Can Federer beat Sampras record for weeks at number 1?

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

Yes indeed, she scared the blood out of every single one of her opponents, something Federer doesnt do to Nadal or Murray, or even Djokovic.

I was referring to the Hamburg incident- the tragedy.
I even liked Graf

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by AAAA

So which almighty challenger to Graf had a winning h2h, was physically at least an equal if not more so? Martina Navratilova doesn't count because she was past her best during Graf's golden years.

Martina was a late bloomer who won 16 of her 18 slams past her 25th birthday. The idea she was mysteriously way past her prime in the late 80s in her early 30s is laughable, and a concept invented by Navratilova fanatics since Graf had the power and athletic ability to kick her off her throne, something as great as Evert did she didnt once Martina reached her long delayed prime. Especialy as Graf herself was not an early bloomer to the extent of Seles or Hingis, yet still was beating Navratilova at age 16 and taking over as #1 ranked at barely 18.

Graf has a winning or tied head to head with all of Navratilova, Evert, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Davenport, Serena, Venus, Capriati, Hingis, Sabatini, Novotna, Pierce, or anyone else of semi note. The only ones she is tied with are Navratilova and Serena, and she was just as far past her prime when she played Serena as Serena was, and played more matches outside her prime vs Navratilova than vice versa (nearly all of Martina's wins were before Graf's prime in fact). There is no player who owns Graf like Nadal and Murray do Federer, and like Djokovic is starting to almost.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by AAAA

Nice contradiction here.

That is not a contradiction. Djokovic and Murray are no different than say Sabatini and Novotna achievements wise. The only difference is Graf completely dominated them the way a true GOAT should 1 or 2 slam calibre opponents, while Federer struggles massively with them. Sabatini and Novotna, 1 or 2 slam calibre type players, were scared to even walk on court with the great Graf most times. If anything Federer is scared of playing Murray and Djokovic, 1 or 2 slam calibre type players, and breathes a sigh of relief when they are away from him in the draw or eliminated.

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

grafselesfan: Steffi was an extremely great champion- but never compare her to Federer.
Its a different ballgame.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by TMF

Roger doesn't necessary need to break the SW19 record, but winning 7 is good enough. If he win in 2010, Roger will hold the upperhand:

1. 5 conecutive SW19 titles
2. 8 consecutive final
3. Record for most consecutive win on grass

LOL and you probably even think Federer's competition on grass is at all comparable to Sampras's.

Sampras competition on grass- Becker, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Henman, Rafter, Philippoussis, Stich, Martin.

Federer competition on grass- Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, the end.

All the guys today are hard court specialists, to a lesser degree clay courters. There are hardly any quality grass courters today at all, it is an empty field on that surface.

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

LOL and you probably even think Federer's competition on grass is at all comparable to Sampras's.

Sampras competition on grass- Becker, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Henman, Rafter, Philippoussis, Stich, Martin.

Federer competition on grass- Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, the end.

All the guys today are hard court specialists, to a lesser degree clay courters. There are hardly any quality grass courters today at all, it is an empty field on that surface.

Yawnnn. You are better than sleeping pills =)

Isn't grass a more homogenized surface now? Making it easier for ANYONE to come out and play well?

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

Hewitt, the end.

All the guys today are hard court specialists, to a lesser degree clay courters. There are hardly any quality grass courters today at all, it is an empty field on that surface.

Because all the surfaces has been slowed down- everyone is better on hardcourt these days! Hell even the Spaniards and Argentinians can play well on HC!

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Originally Posted by Jchurch

Yawnnn. You are better than sleeping pills =)

Isn't grass a more homogenized surface now? Making it easier for ANYONE to come out and play well?

Exactly !
10 char

[P_Agony]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

The field from 1998-2006 was the worst period for mens tennis ever. And yes I know Sampras won 4 of his slams during this time, but Federer won 9 of his and had alot of his dominance and time at #1 from 2004-2006. Lets look at some things that happened during 2004-2006:

-in 2004 a French Open that produced Henman in the semis, and a Coria-Gaudio final with Gaudio as Champion

-in 2006 James Blake as the year end World #4 (hahaha) a player who would never reach a single slam semifinal in his life, nor win a single Masters title.

