Has Federer Ruined Our Perspective on Achievements?

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Do you think Federer has been so great that it has distorted our perspective on other player's great achievements?

Nadal has been more dominant at the French Open than any player at any grand slam in history. But, his 4 consecutive French Opens isn't that impressive, when you consider that Federer won 5 consecutive Wimbledons and U.S. Opens.

Nadal's 81 match winning streak on clay is incredible. But isn't Federer's 56 match winning streak on hard court and 65 match winning streak on grass court even more impressive.

Nadal reaching 8 out of 9 grand slam finals at one point is awesome, but pales terribly in comparison to Federer's 18 of 19 grand slam finals.

Novak reaching 10 consecutive grand slam semifinals is excellent, but he has aways to go to reach Federer's 23 consecutive.
 
6-1 6-3 6-0 said:
No, Federer has ruined YOUR perspective on other players' achievements.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I remember during the U.S. Open, Djokovic reached his 10th consecutive grand slam semifinal, which is an awesome achievement. A friend who doesn't really watch tennis was like, "wow, that is some achievement, but didn't Federer have like 23 straight?"
 
Humm lets see, where are we ??

oh yes, we're here arnt we..FEDAL WARS...part 2'824'533.
 
Last edited:
McEnroeisanartist said:
I don't know about that. I remember during the U.S. Open, Djokovic reached his 10th consecutive grand slam semifinal, which is an awesome achievement. A friend who doesn't really watch tennis was like, "wow, that is some achievement, but didn't Federer have like 23 straight?"
Click to expand...

Totally, guys who don't really watch tennis are just spouting out random obsessive Federer statistics, and actually getting them correct.

I'm pretty sure anyone who can pull out the "Federer semi streak" "record" off the top of their head watches tennis to a relatively high degree, or is an obsessed Federer fan, but doesn't watch tennis. I think the latter is more likely.
 
Federer went 137-3 on hard at one point (2004 U.S. Open to 2007 Australian Open). That's about as good a record as Nadal accumulated on clay over any given four or five year period. Of course, Nadal sustained that level for longer (still going...), but I don't think people realize just how dominant Federer was on hardcourts at his peak. Three losses on the surface in 2 1/2 years and 140 matches.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
I meant that Nadal's winning streak is incredible, but isn't it more remarkable that Federer has the longest streaks on two different surfaces.
Click to expand...


Winning RG 7 out of 8 years isn't remarkable? Lol, you have got to be kidding me.

How about this, OP, Fed has had far less competition on the grass at Wimby than Nadal has had on clay over the years. The very guy you're trashing and calling unremarkable was his only competition there for years. What does that say about all of those Wimby titles Fed won?
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
I don't know about that. I remember during the U.S. Open, Djokovic reached his 10th consecutive grand slam semifinal, which is an awesome achievement. A friend who doesn't really watch tennis was like, "wow, that is some achievement, but didn't Federer have like 23 straight?"
Click to expand...

Federer's absolutely skewed perspective for the 'casual' tennis fan, the one that doesn't care about surfaces, head size, H2H, etc. Usually when I try to talk to one of these fans about the game, inevitably some variation of "So Federer's still the best, right?' crops up.

I mean, think about it. Federer's time at number one and number of slams is testament to his long-running ability to beat the tar out of the field, and his time at number one and number of slams are goddamn obscene. Do the math.
 
Last edited:
tudwell said:
Federer went 137-3 on hard at one point (2004 U.S. Open to 2007 Australian Open). That's about as good a record as Nadal accumulated on clay over any given four or five year period. Of course, Nadal sustained that level for longer (still going...), but I don't think people realize just how dominant Federer was on hardcourts at his peak. Three losses on the surface in 2 1/2 years and 140 matches.
Click to expand...

ROFL.. His main rivals were Hewitt (who was finished up 2006) Roddick, 35 year old Agassi with a bad back (who was still make finals), and Nadal at the time wasn't good enough to reach a HC slam SF.

Fed's "Peak" coincided with OLD cripples like Agassi, and Subpar players (when compared vs. Nadal, Djoker, and Murray) like Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Ljubicic, Davydenko etc. (Discounting Agassi who was old and breaking down anyways, what was there 2-3 slams between all of them?)


In Nadal slam wins, (or even now), he has to go through Djoker, Murray, and Fed.. During the MAJORITY of Fed's slam title, Fed had a much weaker top field he had to get through if he wanted to win those big titles.


