Is Federer the tragic hero
- Thread starter roysid
- Start date
beard
Legend
Damn, you are right... Federer just couldn't deliver the goathood...
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
Too much projection on what Federer may/may not be feeling (not just the OP). Clearly not losing any sleep over it since he's not even attempted to play in the last year and a bit now. No doubt he is very happy with what he has achieved.
He's already secured his place in tennis history by being the first guy to really step up and take the game to new heights, inspiring a generation of players and beginning a period of unprecedented joint dominance.
Nadal, Djokovic, Federer - still the Big 3 in the sense that when you mention 1 of them, you will always mention the other 2. Unless Nadal or Djokovic win a ridiculous number of additional Slams (e.g. 27+ each) or one of them wins the Grand Slam (the ultimate tennis achievement), it will be difficult to elevate to a totally separate platform.
He's already secured his place in tennis history by being the first guy to really step up and take the game to new heights, inspiring a generation of players and beginning a period of unprecedented joint dominance.
Nadal, Djokovic, Federer - still the Big 3 in the sense that when you mention 1 of them, you will always mention the other 2. Unless Nadal or Djokovic win a ridiculous number of additional Slams (e.g. 27+ each) or one of them wins the Grand Slam (the ultimate tennis achievement), it will be difficult to elevate to a totally separate platform.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
Clearly, Feddie boy should have retired at 31.
Or won Wimbledon 2019 and walked off into the sunset
Forehanderer
Professional
No. big 4 was an attempt by the british media to fit murry in. he is on 3 slams while the big 3 have 20/20/18 at this point. there's a difference
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
We still use the Big 4, the term is not obsolete.
Big 4 and Big 3 refer to completely different things - the former being a reference to the sustained period of dominance and consistency exhibited between 2007 and 2016 by the 3 already mentioned plus Andy Murray. All ranked #1, all featuring at the business end of big tournaments almost all the time. This has not been tied to the Slam count.
Big 3 is more associated with the individuals who occupy a separate platform altogether in terms of overall tennis achievements, including Slam count.
It may well be Big 2 or even Big 1 in the future - but that will again carry a different meaning.
gn
G.O.A.T.
For the present marketing gimmick? Maybe. But they will still be seen as Big 3 in the future.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
I love the influence that people think the British media supposedly has.
beard
Legend
In big 4 time difference wasn't that huge, but you are right...
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Brilliant post!
I said this in another thread but I was dismayed when Sampras' records were so easily broken by Federer because I thought those records could never be touched.
Now the Federer fans are likely going through more denial than I did because if Sampras' records were at one time thought uncatchable, what about Federer's who raised the bar significantly higher than Sampras? Yet here we are and Federer's records hardly fared any better than Sampras' and are on the verge of being broken! So I can fully understand the anguish the Federer fans are going through.
beard
Legend
Unfortunately, influence is huge... USA is world biggest power, but GB is right there in their shadow... I am talking politics here, but is stands for all spheres of life...
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Agree, Sampras was surpassed by three, Fed just by two...
LOL X 10,000!
You, Sir Beard and @CYGS appear determined to drive the Federer fans completely crazy as Djokovic goes about breaking every major record of Federer
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm just saying, Big 4 was a thing here in the states and I can assure everyone it wasn't because ESPN was trying to copy the BBC.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Or won Wimbledon 2019 and walked off into the sunset
But you didn't mention anything about Sampras competing until 39 and walking into the sunset .....
Clearly, the retirement at 31 would have been best for Feddie.
beard
Legend
Understand, but someone used term Big 4 first time, and that was British media (as I'm aware of)... Other embraced term that was basically wrong from the very begining...
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Not really... Just speaking truth...
Wonderful, looking forward to more of it. All the insults I suffered at the Federer fans hands when Federer was chasing Sampras' records, now it's their turn to face the music as Federer's records are falling like pins! As they say, Karma is a b*itch!
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
You're in denial my friend. Nobody knows better than the one who has experienced it. I speak from experience. The good part is that you will get over it eventually like I did.
