How can Kuerten, Wilander, and Lendl be ranked above Federer at French?
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
helloworld
Hall of Fame
I argued that they are separated even 2 tiers.
That Sampras didn't have to deal with Rafa. Fed is basically a 22 majors champion in Petes era and has CYGS.
Fed's pure ability and his consistency suggests that. And he is not finished. So with this and him winning a few more stuff, he is two tiers above Pete.
Federer has Nadal, who is on pace to surpass Sampras in greatness(although 47 out of 128 people have voted Nadal - Nadal vs. Sampras: Who's The Greater Player). Federer face stiffer competition, had he had Sampras weaker competition(no Nadal), most would agree that he would be at least sitting on 20 slams + CYGS. And yes, that would set them 2 tiers apart.
Despite having greater depth and stronger field Federer still won 3 more slams. When you compare some of the major achievements and stats, they speak volumes.
Player of the decade
2000 - 2009: Federer (15 slams)
1990 - 1999: Sampras (12 slams)
1980 - 1989: Lendl (7 slams)
1970 - 1979: Borg (8 slams)
1960 - 1969: Laver (11 slams, but 6 were amateur)
Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Rafael Nadal 13
4. Björn Borg 11
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6
= Novak Djokovic 6
GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
= Rafael Nadal 19*
4. Pete Sampras 18
5. Björn Borg 16
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. Novak Djokovic 12*
9. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10*
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5*
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4*
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Andy Murray 3*
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3*
GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. Rafael Nadal 22*
= Novak Djokovic 21*
7. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
9. Boris Becker 18
10. Björn Borg 17
Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23*
2. Novak Djokovic 14
3. Ivan Lendl 10
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5*
= Andy Murray 5*
= Boris Becker 5
9. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4*
GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 41*
= Jimmy Connors 41
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
7. Novak Djokovic 27*
8. Rafael Nadal 26*
9. Boris Becker 23
10. Björn Borg 21
Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 36*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= 3. Novak Djokovic 19*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. = Andy Murray 11*
6. Pete Sampras 10
7. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6*
All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011
All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969
All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Novak Djokovic 2012
Novak Djokovic 2013
Andy Murray 2011
Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31
Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Roger Federer 264*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204
Other Stuff:
Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3
= Novak Djokovic 3
Most Year-End Championship finals
1. Ivan Lendl 9
2. Federer 8*
= Boris Becker 6
4. Pete Sampras 6
5. Ilie Năstase 4
= Bjorn Borg 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
9. Novak Djokovic 3
= Lleyton Hewitt 3
Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. 7. Rafael Nadal 129+*
7. Björn Borg 109
8. Novak Djokovic 101
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80
Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56
Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3*
Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
12. Rafael Nadal (2013) .915 75-7
Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 77*
= John McEnroe 77
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. = Rafael Nadal 61*
9. Andre Agassi 60
10. Boris Becker 49
Most Master Series or equivalent win
1. Rafael Nadal 26
2. Ivan Lendl 22
3. Roger Federer 21
4. John McEnroe 19
5. Novak Djokovic 18
6. Andre Agassi 17
= Jimmny Connors 17
8. Bjorn Borg 15
9. Boris Becker 13
10. Pete Sampras 11
Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974
Last edited:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
@TMF. Djokovic has now won 18 Masters 1000 titles. :wink:
Ok, I'll update that list.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Those stats contain names of great players, including Sampras. Anyone who made the list are very impressive, and those are familiar names. Just because Sampras is behind Federer doesn't mean you have to get all panties in a bunch.
For the record, experts use these type of metrics to rank greatest of all time.
PLAYER CRITERIA
* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Win/loss record at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)
helloworld
Hall of Fame
I didn't create those criteria, experts from the Tennis Channel have study/work hard to compile the list that's best to evaluate players. Pretty much it covers every major area of achievements in tennis.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
The fact that you once said RNadal needs 34 slams to be in conversation with PSampras ruined your credibility as a serious poster :lol:
NatF
Bionic Poster
He said Federer needs 42 yesterday...
Yeah, like the anti-Fed like you who said Fed needs to win 42 slams to equal Sampras should be taken seriously; have more credibility than Flink, Collins, Robinson, Evans, and dozen of other experts who have study tennis for years.
