Why has Federer under-performed as Masters 1000 events?

Rhino

Legend
7 of his 17 majors are on grass. Imagine the Masters 1000 count if there were 3 grass Masters every year instead of three clay?
 

Annie

Banned
Lol GOAT is actually record holder of Most WTF in history. Which is second best tournament after slam.

Although we have seen Masters leader exposed on blue clay. :lol:
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
But weren't the Masters 1000's still the top 9 events outside the slams and the two season finals, in the 1990's, appreciating that some other events were close, but still not as much?
They were, but it wasn't as clear as it has been since 2000. In the 21st century, there has been a orderly status to the main tennis tour with all the tournaments, which wasn't there before. The Super 9 had their status in the 1990s, but they weren't compulsory and other events offered similar ranking points.
 

timnz

Legend
Top events after Slams and Season end finals

They were, but it wasn't as clear as it has been since 2000. In the 21st century, there has been a orderly status to the main tennis tour with all the tournaments, which wasn't there before. The Super 9 had their status in the 1990s, but they weren't compulsory and other events offered similar ranking points.
Yes, these other tournaments were very much closer in the 1990's. It wasn't the Masters 1000 and 500 point events that we have today. However, if they were the top point events after the slams and season end finals.....then they are still significant events. In official ATP comparisons - Agassi's 1990's Masters 1000's wins are included alongside Federer's and Nadal's - so officially they are regarded equivalently.

My feeling that if the 1990's Masters 1000's weren't compulsory events then the discussion can be extended further. I see no difference between Beckers Paris indoor victory in 1989 to his Victory there in 1992 (when it was part of the Super 9). Hence, that means pre-1990 Top 9 events could be factored in as well.

Yes, a very important point is made regarding say Sampras 1990 Philadelphia victory being almost a Super 9. It's prize money was larger than some Super 9's - however, points wise I believe it was slightly less (but not half like the 500 events are today).
 

Smasher08

Legend
They were, but it wasn't as clear as it has been since 2000. In the 21st century, there has been a orderly status to the main tennis tour with all the tournaments, which wasn't there before. The Super 9 had their status in the 1990s, but they weren't compulsory and other events offered similar ranking points.
Correct. People forget that until 2000 it was all about appearance fees -- cash was king. That's why top players like Sampras and Agassi would go to places like San Jose, where they could get cupcake draws, decent points, and a huge cheque.

In that light, certainly fanboy legions trying to claim that holding the most MS1000s is somehow "historic" is rather humourous. If post-2000 rules had applied, Connors or Lendl might have taken 40-something.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
Lol...21 Masters titles is underperforming?? :shock:

Fed and Rafa are the only 2 players in history to win 20+ Masters shields (with Djokovic not far behind).

They are also the only 2 active players in the Open Era to win double digit Slam titles.

They haven't exactly underperformed in anything (except for Rafa's inability to secure a WTF title)!

:)
And Federer's inability to win an Olympic Singles Gold Medal - even though he's had 4 tries on his 2 best surfaces ;)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
And Federer's inability to win an Olympic Singles Gold Medal - even though he's had 4 tries on his 2 best surfaces ;)
Olympic GOLD medals are the same and Federer IS an Olympic Gold Medalist.
 

vernonbc

Legend
OMG The Fed Fanatics are just hilarious with their excuses in this thread. I mean, they're usually really funny (and delusional) at the best of times but they've really outdone themselves here. :lol:

Read post #6- it explains pretty well why Fed hasn't won even more Masters titles. And the fact is that Roger would've won more over the years if there had ever been Masters tournaments on grass so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
Yes, Roger would likely have won more Masters if there were some on grass but other players, particularly Nadal, would have won more too. By the time Rafa was 20 he was pushing Fed on grass and had just turned 22 when he beat him in 2008. If there were more Masters on grass and fewer on hard courts, Rafa would probably have over 30 by now.

In that light, certainly fanboy legions trying to claim that holding the most MS1000s is somehow "historic" is rather humourous. If post-2000 rules had applied, Connors or Lendl might have taken 40-something.
Yeah, just as humorous as certain fanboy legions trying to claim that 17 slams is the holy grail while completely ignoring that the top stars didn't enter all the slams back in their day. :roll:
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
There are over twice as many masters 1000 tournies than Grand Slam tournaments.

