PDA

View Full Version : ? Fed's harcourts streak


ACE of Hearts
02-09-2006, 07:55 AM
I noticed that Roger has a 52 hardcourt winning streak.Is this streak really legit.I thought he lost the streak in the tennis masters cup?Thats insane if true.

edberg505
02-09-2006, 08:01 AM
I think the surface in Shanghai wasn't consider hard court but carpet.

crazylevity
02-09-2006, 08:01 AM
Yes...TMC is considered indoors, not outdoor hardcourts. Federer's streak begins from his defeat at AO last year, all the way till now.

ACE of Hearts
02-09-2006, 08:04 AM
Well that is pretty impressive, he can actually push it to 60.Its hard to fathom someone getting it to 60.

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 08:14 AM
It's bs that they don't count the masters cup loss. Carpet is virtually a non-existant surface on tour. Indoor hardcourts have replaced it. If they count indoor hardcourt as hardcourt, they should count carpet as hardcourt. Or they should count indoor hardcourt events separately from outdoor harcdourt events.

Also, I know they atp loves compiling all these lists in order to promote Fed, but really "longest hardcourt streak?" Who cares? I never heard anyone mention Sampras had the previous record when he was playing. This record meant absolutely nothing a few years ago. As did that consecutive finals streak. Wonder how many records Laver & Gonzalez had when no stat guy was around to keep records.

random1
02-09-2006, 08:22 AM
It's bs that they don't count the masters cup loss. Carpet is virtually a non-existant surface on tour. Indoor hardcourts have replaced it. If they count indoor hardcourt as hardcourt, they should count carpet as hardcourt. Or they should count indoor hardcourt events separately from outdoor harcdourt events.

Also, I know they atp loves compiling all these lists in order to promote Fed, but really "longest hardcourt streak?" Who cares? I never heard anyone mention Sampras had the previous record when he was playing. This record meant absolutely nothing a few years ago. As did that consecutive finals streak. Wonder how many records Laver & Gonzalez had when no stat guy was around to keep records.
Gotta disagree on the finals streak. No one had a significant streak, so it wasn't talked about. People definitely talked about Sampras' grass streak, and his hardcourt streak wasn't approached by anyone until Fed came along. You don't hear much about some relatively unimportant records unless someone is threatening or surpassing them. Nevertheless, they are pretty unimportant records.
Also, using GS victories as the sole basis of historic greatness is also a relatively new concept(mostly for marketing the tour), which is why even top players didn't typically bother with the AO and sometimes even FO.
Fed is currently running up match records that no one has seen since McEnroe, and it's the only thing to talk about with Fed dominating everything.

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 08:45 AM
Gotta disagree on the finals streak. No one had a significant streak, so it wasn't talked about. People definitely talked about Sampras' grass streak, and his hardcourt streak wasn't approached by anyone until Fed came along. You don't hear much about some relatively unimportant records unless someone is threatening or surpassing them. Nevertheless, they are pretty unimportant records.
Also, using GS victories as the sole basis of historic greatness is also a relatively new concept(mostly for marketing the tour), which is why even top players didn't typically bother with the AO and sometimes even FO.
Fed is currently running up match records that no one has seen since McEnroe, and it's the only thing to talk about with Fed dominating everything

I've been following since the early 80s. The tennis media was very different than it is today. Today they have stats on everything being mentioned non-stop. Back then the majors(well just Wimbledon & the US Open actually) were the only thing that mattered. No one ever mentioned Borg having a grasscourt streak. He was winning consecutive Wimbledons, not minor events like Halle(I gather Fed is close to breaking Borg's grasscourt streak which is padded with Halle wins. When it happens all the kids on the board will act like its a big deal. Borg's streak is much more impressive, all the wins were at Wimbledon)

If McEnroe had a streak of 20 consecutive finals wins in the 80s, no member of the press would have mentioned it(or been aware of it) It wasn't considered important then(plus the ATP didn't have a Greg Sharko doing stats for them then) Mac had the record with 15 or something before Fed broke it. I doubt he was even aware of having that record.

