Top 15 Greatest Tennis Records of All Time [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Top 15 Greatest Tennis Records of All Time

sprocketeer
11-16-2009, 07:45 AM
Hello all,

I recently published a list here:

http://thepulplist.com/2009/10/top-15-greatest-tennis-records/

And since I don't have a lot of friends who are tennis fans, I'd sure appreciate some feedback...

Cheers!

gjr
11-16-2009, 08:38 AM
When I read the title of the thread, my number 1 matched your number 1 but I didn't think it would be your number 1.

For me it really is the best record in existence.

MIMIC
11-16-2009, 09:53 AM
Nice list.

TheMightyFed
11-16-2009, 10:09 AM
22... and counting!
Nice read.
Remark: Chang beat Lendl in 4th rd not in semis, and there is no more tournament on carpet.

Sophocles
11-16-2009, 10:19 AM
Laver's 2 calendar slams. I think Laver, Rosewall, or Gonzales may have got close to the 22 consecutive semis if they'd been allowed to play the slams at their peaks. But on the other hand, it takes only one red-hot player in a 4th round somewhere.... It is an astounding record.

Jōris
11-16-2009, 10:35 AM
Good write-up, I enjoyed reading it.

n8
11-16-2009, 12:09 PM
Very nice work! The great thing about Federer's 21 (hear me out) straight semis was that it wasn't draw dependant; each time he lost it was against a top four seed. That changed at the US Open this year, del Potro was seeded 6th so Federer could have drawn him in the quarters and his semis record would have been stopped (I am aware the result may have been different had they played at this stage, but I'm just saying).

Anyways, it was a great read, thanks a lot.

Dini
11-16-2009, 01:42 PM
Amazing read. :yeah: I think the record of 15 Slams will be broken one day, and someone will eventually get another calendar slam. But like you said in the article, I don't think 22 semis in a row will be broken in our lifetimes. It's just mind baffling at times if you really think deep about that accomplishment.

mandeep
11-16-2009, 02:36 PM
I think the 10 Straight Finals of grand slams is great as well and no one is likely to win 2 different grand slams 5 years in a row.

Dini
11-16-2009, 02:39 PM
I think the 10 Straight Finals of grand slams is great as well and no one is likely to win 2 different grand slams 5 years in a row.

4 you mean.

jamesuk
11-16-2009, 03:07 PM
Doesnt anyone think that the number one on that list is overshadowed by Chris Evert´s similar record of reaching every Slam Semi from 71-83?

Of course, she didnt play in EVERY slam, it was jsut thaat in that 12 year span, she at least got to the semis in every slam did DID participate in.

Which is more impressive, the drawn out consistency of Evert or the 100%-yet-shorter-span consistency of Federer?

I think both are amazing!

Macbrother
11-16-2009, 03:12 PM
4 you mean.

Nope he means 5. :)

Dini
11-16-2009, 03:14 PM
Nope he means 5. :)

I thought he was talking about Fed seeing as he mentioned the 10 consecutive finals previously in the sentence. :p

Macbrother
11-16-2009, 03:19 PM
I thought he was talking about Fed seeing as he mentioned the 10 consecutive finals previously in the sentence. :p

He is, Federer won Wimbledon from '03-'07 and the USOpen from '04-'08, two different slam tournaments 5 years on the trot, also extremely unlikely to be matched.

Dini
11-16-2009, 03:32 PM
He is, Federer won Wimbledon from '03-'07 and the USOpen from '04-'08, two different slam tournaments 5 years on the trot, also extremely unlikely to be matched.

My bad. I thought he meant winning 2 different Grandslams (or more) each year for 5 years in a row.

BlueSwan
11-16-2009, 03:35 PM
I think Federers got one record which is FAR more impressive than his 22 consecutive GS semis and infact the most impressive record in mens tennis history. Problem is that the record is "awkward" - it's reaching 17 out of 18 GS finals consecutively. Playing 18 GS' in a row and making the finals 17 of those times is IMMENSE. There's a HUGE difference between making slam semis and making slam finals, so I'd take 17 out of 18 finals over 22 semis in a row every time.

fast_clay
11-16-2009, 03:44 PM
sweet list

bjurra
11-16-2009, 04:10 PM
Very nice list.

I would personally give higher significance to Rafas winning streak on clay.

SetSampras
11-16-2009, 04:23 PM
Pancho's 8 years of Number 1. Sampras' 7 Wimbeldons in 8 years.

jonas
11-16-2009, 04:43 PM
Nice list. Maybe you should seperate men and women, though. But this worked as well.
However, I liked that you put Borg's "double" so high, Alot of people tend to write that down.
Borgs 6 FO and 5 Wimby's combined is for me still one of the greatest achievments in the sport.
I mean, very few has won both FO and Wimby to begin with. And to do it that many times is hard to match.

scoobs
11-16-2009, 04:47 PM
Nice list.

Navratilova is formerly Czech though, not Yugoslav.

Sophocles
11-16-2009, 05:27 PM
Pancho's 8 years of Number 1. Sampras' 7 Wimbeldons in 8 years.

Good calls. Also Rosewall's record 20-something major tournaments (counting the big pro tournaments he played). Oh, & Laver's - what? - 169 tournament titles.

Dini
11-16-2009, 05:31 PM
Pancho's 8 years of Number 1. Sampras' 7 Wimbeldons in 8 years.

Could be equalled soon. :p

Echoes
11-16-2009, 05:38 PM
One can invent many things with statistics.

Echoes
11-16-2009, 05:48 PM
Laver's 2 calendar slams.

I think we agree that his first slam was irrelevant as the best players of the time were pro.


Pancho's 8 years of Number 1.

Yeah but it was a vote, I think.

Also Rosewall's record 20-something major tournaments (counting the big pro tournaments he played).

I'd say 18 if we count the Major pros but exclude the Amateur GS, which we have to do if we wish to be logical.

French Pro: 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966
Wembley Pro: 1957, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963
US Pro: 1963, 1965
Roland Garros: 1968
Aus Open: 1971 (1972 excluded)
US Open: 1970

We might add MSG 1966 or the WCT Finals but have to bear in mind Majors were not present-day GS.

SetSampras
11-16-2009, 05:56 PM
Not sure how how much merit Laver's 1st calendar slam has but he the one in 1969 was a big deal. Don Budge grabbed one as well. Fred Perry was the first to grab it. To me this is the most prestigous. There have been a few players who have grabbed it. To me thats the most difficult feat in tennis. Not to knock ROger but for as dominant as he was, failed to grab it. Sampras couldnt do it cause he couldnt grab a French. Borg didnt play the AO and couldnt win the USO. Mac couldnt do it and he arguably the most dominant season ever in history in 1984. . Connors or Lendl couldnt grab it. Its very very difficult.


