Reading, Writing, and Reflecting

Posted in Sports, Tennis | Tagged Best of all time, Borg, Federer, French Open, GOAT, Lendl, Nadal, Roger Federer, Sampras, Tennis | 26 Comments

26 Responses

1. on June 9, 2009 at 6:51 am Gaurang

   As you said, if the emotion is taken out of the equation, purley based on the data and results stats, Sampras and Federer are the better players! Howerver, if you think in terms of Michael Jordan and Arnold Palmer/ Jack Nickaulus / Tiger Woods type of the domination of the game, Bjon Borg has to be considered the best player in the game when he played! You get mesmerized by the way he played the game! Especially, he played with the equipment (a wooden racquet – which was not high tech), compared with the equipments of Sampras and Federer and Nadal!

   I will wait for the evaluation of Nadal, when and if he dominates the Wimbledon type of surfaces, which tests the current equipment and the player most! That way, Federer and Sampras did have better performances and results in the most difficult surface for the game of Tennis! As for the entertainment category, Connors, McEnroe and Agassi were the best!

   
   
2. on June 10, 2009 at 12:21 am Daphne

   oh wow, Nadal as GOAT? you severely overrate him.

   
   
3. on June 10, 2009 at 6:32 am apurvadesai

   Gaurang– agree that it is difficult to measure intangible impact of players and perception of their domination to fans, other players, and media. Borg may have in fact had that perceived domination more than others. In terms of domination, he had amazing results in French and Wimbledon year in and year out– nobody has equaled that level of domination in any tournament since except Nadal at the French. But Borg could never dominate at the US Open and generally didn’t even participate in the US Open so hard to give him the full domination nod because of those tournaments

   
   
4. on June 10, 2009 at 6:34 am apurvadesai

   Daphne– wouldn’t say Nadal is anywere near GOAT today– I think when it is all said and done and after his career is over, he’ll be best ever. I think he’ll win the US Open this year and have a career grand slam at 23 and then have many more French Open’s and even Wimbledon’s over the next 10 years….we will see.

   
   
5. on June 11, 2009 at 3:16 am Daphne

   next 10 years? rafa’s style of play and scheduling takes to much toll in his body. even fed, who’s five years older, is even more fit and has less injuries than nadal. don’t expect rafa to still be ruling the tennis world by 2012.

   
   
6. on June 11, 2009 at 7:04 pm apurvadesai

   Daphne– fair point about Nadal’s all out style of play and whether he can continuously stay healthy. His current injury may reflect that risk. However, I don’t think that style will keep him from a sustained high level– even if it’s not 10 years, and its say 7 years, he could easily win say 10 more grand slams (majority may be French of course), but i think that would include some US opens and Wimbledon. Fed still has few years (hopefully more than a few years) and will undoubtedly pick up a few more grand slams, but i’m guessing Nadal will end up with more than him. Agassi also played with a full court coverage style, and while having gaps in his career, played until 36. I think Nadal is the type who has the motivation to stay in top shape…

   By the way, I’m a much bigger fan of Federer than Nadal and hope to see Federer maintain all of the records 🙂

   
   
7. on June 12, 2009 at 12:32 pm sm

   good post
   waiting for next

   
   
8. on June 14, 2009 at 6:58 am hemal

   Nadal is known as the King of the Clay! But when I saw him loosing to Soderling, I just thought this is another chance for Nadal to come back!

   And it was a great thing coz Federer won. I was immensly pleased. I wanted him to win this time around since the media was all hoophala about his chances. Such a great year this is!!

   
   
9. on June 15, 2009 at 2:00 am Daphne

   wow, are you really a fed fan? by saying nadal can easily reach 16 slams, you underestimate and fail to fully appreciate the greatness and difficulty of roger’s achievements. you’re just probably just adding numbers here and there in your head, thinking that everything would be so easy just like that.

   anyway, i’d give rafa 4 to 6 more slams, thus totaling 10-12 at the end of his career.

   
   
10. on June 15, 2009 at 2:34 am Daphne

    though of course no one knows for sure 🙂

    
    
11. on June 20, 2009 at 7:17 am Highway 7

    Bit of a pointless argument about Nadal. He might win no more slams or he might win 10 more – we wont know until it happens.

