Fed now has as many slams as Becker and Edberg... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Fed now has as many slams as Becker and Edberg...

Tennis Fool
09-11-2005, 11:52 PM
Would you consider him greater than them now? If he gets 7, he'll match Mats and JMac. If he gets 8, he'll match Agassi.

At the rate his is going, he'll match Sampras in 4 years.

Flibbertigibbet
09-11-2005, 11:54 PM
The cool thing is that I believe Becker and Edberg were two of his childhood idols, so I'm sure it means a lot to match them in Slam totals.

Of course, at the rate he's going, he would match Sampras in four years, but it'll be very, very difficult to sustain this same level for four years.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-11-2005, 11:54 PM
Greater than Edberg and Wilander

Timariot
09-11-2005, 11:54 PM
One needs to look at other factors. Few people view Wilander greater than Becker/Edberg, despite having 1 more slam, or equal to Mac. On the other hand, many view Mac greater than Lendl, despite having less Slams, total titles and inferior #1 record. But Mac gets bonus points from 'brilliance'.

If Fed quit today, he would be viewed very close to Mac legacy-wise, because of his awesome dominance over last 2 years.

landoud
09-11-2005, 11:55 PM
hope he can get couple gs more

deliveryman
09-12-2005, 12:09 AM
Roger is probably going to win another 2/3 slams next year as well.

kundalini
09-12-2005, 12:10 AM
Suppose Federer is injured and never sets forth on a tennis court again.

He would be regarded as someone in the Rod Laver, Sampras class - not the Edberg, Becker, Wilander class.

People would say things like - if it wasn't for his injury he would have matched/beaten Pete Sampras' record of GS etc Easily one of the top 5 players of all time.........

Right now, we are just waiting for him to get to 10 GS and then on to Pete's record.

And I suspect most of the players feel likewise.

KarstenBraasch#1
09-12-2005, 12:12 AM
Boris will always be the greatest. :worship:

JustmeUK
09-12-2005, 12:13 AM
thing is I don't know he will beat Sampras' record eventually. sure he has a shot but needs to remain injury free and motivated.the next two years I can see him winning 2 slams/year if he's injury free. but after that? he wants it bad now.. but to keep this level of intensity up day in day out for another 4-6 years? who knows. I appreciate Roger for being Roger now :).

kundalini
09-12-2005, 12:14 AM
One needs to look at other factors. Few people view Wilander greater than Becker/Edberg, despite having 1 more slam, or equal to Mac. On the other hand, many view Mac greater than Lendl, despite having less Slams, total titles and inferior #1 record. But Mac gets bonus points from 'brilliance'.

If Fed quit today, he would be viewed very close to Mac legacy-wise, because of his awesome dominance over last 2 years.

Better than McEnroe.

Where are Federer's rivals?

Who are they?

He has 6 GS out of the last 10. No-one else has more than 1.

He wins finals relatively easily.

kundalini
09-12-2005, 12:16 AM
thing is I don't know he will beat Sampras' record eventually. sure he has a shot but needs to remain injury free and motivated.the next two years I can see him winning 2 slams/year if he's injury free. but after that? he wants it bad now.. but to keep this level of intensity up day in day out for another 4-6 years? who knows. I appreciate Roger for being Roger now :).

But Roger can cruise to victory at Wimbledon - just like Pete did - for many years to come. Other tournaments may become too tough once he is past his peak. But Wimbledon is an easy GS for someone who can play on grass.

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 12:21 AM
It's his record in finals that's so amazing. He only needs to reach 14 finals to win 14 grand slams. Whereas Pete Sampras needed to reach 18 finals to win 14 slams.
Lendl needed 19 finals to win 8 slams.
Agassi also won 8 slams but from 15 final appearances.

JustmeUK
09-12-2005, 12:27 AM
It's his record in finals that's so amazing. He only needs to reach 14 finals to win 14 grand slams. Whereas Pete Sampras needed to reach 18 finals to win 14 slams.
Lendl needed 19 finals to win 8 slams.
Agassi also won 8 slams but from 15 final appearances.

that's pushing it a bit. I mean I love Fed but I seriously don't think he will win 14/14 slams finals.

