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

[Sunny014]

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…

No their results are not the same as Roddick or Hewitt

Roddick is a 1 slam winner and made multiple finals and lost to the eventual champion in slams 10 times
Hewitt is a 2 Slam winner and made multiple finals and lost 13 times to the eventual champ in slams

These clowns like Med/Zverev are mugs compared to these greats, learn to respect Tennis and past champs/finalists

 

[NoleIsBoat]

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!

Yes they won no slams because they face big 3 over and over… hewitt won wimbledon vs Nalbandian. Roddick won USO vs ferrero.

Tsisipas, Medvedev, Thiem would all be slam winners in 2001-2003 vacuum era and potentially number 1.

 

[egrorian]

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…

I don't call the nextgen players mugs, losers or weak personally, but - thus far - there certainly isn't a player of Hewitt's quality among them.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

No their results are not the same as Roddick or Hewitt

Roddick is a 1 slam winner and made multiple finals and lost to the eventual champion in slams 10 times
Hewitt is a 2 Slam winner and made multiple finals and lost 13 times to the eventual champ in slams

These clowns like Med/Zverev are mugs compared to these greats, learn to respect Tennis and past champs/finalists

Yes the results are the same VS big 3.

Hewitt/Roddick won their slams and weeks at number 1 pre Federer. Nextgen has to go through Djokovic and Nadal which is the only reason they are less accomplished. Also nextgen career isn’t finished.

 

[Kralingen]

Stop responding to NoleisBoat guys, I promise things will improve in terms of discussion quality

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Stop responding to NoleisBoat guys, I promise things will improve in terms of discussion quality

Roddick / Hewitt slam wins over Federer - 0
Nadal - 2
Djokovic - 1

Thiem / Tsitsipas slam wins over Djokovic - 2
Nadal - 2
Federer - 1

Not much difference at all, similar level players. But yes, stop replying to posters who share the truth because it’s too uncomfortable for your agenda!

 

[Sunny014]

I don't call the nextgen players mugs, losers or weak personally, but - thus far - there certainly isn't a player of Hewitt's quality among them.

See @NoleIsBoat , He knows Tennis and he has watched Tennis for decades before you.
Learn from what people older to you tell you, you haven't watched tennis before 2011 and your fellow Novak fans would be ashamed of you.

Calling Thiem, Medevev, Tsitsi as multiple winners of 00-03

 

[NoleIsBoat]

See @NoleIsBoat , He knows Tennis and he has watched Tennis for decades before you.
Learn from what people older to you tell you, you haven't watched tennis before 2011 and your fellow Novak fans would be ashamed of you.

Calling Thiem, Medevev, Tsitsi as multiple winners of 00-03

Yet he refuses to call them losers or weak, unlike you bud.
Their careers aren’t finished so it’s hard to judge, but Thiem alone would be a 4-5 slam winner with no Djokovic / Nadal in his path.

 

[Sunny014]

Roddick / Hewitt slam wins over Federer - 0
Nadal - 2
Djokovic - 1

Thiem / Tsitsipas slam wins over Djokovic - 2
Nadal - 2
Federer - 1

Not much difference at all, similar level players. But yes, stop replying to posters who share the truth because it’s too uncomfortable for your agenda!

You are extremely immature, thats why he is saying that.
Conversation with you is a dead end, you dont agree to any points put forward by the other person and you dont even try to understand, you are too rigid.

 

[duaneeo]

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.

He gets his due from fans (those who actually watched tennis before the 2010s) who are defending him against the many who trash the supposed 'weakness" of Federer's era. 'Hewitt' is typically squeezed between the names 'Roddick' and 'Baghdatis'.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

You are extremely immature, thats why he is saying that.
Conversation with you is a dead end, you dont agree to any points put forward by the other person and you dont even try to understand, you are too rigid.

 

[Kralingen]

Roddick / Hewitt slam wins over Federer - 0
Nadal - 2
Djokovic - 1

Thiem / Tsitsipas slam wins over Djokovic - 2
Nadal - 2
Federer - 1

Not much difference at all, similar level players. But yes, stop replying to posters who share the truth because it’s too uncomfortable for your agenda!

Roddick and Hewitt were 21 and 22 when they won Slams is the point. Can any NextGen player say they even came close at age 21? Maybe Tsitsipas, but given what happened at RG I’m not going to say he can defeat Pistol Pete at the USO.

I agree that the 00-03 is a slightly unexplored weak transition era, but JC Ferraro, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalby were all 21-23 at the time.

you’re painting guys like 25 year old Thiem and Medvedev as able to win slams, I guarantee their 21 year old selves would not be able to.

