in slams from 2004 W to 2010 AO) for ONLY one more slam during this span (now 14, make it to 15), would you accept the deal? I am Roger's fan and I would say yes without hesitation. Do you think Roger would accept this deal?

LleytonMonfils
08-21-2010, 03:34 AM
NO! The SF streak is rather epic no matter how you slice it.

Arkulari
08-21-2010, 03:35 AM
it shows his consistency at the top of the game, of course at the end of the day Slams are what matters but see Sampras for example, what was his best streak? 5?

Ozone
08-21-2010, 03:36 AM
One of the most underrated things in sports history tbh. That sounds like it's Federertardish stuff but just think about it

About the millionth thread about this and yet another troll thread............................................ ...............

Ozone
08-21-2010, 03:38 AM
I have seen many people (including "experts") saying that Roger's 23 straight GS SF is one of the greatest records of this game. Some even say that this is the greatest one. Their major argument is that it is nearly impossible for a pro to keep being competitive as well as being consistent in the most important events of such a demanding game for nearly six years.

I have to admit that this record is one of the most difficult record, if not the most difficult one, but difficulty just doesn't automatically translate into greatness. This record looks great because Roger won most of his SFs (20/23) and Fs (14/20). The greatness of the SF record would significantly diminish without Roger's continuous success in the SFs and Fs. Imagine if Roger lost most of his SFs or Fs, would the SF record still be as great as what people are considering it now?

The objective of this game is to win championships, but not entering SFs. As Roger's fan, if you could trade the SF record (that means more earlier exits in slams from 2004 W to 2010 AO) for ONLY one more slam during this span (now 14, make it to 15), would you accept the deal? I am Roger's fan and I would say yes without hesitation. Do you think Roger would accept this deal?
:shrug: What are you trying to say?

straitup
08-21-2010, 03:38 AM
It's a very epic record but I think the OP's point about it being more epic because he's backed it up is valid. Kinda like Lendl's USO streak, certainly great but only managing to win 3 o f the 8 consecutive finals does put a damper on it.

Certainly a trademark to his consistency of the highest order and I don't think it's overrated because it's so damn good...but he did make some good points so kudos

Sri
08-21-2010, 03:41 AM
The objective of this game is to win championships, but not entering SFs.
Ha ha .. Fail .. He HAS won the most number of slams as well! :lol:

Ten_Isse_Fan
08-21-2010, 03:41 AM
I have to admit that this record is one of the most difficult record, if not the most difficult one, but difficulty just doesn't automatically translate into greatness. This record looks great because Roger won most of his SFs (20/23) and Fs (14/20). The greatness of the SF record would significantly diminish without Roger's continuous success in the SFs and Fs. Imagine if Roger lost most of his SFs or Fs, would the SF record still be as great as what people are considering it now?

What's the point that you're trying to make ? The greatness of the record would diminish if he had lost most of those SF's ? Let's say it would. Did he lose most of those SF's ? No he did not. Therefore, the greatness of the record is not diminished.

I mean, what kind of twisted reasoning is this ? "The greatness would diminish if the accomplishments weren't as great"... BIG F*CKING DUH !

Mechlan
08-21-2010, 03:43 AM
Agreed that it means so much because of the success he's also had, but it's not an overrated statistic.

Ozone
08-21-2010, 03:43 AM
You have to make semis to win championships. He's only lost like 2 semis during the streak

calvinhobbes
08-21-2010, 03:56 AM
Why exchange the one for the other if you´ll get BOTH anyway:confused::confused::confused:?

2003
08-21-2010, 03:59 AM
Its a stupid question.

If he didn't make that number of consecutive semis, he wouldnt have the number of slams he had, so he cant trade, you cant have one without the other.

Start da Game
08-21-2010, 04:07 AM
it shows his consistency at the top of the game, of course at the end of the day Slams are what matters but see Sampras for example, what was his best streak? 5?

bullshit of the highest order.......don't take sampras' name ever again ffs.......he played in a generation where almost every surface was different from others, players used to play with varying styles as most of them were surface specialists.......that contributes to more variety and difficulty opposition wise and much more unpredictability overall.......

with the homogenization of surfaces and dying variety, no one benefited more than federer.......no one.......it's not even close........when did you start watching tennis? 2005?

BlueSwan
08-21-2010, 04:08 AM
I think the OP has a valid point. To me the record of reaching 17 out of 18 GS finals in a row is a FAR greater record than the SF streak.

daniell
08-21-2010, 04:10 AM
Ha ha .. Fail .. He HAS won the most number of slams as well! :lol:

What's the point that you're trying to make ? The greatness of the record would diminish if he had lost most of those SF's ? Let's say it would. Did he lose most of those SF's ? No he did not. Therefore, the greatness of the record is not diminished.

I mean, what kind of twisted reasoning is this ? "The greatness would diminish if the accomplishments weren't as great"... BIG F*CKING DUH !

