Still blows my mind - Years Reaching All 4 Grand Slam finals - Federer - 3, Borg/Lendl/Sampras/Nadal/Djokovic - 1

[Sorry_to_tell_you_mate]

It's a pointless conversation. Lew shoehorned his Djoker finals streak into the discussion, which isn't equal anyway, but in comparing finals streaks, yes, I would give the nod to the player who won more of them in fewer tournaments.

Back to the OP... Personally, I think this is one of the better distinctions Fed has. Why? You can't really cry about a weak era. Fed did it again, he made all four finals in 2009, after Nadal was beating him everywhere and after Djoker had beaten him at the AO.

After Nadal got injured around May '09.

 

[mike danny]

Connors definitely gets screwed over the most in this sort of situation. Besides only playing at the AO twice, he was also banned from RG and didn’t play for five years of his prime.

Why was he banned from the FO?

 

[mike danny]

but there weren’t even 35 majors in 06-09

That's what makes Novak great.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Connors definitely gets screwed over the most in this sort of situation. Besides only playing at the AO twice, he was also banned from RG and didn’t play for five years of his prime.

Agree.

 

[mike danny]

After Nadal got injured around May '09.

That literally has nothing to do with reaching GS finals since Nadal was not going to meet him before the final anyway.

 

[stringertom]

Why was he banned from the FO?

He signed to play WTT. The French Federation banned all players under WTT contract, including 2x champion Borg in 1977.

 

[Antonio Puente]

That literally has nothing to do with reaching GS finals since Nadal was not going to meet him before the final anyway.

Yeah, that's true in any finals competition discussion. In mentioning Nadal, I was referring more to the competition in general. It's said Fed had free rein prior to 2008, but after losing to Nadal in three slams and Djoker at the AO, Fed still made all four slam finals in 2009. Tour wide, the competition was there. The point is you can't dismiss the first two when he did it again in 2009. It's one of the better things on his resume.

 

[CYGS]

It blows your mind when Cow is so inferior to others yet still did it?

 

[vex]

BTW you can't be an ATG if you have a two-handed backhand. FACT.

Lol k

 

[Enceladus]

BTW you can't be an ATG if you have a two-handed backhand. FACT.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Do you think it's harder to win a semifinal against a player who won 11 semifinals in his career or to win it against players who won 4 or 5 semifinals in his career (like Roddick or Hewitt)?

Depends on their form during the match/ tournament. It was very tough for Nadal to beat Verdasco (in the latter’s sole slam SF) at the 2009 AO - not so tough for him to defeat Murray in, say, the 2010 W semi.

 

[tennis_pro]

Laver- 1, winning all 4 in 69

3 on grass tho

Also 1962.

This is like Djokovic playing the entire field except top 10 players. Man I wonder what he would've done.

 

[SonnyT]

Oh, how easy it was!

 

[CHillTennis]

3 on grass tho

This is like Djokovic playing the entire field except top 10 players. Man I wonder what he would've done.

Exactly. That's why I don't believe it's really possible to include Rod Laver (or any other players from the pre-Open era) in the GOAT debate.

There's just no way of knowing how he would have done against players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Sampras.

The game has changed too much in the last 50 years.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Federer reached 18/19 finals from 2005 W to 2010 AO, losing before the final to Novak Djokovic.

He arguably lost it more to mono than to Djokovic, tbh.

 

[JaoSousa]

Mac's always said (and wrote about it in his two books) that he wasn't going down to Australia there over Christmas no matter what. Consider that Brian Teacher and Johan Kriek won it three times 1980-83, then Wilander won it on grass the next two years. These were absolute peak years for Mac, he could have conceivably won every AO between 1980-84!

Another reason why just counting slams is a terrible way to measure the Greatest Ever.

 

[Third Serve]

Another reason why just counting slams is a terrible way to measure the Greatest Ever.

True. It’s easier for comparing modern players, but circumstances such as these make it much more difficult to use Slams as a reliable measuring rod.

 

[Federev]

Exactly. That's why I don't believe it's really possible to include Rod Laver (or any other players from the pre-Open era) in the GOAT debate.

There's just no way of knowing how he would have done against players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Sampras.

The game has changed too much in the last 50 years.

But doesn't that just make the GOAT debate more transparently an exercise in futility for all these players? Who's to say that Laver wouldn't be better than Fed or Novak?

 

[CHillTennis]

But doesn't that just make the GOAT debate more transparently an exercise in futility for all these players? Who's to say that Laver wouldn't be better than Fed or Novak?

It's impossible to say.

Although, he would have been at a size disadvantage against Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal.