Is Federer's 10 Titles on 3 Differents Surfaces Underrated

[McEnroeisanartist]

Is Federer's 10 Titles on Hard, Clay, and Grass Underrated

Federer has won at least 10 titles on Grass, Clay, and Hart Court. He is the only man in the open era to achieve this. Do you think is an underrated record?

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Federer has won at least 10 titles on Grass, Clay, and Hart Court. He is the only man in the open era to achieve this. Do you think is an underrated record?

Yes, but it's not a record. Lendl won at least 22 titles on clay, hard and carpet. Connors won at least 10 on grass, carpet, hard and clay (granted, Federer would have won at least 10 on carpet if the surfaces didn't disappeared).

 

[RF20Lennon]

Yes, but it's not a record. Lendl won at least 22 titles on clay, hard and carpet. Connors won at least 10 on grass, carpet, hard and clay (granted, Federer would have won at least 10 on carpet if the surfaces didn't disappeared).

But OP claims he is the only one to do it in the open era.....?

 

[Flash O'Groove]

But OP claims he is the only one to do it in the open era.....?

Well he is wrong. Connors did it (including carpet), and Lendl did a more impressive with winning 20 on clay, hard and carpet. I wouldn't surprised if McEnroe, Borg, Laver and Rosewall also won 10 or more tournaments on 3 different surfaces.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Federer is the only man in the open era to win at least 10 titles on grass, hard court, and clay. Those are the three primary surfaces. Not carpet. Or indoor hard or whatever.

I don't think this will ever be achieved again. At least not in our lifetime.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Federer is the only man in the open era to win at least 10 titles on grass, hard court, and clay. Those are the three primary surfaces. Not carpet. Or indoor hard or whatever.

I don't think this will ever be achieved again. At least not in our lifetime.

as they (unfortunately) don't play on carpet anymore at the moment... you could split the titles into clay - grass - indoor (hard or carpet) - outdoor hardcourt.

and roger won at least 10 of each.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Federer is the only man in the open era to win at least 10 titles on grass, hard court, and clay. Those are the three primary surfaces. Not carpet. Or indoor hard or whatever.

I don't think this will ever be achieved again. At least not in our lifetime.

Well Jimmy Connors won 12 clay titles, 10 grass titles, 44 hard titles (and 44 carpet titles, although carpet is not a primary surface in the history of tennis).

Connors was a player of the open era.

You can check.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Well Jimmy Connors won 12 clay titles, 10 grass titles, 44 hard titles (and 44 carpet titles, although carpet is not a primary surface in the history of tennis).

Connors was a player of the open era.

You can check.

10 grass titles ?
i've found only 9:
- his 4 grass slams
- queen's x3
- nottingham x1
- birmingham x1

 

[TMF]

But Roger won big titles at 3 difference surfaces. Connors may have 12 clay titles, but was there any big title ?

And if you include indoors then Roger has over 10 titles including 6 WTFs.

 

[jg153040]

Federer has won at least 10 titles on Grass, Clay, and Hart Court. He is the only man in the open era to achieve this. Do you think is an underrated record?

Fed has 10 clay titles? Didn't know he has that many on clay. That's impressive, since Nadal stopped him from so much.

Without the clay goat on his way, he would probably have 20 clay titles. Not bad for his worst surface.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Regardless of whether Connors won 9 or 10 grass titles, who gives even the tiniest smelliest little poo.

9, 10, 11.

Why 10?

Arbitrary.

10 characters...

WHY 10 characters?

Mods I request you change minimum character count required to confirm a post to 13.75.


Please.



I beg you.


Do it.


Nike.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

13.75 characters

(delete post basically)

 

[Andres]

10 grass titles ?
i've found only 9:
- his 4 grass slams
- queen's x3
- nottingham x1
- birmingham x1

I also find only 9.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

10 grass titles ?
i've found only 9:
- his 4 grass slams
- queen's x3
- nottingham x1
- birmingham x1

I also find only 9.

My bad, you are right.

 

[Moose Malloy]

2 more grasscourt titles here, 1972 Nottingham and 1978 Beckenham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics

 

[chicagodude]

But Roger won big titles at 3 difference surfaces. Connors may have 12 clay titles, but was there any big title ?

And if you include indoors then Roger has over 10 titles including 6 WTFs.

Connors won the 1976 USO on clay.

Also, his 10th grass title was in 1974 in Manchester.

Anyway, the whole thing of using 10 as the number is very arbitrary.

 

[chicagodude]

My bad, you are right.