You may argue that his SF record PLUS his results in those SFs and Fs, as a single achievement, is great. But I am referring to the greatness of the SF record ALONE. Ignore his results in those SFs and Fs, does the SF record ALONE still look as great as what it looks with the consideration of Roger's results in those SFs and Fs.

daniell
08-21-2010, 04:19 AM
You have to make semis to win championships. He's only lost like 2 semis during the streak

What's the point to take Roger's SF results into account when we are talking about the greatness of the SF record ALONE.

SF is the 6th match of a slam for a semi-finalist. The SF record is referring to winning at least five matches in 23 straight slams, which is what I am talking about. What Roger has done in those SFs and Fs should be separated from the SF record ALONE.

daniell
08-21-2010, 04:25 AM
Why exchange the one for the other if you´ll get BOTH anyway:confused::confused::confused:?

Roger won 14 slams in that span, and it is a fact that he would never win one more in that span. What I am asking is that, do you think it is worthwhile to give up the SF record (or shorten it by a large margin) to get 15 slams (or more) in that span?

daniell
08-21-2010, 04:45 AM
I think the OP has a valid point. To me the record of reaching 17 out of 18 GS finals in a row is a FAR greater record than the SF streak.

Slams Records: Total
16 Championships
22 Finals
25 Semi-finals

Slams Records: Consecutive
3 championships (two times)
10 Finals
23 Semi-finals

Slams Records: "X out of Y"
16 championships out of 27 slams / 15 championships out 0f 25 slams / 14 championships out of 23 slams...
22 finals out of 27 slams / 21 finals out of 25 slams / 20 finals out of 23 slams...
25 semi-finals out of 27 slams / 24 semi-finals out of 25 slams...

So you can make many slams records of which the format is "X out of Y" as shown above. Isn't that too arbitrary? On the other hand, the definitions of "total" and "consecutive" are far more concrete than that of "X out of Y".

I admit that reaching 18 out of 19 finals in a row may be more difficult to achieve than reaching 23 semi-finals. But as I said in the OP, difficulty is not identical to greatness. IMO, 23 straight SFs is still greater than any "X out of Y" records that Roger has.

Mechlan
08-21-2010, 05:30 AM
I admit that reaching 18 out of 19 finals in a row may be more difficult to achieve than reaching 23 semi-finals. But as I said in the OP, difficulty is not identical to greatness. IMO, 23 straight SFs is still greater than any "X out of Y" records that Roger has.

Why? :confused:

This seems really arbitrary. I would take 18/19 in a heartbeat, just like I would take an additional slam over the consecutive semi record.

marco518
08-21-2010, 05:42 AM
You may argue that his SF record PLUS his results in those SFs and Fs, as a single achievement, is great. But I am referring to the greatness of the SF record ALONE. Ignore his results in those SFs and Fs, does the SF record ALONE still look as great as what it looks with the consideration of Roger's results in those SFs and Fs.

Sounds interesting to me. I never doubt the greatness of reaching 23 consecutive Grand Slam SFs. But if this is great, how about reaching consecutive Grand Slam QFs? Does it also reflect some sort of consistency? Then if this is great as well, how about consecutive Grand Slam 4Rs, 3Rs or so on?

I think you could never look at the record alone. Federer's record is wonderful because he did make 23 successive Grand Slam SFs and winning most SFs to reach Fs and winning most Fs to win 15 slam titles. Imagine another player (say maybe Nadal) one day holds 15 slam titles as well. I still consider Federer greater in terms of Grand Slam success. The reason is simply his streak of 23 Grand Slam SFs, showing Federer is not only consistant but also dominant for a long period of time. That is for nearly 6 years!

It is difficult to say but at least if Federer is 0-23 in his consecutive SFs this won't be great at all, because at the end of the day, the slam titles are the most important glories. Still reaching 23 consecutive Grand Slam SFs is awesome by any means.

daniell
08-21-2010, 06:07 AM
Sounds interesting to me. I never doubt the greatness of reaching 23 consecutive Grand Slam SFs. But if this is great, how about reaching consecutive Grand Slam QFs? Does it also reflect some sort of consistency? Then if this is great as well, how about consecutive Grand Slam 4Rs, 3Rs or so on?

I think you could never look at the record alone. Federer's record is wonderful because he did make 23 successive Grand Slam SFs and winning most SFs to reach Fs and winning most Fs to win 15 slam titles. Imagine another player (say maybe Nadal) one day holds 15 slam titles as well. I still consider Federer greater in terms of Grand Slam success. The reason is simply his streak of 23 Grand Slam SFs, showing Federer is not only consistant but also dominant for a long period of time. That is for nearly 6 years!

It is difficult to say but at least if Federer is 0-23 in his consecutive SFs this won't be great at all, because at the end of the day, the slam titles are the most important glories. Still reaching 23 consecutive Grand Slam SFs is awesome by any means.