I gather Sampras had a pretty long hardcourt streak in the 90s. Wonder why no one ever mentioned it. Because it wasn't a big deal. I think what Fed is doing is amazing, but they are going overboard trumpeting these streaks that no one cared about a few years ago. This isn't baseball where there are so many important records that all the players are aware of.

edberg505
02-09-2006, 08:51 AM
Yes...TMC is considered indoors, not outdoor hardcourts. Federer's streak begins from his defeat at AO last year, all the way till now.


http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/headtohead/head2head.asp?player1=Nalbandian%2C+David&player2=federer

2005 Tennis Masters Cup, Carpet, F
Shanghai, China Carpet F Nalbandian 6 7 6 7 6 2 6 1 7 6

It is considered as carpet. Carpet and Indoor Hardcourts are different.

Shabazza
02-09-2006, 08:54 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/headtohead/head2head.asp?player1=Nalbandian%2C+David&player2=federer

2005 Tennis Masters Cup, Carpet, F
Shanghai, China Carpet F Nalbandian 6 7 6 7 6 2 6 1 7 6

It is considered as carpet. Carpet and Indoor Hardcourts are different.
case closed!

random1
02-09-2006, 08:58 AM
I've been following since the early 80s. The tennis media was very different than it is today. Today they have stats on everything being mentioned non-stop. Back then the majors(well just Wimbledon & the US Open actually) were the only thing that mattered. No one ever mentioned Borg having a grasscourt streak. He was winning consecutive Wimbledons, not minor events like Halle(I gather Fed is close to breaking Borg's grasscourt streak which is padded with Halle wins. When it happens all the kids on the board will act like its a big deal. Borg's streak is much more impressive, all the wins were at Wimbledon)

If McEnroe had a streak of 20 consecutive finals wins in the 80s, no member of the press would have mentioned it(or been aware of it) It wasn't considered important then(plus the ATP didn't have a Greg Sharko doing stats for them then) Mac had the record with 15 or something before Fed broke it. I doubt he was even aware of having that record.

I gather Sampras had a pretty long hardcourt streak in the 90s. Wonder why no one ever mentioned it. Because it wasn't a big deal. I think what Fed is doing is amazing, but they are going overboard trumpeting these streaks that no one cared about a few years ago. This isn't baseball where there are so many important records that all the players are aware of.


I'm mostly in agreement with you, but I remember Sampras' hardcourt streak talked about at the time. Which still doesn't make it important, in my book.

While we're on the subject, Borg's grasscourt streak is truly amazing. Only playing one grass tourney per year, and winning 5 in a row!!?? From the baseline in an era of more S&V, no less.

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 09:09 AM
While we're on the subject, Borg's grasscourt streak is truly amazing. Only playing one grass tourney per year, and winning 5 in a row!!?? From the baseline in an era of more S&V, no less.

Yeah, he was the man. He did S&V quite a bit though at Wimbledon. Didn't have great volleys, but had a big serve that set up his volleys. Agassi & Hewitt are the only players I've seen that won Wimbledon exlusively from the baseline.

Think Fed can win 5 (or 6 Wimbledons) in a row? Even though Sampras won 7 Wimbledons, it didn't get the attention that those 5 consecutive Wimbledons did. That seemed to the ultimate achievement in tennis(heck in all of sports) at the time.

arosen
02-09-2006, 01:53 PM
He can definitely win 4, almost a done deal. Who's gonna challenge him this year? Marcos? No way. It's probably going to be another Fed-Rod final. Unless Nalby gets a good draw and then its Fed - Nalby all over again.

Andres
02-09-2006, 02:16 PM
Yeah, he was the man. He did S&V quite a bit though at Wimbledon. Didn't have great volleys, but had a big serve that set up his volleys. Agassi & Hewitt are the only players I've seen that won Wimbledon exlusively from the baseline.

Think Fed can win 5 (or 6 Wimbledons) in a row? Even though Sampras won 7 Wimbledons, it didn't get the attention that those 5 consecutive Wimbledons did. That seemed to the ultimate achievement in tennis(heck in all of sports) at the time.

I think winning 4 RG in a row is more impressive than 5 wimbys ;)
Viva Borg ;)

Shabazza
02-09-2006, 03:43 PM
I think winning 4 RG in a row is more impressive than 5 wimbys ;)
Viva Borg ;)
Doing both is and will be unmatched, period!