The most dominant tennis player in his era is Roger Federer.

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The most dominant tennis player in his respective era is Roger Federer.

From 2004 - 2009, prime/peak Federer amazes us by winning a staggering 14 out of 24 slams !

He made 20 slam final appearances:
reaches 10 consecutive finals​
reaches 4 finals in a season 3 times​
won 3 out of 4 slams in a season 3 times​
reaches 23 out of 24 slam semifinals​

50 single titles

He accumulated 240 weeks at the top of the ATP rankings including an astonishing 237 consecutive weeks.
5 out of 6 years he ended the YE #1.

Prime Federer's dominance and consistency is off the charts !

Nadal, Nole, Borg or Sampras are great in their respective era, but they are in a debate for a distant second.
 
Last edited:

Pete Prime

Semi-Pro
5 years is not an era. It's a contract. Once it expired, and the cream of that generation rose to the top the Baghdatises and Gonzaleses of the world stopped making the cut for finals, and Federer found himself packing his bags empty handed more often than not.

Federer is a beautiful, inspirational player, his backhand in particular is memorable. All credit to him. He is the undisputed second best of his era (currently). I can't see him falling lower than third. His fans should be proud.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Pete Sampras peak/prime years 1993-1998

In Pete's era, he won 10 slams out of 24 slam appearances. 15 total finals.
4 out of 6 years he won multiple slams in a season.

He accumulated 252 weeks at #1 and ended the year end number one 6 times.


Very impressive by pistol Pete !
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I would tend to think overall objective acheivements measured in 1. slam titles (most important) and 2. weeks at #1 would count for the most to fair observers.
I agree that slam count is the most important criteria, but level of dominance and consistency in his peak/prime years is also an important metric in evaluating a player's placement in ATG

Federer will not finish first in either.
Goat evaluation is use by the following criteria created by tennis experts:

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

This is not a goat thread so please don't turn this thread into goat discussion.
 

NoleIsBoat

Rookie
Federer slam wins 2004 - 2007 -> 11 / 16 -> 68%
Federer slam wins 2008 - 2015-> 5 / 32 -> 15%

Federer number 1 ranking 2004 - 2007 -> 204 weeks
Federer number 1 ranking 2008 - 2015 -> 65 weeks


Why such short peak? From 68% slams won to 15% :whistle:
 

mehdimike

Semi-Pro
Federer slam wins 2004 - 2007 -> 11 / 16 -> 68%
Federer slam wins 2008 - 2015-> 5 / 32 -> 15%

Federer number 1 ranking 2004 - 2007 -> 204 weeks
Federer number 1 ranking 2008 - 2015 -> 65 weeks


Why such short peak? From 68% slams won to 15% :whistle:
why did you cut the period at 2007?
2003-2009 seems more reasonable.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
A look at Djokovic 6 years in his peak/prime from 2011 - 2016. During his reigning champion in this era, he achieved:

Slam titles: 11
Slam finals: 19
won 3 out of 4 slams in a season 2 times
reaches 4 finals in 2015
48 single titles

He accumulated 223 weeks at the top of the ATP rankings including 122 consecutive weeks.
4 years he ended the YE #1.

Again, very impressive.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Only on hard and grass.

Fed wasn't dominant on clay: before Nadal there was crippled Kuerten.
Federer was the #2 clay courter during 2004-2009. Any player who play during that time frame would have to settle at #2 at best when he's competing against the clay goat(Nadal). Maybe Borg fans will have to say about that.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
why did you cut the period at 2007?
2003-2009 seems more reasonable.
I'm ok using 7 years.

I think 6 years is where athletes are at their best for a tennis player. Consistency, records/streaks, titles would all yield a bell shaped curve graph where the largest portion falls in a span of around 6 years
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
The most dominant tennis player in his respective era is Roger Federer.

From 2004 - 2009, prime/peak Federer amazes us by winning a staggering 14 out of 24 slams !

He made 20 slam final appearances:
reaches 10 consecutive finals​
reaches 4 finals in a season 3 times​
won 3 out of 4 slams in a season 3 times​
reaches 23 out of 24 slam semifinals​

50 single titles

He accumulated 240 weeks at the top of the ATP rankings including an astonishing 237 consecutive weeks.
5 out of 6 years he ended the YE #1.

Prime Federer's dominance and consistency is off the charts !

