How much of Federer's greatness is defined by being dominant in so many Grand Slam semifinals/finals at 3 of 4 Grand Slams?

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
How much of Federer's greatness is defined by being dominant in so many Grand Slam semifinals/final matches?

Grand Slam semifinals/final matches won without losing a set (at Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open)

Federer - 31 (8, 2, 13, 8)
Nadal - 26 (2, 17, 3, 4)
Djokovic - 19 (10, 2, 3, 4)
 

beard

Legend
USO 2015...Fed lost 0 sets in first 6 matches... Lost 3 sets in final match... That's how important this is...
 

Bubcay

Legend
Nice try on that one.

That's the hope of one with something to hide. ;)
I am just stating what is happening in reality. Outside of TTW barely anyone would care (or know/remember) how the numbers were reached - just talk about the actual numbers. Of course, we live in a parallel universe here on the board - so it obviously matters :cool: .
 

goldengate14

Professional
In the end - only the titles count. The way you got there soon gets swept away by the winds of time...
Titles count. Interesting premise. Because Federer with joint most majors and over 100 titles overall on that premise is and will be if Major count stays level undisputed GOAt.
it is often not talked about but that over 100 title bench mark in say 50 years may be the deal breaker.
 

Bubcay

Legend
Titles count. Interesting premise. Because Federer with joint most majors and over 100 titles overall on that premise is and will be if Major count stays level undisputed GOAt.
it is often not talked about but that over 100 title bench mark in say 50 years may be the deal breaker.
Well, they do count, but not all were born equal. I will leave it to history to judge....
 

beard

Legend
But that's how we know 2015 = peak Fed and therefore Djoker am the bestest evar amirite?
It was near peak form (peak meter do not exist, you know)... But that Fed's peak wasn't enough against near peak Novak... You can look at Fed's 2003 - 2007 "peak" in same way... Add "peak" Novak in equation and result wouldn't be winning about 10 slams...
 

Jokervich

Hall of Fame
How much of Federer's greatness is defined by being dominant in so many Grand Slam semifinals/final matches?

Grand Slam semifinals/final matches won without losing a set (at Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open)

Federer - 31 (8, 2, 13, 8)
Nadal - 26 (2, 17, 3, 4)
Djokovic - 19 (10, 2, 3, 4)
The only explanation can be weak era.
 

Madinolf

Rookie
Same Fed fans:

WI 14 - lost 1 set before the final
WI 15 - lost 1 set before the final
UO 15 - lost 0 set before the final
AO 16 - lost 1 set before the semifinal

But that was not peak Federer :cool:
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
In the end - only the titles count. The way you got there soon gets swept away by the winds of time...
So Lendl being 8-11 in slam finals diminishes him as an ATG? Nobody knows or cares by now, it's only the titles a player wins that matters.
Yes, precisely. Go back a few years to Sampras and all anyone remembers is that he won 14 slams, a bunch of Wimbledons and no French. Go back further to Laver and we remember he won two CYGS and a bunch of slams in a addition. Nothing ever remembered or discussed about what he might have won without losing a set. Merely trivia. Sands of time through the hourglass. And as has often been documented here, an easier level of competition leads to more straight set wins.
 

TearTheRoofOff

G.O.A.T.
It was near peak form (peak meter do not exist, you know)... But that Fed's peak wasn't enough against near peak Novak... You can look at Fed's 2003 - 2007 "peak" in same way... Add "peak" Novak in equation and result wouldn't be winning about 10 slams...
'Fed's peak wasn't enough against near peak Novak'... you never disappoint XD.
 

beard

Legend
Simultaneously advocating the triviality of sets won with regards to excellence and using sets won to prop up the level of excellence of a defeated player.

How to have your cake and eat it 101.
Fed being at his best and peak Fed losing to peak Novak doesn't exclude one another... ;)
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
How much of Federer's greatness is defined by being dominant in so many Grand Slam semifinals/final matches?

Grand Slam semifinals/final matches won without losing a set (at Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open)

Federer - 31 (8, 2, 13, 8)
Nadal - 26 (2, 17, 3, 4)
Djokovic - 19 (10, 2, 3, 4)

those records are cool, but his greatness is mostly defined by what everybody sees when watching him play: tennis exemplified and, to many, perfected. records wise it's the GS count, time at #1, stuff like that--but yeah the semi streak in particular is pretty crazy.
 
Top