I do ackowledge Fed's 4 million straight slam semis appearances tHat does deserve some honor but it still goes to show just how difficult it is to grab a calendar. . But the calendar slam is the highest IMO thats pure dominant consistency of WINNING.

SetSampras
11-16-2009, 06:15 PM
Could be equalled soon. :p

Maybe... But if you ask me Pete did on TRUE GRASS:) Not this slow Roland Gambelton sodded to the moon garbage Fed does his winning on. Grass isnt grass anymore. Due to the upkeep it shouldnt even be considered wimbeldon. Ever since 2002 its been nothing like true Wimbeldons hould have been. Lightning fast surface, low bouncing which takes your timing away. Not to mention many will argue but Pete did under a spectrum of more difficult grass competition than Fed has. Goran, Edberg, Agassi, attacking Rafter, Krajicek in 96 on fire, Becker etc. All attackers as well as the nasty baseliner in Agassi. Though there were While Fed has had Roddick and Nadal. Nadal the 2nd best grass court player of this era? The non attacking Nadal? 2006 Nadal who was in his 4th grass court tournament ever reaching the wimbeldon final? I'll admit Pete had some bums to play against too like Cedric Pioline.. But his competition dwarfs Federer's overrall IMO.

Im not sure if Fed would have been as dominant at wimbeldon with the heavy hitters Pete went up against and on the old grass and the distinct polarization of the surfaces to one extreme (slow RG clay) to another extreme (lightning fast grass). Roger would have had to some serious attacking himself and not live on the baseline to grab all those wimby titles. The conditions would warrant this as such

I think this is something that should be taken into account as well when discussing Records. Times and situations change. So if we look further in depth its not so clear cut

SetSampras
11-16-2009, 06:25 PM
I think competition, number of top threats should always be considered as well. Borg is still clay court GOAT for instance. And if we look at what he did at RG and Wimbeldon, two polar distinct opposites I would say thats TEN TIMES more difficult than what say Nadal would/could ever accomplish. Borg could change his entire game up to suit his winning at the French, then when Wimbeldon roles out he steps up his attack. Whereas today you can win all arouund the circuit playing one way. Many will say Nadal lacks the opposition that say players like Borg faced on clay with Vilas or Fed lacks the competition of the field that Pete saw on grass not to mention Pete played the on the polar opposite extremes from clay to grass while Fed and Rafa havent. Just some things that should be taken into account I feel.

I divide the wimbeldon eras up since I think there is no choice but to do so. Would Nadal have ever reached a wimbeldon final much less win a a wimbeldon or reach 3 straight finals on the old grass? How would Fed have handled this year in year out facing not only various attackers like Ebderg, Becker, Goran etc than guys like Muster, Courier, Guga, Bruguera, Medvedev, andre on clay? You never know.\

nadal for instance can win the French and come into Wimbeldon with almost the same EXACT stratgey and win that. He doesnt have to change his gameplan up like Borg did.

Now I know we can reverse this and say would Borg or Pete be as dominant under these conditions. But I think its more difficult for a Nadal to achieve this under the conditions players like Borg or Pete faced. Thats when I say.. Things need to be considered when discussing records like this due to totally different situations. ITs not fair to some players who have accomplished such feats. Thats another reason why I dont think u can choose a clear cut GOAT

Dini
11-16-2009, 06:32 PM
Maybe... But if you ask me Pete did on TRUE GRASS:)

It was faster back then, but I doubt Federer had anything to do with it slowing down.

Not this slow Roland Gambelton sodded to the moon garbage Fed does his winning on. Grass isnt grass anymore. Due to the upkeep it shouldnt even be considered wimbeldon. Ever since 2002 its been nothing like true Wimbeldons hould have been. Lightning fast surface, low bouncing which takes your timing away. Not to mention many will argue but Pete did under a spectrum of more difficult grass competition than Fed has. Goran, Edberg, Agassi, attacking Rafter, Krajicek in 96 on fire, Becker etc. All attackers as well as the nasty baseliner in Agassi. Though there were While Fed has had Roddick and Nadal. Nadal the 2nd best grass court player of this era? The non attacking Nadal? 2006 Nadal who was in his 4th grass court tournament ever reaching the wimbeldon final? I'll admit Pete had some bums to play against too like Cedric Pioline.. But his competition dwarfs Federer's overrall IMO.

Nadal has had a chance to play well on grass because a) he adapts b) grass is slower like you say. I doubt he'd have made the finals back in the 90s when rallies didn't go beyond 4 shots.


Im not sure if Fed would have been as dominant at wimbeldon with the heavy hitters Pete went up against and on the old grass and the distinct polarization of the surfaces to one extreme (slow RG clay) to another extreme (lightning fast grass). Roger would have had to some serious attacking himself and not live on the baseline to grab all those wimby titles. The conditions would warrant this as such

I think this is something that should be taken into account as well when discussing Records. Times and situations change. So if we look further in depth its not so clear cut

Fed's done the best job with what he's presented with. He can't go and cut the grass finer and speed it up somehow. I just don't think that Sampras's 7 out of 8 is worthy of top 5 because someone is about to equal it. I thought that list was more about records that are very unlikely to get broken in our lifetime like 22 consecutive semis or 81 consecutive matches won on clay. You can debate Fed's mug era all day long vs Sampras's GOAT era and come to the conclusion that Sampras > Fed, but facts are facts. And the fact is that Fedmug has a chance to equal that record next year.

SetSampras
11-16-2009, 06:40 PM
It was faster back then, but I doubt Federer had anything to do with it slowing down.



Nadal has had a chance to play well on grass because a) he adapts b) grass is slower like you say. I doubt he'd have made the finals back in the 90s when rallies didn't go beyond 4 shots.



Fed's done the best job with what he's presented with. He can't go and cut the grass finer and speed it up somehow. I just don't think that Sampras's 7 out of 8 is worthy of top 5 because someone is about to equal it. I thought that list was more about records that are very unlikely to get broken in our lifetime like 22 consecutive semis or 81 consecutive matches won on clay. You can debate Fed's mug era all day long vs Sampras's GOAT era and come to the conclusion that Sampras > Fed, but facts are facts. And the fact is that Fedmug has a chance to equal that record next year.