 

[Sunny014]

Yet he refuses to call them losers or weak, unlike you bud.
Their careers aren’t finished so it’s hard to judge, but Thiem alone would be a 4-5 slam winner with no Djokovic / Nadal in his path.

What is this no Djokovic in path? What is this no Nadal in path ?

You need to beat the guys to be champs, something which Thiem cannot do.

Hewitt won multiple slams, YECs and was ranked 1 in an era when Pete, Agassi, Federer were playing, Pete and AGassi were younger than DJokodal are now ..... Federer is same aged as hewitt ... there is no excuse for Fed losing

So Hewitt is a legit great of the game and Thiem is nothing but a weak fellow who was choking in the final of USO but luckily zverev choked more.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

What is this no Djokovic in path? What is this no Nadal in path ?

You need to beat the guys to be champs, something which Thiem cannot do.

Hewitt won multiple slams, YECs and was ranked 1 in an era when Pete, Agassi, Federer were playing, Pete and AGassi were younger than DJokodal are now ..... Federer is same aged as hewitt ... there is no excuse for Fed losing

So Hewitt is a legit great of the game and Thiem is nothing but a weak fellow who was choking in the final of USO but luckily zverev choked more.

Hewitt DID beat Sampras for his USO title which was a great win. Wimbledon draw was weak though. Henman on slow grass and baseliner Nalbandian.

Nextgen has to go through big 3 to win slams, often 2 of them.

Thiem slam wins over ATGs ->
Djokovic - 2
Federer - 0
Nadal - 1

Hewitt slam wins over ATGs ->
Nadal - 2
Djokovic - 0
Federer - 0
Sampras - 1

Not much difference really. Only difference is, after Thiem defeated Djokovic in Rg 19 SF, Nadal 20 AO QF, he had another one in the final.

Both players have 3 slam wins over an ATG, and this is being generous to Hewitt by including his AO wins over 04-05 Nadal.

 

[canta_Brian]

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.

Roddick may not have beaten Fed. But he has a winning head to head v Djokovic.

I mean, you’re making a complete tit of yourself. But do carry on.

 

[Sunny014]

Hewitt DID beat Sampras for his USO title which was a great win. Wimbledon draw was weak though. Henman on slow grass and baseliner Nalbandian.

Nextgen has to go through big 3 to win slams, often 2 of them.

Thiem slam wins over ATGs ->
Djokovic - 2
Federer - 0
Nadal - 1

Hewitt slam wins over ATGs ->
Nadal - 2
Djokovic - 0
Federer - 0
Sampras - 1

Not much difference really. Only difference is, after Thiem defeated Djokovic in Rg 19 SF, Nadal 20 AO QF, he had another one in the final.

Both players have 3 slam wins over an ATG, and this is being generous to Hewitt by including his AO wins over 04-05 Nadal.

I think it is time to block you, you have been giving this ATG non ATG argument and trolling a lot so tolerated enough of you, such horrible arguments again and again for the sake of it.
You even said that Murray would win 8-11 slams in other eras, that itself shows your maturity and understanding of Tennis.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Roddick may not have beaten Fed. But he has a winning head to head v Djokovic.

I mean, you’re making a complete tit of yourself. But do carry on.

How many slams did Roddick win going through an ATG? 0? Same as Thiem, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev who you all call losers and jokers

 

[Fiero425]

Roddick may not have beaten Fed. But he has a winning head to head v Djokovic.

I mean, you’re making a complete tit of yourself. But do carry on.

Hilarious! Why do you guys go so far back to try to prove what I don't know? It's so pathetic! Let's talk about Fed's win over Nole at the 2011 FO again! (YAWN)

 

[NoleIsBoat]

I think it is time to block you, you have been giving this ATG non ATG argument and trolling a lot so tolerated enough of you, such horrible arguments again and again for the sake of it.
You even said that Murray would win 8-11 slams in other eras, that itself shows your maturity and understanding of Tennis.

So my numbers and facts upset you so you resort to block

Agassi also said Murray would have 3x the career in his Era. He must be a troll too.

 

[Sunny014]

So my numbers and facts upset you so you resort to block

Agassi also said Murray would have 3x the career in his Era. He must be a troll too.

Agassi saying, Federer saying Murray saying doesn't matter, what you say I will judge you. I know celebs say a lot of things for various reasons, sometimes they praise, sometimes they dont praise, all that is not reality. Reality is what you understand of the game and your understanding is very poor.

8-11 slams? You insulting Becker/Connors/Lendl by compared Murray with them ??

