Will federer spare pete of his remaining 2 records?

[Li Ching Yuen]

People talk about achievement at slams, and all of that but I have yet to see anyone bring in the argument of actual tennis play and the level at which it's been.

Courier, Becker, Ivanisevic have greater achievements than most of the guys that compete against Nadal and Federer.

But if we really talk about the tennis, in recent years I've seen performances of Djokovic (quite a couple of occasions), Del Potro, Soderling (against Nadal and Federer at the FO), Gonzalez at AO2007, that have simply been unmatched by former players, not even the greats of the past era, Sampras, Agassi, etc...

Maybe it's the result of how they changed surfaces too.

Slams are always gonna be held every year, it doesn't matter how good the competition is, that's not the criteria, so of course there are going to be guys like Johansson, Gaudio, or the whole cavalcade of surprise finalists in the 90's and early 00's.

Both Federer and Nadal have had some memorable runs to their slam victories, while most of the slams in the period I just mentioned were just painful to look at even in the latter stages of the tournaments, so it's hard for me to accept someone that tells me that watching damn Washington, Cedric Pioline, Todd Martin or whoever else it was back then making run to the finals of grandslams represents part of a tougher era.

I can't see it. No way.

 

[edberg505]

I honestly don't know why so much stock is being put into that 6 consecutive year end #1. If my memory serves me correctly, Sampras would go around playing Micky Mouse tournaments just to ensure he would be the year end #1 esp. that 6th year.

 

[piece]

Let's say a basketball team manages to get 37 wins at the ending half of one season and 36 wins at the begining half of another season. I don't know any one who would equate this to breaking the Bulls record of a 72 win season. I am not denying your point. Your point makes perfect sense. It's just not in line I think with what was being discussed in terms of Fed matching or beating Sampras's record.

Of course it doesn't break their record of wins in a season. But the 'in a season' is an integral part of that record in a way that it isn't (necessarily) with the record we're discussing. The analogy isn't very apt since we're not looking at total number of X's achieved within a limited period of time (with the period of time being defined with reference to the calendar), we're looking at total number of Y's achieved consecutively, with no limiting time period, which may or may not be achieved in some particular relation to the calendar.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

I honestly don't know why so much stock is being put into that 6 consecutive year end #1. If my memory serves me correctly, Sampras would go around playing Micky Mouse tournaments just to ensure he would be the year end #1 esp. that 6th year.

If ending the year at number one doesn't matter much to you that is a fair statement. Just like the semis and quarters don't matter much to me. I'm sure some will give great importance to some records and not to others. Some people only care about slams, some like to add in lesser tournaments and ranking etc. The criteria for what records matter are different for everyone.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Of course it doesn't break their record of wins in a season. But the 'in a season' is an integral part of that record in a way that it isn't with the record we're discussing. The analogy isn't very apt since we're not looking at total number of X's achieved within a limited period of time (with the period of time being defined with reference to the calendar), we're looking at total number of Y's achieved consecutively, with no limiting time period, which may or may not be achieved in some particular relation to the calendar.

You are free to view this subject in any way you wish and that I will not argue. To me a season counts. If you want to view it as a rolling 365 days that's fine. The good thing is I believe we understand what each other is saying.

 

[sunny_cali]

However Federer does not trail Nadal in head to head strictly due to clay. While Nadal completely owns Federer on clay with a 10-2 record, Federer only leads Nadal on other surfaces 6-4. So Nadal fully deserves his head to head lead as Federer cant own Nadal on any surfaces like Nadal does Federer on clay.

If Sampras played Becker more often on clay he would lead the head to head by even more as he is the better clay courter. If Sampras played Edberg on clay often they would probably split meetings there. If Sampras played Courier on clay often he would still lead the head to head as he completely dominates Courier on other surfaces, and can sometimes beat Jim on clay (eg 96 French). If Sampras played Agassi on clay more often he still leads the head to head as Sampras wins the majority of matches on other surfaces and their clay head to head is nearly tied (3-2 Agassi). And if Sampras played Muster or Bruguera more often on clay he again still would lead the head to head as he has beaten both on clay so could post occasional wins and he would win almost every match vs them on other surfaces. Anyway neither are the amongst the main rivals of Sampras of that era overall the way Nadal clearly is for Federer.