It feels like if Federer was able to win 17 majors that he should have far more than 21 masters (although the numbers look better if you add his 6 WTF's... and I think we can agree that at a MINIMUM winning the WTF is at least as prestigious as a masters... although probably like a masters+)

Anyway... I didn't follow tennis as closely before 2006 so... why wasn't he winning more masters 1000 tournies?

I realize that one of the reasons is the inordinate numbers of masters on clay and the fact that there are no masters on grass... that hurts....

But overall is this a case where there is more randomness to 3 set tournaments? or are there other reasons?
The main reason is simple--to a player of Federer's caliber, an M1000 is "just another tournament", just like an ATP250 or ATP500 (and I'm pretty sure Basel and Halle (coming just before Wimbledon) are more important to him than most, if not all, M1000's). They are basically training tournaments before the big ones. For example, Sampras won 11 of them, but there's no question in my mind he would trade them all in the blink of an eye if a could get a single slam instead.

Saying that he has 'under-performed' is quite funny, though.

Smasher08 said:
In that light, certainly fanboy legions trying to claim that holding the most MS1000s is somehow "historic" is rather humourous. If post-2000 rules had applied, Connors or Lendl might have taken 40-something.
You're probably right about Connors and especially Lendl, and it's true that M1000's are pretty far down the list of important tennis achievements (which is quite logical, as they lack historical significance as a category, although some of them have it on their own). Plus, they *can't* really be important, as there are too many of them. Having 14 major tournaments each year would simply devaluate the concept of 'majors'.

vernonbc said:
Yeah, just as humorous as certain fanboy legions trying to claim that 17 slams is the holy grail while completely ignoring that the top stars didn't enter all the slams back in their day.
This is stupid, agreed. It's much more relevant to consider 'majors' as a whole instead of just slams, otherwise the old pros get swindled big time. And even these aren't equivalent, so all this talk of GOAT is just so much bs at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
Top 9 events

Correct. People forget that until 2000 it was all about appearance fees -- cash was king. That's why top players like Sampras and Agassi would go to places like San Jose, where they could get cupcake draws, decent points, and a huge cheque.

In that light, certainly fanboy legions trying to claim that holding the most MS1000s is somehow "historic" is rather humourous. If post-2000 rules had applied, Connors or Lendl might have taken 40-something.
I find it interesting though that when you view the top 9 events each year outside of Slams and Season end finals, from 1970 - you end up with similar order of magnitude of older players vs more recent players - as follows:

26 - Nadal
22- Lendl
19 - McEnroe
17 - Connors
17 - Agassi

etc etc

That suggests to me that it isn't too wrong looking at top 9 (outside of Slams and Season end finals) events every year as an historical comparison. It seems it is only Pete Sampras who runs foul of this. But when you think about it - Sampras made it clear in his career that he only cared above Slams, Season end finals and the year end number 1. So he wasn't chasing these other things.
 

timnz

Legend
Federer's WFT + Masters 1000 total

WTF's should be talked about in this discussion. Since, according to the ATP they are worth either 1500 points (for an unbeaten winner) or 1300 points (for an event winner that had 1 round robin loss) - and 5 out of 6 of Federer's event wins were in unbeaten fashion - then Federer has roughly 30 equivalent Master 1000 total (in points).
 

Smasher08

Legend
I find it interesting though that when you view the top 9 events each year outside of Slams and Season end finals, from 1970 - you end up with similar order of magnitude of older players vs more recent players - as follows:

26 - Nadal
22- Lendl
19 - McEnroe
17 - Connors
17 - Agassi

etc etc

That suggests to me that it isn't too wrong looking at top 9 (outside of Slams and Season end finals) events every year as an historical comparison. It seems it is only Pete Sampras who runs foul of this. But when you think about it - Sampras made it clear in his career that he only cared above Slams, Season end finals and the year end number 1. So he wasn't chasing these other things.
I'm pressed for time tonight so I won't be able to more fully develop this until tomorrow or the day after.

You're doing the straightforward comparison. That, imo, is misguided and mistaken. What you should really be looking at is the number of Super 9 / MS1000s each of these players skipped.

