Is Federer the tragic hero

Forehanderer

Professional
And we shouldn't re-write history just because Andy didn't end up having a GOAT caliber career.

No one ever accused Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray of being on equal ground in terms of legacy. They were lumped in together as the "Big 4" as a shorthand when discussing tennis tournaments at the time because they were the only 4 with a chance to actually win titles. Andy being out of the picture in 2021 doesn't somehow erase his status on tour during his prime.
But why is that British guy still harping on "lets not forget Andy" all the time when commenting on the big 3 right now.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
But why is that British guy still harping on "lets not forget Andy" all the time when commenting on the big 3 right now.
I don't know what context you're referring to when he says that. I really doubt he says it every time the phrase Big 3 is used like a Pavlovian response.

Sometimes it's required, like when they're referring to streaks. When it was brought up during the final that Medvedev might get to #2, that would be breaking up a Big 4 streak, not a Big 3. It would be rude to make it sound like he was toppling the Big 3 in that context because Andy already did it when he was ranked in the top 2 during 2015-17.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
But why is that British guy still harping on "lets not forget Andy" all the time when commenting on the big 3 right now.

You mean Andrew Castle?
Yes he is a special case...

He knows you know. ;)

DiJtQujX4AANZg0.jpg
 

roysid

Legend
Pete actually dealt with Becker and Edberg for much of his prime, and Lendl and Mac as he was rising
Pete owned Becker. How many big matches or for that matter matches becker wom against Pete.

Edberg beat Pete in US open final in 92 and post that Pete had a free run. Edberg became a non factor from 93 onwards
 

beard

Legend
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.
You are right, mostly IMO. Other side of the medal is that Fed had his window for winning "free" slams, and he used his opportunity greatly... I think that he HAD to do better against Rafa and Novak, just had to be better... 11 of 31 is just too bad... If he had decent 50% winning rate, that's it, done deal...
 

Forehanderer

Professional
I don't know what context you're referring to when he says that. I really doubt he says it every time the phrase Big 3 is used like a Pavlovian response.

Sometimes it's required, like when they're referring to streaks. When it was brought up during the final that Medvedev might get to #2, that would be breaking up a Big 4 streak, not a Big 3. It would be rude to make it sound like he was toppling the Big 3 in that context because Andy already did it when he was ranked in the top 2 during 2015-17.
It was not situational when he inserts his name. Its not just me. Some others have mentioned it too. They have also said its a British guy
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Borg was receiving death threats while preparing for Majors finals, and ATP was giving him grief for not wanting to break his back to promote them, so it is yet another ignorant comment from the likes of you.

:cool:

Borg wasn't the only player to experience that you ignoramus...

He quit because he lacked the motivation to keep playing.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Just coming in to remind Nalbandian, del Potro & Soderling being sidelined due to injury/illness inflated Novak/Nadal numbers along with weaker crop of talent proceeding them. But tennis also massively shifted into a ridiculous wealth disparity that created an insanely tilted top heavy result.

Even so, obviously Roger's choking cost him. Take just 2011 USO and 2019 Wimbledons and it's 22-20-16. He also could have beat Nadal at the French in 06 or 11 and put him down or yes, absolutely 08 Wimbledon converting a 2nd freaking break point.

Honestly if Fed wasn't such a choker it would be 25-18-16 and he'd be retired.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
Who cares what ignorants think?

BTW, your own example should tell you a lot: Borg is pretty much in the conversation, despite of quitting so young.

:cool:
He was unable to win more after 26, in opposition to big3. Borg is goat in up-to-26 category, definitely.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
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.
The reason OP thinks such is because of the lamentable disrespect the board levels at past GOAT contenders and ATGs. Anyone talk about Borg or Laver aside from when they're close to being surpassed in some stat? Becker, Edberg, Mac or Lendl? We all KNOW this clown forum hates Pete so no need to even ask.

