Has this ever happened before?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Reredef, Feb 13, 2010.

  1. Reredef

    Reredef New User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Cross-post from General Pro Player Discussion. Figured you guys are a knowledgeable bunch.

    Federer currently has 16 majors, while the rest of the active players, combined, have 14. The breakdown is as follows:

    Nadal - 6
    Hewitt - 2
    Del Potro - 1
    Djokovic - 1
    Ferrero - 1
    Gaudio - 1
    Moya - 1
    Roddick - 1

    So Federer has won more grand slam titles than the remainder of the field combined. My question is: has this ever happened before (excluding of course the first Wimbledon champion, Spencer Gore)?
     
    #1
  2. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I think this is how you define a weak era.

    Take away Nadal and those who are virtually retired, and what do you have?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
    #2
  3. Reredef

    Reredef New User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    That's a paper thin argument. A perfectly dominant player would win every single grand slam title he competed in, leaving none for his contemporaries.

    But that's off-topic..
     
    #3
  4. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,604
    Location:
    OREGON
    Might have happened after Navratilova 'retired'but late in Graf's career.
     
    #4
  5. Bashi

    Bashi Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    212
    that makes no sense at all. it just means one player is dominating, not that the others are necessarily weak.
     
    #5
  6. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    And why is the one player dominating?
     
    #6
  7. Reredef

    Reredef New User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Hey, hoodjem, could you stop derailing the thread with your nonsense? That would be awesome.
     
    #7
  8. bonga77

    bonga77 New User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    99
    By your logic, any player who dominates an era plays in a weak era. Borg dominated clay because he played in a weak era?
     
    #8
  9. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,604
    Location:
    OREGON
    Yep while I am too lazy to do the legwork. Martina retired from singles in 1994 while Graf retired in 1999. That left Seles Davenport, Sanchez, Capriati, Hingis, Pierce, Novatna a few others to get to the magic number. VBefore Hingis had accumulated many and Graf had got her last in 1999 there was quite a gap.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
    #9
  10. Bashi

    Bashi Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    212
    because they are simply a good player. all it means is that one is better than the rest - it says nothing about the quality of any of the players
     
    #10
  11. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I believe that Fed is a great player. Case closed. One of the GOATS for sure. But I believe that this thread is about the vast number of his slams compared to the very few number of anyone else's slams.

    This demonstrates to me that the others (Nadal excepted) are weak players.

    The other players are IMO fairly two-dimensional and have rather incomplete games. In a stronger era Fed would have many slams and would still be as great a player. Fed has won this many slams because he is a great and a more complete player. He has dominated roughly 16 to 1 because the others are incomplete players. He plays his opponents, not some abstract standard. This period thus this is a weak period of men's tennis IMO.

    The answer to the OP's question is probably no. There has been more equal distribution of slams in other eras.

    Tilden had 11 by 1930 but Cochet, Lacoste, and Borotra had others as well. Plus international travel has allowed Fed to play in all four slams every year. This was not (or not easily) the case in the 1920s through the 1940s.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2010
    #11
  12. Bashi

    Bashi Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    212
    i'll exaggerate to explain my point. imagine an era where all the top 20 are at federer's level or better. they're all competitive, and they all win about the same number of slams/tournaments. so you would say that's a competitive era.

    but imagine an alien comes along that plays tennis, and he bagels every single one of the federer clones in every match. does that make it a weak era? it's still a very competitive field - there's just one player that's a level above all the rest.
     
    #12
  13. ChrisCrocker

    ChrisCrocker Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    160
    Yes. Same thing if we had 19 3.5's and a 5.0 nationally ranked player comes into the area.
     
    #13
  14. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I predict that Fed will win a calendar Grand Slam this year. He is that good!
     
    #14
  15. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to

    And therein lies the argument that will ensue for years.

    Federer no doubt is GOAT now that he's set more records than anyone. He's performed more consistently in the majors than any pro since the inception of Open tennis and for years before. The only blemish on Federer's record, and IMO overstated, is his H2H against Nadal. Every player, regardless of stature has bad matchups and Nadal in his prime was Federer's.

    But, there is an arguement that the field he played is weak. Is it valid? Possibly. Who's to say?

    I have defended another dominant champion who has been accused of the same thing, Borg. I believe that Borg was just that much better than the competition. There are those who say that McEnroe ran him out of the game, but there are many other factors most notably the fact that Borg played on the tour since the age of 15 and played and won more than anyone. He gave his all for 11 years, he ate, slept, drank, and lived professional tennis. In the end, he discovered he had a personal life and that pretty much ended his dominance.