    I like your post, but something it does not take into account is those players who ‘raise the bar’. That is, every so often a great player comes along who not only wins slams but increases the general level of play because every one else has to play catch up. Think Borg in the 70s, Becker in the 80s, Sampras in the 90s and Federer in the 00s.

    This is something I do not feel Nadal has not done. The style and standard that the top players play at nowadays was set by Federer.

    
    
12. on June 21, 2009 at 11:57 pm apurvadesai

    Daphne– agree that i made it appear too easy to simply say nadal could win 16 titles..as you say, we won’t know anything for sure…what I also didn’t mention was what happens to federer’s total if he plays at a high level for 3-4 more years….3-4 more titles for him?

    I think my next post may be too look at how the top players performed through age 23, age 23-27, and 27-31. If apply the performance of the top players at the 23-27 and 27-31 age group, what would that do to Nadal and Federer’s title..

    as you mention, won’t know for sure, but one of the things that makes sports so fun..

    
    
13. on June 22, 2009 at 12:01 am apurvadesai

    Highyway 7– yes, agree that’s something to consider in the GOAT considerations, but I was only looking at items I could quantify….but I think Borg may have had the biggest transformational impact under this interpretation, but again purely subjective…i could easily say that for Sampras and Federer…. I’m very happy that Federer and Nadal’s rivalry has increased tennis’ profile– will make it so much more fun to follow over the next few years…

    
    
14. on June 22, 2009 at 1:27 am Highway 7

    I think you could well be right about Borg influencing and changing the game more than any other player. Like you say though, this is all a matter of opinion.

    Interesting stuff though, I look forward to your next post.

    
    
15. on June 24, 2009 at 3:26 pm apurvadesai

    Did some analysis of how other top players did from age 24-27, 28-31, and 31+ and used that to look at Nadal’s path to GOAT based on his results through age 23 (http://bit.ly/nPWKw)….

    
    
16. on August 26, 2009 at 4:14 am Commonfan

    Hi Apurva…You have considered almost all the parameters and done a fine statistical analysis which takes away any possible element of bias from the analysis…however, the level of competition is an important factor and we cannot ignore it…if you look at the list, Sampras had to square up against Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg while Borg had to compete against McEnroe and Connors…Federer only has only rival who makes the list in Nadal…and till now Nadal has dominated the rivalry …level of competition impacts all the other parameters ( dominance, all- round effort and grand slam performance)

    Also the Australian Open wasn’t at the same level as the other slams during Borg’s time…between Borg, McEnroe and Connors, they have just one Aus Open title…they frequently gave it the miss …so not playing the Aus Open shouldn’t be counted against Borg or other players of his generation…

    And as long as we are not considering the likes of Laver, the GOAT title cannot be awarded to Federer because we are only looking at the players from the last 40 years

    
    
17. on August 26, 2009 at 10:13 pm apurvadesai

    Commonfan– thanks for the thorough feedback. I agree the level of competition is important but since it isn’t very controllable or measurable, I’ve kept it out of the analysis, but I do agree that it’s important. Also, realize that Borg never even played the Australian Open and would be interesting to look at it without the Australian Open in it but even without the Australian, i think Federer from just a numbers perspective compares very well. And regards to not including Laver, yes, I know that laver and his era are not considered because the data wasn’t available, so it may be more appropriate to say Best of the last 40 years which is what i stated in the posting (but didn’t include in the title which isn’t consistent)…

    
    
18. on September 21, 2009 at 3:13 pm federer the best

    Federer has the most titles and is the best all-time, all the old greats do not compare because they did not play agaisn’t anyone near the level that Fed has to play. For example Nadal would be any of the tennis greats of the past in straight sets. Nadal is good but will slow down because all he is defense and we all know the saying great defense makes the best offense. Nadals style is not a style that will last and many will emulate because not many can sustain his level of fitness and thats why he won’t win that many title after he reaches 25 years old. Many young players coming up (Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Monfils, ect.) will beat him and his age will catch up with him. I really don’t see Nadal beating Fed’s record. It’s just to hard to beat not only Fed but other players that are coming up. In the end u cannot compare the players of the past to players nowadays because all the old players back then didn’t have so many great players to face and even if they did it wasn’t really a rivalry. Bottom line Federer is the best all time

    
    
19. on October 30, 2009 at 7:51 am Dawood

    Pete Sampras: “When I look at Roger, I’m a fan.”

    Here I’ve tried to collect many more tributes and quotes on Roger Federer by famous peers: http://www.tributespaid.com/quotes-on/roger-federer

    
    
20. on November 17, 2009 at 6:50 am A simple tennis fan

    Hello. I’m just a simple fan, who found this web by chance. First of all, sorry my English, and my future grammatical mistakes. I write this because I’ve read some of your articles, and I’ve found them very interesting.

    Then, and before anything, I would say that Roger is for me one of the best tennis players ever, and once I made my excuses, I like to start by mentioning the generation between middle 70’s to middle 90’s, which have had some names such as: Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjön Borg, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi.

    They are possibly, if not surely, 6 of the 8-9 best tennis players of all times, enclosed with Roger Federer, Rod Laver, and possibly also Roy Emerson. I said that because, as you know, Roy won 10 of his 12 Grand Slams (GS since now), when Rod and the rest of the best tennis players at those times were in the professional league, and he also stopped winning as soon as the two leagues put together, and Rod Laver and the rest came back, so that’s why, for many people, the number of titles of Rod is not as impressive as it seems.

    Well, but there are also another “not so good” players, such as (only GS, and individual, titles):
    – Mats Wilander = 7 GS & 4 finals (11 put together)
    – Stefan Edberg = 6 GS & 5 finals (11)
    – Boris Becker = 6 GS & 4 finals (10)
    – Guillermo Vilas = 4 GS & 4 finals (8)
    – Jim Courier = 4 GS & 3 finals (7)

    Now, take a look at the last generation, from last 90’s since last 2000. How many new “big tennis stars” have had this period – in exception of Federer, and since Nadal came up -? Players who are currently around 30. Just take a look at the last nº 1’s for finding them:
    – Marcelo Rios = 0 GS & 1 final
    – Carlos Moyá = 1 GS & 1 final
    – Yevgeny Kafelnikov = 2 GS & 1 final (a bit better… and he won also the golden medal in Sydney 2000, but still poor in individual GS’s, as he was much better in doubles)
    – Patrick Rafter = 2 GS & 2 finals
    – Marat Safin = 2 GS & 2 finals
    – Gustavo Kuerten = 3 GS & 0 finals (more than 2, and in fact, the one with more GS’s)
    – Lleyton Hewitt = 2 GS & 2 finals (a player who looked pretty good, as he was the youngest to reach the nº 1, but eventually, he was falling until being turned into a “bluff”, so we see that the reason could be possibly the same why Agassi got to be, at those days, the oldest nº 1 in history)
    – Juan Carlos Ferrero = 1 GS & 2 finals
    – Andy Roddick = 1 GS & 4 finals (in spite of his lonely GS, for me, and that’s only an opinion, he is possibly the best one, as he is the only one – along with Federer – to have been ranked in the top ten at year-end from 2002 trough 2009, so he’s possibly the best one of that generation – after Federer, of course -)

    My point is: the best one – by titles record – of the new tennis players – except, as I said, Federer – of the last 12 years, was long time worst than the “worst” of the group of “not so good” players from just a few years before. Let’s see:
    – Gustavo Kuerten = 3 GS & 0 finals (3)
    – Jim Courier = 4 GS & 3 finals (7)

    Some facts: In the ranking of weeks at nº 1, from the last 6 players, 5 become to that era: Patrick Rafter (1 week), Carlos Moyá (2), Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6), Marcelo Ríos (6) and Juan Carlos Ferrero (8), so, how could be they considered “good players” if they were nº 1 almost by chance? Another one: Andre Agassi was the oldest player to finish in the world nº 1 ranking since the ATP rankings began, a rank that he left at 33 years, 4 months and 9 days, in 2003. I’m not saying that Agassi didn’t deserve it, but, if we take a look at his competitors at this moment, we can understand better how he could achieved that historical record. Last one: Marcelo Rios is the only tennis player in history that was ranked world nº 1 without achieving any GS in all his career, and in fact, he just have 1 final, once. Remember, the only one in ALL the history. Guillermo Vilas must be astonished, when himself, with 4 GS’s and 4 finals, didn’t achieved ever that rank. So, I think I’m not exaggerating when I say that, surely, that age was the one with a lower level since the Open Era exists (1968).

    Ok, ok, but that’s no reason for saying that Federer had it easy, because he could be just much better than the rest of the tennis stars, that haven’t got too many GS’s just because even they’ve played lot of finals against him, Federer always have beaten them, but… wait a moment… better than whose “stars”? in whose “common finals”?

