Pat Cash: "Federer not even the second greatest in his own era"

[Karma Tennis]

Objective measure of what? Match-up un/favourability? Ability/inability to evolve over the years?

Yes. All of that is included. That's why many believe the H2H records are the most useful. All of those things are considered in the H2H stats.

If you and your closest rival / friend / opponent / whatever play each other 50 times over a fifteen year period and you beat your friend more often than not ... most casual observers will probably think that you are the superior player.

In sports, the individual or team that wins the most is usually viewed by most as being the most successful competitor.

 

[ChrisRF]

Yes. All of that is included. That's why many believe the H2H records are the most useful. All of those things are considered in the H2H stats.

If you and your closest rival / friend / opponent / whatever play each other 50 times over a fifteen year period and you beat your friend more often than not ... most casual observers will probably think that you are the superior player.

In sports, the individual or team that wins the most is usually viewed by most as being the most successful competitor.

These are two totally different things though. Your last point means EVERYTHING while H2H against selective players means NOTHING.

It’s about success against the field, so we could maybe say the H2H against all 100 or so opponents is important, but not artificially counting some and discounting others. But why make it so difficult? It’s about titles and nothing else.

And that’s the case on any level. In a local club, if after 10 years Player A has 6 club championships and Player B has 4, then who cares if Player B beat Player A in his finals most of the time and mostly loses earlier in the years when Player A wins? It’s about the whole field and titles. Then Player B must have much more problems against the field and cannot be “better”. If anything, then the additional finals are one MORE argument for player A. It’s really that simple.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Your last point means EVERYTHING while H2H against selective players means NOTHING.

Afaic, the Big 3 have dominated the sport for sufficient period of time and played each other enough times over a wide enough range of playing conditions to warrant H2H records being a valid way to compare their status against each other and in the sport overall.

I imagine many will share my view and many won't. C'est la vie.

I'v been fortunate to have witnessed Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras and the Big 3, Smith-Court, BJK, Evert, Martina N, Graf, Seles, and Serena. Given so many wonderful players have graced this sport over the decades, it is only right that we continue these sorts of discussion because it keeps their legacies alive.

 

[CCPass]

…agree, only simple minds can handle H2H statistic devoid of context, age, peak,etc. You’re right, we must keep it basic for simple Simon

Only losers find excuses to justify losses.

 

[CCPass]

These are two totally different things though. Your last point means EVERYTHING while H2H against selective players means NOTHING.

It’s about success against the field, so we could maybe say the H2H against all 100 or so opponents is important, but not artificially counting some and discounting others. But why make it so difficult? It’s about titles and nothing else.

And that’s the case on any level. In a local club, if after 10 years Player A has 6 club championships and Player B has 4, then who cares if Player B beat Player A in his finals most of the time and mostly loses earlier in the years when Player A wins? It’s about the whole field and titles. Then Player B must have much more problems against the field and cannot be “better”. If anything, then the additional finals are one MORE argument for player A. It’s really that simple.

Well Djokovic has the highest winning percentage against the field, followed by Nadal and Borg. Checkmate.

 

[ChrisRF]

Well Djokovic has the highest winning percentage against the field, followed by Nadal and Borg. Checkmate.

Djokovic will become GOAT by any important stats. I don’t deny that.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Been saying it for years, now the numbers are backing that up. Fed was always # 3 - 2003 to 2007 gave the illusion of GOAThood and most (including Fed) ran with it.

 

[duaneeo]

Federer's achievements since 2011:

Slams: 4
WTFs: 1
Masters: 11
Weeks at #1: 25
YE #1s: 0

The Roger Federer of Djokovic's era is a poor man's Andy Murray:

Slams: 3
WTFs: 1
Masters: 8
Weeks at #1: 41
YE #1s: 1

 

[jga111]

Only losers find excuses to justify losses.

Hello Simon

 

[T007]

"Everybody says Federer is the greatest player of all time, but he’s not even the second greatest in his own era," Cash told UBI Tennis.

"That’s hard to believe. If you are the best of all time, you should at least have a head-to-head record against your number one rival or number two rival. Surely, that would be the very first factor, I would say."

Federer 'not even the second best player ever', says Cash

Pat Cash believes that Roger Federer will not only fail to go down as the best player ever, but fail to be remembered as the second best.

www.eurosport.com

Discuss

Fat daddy cash looking earn some real cash. I don't even remember what was his position in his own era.