I agree a record is a record. But at we cant just ignore the situations that both players were in. Im not saying Pete played in the GOAT, nor that Fed's competition has been crap. I do think there are certain that produce more threats and better players than others though and when he take courts, racket technology, into account, like I said I just dont think its clear cut. Lets say Fed grabs wimbeldons in 9 years.. Because he overtakes Pete does that mean Fed's accomplishments are so much greater than Pete's because he did so? Pete played in an era of rebound ace, decoturf, indoor carpeting, lightning fast grass and a combination of both baseliners and attacking serve-volleyers etc. Roger did not achieve his overrall accomplishments in the same realm. Thats not to say he wouldnt or couldnt. I just dont think its fair to other players when we say "Hey this player has the record so therefor its a greater achievement and hes a greater player" Because quite frankly not everything is getting into account here.

Fed COULD equal Pete's wimbeldon but why isnt Pete's record worthy then considering he may have had tougher grass court competition than Roger, and he did against all different styles of player. once again.. IMO.. Not fair at all. You can argue Fed's record isnt that worthy because he didnt have to deal with such

Dini
11-16-2009, 06:47 PM
Again, not Fed's fault playing styles aren't very varied these days. Fed back in 01 used to serve and volley a lot, especially on grass - he had to change his game too to be able to compete with the best and be the best. To win it five times in a row still requires skill, mental strength and dominance. You can look at his era and the surfaces he played on, but what about the player himself? I think Fed's serve on grass especially is quite something - I also think he's the most consistent volleyer out there now with the best technique. I'm not saying just because Federer is about to equal or break all Sampras's records that he is a better player, but if you've seen him play and you've seen how outrightly consistent he is with players coming and going over these 6 years (when he started winning slams) with him still being on top then I don't think you can argue that Fed's records aren't worthy. That's just wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Sophocles
11-16-2009, 09:44 PM
I think we agree that his first slam was irrelevant as the best players of the time were pro.

Yeah but it was a vote, I think.

I'd say 18 if we count the Major pros but exclude the Amateur GS, which we have to do if we wish to be logical.

French Pro: 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966
Wembley Pro: 1957, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963
US Pro: 1963, 1965
Roland Garros: 1968
Aus Open: 1971 (1972 excluded)
US Open: 1970

We might add MSG 1966 or the WCT Finals but have to bear in mind Majors were not present-day GS.

Laver wouldn't have won an Open slam in 1962, but he could have done it in one of the years 1965-7.

Gonzales is a vote as there weren't official rankings, but the vote is based on the evidence available.

Not sure it's fair to discount ALL amateur wins, though I agree we should most of them. Even when young Rosewall would probably have been good enough to win a slam or 2. (Even Emerson would probably have won 1 or 2 slams in Open competition in the mid-60s.) And why discount the 1972 Australian Open?

Macbrother
11-16-2009, 09:54 PM
I think competition, number of top threats should always be considered as well. Borg is still clay court GOAT for instance. And if we look at what he did at RG and Wimbeldon, two polar distinct opposites I would say thats TEN TIMES more difficult than what say Nadal would/could ever accomplish. Borg could change his entire game up to suit his winning at the French, then when Wimbeldon roles out he steps up his attack. Whereas today you can win all arouund the circuit playing one way. Many will say Nadal lacks the opposition that say players like Borg faced on clay with Vilas or Fed lacks the competition of the field that Pete saw on grass not to mention Pete played the on the polar opposite extremes from clay to grass while Fed and Rafa havent. Just some things that should be taken into account I feel.


I agree with a lot of this. In a Borg biography they were interviewing a friend of his who used to practice with him before Wimbledon, and he said the first few days going from clay to grass, Borg couldn't keep a ball in the court, and he surmised Borg wouldn't make it past the second or third round of Wimbledon. The fact that he was able to win 5 in a row, completing 3 "doubles," and going from an absolute master baseliner to serve-volleying on 1st serves is truly remarkable. He could play on any surface (he went to the USO final 4 times, twice losing to McEnroe and Connors, no stiffs) and really didn't have weaknesses. Nadal can pretty much win both tournaments the same way. (granted, give him some credit he does step into the baseline more on grass and play more aggressive on grass, but nothing like Borg had to do.)

As for the bit about competition, well that's debatable as always. Borg was pretty much sleepwalking through the first few rounds on clay, winning 1,1, love a lot of times, wheras you can still get the occasional decent test in the early rounds today simply because of the globalization and evolution of the sport.

Voo de Mar
11-16-2009, 09:54 PM
Good article :yeah: albeit I agree with jonas that such a list should be separated.

22... and counting!
Nice read.
Remark: Chang beat Lendl in 4th rd not in semis

Exactly :lol: Probably the most famous 4th round match ever. No-one cares that Chang had difficult matches in QF (Agenor) and SF (Chesnokov) with players who achieved best results of their careers then :p

Macbrother
11-16-2009, 09:57 PM
Exactly :lol: Probably the most famous 4th round match ever. No-one cares that Chang had difficult matches in QF (Agenor) and SF (Chesnokov) with players who achieved best results of their careers then :p

Chang's underarm serve and his true moonballs will always be the stuff of legends. I can still see Lendl pulling his eyebrows out and screaming "OH COME ON !!!!" at the umpire when he said "no clear mark."

They don't make matches like they used to. ;)

goatian
11-16-2009, 10:18 PM
Probably the most famous 4th round match ever.

From now on, it will be Soderling-Nadal at the French Open 2009.

mandeep
11-16-2009, 11:47 PM
I think Federers got one record which is FAR more impressive than his 22 consecutive GS semis and infact the most impressive record in mens tennis history. Problem is that the record is "awkward" - it's reaching 17 out of 18 GS finals consecutively. Playing 18 GS' in a row and making the finals 17 of those times is IMMENSE. There's a HUGE difference between making slam semis and making slam finals, so I'd take 17 out of 18 finals over 22 semis in a row every time.

it would be 18 in a row. stupid mono :) I am joking everybody relax...put the keyboards down.

Echoes
11-17-2009, 01:19 AM
Laver wouldn't have won an Open slam in 1962, but he could have done it in one of the years 1965-7.

Very possibly but we'll never know. He had a hard time beating Rosewall on clay though. It's odd to see that Rosewall could win so many times the French Pro whether in RG or Coubertin (two different surfaces). Laver achieved a pro Slam in 1967 but as I said the Major Pros can't be GS equivalent.


Gonzales is a vote as there weren't official rankings, but the vote is based on the evidence available.

Exactly. I would agree with these votes though. For me Pancho was definitely the N°1 these 8 years but it's still very subjective. I can't say it's a real record. If I had to cite a record for Gonzales, that would be the number world tour wins.