Fed came along at the perfect time to amass slams.. During a transitional era when the old guys were finishing and/or already retired (Sampras, Agassi) and at a time when it was a talentless vacuum when complete MUGS were winning slams. (Gaudio, Johansson etc)

Nadal has also been way more dominant his best surface then Fed is on his because he continues to stand the test of time on his best surface and hes only lost there ONCE his entire career
 
Last edited:
No, it's the opposite. He's put into perspective how great he is. When someone like Nadal or Sampras or Agassi can have a huge record and is revered as great AND Federer comes along and thrashes it, that just makes Federer look incredible. It doesn't make anyone look worse. If anything, people with records close to what Federer has done look better. Makes you appreciate just how hard they worked. Take Sampras' weeks at #1 which Federer just this year surpassed.
 
BrooklynNY said:
Totally, guys who don't really watch tennis are just spouting out random obsessive Federer statistics, and actually getting them correct.

I'm pretty sure anyone who can pull out the "Federer semi streak" "record" off the top of their head watches tennis to a relatively high degree, or is an obsessed Federer fan, but doesn't watch tennis. I think the latter is more likely.
Click to expand...

This thread is largely shenanigans but that is some ugly underestimation. Fed's semi streak is one his signature achievements. Going by your words, I'm pretty sure anyone who calls that record (doesn't need quotes, it really is a record) a random obssessive statistic doesn't know tennis, or is a Fed hater. Probably the latter.

Having said that, the OP should have stated how Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and to an extent Murray have all altered the perspective of having success. While Federer does have the lion's share, they all have shown amazing consistency, so that people started to think the big 4 reaching the semis at every tournament (let alone majors) is normal, and anything less (by them) is failure.
 
Clarky21 said:
Winning RG 7 out of 8 years isn't remarkable? Lol, you have got to be kidding me.

How about this, OP, Fed has had far less competition on the grass at Wimby than Nadal has had on clay over the years. The very guy you're trashing and calling unremarkable was his only competition there for years. What does that say about all of those Wimby titles Fed won?
Click to expand...

Clarky, Nadal winning 7 out okf 8 years is remarkable. Beyond remarkable. But isn't it more remarkable that he couldn't win 5 consecutive, something that Federer did at two different grand slams.

I don't think I ever trash Nadal or call him unremarkable. In my first post above, I describe his achievements as more dominant than anyone ever, incredible, and awesome. Yep, really negative on Nadal.
 
90's Clay said:
ROFL.. His main rivals were Hewitt (who was finished up 2006) Roddick, 35 year old Agassi with a bad back (who was still make finals), and Nadal at the time wasn't good enough to reach a HC slam SF.

Fed's "Peak" coincided with OLD cripples like Agassi, and Subpar players (when compared vs. Nadal, Djoker, and Murray) like Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Ljubicic, Davydenko etc. (Discounting Agassi who was old and breaking down anyways, what was there 2-3 slams between all of them?)


In Nadal slam wins, (or even now), he has to go through Djoker, Murray, and Fed.. During the MAJORITY of Fed's slam title, Fed had a much weaker top field he had to get through if he wanted to win those big titles.


Fed came along at the perfect time to amass slams.. During a transitional era when the old guys were finishing and/or already retired (Sampras, Agassi) and at a time when it was a talentless vacuum when complete MUGS were winning slams. (Gaudio, Johansson etc)

Nadal has also been way more dominant his best surface then Fed is on his because he continues to stand the test of time on his best surface.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you and your other Sampras jock-sniffers harp on how old Agassi was. He was way more consistent in the 00s than he was in the 90s. Obviously, he was getting older, but he was still a top player. It's still impressive of Federer to dominate him the way he did. I also don't think beating Murray in a slam is more impressive than downing Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin again and again. Besides, Murray's yet to win more than a set against Federer at a slam, so I don't see the usefulness of mentioning him in the first place. Obviously, if there'd been a player as talented as peak Djokovic in the mix in 2005, Federer would probably not have had the record he did, but that wasn't the case. What actually happened was that Federer had the most dominant spell on hardcourts ever. Nadal would also probably not have won seven of the last eight French Opens if Borg were playing today, but I don't see you LOLing at his achievements.
 
Here we go again. Federer didn't only ruin our perspective of achievements of others, but also on himself. going 137-3 on hards is insane. Winning 81 matches on clay is insane. What Djokovic is doing is insane too.

