Federer and Connors vs younger ATGs at Slams

Who was more successful?


  • Total voters
    9

Biotic

Hall of Fame
Both played till ~40 so I guess the comparison should be somewhat fair.

1. Connors (1952) vs Lendl (1960) and McEnroe(1959)...we could maybe add Edberg (1966), Wilander (1964), Becker (1967).
2. Federer (1981) vs Nadal (1986) and Djokovic (1987). What about Murray, is he an ATG? :unsure:

Connors was 3-6 vs McEnroe at Slams, and won 1982 Wimbledon beating prime McEnroe in the final in a 5-setter + worth mentioning two 5 set losses at 1980 and 1984 USO.

Connors was 3-4 vs Lendl at Slams, and won 1982 and 1983 USO and 1984 Wimbledon vs more or less prime Lendl.

Connors was 3-0 vs Edberg at Slams o_O, and won 1989 USO vs prime Edberg.

Connors was unsuccessful vs Becker and Wilander losing all matches (only 1 at Slams).

Federer is 4-10 vs Nadal at Slams, and won 2007 Wimbledon beating prime Nadal + worth mentioning two 5 set losses at 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO.

Federer is 6-11 vs Djokovic at Slams, and won 2012 Wimbledon beating prime Djokovic in SF + worth mentioning 2011 RG SF win and two 5 set losses at 2011 USO and 2014 Wimbledon.

Federer had more success vs post prime younger ATGs, but IMO the age difference in Connors' case was just too great.

So, what do you think, who had it tougher and who was more successful?
 

Biotic

Hall of Fame
Interesting stat is that both held exactly 17 weeks at No 1 at the age of 30-31 (non consecutive in Connors' case).
 

Biotic

Hall of Fame
Typical jokeboi agenda excluding Fedovic USO 07-09 while including Connors-Lendl 1982-83 as if Lendl was better.

I did include 6-11 and I did say "more or less prime Lendl", 1984 obviously was prime. Also Federer was 26-28, Connors was 30+.

Coming from the single most resentful, bitter and sour human entity (yes even more than Ned fans) as of 06.13.2021., your post and opinion about me doesn't carry much weight.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
I did include 6-11 and I did say "more or less prime Lendl", 1984 obviously was prime. Also Federer was 26-28, Connors was 30+.

Coming from the single most resentful, bitter and sour human entity (yes even more than Ned fans) as of 06.13.2021., your post and opinion about me doesn't carry much weight.

"Wait, are we the baddies?" is not a consideration that could occur to you, lol.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Connors not only had a much deeper field of ATGs to play against but he also had to play against different styles and court specialists than Roger. That's why he did well against some players (Edberg or Lendl) and worse against others (McEnroe, Becker, Wilander).
 

Bambooman

Legend
Amazingly they could have played each other if one had hung on one year longer and the other turned pro a year earlier.
 
Connors decline was more rapid, but he pretty much owned the youngsters until 82-83. Federer's decline has been more gradual, really doing a good job of maintaining, but facing two greater competitors in Nadal and Djokovic, to whom he lost more than he won after turning 30. I'd say it's a wash.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Connors (without knowing anything about the substance of the thread or his record).
 
Answer is Federer and Fed had better quality ATGs under him
The answer is always 'Federer'

Federer!...who could change the course of mighty rivers!!!
Federer!...who could bend steel in his bare hands!!!
Federer!...the answer is and always will be Federer!!!! (my favourite male tennis idol)
 
Top