Not sure it's fair to discount ALL amateur wins, though I agree we should most of them. Even when young Rosewall would probably have been good enough to win a slam or 2.

You're maybe right but we'll never know that. A young Rosewall in the fifties in an open era would directly have had to face the best of the time and we always learn from fierce competition, so this would have been completely different and we really can't know what it would have looked like. What can measure is what really went on in tennis at that time and not what could have been. It's very hard (for me, at least) to measure the gap between amateur level and pro level at one period or another. I can conceive that the amateur level in the mid fifties (Drobny, Trabert but also Hoad and Rosewall) was rather good and maybe almost equal to the pro level while in the sixties (at least the early sixties), I'd definitely say the pro level had the upper hand.

At that level the 30's are totally unknown to me. SetSampras talked about Budge who achieved the amateur Slam in 1938 but I can't measure how great this performance is. Perhaps at that time, the best still were amateur or perhaps not. Really hard to measure.

And why discount the 1972 Australian Open?

1972 was the year when the organizers of the Australian Open decided to move the tournament in Christmas time (so end 1971 actually) in order to attract the WCT players (who were to be kept from GS in that year 1972) but actually it ruined the tournament for 15 years because no non-Australians wanted to play in Christmas time, sadly for Rosewall who won a third-rate Australian Open. That's why I'd rather consider his WCT Finals win over Laver in that same year as a major victory, though not a GS equivalent.


the one in 1969 was a big deal.

Certainly. That's his greatest achievement and a truly amazing one.

I doubt he'd have made the finals back in the 90s when rallies didn't go beyond 4 shots.

Wow the cliché. :lol:

There were other players then Ivanisevic and Rusedski in the 90's. ;)

thrust
11-17-2009, 01:34 AM
Good calls. Also Rosewall's record 20-something major tournaments (counting the big pro tournaments he played). Oh, & Laver's - what? - 169 tournament titles.

23 Major titles, also his longevity. He won his first Major in 1953 and last in 1972, ages 19 and 37. There was no women's pro tour, therefore, all top female players played sanctioned tournaments and slams before 1968. Therefore, it is ignorant to denigrate M Court's pre 1968 wins. The same is true for BJK and other top players of their era. Laver, even in 1962, played in tougher eras than Roger as did Sampras.

n8
11-17-2009, 01:42 AM
From now on, it will be Soderling-Nadal at the French Open 2009.

Yeah, that would have to be the pick of most significant 4th round match at a Grand Slam ever. Sampras-Federer in Wimby 2001 is another very important 4th round encounter.

phelbyn
11-17-2009, 04:30 AM
Hello all,

I recently published a list here:

http://thepulplist.com/2009/10/top-15-greatest-tennis-records/

And since I don't have a lot of friends who are tennis fans, I'd sure appreciate some feedback...

Cheers!

Maybe this was pointed out, but #14 youngest female champ in open era was Martina Hingis at 1997 Austrailian Open. She was 16 years 4 or 5 months. She took away Tracy Austin's record.

phelbyn
11-17-2009, 04:31 AM
23 Major titles, also his longevity. He won his first Major in 1953 and last in 1972, ages 19 and 37. There was no women's pro tour, therefore, all top female players played sanctioned tournaments and slams before 1968. Therefore, it is ignorant to denigrate M Court's pre 1968 wins. The same is true for BJK and other top players of their era. Laver, even in 1962, played in tougher eras than Roger as did Sampras.

Argue a perspective on the women's side: What about Helen Wills-Moody winning 19 of 22 grandslams contested? She went undefeated and did not even lose a set for over 6 years if I am not mistaken.

djb84xi
11-17-2009, 05:45 AM
I don't find Federer's 22 consecutive semifinals streak to be the greatest record of all. Given it is a terrific accomplishment, it's not the greatest. What Graf, Smith-Court, and Navratilova accomplished, their records should be ranked well above Roger's

habibko
11-17-2009, 07:39 AM
I think Federers got one record which is FAR more impressive than his 22 consecutive GS semis and infact the most impressive record in mens tennis history. Problem is that the record is "awkward" - it's reaching 17 out of 18 GS finals consecutively. Playing 18 GS' in a row and making the finals 17 of those times is IMMENSE. There's a HUGE difference between making slam semis and making slam finals, so I'd take 17 out of 18 finals over 22 semis in a row every time.

this is very true, however the "consecutive" part sounds that much impressive, but I agree that his slam finals record deserves more acknowledgement, it's afterall a great difference between a SF and a F.

latso
11-17-2009, 09:22 AM
Wonderful article. i had great time reading it and i almost fully agree with the ranking.

Thumbs up!

bokehlicious
11-17-2009, 09:28 AM
I don't find Federer's 22 consecutive semifinals streak to be the greatest record of all. Given it is a terrific accomplishment, it's not the greatest. What Graf, Smith-Court, and Navratilova accomplished, their records should be ranked well above Roger's

That is WTA, we're referring to tennis records here...

Sophocles
11-17-2009, 10:40 AM
Very possibly but we'll never know. He had a hard time beating Rosewall on clay though. It's odd to see that Rosewall could win so many times the French Pro whether in RG or Coubertin (two different surfaces). Laver achieved a pro Slam in 1967 but as I said the Major Pros can't be GS equivalent.

Exactly. I would agree with these votes though. For me Pancho was definitely the N°1 these 8 years but it's still very subjective. I can't say it's a real record. If I had to cite a record for Gonzales, that would be the number world tour wins.

You're maybe right but we'll never know that. A young Rosewall in the fifties in an open era would directly have had to face the best of the time and we always learn from fierce competition, so this would have been completely different and we really can't know what it would have looked like. What can measure is what really went on in tennis at that time and not what could have been. It's very hard (for me, at least) to measure the gap between amateur level and pro level at one period or another. I can conceive that the amateur level in the mid fifties (Drobny, Trabert but also Hoad and Rosewall) was rather good and maybe almost equal to the pro level while in the sixties (at least the early sixties), I'd definitely say the pro level had the upper hand.

At that level the 30's are totally unknown to me. SetSampras talked about Budge who achieved the amateur Slam in 1938 but I can't measure how great this performance is. Perhaps at that time, the best still were amateur or perhaps not. Really hard to measure.

1972 was the year when the organizers of the Australian Open decided to move the tournament in Christmas time (so end 1971 actually) in order to attract the WCT players (who were to be kept from GS in that year 1972) but actually it ruined the tournament for 15 years because no non-Australians wanted to play in Christmas time, sadly for Rosewall who won a third-rate Australian Open. That's why I'd rather consider his WCT Finals win over Laver in that same year as a major victory, though not a GS equivalent.