How convenient -- all the supposedly strong players were mugs either on clay or some other surface.

And why is having a strong rival so bad ? I could just as well claim that Sampras never had any strong rivals so it was a weak era, and start and 2000 meaningless threads on strong era's/weak era's

Finally we have *one* player in 2 decades who happens to be more or less as good on all surfaces -- he runs into the GOAT on clay, and an awful match-up -- inspite of which he proceeds to break every record that matters in tennis -- and the nostalgia lovers latch on to the H2H to prop the one-dimensional clowns of the previous era.

Sampras had a terrible record against Krajicek, including a straight set loss at Wimby -- no one seems to claim that Krajicek is grass GOAT. Why is that ?

Given Fed's clay pedigree there is no contest between him and Sampras no matter what the nostalgia lovers like to think. Fed's H2H against Nadal is irrelevant to that discussion.

And Nadal is in with a good chance to break some of Sampras' records himself -- I do think he has a good chance to pass 14 GS' himself.

 

[sunny_cali]

I honestly don't know why so much stock is being put into that 6 consecutive year end #1. If my memory serves me correctly, Sampras would go around playing Micky Mouse tournaments just to ensure he would be the year end #1 esp. that 6th year.

Absolutely! These are the last straws the ****s are desperately latching on to, given that Fed has buried every other record that Sampras ever had.

 

[veroniquem]

The Nadal-****s are so interested in denigrating Federer that they're willing to take a Pyhrric "victory" by saying Sampras would own Nadal outside of clay...just to try to make Federer look bad.

Fact of the matter is, Nadal is arguably the best on clay of all time, and a great player on other surfaces. Not as great as Federer, but still a great player. It isn't surprising that the H2H is close outside of clay, especially when Nadal is an all-time great in his own right and has a game that fits perfectly to be a bad matchup for Federer.

Unlike what the *******s say, this hardly means he's a better player. Tennis isn't like boxing, thankfully, where defeating the champion makes you the champion. It is about winning tournaments. It is about how well you play vs. the field. Federer is obviously better against the field than Nadal is, as illustrated by his # of years at #1, slams per year in his prime, etc. Is H2H important? Yes, but only because it contributes to a player's rank, titles, slams, etc. When Nadal beat Federer those times in GS finals, he won GS's that Federer didn't. It's 5 GS Nadal has that Federer could have had.

The H2H is already reflected in their slam count: 16 vs. a possible 21 for Federer, had he won all the slam finals vs. Nadal; and 7 vs. a possible 2 for Nadal, had he lost all the slam finals vs. Federer. (actually, 16 vs. a possible 22 for Federer, and 7 vs. a possible 1 for Nadal, considering the 2005 FO SF). The H2H is also reflected in both of their ranking, and beating Federer is what allowed Nadal to become #1 in 2008 and keep the ranking for half of 2009. So that's the significance of the H2H.

It has almost no significance inandof itself, and the attempts of Nadal-****s to count the H2H twice are simply that: double-counting. Federer could have had 21 or 22 GS, instead he has 16. The H2H is already reflected in that. He could have been #1 for 5 or even 6 straight years, instead it was for 4 years.

Nadal gets owned by a variety of players who are bad matchups for him on HC, not any one in particular because they aren't consistent. The attempt of Nadal-fans to discount Cilic's win over him are amusing. It wasn't just Cilic, but also Murray, Tsonga, and a host of other players who have consistently prevented him from thus-far getting to a USO final, and have prevented him from getting to more than 1 AO final. It all counts. It doesn't fit very well in the simplistic "significant H2H" record that Nadal-fans like to tout, so they discard it.

If we create a modified H2H to look at tournaments won vs. those entered, where both Nadal and Federer entered the tournament, that H2H is actually more important and looks very different.

But I tell ya what, if Nadal fans insist on disparaging Federer, fine. Federer isn't really that good of a player, he had a week era, got lucky, got out-choked by his opponents to win 16 GS, etc. So yea, this guy is a clown. That hardly makes Nadal beating him particularly impressive.