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 12:29 AM
But Roger can cruise to victory at Wimbledon - just like Pete did - for many years to come. Other tournaments may become too tough once he is past his peak. But Wimbledon is an easy GS for someone who can play on grass.
I agree. Maybe Roger will soon start to struggle more on the hard courts but on grass I think he'll be dominant for many years to come.
Firstly, grass isn't as physically demanding as the other surfaces because the rallies are shorter.
Secondly, out of all the youngsters that are coming through, I don't see much grass court potential. Nadal, Djokovic, Gasquet, Monfils and Murray have all grown up on clay.
Thirdly, all the top grass court players like Hewitt and Roddick aren't causing Roger any problems at the moment. And Ancic hasn't progressed as much as everyone hoped.

I think Roger will win 6-8 Wimbledon titles.

wipeout
09-12-2005, 12:30 AM
Sampras had 6 Slams as he was turning 24 so he and Federer are equal here.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 12:31 AM
Suppose Federer is injured and never sets forth on a tennis court again.

He would be regarded as someone in the Rod Laver, Sampras class - not the Edberg, Becker, Wilander class.

People would say things like - if it wasn't for his injury he would have matched/beaten Pete Sampras' record of GS etc Easily one of the top 5 players of all time.........

.
That's debatable. Remember when Monica was on track to be the best of all time. Now she's considered below Steffi.

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 12:33 AM
that's pushing it a bit. I mean I love Fed but I seriously don't think he will win 14/14 slams finals.
I know, I exaggerated to make a point. I could see him loosing a Roland Garros final to Nadal maybe and possibly a hard court final to one of the new generation but I don't see him loosing any finals anytime soon.

1sun
09-12-2005, 12:33 AM
yes

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 12:34 AM
That's debatable. Remember when Monica was on track to be the best of all time. Now she's considered below Steffi.
I don't think Monica would have ever won Wimbledon. She was only getting the better of Steffi on slower surfaces.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 12:40 AM
I don't think Monica would have ever won Wimbledon. She was only getting the better of Steffi on slower surfaces.
Yes, but those slower surfaces were what Steffi won as well after Monica was out.

Corey Feldman
09-12-2005, 12:46 AM
6 slams from 6 finals.... becker (10) and Edberg (11) finals, plus edberg at least reached 1 roland garros final, so rogi still has a bit more to do before he can reach that..
and these 2 ... Federer with Lendl and Agassi :eek:

yanchr
09-12-2005, 12:53 AM
that's pushing it a bit. I mean I love Fed but I seriously don't think he will win 14/14 slams finals.
I'll have to be very careful to bet against that.

PamV
09-12-2005, 12:53 AM
Would you consider him greater than them now? If he gets 7, he'll match Mats and JMac. If he gets 8, he'll match Agassi.

At the rate his is going, he'll match Sampras in 4 years.

I hope he can match Sampras record.

I think we have to wait and see, but I don't like the idea of rating everyone solely based on how many majors they've won. One guy can win a major or two when other top players are injured, so to judge that a guy who wins 6 is not as great as a guy who wins 7 is arbitrary.

Currently though what stands out about Roger is not just his major tally but the fact that he's won so many other tournaments as well. I know that Mats and JMac also did that during their peak times. I am not sure about Edberg and Becker.

PamV
09-12-2005, 12:59 AM
6 slams from 6 finals.... becker (10) and Edberg (11) finals, plus edberg at least reached 1 roland garros final, so rogi still has a bit more to do before he can reach that..
and these 2 ... Federer with Lendl and Agassi :eek:

I don't know about Lendl but Agassi never won in the relm of 9 or 11 tournaments a year including two majors or three majors and three or four Masters. Currently Federer's peak years of 2004 and 2005 have put him as the second best peak performance of all time just under John McEnroe.....that's if you talk about win loss record and number of tournaments won within the year.

Agassi won 8 majors but he spread that out over a long period of time. If Roger were still in shape and playing near his peak level at the age of 35 how many majors would he have won by then? Probably more than 8. Regardless of how many majors they've won I think Roger is a greater player than Agassi ever was. That's not to put Agassi down that's just looking at the facts.

sawan66278
09-12-2005, 12:59 AM
Where to place Roger? I would say he not quite put him in the Becker/Edberg category quite yet...close...but not yet...While he has had two of the most dominant years in the history of tennis, there is something to say about longevity...

