Once Again Federer's GOATness Overshadows a Player's Greatness

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
During this year's Australian Open, Novak Djokovic reached his 15th consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal, which passed Lendl for the 2nd longest streak of all time. However, Federer also reached his 35th consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal, Djokovic's achievement made little news. Djokovic reached his 11th consecutive Grand Slam semifinal, which passed Lendl for the 2nd longest streak of all time. However, Federer's streak of 23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals is more than double this streak, so there was little publicity for Novak.

Novak will have to win the Australian Open for a third consecutive time (the first player in the open era to do so), which I think he will do, to get a lot of attention for his achievements.
 
Again, you can not compare it. When Lendl got to 10 straight GS SF, it was much more difficult than today. He had to face totally different conditions AND totally different playing styles.

I value much more Lendl's 10 consecutive GS SF than Djokovic's 11 consecutive SF in the current era.

Don't you understand that it was much more difficult to achieve these kind of things in former eras than it is now?
 
mattennis said:
Again, you can not compare it. When Lendl got to 10 straight GS SF, it was much more difficult than today. He had to face totally different conditions AND totally different playing styles.

I value much more Lendl's 10 consecutive GS SF than Djokovic's 11 consecutive SF in the current era.

Don't you understand that it was much more difficult to achieve these kind of things in former eras than it is now?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old if anyone breaks my records it's only because it is easier for them routine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A very similar case for Roger when he surpassed Emerson's 12 slams. It wasn't a big news or had little attention because Sampras was the one who broke the record. Only when Roger broke Sampras's 14 which was a BIG news.

I see the same for Nadal if he surpassed Pete's 14. It will not be that big a deal, but it will be a global headline news if he breaks Roger slam count.
 
Lendl reached 8 straight US OPEN finals, and since the AusOpen moved to rebound ace, he reached 4 straight SF ( 3 consecutive finals) and he was already too old by the time.

Imagine they speed up RolandGarros AND slow down Wimbledon in Lendl's era so that they play more similar to a slow hard court....How many consecutive GS SF would Lendl have achieved? No f*cking idea, but I guess at least 20-something, but nobody knows.
 
mattennis said:
Again, you can not compare it. When Lendl got to 10 straight GS SF, it was much more difficult than today. He had to face totally different conditions AND totally different playing styles.

I value much more Lendl's 10 consecutive GS SF than Djokovic's 11 consecutive SF in the current era.

Don't you understand that it was much more difficult to achieve these kind of things in former eras than it is now?
Click to expand...

So basically what you are saying is, Lendl's record will stand forever in the history of tennis in your mind because that era is the only era that was and forever will be the most difficult. Well, umm, ok.
 
NadalDramaQueen said:
Ah yes, the old if anyone breaks my records it's only because it is easier for them routine.
Click to expand...

mattennis said:
I actually watch tennis since the end of the 60s, unlike 95% here that started watching tennis 5 years ago...
Click to expand...

mattennis does have a point. We have Djoker at 15, I don't think Murray is that far behind. And Djoker looks like he could go on for a few years. Surface homogenity and the clear distinction between the top-4 and the rest of the crowd has certainly played a part.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
During this year's Australian Open, Novak Djokovic reached his 15th consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal, which passed Lendl for the 2nd longest streak of all time. However, Federer also reached his 35th consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal, Djokovic's achievement made little news. Djokovic reached his 11th consecutive Grand Slam semifinal, which passed Lendl for the 2nd longest streak of all time. However, Federer's streak of 23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals is more than double this streak, so there was little publicity for Novak.

Novak will have to win the Australian Open for a third consecutive time (the first player in the open era to do so), which I think he will do, to get a lot of attention for his achievements.
Click to expand...

I believe he passed Lendl for 3rd, not 2nd in consecutive QF's if we count Federer, because didn't Federer break Connors record of 31 or 32 consecutive QF's? That would put Djokovic third.
 