    For the first question, I think we just must take a look at the preceding paragraphs, and to count, not only the GS’s that hey have achieved, but also the finals that they have reached; and this detail helps us to answer the second question: Federer has won 15 GS’s against 11 different opponents. So, one year was Mark Philippoussis, the next one was against Andy Roddick, another one versus Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando González, etc.

    Until 2007 inclusive, Federer had succeeded 12 GS’s, besides 3 years with 3 GS’s per year!!, including also 14 of his 16 ATP Masters Series, and winning almost each title against a different opponent; like what a boxing champion does with their sparrings.

    In 2007, when Rafa had just turned 21 years old, Roger beat him for second and LAST time in a GS final, and he was playing on grass, a surface where Rafa was considered in those times “quite bad”, and moreover, on “his” tournament, Wimbledon, which Roger had won 3 times before:
    7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2 -> five sets swearing for beating “a boy” looks a bit over, isn’t it?

    Until now, Rafa has beaten Roger in 5 GS’s finals, and in the 3 different surfaces, including the grass on Wimbledon, and the hard court on Australian Open; however, Roger had only defeated Rafa in a GS on one surface: grass. So, I don’t understand how a player whose reign is just the clay can beat Roger on all surfaces, whereas Roger, the “perfect player”, only can defeats him (sorry, “could” defeats him, until 2 years ago) on grass.

    For two years now, Roger have only won Rafa in the last final of the ATP Tour Master Series 1000 of Madrid, in which, indeed, Rafa was already injured. The last 5 confrontations before, have been won by Rafa, and they where on different surfaces. Roger has won as well 3 of the last 8 GS’s, a big achieved, but it’s also true that time before he won 3 per year. Have I mentioned, in addition, that in 2 of those 3 GS’s Rafa, who was the actual champion, was injured or simply he didn’t played?

    Let’s see some numbers:
    Confrontations (matches won):
    – 13 Rafa -7 Roger (almost the double)

    Comparison. I found the next numbers in the article: “Could Rafael Nadal be the best men’s tennis player of all-time?” from the Associated Content web. Here, we can see their won-lost matches, in the years when they turned 19, 20, 21 and 22 years old:

    Roger
    19 -> 36-29
    20 -> 49-21
    21 -> 58-23
    22 -> 78-17

    Rafa
    19 -> 79-10
    20 -> 59-12
    21 -> 70-15
    22 -> 82-11

    Rafael Nadal’s record in the last 4 years has been 290 – 48 or a .858 winning percentage. In those same years, Roger Federer’s record was 221 – 90 or a .711 winning percentage.

    Titles achieved at the age of 22:

    Roger
    – 3 GS (Wimbledon ’03, Australian ’04 and Wimbledon ’04; because in the US Open of 2004, he was 23) + 0 finals
    – 2 ATP Masters Series (Monaco ’02; Indian Wells ’03, because in Hamburg and Toronto, in 2004, he was 23) + 2 finals (Miami ’02 and Rome ’03)
    – 4 ATP International Series Gold
    – 8 ATP International Series
    – 1 ATP Masters Cup / ATP World Tour Finals (’03)

    Total = 18

    Rafa
    – 6 GS (4 Roland Garros ’05, ’06, ’07, ’08; 1 Wimbledon ’08; 1 Australian Open ’09) + 2 finals (2 Wimbledon ’06, ’07)
    – 15 ATP Masters Series / World Tour Masters 1000 (I’m not going to write them, in order of don’t do it still more thick) -> just before Federer (16) and Agassi (17) in the historical ranking + 4 finals
    – 9 ATP International Series Gold / World Tour Masters 500
    – 5 ATP International Series / World Tour Masters 250

    Total = 35 -> including 3 GS’s and 12 Master Series over Federer

    Plus:
    – 1 Golden Medal (individual) in Beijing 2008
    – 2 Davis Cup (’04 and ’08)

    As I said at first, and despite it looks like an underestimation to Federer, I really think that he is one of the best in history, possibly together with Pete Sampras, Bjön Borg and Rod Laver (and a bit over Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl), but I’m also sure, that if Federer had been born 10, 20 or 30 years before, and he had played in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s, actually I doubt that he could have his 15 GS’s record. Yes, I know, that’s only a supposition, and it’s possible that I’m wrong, but just thinking about Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, Edberg or Becker, and then thinking about Rios, Moyà, Rafter, Safin, or Ferrero, and trying to compare them, it’s ridiculous; and sorry for the fans of those last players. I’m also believe that, surely not so exaggerating, but also different, had the history been if he had been born 5-7 years after, in the generation of Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray… a generation that looks pretty good, though I could be wrong, because we still need time to prove that they won’t be another “Hewitt’s”.