Do you know how good someone has to be to win 8 slams ? Connors and Lendl were ranked 1 for 268 and 270 weeks, thats how long they were at the top to win 8 slams, Agassi played for 20 years and he won 8, you think it is a cakewalk for a clown who has a losing H2H in slams to even a late blooming Wawrinka to win 8 slams ???

R u insulting past legends???

 

[fundrazer]

@NoleIsBoat is just here for the circle jerk of Novak worship + Fed bashing. You're not missing out by putting him on ignore. I did that a while ago.

 

[Sunny014]

You even call Philipoussis weak ... Have you seen how Philipoussis played in 03 ?? .... Philippoussis was the fastest server in the world along with Rusedski in the 1990s until Roddick crossed them.... U think he is an ordinary guy with no weapons ??

Have you see Agassi vs Philipoussis match of 2003 wimbledon ??? Agassi was aced 46 times by Scud and Scud moved so well in the match for a 6'4-6'5 frame which was very tall for that era..... He is an amazing player and you talk as if he is medvedev or zverev ?? Can they beat Scud of 03 ? Hell no...

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Agassi saying, Federer saying Murray saying doesn't matter, what you say I will judge you. I know celebs say a lot of things for various reasons, sometimes they praise, sometimes they dont praise, all that is not reality. Reality is what you understand of the game and your understanding is very poor.

8-11 slams? You insulting Becker/Connors/Lendl by compared Murray with them ??

Do you know how good someone has to be to win 8 slams ? Connors and Lendl were ranked 1 for 268 and 270 weeks, thats how long they were at the top to win 8 slams, Agassi played for 20 years and he won 8, you think it is a cakewalk for a clown who has a losing H2H in slams to even a late blooming Wawrinka to win 8 slams ???

R u insulting past legends???

Murray reached 21 slam and SF 11 F. Was difficult for him to win more facing 3 of the greatest ever. My estimate was 8, you asked for discussion that’s my opinion

 

[NoleIsBoat]

@NoleIsBoat is just here for the circle jerk of Novak worship + Fed bashing. You're not missing out by putting him on ignore. I did that a while ago.

I am a Federer and tennis fan. Just because I don’t worship your idol.

 

[Sunny014]

Murray reached 21 slam and SF 11 F. Was difficult for him to win more facing 3 of the greatest ever. My estimate was 8, you asked for discussion that’s my opinion

That was baseless nonsense.
Had you explained how he would win 8 year by year I would have agreed, you randomly said he would peak from 01 and win 8 ..... As if the champions of the 00s were just sitting to gift him slams, lol

 

[Sunny014]

Realistically speaking Murray is a very consistent player (just like Hewitt was), the level is quite stable, however Murray's own peak level was not that high enough to win a lot of slams in any era, his weapons in his arsenal were not that great, his second serve is weak, he is not that tough mentally either to clutch out wins. I have no doubt that he would reached 4th round-Qfs consistently in most eras but thats where his journey ends because tougher opponents in the second week he cannot beat. Someone like Stan has a higher peak than Murray in some surfaces and that alone is not enough to gift Stan slams, enough said.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

@NoleIsBoat roflmaoo

 

[jhhachamp]

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!

What's the problem exactly? That players who aren't as great don't get as much love as the greater players?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

"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

Cash was just saying something level heads realized for a long time.

 

[duaneeo]

I agree that the 00-03 is a slightly unexplored weak transition era, but JC Ferraro, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalby were all 21-23 at the time.

Between 00-03, the younger players were jockeying for position while picking off the outgoing generation. A single young player didn't dominate, but they were a strong collective group (6 slams won). One took over in 2004.

 

[jhhachamp]

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.

It's not necessarily unfair to say that Hewitt was a slightly better version of David Ferrer. You don't seem to have any idea how good David Ferrer was though. At his best, he was a consistent force in the top 5 and reached as high as number 3. He regularly went deep into slams and even reached a slam final. It's ridiculous to say that peak Hewitt would barely be a top 10 player from 2008-2019.

 

[jhhachamp]

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

Hewitt is clearly ahead of Zverev, but Zverev still has a lot of time left to surpass Hewitt if he gets his act together.

 

[jhhachamp]

He gets his due from fans (those who actually watched tennis before the 2010s) who are defending him against the many who trash the supposed 'weakness" of Federer's era. 'Hewitt' is typically squeezed between the names 'Roddick' and 'Baghdatis'.

Strawman argument to lump him in with Baghdatis. No one is doing that. He is rightfully lumped in with Roddick because they were similar level players who had their peaks at about the same times.

 

[Kralingen]

Between 00-03, the younger players were jockeying for position while picking off the outgoing generation. A single young player didn't dominate, but they were a strong collective group (6 slams won). One took over in 2004.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting it was really all that weak. Still had Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, good Agassi, and flashes of Pete/Goran/Rafter as well.