That's my point. That's why I can't really understand why so many people put so much weight on the SF record and overlook the consecutive W/F/QF records? Can anyone please explain to me why 23 straight SFs is greater than 3 straight Ws, 10 straight Fs and 25 (and ongoing) QFs? I really want to know.

marco518
08-21-2010, 06:36 AM
That's my point. That's why I can't really understand why so many people put so much weight on the SF record and overlook the consecutive W/F/QF records? Can anyone please explain to me why 23 straight SFs is greater than 3 straight Ws, 10 straight Fs and 25 (and ongoing) QFs? I really want to know.

Maybe it is because of the time.

If a player reaches 3 straight Grand Slam SFs, that means he is peaking at 3 straight GS, involving at least 2 different kinds of court surfaces and 15 matches won (5X3 if all matches are played) for nearly a year.

If a player reaches 10 straight Grand Slam SFs, that means he is peaking at 10 straight GS, involving necessarily 3 (or 4 for AO and USO) different kinds of court surfaces and at least 50 matches won for 2.5 years.

If a player reaches 23 straight Grand Slam SFs, that means he is peaking at 23 straight GS, involving 3 different kinds of court surfaces and at least 115 matches won for nearly 6 years.

If it is about Grand Slam SFs, things are simple. It is a little bit complicated if you compare 3 straight Ws vs 23 straight SFs just because those are Wins. But still, 'only' needs 21 wins in nearly a year comparing to 115 wins lasting nearly 6 years, meaning a player must keep his top form and health in order to do consistantly well on different surfaces on the big stages.

So that's why you could never merely look at the SF stage. It could be a disadvantage if a player managed to reach 23 consecutive Grand Slam SFs but winning none. On the other hand, it could be a big plus if a player managed to win most of those SFs (and of course better if he can win as many titles as he can). Therefore, it is not appropriate to only consider such achievement alone without looking at the content inside.

I will not try to separate Federer's 23 straight Grand Slam SFs from his many other great Grand Slam achievements because they are supporting one another. He might never win those 15 slam titles if not making those 23 SFs.

And, more importantly, Federer did become the only player so far to reach 23 straight SFs, the second place is not even close. That means he is the only one so far to avoid big injuries and maintain his top form to reach so deep in a grand slam event for 23 consecutive times. This is totally different from 'only' peaking at 10 slam events or 3, even you win all of them.

Maybe Federer could maintain his QF streak forever until he retires, or maybe the streak would be well snapped soon (although I never hope that to happen:P). Anyway I admire Federer because he is the most successful player of grand slams not only in terms of quantity but also quality.

Blackbriar
08-21-2010, 07:28 AM
hey Fed straight GS QF record is still going on! :)

born_on_clay
08-21-2010, 07:48 AM
NO! The SF streak is rather epic no matter how you slice it.

this :)

Jaz
08-21-2010, 07:48 AM
this is the worst MTF thread ever....

leng jai
08-21-2010, 07:58 AM
Utterly pointless thread.

Nolby
08-21-2010, 08:07 AM
I am NOT Federer's fan and I would say "I don't give dam**n" and Rogie would say "what a stupid question."

heya
08-21-2010, 08:47 AM
Roddick was insane since 2003.
Djoke and Murray can't play 5 setters.
Del Potro can't stop injuring his arm.
No one else can play without choking & losing their footspeed.
Nadal can't serve on hardcourts.
That's why the 'record' is a FAIL.

The Magician
08-21-2010, 08:54 AM
Awful thread, but I'll address it anyway because I'm a masochist :o The record is amazing, but more than that it is the symbol of Roger's career. The slam consistency, the fluid movement which kept him from being seriously injured his entire career, the mental toughness which kept this record going 2 years longer than it should have, the utter domination of his peers (even Nadal who only managed a few slam SF), the SF record is probably the most insane record because everyone got so used to Fed getting to the end of a GS that no matter who was in his draw, what surface, what was going on in his life, etc you could take his winning 5 matches for granted and you would be right.

Serenidad
08-21-2010, 09:45 AM
It's not even that good in era when Ljubicic and Roddick were #3 less than 5 years ago. If he could go this in the last 80s and early 90s maybe.

Of course he could reach so many straight. Even when the streak would be broken there was always someone to choke to him like Andreev, Berdych, Tipsarevic, Davydenko, Haas, etc.

:zzz:

sabina_RF_lee
08-21-2010, 09:45 AM
Dont be jealous to his records. Stupid thread, as we all know its one of the greatest records. So shudup. Roger is The GOAT who achieved so much, he deserves all respect

Matt01
08-21-2010, 09:50 AM
hey Fed straight GS QF record is still going on! :)


It won't be long until people will talk about his straight GS 3R record :devil:

Serenidad
08-21-2010, 09:53 AM
It won't be long until people will talk about his straight GS 3R record :devil:

No. Consecutive grand slams played like Santoro.

heya
08-21-2010, 10:11 AM
It's not even that good in era when Ljubicic and Roddick were #3 less than 5 years ago. If he could go this in the last 80s and early 90s maybe.

