Federer beat at least one top 10 player in all of his Grand Slam wins

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Just because player "A" had to discard of more top 10 players in a different era than player "B". Doesnt mean player B couldnt have disposed of the players that player "A" did.

Let me ask you this question...is it tougher to go through the 1st week of the slam or the 2nd week? Keep in mind the way the draw works, a player would face the top ten players in the 2nd week.
 
Great, I completely agree with you. However, Please tell that to the sampras-****s who constantly belittle federer's competition as "weak" (sampras had to face agassi, becker, blah blah blah ..).
If we were to use your logic, then there is no reason to assume that Fed wouldn't have handled agassi, becker etc. as easily or better than sampras. And no reason to assume that Murray, nadal, djokovic, roddick, davydenko etc wouldn't be able to handle sampras, agassi, becker etc..

I'm not in favor of bringing up competition to judge a player (if fed played from 2003- 07 like he played in 2008/09, then his competition would look very strong). that's why looking at accomplishments is the most objective (and perhaps the best) way to judge a player (of course, you can make exceptions for certain unavoidables such as Laver barred from playing the majors for some amount of time, borg skipping AO, etc)

Given that, it's clear that Fed is miles ahead of sampras. thank you.

And the stats from JennyS DO show that on an average, sampras faced LESSER performing peers (relative to the field that existed then) when compared to Federer.



Now I kind of agree. But this is just one fo the many aspects that make comparing eras a circular arguing and reasoning and with no direct answer since it never happened. Federer may have been just as successful against Pete's peers as he was. But heres a big question? Would Federer have been able to use the same strategic baseline game, slam after slam and week after week in the 90s as he did the 00s? And would Sampras's style of compliments today's game with slower surfaces, racket technology etc. I think both would have had to changed their games a bit to see the success. Sampras himself has mentioned the difficulty of comparing eras and this is a big reason why right here. The ranking system has changed, the game in its entirety has changed.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Now I kind of agree. But this is just one fo the many aspects that make comparing eras a circular arguing and reasoning and with no direct answer since it never happened. Federer may have been just as successful against Pete's peers as he was. But heres a big question? Would Federer have been able to use the same strategic baseline game, slam after slam and week after week in the 90s as he did the 00s? And would Sampras's style of compliments today's game with slower surfaces, racket technology etc. I think both would have had to changed their games a bit to see the success. Sampras himself has mentioned the difficulty of comparing eras and this is a big reason why right here. The ranking system has changed, the game in its entirety has changed.

Federer is versatile, and its not like he is a pigeon at the net. He S & V'ed earlier in his career (and did so with great effect against sampras). Even if he were to stick to his baseline game, he may have had similar success to Agassi or better (given his bigger weapons - FH and serve).

Sampras' style would have been suicide in todays conditions. Given the great player he is, I'm sure he would have made some adjustments. However, his imposing game is primarily based on his serve, so his success will be directly proportional to how effective his serve his.
 
Federer is versatile, and its not like he is a pigeon at the net. He S & V'ed earlier in his career (and did so with great effect against sampras). Even if he were to stick to his baseline game, he may have had similar success to Agassi or better (given his bigger weapons - FH and serve).

Sampras' style would have been suicide in todays conditions. Given the great player he is, I'm sure he would have made some adjustments. However, his imposing game is primarily based on his serve, so his success will be directly proportional to how effective his serve his.

Federer never began seeing real success until he adopted the baseline game the game changed to a primarily baseline game. I agree he is versatile, but he isnt an Stefan Edberg when it comes to serve-volley. Compare his success when he was more of an attacker, opposed to baseline game. Obviously Federer has seen more success under today's conditions though his baseline game than he did as an attacker. I think we can agree on that
 

thalivest

Banned
Doesn't matter. Look at some of Pete's draws, 93 Wimbledon he had to beat Agassi, Becker and Courier, when did Federer every get a draw like that?

Courier in the Wimbledon final is not a tough draw, in fact for a slam final it is a dream draw. Saying that is a tough draw on grass is like saying Sampras in the French Open final would be a tough draw for Nadal or Kuerten. Courier has only made it to the quarters of Wimbledon one other time in his career. He usually goes out early rounds to nobodies, even did so in his best year ever in 1992.