I think we can safely say that the achievements of the current generation have ruined our perspective. We expect every no. 1 player to win at least 2/3 majors a year and rack them up quickly. Someone LAUGHED about Fed winning 'only' 2 majors in the last 3 years. Another thinks Nadal is done because he only won 2 in 2 years in which he should still be racking them up given his age. It's ridiculous really.
 
tudwell said:
I don't know why you and your other Sampras jock-sniffers harp on how old Agassi was. He was way more consistent in the 00s than he was in the 90s. Obviously, he was getting older, but he was still a top player. It's still impressive of Federer to dominate him the way he did. I also don't think beating Murray in a slam is more impressive than downing Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin again and again. Besides, Murray's yet to win more than a set against Federer at a slam, so I don't see the usefulness of mentioning him in the first place. Obviously, if there'd been a player as talented as peak Djokovic in the mix in 2005, Federer would probably not have had the record he did, but that wasn't the case. What actually happened was that Federer had the most dominant spell on hardcourts ever. Nadal would also probably not have won seven of the last eight French Opens if Borg were playing today, but I don't see you LOLing at his achievements.
Click to expand...


Stop.. How many titles did Agassi win after the AO in 2003? How many time did he reach #1 after that time period.. Thats a complete MYTH saying Agassi was more "consistent". Agassi's BEST years were BEFORE Roger hit his stride. Bottom line.

Agassi best years and most "consistent" results were 93-95, and 99-01 or so. (his peak play coming in 1995 or 1999 during the Sampras years, not the Federer years)
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Clarky, Nadal winning 7 out okf 8 years is remarkable. Beyond remarkable. But isn't it more remarkable that he couldn't win 5 consecutive, something that Federer did at two different grand slams.

I don't think I ever trash Nadal or call him unremarkable. In my first post above, I describe his achievements as more dominant than anyone ever, incredible, and awesome. Yep, really negative on Nadal.
Click to expand...


No, he won 4 consecutive RG titles beating your mancrush in each and every one of them. Those 4(5 if you count 2011)wins are the only reason you don't find Nadal's wins at RG for 4 straight years to be remarkable.

That same unremarkable dirtballer Nadal also won Wimby by beating your mancrush as well.
 
Gonzo_style said:
That can be other way around, more tournaments on clay, a greater chance for defeat.
Click to expand...



Yep, and there is far more competition on clay than there is on grass. Fed fans fail to realize this when they knock Nadal considering he was Fed's only competition at Wimby for years. It doesn't say much for Fed's titles there if that's the way they feel.
 
Clarky21 said:
Yep, and there is far more competition on clay than there is on grass. Fed fans fail to realize this when they knock Nadal considering he was Fed's only competition at Wimby for years. It doesn't say much for Fed's titles there if that's the way the feel.
Click to expand...



There pretty much is no competition on grass anymore (unless you got a prime-peak Nadal playing which he hasn't been since 2010). Nole is below average at best on grass, and Murray isn't much better (and these guys have posted the best results outside of Fed recently)
 
BrooklynNY said:
Totally, guys who don't really watch tennis are just spouting out random obsessive Federer statistics, and actually getting them correct.

I'm pretty sure anyone who can pull out the "Federer semi streak" "record" off the top of their head watches tennis to a relatively high degree, or is an obsessed Federer fan, but doesn't watch tennis. I think the latter is more likely.
Click to expand...

Or the person is friends with a Federer worshiper, who provides statistics to show how dominant he has been in his sport compared to other dominant athletes and teams.
 
Clarky21 said:
No, he won 4 consecutive RG titles beating your mancrush in each and every one of them. Those 4(5 if you count 2011)wins are the only reason you don't find Nadal's wins at RG for 4 straight years to be remarkable.

That same unremarkable dirtballer Nadal also won Wimby by beating your mancrush as well.
Click to expand...

I do find Nadal's 4 straight wins at the French Open remarkable, especially given that he defeated Federer in all 4. I am just saying that Federer winning five consecutive at 2 different grand slams is even more remarkable.
 
90's Clay said:
Stop.. How many titles did Agassi win after the AO in 2003? How many time did he reach #1 after that time period.. Thats a complete MYTH saying Agassi was more "consistent". Agassi's BEST years were BEFORE Roger hit his stride. Bottom line.

Agassi best years and most "consistent" results were 93-95, and 99-01 or so. (his peak play coming in 1995 or 1999 during the Sampras years, not the Federer years)
Click to expand...

I said he was more consistent in the 00s, not in Federer's era. Obviously his peak play was in the 90s, but he also didn't drop out of the top 100 at his physical peak in the 00s.

