John McEnroe provides updated version of rankings: Why Roger Federer Still Greatest of All Time

Firstservingman said:
On the old fast grass, quite possibly, but that would be just as unfair as making them play him on the modern grass.
It's too hard to compare that kind of thing. Fed would have had to have grown up on fast grass for that to be a fair comparison I think.
So all we can do is compare titles and stats and the like. Head to head comparisons aren't a good metric even within a single era IMO - let alone across eras.
Click to expand...

In my view, comparing only titles and statistics is what makes it impossible to compare players from different eras before about 1990. The events that almost all players play today did not exist, or were not open, when many of the all time greatest players were in their primes. Further, even after open tennis, many players skipped the majors for numerous reasons including contractual conflicts with much higher paying pro tour events, lack of significant prize money at the majors, lack of prestige of the FO and AO, etc. However, the current ATP point allocation system , if it stays intact, will make it much easier to compare titles and statistics going forward. But, prior to then, they really can't be compared. Rather, I prefer to compare not only career statistics, but also, level of play, style of play, and equipment, when comparing players from different eras.

Having said that, the current grass at Wimbledon is still fast and low bouncing compared to any other (non-grass) surface. I would favor the top grass court players of all time like Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver, Rosewall and a few others, over Federer on the grass at Wimbledon today. Federer made a choice early in his career to favor baseline play over the big game. It has paid off well for him for several reasons: had the best ground game in tennis for about 6-7 years, there have been no big game players to compete against on grass in his prime, and it has enabled him to succeed on the other slower homogenized surfaces.
 
Limpinhitter said:
Having said that, the current grass at Wimbledon is still fast and low bouncing compared to any other (non-grass) surface.
Click to expand...

Simply not true. Both Henman and Navratilova are on record as saying Wimbledon is the single slowest non-clay tournament of the entire year. Scads of others (Agassi quotes are easy to find, but quotes are legion at your Googling pleasure) simply say the surface is unsuitable for attacking players, and is a baseliner's paradise.

No attacking player has a prayer, nor has had a prayer, against top tier baseliners since Ivanisevic's last hurrah. Which, not coincidentally, was the last year of Creeping Red Fescue, and the last year before they permanently tamped down and hardened the soil. Wimbledon is now, essentially, slow, sturdy grass that catches the ball and slows its forward momentum, atop a hardpacked clay court. In 2002, the entire final was played by two baseliners who didn't S&V a single point the entire match. That was THE FIRST YEAR after two decades of graphite racquet attacking play domination. It hasn't been won by an attacking player since. Those old timers wouldn't get out of the first week even with updated training and equipment, unless they also completely scrapped attacking tennis. That's just the reality at Wimbledon now, just as it is everywhere else on tour. You're either stapled to the baseline, or you're not going to win slams.

Fans need to stop believing the lie that there's anything different about Wimbledon beyond the aesthetics. It's glorified clay court tennis, and the results prove this consensus opinion of top players conclusively.
 
SinjinCooper said:
Simply not true. Both Henman and Navratilova are on record as saying Wimbledon is the single slowest non-clay tournament of the entire year. Scads of others (Agassi quotes are easy to find, but quotes are legion at your Googling pleasure) simply say the surface is unsuitable for attacking players, and is a baseliner's paradise.

No attacking player has a prayer, nor has had a prayer, against top tier baseliners since Ivanisevic's last hurrah. Which, not coincidentally, was the last year of Creeping Red Fescue, and the last year before they permanently tamped down and hardened the soil. Wimbledon is now, essentially, slow, sturdy grass that catches the ball and slows its forward momentum, atop a hardpacked clay court. In 2002, the entire final was played by two baseliners who didn't S&V a single point the entire match. That was THE FIRST YEAR after two decades of graphite racquet attacking play domination. It hasn't been won by an attacking player since. Those old timers wouldn't get out of the first week even with updated training and equipment, unless they also completely scrapped attacking tennis. That's just the reality at Wimbledon now, just as it is everywhere else on tour. You're either stapled to the baseline, or you're not going to win slams.

Fans need to stop believing the lie that there's anything different about Wimbledon beyond the aesthetics. It's glorified clay court tennis, and the results prove this consensus opinion of top players conclusively.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. First, Wimbledon has always had a harder substrate than the other grass court majors. It is still a low bouncing surface compared to clay and hard courts. But, if the grass at Wimbledon is now slower than the ultra aggregated hard courts currently on the circuit, then how does a player with the limited skills of Raonic get to the finals? Andy Roddick, although more skilled than Raonic, made 3 finals after 2002. The reason is because the faster surface of Wimbledon rewards their serves more than slower hard court and clay court surfaces.
 
SinjinCooper said:
Fed has the compiler's stats sewn up for a while. But he wasn't nearly as dominant over the field across the span of his slam-winning years as say, Sampras or Borg, e.g. Both guys had at least double the amount of slams as their nearest competitiors during their winning years. Fed can't say the same.