Agassi in 1993 was out of shape, out injured, or flat out sucked most of the year. Wimbledon was the only slam that year he even won any matches. He ended the year ranked #24 after losing 1st round of the U.S Open to a teenaged Tomas Enqvist.

That leaves only Becker. Yes a very tough opponent but this wasnt the same Becker as 1985-1991 either.
 

kraggy

Banned
These debates are very circular and never lead anywhere!

At the end of the day, we know that Federer was one level better than his rivals.From a probabilistic standpoint, it is far more likely to have one top player who is an overtalented outlier than 5 top players who are undertalented outliers. Of course this has nothing to do with Sampras or his achievements and provides no insight into his competition. But I think from a probability standpoint it is more than likely that Fed dominated because he was extraordinarily gifted rather than ALL his peers somehow not being world class. And I say all this being a Sampras fan and somewhat of a fed hater.

Now you might say that this logic leads into the belief that Fed's current competition should on an average be only as good as his old competition and thus Fed's losses are primarily because of his decline. However I also believe that in general, every generation on an average is better than the previous generation (new technology, better training, evolution etc). So I think this new generation(Nadal/Djoker/Murray/Delpo) being better than the old (Safin/Roddick/hewitt/nalby) has closed the gap between Federer and them. I personally think Nadal like Fed is also an outlier, a freak of nature. But the rest of the crew are just part of a generation that is better than the previous. And the generation that follows these new guys will be even better than them. But it is impossible to compare an outlier from generation X with one from generation Y. So my hypothesis is that Fed's competition is better than Sampras' , and Sampras' competition is better than Borg's and so on. But this does not imply Fed>Sampras or vice-versa.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Courier in the Wimbledon final is not a tough draw, in fact for a slam final it is a dream draw. Saying that is a tough draw on grass is like saying Sampras in the French Open final would be a tough draw for Nadal or Kuerten. Courier has only made it to the quarters of Wimbledon one other time in his career. He usually goes out early rounds to nobodies, even did so in his best year ever in 1992.

Agassi in 1993 was out of shape, out injured, or flat out sucked most of the year. Wimbledon was the only slam that year he even won any matches. He ended the year ranked #24 after losing 1st round of the U.S Open to a teenaged Tomas Enqvist.

That leaves only Becker. Yes a very tough opponent but this wasnt the same Becker as 1985-1991 either.

courier at that wimbledon in 93 was tough on grass
 

NonP

Legend
courier at that wimbledon in 93 was tough on grass

This is why abmk is one of the best Fed fans on this board. Though obviously a fanboy he's knowledgeable about the game and tries to be fair to the other side.

He's right, Courier's run was no fluke. Also it was a particularly wet year and the grass courts in SW19 didn't wear out as much, making them conducive to baseline tennis with less unpredictable bounces. And they'd already changed the grass and the balls to slow the tournament down.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
This is why abmk is one of the best Fed fans on this board. Though obviously a fanboy he's knowledgeable about the game and tries to be fair to the other side.

He's right, Courier's run was no fluke. Also it was a particularly wet year and the grass courts in SW19 didn't wear out as much, making them conducive to baseline tennis with less unpredictable bounces. And they'd already changed the grass and the balls to slow the tournament down.

I agree,a fair poster and he's right,Courier was playing pretty well at Wimbledon that year,played great against Edberg in semis and gave a good battle to Pete in the final(was a somewhat similar match scorewise to Fed-Nadal 2006 Wimbledon final).

Courier's game might have been somewhat ugly but the guy proved his versatility across all surfaces by reaching the final in all 4 slams in polarized conditions,that's a big plus for him in my book.

I overall think Courier is a bit underrated as a player.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
These debates are very circular and never lead anywhere!