    Djokovic (22 years)
    – 1 GS + 1 final
    – 4 ATP Master Series / ATP Tour Masters 1000
    – 4 ATP International Series Gold / ATP Tour Masters 500
    – 5 ATP International Series / ATP Tour Masters 250
    – 1 ATP Masters Cup / ATP World Tour Finals (’08)

    Total = 15

    Plus:
    – 1 Bonze Medal (individual) in Beijing 2008

    Del Potro (21 years)
    – 1 GS
    – 3 ATP International Series Gold / ATP Tour Masters 500
    – 3 ATP International Series / ATP Tour Masters 250

    Plus:
    To be the second man that has beaten Roger Federer in a GS final (before him, only Rafa, for 5 times, had do it).

    And now that I’ve mentioned that, it’s quite odd also that since Nadal came up, no one player have could defeat Roger even in only one GS final, when, looking back, we could see that even all the greatest ones, such as Rod Laver, Bjön Borg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi, have lost finals against many different opponents, sometimes against some of themselves, the ones who played at same era, and sometimes against another ones, such as John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Mats Wilander, Guillermo Vilas, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, etc.

    It’s difficult to compare tennis players from different ages, because many times, the reason why one is considered better than another, is mainly based on the personal opinion; you know, what’s more stand out? the one who has achieved a great amount of ATP titles, or the one who has more GS’s? more weeks as number one, or better percentage won/lost matches? besides, there are also the opponents that they have had in their ages, which is also very influential in my opinion; so it’s hardly to say that Rod Laver is better, or worst, than, for example, Jimmy Connors; or the same thing between Bjön Borg and Pete Sampras, but, as you did in another article, there are some people who yes we can compare, such as Bjön Borg – John McEnroe, Boris Becker – Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampras – Andre Agassi, etc, and between those pairs, yes we can say who was the best, at least in their own confrontations, so, we can’t compare on equal conditions Federer with Rod Laver, Bjön Borg or Pete Sampras, but yes we can compare him with Rafael Nadal. In that way, it’s a bit paradoxical, that the man who is considered the best one of all times, has been beaten by Rafa Nadal in almost the double of matches they have played (13-7), including 5 GS’s won per Nadal, furthermore on the three surfaces, an important detail; per only 2 GS’s won per Federer, in only one surface: grass; in addition that the last one was more than 2 years ago, and when Nadal was still coming up, so, on one hand, we have that Federer is actually the best tennis player ever, but on the other hand, he is “numerically” worst than Nadal. How could be possible that the so considered best tennis player of all times, and who is still young and healthy, could be beaten repeatedly by another one that, until this moment, can’t be even in the historical top ten?

    It’s also possible that, henceforth, Federer beats Nadal more times, but, that’s only suppositions, as we can’t see the future, so we must be based on the numbers until now.

    Finally, as I said before, I really believe that Federer is one of the best in history, but I also think that during some years, he have had the way more plain than another ones, because, in spite of his great qualities, that he unquestionably have, he had also a bit of luck to be born at the right time.

    Au, a10.

    PS: I won’t wish that anybody, a fan of Federer or not, could feel angry or disappointed. I’m just trying to compare him, and showing hidden details that maybe could be influential. Thanks.

    
    
21. on November 26, 2009 at 7:38 am apurvadesai

    A Simple Tennis Fan– fantastic post! Thanks for taking the time to compile additional data and present a case. You should be posting your analysis as your own post– maybe if you don’t mind, I’ll take your comment and analysis and post it as a guest blog posting on my site.