It doesn't look possible to do this easily for Connors, but Mac's wiki career stats page paints a better picture:

Mac skipped Indian Wells for 10 consecutive years, and Key Biscayne/Miami for 9. Hamburg and Rome he played a grand total of once each in his entire career. Probably would have won at least one in '84. He skipped Bercy 12x when it was on indoor carpet, and the only two he really played consistently were Canada and Cincy.

If non-appearances like that hold up across the other players you've cited, that's a very important contextualization.
 

Smasher08

Legend
all this talk of GOAT is just so much bs at the end of the day.
Re slams, I've said it before and it still bears saying again: you can't define a player by any single stat. You have to examine players' accomplishments holistically, evaluating the positive and the negative, even including the fact that the old pro slams often began with the quarter finals.

What you can't do is use double standards or make any individual positive or negative stat determinative.

This necessarily makes it trickier for those with low ambiguity tolerance because there's no perfect candidate out there, so it's an inherently nuanced affair filled with shades of gray.
 

timnz

Legend
I'm pressed for time tonight so I won't be able to more fully develop this until tomorrow or the day after.

You're doing the straightforward comparison. That, imo, is misguided and mistaken. What you should really be looking at is the number of Super 9 / MS1000s each of these players skipped.

It doesn't look possible to do this easily for Connors, but Mac's wiki career stats page paints a better picture:

Mac skipped Indian Wells for 10 consecutive years, and Key Biscayne/Miami for 9. Hamburg and Rome he played a grand total of once each in his entire career. Probably would have won at least one in '84. He skipped Bercy 12x when it was on indoor carpet, and the only two he really played consistently were Canada and Cincy.

If non-appearances like that hold up across the other players you've cited, that's a very important contextualization.
I understand what you are saying, however I am not sure what alternative you are offering if one wants to do some kind of comparison across the Open era. They top 9 events outside of the Slams and Season end finals weren't compulsory as per post 2000 - but the players knew that these were the top point events nonetheless. Because a player like McEnroe didn't elect to go to it - doesn't invalidate the achievement of the players that did. Possibly we need to look at events of greater than today's equivalent of 750 points - but I don't have the information to make that calculation. What we do have is the top 9 events outside the slams and season end finals since 1970. I do think you have a valid point that players played other events on occassion....but again they knew what points were on offer for these top 9...it is there responsibility if they decided not to compete in them. Now if I am wrong about these being the top 9 point events, please let me know and I am happy to correct my thinking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

McEnroe won 19 on this list, so he obviously did compete in his fair share. He is one of the leaders (as high as 4th on the all time list)


Note: Miami only became an event in 1985 (and only regarded as a top event from 1986) and Mac retired in 1992 so not sure were you are getting your 9 years from.
 
Last edited:

spinovic

Hall of Fame
I understand what you are saying, however I am not sure what alternative you are offering if one wants to do some kind of comparison across the Open era. They top 9 events outside of the Slams and Season end finals weren't compulsory as per post 2000 - but the players knew that these were the top point events nonetheless. Because a player like McEnroe didn't elect to go to it - doesn't invalidate the achievement of the players that did. Possibly we need to look at events of greater than today's equivalent of 750 points - but I don't have the information to make that calculation. What we do have is the top 9 events outside the slams and season end finals since 1970. I do think you have a valid point that players played other events on occassion....but again they knew what points were on offer for these top 9...it is there responsibility if they decided not to compete in them. Now if I am wrong about these being the top 9 point events, please let me know and I am happy to correct my thinking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

McEnroe won 19 on this list, so he obviously did compete in his fair share. He is one of the leaders (as high as 4th on the all time list)


Note: Miami only became an event in 1985 (and only regarded as a top event from 1986) and Mac retired in 1992 so not sure were you are getting your 9 years from.
Invalidate may be too strong, but it puts it in a different context.

How impressive would it be for David Ferrer to win Miami if Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all skipped it? The field makes a difference.

That's why a tournament like Dubai which has had pretty strong fields for a 500 event is viewed as a more impressive win than say, Acapulco or Rotterdam, in recent years.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Because the slams Rogi won were played in the WEAK era; and the masters he didn't win were by definition in the STRONG era. Duh.
 
There are over twice as many masters 1000 tournies than Grand Slam tournaments.

