Originally Posted by The_Order
Doesn't matter. If every top 200 tennis player except John Isner disappeared off the face of the Earth and John Isner started winning everything left right and center would you look at his winning % and consistency and say he's had the greatest season of all time? NO, because his opponents aren't as good as if the top 200 players didn't disappear.
This is my point (although not to that extreme) JMac and Connors and whoever else you want to include are not as good competition as Federer and Nadal. So therefore Novak beating them consistently is more impressive.
I feel sorry for Djokovic and Nadal. People.may consider them great now, but in the years to come their careers will move to being completely irrelevant. Why? Because some commentators in the future will say....only their current players count, because..'.they are so much better'
So the question remains then, if great players records are counted as irrelevant after a few decades....should they put such huge efforts into establishing their records?