And just for fun, here are all the top ten players Federer beat in his dominant hardcourt stretch:

Andre Agassi (7)
Tim Henman (6)
Lleyton Hewitt (5)
Andy Roddick (2)
Gaston Gaudio (10)
Lleyton Hewitt (3)
Carlos Moya (5)
Marat Safin (4)
Lleyton Hewitt (3)
Andre Agassi (8)
Andre Agassi (10)
Lleyton Hewitt (2)
Tim Henman (7)
Andre Agassi (10)
Andy Roddick (5)
Lleyton Hewitt (4)
Andre Agassi (7)
Nikolay Davydenko (5)
Ivan Ljubicic (6)
James Blake (9)
Ivan Ljubicic (6)
James Blake (7)
Nikolay Davydenko (6)
Andy Roddick (10)
David Nalbandian (4)
Fernado Gonzalez (10)
Fernando Gonzalez (7)
David Nalbandian (7)
Andy Roddick (5)
Ivan Ljubicic (4)
Rafael Nadal (2)
James Blake (8)
Tommy Robredo (6)
Andy Roddick (7)
Fernando Gonzalez (9)
Tommy Haas (9)

The people he met the most were hardcourt slam champions. He played a total of seventeen matches against Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick and only lost one (the 2005 Australian Open semifinal). To point out that Djokovic wasn't around (or at least not close to his peak level of play) is irrelevant. He beat who was in front of him. It's not like Sampras had more challenging hardcourt competition in the 90s. Guys like Korda and Kafelnikov won hardcourt slams in the 90s (and Agassi won only two of his six hardcourt slams during Sampras' reign).
 
90's Clay said:
There pretty much is no competition on grass anymore (unless you got a prime-peak Nadal playing which he hasn't been since 2010). Nole is below average at best on grass, and Murray isn't much better (and these guys have posted the best results outside of Fed recently)
Click to expand...

Below what average? In comparison to who? Yes, I would agree that after awhile, Federer made both Djokovic and Murray look quite pedestrian on the surface this year. (except for the Olympics final, of course.)
 
90's Clay said:
There pretty much is no competition on grass anymore (unless you got a prime-peak Nadal playing which he hasn't been since 2010). Nole is below average at best on grass, and Murray isn't much better (and these guys have posted the best results outside of Fed recently)
Click to expand...

You're so blinded. Djokovic is probably about as good as Agassi on grass. Roddick was about as good as Ivanisevic. Hewitt was always a powerhouse on grass. Nadal, of course, is better on grass than anyone Sampras played outside of Becker. Murray remains to be seen, but he looks very talented on the surface. I imagine he'll at least surpass the likes of Stich and Krajicek on the surface.
 
oat
65165_10151150800007765_143346985_n.jpg
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Do you think Federer has been so great that it has distorted our perspective on other player's great achievements?

Nadal has been more dominant at the French Open than any player at any grand slam in history. But, his 4 consecutive French Opens isn't that impressive, when you consider that Federer won 5 consecutive Wimbledons and U.S. Opens.

Nadal's 81 match winning streak on clay is incredible. But isn't Federer's 56 match winning streak on hard court and 65 match winning streak on grass court even more impressive.

Nadal reaching 8 out of 9 grand slam finals at one point is awesome, but pales terribly in comparison to Federer's 18 of 19 grand slam finals.

Novak reaching 10 consecutive grand slam semifinals is excellent, but he has aways to go to reach Federer's 23 consecutive.
Click to expand...

Federer's immense achievements has a negative effect on Nadal and Sampras. Nadal is overshadowed because he's playing in the same era, and since he's the #2, people still considered him behind Borg despite his resume is more rounded/complete than Borg. The reason is Borg was #1 in his generation but Nadal is #2. But any player would have to settle for #2 had they play along side with Federer. Nadal is getting slighted(overlooked) because people like to compare players who are the best in their generation, but ignore that the #2 player(Nadal) can be as great(even greater) than the #1 player from the past generations.

Sampras also took a hit because or Roger's achievement. Before Fed came along, Sampras was considered the greatest players, and only Laver can be mention in the same breath. However, since Federer have surpassed Sampras, and the consensus that he's a greater player, that means he's also greater than Laver. However, Laver's supporters still insist that Laver is in the same conversation with Federer, and for that reason, they demoted Sampras to 2nd tier great, and move Laver up. As Federer continue to win, they move the goalposts, with Laver always staying "fixed" with Roger, while Sampras continue to drift behind.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Do you think Federer has been so great that it has distorted our perspective on other player's great achievements?

