fed_is_GOD
Professional
I have read many comments and honestly they made me laugh a bit...
Before arguing I have few questions I would love to ask these tennis experts...
First question
what kind of competition are you talking about when you mentioned Borg, Mckenroe and Connors ?
Last years are defined by:
1) Different surfaces (in the 70's, 80's they were playing 3 tournaments on grass and one on clay)... That's why McEnroe won Wimbledon and US Open titles... he was a grass court player...
2) Slower grass surface today than before (so that the serve and volley player wouldn't dominate thaat much)... That's why McEnroe won wimbledon and Us Open titles.... serve and volley, and that's why Borg started losing against McEnroe... McEnroe for Borg was finally the first real challenge (connors being a baseliner like him)
3) Better materials (everyone can beat anyone because of the power they can generate with new materials)
4) Bettter middle ranking competition for sure (how many millions of professional players in the 70's compare to today). Today getting to a final is much more difficult than before. You could be eliminated by the number 50 in the world if he plays at his best...
5) Better fitness due to bettter training methods and doping
6) So many new countries in the game that before where nowhere (not having a penny to spend on tennis)
I answer the question myself...
McEnroe is a too incomplete player to play in today's game. The todays' game depth would be too much for him.
Federer records come from a allround skills and consistency that a guy like McEnroe could never had. It was ok back than because he really had to compete with two or three champions and on a super quick surface... otherwise... 0 slams...
Borg had a massive advantage compare to the other players. He was fit like nadal today but in the 70's (can you immagine, bringing the nowadys best doping solutions to the 70's? we would create monsters). Players back than were much slower and less fit than today. On top of it he had no competition beside Connors at the beginning and McEnroe for two years in the end
Connnors was consistent... but as soon as real competition (beside the one coming from Borg) showed up he was done...
A real competition in my humble opinion there was in the 80's with Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Beker, still McEnroe, Courier... But let's remember that they were playing on similar surfacces all the time... Who told us that these players are not like the Rodddick, Nalbandian, Blake ones? If Federer and Nadal weren't there today's guys would have won a lot more slams don't you think? Those same players (McEnroe, Wilander..) admit that now the depth of the game is not comparable to before... Now there are such complete players that you cannot possibly immagine not be one and succede...
In the Sampras - Agassi era there has been a black hole in terms of competion. The only champion was Sampras. The rest (even Agassi) so and so.... Inconsistent players, players who used to compete only on one or two surfaces because of inhability of performing on the remaing ones. Sampras never got past the 5000 points in ranking and he used to dominate the ranking... Muster and moya got to number one wining two tournaments... But still the level of middle ranking players was so much higher than the previous decades. So... The Lendl's 19 finals are worth in my opinion less than the Samprass' 18 ... much less..
In the federer era, besides a super middle ranking level that keep improving, there were players like
Nalbandian (junior super talent, great player...), he hit the wall against Federer (in Federer best years)
Roddick. I think no one can say anything bad about a guy who played 7 finals and 4 semis and lost only against federer in those tournaments... Roddick could have had 6/7/8 slams under his name at this point Nadal or noot Nadal.... Hi hit the wall against Federer (in his best years)
Coria (the magician.. they called him that for a reason)
Hewitt... Today he has been destroyed mentally after so many years not winning. But in his early years he was a nightmare (the quarter finals against Roddick an example)
Blake, power to sell... Similar to courier. Great athlete and super powerful...
And on Top of all... the greatest ever on clay... Nadal... (winning statistics compare to the Borg ones are there for anybody to see)...
More recently Murray and Djokovic... true champions
In all of this... Federer is all over the place. He is not anymore in his best years (nadal, murray, djokovic are for istance) but he is still there when it counts...If he doesn't win a slam (playing anyway the final), he wins the other one because he is in the final as well...
Second question
How can you compare Laver and Federer?
Why don't we consider Sears as well playing in 1880? He won 7 consecutive UsOpen... Maybe at the time of Cesars in Rome there was similar game.. We could get those statistics too..