His Wimbledon run was the biggest fluke in tennis history.

 

[T007]

Federer's achievements since 2011:

Slams: 4
WTFs: 1
Masters: 11
Weeks at #1: 25
YE #1s: 0

The Roger Federer of Djokovic's era is a poor man's Andy Murray:

Slams: 3
WTFs: 1
Masters: 8
Weeks at #1: 41
YE #1s: 1

Federer was 30 in 2011...That means if we consider performance of past prime Fed he is still Greatest than the 4th member of Big 3.

 

[T007]

I wish Lendl had beaten him in 87’ so we never would have to hear from him

Savage one...He is another loud mouth seeking some cash by making controversial statement

 

[T007]

To be fair, he peaked in a pretty tough era (2007-2013 minus 2010) so it makes some sense.

His inability to match his rivals on HC is his biggest limitation on GOAT debate. If you take out each of their best surface...Federer has 12,Djoker has 11 and Nadal has 7.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Federer for sure isn't goat, but he's closer than Djoko will ever be.

 

[jhhachamp]

Federer's achievements since 2011:

Slams: 4
WTFs: 1
Masters: 11
Weeks at #1: 25
YE #1s: 0

The Roger Federer of Djokovic's era is a poor man's Andy Murray:

Slams: 3
WTFs: 1
Masters: 8
Weeks at #1: 41
YE #1s: 1

The stats are similar, yes. However, Federer's stats are still better. You can't be a poor man's version of something if you better.

 

[jhhachamp]

His inability to match his rivals on HC is his biggest limitation on GOAT debate. If you take out each of their best surface...Federer has 12,Djoker has 11 and Nadal has 7.

This is a terrible way to look at things, but the number you show for Djokovic is wrong. He would be at 8 if you take out his best surface.

 

[duaneeo]

The stats are similar, yes. However, Federer's stats are still better. You can't be a poor man's version of something if you better.

The point is that Federer and Djokovic are not of the same era. The Roger Federer of his own era is an ATG. The Roger Federer of Djokovic's era is a player who is just 'slightly better' than Andy Murray.

 

[Cortana]

Nadal has 2 things: H2H and his clay/RG dominance. Federer has much more to offer.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Federer for sure isn't goat, but he's closer than Djoko will ever be.

How do you work that out then? There is no argument for Fed to be viewed greater than Novak now.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Nadal has 2 things: H2H and his clay/RG dominance. Federer has much more to offer.

Rafa also has a lot more masters titles than Fed too. He lags behind in world tour finals and weeks at no1 but has the big advantage I. H2H, more dominance on favourite surface and masters titles. It’s close between Fedal to be honest. I see Fed just ahead but if Rafa gets to 21 and wins off clay again he’s ahead then for me.

At the minute it’s Djokovic > Federer > Nadal. In the end I expect it to be probably Djokovic > Nadal > Federer

 

[T007]

This is a terrible way to look at things, but the number you show for Djokovic is wrong. He would be at 8 if you take out his best surface.

Yeah i forgot to add his USO titles

 

[egrorian]

Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.

Morons who feel Hewitt was weak should compare resumes of Murray and Hewitt.

I don't think there's much between Hewitt and Murray either. At one point Hewitt owned Roddick and had Federer not really came good, he could have had quite a few more Slams to his name. As it stands, I think he's unfairly forgotten; at his best he stood as the best on the planet and a heck of player, yet he doesn't get anything like the acclaim Murray does (though maybe that is because I'm in the UK).

 

[jhhachamp]

How do you work that out then? There is no argument for Fed to be viewed greater than Novak now.

There actually still are some arguments to be made in Federer's favor. There's more in favor of Djokovic, but not everything is in his favor yet.

 

[jhhachamp]

I don't think there's much between Hewitt and Murray either. At one point Hewitt owned Roddick and had Federer really came good, he could have have had quite a few more Slams to his name. As it stands, I think he's unfairly forgotten; at his best he stood as the best on the planet and a heck of player, yet he doesn't get anything like the acclaim Murray does (though maybe that because I'm in the UK).