Nadal has been more dominant at the French Open than any player at any grand slam in history. But, his 4 consecutive French Opens isn't that impressive, when you consider that Federer won 5 consecutive Wimbledons and U.S. Opens.
Click to expand...

It IS still impressive. It's not as impressive as 5 in a row like Federer won at Wimbledon and the US Open, but then again Nadal won a further 3 in a row afterwards (and could add a 4th in a row and more) and overall has won 7 times in 8 championships. That is impressive as hell in it's own right, it's different from winning 5 in a row so there's no point even comparing the 2 things. Federer has been better at winning slams in a row, but Nadal has dominated RG more than Fed has dominated any of his slams. They're good in different ways.

McEnroeisanartist said:
Nadal's 81 match winning streak on clay is incredible. But isn't Federer's 56 match winning streak on hard court and 65 match winning streak on grass court even more impressive.
Click to expand...

Is it more impressive? Grass meant Federer had to be unbeaten for 5-ish years compared to Nadal going unbeaten on clay for roughly 2 years. There's much more hc so really hard to get to 81 unbeaten matches there since you'd have to go unbeaten for at least one year on hc and with more matches played on hc, harder to win across the whole season than pack it into a couple of months. But 81 matches is still ridiculous. It's insane. If Federer or someone else had say 75 matches on grass or HC then I'd probably say that was harder, but Nadal has the record whatever the difficulty, and I can't say anyone else had a more impressive streak than that. Possible the streak that Villas or Mac (whoever it was) had for wins in a season, especially if it comes over multiple surfaces.

McEnroeisanartist said:
Nadal reaching 8 out of 9 grand slam finals at one point is awesome, but pales terribly in comparison to Federer's 18 of 19 grand slam finals.

Novak reaching 10 consecutive grand slam semifinals is excellent, but he has aways to go to reach Federer's 23 consecutive.
Click to expand...

So? We know Federer is the best in these sorts of stats.

What you don't get in your love of Federer is not everyone has to outdo HIS achievements to be great, other plyers have their own achievements which are every bit as good. I would say Federer has the most records overall, but why do you have to insist that other records that people have are actually inferior to Federer? It's like anyone else has a record you say Federer was still better in that area. Federer is not the best in EVERY single way.

Some of your sats are good but being so biased towards Federer is ruining any thoughtful analysis that you have. I say this as a big fan of Federer (he is my favourite player of all time)
 
I agree with the OP. Fed has made the game so look so easy and smooth when he plays we take his achievments for granted
 
Clarky21 said:
Winning RG 7 out of 8 years isn't remarkable? Lol, you have got to be kidding me.

How about this, OP, Fed has had far less competition on the grass at Wimby than Nadal has had on clay over the years. The very guy you're trashing and calling unremarkable was his only competition there for years. What does that say about all of those Wimby titles Fed won?
Click to expand...

So who would you say is Nadal's main competition on clay, and if so, how are they much better? Let's take a look.

Excluding fed and Djoker as they aren't exactly clay specialists, and Fed has beaten Djoker at Wimbledon in the only time they've met anyway

Clay court powerhouse with a grand total of zero slam finals, Ferrer?
Clay court powerhouse with a grand total of zero RG semifinals and grandmaster choker, Almagro?
Clay court powerhouse who hasn't beaten a top 10 player on clay more than once, Murray?
Champion doper Puerta?
All time great with a total of one slam, Moya?
I can't think of too many more top clay specialists (obviously not incl Murray) that Nadal would've beaten during this run.

And get this. Federer has beaten a 7 time Wimbledon champ on centre court. Nadal has only beaten players who have won a maximum of 1 RG title. Don't say it's because he has won them all.. Fact is, had he played against a true RG great, he might not have had this long streak.
 
Last edited:
Clarky21 said:
No, he won 4 consecutive RG titles beating your mancrush in each and every one of them. Those 4(5 if you count 2011)wins are the only reason you don't find Nadal's wins at RG for 4 straight years to be remarkable.

That same unremarkable dirtballer Nadal also won Wimby by beating your mancrush as well.
Click to expand...

LMAO Clarky :lol:
 
Clarky21 said:
How about this, OP, Fed has had far less competition on the grass at Wimby than Nadal has had on clay over the years. The very guy you're trashing and calling unremarkable was his only competition there for years. What does that say about all of those Wimby titles Fed won?
Click to expand...