At the end of the day, we know that Federer was one level better than his rivals.From a probabilistic standpoint, it is far more likely to have one top player who is an overtalented outlier than 5 top players who are undertalented outliers. Of course this has nothing to do with Sampras or his achievements and provides no insight into his competition. But I think from a probability standpoint it is more than likely that Fed dominated because he was extraordinarily gifted rather than ALL his peers somehow not being world class. And I say all this being a Sampras fan and somewhat of a fed hater.

Now you might say that this logic leads into the belief that Fed's current competition should on an average be only as good as his old competition and thus Fed's losses are primarily because of his decline. However I also believe that in general, every generation on an average is better than the previous generation (new technology, better training, evolution etc). So I think this new generation(Nadal/Djoker/Murray/Delpo) being better than the old (Safin/Roddick/hewitt/nalby) has closed the gap between Federer and them. I personally think Nadal like Fed is also an outlier, a freak of nature. But the rest of the crew are just part of a generation that is better than the previous. And the generation that follows these new guys will be even better than them. But it is impossible to compare an outlier from generation X with one from generation Y. So my hypothesis is that Fed's competition is better than Sampras' , and Sampras' competition is better than Borg's and so on. But this does not imply Fed>Sampras or vice-versa.

Great post Kraggy -- one that deserves to be stickied. I've tried to explain the bolded part in a few other threads, but couldn't have said it better than you. Also agree about the competition being a monotonically increasing function of time. It's refreshing to see some logic and sane reasoning on this board while presenting an argument.
 

pame

Hall of Fame
These debates are very circular and never lead anywhere!

At the end of the day, we know that Federer was one level better than his rivals.From a probabilistic standpoint, it is far more likely to have one top player who is an overtalented outlier than 5 top players who are undertalented outliers. Of course this has nothing to do with Sampras or his achievements and provides no insight into his competition. But I think from a probability standpoint it is more than likely that Fed dominated because he was extraordinarily gifted rather than ALL his peers somehow not being world class. And I say all this being a Sampras fan and somewhat of a fed hater.

Now you might say that this logic leads into the belief that Fed's current competition should on an average be only as good as his old competition and thus Fed's losses are primarily because of his decline. However I also believe that in general, every generation on an average is better than the previous generation (new technology, better training, evolution etc). So I think this new generation(Nadal/Djoker/Murray/Delpo) being better than the old (Safin/Roddick/hewitt/nalby) has closed the gap between Federer and them. I personally think Nadal like Fed is also an outlier, a freak of nature. But the rest of the crew are just part of a generation that is better than the previous. And the generation that follows these new guys will be even better than them. But it is impossible to compare an outlier from generation X with one from generation Y. So my hypothesis is that Fed's competition is better than Sampras' , and Sampras' competition is better than Borg's and so on. But this does not imply Fed>Sampras or vice-versa.

A very disciplined argument, and one that merits consideration far beyond the "shooting arrrows in the dark" speculation to which we're too often "treated".
 

NonP

Legend
I agree,a fair poster and he's right,Courier was playing pretty well at Wimbledon that year,played great against Edberg in semis and gave a good battle to Pete in the final(was a somewhat similar match scorewise to Fed-Nadal 2006 Wimbledon final).

Courier's game might have been somewhat ugly but the guy proved his versatility across all surfaces by reaching the final in all 4 slams in polarized conditions,that's a big plus for him in my book.

I overall think Courier is a bit underrated as a player.

No "might," his game was ugly. :) He might well have had the ugliest service motion of all the former no. 1s since Borg (or at least of the ones I can recall off the top of my head). His serve itself was effective, though, like the rest of his game.

Agree that Courier tends to be underrated. Too bad the first guy who knew how to exploit his forehand return happened to be the best player of his generation. Otherwise he could've achieved even more.
 

thalivest

Banned
Courier is a great player and underrated overall as a player considering his abilities on hard courts and clay, but still of all the people who have been in the Wimbledon final the last couple decades he is one of the easiest opponents in a Wimbledon final there was. The only exceptions would be Nalbandian in 2002 and maybe Pioline in 1997 (though it would be easy to argue Pioline at his best was better on grass than Courier at his best). I would like to see someone even try to argue any of the other Wimbledon finalists since Chris Lewis in 1983 not being tougher opponents on grass than Courier. It is true he played extremely well at Wimbledon 93 but he still isnt some great grass court player by any stretch. As for his run at Wimbledon 93 not being a fluke, the rest of his Wimbledon career and grass record suggest otherwise. He was a regular first week player there, basically a first few rounds upset just waiting to happen.

