Nadal, Novak and Murray owe their fame to Federer

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Federer has done tremendous service to the game and image of tennis by maintaining such high level of consistent, attacking, elegant and magical tennis for more than a decade and in the process setting insurmountable records that are 'supreme', not just in tennis but across all sports.

If the game of tennis continued like what it did between the late 90's and 2000-03, where there was no single great player,but several players winning a major or two, no one would be talking about the game as much as what is being done now, no one would care about number of majors won, tennis ratings would have plummeted.

Nadal's seven consecutive FO or Novak winning 6 majors or Novak having an incredible 2011 are getting visibility only because Fed set such huge records like 17 majors, 5 YE No 1, 300+ weeks at No. 1, etc..

One main reason why even Nadal, Novak and Murray are known today in the world is because they fought hard and won matches against Fed.

It is certain that if the tennis world was without a Federer, players like Nadal , Novak and Murray would be lesser known , even if they had better achievements.

Nadal , Novak and Murray need to be thankful to Federer.
 

TTech321

New User
I'm gonna have to agree with the OP on this one, Federer changed the game. It wasn't just a guy who could quick serve and volley like in the days of super fast courts, or the clay court grinders who just waited for the other guy to miss. When Federer was on the court, you knew magic was happening. Seriosuly, NO ONE had a better forehand before Federer, and so far no has one yet. And come one, there was nothing like watching Federer's effortless looking footwork.

I'm a Fed fan, so my opinion might be biased but I'm not too far off from the truth. I started playing tennis when I was 20, you know why? ROGER FEDERER!!!!!
 
If the game of tennis continued like what it did between the late 90's and 2000-03, where there was no single great player,but several players winning a major or two, no one would be talking about the game as much as what is being done now, no one would care about number of majors won, tennis ratings would have plummeted.

Empirical evidence conflicts with your hypothesis.

Here's a 30-year span of Nielsen TV ratings at the US Open from '77 to '07. As can be seen, both in absolute terms and audience share, years when Federer won are lower than the late '90s to '03. More people watched Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Sampras, and Agassi. Roger's done nothing to reverse the decline which has been continuous since the "glory days" of the 1970s.


Regards,
MDL
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Empirical evidence conflicts with your hypothesis.

Here's a 30-year span of Nielsen TV ratings at the US Open from '77 to '07. As can be seen, both in absolute terms and audience share, years when Federer won are lower than the late '90s to '03. More people watched Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Sampras, and Agassi. Roger's done nothing to reverse the decline which has been continuous since the "glory days" of the 1970s.


Regards,
MDL

Not again ! This is USA vieweship data, not representative of how tennis is perceived around the world. In USA , people have lost interest in tennis , since there is not even a consistent major winner/contender for more than a decade now.
 

tata

Hall of Fame
Empirical evidence conflicts with your hypothesis.

Here's a 30-year span of Nielsen TV ratings at the US Open from '77 to '07. As can be seen, both in absolute terms and audience share, years when Federer won are lower than the late '90s to '03. More people watched Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Sampras, and Agassi. Roger's done nothing to reverse the decline which has been continuous since the "glory days" of the 1970s.


Regards,
MDL

Maybe because back then the USA actually had decent american players winning slams. Then came roger....
 

xan

Hall of Fame
Not again ! This is USA vieweship data, not representative of how tennis is perceived around the world. In USA , people have lost interest in tennis , since there is not even a consistent major winner/contender for more than a decade now.

right, and to counter it you offer what? your opinion?
I always find it hilarious when people claim that essentially tennis=federer
 

Magnetite

Professional
I think Fed took it to the next level, and it took a few years for Nadal (outside of clay) to match up to him.

It took Djokovic and Murray even longer to get to that level. That's partially why Novak is so mentally strong now. He's got pummeled a lot in majors by Federer and Nadal, and finally ascended the mountain.

Murray is only beginning to mentally believe that he can now be better than Federer and/or Nadal.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Federer has done tremendous service to the game and image of tennis by maintaining such high level of consistent, attacking, elegant and magical tennis for more than a decade and in the process setting insurmountable records that are 'supreme', not just in tennis but across all sports.

If the game of tennis continued like what it did between the late 90's and 2000-03, where there was no single great player,but several players winning a major or two, no one would be talking about the game as much as what is being done now, no one would care about number of majors won, tennis ratings would have plummeted.

Nadal's seven consecutive FO
or Novak winning 6 majors or Novak having an incredible 2011 are getting visibility only because Fed set such huge records like 17 majors, 5 YE No 1, 300+ weeks at No. 1, etc..

One main reason why even Nadal, Novak and Murray are known today in the world is because they fought hard and won matches against Fed.

It is certain that if the tennis world was without a Federer, players like Nadal , Novak and Murray would be lesser known , even if they had better achievements.

Nadal , Novak and Murray need to be thankful to Federer.