    Federer, like Borg, is dominant. I believe that Federer has one quality that Borg didn't; moderation. Federer, largely due to the $'s in tennis, is able to plan a schedule that doesn't over tax him and keeps him eager to compete and win. His schedule allows him to peak for majors. Federer, also like Borg, moves very smoothly and is blessed with a physique that is not prone to injury; unlike Nadal. Also, Federer's lighter schedule has contributed to his longevity.

    I think there is a propensity to discount Federer somewhat because fans have grown to accept his performance as the norm. It is far from it. Federer's performance and continued success is aberrant in the game. He will probably be the player of his generation who plays long past his contemporaries, like Gonzalez, Laver & Rosewall, Connors, Agassi & Sampras in their respective generations, Federer is just more blessed with physique, desire, game, talent and a good bit of luck than his contemporaries.

    Is the field weak? It's hard for me to agree that any world class field from any generation is weak. I think that there are champions throughout sport who trascend competition and have a little something extra.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2010
    #15
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    oh jeez, the weak era argument again. Give me a break !
     
    #16
  17. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    First of all only judge the top 10 its a better idea of who they are playing against..Why include Gaston Gaudio in the discussion. The top ten has grabbed 9 slams while Fed has grabbed 16. Who cares about anyone out the top 50. If Pete Sampras came out of retirement and played 3 tournaments would Fed's field be completely stronger even if Sampras lost 1st round in each tournament..That would be 14 slams now in the field. Look at the truth the top 10 and judge it there.

    Just for everyone it has happened before and it probably is not nearly as uncommon as we think I imagine if we look at the top of 1998

    1 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,915 0 11
    2 Rios, Marcelo (CHI) 3,670 0 0
    3 Corretja, Alex (ESP) 3,398 0 0
    4 Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 3,315 0 2
    5 Moya, Carlos (ESP) 3,159 0 1
    6 Agassi, Andre (USA) 2,879 0 3
    7 Henman, Tim (GBR) 2,620 0 0
    8 Kucera, Karol (SVK) 2,579 0 0
    9 Rusedski, Greg (GBR) 2,573 0 0
    10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 2,548 0 1

    Year End 1998..NOTE THIS IS THEIR SLAM COUNT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. It actually is more accurate to use this besides even if it we used there final slam counts Sampras still has more than the 12 the top 10 has combined. Throw in Kafelnkiov if you want he was 11. However it is pointless to include 69 ranked Becker as he barely played a half year and showed up at none of the slams or Jim Courier ranked 77 who was 21-22 on the year and only beat 1 top 10 player Jonas Bjorkman who would not even finish top 10 for the year. You want to say their in the field find but I wouldn't count this towards strength of the field because in 1998 neither of those two guys were making big waves. Besides both of those Men won most of their slams before Sampras hit his prime anyway.

    1 Sampras, Pete (USA) 4,547 0 10
    2 Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 3,210 0 1
    3 Chang, Michael (USA) 3,189 0 1
    4 Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE) 2,949 0 0
    5 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) 2,690 0 1
    6 Rusedski, Greg (GBR) 2,617 0 0
    7 Moya, Carlos (ESP) 2,508 0 0
    8 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP) 2,367 0 2
    9 Muster, Thomas (AUT) 2,353 0 1
    10 Rios, Marcelo (CHI) 2,317 0 0

    Once again. End rankings for 1997..Sampras has far more than the rest of the top 10..

    So is this a weak era as well? again use total numbers Sampras crushes the field.

    1999 Top 10

    1 Agassi, Andre (USA) 5,048 0 5
    2 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) 3,465 0 2
    3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,024 0 12
    4 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE) 2,606 0 0
    5 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) 2,601 0 1
    6 Kiefer, Nicolas (GER) 2,447 0 0
    7 Martin, Todd (USA) 2,408 0 0
    8 Lapentti, Nicolas (ECU) 2,284 0 0
    9 Rios, Marcelo (CHI) 2,245 0 0
    10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 2,095 0 1
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
    #17
  18. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,604
    Location:
    OREGON
    If others are not winning slams it is in part because Federer is consistently denying them experience in finals and semis of slams and the confidence that comes from routinely getting to the last rounds and playing well/winning those last rounds in the big events. They are not winning because he is consistently in their way. It is his job to keep the rest of the field weak in confidence and inexperienced. He's doing it well.
     
    #18
  19. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I agree. Look at Djokovic in the 2007 USO finals and Murray at the AO '10--they both looked discombobulated and could not play their A-games.
     
    #19
  20. Bashi

    Bashi Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    212
    their a-games still wouldnt be good enough. ie murray losing 3rd set in AO
     
    #20
  21. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Probably not. How did Delpo do it?
     
    #21
  22. sp00q

    sp00q Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Messages:
    198
    In my opinion the '90 are the weakest decade in men's tennis. No wonder Sampras crushed the field.
     
    #22

Share This Page