Strale
Semi-Pro
Have you learned anything from FO 2021? You cant be right for hypothetical scenario and yes i disagree with you.. Your IF argument holds the same weight as mine unless proven otherwise.
Federer's comments on GS Race following Novak's 19th
- Thread starter gjm127
- Start date
Have you learned anything from FO 2021? You cant be right for hypothetical scenario and yes i disagree with you.. Your IF argument holds the same weight as mine unless proven otherwise.
Sunny014
Legend
Olympics don't matter, If it were Slams then Fed would have been more motivated.
Olympics, Davis Cup etc etc these guys don't take seriously, Sir Murray took it seriously because he was a loser at slams, so he was extra motivated to win, Federer wasn't because he was already winning in Slams and at 31 thats all that he cared for.
Nope, there is nothing to learn.
Nadal has slowed down a lot in 2021 compared to 2008 or 2012, however Novak Djokovic hasn't because Nadal is more injury prone and his body broken down a lot over the years.
Federer had no such problem, he is the equivalent of Djokovic in terms of fitness, a pigeon of Federer aged same as him in 2004 would be a bigger pigeon in 2012 when both of them are aged 31 and would be even bigger pigeon at age 33-34 in 2014/2015
So Moorey would be retired by 2010-2012 like all those dudes from Federer's generation were because
01. Moorey would be a pigeon of Federer in 03-07 period and probably be losing to Roddick too on Grass.
02. Then from 2008 matters would get worse because Moorey would be Nadal's and Djokovic's Pigeon too
03. Then from 2010-2011 matters would get even worse because Moorey would be Berdych and Tsonga's pigeon too
So there is no chance that Murray would be playing in 2014/2015 for your lame logic of FO 2021 to be applicable
Last edited:
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
The homogenization era enabled the big 3 and between that and the obsessive big 3 record chasing and marketing, the ATP has ruined tennis as entertainment product for the future. For someone to surpass any of them, they’re going to have show up and win everything for 6-10 years straight. No one wants to see that. And then when they retire and young guys start winning 1-2 slams, they’ll be greeted with a collective yawn from the audience
Ganstaz003
Rookie
That's mental-gymnastic. Federer wouldn't be playing his heart out in previous rounds, only to lose on purpose in the final. Of course it mattered to him and he was as motivated as any other tournament. Even Federer himself recently said that slams aren't absolutely everything. But Murray still annihilated Federer in straight sets in a best of 5 final.
Sunny014
Legend
@ Murray fanatics
Don't give me your silly logics.
I have seen enough tennis since late 90s to know that if Murray-Federer-Safin-Nadal-Djokovic-Hewitt-Roddick-Stan all were born in 1980-81 then except Djokovic & peak Safin there is nobody who can take hard court slams off Federer at Federer's peak.
On Grass no one can beat him from 03-09 at his peak, not even Nadal because the age gap would not exist and after playing Nadal since junior days Fed would have sorted out Nadal earlier.
On Clay - Yes Claydal wins over everyone else and possible it would be even stevens with Djokovic too....
Don't give me your silly logics.
I have seen enough tennis since late 90s to know that if Murray-Federer-Safin-Nadal-Djokovic-Hewitt-Roddick-Stan all were born in 1980-81 then except Djokovic & peak Safin there is nobody who can take hard court slams off Federer at Federer's peak.
On Grass no one can beat him from 03-09 at his peak, not even Nadal because the age gap would not exist and after playing Nadal since junior days Fed would have sorted out Nadal earlier.
On Clay - Yes Claydal wins over everyone else and possible it would be even stevens with Djokovic too....
Stefan
New User
I guess I missed something, when did he say "Pete killed tennis"?So PETE killed Tennis?
MiamiWeekendWarrior
Hall of Fame
No one starts their career with the goal of breaking a record lol. But if you win enough matches to get close, it makes sense to find new motivations.
