Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Slams won at won at the age of 28-33:
Djokovic 8/19 (42.1%)
Nadal 6/23 (26.1%)
Federer 2/24 (8.3%)
Don't forget that Federer won 75% of his slams before turning 28. He had the worst decline among Big3.
Federer - ANOTHER RECORD - Only player to win a tournament 10 times on two different surfaces
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
Djokovic 8/19 (42.1%)
Nadal 6/23 (26.1%)
Federer 2/24 (8.3%)
Don't forget that Federer won 75% of his slams before turning 28. He had the worst decline among Big3.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Evidence that youth is an advantage: 0.Younger ATGs vs which to compete:
Djokovic 0%
Nadal 0%
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
By the way with this post you agree that facing ATGs is tougher than facing Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, etc.Younger ATGs vs which to compete:
Djokovic 0%
Nadal 0%
Nice.
It is likely that Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev will be ATGs.
Frank Bannister
Semi-Pro
If they don't start winning slams before Big 3 are done, then it won't mean anything.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Federer started winning slams when Sampras and Agassi were done.
Frank Bannister
Semi-Pro
Agassi wasn't done. Federer had to go through him at 2004 U.S. Open and 2005 AO before beating him in 2005 U.S. Open Final. I'm saying they have to beat the Big 3 in slams before they call it quits and I don't mean in the RD of 64 when they're 40 years old.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You obviously know nothing about what I ever said or think about these issues. It is you that agree with literally everyone on the planet, Captain Obvious.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It doesn't mean anything now, just like it didn't mean much when Federer beat Sampras in 2001. ATG level is when they actually prove themselves on that level. Not before.
Frank Bannister
Semi-Pro
The whole point of either of these posters mentioning it is to somehow compare the potential ATG listed above to Djokovic and Nadal which simply doesn't have enough time to happen anyway. Even if they beat a couple good versions of Djokodal, it still won't compare to anything that Federer has faced.It doesn't mean anything now, just like it didn't mean much when Federer beat Sampras in 2001. ATG level is when they actually prove themselves on that level. Not before.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Precisely, but salvaging the image of the current train wreck that the tour represents calls for hilarious positions of those who attempt that. We saw that with the "ever improving" theories, and we will see it some more in such BS in the future.
Xemi666
Professional
A miracle.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
All them Monte Carlos
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Advanced age? I think you are exaggerating a bit. There are plenty of sports where athletes can still compete well at that age, dude isn't geriatric man.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
In tennis 38 is hella old though. The last time a player older than 37 was in the top 10, let alone top 3, was before Federer was even born. Even including women, I think since 1980/1 it's only Navratilova and Williams Jr, both GOAT players.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
It works both ways. As the Fed fan base is here trying to claim this great achievement winning some lower 500 level tournaments 10 times as being something the other guys cant do ( which is just baiting the other fanbases ).
If it was celebrated the correct way, instead of as some sort of out of this world achievement that no one else could ever do, then of course its great.
But when you have people like TS , then its clearly going to incite the other fan bases.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
The exclusivity is not in winning 10 titles at one event
It is doing that on multiple surfaces
This record will probably stand the test of time
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
It's getting up there sure but not so much so that winning that event seems improbable or should be overstated. His ranking is a different matter though not really tied to the OP.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Agassi's year end ranking in 2004 and 2005 was #8 and #7.
NatF
Bionic Poster
He was playing a reduced schedule, he was still elite on HC.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Username_
Hall of Fame
probably being stupid on purpose to grind your gearsYou obviously know nothing about what I ever said or think about these issues. It is you that agree with literally everyone on the planet, Captain Obvious.
NatF
Bionic Poster
He was at 80% on HC, 86% without Federer - which is pretty good.
Can you name a period of two years, aside from 94-95, where Agassi was substantially better than 80% on HC?
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I didn't quote. See post above.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Who's comparing him to Federer? I wasn't.
This is just your insecurities. You can't discuss anything without bringing Federer into it.
And actually the one with double standards is you. You'll argue until you're blue in the face that Federer was at his best in 2014/2015 despite his record in those years paling in comparison to 2004-2007 in basically every way, yet you'll dismiss Agassi as a foe for Federer despite his numbers on HC comparing favourably to nearly any other two year period of his career.
And BTW Agassi at the HC majors in 04-05: 19-4 (83%)
Federer at the HC majors in 14-15: 18-4 (82%)
But yeah peak Federer in 14-15, where as Agassi was just a non-factor and nowhere near his prime level
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Ok.Who's comparing him to Federer? I wasn't.
This is just your insecurities. You can't discuss anything without bringing Federer into it.
And actually the one with double standards is you. You'll argue until you're blue in the face that Federer was at his best in 2014/2015 despite his record in those years paling in comparison to 2004-2007 in basically every way, yet you'll dismiss Agassi as a foe for Federer despite his numbers on HC comparing favourably to nearly any other two year period of his career.
And BTW Agassi at the HC majors in 04-05: 19-4 (83%)
Federer at the HC majors in 14-15: 18-4 (82%)
But yeah peak Federer in 14-15, where as Agassi was just a non-factor and nowhere near his prime level
NatF
Bionic Poster
I pretty much expected you to concede after that. Like when I pointed out Federer's win/loss record in the slams had been declining steadily since 08-09 and you were totally silent
You're just a meme at this point.
D
Deleted member 765728
Guest
I thought you said he's been playing his best tennis in the last several years. So, what is it? Has he declined or he peaked?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Decline in results.
Peak in the game.
duaneeo
Legend
Exactly! Everyone knows that Federer plays Halle as a grass warmup, so don't blame him that top-10 players avoid him by playing Queens.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
He always is.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Federer was clearly overall better though and by far more fit. Agassi didn't win a match in the clay and grass Slams in those years when Federer made 2 Wimbledon finals. Agassi didn't even play Wimbledon and lost in the 1st round of RG both years. I do think Agassi played well in the hardcourt Slams in those years though, although he wasn't that great in 2005 AO, but Federer is ahead by some distance, although it wasn't his peak version.
steelcity32
Rookie
You say that like there isn't ONE important grass tournament all year
It's dumb to put skill points into a meaningless surface, but Nadal still makes it to the semis there all the time!
Frank Bannister
Semi-Pro
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Did you appreciate the thread of Nadal's having won at least 5 times the same Masters 1000 tournament on 2 different surfaces? You started denying the relevance of Nadal's achievement. So I do not understand why do you criticize others for denying Federer's great achivements, when you are doing the same with Nadal.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I was pointing out Lew's double standards, nothing more.
Obviously as an overall player Federer is ahead in those years. On HC alone though I'd be tempted to go with Agassi, especially at the majors.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
Im pretty sure having over 10 titles in a slam and Masters is worth way more than feeble 500 events 10 times, regardless of surface.
Fed fans desperate to stay relevant while all the records are going to be passed LOL
But ok, have this amazing record , im sure no one else really wants it ... LOL
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
Yep. Everything that Fed has done , Nadal has done better in a single event.
Fed - 8 slams at same event
Nadal - 12
Fed - 7 Masters titles in same event
Nadal - 11
Fed - 10 titles at same 500 event
Nadal - 11
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You forgot 20 majors and 6 YEC ? With a variety of 5 majors plus at 3 of 4 ?And while we all bask in how great Feds title haul is, while Nadals are only on a single surface.
Feds magnificent title haul includes 10 Halle, 10 Basel, and 8 Dubai.
I guess the quality of tournaments don't matter, its the number of titles.
And what does Nadal have ? 17 RG ‘s ??
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You seem to not understand difference between dominance and dominance with variety
Similar threads
- Poll