More specifically on Wimbledon 93 anyway Edberg was already on the way down by then, do keep in mind he never made another slam final after Australia 93.
 
Last edited:

P_Agony

Banned
This thread is BS! Everyone knows that Federer is nothing more than an overhyped lucky journeyman who enjoys fixed draws and favored conditions, not to mention a fresh green army of clueless *******s trolls ;-)
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Courier is a great player and underrated overall as a player considering his abilities on hard courts and clay, but still of all the people who have been in the Wimbledon final the last couple decades he is one of the easiest opponents in a Wimbledon final there was. The only exceptions would be Nalbandian in 2002 and maybe Pioline in 1997 (though it would be easy to argue Pioline at his best was better on grass than Courier at his best).

You forgot malivai washington
 

NonP

Legend
I normally stay out of these vacuous "discussions," but I'll dissect kraggy's post above as it contains a few boilerplate claims that go unchallenged or unaccounted for too often.

These debates are very circular and never lead anywhere!

Right, but they don't have to be circular.

At the end of the day, we know that Federer was one level better than his rivals.From a probabilistic standpoint, it is far more likely to have one top player who is an overtalented outlier than 5 top players who are undertalented outliers.

Actually there's nothing "probabilistic" about it. Some of the previous eras have had a dominant no. 1 for an extended period, others two or more potential greats vying for the top. Of course the fanboys have already bought this question-begging.

Of course this has nothing to do with Sampras or his achievements and provides no insight into his competition.

One of the few indisputable statements in this post.

But I think from a probability standpoint it is more than likely that Fed dominated because he was extraordinarily gifted rather than ALL his peers somehow not being world class. And I say all this being a Sampras fan and somewhat of a fed hater.

Typical false dichotomy. It is also possible that Fed was extraordinarily gifted and all or most of his peers were not world-class. Their Slam records do reinforce this view, though admittedly these stats don't prove anything, despite what JennyS and her simple-minded ilk seem to believe.

Now you might say that this logic leads into the belief that Fed's current competition should on an average be only as good as his old competition and thus Fed's losses are primarily because of his decline.

Or that Fed's form has declined and the current competiton is better, as claimed below by the poster. Whether this lends credence to the view that Fed was indeed head and shoulders above his old competition depends on the extent of Fed's decline and of the improvement of his competition respectively.

However I also believe that in general, every generation on an average is better than the previous generation (new technology, better training, evolution etc). So I think this new generation(Nadal/Djoker/Murray/Delpo) being better than the old (Safin/Roddick/hewitt/nalby) has closed the gap between Federer and them.

Many experts would dispute this statement, but even if it's true, it does not follow that the current generation is "better" than the old as the latter did not have access to these supposedly miraculous developments in technology, training, etc. You can't give the current players an unfair advantage for something they didn't achieve themselves. If you're gonna compare, you need to start with the level playing field.

Of course this makes era comparions even more futile and hopeless than they already are.

I personally think Nadal like Fed is also an outlier, a freak of nature. But the rest of the crew are just part of a generation that is better than the previous. And the generation that follows these new guys will be even better than them.

See above.

But it is impossible to compare an outlier from generation X with one from generation Y. So my hypothesis is that Fed's competition is better than Sampras' , and Sampras' competition is better than Borg's and so on. But this does not imply Fed>Sampras or vice-versa.

At least the poster seems to understand the absurdity of it all, though one of his/her main premises is dubious. Too bad not enough fanboys get this.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Actually there's nothing "probabilistic" about it. Some of the previous eras have had a dominant no. 1 for an extended period, others two or more potential greats vying for the top. Of course the fanboys have already bought this question-begging.

How does the bolded part dispute or support the "probabilistic" argument? It's completely tangential and has no relevance. All he's saying that it's more likely for 1 guy to be an exception rather than a whole bunch.