In terms of difficulty, the present or the latter era is always more difficult than the previous era. All sports gets tougher.

Based on Lendl's opinion about the depth/talent of current players(eg fed, nadal), Lendl doesn't believe he would have accomplished as much as he did in 80s.
 
edberg505 said:
So basically what you are saying is, Lendl's record will stand forever in the history of tennis in your mind because that era is the only era that was and forever will be the most difficult. Well, umm, ok.
Click to expand...

No, what I am saying is that it is senseless to try to compare NUMBERS (of GS, of weeks nº1, of consecutive anything...) among different eras because in some eras you'll have MORE different players winning big titles (and because of that, each one of them will achieve less) and in other eras (like the current era) you'll have LESS different players winning everything (and because of that, each one of them will achieve more), and THAT is a consequence of the changing of conditions (polarized conditions VERSUS homogeneous conditions).

This is what I am saying.
 
It is not that difficult to grasp, seriously. I have written the "decathlon example" more than once here in the past.

Almost everybody I have talk about it with (tennis friends) understand it and think it is obvious.

Only present players ****s (obsessed with current players breaking "records") don't want to think about it.
 
sunny_cali said:
mattennis does have a point. We have Djoker at 15, I don't think Murray is that far behind. And Djoker looks like he could go on for a few years. Surface homogenity and the clear distinction between the top-4 and the rest of the crowd has certainly played a part.
Click to expand...

I see his point, but remember Djoker's streak of QF's almost ended a couple nights ago, not to mention at RG in 2012 to Seppi. If I had to guess now I'd say he won't come all that close to Federer's record (which is still ongoing). Saying we can't compare the 2 is a cop out IMO just because Federer has smoked those records of Lendl's. Anyway you slice it Federer's is a lot more impressive for the sheer number. He rarely got pushed before the QF's at his peak (only really by Haas at the AO 06), but since then he's had 5 setters before the QF's with Tipsarevic, Andreev, Berdych, Haas again, Falla, Simon, and Benneteau. Not to mention his whole RG 12 where he lost sets in his 2nd 3rd, and 4th round matches. All I'm trying to say is that it can't all be pinned down to surface homogeneity.
 
And don't get me wrong. I think that Federer reaching 23 straight GS SF and 30-something consecutive GS QF is truly amazing, as well as Djokovic's 11 consecutive GS SF, Djokovic's 14 consecutive GS QF, Murray's 9 consecutive GS QF....all are amazing feats, no doubt about it.

And if Ussain Bolt wins the 100 m race ten consecutive times in one year (imagine he enters ten 100 m races events in one year) I would think it was amazing as well, BUT I would NOT think that Ussain Bolt winning ten 100 m consecutive races is "better" than the winner of the decathlon (that only won 2 different events out of ten from a decathlon).

Why? Because OBVIOUSLY it is much more difficult for a person to win each and every totally different events from the ten events of a decathlon, than to win THE SAME EVENT ten different times.
 
mattennis said:
No, what I am saying is that it is senseless to try to compare NUMBERS (of GS, of weeks nº1, of consecutive anything...) among different eras because in some eras you'll have MORE different players winning big titles (and because of that, each one of them will achieve less) and in other eras (like the current era) you'll have LESS different players winning everything (and because of that, each one of them will achieve more), and THAT is a consequence of the changing of conditions (polarized conditions VERSUS homogeneous conditions).

This is what I am saying.
Click to expand...


So we shouldn't mention Djokovic's record because we can't compare eras? Well that seems just a bit obtuse to me. I thought the whole point of records is was just that. If it wasn't then why keep up with them at all. When people set records, they don't put some ridiculous caveat next to it that says: but this was a weak era. So does Dennis Scott's 2nd best record of 11 three pointers in a game mean nothing because the 3 point line was closer when he broke the record? It is still an accomplishment that is damn impressive regardless of the shooting distance.