Is that you NSK ? or Rafa2005 ?

but yes, not to nitpick even Rod Laver admitted he owes his fame to Federer, no one would have known Laver today, if Feder had not brought the game of tennis out of complete obscurity and oblivion into the worlds favorite game.

We know of sampras only because Redefer broke his record. Otherwise Sampras was living off food samps. The world spins and the sun rises just to see *******'s face each mornin'.

:D
 
Not again ! This is USA vieweship data, not representative of how tennis is perceived around the world. In USA, people have lost interest in tennis , since there is not even a consistent major winner/contender for more than a decade now.

It's not necessarily representative. But in the absence of any alternative evidence to support your theory, there's no justification for assuming it's not representative. And as shown below, your "American viewers prefer American players" theory is also horsefeathers.


Maybe because back then the USA actually had decent american players winning slams. Then came roger....

...except... non-Americans Safin and Hewitt both enjoyed higher ratings for their successes than Sampras did in the mid '90s and Roddick in '03 (though lower than Agassi). Incidentally, the universally loathed commie sourpuss [sic] Ivan Lendl enjoyed much higher viewership figures in the '80s than either Agassi and Sampras ever did in the following decade.

Did anyone even look at the data in the link provided? It's a long-term pattern of decline, and Federer has demonstrably failed to reverse it. Welcome to the Scientific Method, people.


Is that you NSK ? or Rafa2005 ?
but yes, not to nitpick even Rod Laver admitted he owes his fame to Federer, no one would have known Laver today, if Feder had not brought the game of tennis out of complete obscurity and oblivion into the worlds favorite game.

We know of sampras only because Redefer broke his record. Otherwise Sampras was living off food samps. The world spins and the sun rises just to see *******'s face each mornin'.

:D

Not just those guys. Without Roger Federer appearing alongside them in Gillette adverts, are we supposed to believe that Tiger Woods and Thierry Henry would have been famous in their own right? Pfffft. They all bask in his reflected glory. He is the wind beneath their wings, and because he is Sexi Rogi the Golden Eagle he is their wings as well.
:mrgreen:


Regards,
MDL
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
It's not necessarily representative. But in the absence of any alternative evidence to support your theory, there's no justification for assuming it's not representative. And as shown below, your "American viewers prefer American players" theory is also horsefeathers.




...except... non-Americans Safin and Hewitt both enjoyed higher ratings for their successes than Sampras did in the mid '90s and Roddick in '03 (though lower than Agassi). Incidentally, the universally loathed commie sourpuss [sic] Ivan Lendl enjoyed much higher viewership figures in the '80s than either Agassi and Sampras ever did in the following decade.

Did anyone even look at the data in the link provided? It's a long-term pattern of decline, and Federer has demonstrably failed to reverse it. Welcome to the Scientific Method, people.




Not just those guys. Without Roger Federer appearing alongside them in Gillette adverts, are we supposed to believe that Tiger Woods and Thierry Henry would have been famous in their own right? Pfffft. They all bask in his reflected glory. He is the wind beneath their wings, and because he is Sexi Rogi the Golden Eagle he is their wings as well.
:mrgreen:


Regards,
MDL

Like taking sweeties from a baby *doffs cap*
 

Tiebreak100

New User
Federer has done tremendous service to the game and image of tennis by maintaining such high level of consistent, attacking, elegant and magical tennis for more than a decade and in the process setting insurmountable records that are 'supreme', not just in tennis but across all sports.

If the game of tennis continued like what it did between the late 90's and 2000-03, where there was no single great player,but several players winning a major or two, no one would be talking about the game as much as what is being done now, no one would care about number of majors won, tennis ratings would have plummeted.

Nadal's seven consecutive FO or Novak winning 6 majors or Novak having an incredible 2011 are getting visibility only because Fed set such huge records like 17 majors, 5 YE No 1, 300+ weeks at No. 1, etc..

One main reason why even Nadal, Novak and Murray are known today in the world is because they fought hard and won matches against Fed.

It is certain that if the tennis world was without a Federer, players like Nadal , Novak and Murray would be lesser known , even if they had better achievements.

Nadal , Novak and Murray need to be thankful to Federer.

Yet another thread lauding *******. He is a great player, but his fans are insufferable bores. How will tennis cope when the humble Swiss retires?
 

Blocker

Professional
So what the op is saying is that before Federer came along, tennis was a miniscule sport not known by many.
 

90's Clay

Banned
There were PLENTY of great players prior to Federer. Maybe Fed owes his fame to some those who came before him?

Nadal was beating Fed when he was still in diapers starting way back in 2004.

Another **** thread. These are ridiculous
 

slowfox

Professional
Federer owes his fame to his hair. Especially in his prime, people would constantly say "Dang, that guy's got good hair".
 

