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

[gsharma]

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.

Do you even play tennis or do you just collect stats?

 

[TMF]

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.

If Federer, Rice, Gretzky or Jordan said they are the 10th best player to played their respective sport, are you one of a few will based on their comment or what they actually achieved on court?

-Fed can say the condition is homogeneous.
-Gretzky can say the current hockey era played much more physical
-Jordan can say he didn't have to deal with Magic/Bird in the 90s
-Rice can say I had a chance to play with 2 great quarterbacks.

Again, are you going to stick with what they say or using your own judgement? You have a mind and a pair of eyes, don't you?

 

[mattennis]

He thinks it is easier to consistently achieve QF and SF of the four GS today (for the best ones of the era, obviously, not for the rest) and the reasoning behind it is exactly what I said and what Federer said (similar and slow conditions everywhere makes it easier for the best ones at that unique condition), which is basically my "new decathlon example" reasoning.

And if the best ones of this era are constantly getting to QF and SF of almost every GS (because it is easier in this era), they have more chances to achieve a higher nº of GS titles as well, a higher number of GS finals, SF, QF,...consecutive streaks....

On the other hand, weeks at nº1 or Year End Nº1 is not affected the same way and it is not difficult to understand why.

And I think that Federer is truly honest to admit all this, because as I said, I really think that had Sampras been in Roger's actual place, I am sure Pete would understand perfectly well that his number of GS titles, GS finals, GS SF....consecutive streaks....would be affected and inflated because of the conditions in the current era, but even though Pete would know it (you have to be almost ******** to not understand it) I think Pete would never admit it publicly.

 

[mattennis]

If Federer, Rice, Gretzky or Jordan said they are the 10th best player to played their respective sport, are you one of a few will based on their comment or what they actually achieved on court?

-Fed can say the condition is homogeneous.
-Gretzky can say the current hockey era played much more physical
-Jordan can say he didn't have to deal with Magic/Bird in the 90s
-Rice can say I had a chance to play with 2 great quarterbacks.

Again, are you going to stick with what they say or using your own judgement? You have a mind and a pair of eyes, don't you?

For godness sake!!! You still don't get it!!!

It is not what they say, but if the REASONING to back it up is correct or not.

When Federer says "I am better now than in 2006" it depends on the reasoning behind it.

If he thinks he is better now because now he is more calm, or serves better, or strategically is better, I will say to him that it is not enough to be overall better and that he was overall better in 2006.

If he thinks he is better now because physically now he is more explosive and faster, I would have to say to him "stop smoking what you may be smoking, Roger, you are not physically as good as you were in 2006".

Do you finally understand that what is important is not what they say, but if the reasoning (to back it up what they say) is correct or not.

In the case of this thread, the reasoning is correct (decathlon example again).

In many other things Federer says, or McEnroe says, or Lendl says...they are totally wrong because their reasoning and data (to back up what they say) is totally wrong.

 

[edberg505]

Impressive. Congratulations on your success.

Obrigado!!! Good luck on yours.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Do you even play tennis or do you just collect stats?

I occasionally play tennis. I just to play a lot in high school, made it to the state tournament twice. Would be out on the courts all day in summer. A lot of friendships from this great sport. After about 2000, I stopped watching tennis until early 2004. Then, I remember being in awe of Federer at 2004 Wimbledon, been a fan of his ever since. Became obsessed with him probably at 2006 Wimbledon.

 

[gsharma]

I occasionally play tennis. I just to play a lot in high school, made it to the state tournament twice. Would be out on the courts all day in summer. A lot of friendships from this great sport. After about 2000, I stopped watching tennis until early 2004. Then, I remember being in awe of Federer at 2004 Wimbledon, been a fan of his ever since. Became obsessed with him probably at 2006 Wimbledon.

Interesting. With your username, I'd have guessed that you were older. Fed was definitely a magician around that time.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Interesting. With your username, I'd have guessed that you were older. Fed was definitely a magician around that time.

I first became obsessed with McEnroe in 1999, when I saw him play in a Nuveen Champions tour in Chicago. He played Leconte and surprisingly lost, but not before launching several tirades. I had a shirt printed that said, "Top 10 John McEnroe Outbursts" and then it listed 10 of his most famous outbursts. McEnroe signed the shirt after the match and asked that I speak to his agent, Gary Swain of IMG about mass-producing the shirt for the U.S. Open. Nothing ever came of it.

 

[DropShotArtist]

He thinks it is easier to consistently achieve QF and SF of the four GS today (for the best ones of the era, obviously, not for the rest) and the reasoning behind it is exactly what I said and what Federer said (similar and slow conditions everywhere makes it easier for the best ones at that unique condition), which is basically my "new decathlon example" reasoning.

And if the best ones of this era are constantly getting to QF and SF of almost every GS (because it is easier in this era), they have more chances to achieve a higher nº of GS titles as well, a higher number of GS finals, SF, QF,...consecutive streaks....

On the other hand, weeks at nº1 or Year End Nº1 is not affected the same way and it is not difficult to understand why.

And I think that Federer is truly honest to admit all this, because as I said, I really think that had Sampras been in Roger's actual place, I am sure Pete would understand perfectly well that his number of GS titles, GS finals, GS SF....consecutive streaks....would be affected and inflated because of the conditions in the current era, but even though Pete would know it (you have to be almost ******** to not understand it) I think Pete would never admit it publicly.

Pete was not good enough to have his stats inflate by that much.

 

[gsharma]

I first became obsessed with McEnroe in 1999, when I saw him play in a Nuveen Champions tour in Chicago. He played Leconte and surprisingly lost, but not before launching several tirades. I had a shirt printed that said, "Top 10 John McEnroe Outbursts" and then it listed 10 of his most famous outbursts. McEnroe signed the shirt after the match and asked that I speak to his agent, Gary Swain of IMG about mass-producing the shirt for the U.S. Open. Nothing ever came of it.

Mac's a cool guy, had a picture taken with him at one of the Champion's tour events. He can still play and he can still go nuts.

 

[Blocker]

Courier said 2 nights ago on ch 7 that when Federer was questioned about his record for reaching all these QFs, Federer said it was easier to do in today's era because of the courts all playing similarly slow.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

Courier said 2 nights ago on ch 7 that when Federer was questioned about his record for reaching all these QFs, Federer said it was easier to do in today's era because of the courts all playing similarly slow.

Something similar was mentioned earlier in the thread. I will assume you failed to read any of the posts given that the thread has reached a massive length of four pages.

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.

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:

 

[Mustard]

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.

Well, when Sampras equalled and overtook Emerson's 12 majors in 1999-2000, I don't recall anyone saying "Hey, hang on a minute. Emerson's majors were against amateur players only, while the real best players in the world spent much, if not the vast majority of their careers, being unable to play in the majors".

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Well, when Sampras equalled and overtook Emerson's 12 majors in 1999-2000, I don't recall anyone saying "Hey, hang on a minute. Emerson's majors were against amateur players only, while the real best players in the world spent much, if not the vast majority of their careers, being unable to play in the majors".

Emerson's record was always a shadow. Borg was the one with the real Slam record before Sampras.

 

[5555]

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

Why do you refuse to answer my question? Is it because you do not want to admit that your statement is not a fact, but just an opinion?

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.

McEnroe said that level of competition is now higher than in the 1980s http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/14896786

If level of competition is now higher than in the 1980s, it's sensible to say that now is more difficult to achieve 11 consecutive GS semifinals.

 

[Love all]

Its true conditions are homogenous across all 4 slams today yet Federer would have been consistent had he played on diverse conditions in any era unlike Nadal, Djoker and Murray.