Federer being nr.2 is as impressive as winning slams.

[Backspin1183]

Actually Nadal winning 27 Masters 1000s is also as impressive as winning 5 Slams.

Heck, The Heat's victory over in form Djokovic at US Open was as impressive as winning Wimbledon.

 

[MichaelNadal]

You're both right but the achievements of one do not diminish those of the other, so I don't see the need for animosity (over this subject).

None on my end, which is why I don't even waste my time. He did all that just to do exactly what the OP did and use #2 to prop Federer up and try to say Nadal ISN'T great for the same reasons. It's hilarious imo.

 

[jg153040]

But you seem to have overlooked the fact that Roger does not consider being #2 impressive.

For him, it's all about slam-winning and being #1.

Honestly, I don't think he cares whether he is ranked #2, 5, or 8. Of course, you could make the argument that being #2 makes him closer to his goal of being #1. However, anything less than #1 is an embarrassment to him.

I disagree. I think he is very proud that he is doing so well at age almost 34.

He also said he likes that he gets easier draws because of that, so it is important to him.

And it doesn't matter what he thinks, it matters what general opinion is. And when you are not biased and think things over, it's very impressive to be ranked nr.2 at age 34. And it's not that he was ranked briefly like that, he is ranked nr.2 for many weeks.

Cilic, Wawrinka, Delpo weren't close to nr.1. Cilic and Delpo weren't even close to nr.2. Wawrinka wasn't nr.2. So, it just proves how hard it is.

If people like Cilic, Wawrinka and Delpo can't get to nr.2 and can win slam, then Federer being nr.2 for long period of time, just proves that it's hard and it's as impressive as winning a slam.

 

[jg153040]

Winning a slam is of course phenomenal, but what things like YE rankings are good at is substantiating the degree and extent of talent and greatness. The most prominent and prestigious accomplishments in the sport are of course winning the slams, followed by YE#1, followed by WTF, followed by overall titles, followed by MS1000s, followed by other accomplishments such as DCs, medals, records, stats, etc.

To be #2 (let alone #1) for a considerable amount of time in a 52-ranking system demonstrates overall dominance across surfaces and against the field. For Fed to still do so at his age speaks volumes about just how great and special he is -- it's further proof of GOATness (as if he needs it, but his haters are incomparably obsessed and vocal).

Nothing is as impressive as winning the top tournaments which have the best fields, but finishing the year #2 means someone is doing a lot of things right in the vast majority of tournaments they enter.

I agree only partly. Sure, winning more top tournaments is more impressive than maybe being nr.2. But my argument wasn't that. It was if it's more impressive than to win ONE Slam.

Who had better year in 2014? Federer or Cilic? I think we can argue that they were both very impressive.

 

[jg153040]

I will like to add that even Nadal fans who are biased always bring out the stat how long Nadal was nr.2. And considering who Nadal had to deal with and who Federer has to deal with, we all know that in today's era being nr.2 is very impressive. It's equivalent of being nr.1 in some eras, because we have 2 goats here and a guy who is maybe even better than Agassi.

 

[jg153040]

Umm...right.

If you're explaining the greatness of Federer to a person who isn't a tennis fan, do you say:

a. "He's won the most major tournaments of any male ever. 17."
b. "He's 33 and #2 in the world!"

Ok, a person who isn't a tennis fan, actually knows about rankings and W more than about anything.

When they ask me, they always ask about who won W and who is nr.1.

Also, it's irrelevant, why would people who aren't tennis fans decide what greatness is?

To a casual tennis fan, when I say Davydenko is better than Nadal because of the h2h, they think that it's true, so they don't know how system works.

Also, when I say that Federer is nr.2 at age 33 and Nadal is out of top five at age 29, they find what Fed is doing very impressive.

Actually I just mentioned to my friends who are casual fans that Nadal is now nr.10 and they were really shocked and surprised and find it very impressive that Fed is nr.2.

Think about Cilic vs Federer in 2014. I think what Fed did is as impressive as what Cilic did.

 

[BringBackSV]

Not really. Not even close.

Pretty much this.

 

[jg153040]

None on my end, which is why I don't even waste my time. He did all that just to do exactly what the OP did and use #2 to prop Federer up and try to say Nadal ISN'T great for the same reasons. It's hilarious imo.

No, I didn't do that. It isn't mutually exclusive. I didn't say that now winning slams is less impressive.

No, I don't diminish majors. I just elevate rankings. I didn't say that Rafa winning RG in 2014 wasn't big. It's huge, I agree. Or what Cilic did.

What I'm only saying that Federer ending year being nr.2 may be as impressive as that.

Nobody is diminishing anyone, you are paranoid, I'm just elevating Federer.

And comparing Rafa vs Cilic in 2014, it's obvious that they weren't at the same level even when they both won one major.

So, Rafa being ranked a lot higher than Cilic proves that rankings are also a huge deal next to slams.

You Nadal fans have to realize that elevating Federer doesn't mean diminishing Nadal.

Just because Fed has 17 majors, that doesn't mean Pete's 14 are less impressive.

But, maybe you do think that and that's why you are paranoid a bit.