    What is the most compelling points in your analysis is the view of the other top players’ in Federer’s generation. As you say, they just don’t cut it when you look at that quality vs the quality of the top players of that generation. Now, you can’t blame Federer for that quality– he can only compete against the players who are playing against him in his era. And he has dominated that era– now as you say, this next generation of nadal, del petro, murray djokovic may make it more competitive but even if Federer just does average in these next couple of years, statistically he will have all of the records. Your analysis reconfirms the premise that it is very difficult to compare players from different eras certainly is true, but it would take away from these types of great conversations 🙂

    
    
22. on December 4, 2009 at 3:08 am Pete

    Competition weak in Federer era, don’t think so. The game has evolved (material, surface), more countries are participating and fitness is better than ever. The most important thing is that players are nowadays much more allround. Federer gave this example to the players and he was just so dominant in his prime years that other players weren’t able to win for example more majors. If Federer was absent: Roddick would have won 4 extra, Agassi, Safin and Hewitt a few eg. Nadal is just one of a kind, the best claycourter ever to have lived probably.

    In Sampras’ days there more expert players on one surface. Vilas, Muster, Courier and Chang on clay. Courier, Kavelnikov, Agassi slower hardcourts and he managed to get the Grand Slam. Krajicek, Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter grass. And fast hardcourt Rafter, Becker, Safin.
    Sampras himself was excellent on grass and fast hardcourts. He was a great server and forehand player. His serve was most effective on the fast surface and it translates on all the majors won at Wimby and USopen. the slower the surface however he struggled more, Australian Open won twice, and Roland Garros one poor SF. Also Sapras’ ranking points were a lot lower in his prime compared to Feds. His total of 286 weeks at the top is also because a got a lot of ‘free weeks’ after clinching the nr 1 ranking for 6 years. Federer will probably beat his 286 weeks during next years summer. But Sampras was a great players taking full advantage of his strengths.

    As for Nadal beating Federer: Federer isn’t in his prime anymore. His prime years were 2004-2006 were he won almost everything he played expect for the clay tournaments versus Nadal. In 2007 he plays excellent in Australia but later on starts to lose more (Canas in HC-spring is the turning point) and he focusses more and more on grand slam success because those tournaments are his main goal. Nadal has a winning record compared with Federer, because he is simply much better on clay. Furthermore Nadal (his best year until now is 2008) beat Federer when Federer is already over his prime and perhaps mono has got its effect. Nowadays Nadal starts to lose more often to other players as well so it remains to be seen if he can achieve another prime period. Personally I think his career will be shorter: he peaked at young age but can his body keep up with his grinding style of play?
    By the way when the clay record is taken away Federer leads grass and they are tied on HC h2h.

    Federer is just getting older. He relies more and more on his serve (just like Sampras did), his reaction to be ball and hitting speed are a slight bit slower and his return game is getting weaker. He also takes a few steps ahead of the baseline where he would stand behind it a while back.
    But Federer will still be there competing for the majors and probably winning one or two more. Perhaps he will start to serve and volley more later on in his career because there are players that can now keep up with him at the baseline (Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray).

    Can Nadal also accomplish this? He gets a touch job fighting Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray who have all copied a allcourt play from Federer, especially Djokovic.

    The only way to know is to wait until both careers are over.

    
    
23. on January 14, 2010 at 8:56 am Michael

    Hey, where’s my name: I thought I was the best player of all time. LOL. Agree, Federer is the GOAT; most complete player of all time (after me of course!).

    
    
24. on January 27, 2010 at 2:17 pm apurvadesai

    Pete– thanks for your comment and thorough response. You certainly know your tennis history. While I do think that you could envision more players having an opportunity to win grand slams during Sampras’ time vs Federer, it is hard to compare eras. Interesting comment also about Federer becoming more a serve and volley player as he gets later into his career.

    
    
25. on November 18, 2010 at 11:51 am Horacio

    You definitely never saw Marcelo Rios play son

    
    
26. on December 26, 2010 at 7:49 am A simple tennis fan

    Hello, first of all, sorry for leaving this post so forgotten during so much time, and, as before, sorry for my future English mistakes if there are some (again).

    Pete → your explanations are highly completed, and it’s obvious that you really know what you are talking about, but I wish to comment some things you’ve said (no malice for that, I hope):

    “Competition weak in Federer era, don’t think so.”