Fiji

Legend
There were PLENTY of great players prior to Federer. Maybe Fed owes his fame to some those who came before him?

Nadal was beating Fed when he was still in diapers starting way back in 2004.

Another **** thread. These are ridiculous

Federer is the best all surface player ever. Five AO finals, five RG finals, eight Wimbledon finals, six USO finals.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Federer is the best all surface player ever. Five AO finals, five RG finals, eight Wimbledon finals, six USO finals.

Ehhh.. Arguable. Agassi was just as good (And won the grand slam during the most polarized era in history as far as surfaces are concerned).

Laver could win on any surface and had multiple titles on ALL Surfaces including Wood


Fed was never all that great on clay either.. There are a dozen guys who have been superior to him on that surface. A lot of those French Open draws he had en route to the finals were completely HORRIBLE
 
Last edited:

ledwix

Hall of Fame
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Of course that is always true no matter what discipline, since that is how history and progress work. But Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic started playing tennis before Federer built a legacy for himself. In a way they all owe each other for sharing a passion and a desire to win that would lead to so many amazing performances as adversaries. It's a system that builds on itself, not some top-down dependency ladder. It's always nice watching Federer in full flight, but the game would have likely become too boring if he went on to dominate for say, eight years in the way he used to, instead of four or five.
 

TTMR

Hall of Fame
So what the op is saying is that before Federer came along, tennis was a miniscule sport not known by many.

And tennis is bigger now than it's ever been, don't forget that.

(bear in mind, the average age of forum members here is probably about 16)
 

Blocker

Professional
And tennis is bigger now than it's ever been, don't forget that.

(bear in mind, the average age of forum members here is probably about 16)

Since the open era tennis has always been a big sport. Once upon a time, tennis was pretty much played by the Americans, Brits and Aussies, and the French. The French aside, the Europeans and Asians thumbed their nose at the sport. But it took off in Europe and then Asia. Federer being European took up the sport because tennis was becoming hugely popular in Europe. To suggest that a sport has its fame due to one player is absurd. It gets bigger every year, in 10 years time when Federer is long gone it will still be growin in popularity. Like I said, you can't pin it on one player, but if you had to, it would probably be McEnroe.
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
Did anyone even look at the data in the link provided? It's a long-term pattern of decline, and Federer has demonstrably failed to reverse it. Welcome to the Scientific Method, people.

Which has a simple answer - the long term pattern of U.S. decline, that is. In 1977, the average person had 4 channels on their television set. By 2007, 100 or more. With more options, you see a natural fragmenting of the audience. So yes, for this simple reason, you probably do have fewer viewers in the the English speaking countries. That loss, however, is being offset by its growth worldwide. As a global phenomenon, tennis is significantly more popular today than it was in 1977. Is it entirely due to to Federer? No.
 

RoddickAce

Hall of Fame
To start, my post does not aim to criticize; rather, I am just pointing my views on the sample you cited and your reasons for supporting it.

It's not necessarily representative. But in the absence of any alternative evidence to support your theory, there's no justification for assuming it's not representative. And as shown below, your "American viewers prefer American players" theory is also horsefeathers.

The absence of evidence does not necessarily indicate that there exists no justification for that sample being not representative.
Using common sense to analyze sampling situations is often accepted as means to judge the reasonableness of a sample.

For example: saying that a small sample size is not representative, saying that a sample of American views on laws and politics will not be representative of Afrian or Asian views on the same subjects. Both would likely not yield many disagreements from the general reasonable-minded public, yet there is no empirical data to support such statements.

Furthermore, the onus is not on him/her to prove that your sample is not representative; rather, the person suggesting that the sample is representative should prove that it is applicable to viewers across the world (the premise that tennisadict was claiming not to be true), unless your premise is that it only applies to the U.S. viewers, which the OP did not specifically address.

Tennisaddict: "tennis ratings would have plummeted."
Your statement: "Empirical evidence conflicts with your hypothesis."

...except... non-Americans Safin and Hewitt both enjoyed higher ratings for their successes than Sampras did in the mid '90s and Roddick in '03 (though lower than Agassi). Incidentally, the universally loathed commie sourpuss [sic] Ivan Lendl enjoyed much higher viewership figures in the '80s than either Agassi and Sampras ever did in the following decade.

Did anyone even look at the data in the link provided? It's a long-term pattern of decline, and Federer has demonstrably failed to reverse it. Welcome to the Scientific Method, people.

I am also interested to see if you looked into who the other finalist was? As well as who the women's winner and finalists were?

ie: the year safin won, he faced pete sampras in 2000, a well established and popular American champion at the point, unlike in his earliest win. And in the same year, Venus Williams, an American, won.

Regarding the finalist, I'm sure most viewers did not possess the ability to predict the winner of the 2 finalists would not be American, so they probably would want to watch if an established American champion was playing although he didn't end up winning?
 
Last edited:
Top