Wouldn't disagree with much of this. Perhaps we're just coming up against the limits of what "records" can tell us in a sport that was so fractured for so long. I guess my point is that if you're going to get hypothetical by saying, e.g., Laver wouldn't have won the Slam in 1962, why not start getting hypothetical about what he *would* have won? So maybe he doesn't get the Slam - but he at least wins Wimbledon. Or whatever.

Agree that amateur level was close to pro in 1950s, apart from Kramer (to begin with) and then Gonzales, but would give pro the edge - there's a reason Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall went pro and started losing; this doesn't mean they couldn't have won slams in Open competition at the time. 1960s pro was way better, 1930s I'd say Budge's slam is definitely legitimate as he went on to become the best pro shortly thereafter.

Surely you wouldn't discount every Australian Open between 1972 & 1986? From say 1976 to 1982 it was clearly a Mickey-Mouse slam, simply because the best players in the world (apart from Vilas) didn't bother to contest it, but 1975 Newcombe beat Connors in the final, and 1983 Wilander beat Lendl after taking out McEnroe in the semis. Take your point about WCT though.

Purple Rainbow
11-17-2009, 11:49 AM
Amidst Federers ranking and grand slam domination, I feel a huge record is easily forgotten about.
Between 2003 and 2005, Federer won 24 consecutive finals. This record is all the more remarkable because the second longest finals winning streak is 12.

Echoes
11-17-2009, 01:59 PM
Wouldn't disagree with much of this. Perhaps we're just coming up against the limits of what "records" can tell us in a sport that was so fractured for so long. I guess my point is that if you're going to get hypothetical by saying, e.g., Laver wouldn't have won the Slam in 1962, why not start getting hypothetical about what he *would* have won? So maybe he doesn't get the Slam - but he at least wins Wimbledon. Or whatever.

I fully agree with that sentence. For the rest I'd say Laver did achieve the GS in 1962 but we'll have to consider what amateur GS tournaments really were at that time. I think Laver admits it wasn't such a great achievement as his Open Era Slam and far from that.


Agree that amateur level was close to pro in 1950s, apart from Kramer (to begin with) and then Gonzales, but would give pro the edge - there's a reason Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall went pro and started losing; this doesn't mean they couldn't have won slams in Open competition at the time.


I fully agree. I'd actually say I conceive there could be a debate for the years 1954/55 when Drobny and Trabert put amateur tennis to a high level but the pro circuit has the edge, no doubt.


1930s I'd say Budge's slam is definitely legitimate as he went on to become the best pro shortly thereafter.


He was certainly the best pro or one of the best but was he so dominant? Well if you say his Slam is legitimate, I'll take it because I can't make an opinion on this.


Surely you wouldn't discount every Australian Open between 1972 & 1986? From say 1976 to 1982 it was clearly a Mickey-Mouse slam, simply because the best players in the world (apart from Vilas) didn't bother to contest it, but 1975 Newcombe beat Connors in the final, and 1983 Wilander beat Lendl after taking out McEnroe in the semis. Take your point about WCT though.

Connors was probably the only international star to travel to Australia between 1972 & 1975. You need more than 2 great players to create a great field. It can however be debated whether 1983 already showed an Australian Open "revival". I think the Swedes played it because of the Davis Cup final and yeah Lendl & Mac made the trip as well. I don't know whether that is sufficient, the debate is open. I usually take 1987 as a "symbolic" year because the tournament took its place back in January.

thrust
11-17-2009, 02:49 PM
Argue a perspective on the women's side: What about Helen Wills-Moody winning 19 of 22 grandslams contested? She went undefeated and did not even lose a set for over 6 years if I am not mistaken.

Good point! Unfortunately, most so called experts are not interested in earlier era tennis, especially women's tennis-LOL!! No doubt Helen W-M was one of the most dominant players of all time and is often overlooked.

sprocketeer
11-18-2009, 03:20 AM
I do ackowledge Fed's 4 million straight slam semis appearances tHat does deserve some honor but it still goes to show just how difficult it is to grab a calendar. . But the calendar slam is the highest IMO thats pure dominant consistency of WINNING.

The rationale behind the ranking was, how likely is it that someone will equal or surpass the record? And you bring up Fed, which makes the case -- it's true he couldn't close the deal, but he almost did 3 times (4 if you count 2009). Nobody is even close to matching the 22 semis, that's why it was higher...

Thanks for all the terrific feedback! I plan to incorporate the corrections you noted.

djb84xi
11-21-2009, 12:40 AM
Not sure how how much merit Laver's 1st calendar slam has but he the one in 1969 was a big deal. Don Budge grabbed one as well. Fred Perry was the first to grab it. To me this is the most prestigous. There have been a few players who have grabbed it. To me thats the most difficult feat in tennis. Not to knock ROger but for as dominant as he was, failed to grab it. Sampras couldnt do it cause he couldnt grab a French. Borg didnt play the AO and couldnt win the USO. Mac couldnt do it and he arguably the most dominant season ever in history in 1984. . Connors or Lendl couldnt grab it. Its very very difficult.


I do ackowledge Fed's 4 million straight slam semis appearances tHat does deserve some honor but it still goes to show just how difficult it is to grab a calendar. . But the calendar slam is the highest IMO thats pure dominant consistency of WINNING.

You're right about the Calendar Slam. That's pure dominance and I'm surprised that Federer hasn't done it yet.

swisht4u
11-21-2009, 01:14 AM
I gauge how difficult a feat is by how many times it has been done and how close to the feat others have come to accomplish it.

The semis record seems to be by far the most untouchable in terms that it has never been done and has never been close to being accomplished by anyone, in any ERA.

The 17/18 slam finals isn't talked about much, I don't know who would come in second on this record but it is a record that deserves considerable attention.

JediFed
11-21-2009, 02:03 AM
What about the consecutive weeks at number one? He smashed Graf's record.

SetSampras
11-21-2009, 05:47 AM
What about the consecutive weeks at number one? He smashed Graf's record.


Very impressive as well.. Now I do acknowledge Fed's consistency and dominance over most of the field, but for a player to be that dominant I think there is something to be said about Federer not grabbing a calendar slam at least one year. Especially how many times he has reached the RG final.

JediFed
11-21-2009, 06:12 AM
He's came within a set. Depending on how Nadal does next year, he may have a shot next year as well.