Typical false dichotomy. It is also possible that Fed was extraordinarily gifted and all or most of his peers were not world-class. Their Slam records do reinforce this view, though admittedly these stats don't prove anything, despite what JennyS and her simple-minded ilk seem to believe.

Again, what you claim is possible, but highly improbable. Fed being extra-ordinarily talented and his competition being world-class are independent of one another. So it's more likely that Fed's extra-ordinarily talented in isolation, rather than his entire competition not being world-class as well. How do their slam records reinforce this view? Please elaborate. If the total reward is a constant, and if one guy keeps winning a bulk of it, it will leave the rest poorer...


Many experts would dispute this statement, but even if it's true, it does not follow that the current generation is "better" than the old as the latter did not have access to these supposedly miraculous developments in technology, training, etc. You can't give the current players an unfair advantage for something they didn't achieve themselves. If you're gonna compare, you need to start with the level playing field.

Of course this makes era comparions even more futile and hopeless than they already are.

No actually experts agree with the notion that the level of tennis gets better with the passage of time. Lendl does; Laver does; Johnny mac does; Pete sampras himself says tennis is played at a higher level now. You may prefer the older style of play, but there's no disputing that players today are better tennis players. It's not about giving current players an "unfair advantage for something they didn't achieve themselves" - it's just the truth. The top guns at any given time maximized their potential for winning based on whatever they had access to. As training methods and technology improved, the bar was raised. This is not to suggest that the older players wouldn't have achieved similar levels if they had access to the things that newer players do.

Having said that, I completely agree with you that comparing generations is an absurd exercise.
 

Cantankersore

Semi-Pro
Actually there's nothing "probabilistic" about it. Some of the previous eras have had a dominant no. 1 for an extended period, others two or more potential greats vying for the top. Of course the fanboys have already bought this question-begging.

You seem to have missed the point. The assertion was that given the dominance, a more plausible (in the probabilistic sense) explanation would be that Federer is unusually good for a number 1.

Typical false dichotomy. It is also possible that Fed was extraordinarily gifted and all or most of his peers were not world-class. Their Slam records do reinforce this view, though admittedly these stats don't prove anything, despite what JennyS and her simple-minded ilk seem to believe.

...

Or that Fed's form has declined and the current competiton is better, as claimed below by the poster. Whether this lends credence to the view that Fed was indeed head and shoulders above his old competition depends on the extent of Fed's decline and of the improvement of his competition respectively.

Sure, but his above statement was that a more plausible explanation was that Federer is unusually good. Now, given this, it is an extraordinary claim to say that an entire group of peers is not world-class. Certainly it would be ridiculous if it their development were independent, and I see no obvious reason for dependence, nor does there seem to be less tennis skill.

Does that mean he is? No, the cases you both listed are possible. The issue is plausibility.

Anyway, you come across as well-educated. It isn't like this debate has a clear answer, so we're probably not going to be changing each other's minds.
 

NonP

Legend
How does the bolded part dispute or support the "probabilistic" argument? It's completely tangential and has no relevance. All he's saying that it's more likely for 1 guy to be an exception rather than a whole bunch.

This is what he said:

From a probabilistic standpoint, it is far more likely to have one top player who is an overtalented outlier than 5 top players who are undertalented outliers.

My point was that the historical samples render this argument moot. The '80s are a good example. And the words "overtalented" and "undertalented" are dubious terms. The sole top player is "overtalented" because he is presumably above his competition by a large margin, while the 5 top players are "undertalented" because they're close to one another and there's no clear winner. But it may well be that the "undertalented" quintet or at least a couple of their members are in fact better than than the "overtalented" lone ranger in terms of actual playing level. Would Sampras or Federer have won as many majors as they have during the '80s? Possible, but not likely IMO. In that case "overtalented" may be a misnomer. Circular reasoning right there. Also McEnroe is considered by many the most talented player ever to pick up a tennis racquet, but he still won fewer majors than, among others, Lendl who wouldn't make the top of most experts' talent lists. But is Lendl a lesser "outlier" than McEnroe? I think not.