One thing I will say is the Big 3 ruined tennis for future generations, and our expectations of greatness
Oh, you won 4 Australian Opens in a row? Cool story, someone else won 9 titles!! Oh, this is your 5th French Open? Let me know when you hit 13! Oh nice, you won Wimbledon, congrats, but I'll be more impressed if you won it 8x
My opinion on that is that the big 3 have shown that the evolution of the sport is at a standstill and that unlike most other sports, and even tennis up until 15 years ago, the new players are not able to bring the game to higher levels. The skill and play we've seen over the last 10 years is about as good as the game will ever get unless we have another technological revolution in the sport. When the big 3 are gone, the level of play will decline and stagnate. Fed's decline in the rankings and ability to win matches has not been because the younger players have surpassed his skill level, it's because he's almost 40 freakin years old and broken down. Same will happen as Rafa and Novak get closer to 40. Think about it - you have three geriatrics (in pro tennis years) dominating a field of young guns in their respective primes. That doesn't say much for the skill level of the current generation.
The game will always be exciting to watch but unlike comparisons from the skill level seen in the Borg/Mac era compared to the current skill level which is higher, the general skill level of the game 20 years from now will not be as good as it has been in the era of the big 3. A prime Federer would trounce a prime Borg/Mac. A prime Fed/Novak/Rafa would still dominate the top players 20 years from now.
Last edited:
For crying out loud, this "only thing that matters" comes from Federer. I don't give a **** about what you have brought up. Federer states that he doesn't like that it's the only thing that matters. That it's the only thing people care about. It's quite clear in the quote. And that's distinctively different from "it's the most important thing". You can certainly think that slams are the most important thing in the sport (which he has said before and demonstrated that he believes by his actions) while at the same time think that they are not the only thing that matters. Again, it's not just semantics.For crying out loud, from where does this "only thing that matters" come from?? Why do you keep harping on something that I've not even brought up?
He is clearly reported as having said before it was very important to him to win more slams, and that he was reducing his schedule of play in other tournaments in order to focus on slams.
NOW, he says he doesn't like that the talk is all about slams.
These two stances are NOT synchronous. There IS a dichotomy. You keeping on harping " saying more important does not mean it is the only thing" means you are splitting semantic hairs. If that is the game, well, I would just point out that the clear reading of the 2 interviews shows a change in opinion.
I don't know why this is so controversial. I've been keeping on saying that it's natural and very human for a great champ to be perhaps not so thrilled his slam tally may be overtaken soon by 2 players (even if, obviously, it's not going to be the end of the world or anything for him.) Since you are clearly into semantics, let me also clarify that not being upset about it doesn't mean he has to be thrilled about it.
Do you think that if two parties sit down to negotiate a list of things and one party says that the top thing listed is the most important thing that if the other party concedes that then the negotiation is over? No, because it's not the only thing that matters.
And nobody care about an anonymous posters at TTW think is tennis GOAT? NO WAY!
Your post just listed Nole's unique records, just like what @Sunny014 listed Roger's unique records, only that Federer has way more.
You don't hold the authority to say which records count and which don't. LOL
Ganstaz003
Rookie
Exactly what I've been saying all along, not just in tennis but in many other sports too like in boxing, football, jumping and etc.
Ok, let's just agree to disagree, because clearly, you are not willing to see the divergence in statements which is plainly obvious to many others. Maybe you're wrong, maybe others are, or maybe there's some elusive truth in between.
Either way, I have no interest in trying to convince you, which I am sure you reciprocate.
have a nice day!
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Quietly making sure he is still seen in the mix, but giving an escape clause that it really didn't matter after beating Pete.
Fed is smooooooth.
It's exquisitely played with his customary finesse. It's convinced several that he always felt this way, too.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Im not sure what you’re talking about because my post wasn’t about Federer
Strale
Semi-Pro
Keep telling that to yourself,i can make the sam argument and we would get nowhere...Olympics don't matter, If it were Slams then Fed would have been more motivated.