So no, OP's question is fully justified and it remains to be seen whether Fedfans evacuate en masse after Nadal and Nole surpass him, or if they become the new "Sampras fans" accusing Djokodal of winning in a Weak Era
Pete owned Becker. How many big matches or for that matter matches becker wom against Pete.

Edberg beat Pete in US open final in 92 and post that Pete had a free run. Edberg became a non factor from 93 onwards
Wrong. Edberg beat Pete in Australia in '93. He was still a factor and they played a ton of great matches including Cincinnati, Indian Wells, ATP World Championships from '93-'95 with Stefan giving as good as he got (almost)
Pete owning Boris doesn't mean Boris wasn't great competition, anymore than Nole/Rafa owning Fed means Fed isn't good competition. And Becker beat Pete at the ATP World championship in '94 and '96, so 2 biggies at least.
 

roysid

Legend
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
Just to clarify, as many posters have suggested im not dishing Feds career.

20 grand slams, 310 weeks at no. 1 with no.1 for 4.5 years straight. These are ultra magnificent. Fed was the god of tennis world.

Why the word tragic : Federer had to face two ultimate competitors and Fed and his fans always believed that he is the greatest.
But being surpassed you dont feel yourself greatest. What fun is 8 Wimbledon when rivals have 9 Australia and 13 French. More so when you lost 4 finals there and Ur rivals are 9-0 and 13-0 there
And finally, why I feel strongly about 'tragic' is because of W19. Despite doing everything better that day, and two MP on serve, still he couldnt win despite being so so close. As if fate wasnt there. What can be more tragic than that.

And finally why Borg. Because among players in open era nobody had such tragic as Borg. Despite winning 6 FO and 5 W, the sorrow of another US Open loss was so much that he quit the sport. No player in open era had such a sad end to career.
 
He was unable to win more after 26, in opposition to big3. Borg is goat in up-to-26 category, definitely.

How do you reconcile the pampering of the Big 3 from the ATP to the point of skewing the competition in their favour with the attitude of the ATP towards Borg in twisting his hand for not wanting to break his back just so that he promotes the tour?

People that have no idea what transpired should really just shut up, yet, their ignorance emboldens them to be even louder. That is the situation today.

:cool:
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Funny how every fan thinks this board is biased against their favorite player.
I do it half the time for effect. The forum doesn't "hate" Pete per se as a whole (although many Fedfans do) but the lack of respect is tangible.
 
Borg wasn't the only player to experience that you ignoramus...

He quit because he lacked the motivation to keep playing.

Oh yes, who were the others in his position, pray tell? Who were the others that were escorted out of stadiums and were terrorised by the ATP just because he wanted to be left alone and not be forced with his schedule?

You don't even realise that what you say doesn't contradict what I say, as such things definitely play a role when deciding whether you want to play or not.

:cool:
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
How do you reconcile the pampering of the Big 3 from the ATP to the point of skewing the competition in their favour with the attitude of the ATP towards Borg in twisting his hand for not wanting to break his back just so that he promotes the tour?

People that have no idea what transpired should really just shut up, yet, their ignorance emboldens them to be even louder. That is the situation today.

:cool:
Oh no... Anyway, he was unable to win more after 26.
 

TopspintheTerrible

Hall of Fame
“As I walk onto the balcony of my Swiss chalet overlooking the Alps, I glance back @ my devoted wife and beautiful children, think about my global fanbase, my massive achievements, my net worth north of $500m & yet I’m overcome with profound sadness....”
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
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

Nailed it NY! Likewise here, been here since the mid 2000s (under different monikers though) and got sick of hearing how great Federer was to break Sampras' records in such quick time. Now that 2 other players are breaking Federer's records in almost the same time, all I'm hearing is weak competition and a whole lot of other bulls*hit.

None of these discussions would be happening if the Federer fans simply graciously admitted the enormity of Nadal/Djokovic's achievements instead of trying to incessantly belittle them. Except for very few like @MeatTornado,@Eren or @BeatlesFan for example, everyone's busy trash talking them.
 
Top