It feels like if Federer was able to win 17 majors that he should have far more than 21 masters (although the numbers look better if you add his 6 WTF's... and I think we can agree that at a MINIMUM winning the WTF is at least as prestigious as a masters... although probably like a masters+)

Anyway... I didn't follow tennis as closely before 2006 so... why wasn't he winning more masters 1000 tournies?

I realize that one of the reasons is the inordinate numbers of masters on clay and the fact that there are no masters on grass... that hurts....

But overall is this a case where there is more randomness to 3 set tournaments? or are there other reasons?
I dropped Fed from my 3.5 team due to his inconsistencies. I told him, if you had won say 25 Masters to balance your 15 Majors,I would have penciled you in as my #2 singles but you FAILED ME!
 

vernonbc

Legend
The main reason is simple--to a player of Federer's caliber, an M1000 is "just another tournament", just like an ATP250 or ATP500 (and I'm pretty sure Basel and Halle (coming just before Wimbledon) are more important to him than most, if not all, M1000's).

it's true that M1000's are pretty far down the list of important tennis achievements. Plus, they *can't* really be important, as there are too many of them. Having 14 major tournaments each year would simply devaluate the concept of 'majors'.
An M1000 is just another tournament to Fed??? Hahahahahaha. He's one very weird dude if he thinks that and I can almost guarantee you that he doesn't. The 1000's are considered extremely important by virtually every tennis player and they've often said that. Many have even said that they're harder to win than a slam because every single match is tough playing against basically the top 50 players from the getgo with no gimmes in the first two or three rounds like they get in the slams (or the 250's or 500's). Only the Fed lunatics...sorry, fanatics...would say that 1000's aren't important and that's because it's just one of many records Fed doesn't hold.

IW and Miami is slightly different because they both have such big draws it's basically the top 100's who play rather than the top 50's and the highest seeded players can get some real duffers in the early rounds like Djokovic with his 87, 91 and 65 and Fed with #123 for his first match.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
I don't think anyone denies that they are important, but in the grand scheme of things if we're talking about legacy, they are relatively insignificant compared to slams. Nobody tries to peak for a Masters shield.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
An M1000 is just another tournament to Fed??? Hahahahahaha. He's one very weird dude if he thinks that and I can almost guarantee you that he doesn't. The 1000's are considered extremely important by virtually every tennis player and they've often said that. Many have even said that they're harder to win than a slam because every single match is tough playing against basically the top 50 players from the getgo with no gimmes in the first two or three rounds like they get in the slams (or the 250's or 500's). Only the Fed lunatics...sorry, fanatics...would say that 1000's aren't important and that's because it's just one of many records Fed doesn't hold.
Or maybe you're the one hyping them up because this is one of the few non-clay-only records that your guy holds. This kind of thinking goes both ways.

I don't agree with that, but if you're okay with having 14 major tournaments (some of which are "even more major" than the others, I guess ;)) in a tennis year, fine with me. I draw the line at five, but hey, that's just me.

I can't remember who ever made a point of Agassi winning many more Super 9's than Sampras as if that were relevant, though (which would prompt me to think that nobody cared in the grand scheme of things). You're welcome to try and prove me wrong, of course
 

wangs78

Hall of Fame
The main reason is that HC is the most competitive surface and you had Nadal sweeping the clay masters in most years and then the HC masters get split between many HC players, including Novak, Murray, Fed, Delpo, Berdych, Tsonga, etc etc. If you think about it, the biggest GS winners in the last two decades (Fed, Rafa and Pete) all achieved their GS tallies with dominance on at least once surface and it was clay or grass. These two surfaces are on the far and opposite ends of the playability spectrum so there is a higher chance that you can be really really good at it and not face too many others who can beat you. HC is the great equalizer so it is not surprising that you've seen the most diversity of winners at the USO and AO over the last 10 years versus clay and grass.
 

wangs78

Hall of Fame
Also - don't forget - Fed has 5 Masters Cup finals (now known as the ATP Tour Championship or whatever). Each one of those should count for at least 1.5 if not 2 Masters titles. So inclusive of that you really can't say that Fed has underperformed at the Masters.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Also - don't forget - Fed has 5 Masters Cup finals (now known as the ATP Tour Championship or whatever). Each one of those should count for at least 1.5 if not 2 Masters titles. So inclusive of that you really can't say that Fed has underperformed at the Masters.
Actually, he's got six. ;)

