Myth : Federer is consistent only because of homogenization

[Prisoner of Birth]

Let's say every single Slam in Federer's time was the same surface, just to keep things clear, even though they are very different. Let us just suppose. Now look at Federer's consistency at each Slam and compare it with Sampras's best showing at ANY Slam (4 consecutive wins at Wimbledon, 4 consecutive finals at Wimbledon, 4 consecutive semifinals at Wimbledon, 9 consecutive quarterfinals at Wimbledon).

Federer at Wimbledon
Most consecutive wins : Federer-5, Sampras-4
Most consecutive finals : Federer-7, Sampras-4
Most consecutive semifinals : Federer-7, Sampras-4
Most consecutive quarterfinals : Federer-10*, Sampras-9
So Federer at Wimbledon is more consistent than Sampras was at ANY Slam

Federer at US Open
Most consecutive wins : Federer-5, Sampras-4
Most consecutive finals : Federer-6, Sampras-4
Most consecutive semifinals : Federer-8, Sampras-4
Most consecutive quarterfinals : Federer-9*, Sampras-9
So Federer at the US Open is more consistent than Sampras was at ANY Slam

Federer at Australian Open
Most consecutive wins : Federer-2, Sampras-4
Most consecutive finals : Federer-2, Sampras-4
Most consecutive semifinals : Federer-9*, Sampras-4
Most consecutive quarterfinals : Federer-9*, Sampras-9
So Federer at the Australian Open, while not more dominant or successful, is more consistent than Sampras was at ANY Slam.

Federer at the French Open
Most consecutive wins : Federer-1, Sampras-4
Most consecutive finals : Federer-4, Sampras-4
Most consecutive semifinals : Federer-5, Sampras-4
Most consecutive quarterfinals : Federer-8*, Sampras-9
So Federer at the French Open, while far less successful, is just as consistent as Sampras was at ANY Slam.


So here's another myth expelled. Federer is simply more consistent than Sampras, even on his lesser surfaces, than Sampras is, even on his best.

 

[Clay lover]

Your logic is flawed. You didn't prove that Federer is more consistent only because of homogenization, your only proved that Federer is a more consistent player across all surfaces than Sampras.

No offense, just pointing it out. The effect of homogenization is something really hard to gauge. Unless you can get the same player to play against the same field of players in the same conditions on different court speeds, I don't see how anything can be proven.

 

[PrinceMoron]

What were the figure for wins at FO? Is that a typo?

 

[underground]

AO semi streak is still active.

 

[Gizo]

I do think that if there was more surface polarisation, he wouldn't be able to reach 23 consecutive grand slam semi-finals, as he be would more vulnerable to losing to a dangerous surface specialist in an early round match along the way. Similarly I very much doubt that Djokovic would reach 10 consecutive slam semis either.

However regardless of the surface distribution, he would clearly still be incredibly dominant and rack up title after title at the big events.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Your logic is flawed. You didn't prove that Federer is more consistent only because of homogenization, your only proved that Federer is a more consistent player across all surfaces than Sampras.

Yes, that's exactly what I proved. I'm disproving the myth. Read again.

 

[TMF]

I believe Fed would have even better results had they not slowing down the court gradually over the years. And on the flip side, Nadal/Nole would win less.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

*Everybody* is more consistent now due to homogenization.

In previous generations, being good on all surfaces was something reserved for the elite. Nowadays? Nadal, a "clay-court specialist", has won Wimbledon. Even on his worst surface, clay, Murray is just about a lock to get to the semis. A grinder like Ferrer wins grass-court tournaments.

Whoever is #1 - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic - are favored regardless of surface.

The tour, AS A WHOLE, is more homogenous now. It's not just Federer.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

*Everybody* is more consistent now due to homogenization.

In previous generations, being good on all surfaces was something reserved for the elite. Nowadays? Nadal, a "clay-court specialist", has won Wimbledon. Even on his worst surface, clay, Murray is just about a lock to get to the semis. A grinder like Ferrer wins grass-court tournaments.

Whoever is #1 - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic - are favored regardless of surface.

The tour, AS A WHOLE, is more homogenous now. It's not just Federer.

False. None of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are as consistent outside of their best Slam. Consistent, yes, but nowhere near as consistent as Federer on any surface.

 

[Clay lover]

Yes, that's exactly what I proved. I'm disproving the myth. Read again.

Nonononono. You started off by assuming that the surfaces are the same in Federer's time when they are obviously not. I cannot see how you can prove "the reason variable A is because of variable C" when you don't even change variable C to begin with. Instead, you choose to prove a completely irrelevant hypothesis which is Federer is more consistent across surfaces than Sampras. Well. No shinola Sherlock, but how is that even related to your original point?

You really need to do more scientific experiments.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

your only proved that Federer is a more consistent player across all surfaces than Sampras.

Yes, that is what I proved. That Federer is a more consistent player across all surfaces than Sampras.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Nonononono. You started off by assuming that the surfaces are the same in Federer's time when they are obviously not. I cannot see how you can prove "the reason variable A is because of variable C" when you don't even change variable C to begin with. Instead, you choose to prove a completely irrelevant hypothesis which is Federer is more consistent across surfaces than Sampras. Well. No shinola Sherlock, but how is that even related to your original point?

