Is Federer's 5X3 Massively Underrated?

[fednad]

"Federer's 5x3 is Massively Underrated" posted by the OP three months ago. And now this. What does it mean when you keep banging the same drum perseveratively like this??

You really follow OP, it seems

 

[Luckydog]

Fed has a bunch of records which are underratted.Maybe just because he's Roger Federer,people used to think that his ridiculous achievements are natural,just like his shot,only if you have tried to do it like him,you may finally understant how difficult it is.

 

[Tornes]

But is 5x3 better than 15,0,0? Or 10,5,0?

What does the distribution tell us over and beyond the total count?

15, 0, 0 means you never dominated tennis. Not even one season. 5x3 means you basically had to dominate (statistically speaking) for about 6 or so years and winning most of the GS titles almost every (or every) year in this period. This is the reason why 5x3 (or 5x4) is much better. It is speaking of dominance of tennis. 15x1 is speaking just about dominance in 1 slam.

Not even saying that 15x1 is basically impossible (Nadal is as dominant at his slam as you ever could be yet he has only 9. 6 more is just out of question). Note: Something being impossible (or less possible) does not make it greater achievement. Being in second round of one slam for 30 years (or 50) is almost impossible as well however even if someone achieve it it would not be greater achievement than winning 5 slams there, or even 1.

 

[tarutani]

competition > quantity
Roger Federer is 4-9 against Nadal and Djokovic in slam finals

 

[Waspsting]

It's not at all underrated

Saying Federer's 5×3 is underrated is like saying Djokovic's holding 3 majors simultaneously is underrated.

5×3 is part of the greater whole which is 18 - which is constantly (and rightfully praised to the skies)

Furthermore, given being an 18 time Slam champion and Career Grand Slammer, it'd be easier to 5×3 than not.

If he wasn't 5×3, I'd say he'd underperformed at at least one of the tournaments.

----

And yes, clay is by far the most unique surface. Not in terms of something as factual as how many tournaments are played on it but in terms of the skill sets required to shine on it.

Put mathematically, there's less correlation between success on clay and success on hard or grass than there is between grass and hard.

You expect a proficient grass courter to do well on hard courts (and vice versa to a slightly lesser extent).

Clay court prowess, by contrast, doesn't necessarily accurately predict success off of clay

 

[duaneeo]

Furthermore, given being an 18 time Slam champion and Career Grand Slammer, it'd be easier to 5×3 than not.

If he wasn't 5×3, I'd say he'd underperformed at at least one of the tournaments.

But you can't say that, which is why 5X3 is so underrated. Federer is not top-heavy at one slam (like Nadal and Djokovic), or two slams (like Sampras and Borg), but three.

18 is about most slam titles won. 5x3 is about diversity. As said, none of the other double-digit slam winners has even won 3x3. Most won 2x3...the same as 6-time slam champion Edberg.