I'm not a Sampras hater, but I think Fed is better on grass than Sampras. Sampras never equalled Borg's record of consecutive wins at Wimbly.

SetSampras
11-21-2009, 06:16 AM
He's came within a set. Depending on how Nadal does next year, he may have a shot next year as well.

I'm not a Sampras hater, but I think Fed is better on grass than Sampras. Sampras never equalled Borg's record of consecutive wins at Wimbly.

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it of course :). But the fact of the matter is IMO, its like comparing apples and oranges really. Sampras dominated on lightning fast grass, against many different attackers and baseliners. Federer has dominated on slower grass against primarily baseliners. Wimbeldon has changed so much I just dont think you can compare either era in this regard. THe game has changed too much, playing styles and the surface has.

I dont think there is much comparison when it comes to what Sampras accomplished at wimbeldon in his hey day and what Fed is doing.


I really dont think there is anyway to guage really since Fed and Pete never went against each other at the respective primes. We can all speculate forever. But we dont have a time machine to prove it

JediFed
11-21-2009, 06:26 AM
But the fact of the matter is IMO, its like comparing apples and oranges really. Sampras dominated on lightning fast grass, against many different attackers and baseliners. Federer has dominated on slower grass against primarily baseliners. Wimbeldon has changed so much I just dont think you can compare either era in this regard. THe game has changed too much, playing styles and the surface has.


Fed is a fine server and beat one of the best servers that the game has to offer in the last wimbly final. I agree with your assessment that the surface is slower, but I disagree that Federer would not be as accomplished on the lighting fast grass.


I really dont think there is anyway to guage really since Fed and Pete never went against each other at the respective primes. We can all speculate forever. But we dont have a time machine to prove it


I think Pete is amazing on the grass, but Federer also owns the grass streak. Give Federer another wimbly and I don't see how you can stop him from claiming the title, GOAT of grass. He has the streak on Grass, most Grass titles, and he'd share the wimbly wins and titles streak with borg, as well as the wimbly wins total. His sustained dominance is so far unmatched, no one has ever reached 7 straight grass finals.

SetSampras
11-21-2009, 06:33 AM
Fed is a fine server and beat one of the best servers that the game has to offer in the last wimbly final. I agree with your assessment that the surface is slower, but I disagree that Federer would not be as accomplished on the lighting fast grass.



I think Pete is amazing on the grass, but Federer also owns the grass streak. Give Federer another wimbly and I don't see how you can stop him from claiming the title, GOAT of grass. He has the streak on Grass, most Grass titles, and he'd share the wimbly wins and titles streak with borg, as well as the wimbly wins total. His sustained dominance is so far unmatched, no one has ever reached 7 straight grass finals.



Numbers wise if Fed breaks Pete's 7 wimbeldon mark sure... Numbers and statistics wise you can say Fed has been greater at wimbeldon that Pete. Does that mean I have to hands down give Fed the nod as being AS A PLAYER greater or better than Pete on grass? Not necessarily since we never got to see them duke it out for all those wimbeldon titles and see who came out on top. Thats a big reason why its so difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who the best to ever play the game is. Like I said, we havent invented a time machine yet. Im not a strict "by the books numbers and stats" type of guy since I just dont feel going by the numbers it takes everything into account and thats the truth. I believe each era has its player. I believe each era produces its greatest. But I dont believe in hands down greatest to ever play the game. If you want to go by the overrall Numbers.. Well Rosewall has the most slams if we take the pro slams and amateur tournaments into account. Laver has the most titles and didnt get to play the pro tour for many years and still ended up with 11 slams. Pancho has 8 years of Number 1. Fed "officially" has the most slams. So who knows....

If you want to go by the numbers sure Fed has a case but it goes deeper than that IMO. Thats just how I feel. He does deserve to be in the discussion as overrall GOAT though for sure.

Numbers and Numbers and records will always be broke. Im sure someone will come along and shatter alot of the records Fed has put up. If Not in a few short years, than later down the road. All it takes is that one dominant stand out player from his/her era. It only took 7 years for someone to come along and officially break Pete's slam record. It will happen again

barbadosan
11-21-2009, 07:27 AM
Numbers wise if Fed breaks Pete's 7 wimbeldon mark sure... Numbers and statistics wise you can say Fed has been greater at wimbeldon that Pete. Does that mean I have to hands down give Fed the nod as being AS A PLAYER greater or better than Pete on grass? Not necessarily since we never got to see them duke it out for all those wimbeldon titles and see who came out on top. Thats a big reason why its so difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who the best to ever play the game is. Like I said, we havent invented a time machine yet. Im not a strict "by the books numbers and stats" type of guy since I just dont feel going by the numbers it takes everything into account and thats the truth. I believe each era has its player. I believe each era produces its greatest. But I dont believe in hands down greatest to ever play the game. If you want to go by the overrall Numbers.. Well Rosewall has the most slams if we take the pro slams and amateur tournaments into account. Laver has the most titles and didnt get to play the pro tour for many years and still ended up with 11 slams. Pancho has 8 years of Number 1. Fed "officially" has the most slams. So who knows....

If you want to go by the numbers sure Fed has a case but it goes deeper than that IMO. Thats just how I feel. He does deserve to be in the discussion as overrall GOAT though for sure.

Numbers and Numbers and records will always be broke. Im sure someone will come along and shatter alot of the records Fed has put up. If Not in a few short years, than later down the road. All it takes is that one dominant stand out player from his/her era. It only took 7 years for someone to come along and officially break Pete's slam record. It will happen again

Let's face it: even if Fed were to miraculously win another 5-year stretch of Wimby titles, you'd still ferret out some (hypothetical and purely speculative) reasons for not considering Fed better than Sampras on grass. I wouldn't be surprised if your next set of arguments included the difference in the shades of green, or how many blades of grass were actually on court at the time :(

tennisvideos
11-21-2009, 11:35 AM
In relation to Margaret Court you state:

Also, the years she won many of her titles — including her first boxed set — predated the start of the Open Era, which means from 1960-1967 she was competing only against other “amateurs”, since pros were forbidden to play the Grand Slam tournaments prior to 1968.

However, you should remove this because prior to 1968 ALL of the women played the Slams and other tournaments as there was no seperate Professional tour for women like there was for men.

Hence, Margaret played the very best on offer all through her amateur AND professional career.

Margaret Court also won 198 Singles titles in her career so that also topples Martina's record.