You really need to do more scientific experiments.

You sound confused. My point was to prove the bolded part. If Federer is more consistent across ALL surfaces than Sampras is on his best, it's obvious Federer is the more consistent player, period.

 

[Clay lover]

Yes, that is what I proved. That Federer is a more consistent player across all surfaces than Sampras.

So you are not proving that Federer is not consistent only because of homogenization.

Sorry, got misled by the thread title.

You claim that there is this certain myth that Federer is consistent only because of homogenization and how you expelled this myth by proving that he is more consistent than Sampras. I just wondered how they are relevant.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

So you are not proving that Federer is not consistent only because of homogenization.

Sorry, got misled by the thread title.

It's a "myth" that Federer is only consistent because of surface homogenization. I was disproving that myth.

 

[Clay lover]

It's a "myth" that Federer is only consistent because of surface homogenization. I was disproving that myth.

And how can you disprove it by claiming that Federer is more consistent than Sampras? Really, somebody who gets it enlighten me.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

And how can you disprove it by claiming that Federer is more consistent than Sampras? Really, somebody who gets it enlighten me.

A "myth" is a baseless theory or belief. That Federer is more consistent only because of homogenization is a baseless theory. I was disproving that baseless theory. Understand?

 

[Clay lover]

No offense, buddy.

If you are trying to disprove the myth that Federer is consistent only because of homogenization by using the logic "he is better across all surfaces", it isn't gonna work.

People will come out and say "it is exactly because of the homogenization that he is better in the first place".

That's why you have to prove then that he will equally excel on not as homogenized surfaces.

 

[dominikk1985]

federer is consistent because he is a good tennis player.

 

[Clay lover]

federer is consistent because he is a good tennis player.

Ditto.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

No offense, buddy.

If you are trying to disprove the myth that Federer is consistent only because of homogenization by using the logic "he is better across all surfaces", it isn't gonna work.

People will come out and say "it is exactly because of the homogenization that he is better in the first place".

That's why you have to prove then that he will equally excel on not as homogenized surfaces.

Actually, I just proved it. And you admitted it.

 

[Clay lover]

Actually, I just proved it. And you admitted it.

No. You didn't answer my question :-?

Wait, let's clarify homogenization here. Does it mean that all surfaces are starting to play the same? If it does, my question still stands. Unless you think that homogenization has not been taking place, what you are doing now is basically reinforcing the fact that Federer is consistent across homogenized surfaces.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

No. You didn't answer my question :-?

What question?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

No. You didn't answer my question :-?

Wait, let's clarify homogenization here. Does it mean that all surfaces are starting to play the same? If it does, my question still stands.

That's what Pete-****s say. I disagree. They are less varied than the 80s and 90s but they're still different. But yes, that's essentially what the word means.

"your only proved that Federer is a more consistent player across all surfaces than Sampras."

These are your words. You admitted Federer is more consistent. I don't even know what we are arguing about.

 

[Clay lover]

That's what Pete-****s say. I disagree. They are less varied than the 80s and 90s but they're still different. But yes, that's essentially what the word means.

"your only proved that Federer is a more consistent player across all surfaces than Sampras."

These are your words. You admitted Federer is more consistent. I don't even know what we are arguing about.

Then, isn't your claim just based on the fact that you DON'T agree that surfaces are less varied? Instead of all that comparing between Fed and Sampras?

 

[Clay lover]

That's what Pete-****s say. I disagree. They are less varied than the 80s and 90s but they're still different. But yes, that's essentially what the word means.

"your only proved that Federer is a more consistent player across all surfaces than Sampras."

These are your words. You admitted Federer is more consistent. I don't even know what we are arguing about.

The problem is, the thing you are trying to prove is Federer is NOT only consistent because of homogenization.

Yet you don't even make homogenization a variable. Then how could you prove that Federer will be as consistent without homogenization?

For example, you are trying to prove that "Nadal is not only consistent because of clay."

How are you going to prove yourself if you don't provide his results off clay?




If I follow your logic in proving this statement. Then what I would come up with is "Nadal is a more consistent player than Sampras on clay therefore he is not only consistent because of clay."

Wait, what?

 

[shazbot]

Federer at the French Open
Most consecutive wins : Federer-1, Sampras-4
Most consecutive finals : Federer-4, Sampras-4
Most consecutive semifinals : Federer-5, Sampras-4
Most consecutive quarterfinals : Federer-8*, Sampras-9
So Federer at the French Open, while far less successful, is just as consistent as Sampras was at ANY Slam.

Huh? Where did you get those Sampras stats from?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Huh? Where did you get those Sampras stats from?

Those are his Wimbledon stats. I'm comparing Federer's all-Slam performances to Sampras's best at any Slam, which happened to be Wimbledon. It's all explained in the OP.