It's mostly because he retired a while ago. When he was on top, he got tons of acclaim. He had a shorter time of playing great tennis than Murray which is why his acclaim didn't last as long.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

There actually still are some arguments to be made in Federer's favor. There's more in favor of Djokovic, but not everything is in his favor yet.

True he has a few things over Djokovic. Djokovic though has more over him and has a more rounded resume with less holes. Therefore, out of the 2 Djokovic is ahead now.

 

[TMF]

How do you work that out then? There is no argument for Fed to be viewed greater than Novak now.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

It’s the facts. Most objective and reasonable people who aren’t biased know he’s ahead of Federer now.

 

[longtimelurker]

Ahh the nostalgia seeing users USO and Tennis_Hands in this thread together, both sharing the same fate....

 

[TMF]

It’s the facts. Most objective and reasonable people who aren’t biased know he’s ahead of Federer now.

Opinion coming from Djoker fans are NOT facts.

Most objective and reasonable people are not recency biased. It's a fallacy to gives greater importance to the most recent event.

 

[egrorian]

Opinion coming from Djoker fans are NOT facts.

Most objective and reasonable people are not recency biased. It's a fallacy to gives greater importance to the most recent event.

Very true but it's undeniable that most of the numbers favour Djokovic now. Federer still has 8 Wimbledon titles though (for old timers like me, Wimbledon is still the big one, above the other GS). If Djokovic were to win this US Open that would surely put it beyond any reasonable argument however.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Opinion coming from Djoker fans are NOT facts.

Most objective and reasonable people are not recency biased. It's a fallacy to gives greater importance to the most recent event.

The other thing we have to consider as well is Djokovic and Nadal still probably have more time to add more. Whereas that looks highly unlikely for Fed. Djokovic and Nadal to some extent have already achieved more than Fed did at 34 and 35 respectively.

 

[Sunny014]

I don't think there's much between Hewitt and Murray either. At one point Hewitt owned Roddick and had Federer not really came good, he could have have had quite a few more Slams to his name. As it stands, I think he's unfairly forgotten; at his best he stood as the best on the planet and a heck of player, yet he doesn't get anything like the acclaim Murray does (though maybe that is because I'm in the UK).

Yup.
Hewitt is forgotten, game got more physical with time and so hewitt lost in translation in the era between Sampras and Federer, plus Hewitt unable to challenge Fed in Fed's peak also adds his he being forgotten + recency bias + Murray is British + Murray has done well overall, slightly better, but they r in the same league which people often forget, really unfair on hewitt's part, his gameplay vs Sampras is forgotten.

That having said we are living in an era where Sampras himself is forgotten, so Hewitt can take consolation from the fact that Pete himself has been overshadowed by the Big 3 .... bigtime ... recency bias rules ...

 

[Adv. Edberg]

How do you work that out then? There is no argument for Fed to be viewed greater than Novak now.

It was a harder era for Fed compared to now or the last 10 years.

 

[Spencer Gore]

As it stands, I think he (Hewitt) is unfairly forgotten; at his best he stood as the best on the planet.

Yep, that's how bad it had got.

 

[egrorian]

Yep, that's how bad it had got.

Why is that so bad? I remember watching Hewitt and being very impressed. Terrific intensity, fantastic return of serve, much to admire (even if he could be something of a prat at times!). As I see it, that he was soon overwhelmed by a fully flowering Federer is still no slight on Hewitt, who was a fine champion in his own right.

 

[jhhachamp]

As I see it, that he was soon overwhelmed by a fully flowering Federer is still no slight on Hewitt, who was a fine champion in his own right.

This is exactly right, and just about everyone I know sees him the same way. I don't buy the idea that's been tossed around that Hewitt is unfairly forgotten. He gets his due from fans and everyone knows he was a great player in his own right, but not an all time great. I think the people who are saying he is forgotten or underrated are actually overrating him.

 

[Sunny014]

Yep, that's how bad it had got.

Mr Spencer BORE

You are one of those guys who look at the latest technology in the market and lament how bad the technology before that was, that same philosophy you apply to Tennis as well, learn to appreciate evolution, what we have and what we had.

Hewitt was the transitional champ between Sampras and Federer, between SNV and Baseline to be precise, he was the first man who showed how to play from the baseline and win against SNV, disrespecting him would be like disrespecting Tennis. Calling him weak would also be stupid because as tennis became more and more physical and powerful Hewitt started to get outdated as that was evolution, however his place in history is unquestionably firm and absolute beyond doubt.

