Damn, you are right... Federer just couldn't deliver the goathood...The difference is Sampras put up his numbers and retired. He could not do much to prevent Federer from topping his marks.
Federer is being surpassed while he is an active player. He had every bit of chance to prevent people from passing him, and could/did not - it's part of why he is still playing at 40.
To me it's more devastating to be unable to stop people from passing you, when clearly you're trying.
Clearly, Feddie boy should have retired at 31.
![]()
Remember the Big 4? That's how Big 3 will be remembered... Just a phase leading to the Big 2 clash... Final battle for tennis goat...Federer will still be regarded as part of the Big 3 even when the other two surpass him. I don't think he will lose sleep over not having the most number of slams. I think he already made peace with the fact that Djokodal will surpass him eventually.
No. big 4 was an attempt by the british media to fit murry in. he is on 3 slams while the big 3 have 20/20/18 at this point. there's a differenceRemember the Big 4? That's how Big 3 will be remembered... Just a phase leading to the Big 2 clash... Final battle for tennis goat...
Remember the Big 4? That's how Big 3 will be remembered... Just a phase leading to the Big 2 clash... Final battle for tennis goat...
No. big 4 was an attempt by the british media to fit murry in. he is on 3 slams while the big 3 have 20/20/18 at this point. there's a difference
For the present marketing gimmick? Maybe. But they will still be seen as Big 3 in the future.Remember the Big 4? That's how Big 3 will be remembered... Just a phase leading to the Big 2 clash... Final battle for tennis goat...
I love the influence that people think the British media supposedly has.No. big 4 was an attempt by the british media to fit murry in. he is on 3 slams while the big 3 have 20/20/18 at this point. there's a difference
In big 4 time difference wasn't that huge, but you are right...No. big 4 was an attempt by the british media to fit murry in. he is on 3 slams while the big 3 have 20/20/18 at this point. there's a difference
As i saw djokovic won his 9th AO, I was thinking about Federer. His achievements are huge: 20 grand slams, 8 Wimbledon's, 310 weeks at no.1, 6 YEC and not mention the popularity.
Before him, nobody has achieved what he has done.
Still what will be more remembered is how his main rivals surpassed him, beat him in several grand slams, superior H2H and bound to cross slam count. Masters count is long gone. and now weeks at no.1 .
Even when he rose from the phoenix and overcome one opponent and won 3 more slams, another opponent came back and gave him the most crashing defeat ever.
He is a hero all right, but is he a tragic hero. Will this facts make him sad.
I've seen older reports on how Borg couldn't handle US Open loss year after year and just quit. He was also universally popular like Federer. I wondered what he had felt.
Today after 30 years, nobody cares Borg quit at 26 and much more he could have achieved. I wonder what people will think after another 30 years
Unfortunately, influence is huge... USA is world biggest power, but GB is right there in their shadow... I am talking politics here, but is stands for all spheres of life...I love the influence that people think the British media supposedly has.
Agree, Sampras was surpassed by three, Fed just by two...![]()
I'm just saying, Big 4 was a thing here in the states and I can assure everyone it wasn't because ESPN was trying to copy the BBC.Unfortunately, influence is huge... USA is world biggest power, but GB is right there in their shadow... I am talking politics here, but is stands for all spheres of life...
Or won Wimbledon 2019 and walked off into the sunset![]()
Understand, but someone used term Big 4 first time, and that was British media (as I'm aware of)... Other embraced term that was basically wrong from the very begining...I'm just saying, Big 4 was a thing here in the states and I can assure everyone it wasn't because ESPN was trying to copy the BBC.
Not really... Just speaking truth...![]()
I'm sure that Federer is not in the least bit concerned about the other two's careers.
Yes, Federer will remain one of the biggest legends of the sport, but perhaps he will not be the biggest name known by newcomers of the sport in 5 years or so from now. Though, that may not be all that bad of a thing. Do the opinion's of newcomers matter much at all? As a relative newcomer myself, I was dreading the fact the guards will be changed in that respect, basically ignoring all the older people who have more vast tennis knowledge and seem to explore nuances when it comes to past players. I guess I am going to end up one of those people who will bring up past players in GOAT conversations comprised entirely of present players with seemingly greater accomplishments. It may be that, in the future, knowledge of Federer's greatness will be what distinguishes people with the know how from the know nots.I stopped reading when I got to the part about Borg. And yes, of course, Fed’s “tragic” career, such scintillating analysis one only stumbles upon on TTW.