I personally would never comment on what ifs and why not.
I couldn't care less about whether Sampras would have beaten Nadal more often than Fed. We'll never know, so it doesn't matter.
What we know is that Sampras-Agassi was more balanced with Sampras winning on grass and fast hard like USO and Agassi usually winning on slower hard like AO and on clay whereas Nadal beat Fed on every surface and it's not likely to get better when Fed ages.
I don't think Fed has a legitimate claim to best of his time if he can't win a slam final against Nadal on clay, grass or hard.
Something Agassi has said too BTW.
And correction: Nadal doesn't get "owned" by a variety of players. He is leading the head to head vs all except for Cilic and Davydenko who are leading him by 1 match. That is not ownage by any definition.

 

[abmk]

Yes I understand that, but I don't consider winning four slams in a row, but not within one calendar year, to be any less of an achievement than winning them in one calendar year. Do you?

yes, it is a lesser achievement.

Consider this, in a period of 6 years. How many shots do you have at a calender slam ? 6, correct ?

you miss one in a year, you are done !

and how many do you have at 4 in a row ?

1,2,3,4
2,3,4,5
3,4,5,6
.......

21,22,23,24

these are the slam nos

you have 21 shots at 4 in a row

 

[abmk]

I personally would never comment on what ifs and why not.
I couldn't care less about whether Sampras would have beaten Nadal more often than Fed. We'll never know, so it doesn't matter.
What we know is that Sampras-Agassi was more balanced with Sampras winning on grass and fast hard like USO and Agassi usually winning on slower hard like AO and on clay whereas Nadal beat Fed on every surface and it's not likely to get better when Fed ages.
I don't think Fed has a legitimate claim to best of his time if he can't win a slam final against Nadal on clay, grass or hard.
Something Agassi has said too BTW.
And correction: Nadal doesn't get "owned" by a variety of players. He is leading the head to head vs all except for Cilic and Davydenko who are leading him by 1 match. That is not ownage by any definition.

you need to "remember" federer already has won 2 slams vs nadal ( 2 wimbledons on grass ) . You would if you got out of your nadal shrine !!!!

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

yes, it is a lesser achievement.

Consider this, in a period of 6 years. How many shots do you have at a calender slam ? 6, correct ?

you miss one in a year, you are done !

and how many do you have at 4 in a row ?

1,2,3,4
2,3,4,5
3,4,5,6
.......

21,22,23,24

these are the slam nos

you have 21 shots at 4 in a row

Thank you.

 

[veroniquem]

you need to "remember" federer already has won 2 slams vs nadal ( 2 wimbledons on grass ) . You would if you got out of your nadal shrine !!!!

The problem is that Nadal also beat him at Wimbledon whereas Fed didn't beat Nadal at any other slam.
Do the maths yourself (if that's something you can do). It's: Nadal beat Fed in 3 slams, Fed in 1 and Fed doesn't even have exclusivity in the 1 slam where he beat Nadal because Nadal managed to outdo him there too.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Absolutely! These are the last straws the ****s are desperately latching on to, given that Fed has buried every other record that Sampras ever had.

This is not a made up **** record. Ending the year at number one is a legitimate record and achievment. This is coming form some one who wants to see Fed win more slams to distance himself from future contenders to the slam record. Please don't make legitimate Fans of Federer look bad by making such a claim.

 

[piece]

yes, it is a lesser achievement.

Consider this, in a period of 6 years. How many shots do you have at a calender slam ? 6, correct ?

you miss one in a year, you are done !

and how many do you have at 4 in a row ?

1,2,3,4
2,3,4,5
3,4,5,6
.......

21,22,23,24

these are the slam nos

you have 21 shots at 4 in a row

I don't think the number of shots you have at accomplishing something necessarily has any bearing on how great that achievement is. If what you're arguing for was a general rule then (with the present GS surface arrangements) winning a hardcourt slam would be a lesser achievement than winning a clay slam because one has more opportunities to win a hardcourt slam than one does a clay slam. I would be reluctant to endorse any point of view that lead me to this conclusion.

Putting that aside, I'm still not sure I'd agree with you because it could be argued that it is easier to continue a run of good form over a single season than it is over the latter half of one season and the early half of another since you have the off-season in between. Not saying this is always the case, but it seems reasonable.