I'm only responding to this because in your original response you seemed quite perturbed that Djokovic's and Lendl's records were even compared.
 
It is worth mentioning that in retrospect Lendl's loss to Chang at the 1989 French Open snapped Lendl's Quarterfinals streak at 14. Of course, at the time, I am sure this was not mentioned at all, as we have only become obsessed with such streaks because of the Internet, and I would say, Federer.
 
From Rogers win over Raonic the other day


Q. Can you reflect at all on the 35 straight Grand Slam quarterfinals.

ROGER FEDERER: Obviously times have changed, you know. Conditions have slowed down. That gives you an opportunity to maybe be more consistent in all four majors, which before we had the clay court specialists, the fast court players.

Maybe I'm taking away things from me a little bit, from myself. But I truly believe things are a bit easier to play more consistent today.
 
Obviously Ped has better records hence gets mentioned.

People will just forget all this useless records when the Ped retires from tennis when his doping scandals get found out!
 
mattennis said:
I actually watch tennis since the end of the 60s, unlike 95% here that started watching tennis 5 years ago...
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? Records are records, if you don't think the records are comparable, then don't compare them. I disagree that we should assign what will turn out to be arbitrary weightings on records because of how we personally view them. There is no need to be bitter.

Djokodal Fan said:
Obviously Ped has better records hence gets mentioned.

People will just forget all this useless records when the Ped retires from tennis when his doping scandals get found out!
Click to expand...

I wish you better luck on your next post.
 
BrooklynNY said:
From Rogers win over Raonic the other day


Q. Can you reflect at all on the 35 straight Grand Slam quarterfinals.

ROGER FEDERER: Obviously times have changed, you know. Conditions have slowed down. That gives you an opportunity to maybe be more consistent in all four majors, which before we had the clay court specialists, the fast court players.

Maybe I'm taking away things from me a little bit, from myself. But I truly believe things are a bit easier to play more consistent today.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't get it either.

Fed (as he often does) throws historians and Petros fanatics a bone yet they still hate his guts.

Too nice of a guy really.
 
And again, I think that what Federer and Djokovic and now Murray are doing (with respect to their long consecutive GS SF or QF streaks) are absolutely great.

But again, if from next year on, the Olympics committee change the decathlon rules, and states that the "new decathlon" will consist of ten 100 m races during 5 days (two races a day), and in the next Olympics Games it happens that Ussain Bolt wins each and everyone of the ten 100 m races (winning obviously then the "new decathlon"), I will say that it is an amazing feat (no doubt), but if suddenly the media starts claiming that "Bolt is the best decathloner in history because he won ALL the ten events, whereas in the past the decathlon winners won at most two or three different events" and then many "fans" start to repeat again and again like puppets (like TMF and McEnroeisanartist for example) that "yes, yes, Bolt is the best decathloner ever because he is the only one in world history to have won more than three events in a decathlon and not only that, he won the ten events of the decathlon", totally ignoring the profound changes in the rules of the competition....then I will start wondering "what are they smoking?".
 
mattennis said:
And again, I think that what Federer and Djokovic and now Murray are doing (with respect to their long consecutive GS SF or QF streaks) are absolutely great.

But again, if from next year on, the Olympics committee change the decathlon rules, and states that the "new decathlon" will consist of ten 100 m races during 5 days (two races a day), and in the next Olympics Games it happens that Ussain Bolt wins each and everyone of the ten 100 m races (winning obviously then the "new decathlon"), I will say that it is an amazing feat (no doubt), but if suddenly the media starts claiming that "Bolt is the best decathloner in history because he won ALL the ten events, whereas in the past the decathlon winners won at most two or three different events" and then many "fans" start to repeat again and again like puppets (like TMF and McEnroeisanartist for example) that "yes, yes, Bolt is the best decathloner ever because he is the only one in world history to have won more than three events in a decathlon and not only that, he won the ten events of the decathlon", totally ignoring the profound changes in the rules of the competition....then I will start wondering "what are they smoking?".
Click to expand...

