Fed's career after the 2010 AO vs Jim Courier

[Pheasant]

Another thread made me want to elaborate on this topic. Now granted, peaks lasted a lot longer in the 2000s than vs the 1990s and especially the 1980s. But I think Fed has a case. What do you think?

Let's sum this up. After bagging the 2010 AO, Federer was 2 slam titles ahead of Sampras for the Open Era record. He was considered by most experts to be the best ever at this stage of his career. After that point, he put up stats that hold up well to Hall of Famer Jim Courier's stats. Now given the fact that I thought Federer would struggle to get 2 more slam titles after that horrific 2008 Wimbledon final loss, I'm pretty ecstatic how things ended up.

Here it is, Fed after the 2010 AO vs Jim Courier:

Fed after 2010 AO:
4 slam titles
2 WTF titles
12 Masters titles
563-113, .833 record overall
46-42, .523 vs top-5
102-64, .615 vs top-10

Jim Courier's entire career
4 slam titles
0 WTF titles
5 Masters titles
506-237, .681 record overall
26-44, .371 vs top-5
53-73, .421 vs top-10

After that 2010 AO, Fed got to play through Djoker's entire peak and through half of Nadal's peak; all while being 5-6 years older than those two monsters.

 

[Pheasant]

Whoops. I need to try to be fair to Courier here. Weeks at #1 is a very important metric.

Weeks at #1:
Courier: 56
Federer post 2010 AO: 47

Courier has Fed in one very important metric by a margin of 56-47. Now some might say that Courier caught a window here by accruing all of those weeks at #1 well after Lendl's peak and before Sampras' peak. However, Fed dealt with peak Rafa and peak DJoker. But at the end of the day, Courier still leads Federer in his metric, to be completely fair.

Courier leads in one very important metric. Is this enough?

 

[bigbadboaz]

I don't think so, looking at the decisive disparity everywhere else. Masters titles and overall win % stand out, both for importance and, again, the degree of disparity.

 

[Mustard]

Whoops. I need to try to be fair to Courier here. Weeks at #1 is a very important metric.

Weeks at #1:
Courier: 56
Federer post 2010 AO: 47

Courier has Fed in one very important metric by a margin of 56-47. Now some might say that Courier caught a window here by accruing all of those weeks at #1 well after Lendl's peak and before Sampras' peak. However, Fed dealt with peak Rafa and peak DJoker. But at the end of the day, Courier still leads Federer in his metric, to be completely fair.

Courier leads in one very important metric. Is this enough?

Courier had 58 weeks as world number 1, in 4 spells:

10 February 1992 - 22 March 1992 (6 weeks)
13 April 1992 - 13 September 1992 (22 weeks)
5 October 1992 - 11 April 1993 (27 weeks)
23 August 1993 - 12 September 1993 (3 weeks)

 

[Pheasant]

Courier had 58 weeks as world number 1, in 4 spells:

10 February 1992 - 22 March 1992 (6 weeks)
13 April 1992 - 13 September 1992 (22 weeks)
5 October 1992 - 11 April 1993 (27 weeks)
23 August 1993 - 12 September 1993 (3 weeks)

Yes, 58. My bad.

 

[nolefam_2024]

No one will take Jim Courier's career over fed post ao 2010.

This man was putting 70+ matches played late into his career. I think 2015 or 2014, he played 80+ matches. Very fit and apart from some clay losses, he was top 2/3 favorite at slams almost every slam.

Only slams where he wasn't top 2/3 favorite will be
2013 RG
2013 USO
2014 AO
2015 RG
2016 Wimby
2017 AO - won it
2019 RG

That's it. Even in rg, he would be top 3 fav in 2014.

7 slams post turning 22 where he was not top 2/3 favorite. Incredibly strong.

Courier completely falls off post 93. A few titles here and there but Boris is bigger challenge to Pete and Andre after that if I am not wrong. Although courier is much younger.

 

[Mustard]

Courier did start 1995 on fire, winning 24 sets in a row to start the year, ending with that famous Sampras match.

 

[Ballmachine87]

Courier`s quick and dramatic fall from grace remains one of the biggest mysteries in tennis history.