Olympics, Davis Cup etc etc these guys don't take seriously, Sir Murray took it seriously because he was a loser at slams, so he was extra motivated to win, Federer wasn't because he was already winning in Slams and at 31 thats all that he cared for.
Nope, there is nothing to learn.
Nadal has slowed down a lot in 2021 compared to 2008 or 2012, however Novak Djokovic hasn't because Nadal is more injury prone and his body broken down a lot over the years.
Federer had no such problem, he is the equivalent of Djokovic in terms of fitness, a pigeon of Federer aged same as him in 2004 would be a bigger pigeon in 2012 when both of them are aged 31 and would be even bigger pigeon at age 33-34 in 2014/2015
So Moorey would be retired by 2010-2012 like all those dudes from Federer's generation were because
01. Moorey would be a pigeon of Federer in 03-07 period and probably be losing to Roddick too on Grass.
02. Then from 2008 matters would get worse because Moorey would be Nadal's and Djokovic's Pigeon too
03. Then from 2010-2011 matters would get even worse because Moorey would be Berdych and Tsonga's pigeon too
So there is no chance that Murray would be playing in 2014/2015 for your lame logic of FO 2021 to be applicable
Sunny014
Legend
Your argument holds no weightage because Murray has no credible wins vs a fit Federer at slams even in Federer's 30s when he was off his peak ..... Peak Fed would have stripped Murray and paraded him on court
FYI : Murray has never won any slam beating 2 members of big 3 back to back in slams... even when he lost in finals he mostly lost in straight sets or in 4 sets, thats how 1 sided matches were
Only 3 finals which he won were 2 vs Novak and 1 vs Raonic.
In Slams
Murray has a 42% win record vs Stan Wawrinka in 7 matches
Murray has a 22% win record vs Nadal in 9 matches
Murray has a 20% win record vs Djokovic in 10 matches
Murray has a 16% win record vs Federer in 6 matches
Murray's worst record in slams vs the big 4-5 players is vs Federer who was 6 years older, the first time Murray took a set off Federer in Slams was in 2012 and never faced Federer before 2008.
2004-2007 Federer would have obliterated Murray in straight sets every freakin time
Sunny014
Legend
^^^ Murray would win nothing vs Federer in Federer's peak if Murray was born in Federer's birthyear. .... Slam count would be a royal 0.
His best bet would be to vulture some slams in 01-02 period like Hewitt did before Federer touched top gear.
Same for that Wawrinka too who would be on a royal 0 slams since his only bet vs Federer would be clay and there Nadal wont let him win.
His best bet would be to vulture some slams in 01-02 period like Hewitt did before Federer touched top gear.
Same for that Wawrinka too who would be on a royal 0 slams since his only bet vs Federer would be clay and there Nadal wont let him win.
Last edited:
Strale
Semi-Pro
Sure thing,i agree....Your argument holds no weightage because Murray has no credible wins vs a fit Federer at slams even in Federer's 30s when he was off his peak ..... Peak Fed would have stripped Murray and paraded him on court
FYI : Murray has never won any slam beating 2 members of big 3 back to back in slams... even when he lost in finals he mostly lost in straight sets or in 4 sets, thats how 1 sided matches were
Only 3 finals which he won were 2 vs Novak and 1 vs Raonic.
In Slams
Murray has a 42% win record vs Stan Wawrinka in 7 matches
Murray has a 22% win record vs Nadal in 9 matches
Murray has a 20% win record vs Djokovic in 10 matches
Murray has a 16% win record vs Federer in 6 matches
Murray's worst record in slams vs the big 4-5 players is vs Federer who was 6 years older, the first time Murray took a set off Federer in Slams was in 2012 and never faced Federer before 2008.
2004-2007 Federer would have obliterated Murray in straight sets every freakin time
Lendl was the first player I heard use the ‘it’s only the slams that matter’ mantra in the 80s, but it definitely intensified a lot more in the 90s and through Sampras.