 

[abmk]

The problem is that Nadal also beat him at Wimbledon whereas Fed didn't beat Nadal at any other slam.
Do the maths yourself (if that's something you can do). It's: Nadal beat Fed in 3 slams, Fed in 1 and Fed doesn't even have exclusivity in the 1 slam where he beat Nadal because Nadal managed to outdo him there too.

you flat out said federer hasn't won a slam against nadal on any surface - which is delusional.

I am very well aware of their matches,stats and H2H . Thank you very much ....

 

[sunny_cali]

This is not a made up **** record. Ending the year at number one is a legitimate record and achievment. This is coming form some one who wants to see Fed win more slams to distance himself from future contenders to the slam record. Please don't make legitimate Fans of Federer look bad by making such a claim.

Federer has 237 _consecutive_ weeks as no.1 -- which is more than 2x of what Sampras was able to achieve. Year end No.1 is a "record" alright, but given Fed's consecutive streak as No. 1 it is fairly irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

 

[anointedone]

I personally would never comment on what ifs and why not.
I couldn't care less about whether Sampras would have beaten Nadal more often than Fed. We'll never know, so it doesn't matter.
What we know is that Sampras-Agassi was more balanced with Sampras winning on grass and fast hard like USO and Agassi usually winning on slower hard like AO and on clay whereas Nadal beat Fed on every surface and it's not likely to get better when Fed ages.
I don't think Fed has a legitimate claim to best of his time if he can't win a slam final against Nadal on clay, grass or hard.
Something Agassi has said too BTW.
And correction: Nadal doesn't get "owned" by a variety of players. He is leading the head to head vs all except for Cilic and Davydenko who are leading him by 1 match. That is not ownage by any definition.

You are right. Sampras and even Agassi was nobodys lapdog the way Federer is pretty much Nadal's. Or could you imagine Laver even close to his prime needing to avoid any one player to win any slams. How can someone be the greatest of all time when they need to avoid another player to win anything in their own time.

 

[veroniquem]

(to abmk) That is not what I said. What I said is last time they met at RG, Wimbledon and AO (3 different surfaces), Nadal has beaten Fed.
Fed can't be the best of his time when his main rival is 6-2 against him in slams and has figured out a way to overcome him on every surface. Can Federer overturn that record? IMO he can't. In the future Nadal is even more likely to beat Fed if they meet since he's still progressing and Fed is currently regressing.
Anointedone: I can't imagine it, no great has been owned the way Fed is owned by Nadal. That's why it takes Fed's credibility away as a potential GOAT.

 

[abmk]

I don't think the number of shots you have at accomplishing something necessarily has any bearing on how great that achievement is. If what you're arguing for was a general rule then (with the present GS surface arrangements) winning a hardcourt slam would be a lesser achievement than winning a clay slam because one has more opportunities to win a hardcourt slam than one does a clay slam. I would be reluctant to endorse any point of view that lead me to this conclusion.

Putting that aside, I'm still not sure I'd agree with you because it could be argued that it is easier to continue a run of good form over a single season than it is over the latter half of one season and the early half of another since you have the off-season in between. Not saying this is always the case, but it seems reasonable.

yes, it does ...I don't see how difficult it is to understand that. I thought it was plainly obvious ...

6 chances vs 21 over a period of 6 years ...

the clay slam vs HC slam analogy is invalid. They are of of different kinds.

Here there is no difference so far as the final achievement is concerned - all 4 slams. Only thing is you get MUCH lesser shots at the calender slam.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Federer has 237 _consecutive_ weeks as no.1 -- which is more than 2x of what Sampras was able to achieve. Year end No.1 is a "record" alright, but given Fed's consecutive streak as No. 1 it is fairly irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

This is a good solid statement. The previous one was not. If you look at post 16 and 17 of this thread I pretty much said the same thing. The 237 consecutive weeks cancels out the 6 years if simply comparing stats.

 

[abmk]

(to abmk) That is not what I said. What I said is last time they met at RG, Wimbledon and AO (3 different surfaces), Nadal has beaten Fed.
Fed can't be the best of his time when his main rival is 6-2 against him in slams and has figured out a way to overcome him on every surface. Can Nadal overturn that record? IMO he can't. In the future Nadal is even more likely to beat Fed if they meet since he's still progressing and Fed is currently regressing.
Anointedone: I can't imagine it, no great has been owned the way Fed is owned by Nadal. That's why it takes Fed's credibility away as a potential GOAT.

show me where you said that specifically .