I don't agree that they should be counted as "über-M1000's", though. They're in a category of their kind and are already counted as majors, this is more than enough. No need to also add them to a player's M1000's tally, thus counting them twice, in a way.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Actually, he's got six. ;)

I don't agree that they should be counted as "über-M1000's", though. They're in a category of their kind and are already counted as majors, this is more than enough. No need to also add them to a player's M1000's tally, thus counting them twice, in a way.
Are you saying that the WTF is closer to a slam than a masters is? If so that's great as it means Novak has 9 majors! :)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Are you saying that the WTF is closer to a slam than a masters is? If so that's great as it means Novak has 9 majors! :)
That's probably a matter of opinion in terms of points they're exactly half way. I'd prefer to round them up.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Rounding up sounds good to me. :wink:
I think this majors sense when talking about the number of majors. For example certain posters like to flaunt Ken Rosewall's 23/25 majors which includes amateur slams where the best players were absent. In cases like that I prefer to include Federer's YEC titles. But for comparing players in similar era's I wouldn't count them on a 1:1 basis.

For Becker and Djokovic for example;

I'd look at their slam counts = tied.

Then Id look at the time at #1 or YE #1 = BIG edge to Djokovic

Then I'd look at other majors e.g. big indoors titles = Slight edge to Borris, with a big edge in his competition IMO.

Then I might look at other big tournaments and factors like my preference for Wimbledon. I'd conclude they were about even.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Are you saying that the WTF is closer to a slam than a masters is? If so that's great as it means Novak has 9 majors! :)
That's how I'm counting it, anyway (and I'm not the only one--last year at RG, the speaker announced Federer as 'winner of 23 major titles' each time he came on court). It also helps that the old Pro slams were much closer to the WTF format than to a current-day slam, so if you're going to count Pro slams as majors (which I do, not counting them would be swindling the greats of old big time), also counting *the* Masters, or WTF, makes perfect sense (same with Dallas WCT finals when it was still held).
 
Last edited:

LazyNinja19

Banned
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:

Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:

Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
The CLOSEST thing to a slam is WTF. Even Nole said it's equal to a slam but unlike biased Nadal fans, Federer fans don't agree with him.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:

Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
Well even if WTF isn't counted as a major it's definitely bigger than a Masters in which case 21 Masters+6WTF>26 Masters. And obviously 17>13. :wink:
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:

Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
I don't expect you to understand, just like I'm not surprised you're bundling everyone who doesn't hype up your boy as "Federer fans" (or whatever name you give them).

So you're probably one of those people who think that, with his puny two slams (amateur slams, too!), Pancho Gonzales is an inferior player to Andy Murray and Yevgeni Kafelnikov, right?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Lulz at the Federeeesians counting WTF as a Major!
Seriously WTF :lol:

Please count Cincinnati as a RealSlam too. Or is it ParisMasters now?
Don't be a tit. Like I said I count it as a major though not equal to the slams. Similar to how in pre-open era days there were amateur slams and pro slams then later Open Era majors. All with different values but still 'majors'.

It's the same thing.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Well even if WTF isn't counted as a major it's definitely bigger than a Masters in which case 21 Masters+6WTF>26 Masters. And obviously 17>13. :wink:
That's because people here think that slams and majors are the same thing. They're not--otherwise, you have to conveniently forget more than four decades of tennis history and all the past greats go down the drain (which leaves Federer as GOAT by a mile, but I won't go there, as all those greats from Tilden to Laver *deserve* to be in the conversation, and not just handily dismissed because a bundle of fan... atics try and rewrite history just to hype up their boy's resume (dismissing one of the biggest tournaments as a meaningless year-end exho, for example, which just shows their ignorance).
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Don't be a tit. Like I said I count it as a major though not equal to the slams. Similar to how in pre-open era days there were amateur slams and pro slams then later Open Era majors. All with different values but still 'majors'.

It's the same thing.
Exactly. Current slams are more important than the WTF, just like they're more important than the Pro slams and the amateur slams. But this doesn't prevent them from being the bigger tournaments of their respective day and age, and they should get the respect they're due.

