The standards of being #1 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The standards of being #1

Tourmalante
09-13-2005, 01:23 AM
I was seeing a similar discussion taking place on another board and thought I

should post the gist of the argument here. Basically Federer has changed the

whole paradigm of thought about what sort of results constitute being a true

uncontested #1 player. Before a number one year was typically one GS and then

5 or so titles. Sampras managed multiple GSs in a year but usually won less then

double digit titles and lost around 20 matches. After Federer's reign though,

losing twenty matches in a year and winning perhaps 6 titiles will be

unnacceptable. Whoever succeeds federer has humongous shoes to fill or risk

being taken for a joke or a transitional # 1.

deliveryman
09-13-2005, 01:30 AM
I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired. Pete Sampras left huge shoes to fill, and Roger is just now, 5 grand slams, 21 titles and a 146-9 record later is just starting to fill them.

rofe
09-13-2005, 01:41 AM
I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired. Pete Sampras left huge shoes to fill, and Roger is just now, 5 grand slams, 21 titles and a 146-9 record later is just starting to fill them.

6 grand slams.

Anyway, theses stats are difficult for Federer to repeat let alone his sucessors.

TenHound
09-13-2005, 01:44 AM
I hope Federer changes the Paradigm. Dominance during yr. prime yrs. should be a major determinant, rather than merely most Majors won. AA discusses this in less quoted portion of his post-match interview yesterday. Here's the quote:

Q. Do you think Roger is even better than Sampras at his best, and he could maybe break one day the record of Sampras?

ANDRE AGASSI: Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger.

I think he's the best I've played against. But I also think the accomplishment of winning that many Slams requires a number of things, including a little bit of luck to make sure you're healthy, nothing goes wrong.

There's no question that Pete is a Champion. Every Champion has their signature. 14 Majors was Pete's. But just because that worked for him, it doesn't follow that he's the greatest. Merely, as AA suggests that he had luck & longevity. If you look at winning % for a year, or most wins out of 100 matches played, he's nowhere up there w/Borg, McEnroe, Lendl or now Roger. If Roger got cancer in January, I would never say that makes Pete a better player. Pete was a great Champion & a great Big Match player blessed w/longevity.

Ays25
09-13-2005, 02:41 AM
the only stantard is to compete againts good oppositon.. like back in the 80s and 90s..
those days when u look at a draw u can easily say " sampras can win wimby but there are around 10 more who can win as well" but therse days there is no competition. roger is the only good player but he is not that great imo.
he would be the todd martin or guy forget of the 80s 90s

megadeth
09-13-2005, 03:02 AM
the only stantard is to compete againts good oppositon.. like back in the 80s and 90s..
those days when u look at a draw u can easily say " sampras can win wimby but there are around 10 more who can win as well" but therse days there is no competition. roger is the only good player but he is not that great imo.
he would be the todd martin or guy forget of the 80s 90s

yea right. comparing fed to martin or forget. :rolleyes:

Mechlan
09-13-2005, 03:22 AM
I think it's ridiculous to expect the next #1 to emulate Sampras and Federer to be considered a worthy #1. Just because this generation has been blessed (or cursed ;)) with a dominant player is no reason the next one will be. No one can predict what the dynamic will be even a year down the line, and I remain skeptical about anyone's chances at duplicating Federer's feats. It's entirely possible that a few years down the road, numerous people will be competing over the top spot and someone will edge out the rest. So while that player may not be dominant, there's no reason to consider him a joke for not winning multiple Grand Slams and 10 titles in a year.

nkhera1
09-13-2005, 04:49 AM
The number 1 player of each generation is generally considered better than the number 1 player from the generation before especially in individual sports. The reason for this is because players become more gifted athletically and technically because the bar has already been raised and in order for them to be better they have to pass the bar. Also technology helps out a lot (with a lot of things besides rackets.)

nkhera1
09-13-2005, 04:49 AM
yea right. comparing fed to martin or forget. :rolleyes:

I think thats a disgrace to Martin. ;)

Federerhingis
09-13-2005, 06:11 AM
I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired. Pete Sampras left huge shoes to fill, and Roger is just now, 5 grand slams, 21 titles and a 146-9 record later is just starting to fill them.


32 titles!

LuckyAC
09-13-2005, 06:22 AM
He's just talking about the last two years

Federerhingis
09-13-2005, 06:26 AM
He's just talking about the last two years

Well Pete didnt retire 2 years ago, thats why the stats didnt match up.

tennisvideos
09-13-2005, 09:06 AM
I was seeing a similar discussion taking place on another board and thought I

should post the gist of the argument here. Basically Federer has changed the

whole paradigm of thought about what sort of results constitute being a true

uncontested #1 player. Before a number one year was typically one GS and then

5 or so titles. Sampras managed multiple GSs in a year but usually won less then

double digit titles and lost around 20 matches. After Federer's reign though,

losing twenty matches in a year and winning perhaps 6 titiles will be

unnacceptable. Whoever succeeds federer has humongous shoes to fill or risk

being taken for a joke or a transitional # 1.

Sorry to say but this is a ridiculous argument. Nobody has to step into Roger's shoes and try to emulate what he has done ... he is a freak. The next person to hold the #1 ranking will have got there for a reason and that is all that matters. They have been good enough over a 12 month space to earn the #1 ranking. It's that simple. Any other attempts to put your own spin are merely that - your own attempts to try to belittle whoever may have been #1 previously or after Federer's reign. Totally unjustified and unfair. Federer is a freak, a superstar, a player of such talent that he has dominated the past 2 seasons in spectacular fashion. But if Nadal or someone else happens to take his crown, however briefly or with whatever results, then of course they have earnt that position. A simple fact. The rest is totally subjective and many people will try all manner of angles and slants to denigrate players they are not particularly fond of.

uNIVERSE mAN
09-13-2005, 12:06 PM
the only stantard is to compete againts good oppositon.. like back in the 80s and 90s..
those days when u look at a draw u can easily say " sampras can win wimby but there are around 10 more who can win as well" but therse days there is no competition. roger is the only good player but he is not that great imo.
he would be the todd martin or guy forget of the 80s 90s

And that's why Sampras won 7 of 8 right? because of all that incredible competition.

wipeout
09-13-2005, 12:23 PM
I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired.

Like Federer, Hewitt has a winning record against almost everyone in the top 20. Some joke. Hewitt was #1 because he was the best player against the best players.

guinevere_79
09-13-2005, 12:34 PM
the only stantard is to compete againts good oppositon.. like back in the 80s and 90s..
those days when u look at a draw u can easily say " sampras can win wimby but there are around 10 more who can win as well" but therse days there is no competition. roger is the only good player but he is not that great imo.
he would be the todd martin or guy forget of the 80s 90s

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, it just seems like there is no competition because Roger is playing at a much higher level than the rest of the field?

I just hate it when people downgrade Roger's accomplishments by saying that there is no competition at all, which is why he is able to do all these. That all of Roger's peers are not comparable to the competition during the earlier days, because they don't have as much Slam titles.

Personally, I think of it in the opposite way. It seems that there is no competition, because Roger is so far ahead from the rest of the field. But it doesn't mean that his peers are any less talented than what Sampras, Becker etc. had to contend with.