You didn't.

we'll see what happens in the future b/w fed/nadal. Pressure is off federer because he has most of the records in the bag ( RG - the elusive slam, the slam record )

and yeah, fed was an "idiot" to reach so many finals on clay. He should've been losing to the lesser players ala sampras and played nadal only 4-5 times on clay. That way he'd only have had a marginal losing record against nadal

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

yes, it does ...I don't see how difficult it is to understand that. I thought it was plainly obvious ...

6 chances vs 21 over a period of 6 years ...

the clay slam vs HC slam analogy is invalid. They are of of different kinds.

Here there is no difference so far as the final achievement is concerned - all 4 slams. Only thing is you get MUCH lesser shots at the calender slam.

It is plainly obvious.

 

[veroniquem]

Yeah and we can all see what happens when the pressure is "off Fed" as you say. The motivation/ability to win is pretty much off as well.
But even that is irrelevant when it comes to beating Nadal in slams. He just doesn't have the game to do it at this point, period.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Incorrect. Although if you'd said it wasn't the same as a calendar year, you'd be right.

What is the relevant difference between being calendar year end number 1 and being number 1 at the end of some other 52 week period?

The relevant difference is the same relevant difference between losing a match 6-4 6-4 0-6 6-4, and not being given the winners cheque, and being a mid year #1 and not being given the sole end of year #1 winner's Atp World Tour champion trophy.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

The relevant difference is the same relevant difference between losing a match 6-4 6-4 0-6 6-4, and not being given the winners cheque, and being a mid year #1 and not being given the sole end of year #1 winner's Atp World Tour champion trophy.

I tried to reason with him but he chose to think outside the box. Maybe we should leave him alone in regards to this subject. I think it could get ugly if we beat this issue to death.

 

[piece]

yes, it does ...I don't see how difficult it is to understand that. I thought it was plainly obvious ...

6 chances vs 21 over a period of 6 years ...

the clay slam vs HC slam analogy is invalid. They are of of different kinds.

Here there is no difference so far as the final achievement is concerned - all 4 slams. Only thing is you get MUCH lesser shots at the calender slam.

I think the analogy is good.

But here's another point:

You get the same shot at any permutation of a grand slam. For example, you have no more opportunities to achieve the non-calendar slam of FO, W, USO, AO than you do the Calendar Slam, so your argument doesn't work. Each different permutation of the slam is equally likely, so any individual instance of a slam will have the same worth as the calendar slam.

 

[piece]

The relevant difference is the same relevant difference between losing a match 6-4 6-4 0-6 6-4, and not being given the winners cheque, and being a mid year #1 and not being given the sole end of year #1 winner's Atp World Tour champion trophy.

Haha fair point.

 

[abmk]

Yeah and we can all see what happens when the pressure is "off Fed" as you say. The motivation/ability to win is pretty much off as well.
But even that is irrelevant when it comes to beating Nadal in slams. He just doesn't have the game to do it at this point, period.

doesn't have the game, LOL !

2 remainders:

he was 2 points away from winning @ wimby 2008
he won one point more than nadal @ AO 2009.

its all a matter of playing the big points well , if fed stops clowning around while returning on BPs, nadal will face the heat big time

 

[anointedone]

Federer really does not have the game to beat a prime Nadal in a slam on any surface. He is not strong enough from the baseline to hang with Nadal from there. He is not a superb enough server to win solely based on his serve vs Nadal's exceptional return of serve. He is not good enough at the net to win by attacking. So he really is out of answers. Just not enough game as veroniquem said.

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal has faced Fed at his best (he's beaten him in 4 finals in 2006). The notion that he will feel more heat now that Fed is considerably worse is simply preposterous, sorry.

 

[anointedone]

Federer is the one who feels the heat when he plays Nadal since he knows if he and Nadal both play their best Nadal wins, period. It isnt even a question.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Yeah and we can all see what happens when the pressure is "off Fed" as you say. The motivation/ability to win is pretty much off as well.
But even that is irrelevant when it comes to beating Nadal in slams. He just doesn't have the game to do it at this point, period.

To say Nadal has upper hand or the edge or whatever is reasonable but to say Fed doesn't have the game is quite the exaggeration don't you think? I see no reason why Fed can't win another slam final against Nadal.