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
agreed. Not only is Kuerten's backhand a strength but unlike Fed he really doesnt havea weakness to go to... his forehand and volley construction... even serve are all very good. He even got pretty good at hardcourts, that's why he eventually clinched #1 for one year, beating Sampras and Aggassi back to back to do so. Talented player, super smart point constructions. Maybe not as consistent as Nadal but when he is on fire has many more weapons.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Stop being such a fanboy. Fed is not two tiers ahead of Sampras.
(I say this as someone who considers Federer the GOAT)
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer is quite good at French. I would say almost fluent. C2 Level so he is above Lendl and Wilander in this regard.
Now, don't make me mad boy. You want 3 tiers?
Yeah, some guys have the trophies innit...! Also, getting a bagel served in a final doesn't help the FO ranking...especially when the beating was so severe that the wounds were still open and weeping until the last day big day of the grass court season...
yes, behind lendl, guga, wilander...
next
yes, behind lendl, guga, wilander...
next
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Watch 2004 FO. That's all the abilities that Fed has against half Kuerten.
Please learn to use some common sense. At least some basics, I'm not asking for much. At least it will improve your trolling.
It's not that you troll that it bother me, but that it's so bad.
Please man, cuz you are making me look way smarter than I really am
. I like a challenge, you aren't even making me work. Your premises practically refute themselves.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
If you can't understand the fact that half Kuerten destroyed peak Federer, then not even god can help enlighten you.Please learn to use some common sense. At least some basics, I'm not asking for much. At least it will improve your trolling.
It's not that you troll that it bother me, but that it's so bad.
Please man, cuz you are making me look way smarter than I really am
I like a challenge, you aren't even making me work. Your premises practically refute themselves.
If you can't understand the fact that half Kuerten destroyed peak Federer, then not even god can help enlighten you.
Ok, you got me.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Nobody is discussing about Federer vs Sampras on clay here. Everyone knows Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. AO is debatable. During the early 90s, AO was not really a serious slam as even Agassi the AO GOAT skipped AO during the entire early 90s. So it's hard to compare when the value of AO is substantially different from today. We can definitely compare Wimbledon and US Open as these two majors are the two most prestigious in both eras. Unfortunately, both men are tied in these two majors, so it is still very very difficult to compare. Again, Federer is wayy better than Sampras? Dream on, Fa-Rds.
AO wasn't a serious slam in the 90's? Based on Agassi dedication to it? Based on Agassi's dedication, tennis wasn't very serious in the 90's!
Except for him, all the top players where playing the AO since the mid 80's you know.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
The core argument of the people who think that Federer is a superior clay courters than Wilander, Kuerten and Lendl is that he played against Nadal, who is generally acknowledged as the best clay courter ever. For this reason, Federer didn't get the results his clay abilities should have granted him.
The problem is that if you disconnect the result from the ability (you don't measure the ability by using the result), then their is no proof anymore that Nadal is really the best clay courter ever. Some people argue that Nadal is equal of Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov, Chang. His results were only better because, unlike them, he only had to go trough hard court specialist like Federer, Djokovic, while they had to battle between themselves.
So we are back to the uninteresting subjective only discussion of who had a very strong opposition and who has a very weak opposition (because posters only deal in absolute). Anyone can argue that the actual results of any player say little of their strength because X lost against strong opponents while Y won against worthless opponents.
As for me ranking Federer on clay is not very difficult: I go by results:
Federer is therefor behind all the two time or more RG champions, and ahead of all the one time champions: he has many more runner-up appearance than them. He also performed very well in Masters 1000, with several titles and runner-up appearance.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Watch 2004 FO. That's all the abilities that Fed has against half Kuerten.
So I guess that you will happily use the same arguments to acknowledge Federer as the superior grass courter over Sampras ;-). After all, who needs more than one match to make judgement?
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Federer was 10 years younger playing against half Sampras and still took 5 sets 7-5 in the fifth to beat him? Now, compare to PEAK Federer losing to no hip Kuerten, that's real embarrassment! :lol:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Please learn to use some common sense. At least some basics, I'm not asking for much. At least it will improve your trolling.
It's not that you troll that it bother me, but that it's so bad.
Please man, cuz you are making me look way smarter than I really am
I like a challenge, you aren't even making me work. Your premises practically refute themselves.
Funny...
10chx