Since Fed is such a forgettable non-entity with 20 slams, I wonder how the OP would characterize the careers of Pete, Andre, Lendl, Mac or Connors? I guess we can dismiss those legends too. Pathetic rationale and truly idiotic post.
Fed should have retired at the end of 2012 and everything would be ok apparently.The difference is Sampras put up his numbers and retired. He could not do much to prevent Federer from topping his marks.
Federer is being surpassed while he is an active player. He had every bit of chance to prevent people from passing him, and could/did not - it's part of why he is still playing at 40.
To me it's more devastating to be unable to stop people from passing you, when clearly you're trying.
If it was wrong to include Murray then it was wrong to include Djokovic as well. We first started hearing about the Big 4 when Novak was stuck on 1 slam and had no business being compared to Federer and Nadal either. But he was included because he was still going deep in every tournament, winning Masters events and being an overall threat, which is just what Murray was.Understand, but someone used term Big 4 first time, and that was British media (as I'm aware of)... Other embraced term that was basically wrong from the very begining...
If it was wrong to include Murray then it was wrong to include Djokovic as well. We first started hearing about the Big 4 when Novak was stuck on 1 slam and had no business being compared to Federer and Nadal either. But he was included because he was still going deep in every tournament, winning Masters events and being an overall threat, which is just what Murray was.
I stopped reading when I got to the part about Borg. And yes, of course, Fed’s “tragic” career, such scintillating analysis one only stumbles upon on TTW.
Since Fed is such a forgettable non-entity with 20 slams, I wonder how the OP would characterize the careers of Pete, Andre, Lendl, Mac or Connors? I guess we can dismiss those legends too. Pathetic rationale and truly idiotic post.
He'd still be surpassed even if that happened, so not sure what your point is. Not like he's done anything since then to stop them since he hasn't even played for a year.Or won Wimbledon 2019 and walked off into the sunset![]()
True.Big 4 was / a valid term, whether or not it was coined by the British or American media.
We just need to understand the context in which it is applied
Pete actually dealt with Becker and Edberg for much of his prime, and Lendl and Mac as he was risingI think so. Most players have to deal with one dangerous opponent.
Sampras - Agassi
Graf - Seles
Chris - Martina
But Roger after being tormented by Rafa had to face another more cockier more dangerous opponent who denied his fav. slams again and again
Problem for Fed is ....
But at least he would be undisputed Wimbledon GOAT and goes down respected for what he managed to do age 38 vs the big 2He'd still be surpassed even if that happened, so not sure what your point is. Not like he's done anything since then to stop them since he hasn't even player for a year.
No shame in Fed being third best of his era, I’d kill to be in his position. He can retire with his billions and enjoy the rest of his lifeWhat you think about someone doesn't make it a reality.
![]()
True.
But at some point it did stop making sense, IMO. Murray slowly but steadily just became one of the others more than 1 of the top dogs, IMO.
Or maybe, just maybe if he managed a better slam h2h than 10-21 vs his main rivals, he would’ve won 23-25+ slams and the race would be over?Anyway, even if Fed failed to win some key matches, which was the only thing under his control, other things that weren't in his control also happened like the next generations after Djokodal being completely useless.
Fed can't stop them from winning slams every time even if he did do better. So it's up to the guys after them to stop Djokodal which hasn't happened and there's nothing Fed can do if they just keep on sucking. Djokodal would just win more majors even if they lost other matches to Fed.
The difference is Sampras put up his numbers and retired. He could not do much to prevent Federer from topping his marks.
Federer is being surpassed while he is an active player. He had every bit of chance to prevent people from passing him, and could/did not - it's part of why he is still playing at 40.
To me it's more devastating to be unable to stop people from passing you, when clearly you're trying.
UK, US and the other anglophone countries have similar media outlets. For example, Rupert murdock owns FOX in US, Aus and owns several other TV/papers in the UK. We laugh at the serbia vs the world t-shirts but there is some truth to that as NATO bombed their country not too far back.I'm just saying, Big 4 was a thing here in the states and I can assure everyone it wasn't because ESPN was trying to copy the BBC.