 

[abmk]

I think the analogy is good.

But here's another point:

You get the same shot at any permutation of a grand slam. For example, you have no more opportunities to achieve the non-calendar slam of FO, W, USO, AO than you do the Calendar Slam, so your argument doesn't work. Each different permutation of the slam is equally likely, so any individual instance of a slam will have the same worth as the calendar slam.

oh no, come on , use your head a little bit .

yes, you have MANY MANY more oppurtunities of a non-calender slam than a calender slam .... you can achieve it in ANY order. A calender slam has to be achieved in the same, exact order . AO, FO, wimby, USO

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

How did we get to this? I thought this thread was about Fed's possibilites of surpassing some more of Pete's records.

 

[veroniquem]

To say Nadal has upper hand or the edge or whatever is reasonable but to say Fed doesn't have the game is quite the exaggeration don't you think? I see no reason why Fed can't win another slam final against Nadal.

The way Fed is currently playing? I doubt it. There is also a question of stamina and athleticism. Fed cannot hang on long enough in a best of 5 vs Nadal at almost 30 years old.

 

[abmk]

Nadal has faced Fed at his best (he's beaten him in 4 finals in 2006). The notion that he will feel more heat now that Fed is considerably worse is simply preposterous, sorry.

You need to read what I said. IF he stops clowning around on BPs....

and 3 of those 4 finals were on clay, one of which fed had MPs ...

 

[abmk]

anointedone,

your posts would have a little credibility if you didn't go creating as many 2456788882222 accounts !

 

[anointedone]

To say Nadal has upper hand or the edge or whatever is reasonable but to say Fed doesn't have the game is quite the exaggeration don't you think? I see no reason why Fed can't win another slam final against Nadal.

Federer was last able to beat Nadal in a slam in mid 2007 and even then it was by the skin of his teeth. He then proceded to lose 3 Slam finals to Nadal on 3 different surfaces in 2008-early 2009. Federer now looks to be in a free fall of sorts. He is now regularly losing to the likes of Berdych, Baghdatis, and Gulbis in Masters events, and even took his first Slam quarterfinal defeat ever to his pigeon Soderling. It is not like Soderling was playing unbelievable either as some potrayed him to be either. He would barely beat Berdych on Berdych's worst surface in the semis, then get waxed himself by Nadal.

There is nothing that indicates Federer could face down Nadal in a slam final in the future.

 

[veroniquem]

He can clown around or not, won't make a difference. Nadal is as strong as ever and Fed is weaker. You do the maths any way you like, Fed's odds are lower than they used to be when he endured all those previous losses.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

The way Fed is currently playing? I doubt it. There is also a question of stamina and athleticism. Fed cannot hang on long enough in a best of 5 vs Nadal at almost 30 years old.

Of course Nadal has the edge. I won't argue the obvious. But do you really think Fed doesn't have a chance?

 

[anointedone]

The only slam Federer would have a chance to beat Nadal is the U.S Open. Even there Nadal would be the odds on favorite should they play.

 

[veroniquem]

Of course Nadal has the edge. I won't argue the obvious. But do you really think Fed doesn't have a chance?

In a best of 5? The only chance I see for Fed is a Nadal injury. He cannot stay with Nadal in a long match. And that's much truer now than it's ever been.

 

[NonP]

It's amazing how some of you never get tired of all this my boy-vs.-your boy talk. Try to keep in mind that it's just a game. Chill.

I normally stay out of these inane "discussions," but I thought I'd expand on this post:

Let's say a basketball team manages to get 37 wins at the ending half of one season and 36 wins at the begining half of another season. I don't know any one who would equate this to breaking the Bulls record of a 72 win season. I am not denying your point. Your point makes perfect sense. It's just not in line I think with what was being discussed in terms of Fed matching or beating Sampras's record.

Yes. What these people don't realize is that the ATP ranking points are not permanent but limited to a 12-month period, which itself is designed to end with the year-end championship. Your analogy in this case is very apt.

