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.deliveryman said: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.
yea right. comparing fed to martin or forget.Ays25 said: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
I think thats a disgrace to Martin.megadeth said:yea right. comparing fed to martin or forget.![]()
deliveryman said: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.
Well Pete didnt retire 2 years ago, thats why the stats didnt match up.LuckyAC said:He's just talking about the last two years
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.Tourmalante said: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.
And that's why Sampras won 7 of 8 right? because of all that incredible competition.Ays25 said: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
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.deliveryman said:I agree, Kuerten's reign as #1, along with Hewitt's reign is considered a joke, when Sampras retired.
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?Ays25 said: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