Most Weeks at ATP No. 1

Rank	Country	Name	Weeks At No. 1
1	SRB	Novak Djokovic	331
2	SUI	Roger Federer	310
3	USA	Pete Sampras	286
4	USA	Ivan Lendl	270
5	USA	Jimmy Connors	268
6	ESP	Rafael Nadal	209
7	USA	John McEnroe	170
8	SWE	Bjorn Borg	109
9	USA	Andre Agassi	101
10	AUS	Lleyton Hewitt	80

 

[Fiero425]

Mr Spencer BORE

You are one of those guys who look at the latest technology in the market and lament how bad the technology before that was, that same philosophy you apply to Tennis as well, learn to appreciate evolution, what we have and what we had.

Hewitt was the transitional champ between Sampras and Federer, between SNV and Baseline to be precise, he was the first man who showed how to play from the baseline and win against SNV, disrespecting him would be like disrespecting Tennis. Calling him weak would also be stupid because as tennis became more and more physical and powerful Hewitt started to get outdated as that was evolution, however his place in history is unquestionably firm and absolute beyond doubt.

Most Weeks at ATP No. 1

Rank	Country	Name	Weeks At No. 1
1	SRB	Novak Djokovic	331
2	SUI	Roger Federer	310
3	USA	Pete Sampras	286
4	USA	Ivan Lendl	270
5	USA	Jimmy Connors	268
6	ESP	Rafael Nadal	209
7	USA	John McEnroe	170
8	SWE	Bjorn Borg	109
9	USA	Andre Agassi	101
10	AUS	Lleyton Hewitt	80

Back in the day, it was more Borg and Lendl who showed the way when it came to dealing with SnV's of their day! Borg just got more balls back, while Lendl just overpowered and clobbered you with heavy shots! Borg & Lendl had to deal with McEnroe! Borg had to overcome the best in the game on choppy, slick grass of Wimbledon, while Lendl never got over the hump though playing a couple finals; going down to Becker & Cash! There are so many players not worth remembering who got to the top; now looking even more insignificant as the Big 3 have re-written the recordbooks! Hewitt was the 1st to hold #1 without really making a mark; same with Roddick! A-Rod's biggest claim to fame over being #1 for a minute is being Federer's pigeon! End Rant for now!

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Why is that so bad? I remember watching Hewitt and being very impressed. Terrific intensity, fantastic return of serve, much to admire (even if he could be something of a prat at times!). As I see it, that he was soon overwhelmed by a fully flowering Federer is still no slight on Hewitt, who was a fine champion in his own right.

Hewitt level players would barely qualify for top 10 in the strong big 3 era of 2008-2019. Great character and determination, but ultimately a bit limited. A slightly better David Ferrer.

 

[Sunny014]

Back in the day, it was more Borg and Lendl who showed the way when it came to dealing with SnV's of their day! Borg just got more balls back, while Lendl just overpowered and clobbered you with heavy shots! Borg & Lendl had to deal with McEnroe! Borg had to overcome the best in the game on choppy, slick grass of Wimbledon, while Lendl never got over the hump though playing a couple finals; going down to Becker & Cash! There are so many players not worth remembering who got to the top; now looking even more insignificant as the Big 3 have re-written the recordbooks! Hewitt was the 1st to hold #1 without really making a mark; same with Roddick! A-Rod's biggest claim to fame over being #1 for a minute is being Federer's pigeon! End Rant for now!

Actually Hewitt was back to back year end 1 and Hewitt also won back to back World Tour Finals and also took home 1 slam each per year.

This might look very paltry compared to BIg 3 winning 2-3 slams per year but it was good enough for that phase as it was a transition phase of Tennis.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Actually Hewitt was back to back year end 1 and Hewitt also won back to back World Tour Finals and also took home 1 slam each.

This might look very paltry compared to BIg 3 winning 2-3 slams per year but it was good enough for that phase as it was a transition phase of Tennis.

Remember the talking points of that fan base: Hewitt and Roddick are piles of garbage because Fed dominated them. Weak era! Who cares if they both won slam(s) and were #1? The nex gen players now are 5,000 times better than anyone Federer ever played because Novak dominating nobody's doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Sunny014]

Hewitt level players would barely qualify for top 10 in the strong big 3 era of 2008-2019. Great character and determination, but ultimately a bit limited. A slightly better David Ferrer.