In addition, the level of competition at the top is nowhere near the level of the top during the era of Becker/Edberg. They had to compete with the likes of Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, McEnroe, Sampras, etc...Roger has beaten in the finals: One trick pony Andy Roddick (twice), Poor man's Michael Chang Hewitt (twice), aged Agassi (once) and wasted talent (Mark P.)

In addition, let's not forget Becker and Edberg's great achievements in Davis Cup...where pressure is often the greatest...I still remember Becker almost single-handedly winning the cup for Germany...and Edberg's heroic's for Sweden...

At the level of Becker and Edberg...almost...soon to be...but not quite...

richie21
09-12-2005, 02:03 PM
Secondly, out of all the youngsters that are coming through, I don't see much grass court potential. Nadal, Djokovic, Gasquet, Monfils and Murray have all grown up on clay.


gasquet won his first tournament ....on grass ......so i wouldn t underestimate him in the future on this surface,especially considering his style of play

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 04:28 PM
Agassi won 8 majors but he spread that out over a long period of time. If Roger were still in shape and playing near his peak level at the age of 35 how many majors would he have won by then? Probably more than 8. .
Feds could probably match 8 after next season :eek:

wimbledonfan
09-12-2005, 04:41 PM
Sampras had 7 slams at this point ten years ago . However if Roger wins 2 slams next year he'll be tied with him at 8 slams . Remember Pete struggled in 96 after his coach died and some people thought he lost his edge after he didn't succesfully defend his wimbledon title .

lizB
09-12-2005, 04:53 PM
Personally, I hope Roger surpasses Sampras' 14 majors, this way I can rest assured in the fact that I won't ever have to watch another RBS commercial with Pete recalling his glory days. :zzz:

I've been a tennis fan for over twenty five years and I have yet to see a tennis player with less charisma then Sampras.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 05:03 PM
Personally, I hope Roger surpasses Sampras' 14 majors, this way I can rest assured in the fact that I won't ever have to watch another RBS commercial with Pete recalling his glory days. :zzz:

I've been a tennis fan for over twenty five years and I have yet to see a tennis player with less charisma then Sampras.
But...but

HE MADE IT HAPPEN. HE DID.

:p

andre the great
09-12-2005, 05:06 PM
Barring a disaster Fed will be in double figures within the next three years leaving a lot of greats in his slipstream. I always hoped Andre would win ten bit seeing that he had only three in May 1999 eight is a great return.

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 05:42 PM
gasquet won his first tournament ....on grass ......so i wouldn t underestimate him in the future on this surface,especially considering his style of play
As Roddick and Hewitt have shown, there's a BIG difference between winning one of those grass court warm-up events, doing well at Wimbledon and beating Roger Federer.

I'm sure Gasquet will one day reach the quarters, the semis or even the final at Wimby but will he beat Federer? Not for a good few years at least.

alfonsojose
09-12-2005, 05:49 PM
Is Gunter Parche a Roddick fan :scared: ?

MariaV
09-12-2005, 05:50 PM
Alfonsojose please!!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :scared:

alfonsojose
09-12-2005, 05:56 PM
:hug: Sorry, MariaV. But seriously. It has been a topic i've wanted to adress before. I was only 3 meters away from Lindsay at Wimby this year. Nobody used a metal detector on me. Just because i had no luggage, i could enter freely. But i had a little Kangoroo bag :confused: and a jacket.

USO's place looked way bigger than Wimby. The players have to walk between tons of fans before reaching safer places. I know it's a ugly topic, and i've been reluctant to start such a thread, but i think it's important.

MariaV
09-12-2005, 08:07 PM
Oh dear oh dear!!!! :scared: :scared: That's really scary then if any mentally unstable person could get close to them like that. At the USO the big security guys were at the courtside during the matches too though. At least I HOPE everyone has learned from the horrible Monica stabbing, ahhh, it's horrible even to get reminded of it. :scared: :scared: I hope the security personnel is professional enough everywhere not to let smth by them, at Wimby you must've looked a very reliable person to them. ;)

Sorry for getting off-topic. :o

the cat
09-13-2005, 02:36 PM
I consider Federer already better than Becker and Edberg. But not Borg who had a mind boggling 10 grand slam singles titles by age 24. :D While I consider Federer better than Becker and Edberg as tennis players his competition at the top of tennis isn't nearly as tough as what Becker and Edberg faced in their primes.