 

[jg153040]

Pretty much this.

Ok, so you think Djokovic in 2013 and Cilic in 2014 were equals?

I mean they both won one slam. So, they must be equals right?

You see that this simplistic slam counting doesn't work.

And the problem is that Djokovic can't be compared with Connors with 8 majors or with Lendl.

Because Connors has 260 weeks nr.1 and they won slams in 3 slam era.

So 8 is not 8.

 

[Smasher08]

I will like to add that even Nadal fans who are biased always bring out the stat how long Nadal was nr.2. And considering who Nadal had to deal with and who Federer has to deal with, we all know that in today's era being nr.2 is very impressive. It's equivalent of being nr.1 in some eras, because we have 2 goats here and a guy who is maybe even better than Agassi.

There's no disputing that anyone who's won a slam since 2004 has faced some of the greatest competition in history.

I also don't think that any of Federer's losses to a fellow all-time great can detract from all his other accomplishments in any way. No shame in losing to the clay GOAT on clay, or any of the other slowed surfaces.

Similarly, none of Nads' losses to Fed or Djok detract from all his other accomplishments in any way.

But like you say, some folks are paranoid and overly-sensitive.

 

[Smasher08]

Actually Nadal winning 27 Masters 1000s is also as impressive as winning 5 Slams.

Nope, it's sure not. See above posts for recency of 1000s, prior practices of skipping the Super Nine, and surface skewing.

But what's telling is the obsessive need to inflate Nads' slam count.

 

[Smasher08]

You're both right but the achievements of one do not diminish those of the other, so I don't see the need for animosity (over this subject).

None on my end, which is why I don't even waste my time.

Actually there's much from him, and he certainly "wastes" a lot of his time.

For example:

Candidate for one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on here. Those 23 bad afternoons he gave you have taken quite a toll. Not even to mention he's the same size.

"Whatever bro".

He has a real animus for my posts, which makes his denial quite funny!

What emerges from his and the troll brigade's posts is an obsessive and consuming hatred of Federer. I've no idea why -- but I'm convinced that for many of them, it was a hate-on for Fred that drew them to Nadal. The h2h, the "weak era" fantasy -- all designed to artificially minimize Fred's accomplishments and inflate Nads'.

Anyway, the opposite of love isn't hate: it's indifference.

And he sure isn't indifferent to what I post.

At all!

 

[Smasher08]

Ok, so you think Djokovic in 2013 and Cilic in 2014 were equals?

I mean they both won one slam. So, they must be equals right?

You see that this simplistic slam counting doesn't work.

And the problem is that Djokovic can't be compared with Connors with 8 majors or with Lendl.

Because Connors has 260 weeks nr.1 and they won slams in 3 slam era.

So 8 is not 8.

Actually it was a 4 slam era, but almost everyone routinely skipped the 4th.

Similarly, Connors played in a nascent Open era where there were still a boatload of tournaments left over from the days when there was more than one pro tour. Hence his number of tournaments won isn't comparable either.

Neither is the amateur era when "pro slams" were held on indoor wooden courts and fields were so puny that to win the hardware, the top seed only needed to get through three matches.

Comparing Djoker to Lendl is much easier to do, but with the proviso that grass was fast grass, and even the hardcourts were quicker. But an accurate-ish comparison can't even begin for at least another couple of years.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

His number 2 ranking is amazing at his age. He is 34 in August. Has anybody ever been ranked No2 in the world at 34? Agassi?

Saying that, he has a lot of points to defend at Wimbledon this year due to reaching the final last year so I would imagine that he would at least have to make the final again to still be No2 by the time he reaches 34 in August.

 

[Russeljones]

His number 2 ranking is amazing at his age. He is 34 in August. Has anybody ever been ranked No2 in the world at 34? Agassi?

Saying that, he has a lot of points to defend at Wimbledon this year due to reaching the final last year so I would imagine that he would at least have to make the final again to still be No2 by the time he reaches 34 in August.

I think Rosewall was ranked #2 at 41 in 1975.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Yeah, I've said it!

Consider that to win a slam, you just need some luck. A great run, with lucky draw.

Sampras managed last USO, but he wasn't close to nr.1 again.

To be nr.1 or nr.2 you need to play elite level on every surface for 12 months.

So, being nr.2 is as impressive as winning a slam. And being nr.1 or nr.2 in the world is very underrated here and this attitude needs to change.

Logic has to prevail over emotions and rankings are impressive.

I had enough of this slam hype and bullying that slams are everything. It's not logical, you need 12 months of elite level playing to be nr.1.

Enough is enough. Players with a lot of weeks nr.1 should get the credit. Connors, Sampras, Lendl...

Sampras has almost double of weeks nr.1 than Nadal, no way they are equals.

Good analysis

 

[LETitBE]

I think Rosewall was ranked #2 at 41 in 1975.

Rosewall ate spinach which he grew himself!

 

[Deleted member 716271]

It's not even close as impressive. Not. Even. close.

 

[jg153040]

It's not even close as impressive. Not. Even. close.

Cilic vs Federer in 2014. Think about it. Who had the better season?