Yes, Federer will remain one of the biggest legends of the sport, but perhaps he will not be the biggest name known by newcomers of the sport in 5 years or so from now. Though, that may not be all that bad of a thing. Do the opinion's of newcomers matter much at all? As a relative newcomer myself, I was dreading the fact the guards will be changed in that respect, basically ignoring all the older people who have more vast tennis knowledge and seem to explore nuances when it comes to past players. I guess I am going to end up one of those people who will bring up past players in GOAT conversations comprised entirely of present players with seemingly greater accomplishments. It may be that, in the future, knowledge of Federer's greatness will be what distinguishes people with the know how from the know nots.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
Big 4 was / a valid term, whether or not it was coined by the British or American media.
We just need to understand the context in which it is applied
We just need to understand the context in which it is applied
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed should have retired at the end of 2012 and everything would be ok apparently.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
If it was wrong to include Murray then it was wrong to include Djokovic as well. We first started hearing about the Big 4 when Novak was stuck on 1 slam and had no business being compared to Federer and Nadal either. But he was included because he was still going deep in every tournament, winning Masters events and being an overall threat, which is just what Murray was.
beard
Legend
Totally agree... Fortunately Novak justified his membership among greatest...
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Problem for Fed is, the media and his fanboys proclaimed his as GOAT way too early... even at 8 slams they said he was GOAT.
I don’t think they expected that 2 superior players would come along so soon.
I think 03-07 was a fairytale era for fed. Fun knock about tennis with his buddies Roddick, Hewitt, Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Gonzalez.. then 2 mentally strong ATGs showed up and his slam rate dropped drastically
I don’t think they expected that 2 superior players would come along so soon.
I think 03-07 was a fairytale era for fed. Fun knock about tennis with his buddies Roddick, Hewitt, Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Gonzalez.. then 2 mentally strong ATGs showed up and his slam rate dropped drastically
If Fed has a tragic career, I desperately need one such tragedy in mine.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He'd still be surpassed even if that happened, so not sure what your point is. Not like he's done anything since then to stop them since he hasn't even played for a year.Or won Wimbledon 2019 and walked off into the sunset
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
The entire premise of the OP's "thesis" is that unless you are the GOAT of your chosen sport, you're a nobody, which is sheer insanity in the actual world. Apparently the mindset there is that if, say, Nadal ends up with 23 slams and Djoker/Fed end up with 20, then Roger and Novak's careers are tragic, pathetic, lame and forgettable. Why bother rooting for any of the under 30 guys since none of them will even get double-digit slams, much less 20+. What's the point, none of them will ever be GOAT. And forget about chumps like Laver and Borg since nobody remembers them anyway.
A complete lack of knowledge and respect for the sport and its legends.
A complete lack of knowledge and respect for the sport and its legends.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
True.
But at some point it did stop making sense, IMO. Murray slowly but steadily just became one of the others more than 1 of the top dogs, IMO.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Pete actually dealt with Becker and Edberg for much of his prime, and Lendl and Mac as he was rising
Tennis_Hands
Banned
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
But at least he would be undisputed Wimbledon GOAT and goes down respected for what he managed to do age 38 vs the big 2
Now he doesn’t even have that. At best he is tied with Pete, but everyone knows Djokovic owns him on slow grass, and will become slow grass GOAT the moment he wins 7 Wimbledon titles.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
No shame in Fed being third best of his era, I’d kill to be in his position. He can retire with his billions and enjoy the rest of his lifeWhat you think about someone doesn't make it a reality.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Anyway, even if Fed failed to win some key matches, which was the only thing under his control, other things that weren't in his control also happened like the next generations after Djokodal being completely useless.
Fed can't stop them from winning slams every time even if he did do better. So it's up to the guys after them to stop Djokodal which hasn't happened and there's nothing Fed can do if they just keep on sucking. Djokodal would just win more majors even if they lost other matches to Fed.
Fed can't stop them from winning slams every time even if he did do better. So it's up to the guys after them to stop Djokodal which hasn't happened and there's nothing Fed can do if they just keep on sucking. Djokodal would just win more majors even if they lost other matches to Fed.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, but I think Big 3 is essentially a subset of Big 4, although much more widely accepted and still in use.