That's why I consider them a top tier of the open era, rather than trying to rank one against another. Fed has the raw numbers, Borg has the greatest dominance (and couldn't very well have the numbers in a three-slam era), Pete's in between, against the most difficult set of circumstances.
Click to expand...
um...from 04-07 he had 11 slams, next highest guy had 3. Fed defines dominance over the field. The only player who even comes close is Borg and he did it for 3, not 4.

I think Fed and Borg are a clear top 2 in the open era.
 
Last edited:
SinjinCooper said:
Only one data point, but after Federer took out Sampras at still-fast Wimbledon, Henman took him out. Can't make too much of one data point, but certainly can't make the case that it's proof of Federer's dominance over S&V specialists on fast grass.
Click to expand...

Henman needed 5 to beat pre prime choker Fed. Prime/peak Fed would eat him for breakfast.
 
Steve0904 said:
True, but he did not have the slam won at 18 though. :D
Click to expand...
Perhaps Nadal was 10 days premature?

images
 
Limpinhitter said:
In my view, comparing only titles and statistics is what makes it impossible to compare players from different eras before about 1990. The events that almost all players play today did not exist, or were not open, when many of the all time greatest players were in their primes. Further, even after open tennis, many players skipped the majors for numerous reasons including contractual conflicts with much higher paying pro tour events, lack of significant prize money at the majors, lack of prestige of the FO and AO, etc. However, the current ATP point allocation system , if it stays intact, will make it much easier to compare titles and statistics going forward. But, prior to then, they really can't be compared. Rather, I prefer to compare not only career statistics, but also, level of play, style of play, and equipment, when comparing players from different eras.

Having said that, the current grass at Wimbledon is still fast and low bouncing compared to any other (non-grass) surface. I would favor the top grass court players of all time like Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver, Rosewall and a few others, over Federer on the grass at Wimbledon today. Federer made a choice early in his career to favor baseline play over the big game. It has paid off well for him for several reasons: had the best ground game in tennis for about 6-7 years, there have been no big game players to compete against on grass in his prime, and it has enabled him to succeed on the other slower homogenized surfaces.
Click to expand...
I think there is something to be said for the view that you simply cannot compare across eras, yes.

Also, in regards to Wimbledon, the courts are not especially fast these days at all I don't think, but they do still have a low bounce.
 
SinjinCooper said:
But he wasn't nearly as dominant over the field across the span of his slam-winning years as say, Sampras or Borg, e.g. Both guys had at least double the amount of slams as their nearest competitiors during their winning years. Fed can't say the same.
Click to expand...
That just doesn't sound right at all.
Fed won 3/4 slams on three seperate occasions and won 11/16 slams overall in his 2004-2007 peak years. Nobody has equaled either of those stats.
His nearest competitor during that time was Nadal, who won three in that period. So Federer won more than triple the amount Nadal did, and closer to quadruple. Only two slams were won by anyone else (Safin AO 2005, and RG 2004, the winner of which escapes me at the moment).
I'm assuming that you're including other non-peak Fed years too, but making it from his first to last slam is unfair. Otherwise, he gets punished for winning that one extra slam later in his career (i.e. 2012). The reality is that he won more slams overall, and was also much more dominant during his peak years.

Neither Sampras nor Borg ever won 3/4 in a year.
Djokovic, for example, has also been more dominant over all four slams, both in a single year, and over his peak years, than Borg or Sampras ever were.

During his peak years, Federer was probably the most dominant tennis player ever - although Laver would win in terms of a single year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Firstservingman said:
That just doesn't sound right at all.
Fed won 3/4 slams on three seperate occasions and won 11/16 slams overall in his 2004-2007 peak years. Nobody has equaled either of those stats.
His nearest competitor during that time was Nadal, who won three in that period. So Federer won more than triple the amount Nadal did, and closer to quadruple. Only two slams were won by anyone else (Safin AO 2005, and RG 2004, the winner of which escapes me at the moment).
I'm assuming that you're including other non-peak Fed years too, but making it from his first to last slam is unfair. Otherwise, he gets punished for winning that one extra slam later in his career (i.e. 2012). The reality is that he won more slams overall, and was also much more dominant during his peak years.

Neither Sampras nor Borg ever won 3/4 in a year.
Djokovic, for example, has also been more dominant over all four slams, both in a single year, and over his peak years, than Borg or Sampras ever were.

During his peak years, Federer was probably the most dominant tennis player ever - although Laver would win in terms of a single year.
Click to expand...
Borg you can say technically has won 3/4 as he won 3 of the 4 biggest events in 79 and 80
 
Firstservingman said:
That just doesn't sound right at all.
Fed won 3/4 slams on three seperate occasions and won 11/16 slams overall in his 2004-2007 peak years. Nobody has equaled either of those stats.
His nearest competitor during that time was Nadal, who won three in that period. So Federer won more than triple the amount Nadal did, and closer to quadruple. Only two slams were won by anyone else (Safin AO 2005, and RG 2004, the winner of which escapes me at the moment).
I'm assuming that you're including other non-peak Fed years too, but making it from his first to last slam is unfair. Otherwise, he gets punished for winning that one extra slam later in his career (i.e. 2012). The reality is that he won more slams overall, and was also much more dominant during his peak years.