-From 2005 onwards Davydenko becoming a regular top 3 player, and ending 2006 #3 in the World. This being a guy who many years later still hasnt reached a single slam final.

-Ivan Ljubicic reaching #3 in the World in 2006

The reason Graf is the undisputed female GOAT and Federer is not the mens GOAT is she backed down from nobody, which Federer certainly cant say. Navratilova, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Evert, Hingis, Davenport, you name it, Graf beat them repeatedly on all surfaces. Even those very rare periods she was ranked below them she did not fear any of them at any point, if anything she struck fears in them. She did not get scared of main rivals or develop a mental block vs them, or all that silly stuff for a so called GOAT you associate with Federer when it comes to Nadal, Murray, even Djokovic. You can harp on pre stabbing Seles all you want but in Monica's best year ever she barely beat Graf on her own best surface (10-8 in the 3rd) and got humiliated on Graf's. During her own dominance in 91-early 93 she lost to Graf on every surface, and their 2 matches on a medium to fast court which favored Graf was bullied around both times. Contrast that to Federer who has always had massive trouble beating Nadal on grass, was losing to him regularly on hard courts as a teenager, and is part of a farcial non rivalry with him on Nadal's turf- clay. Graf dominated on all surfaces unlike Federer.

It's very easy to accuse Federer of not beating his main competition because of H2Hs, despite Federer being way past his prime. Let's go one by one:

Djokovic: This one is easy, Federer owns him, 9-5 H2H, 4-1 at slams, you really have no case in Djokovic.

Murray: Murray got most of his wins by beating a past-prime Federer. Even so, Federer still leads the slam H2H 1-0 (2-1 if you consider Cincy a slam, like some Nadal fans do). Federer is 3-6 against Murray, but he clearly won the more important matches. Until Murray beats Fed at a slam, Fed will be considered the supoerior player in their H2H.

Nadal: I consider Fed's prime until TMC 2007. By then, the H2H was 8-6 to Nadal, but Federer was leading the H2H in 2/3 surfaces. There is a reason why Nadal stayed #2 despite beating Federer more than losing to him. The reason was Nadal was not good enough to reach HC slam finals or some HC MS finals, while Fed reached just about every clay event final, and always gave Nadal a competitive fight. Federer never had the chance to even the H2H, depite actually leading it on grass and HC. When 2008 began, you had to be blind not to see Fed isn't the same player as before. Moved more slowly, made more errors, and Nadal took full atvantage of that. In fact, not only Nadal did, but also Stepanek, Roddick, Blake, Fish, Karlovic, guys who Federer usually owns. The fact Federer still reaches slam finals despite his current game amazes me.

Fact is, Nadal couldn't gain the #1 ranking up until Federer was a shadow of his former self, and even then he couldn't keep it. Federer also has a far better record against the field than Nadal does.

These days, I'm not surprised when Fed's playing badly or losing, because he just isn't the old Federer anymore. You get flashes of him here and there, but overall he's just not as good as before. If Murray, Djokovic are so much better than the likes of Hewitt, Davydenko, Roddick, Haas they wouldn't lose to all of them in a year like 2009, when this guys are in the later stage of their careers.

Also, I agree Pete had the tougher grass era, but Fed had a tougher HC era, so it evens out.

[TMF]

@grafselesfan

You are comparing apple to orange. Not only Graf, but Court, Martina, or Chris had all the ridiculous tennis records that where no single legendary players from ATP ever came close. On average, it's easier to win in the WTA and setting records. Life in the WTA is easier b/c in men's tennis it's more physically demanding, playing 5 setters instead of 3. Their limitation is due to more stressful, more wear and tear.

Chris Evert made 33 GS final. How many male player ever came that close? Even a longevity player like Connors, or very fit Lendl, Federer numbers look silly.

[Cesc Fabregas]

Lets say Sampras' best year is 94 and Federer's 06, In 94 Todd Martin got to the final of the Australian and got to the semis of the Wimbledon and didn't finish the year in the top 8 and was barely top 10, in 06 James Blake got to 1 slam quarter final at the US Open and finished the year as no.4, doesn't that tell you that Sampras' era was stronger?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

LOL and you probably even think Federer's competition on grass is at all comparable to Sampras's.