    There are many points which depend on personal opinion, but I think this is not one of them:

    List of ATP number 1 ranked single players
    1. Pete Sampras → 286 accumulated weeks
    2. Roger Federer → 285
    3. Ivan Lendl → 270
    4. Jimmy Connors → 268
    5. John McEnroe → 170
    6. Bjön Borg → 109
    7. Andre Agassi → 101
    (…)
    19. Juan Carlos Ferrero → 8
    20. Thomas Muster → 6
    20. Marcelo Ríos → 6
    20. Yevgeny Kafelnifov → 6
    23. Carlos Moyà → 2
    24. Patrick Rafter → 1

    From the last ones, except Thomas Muster, all the rest where nº 1’s between ’98 and ’03, a quite short period, and the beginning of Federer’s era (Federer started being professional in ’98, and achieved the nº1 in February ’04). According to that, they where contemporaries of Federer, aren’t they?

    The first ones of the list were all contemporaries also (but they didn’t have just weak rivals): Borg-McEnroe-Connors-Lendl, Agassi-Sampras (not to mention Becker, Wilander, Edberg, etc, people not at the top of the list, but between 3-7 GS and several finals each one). So, higher effort to be there. A question: if the best tennis players in history – by weeks and titles – are at the top of the list, how we should call the ones who are at the bottom – by weeks and titles -?

    There’s only one exception (in number of weeks, that not in titles): Lleyton Hewitt, who is actually ranked the 8th best nº 1 in history, but let’s see the ranking again in depth:

    1. Pete Sampras → 286 accumulated weeks → 14 GS + 4 finals = 18 GS’s total finals
    2. Roger Federer → 285 → 16 GS + 6 finals = 22
    3. Ivan Lendl → 270 → 8 GS + 11 finals = 19
    4. Jimmy Connors → 268 → 8 GS + 7 finals = 15
    5. John McEnroe → 170 → 7 GS + 4 finals = 11
    6. Bjön Borg → 109 → 11 GS + 5 finals = 16
    7. Andre Agassi → 101 → 8 GS + 7 finals = 15
    8. Lleyton Hewitt → 80 → 2 GS + 2 finals = 4
    9. Rafa Nadal → 77 → 9 GS + 2 finals = 11
    10. Stefan Edberg → 72 → 6 GS + 5 finals = 11
    11. Jim Courier → 58 → 4 GS + 3 finals = 7
    12. Gustavo Kuerten → 43 → 3 GS + 0 finals = 3
    13. Ilie Nastase → 40 → 2 GS + 3 finals = 5
    14. Mats Wilander → 20 → 7 GS + 0 finals = 7
    15. Andy Roddick → 13 → 1 GS + 4 finals = 5
    (…)

    Anyone has noticed some curious fact? Take a look at the 10th firsts. Between the player nº 7 (Agassi) and the nº 8 (Hewitt) there are 6 GS and 5 finals of difference, but the difference between the nº 8 and the actual nº 9 (Rafa) isn’t shorter… 7 GS!! not 1 or 2… but 7!! We should go since the 15 th position (almost the double) looking for a player with less number of GS’s than Hewitt (Andy Roddick).

    So, the best nº 1 of that era (except Federer, of course), is the top ranked in history with less “effort”. That’s a fact, not an opinion. A man who stands 80 weeks as nº 1 of the world with only 2 GS in all his career. But, how could he get that? Easy, that’s why all the rest of his contemporaries are at the bottom of the list.

    Remember, by the way, that this era was the one with the only tennis player in history who achieved the nº 1 without winning not only one GS (Patrick Rafter in the middle ’99), and who, furthermore, in ALL his career just arrived at ONE final of GS!!, only one! Guillermo Vilas, a couple of decades before, with 4 GS and 4 plus finals didn’t achieved NEVER the nº 1 (the same level in the 70’s that surrounding the 2000, right?), poor Guillermo… would had been the king if he was born 20 years later. As I said in the other post also, that era was the one with the oldest nº 1 in history (Agassi), with 33 years and 4 moths! (and who retired just 2 years and a half before that). Good level of the young stars…

    I’m not saying, anyway, that Federer wasn’t good enough, but if you are, for example, an Olympic level athlete (even if you are the best one in history, I’m not questioning that), your winnings are much more meritorious if you play versus another Olympic athletes that not against “amateur” ones, don’t you think?

    Federer, of course, couldn’t be blamed for having begun playing in that era, obviously it’s not his fault, but saying that it was the lowest level age since the Open Era exists, is not an opinion… they’re just… numbers.

    “If Federer was absent: Roddick would have won 4 extra, Agassi, Safin and Hewitt a few eg. Nadal is just one of a kind, the best claycourter ever to have lived probably.”

