Originally Posted by pc1
That's why the stuff about the majors, while important is perhaps bit overrated. What's more impressive, winning 5 top tier tournaments that aren't majors but have the best field or one major? I would think the former.
Federer has under 70 tournament victories in his career. Somehow I think accomplishments like Connors and Lendl being in the 140's plus a number of majors should count for something. It amazes me that in the Open Era, virtually every top number one has been called the GOAT by many at one point or another except for Lendl. I think it had a lot to do with the fact Lendl was not liked by the media.
Originally Posted by Steve132
Federer's 62 tournament titles include 16 majors, 16 Masters titles and 4 year end championships. Most tennis analysts consider his achievements to be more remarkable than those of either Connors or Lendl.
The structure of today's game encourages players to be far more focused on winning big events than on piling up victories in Mickey Mouse tournaments. As such, you can't use number of tournaments won to compare players across generations.
Laver defeating Rosewall, Gimeno, Hoad and Gonzalez doesn't qualify as Mickey Mouse. Or Rosewall or the others doing the same is pretty good I would say. Laver also win a ton of top tier Open Tournaments that didn't include top level tournaments like the 1970 Sydney Dunlop in which he defeated Rosewall in the final.
I am not necessarily writing that Connors or Lendl should be rated ahead of Federer but I am writing that their great achievements in tournaments and their great consistency should count for something. Majors, while exceptionally important is not the end all in evaluating players and that is all I am writing.
Mats Wilander won three majors in 1988 but didn't win many other tournaments. Is that superior to McEnroe's year in 1984 in which McEnroe won two majors but he won virtually everything else?