And this, IMO absolutely farcical, notion that the slam count was the be all and end was far from common place historically. As I said elsewhere, given that the top players have played each other so regularly away from the slams over the years, more regularly than most previous sets of rivals that played exclusively within the open era, with Federer-Nadal-Djokovic playing each other 100 times away from the slams including 16 times at the YEC and 68 times at masters series events, only focusing on the slam count seems even more ridiculous against that backdrop.
When Sampras broke Emerson's record at Wimbledon in 2000, plenty of historians didn't automatically anoint him as the GOAT or anything, especially considering that he never reached a final at RG, and many considered his feats of winning 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 years and finishing as the year end no. 1 6 years in a row to be more impressive.
For many years, when Wimbledon was basically considered by many people to be the 'World Championships' of tennis, the Wimbledon title count individually was clearly more important than the overall slam count. Borg didn't care about going after Emerson's record, otherwise he wouldn't have voluntarily skipped RG in 1977, he would have played at the AO more often, would have continued to enter majors after 1981 etc. He cared deeply about matching / surpassing Perry's 3rd consecutive Wimbledon titles though.
Also as I've said elsewhere, in previous eras, the grand slams were simply not the best paying tournaments in tennis, so clearly reducing the overall importance of slam counting. Lendl earned the biggest monetary prize in tennis history at the time when he won his 3rd title at the Antwerp invitational tournament in 4 years in 1985 (and he understandably looked very happy about that). Borg and Connors both earned significantly greater prize money after the 1977 Pepsi Grand Slam in Boca Raton, than they earned after the US Open the previous year. The grand slams increasing their prize money relative to other tournaments clearly contributed hugely the increased emphasis on slam counting, the 'only slams matter' attitude etc.
When I first started posted on a tennis forum / sub-forum in 2005, the former BBC one, I remember there were some Sampras fans that automatically responded with '14>11' anytime anyone suggested that Laver or Borg could be greater than him, which was pretty funny.
And this, IMO absolutely farcical, notion that the slam count was the be all and end was far from common place historically. As I said elsewhere, given that the top players have played each other so regularly away from the slams over the years, more regularly than most previous sets of rivals that played exclusively within the open era, with Federer-Nadal-Djokovic playing each other 100 times away from the slams including 16 times at the YEC and 68 times at masters series events, only focusing on the slam count seems even more ridiculous against that backdrop.
When Sampras broke Emerson's record at Wimbledon in 2000, plenty of historians didn't automatically anoint him as the GOAT or anything, especially considering that he never reached a final at RG, and many considered his feats of winning 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 years and finishing as the year end no. 1 6 years in a row to be more impressive.
For many years, when Wimbledon was basically considered by many people to be the 'World Championships' of tennis, the Wimbledon title count individually was clearly more important than the overall slam count. Borg didn't care about going after Emerson's record, otherwise he wouldn't have voluntarily skipped RG in 1977, he would have played at the AO more often, would have continued to enter majors after 1981 etc. He cared deeply about matching / surpassing Perry's 3rd consecutive Wimbledon titles though.
Also as I've said elsewhere, in previous eras, the grand slams were simply not the best paying tournaments in tennis, so clearly reducing the overall importance of slam counting. Lendl earned the biggest monetary prize in tennis history at the time when he won his 3rd title at the Antwerp invitational tournament in 4 years in 1985 (and he understandably looked very happy about that). Borg and Connors both earned significantly greater prize money after the 1977 Pepsi Grand Slam in Boca Raton, than they earned after the US Open the previous year. The grand slams increasing their prize money relative to other tournaments clearly contributed hugely the increased emphasis on slam counting, the 'only slams matter' attitude etc.
When I first started posted on a tennis forum / sub-forum in 2005, the former BBC one, I remember there were some Sampras fans that automatically responded with '14>11' anytime anyone suggested that Laver or Borg could be greater than him, which was pretty funny.
John Lloyd on BBC:
"Djokovic has openly said he wants the most ever slams. Federer and Nadal are now saying they are not too bothered... trust me they are bothered!
