That's not the question. We're discussing our reality, not hypothetical histories.Federer would have worked Pete out for world #1 too, don't worry boo
His record shows that he supports those fan base, and most of the time he goes after Fed fans.
Who in this era would be a Becker, Edberg, etc.? Roddick maybe. Davydenko? Tsonga? Berdych? Tipsaravic? Soderling? Simon?
A weak era with the 3 best players ever....... Roddick would have won 4-6 if not for The big 3. Murray ring a bell? He would have a ton of slams if not for the big 3. Stanimal? Even Ferrer would have won a few. Berdych and Tsonga would have both won multiple slams if you erase the big 3.
Not enough skill to beat Rafa. It's like a war. If you lose the war, you were just worse than your opponent, even if you threw the grenades with more style.
You seem to not understand the meaning of the word "duck". If you are not playing well and simply lose, you are not "ducking". If you are injured and can't play, you are not "ducking". On the other hand, if you could play an event and decide not to play it because you have to attend a 2nd-rate Royal wedding and are convinced your chances of winning against your opponent are so slim that you decide to not try, THEN you are ducking.
Or, as @Dedans Penthouse would say, "skipping"
As I said before, you seem to not comprehend the actual meaning of "ducking".
What the duck?
Indoor isn't a surface. Hard courts are 10-9 to Federer with most of those being on slow-medium surfaces.
Fed would not have been the favorite at the US Open in 2011. He wasn't even the Favorite in Melbourne this year even though Nadal hadn't won a slam in nearly 3 years. They've met 4x in Hardcourt slams and Rafa is up 3-1.
Would Pete have won in the 70s with wood racquets? Who cares. The players play with the equipment available and play on the surfaces that are there.
What you say here is true.
That's what 90's Clay does to any player he supports.
"You're chatting nonsense. As per usual from what I've seen." "You going for the record of stupid comments before lunch or something? "You're chatting nonsense. As per usual from what I've seen.
Agassi was a 3 time major winner for most of Sampras's prime, he spent as much time outside the top 20 as he did as a top 4 player. Obviously if there's only one dominant player on the scene that opens up more opportunities for slam wins for other players. And I would think a dominating player on one surface makes it harder for others to sneak in and win slams. The 90's didn't have a Borg or Nadal, not even a Lendl or Wilander. No ATG's excelled on clay during that decade. Which makes a difference for the field.
For one starting the count from 1990 when Sampras won his first slam is a bit silly. He didn't even make another slam final for another 2 years. You're counting players that were barely in his era and could only by the loosest definition count as his competition. Essentially you're choosing arbitrary ranges that benefit Sampras. Both Edberg and Becker were clearly past their best by 1993 when Sampras hit his prime. The overlap was very small. Becker won just one major after 1991. Jim Courier was done as a top contender after 1993, the first year of Sampras' prime. The early 90's were definitely strong but the bulk of Sampras' prime and peak were devoid of his best rival and the guys you're using to prop up that era were mostly done before he even peaked. Not to mention considering Sampras' record on clay claiming those dirtballers were his competition is absolutely hilarious.
Federer doesn't get credit for fighting off Hewitt but Sampras does? Ok got it. Hewitt was playing his most consistent and best tennis in the majors during 04-05. You going for the record of stupid comments before lunch or something? If Federer had lost early at the 2004 USO, or 2006 AO and 2006 Wimbledon etc...there would be more slam winners right? Or perhaps if there was no Nadal and Federer was going out in the first round of the FO frequently we'd see a deeper and more competitive clay field
Looks like Sampras fans need to a sign a waiver when they join the club, leaving logic and sense at the door.
Of course we cannot be gifting free slam titles to Federer and Djokovic in Nadal's absence, but I while I consider them as being up there with some of the very best, I did not say that they're second best only to Nadal. Nor I do not want to get into whether they are better or worse than XYZ. The assumption is that without Nadal, both Djokovic and Federer may very well have more than one RG each, and few people would seriously claim them to be mediocre on the surface. How many more, if any, was not the focus, but rather the fact that people's perception of how good a player is / was on a particular surface or at a tournament can get twisted greatly by their ratio of finals appearances v finals converted.
That's exactly the irony that I was pointing out. The fact that a Federer fan should dismiss Nadal's clay resume over Sampras' grass resume because clay has no competition, when grass for the last decade has been equally as uncompetitive, if not even more uncompetitive due to the lack of grass tournaments and by extension grass specialists.
He doesn't say 'mediocre' outright but it's pretty much what is being implied here. Or at least not as good as the grass competition in sampras' day, which as you say was not stellar either.
Rusty, you forgot we are talking about Federer, the GOAT... he does whatever he wants on the court with all players, except peak Djokodal, in which case he generally would let Soderling, Wawrinka or some Querrey dude to do the job before annihilating them.
Why does having 5 titles at 2 different majors mean more than actually having a Career Grand Slam? If you think having too many majors at one slam is detrimental, how detrimental is it to have ZERO slams at an event?
Well, "two different sets of conditions" for Borg means grass and clay, which indeed is impressive. HC and grass? PFFFFF.