Sampras competition on grass- Becker, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Henman, Rafter, Philippoussis, Stich, Martin.

Federer competition on grass- Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, the end.

All the guys today are hard court specialists, to a lesser degree clay courters. There are hardly any quality grass courters today at all, it is an empty field on that surface.

You just bringing up names to make Pete look good. Fact is...he never faced a single player you listed above in 2000, and facing no top 10 players. 1999 he faces Andre, who didn't show up by serving 44% 1st serve.

And besides, there's nothing you can say Roger wouldn't of take down any of those players, or they would beat today's players. All we have known facts are their records and titles.

[flying24]

Originally Posted by TMF

@grafselesfan

You are comparing apple to orange. Not only Graf, but Court, Martina, or Chris had all the ridiculous tennis records that where no single legendary players from ATP ever came close. On average, it's easier to win in the WTA and setting records. Life in the WTA is easier b/c in men's tennis it's more physically demanding, playing 5 setters instead of 3. Their limitation is due to more stressful, more wear and tear.

Chris Evert made 33 GS final. How many male player ever came that close? Even a longevity player like Connors, or very fit Lendl, Federer numbers look silly.

Not only that but Chris Evert reached 34 straight slam semifinals spread out over a 12 year span as she skipped some for WTT tennis commitments in the 70s. Not to take anything away from Evert, one of the greatest women players of all time alongside Graf, Navratilova, and maybe Court, but what kind of a talentless field were most of these women to allow someone to reach the semis of every slam she played for 12 years. Just embarassing.

Womens tennis is always the same. Between 1-3 great players, between 2-3 players ranging from pretty good to very good (depending on the time) behind them, and everyone else completely hopeless or completely out of their primes.

Graf never had any real theats other than Navratilova early on, Seles in the middle, and Sanchez at the end of her reign. Navratilova never had any threats other than Evert, Hana, and Graf towards the end. Evert had no real challengers during his dominance other than Goolagong and an old King. Court hardly broke a sweat vs anyone other than King, Bueno, and to some degree Ann Jones. It is the same for everyone.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by TMF

You just bringing up names to make Pete look good. Fact is...he never faced a single player you listed above in 2000, and facing no top 10 players. 1999 he faces Andre, who didn't show up by serving 44% 1st serve.

And besides, there's nothing you can say Roger wouldn't of take down any of those players, or they would beat today's players. All we have known facts are their records and titles.

Would you even try to argue todays grass court field is even adequate, never mind strong. Before Wimbledon each year who do you list as the contenders, or the guys you think have a good shot even make the semis. It is hard to even pick 4 guys to make the semis each year as there arent even 4 viable people to do that amongst todays grass court field. Basically in 2004 and 2005 you said Federer, Roddick, and Hewitt are really good on grass, god knows who else would do well though. Since 2006 you say Federer, Nadal, and maybe Roddick are who you think will do well at Wimbledon, again who can even think of others. Murray wasnt even on the radar on grass until this year, Djokovic isnt thought of as a top grass courter, Nalbandian and Safin never were (their making a final and semi of Wimbledon somehow is comical and a reflection how anyone can do well on grass today as there are hardly any top grass courters existing).

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Lets say Sampras' best year is 94 and Federer's 06, In 94 Todd Martin got to the final of the Australian and got to the semis of the Wimbledon and didn't finish the year in the top 8 and was barely top 10, in 06 James Blake got to 1 slam quarter final at the US Open and finished the year as no.4, doesn't that tell you that Sampras' era was stronger?

In 2006 Davydenko was year end #3, Blake year end #4, and Ljubicic year end #5. Just scary. 3 of the top 5 are guys who would never reach a slam final their whole careers, and the #4 would never reach a slam semi.

A guy like Todd Martin I feel sorry for as he a very high quality player who was often buried by the great depth of his prime years in the mid 90s.

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

In 2006 Davydenko was year end #3, Blake year end #4, and Ljubicic year end #5. Just scary. 3 of the top 5 are guys who would never reach a slam final their whole careers, and the #4 would never reach a slam semi.