Nadal, Nole, Borg or Sampras are great in their respective era, but they are in a debate for a distant second.
He also has the most $$$$$

 

skaj

Hall of Fame
The most dominant tennis player in his respective era is Roger Federer.

From 2004 - 2009, prime/peak Federer amazes us by winning a staggering 14 out of 24 slams !

He made 20 slam final appearances:
reaches 10 consecutive finals​
reaches 4 finals in a season 3 times​
won 3 out of 4 slams in a season 3 times​
reaches 23 out of 24 slam semifinals​

50 single titles

He accumulated 240 weeks at the top of the ATP rankings including an astonishing 237 consecutive weeks.
5 out of 6 years he ended the YE #1.

Prime Federer's dominance and consistency is off the charts !

Nadal, Nole, Borg or Sampras are great in their respective era, but they are in a debate for a distant second.
And in that era of his, which he dominated, he was dominated in their head to head by another player.
(Who also managed to beat him on his best surface in a slam, and win something he never did, the gold medal in singles.)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
And in that era of his, which he dominated, he was dominated in their head to head by another player.
(Who also managed to beat him on his best surface in a slam, and win something he never did, the gold medal in singles.)
Losing streaks happen. All the Big 3 have been dominated by another player at some point in their careers.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
I wouldn't say Novak is 'distant' second. In his best 6 year run (2011-16), he achieved:

11 slams, 18 finals
4 YECs, 5 finals
26 masters, 33 finals
4 YE #1s, 2 YE#2s
He also had his NCYGS and his dominant 2011 and 2015 seasons, the latter of which has an argument for being the best season in the Open era.

For what it's worth, I do think Federer's 2004-2009 was better, even factoring in competition (although Djokovic was more consistent with none of his 2011-16 being as bad as Fed's 2008). Djokovic does, however, hold the most dominant 18 month period (Paris 2014 - RG 2016).
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
Wasn't Djokovic the best player in 2011-2016 and still had a losing streak to Nadal?

Nadal would have also been dominant to a lesser extent in 2010-2013 without that Djokovic losing streak.
But he wasn't.
They weren't dominating those(whole) periods.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Federer was the #2 clay courter during 2004-2009. Any player who play during that time frame would have to settle at #2 at best when he's competing against the clay goat(Nadal). Maybe Borg fans will have to say about that.
2004 :
Rome: R32 lost Costa 63 36 26
RG: R32 lost Kuerten 46 46 46

2005:
Monte Carlo QF lost Gasquet 76 26 67

2007:
Rome: R16 lost Volandri 26 46

2008:
Rome QF lost Stepanek 67 67

2009:
Monte Carlo R16 lost Wawrinka 46 57
Rome semis lost Djokovic 64 36 36
 

blablavla

Legend
2004 :
Rome: R32 lost Costa 63 36 26
RG: R32 lost Kuerten 46 46 46

2005:
Monte Carlo QF lost Gasquet 76 26 67

2007:
Rome: R16 lost Volandri 26 46

2008:
Rome QF lost Stepanek 67 67

2009:
Monte Carlo R16 lost Wawrinka 46 57
Rome semis lost Djokovic 64 36 36
dude, do you understand that you're proving that it wasn't weak era? as the top 100 was way more balanced than it is in the past 5 years for example?
when anyone could defeat the motivated #1
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Federer hasn't lost the slam record yet. Nadal has only tied Federer yet @TMF is already losing it. I wonder what will happen when the record is broken.

TMF ... machan, this is just a sport and none of us will receive a dime from any of the top players. You're taking this too personally and might need a psychiatrist if you let this continue.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
But for the entire period he was being dominated, which was my initial point.
No, the damage was done in 2008-early 2009. Before that, he wasn't dominated. He was 6-8 vs Nadal by the end of 2007, which is pretty much an even record. Also defended his turf vs Nadal in that period successfully while Nadal defended his.
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
No, the damage was done in 2008-early 2009. Before that, he wasn't dominated. He was 6-8 vs Nadal by the end of 2007, which is pretty much an even record. Also defended his turf vs Nadal in that period successfully while Nadal defended his.
No, 1) the entire period is 2004-2009, check the original post(which is already too little for calling it "an era") 2) even in the shorter period you are proposing, his main rival had positive head to head against him and winning streaks you were mentioning(which Federer he did not have against him) 3) he beat still developing Nadal on grass, in 5 sets, the following year he was beaten there too.
 
Top