Nr.2 without a slam?
Or nr.8 with a slam?

Now you see that things aren't that black and white. This isn't binary system where you either win a major or you don't win a major and everything else doesn't matter.

 

[MatsPhilander]

I am sure Sampras would not trade that US trophy for being world number 2. Sure it is nice being consistent all year round but the slams are the ones that really matter & that people remember & Fed doesn't win them in this decade.

Nobody actually believes Fed is better than Murray or Nadal & likely now most doubt he is better than Stan either. It is like in Snooker when Hendry went back world number one in 2006 despite having not won a televised ranking event since the world championship in 1999 & Mark Williams went back to the top spot in 2011-nobody actually thought they were better than O'Sullivan or Higgins who were clearly the best player in each respective time frame.

 

[jg153040]

I am sure Sampras would not trade that US trophy for being world number 2. Sure it is nice being consistent all year round but the slams are the ones that really matter & that people remember & Fed doesn't win them in this decade.

Nobody actually believes Fed is better than Murray or Nadal & likely now most doubt he is better than Stan either. It is like in Snooker when Hendry went back world number one in 2006 despite having not won a televised ranking event since the world championship in 1999 & Mark Williams went back to the top spot in 2011-nobody actually thought they were better than O'Sullivan or Higgins who were clearly the best player in each respective time frame.

Being ranked higher has nothing to do who is better at the moment. It is who is better in last 12 months.

Plus, it's irrelevant what is more prestigious and who would rather win what. The point is what is more impressive, not what is more prestigious.

 

[BGod]

The margins aren't gigantic but Federer has been playing more secondary tournaments to shore up his point total. That isn't a secret.

So.....while being a year end #2 is better than just winning one Slam and little else, it doesn't mean the #2 was, a)truly the #2 that year and b)played overall better than the 1 time Slam champion.

 

[jg153040]

The margins aren't gigantic but Federer has been playing more secondary tournaments to shore up his point total. That isn't a secret.

So.....while being a year end #2 is better than just winning one Slam and little else, it doesn't mean the #2 was, a)truly the #2 that year and b)played overall better than the 1 time Slam champion.

Yeah, being nr.2 means exactly that. The nr.2 player played better overall.

Slam winner had a higher peak.

Both is very impressive on its own.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Being ranked higher has nothing to do who is better at the moment. It is who is better in last 12 months.

Plus, it's irrelevant what is more prestigious and who would rather win what. The point is what is more impressive, not what is more prestigious.

Seriously you think Fed would rather be world number 2 for the rest of his career & never win another slam or be number 10 the rest of it but win 1 or more slams? People are impressed by who wins the big ones-not who wins or gets to the business end of the minors.

Nobody is impressed by how many titles Nadal wins in Madrid or Monte Carlo, they are impressed how many slams he has won & especially how many FO titles. That is what people will remember.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Seriously you think Fed would rather be world number 2 for the rest of his career & never win another slam or be number 10 the rest of it but win 1 or more slams? People are impressed by who wins the big ones-not who wins or gets to the business end of the minors.

Nobody is impressed by how many titles Nadal wins in Madrid or Monte Carlo, they are impressed how many slams he has won & especially how many FO titles. That is what people will remember.

How would you know what Federer wants? Tsonga said in December that he wouldnt trade his career for Stans one with a Slam. This debate is stupid, players cant trade ranking and Slams. They achieve what they deserve and after than we can measure them. And the number 2 in the world was undoubtely the better player than the number 8(even 9th, If I remeber correctly Ferrer was 8th before the WTF).

 

[hoodjem]

Yeah, I've said it!

Consider that to win a slam, you just need some luck. A great run, with lucky draw.

Sampras managed last USO, but he wasn't close to nr.1 again.

To be nr.1 or nr.2 you need to play elite level on every surface for 12 months.

So, being nr.2 is as impressive as winning a slam. And being nr.1 or nr.2 in the world is very underrated here and this attitude needs to change.

Logic has to prevail over emotions and rankings are impressive.

I had enough of this slam hype and bullying that slams are everything. It's not logical, you need 12 months of elite level playing to be nr.1.

Enough is enough. Players with a lot of weeks nr.1 should get the credit. Connors, Sampras, Lendl...

Sampras has almost double of weeks nr.1 than Nadal, no way they are equals.

No. 1 maybe, but not no. 2.

Everyone remembers how old Rosewall was when he won his last major. Everyone remembers Sampras's last major win.

When was Rosewall last no. 2?
When was Sampras last no. 2?
Nobody knows.

 

[SLD76]

No. 1 maybe, but not no. 2.

Everyone remembers how old Rosewall was when he won his last major. Everyone remembers Sampras's last major win.

When was Rosewall last no. 2?
When was Sampras last no. 2?
Nobody knows.

Fair point.

 

[heninfan99]

sorry man I didn't realize this was a pure Federer thread...
carry on

Ok, you have a point there. W is the grail.

Ok, so my title should be Being nr.2 is as impressive as winning non Wimbledon slams.

Thanks for setting us straight.

Which reminds me, Federer has the best W record out there too .