Likewise, although still technically a slam, AO in the 70's and the beginning of the 80's was less important than Dallas WCT finals and the Masters (yeah, that meaningless exho-go figure). It's all a matter of perspective in the end, and tennis has changed so much over the decades and you *have* to factor in some leeway if you want to "compare" players' achievements (which I don't see the point of, personnally) and give the players of old the respect they're due for what they achieved (and *that* is important as far as I'm concerned).
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Add Nadal's gold medal and call it a wash, and it all comes back to slams as always.
I don't give much importance to tournaments played every 4 years, only those played every 12 months. And yes I'd still be saying that even if Djokovic had won the gold medal.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Add Nadal's gold medal and call it a wash, and it all comes back to slams as always.
We are strictly talking about ATP and ITF events, nothing to do with Olympics, exhibition or any outside events. Federer has a gold medal but Federer fans are not holding that against any players, especially the past generations.
 
M

monfed

Guest
That's because people here think that slams and majors are the same thing. They're not--otherwise, you have to conveniently forget more than four decades of tennis history and all the past greats go down the drain (which leaves Federer as GOAT by a mile, but I won't go there, as all those greats from Tilden to Laver *deserve* to be in the conversation, and not just handily dismissed because a bundle of fan... atics try and rewrite history just to hype up their boy's resume (dismissing one of the biggest tournaments as a meaningless year-end exho, for example, which just shows their ignorance).
Dude who cares, Fed's the GOAT and that's all that counts.
 

LazyNinja19

Banned
The CLOSEST thing to a slam is WTF. Even Nole said it's equal to a slam but unlike biased Nadal fans, Federer fans don't agree with him.
How about NO!
If anything, WTF comes in the category of Masters & not Slams! Also, Slams & DC conducted by ITF; WTF, Masters & rest by ATP.
WTF is more like the Top most Masters title. Count it with them if you want.

And lol, you talk about cumulative "Federer fans", "Nadal fans", as if you're hosting some round table conferences of the groups.
All fans of one particular player don't have to have same views. They can have different opinions.
But you're the one who said "Federer fans have more credibility than Nadal fans". So I don't know what was I even expecting from you.

Well even if WTF isn't counted as a major it's definitely bigger than a Masters in which case 21 Masters+6WTF>26 Masters. And obviously 17>13. :wink:
Hold it together, boy.
I never claimed that Nadal had more of those titles than Federer. I just meant that counting Slams & WTF together is a bit ridiculous.

Since you're interested in mathematics, here's a question for you.
What's bigger? 13+26 or 6+17+3? :twisted:

Dude who cares, Fed's the GOAT and that's all that counts.
Kindly show me any official article/notice/list from ATP &/or ITF where Federer has been declared the GOAT.

Thank you!
 
Last edited:

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
How about NO!
If anything, WTF comes in the category of Masters & not Slams! Also, Slams & DC conducted by ITF; WTF, Masters & rest by ATP.
WTF is more like the Top most Masters title. Count it with them if you want.

And lol, you talk about cumulative "Federer fans", "Nadal fans", as if you're hosting some round table conferences of the groups.
All fans of one particular player don't have to have same views. They can have different opinions.
But you're the one who said "Federer fans have more credibility than Nadal fans". So I don't know what was I even expecting from you.



Hold it together, boy.
I never claimed that Nadal had more of those titles than Federer. I just meant that counting Slams & WTF together is a bit ridiculous.

Since you're interested in mathematics, here's a question for you.
What's bigger? 13+26 or 6+17+3? :twisted:



Kindly show me any official article/notice/list from ATP &/or ITF where Federer has been declared the GOAT.

Thank you!
It looks like you're selectively picking the posts you're responding too because you can't respond to the others. Not that I'm surprised.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
How about NO!
If anything, WTF comes in the category of Masters & not Slams! Also, Slams & DC conducted by ITF; WTF, Masters & rest by ATP.
WTF is more like the Top most Masters title. Count it with them if you want.