Again, what you claim is possible, but highly improbable. Fed being extra-ordinarily talented and his competition being world-class are independent of one another. So it's more likely that Fed's extra-ordinarily talented in isolation, rather than his entire competition not being world-class as well.

The two being independent of one another doesn't necessarily make the former more likely. Suppose we have one Usain Bolt but the rest of the field can barely finish a 100m race in 10 seconds. In this case I think it fair to say these sprinters aren't world-class. Of course this is an extreme example, but that's what many fans and commentators feel about Federer's earlier competition, just to a less extreme degree. And the very words "talent" and "world-class" make this judgment subjective.

How do their slam records reinforce this view? Please elaborate. If the total reward is a constant, and if one guy keeps winning a bulk of it, it will leave the rest poorer...

I was referring mainly to the consistency of Fed's early competition at the Slams. With a few exceptions (Roddick and Nadal at the FO come immediately to mind), not many of Fed's early top competitors consistently went deep in the majors. Now does that mean these players were not world-class? No, not necessarily, but it does reinforce the view that Fed had little to do with the title drought of his fellow top players.

And of course that doesn't prove in any way that they're "weaker" than their predecessors. Like I said this is a judgment call.

No actually experts agree with the notion that the level of tennis gets better with the passage of time. Lendl does; Laver does; Johnny mac does; Pete sampras himself says tennis is played at a higher level now. You may prefer the older style of play, but there's no disputing that players today are better tennis players. It's not about giving current players an "unfair advantage for something they didn't achieve themselves" - it's just the truth.

These are just a few high-profile names. There are many trainers, coaches and other insiders who believe the effects of the "advanced" racquets, training, nutrition and the like are exaggerated for PR purposes. I know one such coach in real life. It's not a matter of preferring an older style of play.

Has the "level of tennis" increased substantially since the days of William Renshaw? Yeah, most likely. But since the 1980s or the '90s? Certainly debatable. Heck, if anything the volleying skills have dropped sharply over the past few years (and no, this isn't simply due to the amount of topspin these days). And even Laver said not too long ago, in a rare display of self-confidence, that he'd give himself a chance against anyone with a wood racquet (his opponent also holding a woodie, of course).

The top guns at any given time maximized their potential for winning based on whatever they had access to. As training methods and technology improved, the bar was raised. This is not to suggest that the older players wouldn't have achieved similar levels if they had access to the things that newer players do.

See above. And that last sentence is one of the reasons why I maintain that today's players aren't "better" than yesterday's. What really makes one player better than another is (realized) talent, and gauging it will always be subjective to a degree.

Having said that, I completely agree with you that comparing generations is an absurd exercise.

OK.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Fed is a beast. He has a high percentage of quality titles in his resume beating top opposition.

not many mickey mouse tournies compared to other great players.
 

NonP

Legend
You seem to have missed the point. The assertion was that given the dominance, a more plausible (in the probabilistic sense) explanation would be that Federer is unusually good for a number 1.

I just addressed this point above. To wit, Fed's dominance doesn't tell us much about his competition. I don't think any sane tennis fan disputes Fed's unusual talent.

Sure, but his above statement was that a more plausible explanation was that Federer is unusually good. Now, given this, it is an extraordinary claim to say that an entire group of peers is not world-class. Certainly it would be ridiculous if it their development were independent, and I see no obvious reason for dependence, nor does there seem to be less tennis skill.

Does that mean he is? No, the cases you both listed are possible. The issue is plausibility.

See above. Also it isn't just about Fed's peers having world-class talent. What's important is whether the talent was realized by the players. Safin was one hell of a talent, but the guy seemingly couldn't get his head together after his 2nd Slam victory and slowly faded into underachievement. Nalbandian hasn't been as unstable, but still frustratingly inconsistent. And injuries set back Hewitt (and Safin, too). And so on.

Anyway, you come across as well-educated. It isn't like this debate has a clear answer, so we're probably not going to be changing each other's minds.

Thanks. I really don't care too much about this debate. Just wanted to beat a few critical horses.
 
Top