Neither Sampras nor Borg ever won 3/4 in a year.
Djokovic, for example, has also been more dominant over all four slams, both in a single year, and over his peak years, than Borg or Sampras ever were.

During his peak years, Federer was probably the most dominant tennis player ever - although Laver would win in terms of a single year.
Click to expand...

Just some friendly info. Gaudio won RG 2004 after Coria choked massively. One of the worst in tennis history tbh.
 
TMF said:
Disagree. Defending champion Sampras at 29 is closer to his prime than a 19 years old Federer in that match.
Click to expand...
I agree. Sampras was closer to his prime than Fed in 2001, but Fed played way out of his mind in that match, while Sampras played pretty poorly for his standard.
 
Limpinhitter said:
Henman beat Federer in 4 sets: 7-5, 7-6, 2-6, 7-6.
Click to expand...

Right you are. I was thinking of the previous match.

But still, a close match, with Henman's sets being tight close ones and Fed's being a 6-2.

I'm confident prime Fed wouldn't have trouble with the likes of Henman.
 
KINGROGER said:
Right you are. I was thinking of the previous match.

But still, a close match, with Henman's sets being tight close ones and Fed's being a 6-2.

I'm confident prime Fed wouldn't have trouble with the likes of Henman.
Click to expand...

I think peak Henman could give peak Federer a tough match on grass, although I think Federer's ground game and return game was better than Henman's big game, even on grass. But, Henman was not an all time great grass court player. Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver and Sampras were.
 
Limpinhitter said:
I think peak Henman could give peak Federer a tough match on grass, although I think Federer's ground game and return game was better than Henman's big game, even on grass. But, Henman was not an all time great grass court player. Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver and Sampras were.
Click to expand...

You're right, and I love Henman's S&V game it is a shame he never reached a W final or won queens.

I just thought the original point was that Fed didn't face grass specialist like Pete did?
 
KINGROGER said:
You're right, and I love Henman's S&V game it is a shame he never reached a W final or won queens.

I just thought the original point was that Fed didn't face grass specialist like Pete did?
Click to expand...

What I was saying was that prime Fed never faced any great big game players at Wimbledon, and that, there have been a few past players that I would favor over Fed on grass.
 
Limpinhitter said:
I think peak Henman could give peak Federer a tough match on grass, although I think Federer's ground game and return game was better than Henman's big game, even on grass. But, Henman was not an all time great grass court player. Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver and Sampras were.
Click to expand...
Henman wouldn't hurt Federer on grass. He plays a similar game, except much, much worse and without the godly groundstrokes.
 
Limpinhitter said:
What I was saying was that prime Fed never faced any great big game players at Wimbledon, and that, there have been a few past players that I would favor over Fed on grass.
Click to expand...
Sampras had Becker but he was a fossil by that point. Besides him though who did he really have? Goran? Scud? How are those guys more impressive than let's say, Andy Roddick?
 
Sabratha said:
Henman wouldn't hurt Federer on grass. He plays a similar game, except much, much worse and without the godly groundstrokes.
Click to expand...
Henman was a great volleyer, was a good shotmaker, decent return but yeah peak for peak Fed wouldn't have a lot of trouble with him.

Even in the 01 match Fed's inexperience on the big stage shone through because he blew big leads in both of the tiebreakers he lost which is basically unheard for him especially on grass. He was 15-1 in tiebreaks in Wimby SF/F from 03-09. 18-2 if you include quarters.
 
Sabratha said:
Henman wouldn't hurt Federer on grass. He plays a similar game, except much, much worse and without the godly groundstrokes.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Henman played the big game. Federer did/does not. I do think that peak Henman might take a match from peak Federer on grass if they played enough matches.
 
No disrespect to Henman, but Federer would pass him left, right, and center in his prime. Henman would have a bad neck by the time the match was over. Henman is simply not on prime Federer's level on grass or any other surface for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

clayqueen
JMac:Tennis podcast: 'Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer are the greatest of all time', says John McEnro
Replies
9
Views
1K
heftylefty
heftylefty
newpball
Andre Agassi picks Rafael Nadal ahead of Roger Federer as tennis's greatest all-time
11 12 13
Replies
610
Views
35K
bee7
B
DoubleDeuce
J McEnroe : Roger, the Best Ever
2 3
Replies
106
Views
8K
bruce38
B
B
Australian tennis star John Millman accused of 'ball tampering' against Roger Federer
Replies
4
Views
1K
Fedinkum
Fedinkum
ffw2
"Roger Federer is the most beautiful player I've ever watched." —John McEnroe
2 3
Replies
127
Views
3K
Slicehand
S
Back
Top