You can compare only the last years of laver were he won the second year slam... The first was with amateurs (his worst nemesis were Gonzalez and Emerson... by the way Gonzalez had beaten him several times... I think Laver has a losing record against him)
Did you know that Edberrg has a junior year slam? In 1983? So he has got a slam too... And didd you know that Monfils had almost won a junior slam as well? So Monfils is a three quater slam guy.. so is a 3/8 of laver player? Come on guys...
Competition when Laver played the first slam:
No Gonzalez and no Emerson because they had turned pro... those ones were the ones that usually had beaten him... the rest were spolied kids (it was a game for rich people back then)
when Laver turned pro, before the game was open to pro's Gonzalez won most of the matches against him.. When Gonzalez retired, the game was open to pro's..
Competition on the second slam:
The Australian open had 90 competetitors, the rest of the slams barely reached 100. To fill the gaps they probabily sold wild cards to amateurs, trainers, school teachers, bus boys. Average age in the tour 40 years old... come on guys... How can Laver even be considered in statistics? The 60's? Forget it, that was no tennis... it all begins in the 70's...
Federer numbers count off course, but more than the wins and the Slams... the consistency records... in the last 24 majors 20 finals, 3 semis... what the hell is that!! Who can ever match that!!! H2H don't because we ar talking about different ages... For example... Let's talk about swimming... Let's assume that Phelps doesn't win for a year and has got a losing record against many other swimmers and than he wins in the Olympics another 8 gold medals with world records and he beats them all... Who is greatest of all? Phelps I guess...it is just that Phelps doesn't need to win every time because he had won for many years every time... It is difficult forr him to find the same motivations...
Nadal got the best of him on clay for sure.. On other surfaces recently (last year wimbledon due probably to Federer mononucleosis). And all of this in NAdal's best year... Federer in his worst. Don't you see? In his worst year he was there in Final after Final... And than he got one at the third time asking... the USOpen... That's what's great about him. No matter how he feels or he is phisically or mentally... He is going to be there. And most of the time if he is in the mood (US Open final for example), he is still going to destroy you no matter who you are... Nadal, Murray or whoever...
Before arguing I have few questions I would love to ask these tennis experts...
First question
what kind of competition are you talking about when you mentioned Borg, Mckenroe and Connors ?
Last years are defined by:
1) Different surfaces (in the 70's, 80's they were playing 3 tournaments on grass and one on clay)... That's why McEnroe won Wimbledon and US Open titles... he was a grass court player...
2) Slower grass surface today than before (so that the serve and volley player wouldn't dominate thaat much)... That's why McEnroe won wimbledon and Us Open titles.... serve and volley, and that's why Borg started losing against McEnroe... McEnroe for Borg was finally the first real challenge (connors being a baseliner like him)
3) Better materials (everyone can beat anyone because of the power they can generate with new materials)
4) Bettter middle ranking competition for sure (how many millions of professional players in the 70's compare to today). Today getting to a final is much more difficult than before. You could be eliminated by the number 50 in the world if he plays at his best...
5) Better fitness due to bettter training methods and doping
6) So many new countries in the game that before where nowhere (not having a penny to spend on tennis)
I answer the question myself...
McEnroe is a too incomplete player to play in today's game. The todays' game depth would be too much for him.
Federer records come from a allround skills and consistency that a guy like McEnroe could never had. It was ok back than because he really had to compete with two or three champions and on a super quick surface... otherwise... 0 slams...
Borg had a massive advantage compare to the other players. He was fit like nadal today but in the 70's (can you immagine, bringing the nowadys best doping solutions to the 70's? we would create monsters). Players back than were much slower and less fit than today. On top of it he had no competition beside Connors at the beginning and McEnroe for two years in the end
Connnors was consistent... but as soon as real competition (beside the one coming from Borg) showed up he was done...
A real competition in my humble opinion there was in the 80's with Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Beker, still McEnroe, Courier... But let's remember that they were playing on similar surfacces all the time... Who told us that these players are not like the Rodddick, Nalbandian, Blake ones? If Federer and Nadal weren't there today's guys would have won a lot more slams don't you think? Those same players (McEnroe, Wilander..) admit that now the depth of the game is not comparable to before... Now there are such complete players that you cannot possibly immagine not be one and succede...