A guy like Todd Martin I feel sorry for as he a very high quality player who was often buried by the great depth of his prime years in the mid 90s.

Ill admit that 2006 was a bit of a twillight year, but you shouldnt judge an entire era based on 1 year.

[flying24]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Lets say Sampras' best year is 94 and Federer's 06, In 94 Todd Martin got to the final of the Australian and got to the semis of the Wimbledon and didn't finish the year in the top 8 and was barely top 10, in 06 James Blake got to 1 slam quarter final at the US Open and finished the year as no.4, doesn't that tell you that Sampras' era was stronger?

I think the eras of Sampras and Federer will be split into two parts in history though and even out more or less. Yes the competition Sampras won half his slams against and had half his year end #1s from 1990-1995 was very strong. However the field from 1996-2002 where he won the other half of his slams and had half his year end #1s was very weak. The competition Federer had in winning 9 of his slams and ending #1 three times from 2003-2006 wasnt as strong. However the competition from 2007-onwards is very strong, a heck of alot stronger than the 96-2002 field Sampras had half of his achievements against, and Federer has already amassed 6 more slams and likely atleast two year end #1s vs that field.

[AAAA]

You said quote

'......Graf by far had tougher competition'

so now you're changing your point and talking about achievement levels instead.

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

That is not a contradiction. Djokovic and Murray are no different than say Sabatini and Novotna achievements wise. The only difference is Graf completely dominated them the way a true GOAT should 1 or 2 slam calibre opponents, while Federer struggles massively with them. Sabatini and Novotna, 1 or 2 slam calibre type players, were scared to even walk on court with the great Graf most times. If anything Federer is scared of playing Murray and Djokovic, 1 or 2 slam calibre type players, and breathes a sigh of relief when they are away from him in the draw or eliminated.

See the bit I bolded. If Graf dominated more than Federer then Graf's opponents were less competitive against her.

You make a point, without thinking it through for accuracy, get called on it then back track and say something else.

Thanks.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by AAAA

You said quote

'......Graf by far had tougher competition'

so now you're changing your point and talking about achievement levels instead.



See the bit I bolded. If Graf dominated more than Federer then Graf's opponents were less competitive against her.

You make a point, without thinking it through for accuracy, get called on it then back track and say something else.

Thanks.

So Federer's competition was better since he allowed 1 or 2 slam champion calibre players like Djokovic and Murray to beat him more often, while Graf refused to allowed such counterparts on the female side like Sabatini or Novotna to do so? Federer's competition is better since he allowed Nadal to dominate him on clay, always give him such a tough time even on his beloved grass, and to own him head to head, while Graf never allowed Seles to do these things even during Monica's dominance of the game? What kind of nonsense logic is that.

That is why Graf is greater than Federer. She holds an iron clad fist over her rivals and challengers alike. Federer does not have the same mental strength and confidence level of Graf to do so over his.

You earlier asked for me to name someone with a winning H2H over Graf and equal or superior physical abilities. That player doesnt exist since Graf is too great and simply never allowed it to happen. Federer was unable to do that.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by flying24

I think the eras of Sampras and Federer will be split into two parts in history though and even out more or less. Yes the competition Sampras won half his slams against and had half his year end #1s from 1990-1995 was very strong. However the field from 1996-2002 where he won the other half of his slams and had half his year end #1s was very weak. The competition Federer had in winning 9 of his slams and ending #1 three times from 2003-2006 wasnt as strong. However the competition from 2007-onwards is very strong, a heck of alot stronger than the 96-2002 field Sampras had half of his achievements against, and Federer has already amassed 6 more slams and likely atleast two year end #1s vs that field.

I agree with this,kinda the way I see it as well.I was actually always surprised Sampras didn't win more slams than he did in 1996-2002 period,the competition was IMO significantly easier than 1990-1995 and you would expect that someone with Pete's amazing serve would have had more longevity and took advantage of that,instead he was mostly just winning Wimbledon in that period.

Granted he did have some bad luck(like missing '99 USO)and thallasemia minor probably affected his longevity and made it lesser than it should have been for someone who has one of the best serves ever.