Margaret also holds the most singles slams at 24. Facts are facts. You have mentioned that 13 were in the pre-open era but as I mentioned above, it makes no difference as ALL the women played in the pre-open and open era as their was no separate tour for women like the men had. And just because not all the top women played regularly in Australia isn't Margaret's fault. She still had to beat some of the world's greats to win some of those titles eg. Bueno, King, Goolagong, Turner etc.

Anyway, other than those facts it's an interesting list.

Start da Game
11-21-2009, 01:09 PM
Hello all,

I recently published a list here:

http://thepulplist.com/2009/10/top-15-greatest-tennis-records/

And since I don't have a lot of friends who are tennis fans, I'd sure appreciate some feedback...

Cheers!

garbage of the highest order from another fed fangirl i assume, rating that 22 semis streak as no.1.......lendl was 230+ weeks no.1 in a 10 times fiercer field and i reckon that as a bigger deed than federer's semis streak.......

i don't think we will see anyone in the near future break these two records.......

1 seven wimbledon singles titles........

2 six consecutive year end no.1 finishes........

Dini
11-21-2009, 01:12 PM
garbage of the highest order from another fed fangirl i assume, rating that 22 semis streak as no.1.......lendl was 230+ weeks no.1 in a 10 times fiercer field and i reckon that as a bigger deed than federer's semis streak.......

Is it really garbage that you reach the last four of a grand slam 22 CONSECUTIVE times? Really?! Even the biggest Fed hater in the world would applaud that consistency.



i don't think we will see anyone in the near future break these two records.......

1 seven wimbledon singles titles........

OK :lol:

Start da Game
11-21-2009, 01:20 PM
Is it really garbage that you reach the last four of a grand slam 22 CONSECUTIVE times? Really?! Even the biggest Fed hater in the world would applaud that consistency.

hello there.......garbage here is rating it as no.1 record, NOT that record itself........

OK :lol:

winning one particular slam 7 times is not a joke and to beat that record you need to win one more.......it necessarily means that you need to be too good and be playing at a very high level in that slam over a period of 9 or 10 years at least.......

Dini
11-21-2009, 01:29 PM
Why is it a joke Shankar? I think you're underestimating that record because of your dislike for Federer. If it was Sampras/Nadal with that record I have no doubt in my mind that you'd rank it at the top. Why do so many people (non Fedfans) consider it a top record?

1) The fact that he's been healthy and fit for 22 consecutive slams without having to retire or withdraw is a credit to his physical conditioning.

2) To reach the latter stages of a slam you'd need to peak for them. And Federer knows how to schedule properly for that to happen.

3) He spends as little energy as possible in the early rounds and that allows him to be at his best in the QFs and SFs and so on. Knowing how to pace yourself in a tournament is really important too.

4) Look at the next best record in that regard. That would be Lendl with 10 consecutive grand slam semi finals. Sampras was on three. Federer has more than doubled the next best record, showing that he is no one surface trick pony.

5) A lot of players come and go in 22 consecutive slams and you don't remain the same player, but you're still achieving the same results.

Finally, I don't believe it should be the top record too. That would be his 17/18 slam finals.

As for winning 7 or more GSs it's a great record. But I wouldn't put it number 1. I actually think Sampras's YE#1's is a greater achievement.

Start da Game
11-21-2009, 01:58 PM
Why is it a joke Shankar? I think you're underestimating that record because of your dislike for Federer. If it was Sampras/Nadal with that record I have no doubt in my mind that you'd rank it at the top. Why do so many people (non Fedfans) consider it a top record?

1) The fact that he's been healthy and fit for 22 consecutive slams without having to retire or withdraw is a credit to his physical conditioning.

2) To reach the latter stages of a slam you'd need to peak for them. And Federer knows how to schedule properly for that to happen.

3) He spends as little energy as possible in the early rounds and that allows him to be at his best in the QFs and SFs and so on. Knowing how to pace yourself in a tournament is really important too.

4) Look at the next best record in that regard. That would be Lendl with 10 consecutive grand slam semi finals. Sampras was on three. Federer has more than doubled the next best record, showing that he is no one surface trick pony.

5) A lot of players come and go in 22 consecutive slams and you don't remain the same player, but you're still achieving the same results.

Finally, I don't believe it should be the top record too. That would be his 17/18 slam finals.

As for winning 7 or more GSs it's a great record. But I wouldn't put it number 1. I actually think Sampras's YE#1's is a greater achievement.

my dislike has no role here.......lendl played in 19 slam finals in such a tough era, still i don't rate it high.......how many has he won? now forget about that semifinal streak - that is one bad joke to even rate it no.1........he has 15 slams to show for himself and who cares how many semis he reached? for any player, all it takes is an ankle twist or some severe sickness to sit out of the sport for 2 months and federer has been lucky in that regard........both sampras(who is a permanent patient of a resistance killing disease) and nadal have suffered injuries and had to miss several slams.......regardless, in my view, that semis streak is immaterial.......

to me, it's all about who you have beaten, what you have won........

barbadosan
11-21-2009, 02:43 PM
my dislike has no role here.......lendl played in 19 slam finals in such a tough era, still i don't rate it high.......how many has he won? now forget about that semifinal streak - that is one bad joke to even rate it no.1........he has 15 slams to show for himself and who cares how many semis he reached? for any player, all it takes is an ankle twist or some severe sickness to sit out of the sport for 2 months and federer has been lucky in that regard........both sampras(who is a permanent patient of a resistance killing disease) and nadal have suffered injuries and had to miss several slams.......regardless, in my view, that semis streak is immaterial.......

to me, it's all about who you have beaten, what you have won........

And just how many other long SF streaks have actually been broken by injury? No, they've been broken by not playing consistently well enough to REACH the SF's - which is the whole point of the record really --that he has been capable of PLAYING at a level outstanding enough each and every time to reach the SF's.

Anyway, I'm sure you can take consolation in the fact of knowing that you're part of the 0.0001 percent of the tennis world who doesn't think it's a big thing. Somewhere on Planet Earth, there are possibly 2 or 3 of the billions of inhabitants who agree with you :)

Start da Game
11-21-2009, 03:16 PM
And just how many other long SF streaks have actually been broken by injury? No, they've been broken by not playing consistently well enough to REACH the SF's - which is the whole point of the record really --that he has been capable of PLAYING at a level outstanding enough each and every time to reach the SF's.

