If Federer becomes No.1, will it be the greatest comeback of all time?

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
In 2013 Nadal was same age as Fed was in 2008. So lets say Fed was a weirdo like Nadal and decided to stop playing at the start of 2008 for 7 months and then came back and won 2008 USO, reached final of 2009 AO, won 2009 FO and 2009 Wimbledon and reached final of 2009 USO and got his number #1 rank back. Wait it did happen minus the not playing for 7 months because he is not a weirdo.

win_sector.jpg
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
No, it would be a terrible thing. Undeserved, slamless, weak and shallow YE #1, achieved mostly due to sheer luck, cakewalk draws and Novak being distracted due to his firstborn child. is something that Federer and Federer fans should never be proud of and brag about.
OK, then we can say that Fed had a weak year in 2009 because his first set of twins were born. He got married and had his first TWO children. So lets assume he would have won another slam otherwise, would have played better for the year. Maybe he should have won three slams.

Do I think this?

I do not. But if Fed has had as good a year as he has, with two MORE children, seems pretty weak to say that Novak is where he is because of becoming a father.

He has only one child. And no one told him to have the child, right? It's not like something bad happened to him.

I'm sick of excuses, for any of these guys. They do the best they can according to the good or bad fortune they have any year.

Not really aiming this at you.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
When Djokovic is at a tournament and playing on court, his FULL focus is on the match.
When I'm at work, teaching, I TRY to keep my FULL focus on what I'm doing. Separating personal matters from work issues is a worthy goal.

Winning matches is what these guys do. It is their job.

But if you think for a moment their personal issues don't leak into their minds while playing, I have to disagree. And whatever your work is in life, your preparation for that work suffers when things go wrong. A divorce (Nadal's parents), serious illness in a family member, even a sick kid makes things way more complicated.

Two days ago Fed said that he did not practice before his match because he was catching up with sleep. That sounds suspiciously like what happens to all of us when we have kids. You can bet that's it's going to happen to Novak too.

Once you have children, nothing is the same. I think most people on this forum are not old enough to understand that.
 
If we are going down the excuses road, Nadal's 2 (out of 3) YE number 1s were in 2008 and 2013. A fully fit No mono Federer in 2008 wins at least one of AO or W 08, probably both. No number 1 ranking for Nadal there. Nadal's not winning Cincinnati or USO 2013 or reaching the WTF final with a fully fit Federer....heck Djokovic gift wrapped the USOs and FO anyway but we will let that slide. No number 1 there as well. 2010....best possible draws for him. See the number of top 10 players he beat and see who he had to beat to win W and USO(cue Nadal fans bringing up Djokovic now).

The point is you can pick holes in anyone's record of whatever record. Number 1 player doesn't necessarily mean the best player anyway. It just means you've had the most consistent results. Not only that it is unlikely Federer will get to number 1. This is Djokovic, not Nadal to start getting cold feet at the thought of playing the best players exclusively indoors.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Just realized, if Murray beats Djokovic today and Federer wins Bercy, Federer will be no. 1 for at least 1 week until WTF finishes, because last year's WTF points will be dropped next Monday. Interesting.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Muster's is the greatest, and it's not close.

Roger came back from a disastrous 8th in the world. That's not a comeback, that's an off year with plenty of points to make the next.

Andre came back from drug problems, getting fat, and getting lazy. That's not a comeback...that's maturing.

Muster got his leg shredded out of nowhere...wasn't supposed to play again. Got to the top of the ladder.

THAT'S a comeback

Exactly. Thomas takes the cake, and it's well-deserved, too.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
Strictly going by the grand-slam results, none deserve the YE1 award. Not Fed (at all), not Nole, and not Nadal. I wish there was a contender called "Nobody wins" :D
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
One of the rare cases where I actually agree with you.

In terms of titles won, Novak has definitely done better.
It is just that for YE #1 that doesn't matter as much.

But nr.1 is not only about winning titles. It's about combination of winning titles and consistency.

Anyway, Federer had to win 3 slams to be nr.1 3 times. If we go by this logic, that means only people who win 3 majors deserve to be nr.1.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Strictly going by the grand-slam results, none deserve the YE1 award. Not Fed (at all), not Nole, and not Nadal. I wish there was a contender called "Nobody wins" :D

Yeah good point. Federer had to win 3 slams + WTF to be nr.1 at his peak.
Nole and Rafa won 3 at their peak too.

So yeah, nobody deserves nr.1 with only one slam.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Not the greatest comeback, but impressive. I agree with Muster, but honourableshout outs to Capriarti, Clijsters and BJK.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Strictly going by the grand-slam results, none deserve the YE1 award. Not Fed (at all), not Nole, and not Nadal. I wish there was a contender called "Nobody wins" :D

Err. Djokovic stands out quite clearly, to me at least

QF
F
W
SF

Compare that to Nadal,

F
W
4R

or Federer

SF
4R
F
SF

Maybe you don't like what you're seeing, but it's plain as day. Djokovic has outdone everyone at the Slams this year.
 

carpedm

Rookie
Connors 82

I’ve been enjoying Federer’s recent return to form as much as anyone, however I wouldn’t classify his effort as the greatest comeback ever. Especially since most of these forums barely look beyond the last fifteen years.