In the Sampras - Agassi era there has been a black hole in terms of competion. The only champion was Sampras. The rest (even Agassi) so and so.... Inconsistent players, players who used to compete only on one or two surfaces because of inhability of performing on the remaing ones. Sampras never got past the 5000 points in ranking and he used to dominate the ranking... Muster and moya got to number one wining two tournaments... But still the level of middle ranking players was so much higher than the previous decades. So... The Lendl's 19 finals are worth in my opinion less than the Samprass' 18 ... much less..
In the federer era, besides a super middle ranking level that keep improving, there were players like
Nalbandian (junior super talent, great player...), he hit the wall against Federer (in Federer best years)
Roddick. I think no one can say anything bad about a guy who played 7 finals and 4 semis and lost only against federer in those tournaments... Roddick could have had 6/7/8 slams under his name at this point Nadal or noot Nadal.... Hi hit the wall against Federer (in his best years)
Coria (the magician.. they called him that for a reason)
Hewitt... Today he has been destroyed mentally after so many years not winning. But in his early years he was a nightmare (the quarter finals against Roddick an example)
Blake, power to sell... Similar to courier. Great athlete and super powerful...
And on Top of all... the greatest ever on clay... Nadal... (winning statistics compare to the Borg ones are there for anybody to see)...
More recently Murray and Djokovic... true champions
In all of this... Federer is all over the place. He is not anymore in his best years (nadal, murray, djokovic are for istance) but he is still there when it counts...If he doesn't win a slam (playing anyway the final), he wins the other one because he is in the final as well...
Second question
How can you compare Laver and Federer?
Why don't we consider Sears as well playing in 1880? He won 7 consecutive UsOpen... Maybe at the time of Cesars in Rome there was similar game.. We could get those statistics too..
You can compare only the last years of laver were he won the second year slam... The first was with amateurs (his worst nemesis were Gonzalez and Emerson... by the way Gonzalez had beaten him several times... I think Laver has a losing record against him)
Did you know that Edberrg has a junior year slam? In 1983? So he has got a slam too... And didd you know that Monfils had almost won a junior slam as well? So Monfils is a three quater slam guy.. so is a 3/8 of laver player? Come on guys...
Competition when Laver played the first slam:
No Gonzalez and no Emerson because they had turned pro... those ones were the ones that usually had beaten him... the rest were spolied kids (it was a game for rich people back then)
when Laver turned pro, before the game was open to pro's Gonzalez won most of the matches against him.. When Gonzalez retired, the game was open to pro's..
Competition on the second slam:
The Australian open had 90 competetitors, the rest of the slams barely reached 100. To fill the gaps they probabily sold wild cards to amateurs, trainers, school teachers, bus boys. Average age in the tour 40 years old... come on guys... How can Laver even be considered in statistics? The 60's? Forget it, that was no tennis... it all begins in the 70's...
Federer numbers count off course, but more than the wins and the Slams... the consistency records... in the last 24 majors 20 finals, 3 semis... what the hell is that!! Who can ever match that!!! H2H don't because we ar talking about different ages... For example... Let's talk about swimming... Let's assume that Phelps doesn't win for a year and has got a losing record against many other swimmers and than he wins in the Olympics another 8 gold medals with world records and he beats them all... Who is greatest of all? Phelps I guess...it is just that Phelps doesn't need to win every time because he had won for many years every time... It is difficult forr him to find the same motivations...
Nadal got the best of him on clay for sure.. On other surfaces recently (last year wimbledon due probably to Federer mononucleosis). And all of this in NAdal's best year... Federer in his worst. Don't you see? In his worst year he was there in Final after Final... And than he got one at the third time asking... the USOpen... That's what's great about him. No matter how he feels or he is phisically or mentally... He is going to be there. And most of the time if he is in the mood (US Open final for example), he is still going to destroy you no matter who you are... Nadal, Murray or whoever...