That said, you guys are missing the big picture here. I say that because the ATP ranking system, like all human concoctions, is not some infallible, inerrant product of divine providence that's set in stone. It's an arbitrary system that's bound to be changed and modified, as it has been over the years, and thus open to criticism and scrutiny. If we were to accept the ATP rankings at face value, we'd have to grant that Connors was indeed the top player in 1977, when many if not most serious fans would argue that Borg or Vilas better deserved the title. Or that had he won the YEC in '98 Rios should've claimed the top spot ahead of Sampras, although he had made only one major final (at the AO) and advanced past the 4th-round just once more at the other majors (RG). And so on. The official ranking system should serve only as a reference which you could use to form your own judgment, nothing more. It doesn't hold any more value than any other ranking system that one may devise, as long as the alternate system is reasonable and well argued.

And that brings us to an even bigger picture. Importance, again like all things human, is an arbitrary concept. It's an illusion that we've come to accept in order to make our life easier. It's impossible for us to do and deal with everything, so we have to somehow rank and prioritize it based on our own needs and wants. It's an important (yes, the word usage is intentional) survival mechanism, but still arbitrary.

This place (and others) would be a whole lot better off if more people understood that last part. Some people think the Federer-Nadal H2H is important, others don't. And some people think failing to win one of the four majors is important, while others don't. Ditto with the calendar-year Grand Slam. All these opinions are arbitrary and subjective, and reasonable people can and do disagree. The thing that matters is whether they're based on sound logical and empirical grounds. So if you want to argue that the Fed-Nadal H2H matters in your own ranking, judgment or whatever, you have to say more than that it's lopsided in Rafa's favor, as other all-time greats faced a few competitors who had their number. And if you want to argue that Laver's CYGS isn't that important, you can't just say that the competition back then wasn't as tough as today's because the population was smaller, as that's a reductive fallacy that fails to account for other variables like number of other sports, specialization of professions and disciplines, political climate, etc. And so on.

The best we can say about Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver and other all-time tennis greats is that they were the best of their era. Comparing eras is not as simple as a few arbitrary numbers that you choose to accept at face value. But I know this won't stop most of you guys. Do as you wish.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Sampras can have these two records if that is a consolation prize. Well, its the least he can get now that he is no longer in the top tier of GOAT discussion.

I am not sure why people dont get it. Sampras is ineffective atleast 40% of every single season he played. Remember, he lost to journey men and no namers on clay. He got owned on clay every single year by 'no namers'. He has less slams.

I understand some oldtimers may like him and finding it hard that his relevance has come down considerably.it can happen to the best. who knows? some day some kid might come up and win slams left and right to make federer look ordinary but till then Federer reigns.

Like i said in one of my earlier posts, GOAT train left Sampras station long long time ago.

Please dont play the "If only" scenarios. If we are to "If" game, then how about including "If only TW forum members played ".....

 

[piece]

oh no, come on , use your head a little bit .

yes, you have MANY MANY more oppurtunities of a non-calender slam than a calender slam .... you can achieve it in ANY order. A calender slam has to be achieved in the same, exact order . AO, FO, wimby, USO

Please read my post more carefully. I gave an example of a particular, non-calendar, permutation of slams. That particular permutation (and each particular permutation, in fact) have the same frequency as the calendar year perumation. You have an equal shot at each permutation (including the calendar year permutation), thus, according to your reasoning, each have equal worth.

Do you know what a permutation is? A non-calendar year slam in general is not a permutation, a permutation is an ordered combination, but any non-abstract non-calendar slam (that is, one achieved in the real world) is an ordered combination of slams that one has the exact same chance of achieving as the CYGS. Thus any particular non-calendar year grand slam is a permutation of the 4 slams that has the same frequency as a CYGS.

For illustrative purposes we could give each permutation a name.

AO, FO, W, USO - CYGS
FO, W, USO, AO - X
W, USO, AO, FO - Y
USO, AO, FO, W - Z

Anyone who has achieved X (for example) has achieved something that you get exactly the same number of shots to achieve as a CYGS, thus it is of equal worth (according to your reasoning)

 

[abmk]

He can clown around or not, won't make a difference. Nadal is as strong as ever and Fed is weaker.

won't make a difference. So fed being 1/17 at FO 2007 F and 1/13 at wimby 2008 didn't make any difference. LMAO !!!

You do the maths any way you like, Fed's odds are lower than they used to be when he endured all those previous losses.