He won Manchester in 1974 on grass. I wouldn't count his titles in Beckenham and Nottingham considering the small field.

 

[jhhachamp]

Federer has won at least 10 titles on Grass, Clay, and Hart Court. He is the only man in the open era to achieve this. Do you think is an underrated record?

While it is certainly a notable feat, it is not an underrated record. It's actually very misleading for a number of reasons. When you cherry pick data, you can make things look much better than they actually are.

 

[Backspin1183]

Fed has 10 clay titles? Didn't know he has that many on clay. That's impressive, since Nadal stopped him from so much.

Without the clay goat on his way, he would probably have 20 clay titles. Not bad for his worst surface.

Federer grew up playing on clay like most tennis players in Europe. If there was no Nadal, who knows Fed could have been labelled a clay court specialist who found great success on grass and HCs too

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

While it is certainly a notable feat, it is not an underrated record. It's actually very misleading for a number of reasons. When you cherry pick data, you can make things look much better than they actually are.

Not sure how this is cherry picking data.

 

[jg153040]

Federer grew up playing on clay like most tennis players in Europe. If there was no Nadal, who knows Fed could have been labelled a clay court specialist who found great success on grass and HCs too

So, you are admitting Fed is the clay goat, he just had the toughest competition, since Borg and Nadal never had to play 8 RG champion.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Connors won the 1976 USO on clay.

Also, his 10th grass title was in 1974 in Manchester.

Anyway, the whole thing of using 10 as the number is very arbitrary.

10 Is not arbitrary, it's the higher number of titles that a player who has won on his worst surfaces among HC, clay and grass. If you change the surfaces and compare carpet, HC and clay, then the treshold is 22 and was established by Lendl (22 being the number of titles he won on clay, his worst surface among clay, HC and carpet).

 

[chicagodude]

10 Is not arbitrary, it's the higher number of titles that a player who has won on his worst surfaces among HC, clay and grass. If you change the surfaces and compare carpet, HC and clay, then the treshold is 22 and was established by Lendl (22 being the number of titles he won on clay, his worst surface among clay, HC and carpet).

It's still arbitrary. So if, let's say Djokovic, wins 40 titles on Clay, 40 on HC and 9 on grass, is that less impressive than Fed's numbers right now?

There are many more tournaments on HC and clay than on grass, so you could easily argue that 9 on grass is more impressive than 10 on clay. By the same token, you could say that 40 HC wins would be less impressive than 13 on grass...

In earlier eras, there were more grass tournaments, so how do you compare those numbers then?

If you really want to compare, you probably would be better of to use the #tournaments won/tournaments entered on each respective surface. Even that is not ideal, but less arbitrary then using a certain # of wins/surface as a means of comparison.

 

[jhhachamp]

Not sure how this is cherry picking data.

It is cherry picking because you obviously searched for some sort of data that would make Federer look good without discussing the context.

There are only a handful of grass court tournaments each year, so very few people would be able to win 10 tournaments on the surface in their careers. Since Federer is one of these people, you can combine his 10 grass court titles with whatever you want and say that Federer is one of the only players to achieve that.

Federer is also likely one of the only players to have won 10 grass court titles and also won the AO without dropping a set...a great feat, but so what? You could easily cherry pick data and make anyone look good. Nadal is the only player to win 8 FO and also win the Olympics...is that an underrated record or is it cherry picking data?

If there was only a handful of clay court tournaments each year and many grass court events, Nadal would likely have won at least 10 on all 3 surfaces while Federer likely never would have come close to 10 wins on clay. In such a situation, Federer likely would have had a better overall career and Nadal a worse one, but Nadal would have been the one to win 10 titles on 3 surfaces and not Federer.

Do you see now how this is a useless record?

 

[TMF]

It is cherry picking because you obviously searched for some sort of data that would make Federer look good without discussing the context.

There are only a handful of grass court tournaments each year, so very few people would be able to win 10 tournaments on the surface in their careers. Since Federer is one of these people, you can combine his 10 grass court titles with whatever you want and say that Federer is one of the only players to achieve that.

Federer is also likely one of the only players to have won 10 grass court titles and also won the AO without dropping a set...a great feat, but so what? You could easily cherry pick data and make anyone look good. Nadal is the only player to win 8 FO and also win the Olympics...is that an underrated record or is it cherry picking data?