Of course he could reach so many straight. Even when the streak would be broken there was always someone to choke to him like Andreev, Berdych, Tipsarevic, Davydenko, Haas, etc.

:zzz:Roddick was busy looking for a teen star to wed & cry about tennis with. He still had the chance to win Australian Open, Wimbledon & US Open. He shut his loudmouth & swallowed his tongue in front of Federer, Agassi, Nadal, etc...
He couldn't succeed because he followed the command of idiots like John & Pat McEnroe --worship Federer & worry about something besides tennis. He hid in the locker room after realizing he could win the 2005 Australian Open.
In the end, Roddick won't have the wife & will be the biggest joke that he always loved to be.

Roamed
08-21-2010, 10:34 AM
You may argue that his SF record PLUS his results in those SFs and Fs, as a single achievement, is great. But I am referring to the greatness of the SF record ALONE. Ignore his results in those SFs and Fs, does the SF record ALONE still look as great as what it looks with the consideration of Roger's results in those SFs and Fs.

I see what you're trying to say, but no one is ever going to reach 23 semis in a row and not win a few. Ignoring the Fs and Ws, no one else has ever come close to 23 semis in a row either, that consistency is great.

lazybear
08-21-2010, 11:34 AM
do you think it is worthwhile to give up the SF record (or shorten it by a large margin) to get 15 slams (or more) in that span?

Nope. The man has 16 slams... 16, with the Roland Garros. 17 without that great record, or 16 with that great record? I'd say the latter, not to mention, he has a good chance to add a couple more.

dombrfc
08-21-2010, 11:39 AM
Incredible record. 18/19 finals is also as impressive.
The GOAT.

MacTheKnife
08-21-2010, 11:43 AM
It's so simple a caveman can do it.. :lol: You can analyze how he did all day, but it doesn't change the fact that the next player has a streak of 10. SO it's not close and that's what gives it so much attention. Call it what you want, who out there do you see that can break it ??

Is there some luck involved, of course what record doesn't.. Just staying healthy that long is pretty amazing really..

dombrfc
08-21-2010, 11:51 AM
886 matches started...886 matches completed. Now that is an impressive stat.

Shirogane
08-21-2010, 11:52 AM
bullshit of the highest order.......don't take sampras' name ever again ffs.......he played in a generation where almost every surface was different from others, players used to play with varying styles as most of them were surface specialists.......that contributes to more variety and difficulty opposition wise and much more unpredictability overall.......

with the homogenization of surfaces and dying variety, no one benefited more than federer.......no one.......it's not even close........when did you start watching tennis? 2005?

Nadal too.

As for the thread question, it's a great record, not going to be broken, let's leave it at that.


Edit
886 matches started...886 matches completed. Now that is an impressive stat.

Yes, that's actually what I like best about him.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-21-2010, 06:43 PM
this thread is hard to agree with

the second best streak is 10, by lendl- an all court specialist

no one else came close

i suppose if you count pro slams then............

laver has 15 (umm technically 15 finals in a row lol)

rosewall has 36 SEMI FINALS in a row from wimbledon 1954 untill french open 1968 (surely the greatest record of all time)

timafi
08-21-2010, 06:46 PM
James Blake for example would give his 2 nuts to make that many semifinals at slams since he hasn't even made 1:tape:

HKz
08-21-2010, 06:48 PM
But the fact is, he did make all those finals and won most of those finals, so I don't see the point of this thread at all.

Now if this was someone else with a huge SF streak that didn't make finals/win titles, then that is a different story. But even then, that player would be known as an extremely consistent slam player. I mean the fact that we see players like Federer/Nadal make the second week so easily, usually getting into the title match, has made many fans think as though it is very normal for a pro to reach the QF/SF/F at a slam. Reaching the SF isn't something "everyday."

green25814
08-21-2010, 07:08 PM
When you take into account the number of good players who have never even made ONE Grandslam semi, you'll see why its so impressive.

Sophocles
08-21-2010, 07:54 PM
rosewall has 36 SEMI FINALS in a row from wimbledon 1954 untill french open 1968 (surely the greatest record of all time)

I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me. Rosewall played consistently top-level tennis for longer than anybody else, ever. Even Gonzales had blips.

Ozone
08-21-2010, 07:57 PM
What's the point to take Roger's SF results into account when we are talking about the greatness of the SF record ALONE.