I would rank Connors' 1982 campaign as higher than either Agassi’s late run or Muster’s clay court return because Connors won two slams that year and he made it to number one. And he was 33. In addition, he wasn’t failing to live up to his potential back then, he was just getting outplayed by two guys - Borg and McEnroe. And Lendl wasn’t far behind.

But Jimmy fought his way back to not only take the two biggest titles away from the two more dominant players, but he did it by out serving Mac at Wimbeldon and out-hitting Lendl at the US Open.

Not too shabby.

Federer’s play this year has been inspired but I agree, injury conspired to derail much of last year. And I easily discount Nadal’s return to the tour from injury because of math - he was still in his twenties and of course the most glaring number to his dominance in today’s more physical game: Federer is five years older.

Sadly I can’t comment on Laver’s tough play in the 70’s or Gonzales’ resolve from the 60’s; I’m too young. But for what male player made the most impressive return to form late in his career: in my humble opinion, Connors by a wide margin.

ps. on a side note, I'd classify Capriatti's run from burnout and shoplifting to number one and multiple slam titles as one of the greatest comebacks since Elvis Pressly and Indian casinos.
 
Last edited:

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
It would be ironic if Fed ends up as a slamless #1 this year. It would only highlight the fact that yet again he hasn't won a slam all season. This would be the 7th year Fed would have failed to win a slam.

Surely the King of Slams has to be Nadal who has won at least one slam every year since 2005.
 
It would be ironic if Fed ends up as a slamless #1 this year. It would only highlight the fact that yet again he hasn't won a slam all season. This would be the 7th year Fed would have failed to win a slam.

Surely the King of Slams has to be Nadal who has won at least one slam every year since 2005.

We know, we know.

:roll:
 

carpedm

Rookie
Interesting and fair point.

And while Nadal is impressive as a modern player, if he were to play Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Vilas ( let alone Connors, Nastase or even McEnroe ) without a string to keep the ball in for him or equipment that required far more skill than endurance, I suspect he wouldn't be nearly as successful. He would be in the mix with those players, but he wouldn't have as many wins.

Don't get me wrong, Nadal is a fantastic player and a seemingly a nice person; a credit to the sport. And really you can't fault the guy for being a product of his time. The situation allows Nadal to be successful, which is great. It's part of the game.

But if you took McEnroe and transported him to the 1920's and made him play against players then with an old wood bat with no grip on the wood of the handle and cat gut strings that you were never really sure what they were strung at, McEnroe would still excel. So would Sampras, Federer, Lendl and other greats.

But without Nadal's inherent advantages that he enjoys today, similar success might not be likely. He gets to be great in his time, maybe not-so-much in others.

I played in college twenty years ago. Last summer I played three kids who played in college within the last four years, all of them with big Bab-eee rackets. Physically I couldn't keep up. It's just a different game. I played them tight for a bit but would usually go down 3, 4 or on a good day 7-5.

I later played them all with wood rackets. I played serve and volley with one, all-court with another and touch with the last.

They didn't have the racket skills, the technique or the strategy to just run me over. We played virtually even with me the most likely winner. Keep in mind, I'm also twenty years older.

Now I'm no pro-player. No where near it. But with a 3 to 1 experiment, it was an interesting discussion about the product of the time. And maybe this is a small bit of insight to the modern game itself.

So is Nadal really the king? Or with his primary competitor to legacy being five years older, is he just king of today's game?
 
Last edited:
Nadal's comeback IMO is more impressive considering how devastating his injuries were. If Fed gets back to number 1, and wins Wimbledon, I think it would add to his legendary career no doubt

LOL, Nadal....devastating injuries.

This is why he keeps pulling this crap...some people are actually gullible enough to believe it.
 
Interesting and fair point.

And while Nadal is impressive as a modern player, if he were to play Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Vilas ( let alone Connors, Nastase or even McEnroe ) without a string to keep the ball in for him or equipment that required far more skill than endurance, I suspect he wouldn't be nearly as successful. He would be in the mix with those players, but he wouldn't have as many wins.

Don't get me wrong, Nadal is a fantastic player and a seemingly a nice person; a credit to the sport. And really you can't fault the guy for being a product of his time. The situation allows Nadal to be successful, which is great. It's part of the game.

But if you took McEnroe and transported him to the 1920's and made him play against players then with an old wood bat with no grip on the wood of the handle and cat gut strings that you were never really sure what they were strung at, McEnroe would still excel. So would Sampras, Federer, Lendl and other greats.

But without Nadal's inherent advantages that he enjoys today, similar success might not be likely. He gets to be great in his time, maybe not-so-much in others.

I played in college twenty years ago. Last summer I played three kids who played in college within the last four years, all of them with big Bab-eee rackets. Physically I couldn't keep up. It's just a different game. I played them tight for a bit but would usually go down 3, 4 or on a good day 7-5.

I later played them all with wood rackets. I played serve and volley with one, all-court with another and touch with the last.

They didn't have the racket skills, the technique or the strategy to just run me over. We played virtually even with me the most likely winner. Keep in mind, I'm also twenty years older.

Now I'm no pro-player. No where near it. But with a 3 to 1 experiment, it was an interesting discussion about the product of the time. And maybe this is a small bit of insight to the modern game itself.

So is Nadal really the king? Or with his primary competitor to legacy being five years older, is he just king of today's game?

Ummmm, Toni trained Rafa on pitiful wood rackets for years. He'd know what to do.
 
Top