Jeez, nice run on strawman. :lol:
 
NadalDramaQueen said:
What does that have to do with anything? Records are records, if you don't think the records are comparable, then don't compare them. I disagree that we should assign what will turn out to be arbitrary weightings on records because of how we personally view them. There is no need to be bitter.



I wish you better luck on your next post.
Click to expand...

we have seen so many slanders on Novak for no reason. Can you please pass on your better luck to others as well?
 
zagor said:
Yeah, I don't get it either.

Fed (as he often does) throws historians and Petros fanatics a bone yet they still hate his guts.

Too nice of a guy really.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but Roger obviously knows his stuff. He is just nice for not pretending to be oblivious to this factor...which I think as you mentioned should earn him respect from Petros fanatics and historians.

I think it's also because now that other guys(Nole) are also winning 13 straight semis, 15 quarters, career slams almost done by 3 guys in 5 years(2 did it- Himself, Nadal, almost Nole, which he will soon) Fed is just calling it as he sees it, which is why I have always respected Fed for his honesty, even if sometimes it comes off as 'excuses' to some people, including sometimes myself. :D:twisted:
 
Last edited:
zagor said:
Yeah, I don't get it either.

Fed (as he often does) throws historians and Petros fanatics a bone yet they still hate his guts.

Too nice of a guy really.
Click to expand...

He is really just taking a dig at the little three. If conditions varied more, he would still show consistency while the other three would get bounced out more often. Clever Fed. :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the thing is that Federer himself knows exactly well that what I am saying is simply the truth, that is why he agrees with me.

For the record, I think Federer is the best tennis player I have ever watched, but I can not prove it (and it doesn't matter to me anyway) and obviously I am not going to try to prove it using numbers and records totally ignoring the profound changes that have happened in the conditions of the game (all I said before). I can not be that simple and naive.
 
Djokodal Fan said:
we have seen so many slanders on Novak for no reason. Can you please pass on your better luck to others as well?
Click to expand...

I don't control the board, but I don't think I've slandered Djoker. I did cheer for Wawrinka, if that counts.

I'm not sure what the solution to PED use is, and I hate how athletes are questioned when they display greatness, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. I don't think becoming a contributor to the "what an obvious PED user" brigade will help though.
 
NadalDramaQueen said:
He is really just taking a dig at the little three. If conditions varied more often, he would still show consistency while the other three would get bounced out more often. Clever Fed. :lol:
Click to expand...

This is completely off topic, but what protein crystal structure is that in your avatar?
 
By the way, I really think that if Pete were in Federer's place, he would never admit that under today's conditions it is much more easier to achieve all these records than in past eras.

Federer is truly honest and you have to admire him because of that.

Pete would never admit it had he been in Federer's place.
 
BrooklynNY said:
From Rogers win over Raonic the other day


Q. Can you reflect at all on the 35 straight Grand Slam quarterfinals.

ROGER FEDERER: Obviously times have changed, you know. Conditions have slowed down. That gives you an opportunity to maybe be more consistent in all four majors, which before we had the clay court specialists, the fast court players.

Maybe I'm taking away things from me a little bit, from myself. But I truly believe things are a bit easier to play more consistent today.
Click to expand...

So arrogant of Federer to be so humble.
 
The surfaces are all the same so why is everyone surprised players are more consistent from one slam to another?
 
Sid_Vicious said:
Cool. Do you do study/research that enzyme?
Click to expand...

Nope, I focus on human or virus proteins. :) I was just afraid that if I used a structure that I worked with one of my colleagues (knowing about my tennis addiction) would find out somehow that I posted on TW under the user name NadalDramaQueen. :lol:
 
NadalDramaQueen said:
Nope, I focus on human or virus proteins. :) I was just afraid that if I used a structure that I worked with one of my colleagues (knowing about my tennis addiction) would find out somehow that I posted on TW under the user name NadalDramaQueen. :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL. I can completely understand.