Anyway, I'm sure you can take consolation in the fact of knowing that you're part of the 0.0001 percent of the tennis world who doesn't think it's a big thing. Somewhere on Planet Earth, there are possibly 2 or 3 of the billions of inhabitants who agree with you :)

rafa's 5 consecutive semis record was halted by an injury in FO 09.......he promised a lot and would probably have kept going on and on had he not been injured........even if he did go on and make 15 semifinals at a stretch, it would be of less significance to me.......what counts is, what rafa achieved in the end.......

unfortunately, those 99.99%(i am sure it's much much lesser) are glory hunters like you who know jackshit about the sport and are easily bluffed.......it's definitely a great feat but not as great as to rate it no.1........

it is of less significance compared to even some his own other records like 3 victories at 3 different slams etc........no matter how much he conditions himself, federer has been lucky not to get severely injured or even hit by a severe sickness over a length of time.......his predecessor, sampras is a lifetime patient of a resistance killing disease and played through out his career carrying it.......

DrJules
11-21-2009, 04:40 PM
garbage of the highest order from another fed fangirl i assume, rating that 22 semis streak as no.1.......lendl was 230+ weeks no.1 in a 10 times fiercer field and i reckon that as a bigger deed than federer's semis streak.......

i don't think we will see anyone in the near future break these two records.......

1 seven wimbledon singles titles........

2 six consecutive year end no.1 finishes........

Surely the 15 grand slam titles is the ultimate record which most followers of tennis would place number 1.

Dini
11-21-2009, 04:42 PM
Surely the 15 grand slam titles is the ultimate record.

No. How can it be when he only beat mugs like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. :haha: :haha: :haha:

Even the ones against Nadal don't count, because Nadal was inexperienced on grass in 2006 and and injured in 2007. :)

barbadosan
11-21-2009, 05:10 PM
rafa's 5 consecutive semis record was halted by an injury in FO 09.......he promised a lot and would probably have kept going on and on had he not been injured........even if he did go on and make 15 semifinals at a stretch, it would be of less significance to me.......what counts is, what rafa achieved in the end.......

unfortunately, those 99.99%(i am sure it's much much lesser) are glory hunters like you who know jackshit about the sport and are easily bluffed.......it's definitely a great feat but not as great as to rate it no.1........

it is of less significance compared to even some his own other records like 3 victories at 3 different slams etc........no matter how much he conditions himself, federer has been lucky not to get severely injured or even hit by a severe sickness over a length of time.......his predecessor, sampras is a lifetime patient of a resistance killing disease and played through out his career carrying it.......

Yup, I've been a gloryhunter ever since I had the good fortune to see Roger win the Wimby Jr title... so been his glory hunter for what? 11 years... not a bad record for longevity, eh? And I guess I "know jackshit about the sport and easily bluffed" -- but heavens, I've had a lot of pleasure from watching it since the mid-sixties. :)

PS: And to think, according to you, that I didn't gain the teensiest weensiest bit of knowledge about the sport in all of 40 something odd years...:worship::rolleyes::rolleyes:

barbadosan
11-21-2009, 05:19 PM
Surely the 15 grand slam titles is the ultimate record which most followers of tennis would place number 1.

Agreed that would probably be the most attractive news slug, but the OP's stated criteria for the list was which record was least likely to be eclipsed.

swisht4u
11-21-2009, 05:20 PM
garbage of the highest order from another fed fangirl i assume, rating that 22 semis streak as no.1.......lendl was 230+ weeks no.1 in a 10 times fiercer field and i reckon that as a bigger deed than federer's semis streak.......

i don't think we will see anyone in the near future break these two records.......

1 seven wimbledon singles titles........

2 six consecutive year end no.1 finishes........

No doubt your #1 is a great record. But there are several that have approached it at 6 wins.
Then it is only on 1 surface, it doesn't have the breadth of the 22 semis, which covers ALL surfaces. Covering all surfaces is much more challenging, It shows a very high skill level everywhere.
That is one of the reasons that winning GS's on all surfaces is so highly regarded.

The 6 consecutive year end #1 is again a great record.

Players can get by with playing mediocre tennis on some surfaces and still end up as #1, this weakens the value of the record.
As in the case of Sampras and clay.

The deal with 22 semis is there is no way out, you have to be good everywhere and if not having your day you still find a way to win, no making up for it in the next tournament.
And in these 22 semis the 17/18 finals record was made adding to the strength of the semi record, again on ALL surfaces.

Just my 2 cents.

SetSampras
11-21-2009, 05:40 PM
Let's face it: even if Fed were to miraculously win another 5-year stretch of Wimby titles, you'd still ferret out some (hypothetical and purely speculative) reasons for not considering Fed better than Sampras on grass. I wouldn't be surprised if your next set of arguments included the difference in the shades of green, or how many blades of grass were actually on court at the time :(

All that it will prove that Fed is the best on this current grass of THIS generation!!! Thats all it proves.. It has no bearing on the fact that Fed may be better Sampras because of what the numbers say now. Totally different timeframe and situation. As I said, the only way to prove beyond a resonable doubt is to say them go toe to toe at wimbeldon over the course of a few years. Borg is the clay GOAT to most, thats not say once Borg got on the court with Nadal, Nadal wouldnt destroy Borg from pillar to post. Then there would be no talk about Borg being GOAT on clay. So who knows..


You can also widely argue Sampras had much steeper grass court competition than Federer. Outside of Nadal on grass, Fed's biggest conquest has been Rodick. Sampras dealt with more than that to grab his 7 wimbeldons disposing the likes of Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Goran etc. All better players than Roddick on the green stuff (Yes even Agassi, since Andre and an old Agassi at the that owns Roddick in the h2h) and most of them better and deadlier than Nadal on grass. There is only one other decent enough player on grass in this generation to dispose of Fed on grass which is Nadal. Fed has two big wins over Nadal at wimby. An impressive one in 07. And one over Nadal in his 4th grass court tournament ever in 2006. While Nadal has a win over Fed in 08. SO outside Nadal the pool gets pretty thin at wimbeldon these days

habibko
11-21-2009, 05:43 PM
garbage of the highest order from another fed fangirl i assume, rating that 22 semis streak as no.1.......lendl was 230+ weeks no.1 in a 10 times fiercer field and i reckon that as a bigger deed than federer's semis streak...............

this is not even worth responding to, just more Fed loathing from you.

i don't think we will see anyone in the near future break these two records.......

1 seven wimbledon singles titles........

2 six consecutive year end no.1 finishes........

you can't see the 7 Wimbledon titles being broken anytime soon, did you forget that Fed only needs to win it once more to tie it and once more to break it? 2 more years and 2 more successful runs is all it takes, and by 2011 it could be broken, how far does that sound to you?

6 cons. YE #1 shallows in front of 237 consecutive weeks at #1, in terms of #1 ranking this is the ultimate record by far.