But that is very different as saying fed does not have a chance vs nadal in the future ...

as far as your claim is concerned, it is possible of course, but one could look at it in a different way,

1)pressure is off fed

2)neither of them are in stellar form on grass , but atleast fed made the final at halle. The only time nadal won wimbledon, he had the full momentum on his side, winning FO blitzing everyone, winning queens . fed's won wimbledon even without playing a warmup tournament

3) nadal played the best HC slam of his life at the AO in 2009, fed's played better matches in HC slams many times, including this year's AO final

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

I think Fed does have a chance. I hope Nadal makes it to the final of the US Open to face Fed. I think you will be quite surprised. I think Nadal will win Wimbledon this year but the US open will be Fed's. I really hope to revisit this subject after US open. If I'm wrong I gladly admit as much. Fed can still beat Nadal.

 

[abmk]

Please read my post more carefully. I gave an example of a particular, non-calendar, permutation of slams. That particular permutation (and each particular permutation, in fact) have the same frequency as the calendar year perumation. You have an equal shot at each permutation (including the calendar year permutation), thus, according to your reasoning, each have equal worth.

Do you know what a permutation is? A non-calendar year slam in general is not a permutation, a permutation is an ordered combination, but any non-abstract non-calendar slam (that is, one achieved in the real world) is an ordered combination of slams that one has the exact same chance of achieving as the CYGS. Thus any particular non-calendar year grand slam is a permutation of the 4 slams that has the same frequency as a CYGS.

For illustrative purposes we could give each permutation a name.

AO, FO, W, USO - CYGS
FO, W, USO, AO - X
W, USO, AO, FO - Y
USO, AO, FO, W - Z

Anyone who has achieved X (for example) has achieved something that you get exactly the same number of shots to achieve as a CYGS, thus it is of equal worth (according to your reasoning)

I included the calender slam in my calculations. Removing that, you have 15 times at a non-calender slam in 6 years compared to 6 tries for a calender slam.

What you are not getting is while "chance" of winning CYGS=X, CYGS=Y,CYGS=Z

the chances of getting a non-calender is equal to the chance of winning either X or Y or Z. it gets added up.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Sampras can have these two records if that is a consolation prize. Well, its the least he can get now that he is no longer in the top tier of GOAT discussion.

I am not sure why people dont get it. Sampras is ineffective atleast 40% of every single season he played. Remember, he lost to journey men and no namers on clay. He got owned on clay every single year by 'no namers'. He has less slams.

I understand some oldtimers may like him and finding it hard that his relevance has come down considerably.it can happen to the best. who knows? some day some kid might come up and win slams left and right to make federer look ordinary but till then Federer reigns.

Like i said in one of my earlier posts, GOAT train left Sampras station long long time ago.

Please dont play the "If only" scenarios. If we are to "If" game, then how about including "If only TW forum members played ".....

He is the top tier, he can be considered a greater more dominant champ than Fed by being more dominant over the next best guy in his era than Fed will be over the next best guy in his own era. This means to be as relatively dominant as Sampras was over his greatest challenger Fed needs to end up with at least 6 more slams than Nadal and he needs to reverse the slam final domination v Nadal, otherwise he won't stand alone head and shoulders above the rest like Sampras did. Fed better keep adding to his slam tally and hope that Nadal doesn't accumulate too many slams.

 

[piece]

I included the calender slam in my calculations. Removing that, you have 15 times at a non-calender slam in 6 years compared to 6 tries for a calender slam.

What you are not getting is while "chance" of winning CYGS=X, CYGS=Y,CYGS=Z

the chances of getting a non-calender is equal to the chance of winning either X or Y or Z. it gets added up.

I'm saying X on its own is just as unlikely as a CYGS, so X is just as good. Do you not get that? To refute me you'll need to address what I'm saying here instead of just saying you get more shots at a non-calendar than a calendar. Because each INDIVIDUAL non-calendar slam has exactly the same frequency as the CYGS

Furthermore, your grouping of the CYGS apart from X, Y and Z is arbitrary. I could reject your categorisation, and use another one of my own. In this system we would have an X-slam and all other slams would be non-X slams. The CYGS is included in the category of non-X slams. Thus you have many more chances to achieve non-X slams than you do an X-slam. Therefore non-X slams (CYGS included) aren't as great an achievement as the X-slam.

Do you see what I'm getting at?