I had a professor who was so attached to the enzyme he studied during his PhD years that he had framed photos of the enzyme in his office. :lol:
 
edberg505 said:
ahh, ok. Are u a biochem major? and u as well Sid_Vicious?
Click to expand...

I have a degree in another science (physics) but I worked in biophysics in my latter graduate years as well as picking up a lower degree in biochem later.

Sid_Vicious said:
LOL. I can completely understand.

I had a professor who was so attached to the enzyme he studied during his PhD years that he had framed photos of the enzyme in his office. :lol:
Click to expand...

Sometimes your research becomes your life, no doubt about that.

As to the topic, it has been pretty obvious for quite some time that Fed is overshadowing everyone. This apparently annoys some posters so much that they go batty.
 
Whatever Roger say he's the greatest or being humble, that doesn't take away the fan's point of view, and most people still considered him the greatest. The 23 straigh semifinals, the 35 straight qtf are still one of the greatest feat in the history of sport. It doesn't matter how Roger downtalk his achievements, but we use our own judgement.


If Gretzky said he's the 10th best hockey player in history, are the fans going to judge by his humble comment or actually based on how he played/achieved on ice? Be serious!
 
TMF said:
Whatever Roger say he's the greatest or being humble, that doesn't take away the fan's point of view, and most people still considered him the greatest. The 23 straigh semifinals, the 35 straight qtf are still one of the greatest feat in the history of sport. It doesn't matter how Roger downtalk his achievements, but we use our own judgement.


If Gretzky said he's the 10th best hockey player in history, are the fans going to judge by his humble comment or actually based on how he played/achieved on ice? Be serious!
Click to expand...

You continue ignoring the core of the situation. Federer didn't simply say "I am not the greatest", he did a reasoning to back it up and a correct one.

The important thing is not if he is the best ever or not (that is impossible to know), that is why Federer saying "I'm not the greatest and today is easier to achieve these records" is not the important thing, but the reasoning he had to back it up (that conditions today are different to past eras, slower, and similar everywhere and that makes a profound effect in the records).

The saddest thing is that you still don't get the core of thing, the reasoning, and it is very simple, actually. Everybody gets it (if they want to), it is not that Federer is suddenly a reasoning genius or something. What he said is very easy to understand.
 
mattennis said:
You continue ignoring the core of the situation. Federer didn't simply say "I am not the greatest", he did a reasoning to back it up and a correct one.

The important thing is not if he is the best ever or not (that is impossible to know), that is why Federer saying "I'm not the greatest and today is easier to achieve these records" is not the important thing, but the reasoning he had to back it up (that conditions today are different to past eras, slower, and similar everywhere and that makes a profound effect in the records).

The saddest thing is that you still don't get the core of thing, the reasoning, and it is very simple, actually. Everybody gets it (if they want to), it is not that Federer is suddenly a reasoning genius or something. What he said is very easy to understand.
Click to expand...

Yeah but I don't think the implication from Roger is that it's easier to achieve such records today and hence he's not the greatest. It could go either way. In fact it may be even more difficult today, and he might have been even further ahead were it not for the greater difficulties today. In either case, I think his main point is that it's different and therefore cannot be compared, but certainly not any easier now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Observations on Achievements at 2012 Australian Open
Replies
1
Views
821
Moose Malloy
M
M
Some losses in 2016 that highlighted Federer's once in a lifetime greatness
Replies
49
Views
2K
AnOctorokForDinner
AnOctorokForDinner
M
Anyone Else Find it Remarkable
Replies
20
Views
4K
sunof tennis
S
M
What did Federer Achieve in 2013
Replies
42
Views
4K
dr325i
dr325i
M
Comments/statistics on matches at 2015 French Open today
Replies
2
Views
649
vive le beau jeu !
vive le beau jeu !
Back
Top