I think the switch to poly really makes it a unique time hard to compare to other eras. No one today is playing with a different skillset and technology than the others, while this was definitely true in 00-03. Just a unique situation that is really difficult to imagine occurring today. I've heard some say that the likes of Ferrero, Hewitt, and Roddick also played their best tennis during this period too.

 

[Spencer Gore]

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.

A decent enough player. But Hewitt being the BEST tennis player in the world was unequivocal evidence that tennis was at a low point.

 

[Spencer Gore]

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

Your post makes no sense. If Hewitt was considerably worse than Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras-which he was; and worse than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic -which he was, how is that evidence of evolution.

 

[Sunny014]

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting it was really all that weak. Still had Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, good Agassi, and flashes of Pete/Goran/Rafter as well.

I think the switch to poly really makes it a unique time hard to compare to other eras. No one today is playing with a different skillset and technology than the others, while this was definitely true in 00-03. Just a unique situation that is really difficult to imagine occurring today. I've heard some say that the likes of Ferrero, Hewitt, and Roddick also played their best tennis during this period too.

Thats what I have said all along, subject Djokovic to being born in 74 (like Henman) or 76 (like Kuerten) and then put him in between the switch to poly era, how good would he fare with next gens coming up that are more powerful genetically and have a more natural game with poly that they have used since early days ? It would be horrible for Novak but someone like @NoleIsBoat truly considers Nole as the BOAT and he started watching Tennis from 2010 at age 10-11 so he cannot imagine such a phase of late 90s-early 00s and how tough it was for everyone back then. He would Imagine Novak to dominate late 90s till 2010s, hell he imagines Murray to dominate that phase, thats how he views Tennis, such biased and wrong outlook towards the past.

 

[Sunny014]

Your post makes no sense. If Hewitt was considerably worse than Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras-which he was; and worse than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic -which he was, how is that evidence of evolution.

If Hewitt was worse than Sampras then how did he beat Sampras ?
That means he was better when he needed to be.

 

[Spencer Gore]

If Hewitt was worse than Sampras then how did he beat Sampras ?
That means he was better when he needed to be.

The Sampras he started beating was a guy on a rapid descent. A shadow of his former self. The idea that Hewitt was a better player than Sampras may well be a new contender -out of so many- for "most laughable claim made by Sunny014"- (or indeed, most laughable claim made by any of your previous user names).

 

[Sunny014]

The Sampras he started beating was a guy on a rapid descent. A shadow of his former self. The idea that Hewitt was a better player than Sampras may well be a new contender -out of so many- for "most laughable claim made by Sunny014"- (or indeed, most laughable claim made by any of your previous user names).

You seem to have poor comprehension skills Mr BORE.

I said Hewitt was better than Sampras when he needed to be (00-02) however it doesn't mean overall Sampras with 14 slams is lesser than Hewitt with 2 slams, it only means at that phase Hewitt was better and rightfully so.

If you were asking how Hewitt dominating is not bad for Tennis then answer to that is, the era was transition period from SNV to Baseline, so Hewitt doesn't necessarily mean that he will be the best baseliner or best of SNVer around, the transition era always will have transitional champs. The kids growing up in the baseline era would emerge as the strongest exponents of that era. It is common sense.

Today if some major change is made to Tennis in equipment or court nomenclature then Tsitsipas and co would adapt, maybe Alcaraz and some youngsters who are 14-17 years old now will emerge better at it in late 2020s but the real peak level champs on this would arrive in mid 2030s as those guys would be 8-9 years old now. Thats similar to Poly being introduced/popularized in late 90s? So the greatest beasts Nadal and Djokovic arrived 10 years later and 2011 was when Novak was at his peak, that is the peak usage of Racquet technology, brutal hitting by a brutal champion who grew up on it.

Got it ??

So don't blame Hewitt for being the transitional era champ between 2 eras.

 

[Spencer Gore]

So don't blame Hewitt for being the transitional era champ between 2 eras.

I'm not blaming him for anything. I'm saying Hewitt being the best player in the world is proof that tennis was not in a strong place at that point in time. I'm also laughing at your suggestion that Hewitt was better than Sampras and an example of evolution in tennis.

I sincerely hope you ARE trolling-which I think you are, otherwise you may well be the most ill-informed and ignorant judge of tennis I have ever encountered.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

I'm not blaming him for anything. I'm saying Hewitt being the best player in the world is proof that tennis was not in a strong place at that point in time. I'm also laughing at your suggestion that Hewitt was better than Sampras and an example of evolution in tennis.