And lol, you talk about cumulative "Federer fans", "Nadal fans", as if you're hosting some round table conferences of the groups.
All fans of one particular player don't have to have same views. They can have different opinions.
But you're the one who said "Federer fans have more credibility than Nadal fans". So I don't know what was I even expecting from you.
WTF is right in between slam and master. Just because you say 'NO' doesn't change what other people's opinion. Good luck in trying to change Nole and Berdych's opinion about the WTF. lol

All fanbase are biased, but certain are biased to a certain extend. I think Nadal fans are more biased because they(including you) claim WTF is an exhibition while overhype Olympic achievements, and unfairly hold it against players from the previous generations when they clearly are aware that these events wasn't important(or available) during those time.


Hold it together, boy.
I never claimed that Nadal had more of those titles than Federer. I just meant that counting Slams & WTF together is a bit ridiculous.

Since you're interested in mathematics, here's a question for you.
What's bigger? 13+26 or 6+17+3? :twisted:
Show us where Federer fans said WTF & slam have equal weight?
Pretty much everyone agree that the next most important event after the 4 slams is the WTF(except some anti-Fed say it's an exhibition).

Kindly show me any official article/notice/list from ATP &/or ITF where Federer has been declared the GOAT.

Thank you!
He's not an undisputed goat, no athlete in any sport are. However, he's the goat by consensus. List of experts from the tennis channel have determined Federer as the #1 in the top 100 greatest of all time.
 

LazyNinja19

Banned
WTF is right in between slam and master. Just because you say 'NO' doesn't change what other people's opinion. Good luck in trying to change Nole and Berdych's opinion about the WTF. lol

All fanbase are biased, but certain are biased to a certain extend. I think Nadal fans are more biased because they(including you) claim WTF is an exhibition while overhype Olympic achievements, and unfairly hold it against players from the previous generations when they clearly are aware that these events wasn't important(or available) during those time.

Show us where Federer fans said WTF & slam have equal weight?
Pretty much everyone agree that the next most important event after the 4 slams is the WTF(except some anti-Fed say it's an exhibition).
He's not an undisputed goat, no athlete in any sport are. However, he's the goat by consensus. List of experts from the tennis channel have determined Federer as the #1 in the top 100 greatest of all time.
I never said that WTF is an exhibition. Did I? Anywhere?
If you read my previous post to which you've replied, I've written that, "WTF is the Top most Masters".

Novak said that winning DC was his biggest achievement. So DC is the 5th biggest title after Slams?
Nadal & Murray both said that winning the Olympic singles Gold was the proudest achievement of their career? So OSG is the 5th biggest titles after Slams?
Good luck trying to change their opinion!
It looks like you're selectively picking the posts you're responding too because you can't respond to the others. Not that I'm surprised.
I can choose whom to reply & whom not to. Don't try to be a moral police.
Thank you!

I don't expect you to understand, just like I'm not surprised you're bundling everyone who doesn't hype up your boy as "Federer fans" (or whatever name you give them).

So you're probably one of those people who think that, with his puny two slams (amateur slams, too!), Pancho Gonzales is an inferior player to Andy Murray and Yevgeni Kafelnikov, right?
I never said anything about Pancho Gonzalez or Kafelnikov. I consider Pancho to be at the very top of the history, amongst the Greatest evers.
 
M

monfed

Guest
How about NO!
If anything, WTF comes in the category of Masters & not Slams! Also, Slams & DC conducted by ITF; WTF, Masters & rest by ATP.
WTF is more like the Top most Masters title. Count it with them if you want.

And lol, you talk about cumulative "Federer fans", "Nadal fans", as if you're hosting some round table conferences of the groups.
All fans of one particular player don't have to have same views. They can have different opinions.
But you're the one who said "Federer fans have more credibility than Nadal fans". So I don't know what was I even expecting from you.



Hold it together, boy.
I never claimed that Nadal had more of those titles than Federer. I just meant that counting Slams & WTF together is a bit ridiculous.

Since you're interested in mathematics, here's a question for you.
What's bigger? 13+26 or 6+17+3? :twisted:



Kindly show me any official article/notice/list from ATP &/or ITF where Federer has been declared the GOAT.

Thank you!
Look it up on google, Don't be lazy, lazyninja. :lol:
 

LazyNinja19

Banned
Look it up on google, Don't be lazy, lazyninja. :lol:
Looking stuff up on Google doesn't mean it's official.

Of course, you cannot provide any Official article/list from the ATP/ITF site supporting your claim. Because it DOES NOT exist!

No? :lol:
 
Top