The RAMs that were used in your computers in the mid 2000s (1GB RAM) would not even be fit to be used in mobile phones right now as the minimum is 4 GB in small mobile handsets, how things have changed from 2005 till 2021, isn't it ?

The Hard Drives used in 2005 were like 40GB or 80GB , damn now even mobile phones have 256GB to 512 GB storage space.

Respect the past you fool ...... Don't compare the shortcomings of technology or that of human sportsmen of past eras with modern era standards.....

Just because you started watching Tennis from 2011 when you were like 11-12 years old doesn't mean talk nonsense about 2000-03 period champions.......

 

[Kralingen]

Very, very difficult to see any NextGen player even at age 25 walking into Arthur Ashe winning, let alone giving Pete Sampras two breadsticks in a US Open final. Hewitt did it at 21.

 

[egrorian]

Hewitt level players would barely qualify for top 10 in the strong big 3 era of 2008-2019. Great character and determination, but ultimately a bit limited. A slightly better David Ferrer.

Personally, I consider Hewitt far better than Ferrer.

 

[Sunny014]

Remember the talking points of that fan base: Hewitt and Roddick are piles of garbage because Fed dominated them. Weak era! Who cares if they both won slam(s) and were #1? The nex gen players now are 5,000 times better than anyone Federer ever played because Novak dominating nobody's doesn't fit the narrative.

True.
Novak fans glorifying modern day nobodies with no achievements and passing them as greater than previous era achievers is all carefully designed to make Novak look as the GOAT.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

The RAMs that were used in your computers in the mid 2000s (1GB RAM) would not even be fit to be used in mobile phones right now as the minimum is 4 GB in small mobile handsets, how things have changed from 2005 till 2021, isn't it ?

The Hard Drives used in 2005 were like 20GB or 40GB, damn now even movies phones have 256GB to 512 GB storage space.

Respect the past you fool ...... Don't compare the shortcomings of technology or that of human sportsmen of past eras with modern era standards.....

Just because you started watching Tennis from 2011 when you were like 11-12 years old doesn't mean talk nonsense about 2000-03 period champions.......

Once Federer fully matured , Hewitt / Roddick won 0 slams and had 0 time at number 1. They never even won a single slam match against him.

You’re happy to insult Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev when their results have been just as good as Roddick/Hewitt when they didn’t have to face big 3.

 

[egrorian]

Once Federer fully matured , Hewitt / Roddick won 0 slams and had 0 time at number 1. They never even won a single slam match against him.

You’re happy to insult Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev when their results have been just as good as Roddick/Hewitt when they didn’t have to face big 3.

Oh come on, Hewitt vs Zverev? Seriously, there's no comparison whatsoever in terms of the quality of player!

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Oh come on, Hewitt vs Zverev? Seriously, there's no comparison whatsoever in terms of the quality of player!

No the point is, the nextgen players are insulted as mugs, losers, weak… when their results are same as Roddick/Hewitt in presence of big 3…

 

[Sunny014]

Once Federer fully matured , Hewitt / Roddick won 0 slams and had 0 time at number 1. They never even won a single slam match against him.

You’re happy to insult Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev when their results have been just as good as Roddick/Hewitt when they didn’t have to face big 3.

Nd who asked Federer to not mature in 00-03 ?
What was Federer doing in 00-02 ?

Hewitt is a worthy champion who won back to back WTF and was ranked 1 back to back in the period when he was won 1 slam each per year and that was enough for the early 00s because even in 90s Pete/Agassi used to win at max 1-2 slams per year, nobody won 3 slams per year.

So don't compare modern era feats of Federer or Djokoic with Hewitt just to make Hewitt look small.

Nd yes, Thiem, Medevdev, Zverev, Thiem are all losers, weak pansies with no real achievements, so they will be not respected until they win slams or end years as 1 .....and THEY ARE NOT AS GOOD AS RODDICK OR HEWITT .... They have won nothing!

 

[Fiero425]

True.
Novak fans glorifying modern day nobodies with no achievements and passing them as greater than previous era achievers is all carefully designed to make Novak look as the GOAT.

Well he will be considered as such regardless of the level of his competition!