I sincerely hope you ARE trolling-which I think you are, otherwise you may well be the most ill-informed and ignorant judge of tennis I have ever encountered.

Worth noting that if Djokovic wasn't being out-clowned it could currently be Medvedev. Or a crap Nadal.

 

[jm1980]

Thats what I have said all along, subject Djokovic to being born in 74 (like Henman) or 76 (like Kuerten) and then put him in between the switch to poly era, how good would he fare with next gens coming up that are more powerful genetically and have a more natural game with poly that they have used since early days ? It would be horrible for Novak but someone like @NoleIsBoat truly considers Nole as the BOAT and he started watching Tennis from 2010 at age 10-11 so he cannot imagine such a phase of late 90s-early 00s and how tough it was for everyone back then. He would Imagine Novak to dominate late 90s till 2010s, hell he imagines Murray to dominate that phase, thats how he views Tennis, such biased and wrong outlook towards the past.

Oh, please. Let's not act like a huge portion of Fed fans didn't start watching tennis in 2003-04

 

[Sunny014]

I'm not blaming him for anything. I'm saying Hewitt being the best player in the world is proof that tennis was not in a strong place at that point in time. I'm also laughing at your suggestion that Hewitt was better than Sampras and an example of evolution in tennis.

I sincerely hope you ARE trolling-which I think you are, otherwise you may well be the most ill-informed and ignorant judge of tennis I have ever encountered.

What is there to troll?

In 00-02 Hewitt was better than Sampras and thats why he won, logic also suggests what I said. Now whether Sampras being past his prime or nearing 30 etc etc all that won't change the fact that Hewitt was in the position to win there and so he won. You are upset at Hewitt winning, sorry for that, haha

Secondly Tennis was in a strong place for sure, it was a transitional phase and definitely Hewitt cannot be expected to be as savage in 2001 as Djokovic is in 2011, the peak level champs always arrive 10-15 years after a change is made because the kids who grow up on that change emerge as the best.

Common sense again which is not so common with you.

Hewitt-Fed and their whole gen grew up on SNV while Djokovic and his age group grew up in their teen years in the baseline era and turned pro on it, so if they emerged greatest beasts physically it is not surprising and it is not a black mark on Hewit, had Hewitt been born 10 years later then he would have been a better baseliner and a greater exponent of his art. It is an evolutionary issue purely, doesn't make Hewitt's accomplishments any less.

 

[Sunny014]

Oh, please. Let's not act like a huge portion of Fed fans didn't start watching tennis in 2003-04

Federer Fanbase has been watching tennis from the early 00s for sure and Nole fans from early 00s, so the bias is always there.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Worth noting that if Djokovic wasn't being out-clowned it could currently be Medvedev. Or a crap Nadal.

Do you not think Djokovic has played at an incredibly high level in recent years?

It can’t be easy to surpass such a giant of a player. Nadal on clay is similarly invincible against the field ,so was fed in many HC/grass slams since 2014.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Federer Fanbase has been watching tennis from the early 00s for sure and Nole fans from early 00s, so the bias is always there.

I believe @Spencer Gore watched many Connors and Borg matches live in person, so I defer to his knowledge of tennis history. He will be able to tell you better.

 

[Sunny014]

I believe @Spencer Gore watched many Connors and Borg matches live in person, so I defer to his knowledge of tennis history. He will be able to tell you better.

Yeah he watched many highlights of connors and borg matches in 2018, he has been watching tennis after 08 as proven by @zagor @mike danny @BeatlesFan and many posters here. Spencer BORE is masquerading as a historian who is 100+ years old but in reality we know he is phony.

 

[Spencer Gore]

I believe @Spencer Gore watched many Connors and Borg matches live in person, so I defer to his knowledge of tennis history. He will be able to tell you better.

I've been watching tennis since the 60s and I can assure you that Hewitt is the worst "best player in the world" in all that time. Anyone who claims he is an example of tennis evolution and better than Sampras is best ignored. Ignorance on that scale is mind-blowing.

 

[Sunny014]

I've been watching tennis since the 60s and I can assure you that Hewitt is the worst "best player in the world" in all that time. Anyone who claims he is an example of tennis evolution and better than Sampras is best ignored. Ignorance on that scale is mind-blowing.

Hewitt was better than Sampras in 00-02, never meant Hewitt the tennis player was a better player overall than Sampras. Sampras is a GOAT candidate and former GOAT while Hewitt is not even an ATG, he is in the league of Murray-Stan-Roddick and nothing more, however in 00-02 he was better than Sampras and so he won. Can't help it, you can say age brought down Sampras but then can't change history.