If there was only a handful of clay court tournaments each year and many grass court events, Nadal would likely have won at least 10 on all 3 surfaces while Federer likely never would have come close to 10 wins on clay. In such a situation, Federer likely would have had a better overall career and Nadal a worse one, but Nadal would have been the one to win 10 titles on 3 surfaces and not Federer.

Do you see now how this is a useless record?

Because 10 is a better round of number. If that is cherry picking then isn't that the same with the CYGS achievement is cherry picking too? Winning 4 straight slams in one year is nice, look better because it's within a year, but the reality is it's the same winning all 4 straight slams in any combination.

 

[jhhachamp]

Because 10 is a better round of number. If that is cherry picking then isn't that the same with the CYGS achievement is cherry picking too? Winning 4 straight slams in one year is nice, look better because it's within a year, but the reality is it's the same winning all 4 straight slams in any combination.

I don't really understand your post. I think most people would agree that winning a CYGS is an amazing feat, but winning 4 slams in a row is still a great achievement. I fail to see how this is at all related to the thread which is discussing much less important records.

Winning a CYGS or 4 slams in a row shows an extremely high level of dominance. Winning 10 titles on 3 different surfaces is a nice achievement, but doesn't necessarily mean very much without looking deeper at the context.

 

[ttbrowne]

Said it before...if the indoor season were longer Fed would have a lot more titles. Plus his record against Rafa is a little better indoor.

 

[ilovetennis212]

Federer has won at least 10 titles on Grass, Clay, and Hart Court. He is the only man in the open era to achieve this. Do you think is an underrated record?

It's records that no one achieve in active players.
In add, he also won over 10 indoor hard courts

 

[TMF]

I don't really understand your post. I think most people would agree that winning a CYGS is an amazing feat, but winning 4 slams in a row is still a great achievement. I fail to see how this is at all related to the thread which is discussing much less important records.

Winning a CYGS or 4 slams in a row shows an extremely high level of dominance. Winning 10 titles on 3 different surfaces is a nice achievement, but doesn't necessarily mean very much without looking deeper at the context.

I'm fine with you believing the CYGS is great because of level of dominance, but one shouldn't dismiss the Player of The Decade since that requires high level of dominance too, except a longer duration.

 

[jhhachamp]

I'm fine with you believing the CYGS is great because of level of dominance, but one shouldn't dismiss the Player of The Decade since that requires high level of dominance too, except a longer duration.

I never dismissed Federer, far from it. I believe he is the greatest player of all time (although Nadal could possibly overtake him if he dominates a few more years like 2013). I just don't think that the "record" that this thread is about is important at all, and the way that it has been portrayed by the original poster is misleading.

 

[jhhachamp]

Said it before...if the indoor season were longer Fed would have a lot more titles. Plus his record against Rafa is a little better indoor.

But it isn't a little longer, so who cares?

 

[chicagodude]

It is cherry picking because you obviously searched for some sort of data that would make Federer look good without discussing the context.

There are only a handful of grass court tournaments each year, so very few people would be able to win 10 tournaments on the surface in their careers. Since Federer is one of these people, you can combine his 10 grass court titles with whatever you want and say that Federer is one of the only players to achieve that.

Federer is also likely one of the only players to have won 10 grass court titles and also won the AO without dropping a set...a great feat, but so what? You could easily cherry pick data and make anyone look good. Nadal is the only player to win 8 FO and also win the Olympics...is that an underrated record or is it cherry picking data?

If there was only a handful of clay court tournaments each year and many grass court events, Nadal would likely have won at least 10 on all 3 surfaces while Federer likely never would have come close to 10 wins on clay. In such a situation, Federer likely would have had a better overall career and Nadal a worse one, but Nadal would have been the one to win 10 titles on 3 surfaces and not Federer.

Do you see now how this is a useless record?

^This. Excellent post, and underscribing what I said before, but better explained.

 

[chicagodude]

I'm fine with you believing the CYGS is great because of level of dominance, but one shouldn't dismiss the Player of The Decade since that requires high level of dominance too, except a longer duration.

Player of the decade is impressive too, yes, there are only 2 problems with that:
1) It's by votes, right? Which means it's still subjective. But, I will gladly say that indeed Federer IS the player of the decade in 2000-2009 (quite easily I'd say)
2) It's arbitrary to use e.g. 2000-2009 as the decade instead of, say, 1995-2004 or 2005-2014 or any other span of 10 years. But still very impressive.

For the same reason, I don't find a CYGS any more impressive than 4 consecutive GS titles in general. The arbitrariness of using Jan1-Dec31 as the timespan doesn't make a CYGS more impressive than 4 in a row in general.