Big 4 was not really Slam-related, it was a tour-wide concept for dominance / consistency, whilst Big 3 is about the numbers and achievements that put the top 3 in a league of their own.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Or maybe, just maybe if he managed a better slam h2h than 10-21 vs his main rivals, he would’ve won 23-25+ slams and the race would be over?
He had a luxury headstart of winning 12 facing Bagdhatis, Kiefer, Roddick etc ... but only managed to win 6 facing the big 2
He had every bit of chance by continuing to play till 40? Do you really not see how ridiculous this statement is. I wonder why players retire when they could have gone on and on and on.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
I'm not suggesting he should have retired earlier to preserve some perception of GOAT.
I'm simply saying I've been on this board long enough to hear about how amazing it is that Sampras' records being broken a mere 7 years after he retired.
Federer's mark is being passed while he is still active. Yes, he stayed active 9 years longer than Sampras, but it's remarkable.
The only thing Federer could have realistically done is won even more against Djokovic and Nadal and put the bar even higher, which is sort of unthinkable
I'm simply saying I've been on this board long enough to hear about how amazing it is that Sampras' records being broken a mere 7 years after he retired.
Federer's mark is being passed while he is still active. Yes, he stayed active 9 years longer than Sampras, but it's remarkable.
The only thing Federer could have realistically done is won even more against Djokovic and Nadal and put the bar even higher, which is sort of unthinkable
Forehanderer
Professional
UK, US and the other anglophone countries have similar media outlets. For example, Rupert murdock owns FOX in US, Aus and owns several other TV/papers in the UK. We laugh at the serbia vs the world t-shirts but there is some truth to that as NATO bombed their country not too far back.
There's always this British guy in the AO coverage who always used to sneak in Big 4 couple of years ago but now is mentioning Big 3 with "not to forget Murray as well". Murray may have competed with the big 3 on par terms in those years but does not have the same success in titles.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
I'm sure Federer doesn't have any trouble sleeping at night with what he's accomplished. He's always one of the happiest, most balanced athletes off the court. He's living the dream, regardless of some wannabe posers from Spain or Serbia beating his accomplishments.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, if Sampras had kept playing, then Federer would have broken his record while still active because Sampras wasn't touching Federer in the 2000's.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
And we shouldn't re-write history just because Andy didn't end up having a GOAT caliber career.
No one ever accused Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray of being on equal ground in terms of legacy. They were lumped in together as the "Big 4" as a shorthand when discussing tennis tournaments at the time because they were the only 4 with a chance to actually win titles. Andy being out of the picture in 2021 doesn't somehow erase his status on tour during his prime.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
Sure, I'm not suggesting Sampras would do better, or could have changed history. I'm just saying how it's incredible how things are coming full circle for Federer. From being hailed as the GOAT at 6 slams and counting, to at one point being at 16 slams, while Nadal is at 5 and Djokovic 1, to likely being behind in all GOAT metrics except for most overall titles won by the time he hangs it up.
It's truly an insane sports story
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Stuff like this happens. The fact that it was always up to Fed to do something says more about the field more than anything else.
Federer is still playing (or maybe not lol) but it doesn't mean he has more chances to prevent the rivals to win ! It's not just a problem of being activ or not.
Let's wait the end of the BIG 3 & make the count ... that's all that is important to me.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
LOL.
Federer didn't really arrive on the scene until Sampras was 32. That would have equalled Djokovic not having arrived until 2013 and a younger generation ATG squeezing him out in 2020, none of which happened. Gotta love how these people "compare" but just completely switch out context.
beard
Legend
You are right, off course... Being 3rd or 2nd ever is just great, but here we are comparing those 3, and not only us here on ttw... It's THE TOPIC in tennis world, among ex players, commentators, and it's not bad in term of tennis popularity etc...
As unjustified it sounds, those guys are competing among themselves, they have put all others aside as they don't exist, and it's Fed vs Rafa vs Nole only...
I think, when all 3 retire, we will have quite clearly goat, no 2 and no 3... But they will be always known as Big 3, as group, and best tennis star ever...
Similar threads