SF is the 6th match of a slam for a semi-finalist. The SF record is referring to winning at least five matches in 23 straight slams, which is what I am talking about. What Roger has done in those SFs and Fs should be separated from the SF record ALONE.
Ok, I'll look at it ALONE. Roger holds this record with 23 straight semis made ALONE, and he is ALONE in the lead and the next closest person to do so is Lendl who is alone with 10 straight.

sco
08-21-2010, 08:56 PM
bullshit of the highest order.......don't take sampras' name ever again ffs.......he played in a generation where almost every surface was different from others, players used to play with varying styles as most of them were surface specialists.......that contributes to more variety and difficulty opposition wise and much more unpredictability overall.......

with the homogenization of surfaces and dying variety, no one benefited more than federer.......no one.......it's not even close........when did you start watching tennis? 2005?
Would you please explain why you think Federer benefitted more than any other player with the homogenization of surfaces? IMO, Federer benefitted the least of the top players since he has the most variety to his game, can play more different ways (plans A,B,C) and would be able to adjust better to more varying surfaces.

IMO, Nadal would have had a harder time winning 2 Wimbledons on the faster grass.

HKz
08-21-2010, 11:36 PM
bullshit of the highest order.......don't take sampras' name ever again ffs.......he played in a generation where almost every surface was different from others, players used to play with varying styles as most of them were surface specialists.......that contributes to more variety and difficulty opposition wise and much more unpredictability overall.......

with the homogenization of surfaces and dying variety, no one benefited more than federer.......no one.......it's not even close........when did you start watching tennis? 2005?

I don't know why you even continue posting Start da fail. You do realize that every single time you try to talk trash about Federer and how his records mean nothing, you actually are downgrading Nadal's achievements as well because he is clearly playing at these same tournaments at the same time in the same decade.

The fail is strong in you.

Magus13
08-22-2010, 01:28 AM
bullshit of the highest order.......don't take sampras' name ever again ffs.......he played in a generation where almost every surface was different from others, players used to play with varying styles as most of them were surface specialists.......that contributes to more variety and difficulty opposition wise and much more unpredictability overall.......

with the homogenization of surfaces and dying variety, no one benefited more than federer.......no one.......it's not even close........when did you start watching tennis? 2005?

You must be an idiot. No player has been hurt by slower grass and hardcourts than Federer. I've watched Sampras's generation and the one before that. Sampras would have gotten crushed if the courts were this speed when he played. Please don't talk shit if you don't know what your saying.

Sophocles
08-22-2010, 01:30 AM
I don't know why you even continue posting Start da fail. You do realize that every single time you try to talk trash about Federer and how his records mean nothing, you actually are downgrading Nadal's achievements as well because he is clearly playing at these same tournaments at the same time in the same decade.

The fail is strong in you.

All true, but you're missing the point: he's a Rafatard only because he's a bitter Pete-o-phile.

DrJules
08-22-2010, 06:28 AM
All true, but you're missing the point: he's a Rafatard only because he's a bitter Pete-o-phile.

:lol::lol::lol:

Macbrother
08-22-2010, 06:37 AM
All true, but you're missing the point: he's a Rafatard only because he's a bitter Pete-o-phile.

Actually I think it's even more pathetic: he just hates Federer. So therefore hyping any potential challenger, be it Pete, Nadal, Laver, etc will serve his purpose.

The Magician
08-22-2010, 07:15 AM
All true, but you're missing the point: he's a Rafatard only because he's a bitter Pete-o-phile.

That may be the best nickname for a tard yet :worship::lol:

daniell
08-22-2010, 08:01 AM
Why? :confused:

This seems really arbitrary. I would take 18/19 in a heartbeat, just like I would take an additional slam over the consecutive semi record.

Difficulty is not identical to greatness. At least some people say that winning WTF is more difficult than winning a slam, but how many people will say winning WTF is a greater achievement than winning a slam?

daniell
08-22-2010, 08:18 AM
Maybe it is because of the time.

If a player reaches 3 straight Grand Slam SFs, that means he is peaking at 3 straight GS, involving at least 2 different kinds of court surfaces and 15 matches won (5X3 if all matches are played) for nearly a year.

If a player reaches 10 straight Grand Slam SFs, that means he is peaking at 10 straight GS, involving necessarily 3 (or 4 for AO and USO) different kinds of court surfaces and at least 50 matches won for 2.5 years.

If a player reaches 23 straight Grand Slam SFs, that means he is peaking at 23 straight GS, involving 3 different kinds of court surfaces and at least 115 matches won for nearly 6 years.

If it is about Grand Slam SFs, things are simple. It is a little bit complicated if you compare 3 straight Ws vs 23 straight SFs just because those are Wins. But still, 'only' needs 21 wins in nearly a year comparing to 115 wins lasting nearly 6 years, meaning a player must keep his top form and health in order to do consistantly well on different surfaces on the big stages.

So that's why you could never merely look at the SF stage. It could be a disadvantage if a player managed to reach 23 consecutive Grand Slam SFs but winning none. On the other hand, it could be a big plus if a player managed to win most of those SFs (and of course better if he can win as many titles as he can). Therefore, it is not appropriate to only consider such achievement alone without looking at the content inside.

I will not try to separate Federer's 23 straight Grand Slam SFs from his many other great Grand Slam achievements because they are supporting one another. He might never win those 15 slam titles if not making those 23 SFs.