    If Roger was absent, Nadal would have won 2 extra when he was a boy (Wimbledon), but if Nadal was absent, Roger would have won also 5 more (3 RG, 1 W and 1 AO), not bad for a claycourter 😉

    “As for Nadal beating Federer: Federer isn’t in his prime anymore. His prime years were 2004-2006”

    NOTE: This comment was a year before, so some things in my comment are obviously according to the actual situation.

    When you say that his prime years were between 2004-2006 (others say he’s NOW starting to lower his level, because he’s a more tactician than a physical player) makes me remember than just one year before, he gained Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same year, 2009, something he hadn’t done before, being younger, so, what do you mean? that during these 3 years (’04 and ’06 included) Federer was, in fact, at his physical/tactical peak? or it’s because, during these period, as you say: “he won almost everything he played”? (it’s not the same)

    Since 4 years until now, the defeats of Federer against Nadal doesn’t count because he’s not in his prime time anymore, ok, but, according with this reasoning, when Federer won all (except RG), Nadal wasn’t in his prime time either (he was too young). It works both ways.

    When Federer lost the first important match against Nadal (Roland Garros semis ’05) Roger was still 23 (Nadal just turned 19 during the tournament), followed by RG’s finals ’06 and ’07, but they don’t count, because clay is the (and according to some, even today, only one) specialty of Rafa.

    Just one year later, in the Wimbledon final ’07 Roger was walking on thin ice (7–6(7), 4–6, 7–6(3), 2–6, 6–2) against a boy called Rafa. This was the LAST time Roger could beat Nadal in a GS (on his favorite surface, by the way). Since then, and once Rafa get 21 years-old, an “old” 26 years-old Roger couldn’t beat him again on a GS, never, not in clay (RG), not in grass (Wimbledon), not in hardcourt (Australia), where, by the way, Roger finished crying tears of dejection, sadness, anger…

    But they are justified because Roger was getting old. It’s curious how an “old” man can win both tournaments (Wimbledon and Roland Garros) just a year before, with 28 years, something that he couldn’t achieved EVER when he was “young”. Wasn’t that the year Rafa was at first injured, and then, out of competition? what a nice coincidence! 😉

    On the other hand, Rafa has achieved that historical fact (according with some experts, the biggest success than a tennis player can do in a same year, more than winning even 3 GS, because WB and RG are considered the most important and most difficult – there are specialists in one and another surface – tournaments) in the ’08, and recently has repeated the feat in ’10.

    Jimmy Connors said time ago: “In an era of specialists, you’re either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist, or a hard court specialist…or you’re Roger Federer.”

    I’m wondering how is it possible that the historical “over all surfaces” best player could win Wimbledon and Roland Garros at same time ONLY the year that Rafa was out, while Rafa could do it (twice) while Roger was fit and winning tournaments (UO ’08, RG ’09, WB ’09, AO ’10) and, further, the second time, he did it after recovering from a serious injury on his knee.

    Finally, to say that Rafa, the “just-clay man”, has become the youngest winner of Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open consecutively since Rod Laver did it in ’62, and THE ONLY ONE IN HISTORY of doing it over 3 different surfaces (from 1881 since 1974 the US Open was also on grass, actually it’s on decoturf – hardcourt -). No one tennis player before (not even Fed when he won 3 per year against the contemporaries we’ve mentioned before) had won this 3 GS over 3 different surfaces on a same year. With my deference, I think the great Jimmy Connors should review his words 😉

    So, in my opinion, the important question is if injuries will respect his body or not, and depending on this, some years in the future, we could take a look back and decide.

    Ending with some recent quotes:

    Brad Gilbert on his twitter after Rafa had won the US ’10: “There’s your GOAT [Greatest of All Time]”.

    Bjön Borg in November ’10: “Federer is the greatest player, but Rafa has the chance to be the greatest player if he stays healthy”.

    John McEnroe: “There is an argument to be made that Rafael Nadal may be the greatest player eventually, even possibly now.”

    Rafa Nadal answering about his superiority H2H against Fed, after winning US ’10: “Head to head is not an element for me. Is a part of the statistics, but is not the decisive element.”

    Roger Federer after a charity match versus Nadal in Madrid, December 22nd 2010: “There’s maybe not that much I need to teach him because he’s already a wonderful champion and a legend…He can do things I can only dream about.”

    “The only way to know is to wait until both careers are over.”

    Totally agree with you 😉

    HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

    
    

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.