All of the elite players are obsessed with slams and titles.. I should know, I lived with one for many years! "
I would think John Lloyd might understand a champion's mindset better than several of the fervent posters here on TTW who like to keep denying things
"Djokovic has openly said he wants the most ever slams. Federer and Nadal are now saying they are not too bothered... trust me they are bothered!
All of the elite players are obsessed with slams and titles.. I should know, I lived with one for many years! "
I would think John Lloyd might understand a champion's mindset better than several of the fervent posters here on TTW who like to keep denying things
Swingmaster
Hall of Fame
Did players really care less about grand slams before Sampras?
mxmx
Hall of Fame
Federer is right. But he should have said this earlier.
Wurm
Professional
Obviously, because the implication there is that before Sampras Emerson was considered GOAT. Which he wasn't.
I don't know that Sampras was ever considered GOAT outside of America just because he had the slam count record.
Besides which, all right thinking individuals know the real men's record is 23
netlets
Professional
First of all, I don't think you can compare era's - AO wasn't even that important of an event when Borg, Mac, Connors, etc. were playing. Slams were never the end all be all. Amount of time at #1 shows much more about how dominant a player has been, as is winning %. You don't do well in Slams for the most part without playing a bunch of other tournaments all around the globe to get a high ranking, thereby a high seed in the Slams. Masters 1000 titles is big, and overall titles is really important as well. Winning on a variety of surfaces isn't as huge as it used to be now that you can play from the baseline on grass. I really wish they would go back, just for a little while, to where you had to serve and volley on grass and see who would win. It used to be where you didn't want the ball to bounce too many times because you couldn't trust it - like the grass in New England.
Last edited:
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Big 3 play in toughest era ever, playing like 150 matches against each other >> you can't compare eras >> they aren't necessessarily the greatest ever.
The mental gymnastics my ****ing ass.
Even if it is not only about Grand Slams, the Big 3 are still #2, #4 and #5 in total titles won.
Dominance is a metric where you are just putting emphasis on players beating up **** opposition.
The mental gymnastics my ****ing ass.
Even if it is not only about Grand Slams, the Big 3 are still #2, #4 and #5 in total titles won.
Dominance is a metric where you are just putting emphasis on players beating up **** opposition.
mxmx
Hall of Fame
There is this local regional tournament I know of where a person reached the final via walkovers and low amount of entries. I think that person won the final. Does this make that person a greater player?
The big 3 had the equavalent of non entries in earlier rounds especially. I don't buy the fact that they had to face each other as being "tougher". It just made their odds much greater to win big things and it almost turned to 50/50 odds.
What's worse:
A) 3-4 atg players vs. themselves and 47 Next gens on the same courts?
Or...
B) 3-4 atg players vs. themselves and 47 great players on extremely different courts?
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
You're calling the entire top 47 from previous generations great?
Lmao
Also, talking about court homogenization. 'member when the much famed Laver goat would win the Grand Slam when 3/4 Slams were on grass?
mxmx
Hall of Fame
I believe the depth of field was greater in the era just before Federer. It started to decline for various reasons at that point except for Djoko and Nadal who came later.
Federer's era didn't have to face great real true grass Wimbledon players (Edberg, Stich, Becker, Kraijcek, Ivanisovic etc.) No...Federer faced hard court specialists. No way should Nadal or Djokovic ever win Wimbledon with their type of games. Unless the authorities slowed it down and heightened the bounce to suit their comfort zones for groundstrokes...which they did. Federer adapted well either way and I see him do better in any era compared to Nadal and Djokovic. His technique can work in any era.
On clay, the Federer era did not have much real clay courters to contend with outside Nadal and Djokovic (who adapted well with his well suited style). Clay prior Federer was a great wall of China compared to the hedge that only had Nadal on the other side.
As for the Laver comment...that was probably the other extreme. This makes the Sampras/Becker/Agassi etc. era seem even greater.