And, more importantly, Federer did become the only player so far to reach 23 straight SFs, the second place is not even close. That means he is the only one so far to avoid big injuries and maintain his top form to reach so deep in a grand slam event for 23 consecutive times. This is totally different from 'only' peaking at 10 slam events or 3, even you win all of them.

Maybe Federer could maintain his QF streak forever until he retires, or maybe the streak would be well snapped soon (although I never hope that to happen:P). Anyway I admire Federer because he is the most successful player of grand slams not only in terms of quantity but also quality.

3 straight Ws
3 1R
3 2R
3 3R
3 4R
3 QR
3 SF
3 F
Total: 27

10 straight Fs
10 1R
10 2R
10 3R
10 4R
10 QR
10 SF
Total: 60

23 straight Fs
23 1R
23 2R
23 3R
23 4R
23 QR
Total: 115

If you just compare the numbers of matches involved in the W/F/SF records, then you have to assume that the difficulty of winning each match in a grand slam is similar, but that is not true. It is much more difficult for a top player to win a F than a 1R.

So we can't just compare the numbers of matches involved in the straight W/F/SF records. Say, comparing the F/SF record, it is true that more matches are involved in the SF records, but the F record contains 10 SF wins which are not included in the SF record. On the other hand, the SF record contains 13x5 = 65 more 1R/2R/3R/4R/QR wins which are not included in the F record. It is hard to say which one, 10 more SF wins or 65 more 1R/2R/3R/4R/QR wins should weigh more, so it is just too simple to compare the total number of wins.

daniell
08-22-2010, 09:05 AM
It's so simple a caveman can do it.. :lol: You can analyze how he did all day, but it doesn't change the fact that the next player has a streak of 10. SO it's not close and that's what gives it so much attention. Call it what you want, who out there do you see that can break it ??

Is there some luck involved, of course what record doesn't.. Just staying healthy that long is pretty amazing really..

Ok, I'll look at it ALONE. Roger holds this record with 23 straight semis made ALONE, and he is ALONE in the lead and the next closest person to do so is Lendl who is alone with 10 straight.

If the greatness of a record is determined by the difference between the 1st place and the 2nd place, then 16 slams is not that great (2nd place: 14), 286 weeks at No.1 is also not that great (2nd place: 285), and 10 straight slam Fs (2.5 times of 2nd place: 4) should be greater than 23 straight SFs in slams (2.3 times of 2nd place: 10). Using your argument F record should draw more attention than the SF record.

daniell
08-22-2010, 09:14 AM
When you take into account the number of good players who have never even made ONE Grandslam semi, you'll see why its so impressive.

When you take into account the number of good players who have never even won ONE slam championship, you'll see why its so impressive.

When you take into account the number of good players who have never even made ONE slam final, you'll see why its so impressive.

You can continue with QF in slams, or defending a slam, or winning a WTF, or being ranked at No.1, or whatever you want, and the sentence will still make sense.

finn98
08-22-2010, 09:37 AM
When you take into account the number of good players who have never even won ONE slam championship, you'll see why its so impressive.

When you take into account the number of good players who have never even made ONE slam final, you'll see why its so impressive.

You can continue with QF in slams, or defending a slam, or winning a WTF, or being ranked at No.1, or whatever you want, and the sentence will still make sense.

Good post :clap2:

Speed of Light
08-22-2010, 10:19 AM
And the award for the most confused OP goes to......

leng jai
08-22-2010, 10:35 AM
This thread is going places.

MacTheKnife
08-22-2010, 11:11 AM
If the greatness of a record is determined by the difference between the 1st place and the 2nd place, then 16 slams is not that great (2nd place: 14), 286 weeks at No.1 is also not that great (2nd place: 285), and 10 straight slam Fs (2.5 times of 2nd place: 4) should be greater than 23 straight SFs in slams (2.3 times of 2nd place: 10). Using your argument F record should draw more attention than the SF record.

Please tell us your not actually this dumb. That's only one aspect. If you want to think 23 semi's in a row is not impressive, be my guest. You just look like a fool.

lazybear
08-22-2010, 11:57 AM
All true, but you're missing the point: he's a Rafatard only because he's a bitter Pete-o-phile.

http://i31.tinypic.com/mwxy03.jpg

http://users.telenet.be/dz4/yess.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llyKfoPhcDM

daniell
08-22-2010, 12:01 PM
Please tell us your not actually this dumb. That's only one aspect. If you want to think 23 semi's in a row is not impressive, be my guest. You just look like a fool.

Strawman.

When did I say it is not impressive? I am Roger's fan. Of course reaching 23 straight SF in slams is very impressive and is a very difficult task to repeat for any pro. Honestly I think the SF record is great, but just not as great as how people are considering it to be. Difficulty and greatness are two relevant but different things.