Far less competition? How did you come to that conclusion? Nadal's main competition has come from Federer and Djokovic, who have a grand total of one Roland Garros between them. Federer, on the other hand, has consistently faced and beaten Nadal, Hewitt, and Roddick, only one of whom isn't a Wimbledon champion (and probably should have been). He also beat both Djokovic, the defending champion, and Murray this year. These guys are all incredible players. Outside of Djokovic and Federer, Nadal's most consistent competition at Roland Garros has been Robin Soderling. :lol:
 
BrooklynNY said:
Totally, guys who don't really watch tennis are just spouting out random obsessive Federer statistics, and actually getting them correct.

I'm pretty sure anyone who can pull out the "Federer semi streak" "record" off the top of their head watches tennis to a relatively high degree, or is an obsessed Federer fan, but doesn't watch tennis. I think the latter is more likely.
Click to expand...

Great records in any sports gets mention all the time. Chameberlain scored 100 pts/game; JMac 82-3 record in 1984; Gretzky 2857 NHL points, etc. It's not about obsession, but the greatest streaks/records in history usually pop up in one's mind when these player's names are brought up. Federer's 23 consecutive semifinals is one of the greatest in sports history.

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog...-s-semifinal-streak-rank-in-sp?urn=ten,188567

*Roger Federer, 22 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals
*Joe DiMaggio, 56 consecutive baseball games with a hit
*Tiger Woods, 142 consecutive cuts made
*Cal Ripken, 2,632 consecutive games played
*Edwin Moses, 122 consecutive 400-meter hurdle victories
 
TMF said:
Great records in any sports gets mention all the time. Chameberlain scored 100 pts/game; JMac 82-3 record in 1984; Gretzky 2857 NHL points, etc. It's not about obsession, but the greatest streaks/records in history usually pop up in one's mind when these player's names are brought up. Federer's 23 consecutive semifinals is one of the greatest in sports history.

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog...-s-semifinal-streak-rank-in-sp?urn=ten,188567

*Roger Federer, 22 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals
*Joe DiMaggio, 56 consecutive baseball games with a hit
*Tiger Woods, 142 consecutive cuts made
*Cal Ripken, 2,632 consecutive games played
*Edwin Moses, 122 consecutive 400-meter hurdle victories
Click to expand...


Its a great achievement.. (considering health, and consistency of course). But in tennis for a top player not to make it through the first week of a slam is a MAJOR failure unless it was the old tournament draws where a top guy could draw another top guy in the first week.

But its not an achievement that will always be remembered like some other sports achievements. But its not like a Phelps' records or Jordan or Gretzky's records etc.

In fact, you'll probably see that record broke considering they homogenized the conditions. I think Djokovic is already on his way to matching, coming close or breaking it as well
 
Last edited:
90's Clay said:
Its a great achievement.. (considering health, and consistency of course). But in tennis for a top player not to make it through the first week of a slam is a MAJOR failure unless it was the old tournament draws where a top guy could draw another top guy in the first week.

But its not an achievement that will always be remembered like some other sports achievements. But its not like a Phelps' records or Jordan or Gretzky's records etc.
Click to expand...

You're right. In this case Federer's number of slam titles, and time spent at #1 would do the job.
 
90's Clay said:
Its a great achievement.. (considering health, and consistency of course). But in tennis for a top player not to make it through the first week of a slam is a MAJOR failure unless it was the old tournament draws where a top guy could draw another top guy in the first week.
Click to expand...
What does that has anything to do with Fed's 23 straight semifinals?

90's Clay said:
But its not an achievement that will always be remembered like some other sports achievements. But its not like a Phelps' records or Jordan or Gretzky's records etc.
Click to expand...
Fed's record is one of the most difficult to break, the harder to break, the more impressive. It's one of the holy grail of sports records.

90's Clay said:
In fact, you'll probably see that record broke considering they homogenized the conditions. I think Djokovic is already on his way to matching, coming close or breaking it as well
Click to expand...

LOL...Nole isn't even half way there yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
What is more impressive streak - Federer's or Nadal's
Replies
5
Views
663
moonballs
moonballs
M
Achievements that Federer and Nadal Achieved that Other Player Won't
Replies
10
Views
1K
mountain dew
M
M
Observations on Achievements at 2012 Australian Open
Replies
1
Views
821
Moose Malloy
M
M
Achievements of Federer that Djokovic will probably never achieve now after yesterday's loss
Replies
47
Views
3K
BauerAlmeida
BauerAlmeida
M
What did Federer Achieve in 2013
Replies
42
Views
4K
dr325i
dr325i
Back
Top