Steffi-forever
Hall of Fame
Where are your sources to claim Fed is a billionaire? Most sites are stating around 450M$.
Sunny014
Legend
450 was many years ago.... Last year itself Federer made 106M $
Richest Tennis Players In The World And Their Net Worth, 2023 - CEOWORLD magazine
Tennis is undoubtedly one of the most watched sports in the world. This is evident from the fact that approximately 87 million people play tennis globally, roughly 1.17% of the world’s population. It goes without saying that tennis and tennis players have a vast fan following. Apart from...
ceoworld.biz
Roger Federer on course to join billionaire athlete club | Tennis.com
The Swiss would join rarefied sporting company, alongside the likes of Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan and Floyd Mayweather.
Roger Federer will reportedly become the first billionaire in tennis in 2020
Roger Federer could join the exclusive sportsperson's billionaire club by the end of the year.There are currently only three men in the club; Michael Jordan,
www.businessinsider.in
beard
Legend
Steffi-forever
Hall of Fame
The 450m$ claim is from this year :450 was many years ago.... Last year itself Federer made 106M $
Richest Tennis Players In The World And Their Net Worth, 2023 - CEOWORLD magazine
Tennis is undoubtedly one of the most watched sports in the world. This is evident from the fact that approximately 87 million people play tennis globally, roughly 1.17% of the world’s population. It goes without saying that tennis and tennis players have a vast fan following. Apart from...
Roger Federer on course to join billionaire athlete club | Tennis.com
The Swiss would join rarefied sporting company, alongside the likes of Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan and Floyd Mayweather.www.tennis.com
Roger Federer will reportedly become the first billionaire in tennis in 2020
Roger Federer could join the exclusive sportsperson's billionaire club by the end of the year.There are currently only three men in the club; Michael Jordan,
how to download pictures from instagram online
fmdlnt_tennis
New User
This is one of those things that falls in the category of fan fantasy. I was a Sampras fan since he blasted through the 1990 US Open. By 2000-2001, it was becoming clear that his winning days were winding down. Please remember that his last US Open came AFTER he received brutal beat downs in the previous 2 finals. He still had the game to reach the 2nd week of Wimbledon/USO, but his desire and focus was waning. He admitted as much in multiple interviews and his autobiography.
If Federer had retired after 2017, we will still be saying he left 3-4 slams on the table.
I find it extremely interesting and honest, some of the things that Federer says here:
Q. Do you think your record of 20, numbers of weeks at the top, are threatened by Djokovic or Nadal?
ROGER FEDERER: Since a long time, yes. This is not new. Maybe there's more talk about it now. I think, like before, as the surfaces get more equal, everybody can pile up more Grand Slam wins, like I did. It was the reason for me probably to pass Sampras, by having the surfaces be more equal.
That nobody can take away from me. My records will be broken anyway. You guys and other people will remind the players to try to go shatter every record anyway. Back in the '70s, I don't think players were playing for records. Maybe now players are playing for records. Naturally it's going to depend also on how much they care about that record. If they care about it, they'll play for longer, other than just retiring. You don't want to beat up your body too much.
Q. Do you think your record of 20, numbers of weeks at the top, are threatened by Djokovic or Nadal?
ROGER FEDERER: Since a long time, yes. This is not new. Maybe there's more talk about it now. I think, like before, as the surfaces get more equal, everybody can pile up more Grand Slam wins, like I did. It was the reason for me probably to pass Sampras, by having the surfaces be more equal.
That nobody can take away from me. My records will be broken anyway. You guys and other people will remind the players to try to go shatter every record anyway. Back in the '70s, I don't think players were playing for records. Maybe now players are playing for records. Naturally it's going to depend also on how much they care about that record. If they care about it, they'll play for longer, other than just retiring. You don't want to beat up your body too much.
Last edited:
Only if he had kept his motivation up, had the previous GS record been 17, for example...
CCPass
Semi-Pro
Wrong. Federer had a negative H2H until after he turned 30.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 733170
- General Pro Player Discussion