And are you answering my question? You said the SF record is great because the next player only has 10. I told you the difference between the 1st place and 2nd place in the F record is greater than that in the SF record, and then you replied that the SF record is great because of some other aspects? Can you see your double standard?

MacTheKnife
08-22-2010, 12:07 PM
Strawman.

When did I say it is not impressive? I am Roger's fan. Of course reaching 23 straight SF in slams is very impressive and is a very difficult task to repeat for any pro. Honestly I think the SF record is great, but just not as great as how people are considering it to be. Difficulty and greatness are two relevant but different things.

And are you answering my question? You said the SF record is great because the next player only has 10. I told you the difference between the 1st place and 2nd place in the F record is greater than that in the SF record, and then you replied that the SF record is great because of some other aspects? Can you see your double standard?

No. It is just not as complicated as you are trying to make it for some reason. If you think it is an impressive record that will most likely never be broken then we are in agreement. I have no double standard here. This subject is just so blatantly obvious it's not worth typing a lot of rationale to support.

If you want to keep debating the obvious, then carry on..

Snowwy
08-22-2010, 02:37 PM
Ha ha .. Fail .. He HAS won the most number of slams as well! :lol:

That is different though than SFs, one does not have to do with the other necessarily.

I see his point, I'm not sure I agree, but it is an interesting view.

Magick
08-22-2010, 03:41 PM
must be a great for such an achievement to be considered overated

solowyn
08-22-2010, 03:45 PM
must be a great for such an achievement to be considered overated
:lol: I know, right? If reaching 23 consecutive slam SFs isn't an impressive statistic, then I don't know what is.

Sophocles
08-22-2010, 03:47 PM
Actually I think it's even more pathetic: he just hates Federer. So therefore hyping any potential challenger, be it Pete, Nadal, Laver, etc will serve his purpose.

You may be right.

Start da Game
08-22-2010, 05:17 PM
You may be right.

what else do you do in your life apart from targeting nadal fans on message boards? try shoe polishing which earns you 100 times more respect than this stuff.......i come here mostly during the weekends and i see you getting ripped by me every time.......

i am a fan of fighters, real fighters.......sampras was one such fighter and so is nadal.......your god can only cry when he has to fight and that is something which i hate to see in men.......

Vida
08-22-2010, 05:55 PM
fed would take it had it needed him for the slam count record.

heya
08-22-2010, 07:21 PM
Federer had 2 walkovers and choking journeymen Davydenko, Berdych, Baghdatis, Tipsarevic, Andreev, Kiefer, Robredo, & even Santoro.
On clay, Ramirez-Hidalgo had matchpoint & 2 breaks and threw away his match in Hamburg.
You have an idiot who catches Mono to follow in the footsteps of Federer his hero.
Roddick tanks his match against Fish, who folded against Federer.
Then, these clowns and Federer call this a strong era of tennis. Even Serena can't play this bad against the men.

paseo
08-22-2010, 07:33 PM
your god can only cry when he has to fight and that is something which i hate to see in men.......

Fed didn't start crying until after he lost. He can't fight anymore when the match was already over. But, it would be quite funny if Fed was to wrestle Nadal for the trophy in the ceremony. That would be a good fight indeed.

I would agree with you though, if Fed started crying in the middle of the 5th set when his serve got broken.

heya
08-22-2010, 07:48 PM
federer's mouth-contortion melodramatic scream after a simple shot foreshadowed the crying spell.

Sophocles
08-22-2010, 07:52 PM
what else do you do in your life apart from targeting nadal fans on message boards? try shoe polishing which earns you 100 times more respect than this stuff.......i come here mostly during the weekends and i see you getting ripped by me every time.......

i am a fan of fighters, real fighters.......sampras was one such fighter and so is nadal.......your god can only cry when he has to fight and that is something which i hate to see in men.......

Nurse!

Orka_n
08-22-2010, 09:06 PM
Nurse!:haha:
Seriously, I think this might be the smartest way to respond to SdG.

Regarding this thread: Go home, troll.

Sophocles
08-22-2010, 10:21 PM
:haha:
Seriously, I think this might be the smartest way to respond to SdG.

Regarding this thread: Go home, troll.

Seconded on both counts.

spencercarlos
08-22-2010, 11:20 PM
I have seen many people (including "experts") saying that Roger's 23 straight GS SF is one of the greatest records of this game. Some even say that this is the greatest one. Their major argument is that it is nearly impossible for a pro to keep being competitive as well as being consistent in the most important events of such a demanding game for nearly six years.

I have to admit that this record is one of the most difficult record, if not the most difficult one, but difficulty just doesn't automatically translate into greatness. This record looks great because Roger won most of his SFs (20/23) and Fs (14/20). The greatness of the SF record would significantly diminish without Roger's continuous success in the SFs and Fs. Imagine if Roger lost most of his SFs or Fs, would the SF record still be as great as what people are considering it now?

The objective of this game is to win championships, but not entering SFs. As Roger's fan, if you could trade the SF record (that means more earlier exits in slams from 2004 W to 2010 AO) for ONLY one more slam during this span (now 14, make it to 15), would you accept the deal? I am Roger's fan and I would say yes without hesitation. Do you think Roger would accept this deal?
:rolleyes: What does it have to do with winning the championships,it is a Grand Slam Semifinal record, overrated my ass, the previous record streak was 10-13? Not only that was broken but also doubled. It´s also a record that takes at least 6 years to complete.

Federer could have lost all of this SF matches at slams and that still would be a great record, probably impossible to break.

Now back to reality, this only add up to his inmense legacy.

Also the longest match record is an amazing record, the one that Isner and Mahut owns, they did not win Wimbledon because of that, but is an amazing feat.

heya
08-23-2010, 08:34 AM
He had walkovers at Wimbledon & US Open.
Other times, his usual clownish doormats lost 1-6 and 2-6 sets to him.
What're you so excited about?
What are you passionately tripping on?
Tennis wasn't invented between 2003 and 2010.

Echoes
08-23-2010, 11:15 AM
:rolleyes: What does it have to do with winning the championships,it is a Grand Slam Semifinal record, overrated my ass, the previous record streak was 10-13?


Has it ever occurred to anybody that the true and absolute Grand Slam SF record is still held by Jimmy Connors, with 31 !! Federer is at 25, I think. In itself that's huge but still way behind Connors.


The rest is all statistical arrangement made out of fanboyism.






Also the longest match record is an amazing record, the one that Isner and Mahut owns, they did not win Wimbledon because of that, but is an amazing feat.

That much is clear. :worship:

barbadosan
08-23-2010, 12:36 PM
Has it ever occurred to anybody that the true and absolute Grand Slam SF record is still held by Jimmy Connors, with 31 !! Federer is at 25, I think. In itself that's huge but still way behind Connors.


The rest is all statistical arrangement made out of fanboyism.



So you're saying that reports of Lendl's previous holding of the record at 10 was due to fanboyism of Lendl?

gbmkc
08-26-2010, 02:32 AM
Would he rather have one more slam and have been knocked out of 23 majors before the semifinals? From a monetary view, probably not. From a points view, as it pertains to his ranking, probably not. Is the SF record more important to him than a record 17 slams? NO! he'd rather have the slam.

HKz
08-26-2010, 02:42 AM
what else do you do in your life apart from targeting nadal fans on message boards? try shoe polishing which earns you 100 times more respect than this stuff.......i come here mostly during the weekends and i see you getting ripped by me every time.......

i am a fan of fighters, real fighters.......sampras was one such fighter and so is nadal.......your god can only cry when he has to fight and that is something which i hate to see in men.......

He is a real fighter yet you and other Rafatards claimed he doesn't care about Toronto/Cincinnati..? I thought a real fighter would care about every single match. This stupidity which spews out of your is why you are banned, at least temporarily, and I'm glad.

Johnny Groove
08-26-2010, 02:45 AM
On the contrary.

It is his greatest record.

BigJohn
08-26-2010, 03:20 AM
Has it ever occurred to anybody that the true and absolute Grand Slam SF record is still held by Jimmy Connors, with 31 !! Federer is at 25, I think. In itself that's huge but still way behind Connors.




Really? Unless Wiki is wrong, Connors missed at least 1 Slam every year he played. The most consecutive semis he has is 3.

HKz
08-26-2010, 05:45 AM
Really? Unless Wiki is wrong, Connors missed at least 1 Slam every year he played. The most consecutive semis he has is 3.

I don't think Echoes means 31 consecutive. IIRC Connors does have 31 semis or better results at the slams.. But regardless, clearly Federer's record is impressive..

blank_frackis
08-26-2010, 10:54 AM
His record in slams over that period is a huge achievement, it's just a debate over how you label it.

In a way just talking about the semi-final streak understates it a little, because he actually made 18 out of 19 slam finals at one point, with the only blemish being a semi-final. Maybe there is a point in saying that if you call that a "semi-final streak" you aren't doing full justice to what he actually achieved.

Bottom line is his record in slams from Wimbledon 2004 until AO 2010 is one of the great achievements in the sport.

green25814
08-26-2010, 01:37 PM
I actually think its his greatest acheivement.

sco
08-26-2010, 01:49 PM
I think it's his greatest achievement. It's consistent excellence - almost 6 years of not being sick, injured, fighting through off-days. The fact that it's more than double what the previous record was is amazing. If I were Federer - married with kids, all the money I could ever spend and a comfortable lead in GS titles, I wouldn't have the motivation to keep going.

BigJohn
08-26-2010, 09:49 PM
I don't think Echoes means 31 consecutive. IIRC Connors does have 31 semis or better results at the slams.. But regardless, clearly Federer's record is impressive..

Well then why bring this up in a consecutive SF streak?

With Federer playing until 2012, that Connors record is on shaky grounds.