 

[shazbot]

Ohh gotcha

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

The problem is, the thing you are trying to prove is Federer is NOT only consistent because of homogenization.

Yet you don't even make homogenization a variable. Then how could you prove that Federer will be as consistent without homogenization?

For example, you are trying to prove that "Nadal is not only consistent because of clay."

How are you going to prove yourself if you don't provide his results off clay?




If I follow your logic in proving this statement. Then what I would come up with is "Nadal is a more consistent player than Sampras on clay therefore he is not only consistent because of clay."

Wait, what?

I took Sampras's best record at ANY Slam and I'm comparing it to Federer's worst Slam. I mean, you can't get any more fair than that. Federer, on any and all surfaces, is more consistent than Sampras was on his best (Grass). So Federer is, obviously, the more consistent player, period. What the heck is so hard to understand about this? Did you even read my OP?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Then, isn't your claim just based on the fact that you DON'T agree that surfaces are less varied? Instead of all that comparing between Fed and Sampras?

The surfaces ARE less varied. But it's NOT because of that that Federer is more consistent. Seriously man, just read my OP again. I'm tired of explaining it to you.

 

[Clay lover]

The surfaces ARE less varied. But it's NOT because of that that Federer is more consistent. Seriously man, just read my OP again. I'm tired of explaining it to you.

Federer is more consistent than Sampras. I am not doubting that at all. Heck, he is more consistent off all surfaces as you claim. I read your OP well.

I am just wondering how you can prove that Federer is not only consistent because of homogenization, when you never even included homogenization in the formula.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Federer is more consistent than Sampras. I am not doubting that at all. Heck, he is more consistent off all surfaces as you claim. I read your OP well.

I am just wondering how you can prove that Federer is not only consistent because of homogenization, when you never even included homogenization in the formula.

Federer is more consistent on all surfaces than Sampras is on his best. So homogenization played no part in him being more consistent than Sampras. I mean, that's the short of it. If you can't understand this, I don't know what else to say

 

[Clay lover]

Federer is more consistent on all surfaces than Sampras is on his best. So homogenization played no part in him being more consistent than Sampras. I mean, that's the short of it. If you can't understand this, I don't know what else to say

Sorry, I didn't know that you were just talking about Federer's consistency in relation to Sampras'. My bad

so much for my sophisticated idiocy.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Sorry, I didn't know that you were just talking about Federer's consistency in relation to Sampras'. My bad

so much for my sophisticated idiocy.

I thought if I was gonna compare Federer to somebody from the 90s, might as well compare him to the best of the 90s.

 

[missbungle]

Why are *******s so perturbed that other people don't feel the same way as they do about their god?

 

[Clay lover]

If you were just to disprove universally the myth that Federer is more consistent only because of homogenization, it would be much harder.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

If you were just to disprove universally the myth that Federer is more consistent only because of homogenization, it would be much harder.

Yeah, I agree. But Federer's consistency is questioned only with regards to Sampras. Because Laver played 3 of the Slams on Grass and Borg never won a Hardcourt Slam, anyway. So, for all intents and purposes, this is all that needs to be proven.

 

[Clay lover]

Yeah, I agree. But Federer's consistency is questioned only with regards to Sampras. Because Laver played 3 of the Slams on Grass and Borg never won a Hardcourt Slam, anyway. So, for all intents and purposes, this is all that needs to be proven.

Yeah, I get what you mean now. Well proven.

 

[90's Clay]

ALOT of guys are consistently good all year long only because of homogenization.. Nadal, Murray and Djoker are consistent because of the homogenized conditions, where as in any other era they wouldn't be even close to as consistent as they are now. Ferrer is consistent moreso today then he ever was before because of homogenization

The conditions today should BREED consistency.

Its kind of hard NOT to be consistent today. Lets look at the FACTS:

1. 3 guys just in the last five years alone have managed 3 slams in one year. (Prior to that it happened only twice or so in the last 40 years. And the number will grow significantly most likely because of the conditions.
2. You dont have to have a high risk game anymore win on certain surfaces (tough luck trying to do that in past eras). You couldn't play ping pong back and forth tennis year round like you can today.. You HAD to go for more, pick your spots more, have some sense of attack.
3.Even indoors isn't fast anymore.. Look at how slow the YEC is now
4. USO is slow.
5. Grass (no comment)

Todays game for baseliners, would be like if they allowed Sampras to play on grass for 3 slams in the 90s. I would HOPE these guys are consistent today.. The conditions suit their game perfectly


Theres no better time to be a generic grinder then there is now.. You damn well BETTER do well all year

If you're a top baseliner and you can't manage a SF or better in every tournament today, you need to re-evaluate what the heck is going on with your game.

Long gone are the days, when you had to play monte-carlo slow mud clay, and switch right to lightning fast slick low bouncing grass a week or two later

 

[nereis]

For the sake of curiosity, what are the numbers for absolute number of appearances in finals, semifinals and quarterfinals for both men across their slams.

The consecutive appearance figure implicitly assumes that the draws have stayed similar, when the majors didn't have 32 seeds until the last decade, making it far easier to progress to the second week than before.