Joined
·
265 Posts
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.
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.