I'm sure Federer doesn't have any trouble sleeping at night with what he's accomplished. He's always one of the happiest, most balanced athletes off the court. He's living the dream, regardless of some wannabe posers from Spain or Serbia beating his accomplishments.As i saw djokovic won his 9th AO, I was thinking about Federer. His achievements are huge: 20 grand slams, 8 Wimbledon's, 310 weeks at no.1, 6 YEC and not mention the popularity.
Before him, nobody has achieved what he has done.
Still what will be more remembered is how his main rivals surpassed him, beat him in several grand slams, superior H2H and bound to cross slam count. Masters count is long gone. and now weeks at no.1 .
Even when he rose from the phoenix and overcome one opponent and won 3 more slams, another opponent came back and gave him the most crashing defeat ever.
He is a hero all right, but is he a tragic hero. Will this facts make him sad.
I've seen older reports on how Borg couldn't handle US Open loss year after year and just quit. He was also universally popular like Federer. I wondered what he had felt.
Today after 30 years, nobody cares Borg quit at 26 and much more he could have achieved. I wonder what people will think after another 30 years
Well, if Sampras had kept playing, then Federer would have broken his record while still active because Sampras wasn't touching Federer in the 2000's.I'm not suggesting he should have retired earlier to preserve some perception of GOAT.
I'm simply saying I've been on this board long enough to hear about how amazing it is that Sampras' records being broken a mere 7 years after he retired.
Federer's mark is being passed while he is still active. Yes, he stayed active 9 years longer than Sampras, but it's remarkable.
The only thing Federer could have realistically done is won even more against Djokovic and Nadal and put the bar even higher, which is sort of unthinkable
And we shouldn't re-write history just because Andy didn't end up having a GOAT caliber career.UK, US and the other anglophone countries have similar media outlets. For example, Rupert murdock owns FOX in US, Aus and owns several other TV/papers in the UK. We laugh at the serbia vs the world t-shirts but there is some truth to that as NATO bombed their country not too far back.
There's always this British guy in the AO coverage who always used to sneak in Big 4 couple of years ago but now is mentioning Big 3 with "not to forget Murray as well". Murray may have competed with the big 3 on par terms in those years but does not have the same success in titles.
Well, if Sampras had kept playing, then Federer would have broken his record while still active because Sampras wasn't touching Federer in the 2000's.
Stuff like this happens. The fact that it was always up to Fed to do something says more about the field more than anything else.Sure, I'm suggesting Sampras would do better, or could have changed history. I'm just saying how it's incredible how thing are coming full circle for Federer. From bring hailed as the GOAT at 6 slams and counting, to at one point being at 16 slams, while Nadal is at 5 and Djokovic 1, to likely being behind in all GOAT metrics except for most overall titles won by the time he hangs it up.
It's truly an insane sports story
The difference is Sampras put up his numbers and retired. He could not do much to prevent Federer from topping his marks.
Federer is being surpassed while he is an active player. He had every bit of chance to prevent people from passing him, and could/did not - it's part of why he is still playing at 40.
To me it's more devastating to be unable to stop people from passing you, when clearly you're trying.
Well, if Sampras had kept playing, then Federer would have broken his record while still active because Sampras wasn't touching Federer in the 2000's.
You are right, off course... Being 3rd or 2nd ever is just great, but here we are comparing those 3, and not only us here on ttw... It's THE TOPIC in tennis world, among ex players, commentators, and it's not bad in term of tennis popularity etc...The entire premise of the OP's "thesis" is that unless you are the GOAT of your chosen sport, you're a nobody, which is sheer insanity in the actual world. Apparently the mindset there is that if, say, Nadal ends up with 23 slams and Djoker/Fed end up with 20, then Roger and Novak's careers are tragic, pathetic, lame and forgettable. Why bother rooting for any of the under 30 guys since none of them will even get double-digit slams, much less 20+. What's the point, none of them will ever be GOAT. And forget about chumps like Laver and Borg since nobody remembers them anyway.
A complete lack of knowledge and respect for the sport and its legends.