Lendl spent years trying to learn how to play ‘grass-court tennis’. Built a grass court in his back yard. Tried to learn how to serve and volley. Had to be pretty galling to realize he should have just played his groundstrokes game - he had to watch Agassi win Wimbledon just a few years later, and Agassi basically only went to the net for the post-game handshake (slight exaggeration, but not much…). Agassi’s match against the quintenssential ‘big serve and not much else’ player (Goran Ivanišević) was a great match because of the contrast in styles.
To this day I’m sad that Patrick Rafter never won Wimbledon. He was such a joy to watch.
Sampras played his last match when Federer was 21. Federer has spent most of his career playing Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Roddick among others. Agassi was getting to the end during the early part of Federer’s career, but he was #1 in the world as late as summer 2003, so it’s not like Federer only got a depleted version of Agassi.
I’d say it’s a coincidence. Sampras won Wimbledon for the last time in 2000, lost to Federer in the fourth round in 2001, and lost in the second round to George Bastl in 2002. I think it’s very unlikely he could have won that tournament in 2003. Federer was young and putting his skills together and Sampras was aging, and that’s how it goes.
I think you’re right the second time- the fact that his interest waned a few times (and he also had a few serious injuries) kept him from burning out, because he came pretty close to that point several times. Serena Williams is similar in a way. Some players just can’t think about anything but tennis, and others periodically need to explore other interests to refresh themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
In all seriousness, isn’t McEnroe rated a little low on this list?
I don’t think so. Seven grand slams, but none at the French Open or the Australian Open (never even made it to a final there), and his results taper off pretty quickly after 1985 or so - an awful lot of defeats in the 1st-4th rounds.
McEnroe remember did not play at the Australian open from 1976 to 1982 as it was at the time a second rate tournament. He could have won there 3 or 4 times if he wanted to at the time.
Right, the Aussie was not as highly regarded in the old days. The prize money was lower back then and the players took a different view of whether or not it was worthwhile to make the long trip play the event- not to mention the fact that the tournament could interfere with their winter holidays. The organizers also kept moving it around the calendar. It was held in January, then in the late '70s it was held in December, and then it got moved back to January and they didn’t play it in 1986 at all so they could make the switch. My understanding is that it became a bigger tournament as the '80s went on, more of the star players started coming, and they moved the event to Melbourne.
Australia produced a lot of great tennis players over the years, but the fact that the Australian Open was a local event for them is one reason there are so many Australians who rate so high on the list of grand slam winners. Laver won the Australian three times, Emerson won it three times, Rosewall won it four times, and the list goes on. (Emerson held the record for most major titles before Sampras and his name never seems to come up in these discussions anymore.)
I’ll give you Nadal, absolutely - and note that Federer has not done quite as well since Nadal really came to the fore. I can sort of give you Djokovic, but he’s only really been a force the last couple of years…by the way, how many Slams has Federer had in the last 2+ years?. Murray? Really? How many Slams has he won again? Roddick? Really? I’d note that he was number 1 for a few weeks along the same time as Ferrero…and I really shouldn’t need any further evidence to show how thin the men’s field was for a few years there right as Federer was starting to do his thing.
Like I said - for now, I think Federer has the best case for GOAT as things stand right now…but I think Nadal will eventually take that title from him.
To put it in context though, Nadal has to win another 7 majors to overtake Federer.
Even in his most productive period it took him nearly four years to get 7. I suggest his body does not have another 4 years in it. He is 26 now and he has never been blessed with the resilience of Federer so I’d anticipate many more injuries from here on in. Unless he changes his style of play of course but if he does that he’ll be easier to beat.
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating. The reason he has won so many is the same reason why he won’t beat Federer’s total.
Emerson never seems to be highly rated, Sampras was always compared with Laver not Emerson, even though it was his record that was broken by Sampras.
Re the Aus Open, at least until the early 90’s it was not considered as highly as the other three. Agassi did not play there till 1995, he would win 4 titles there. Must still be kicking himself.
Roddick’s only deficiency (and this has been discussed before at length) was not being Roger Federer in the era of Federer. Roddick has lost 4 grand slam finals to Federer and at least a couple of semis as well.
It is true that the mens game was in a bit of a funk before Federer, one of the reasons Agassi became world no 1 again in 2003, but there were players like Safin about, who Fed beat and on occasion lost to, see 2005 Australian Open. In addition Ferraro was good enough player to reach the US Open final in 2003, same year he won the French. One of the main reasons that many of the players before Nadal and Djoker have poor records is because of Federer, in the case of Roddick, the only reason. None of them are inherently poor.
Now if you want a guy whose record improved due to mostly playing a poor field that would be Hewitt, he won two grand slams and was world no 1 for 80 weeks. When the time came against quality opposition he was rogered by Federer and steamrolled by Safin.
I think you missed my point. You said Federer lucked out because he played a lot of his career against Sampras and Agassi (at the ends of theirs). I said that’s wrong because Federer did not play against Sampras and Agassi for “a lot” of his career. Sampras basically retired when Federer was 21 (nine years ago) and they played one time. Agassi retired when Federer was 25, so there’s a more solid argument there. Then I mentioned the guys Federer has played a lot of his career against: Nadal (28 times), Djokovic (27), Roddick (23), Murray (16). Add in Hewitt (26) and I bet those are the five guys he’s played the most often.
There’s some truth in what you’re saying in that Federer rose to the top during a period where Sampras had gone and Hewitt was the best player but there was not one supremely dominant guy. Eight different guys won Grand Slam events in 2002 and 2003, including Agassi, Hewitt, Federer, and Roddick. That’s not lucky for Federer so much as it is normal. Those types of players don’t come along very often. Sampras was one, and you could say Agassi was another. When they were gone, people figured it would be years before another player dominated the tour that way. They were wrong because Federer turned out to be more dominant than any of them.
By the way, I’m not sure Federer will win another major, and if I had to guess I’d say probably not. But this win did a lot to protect his record from Nadal. He’s won half again as many majors as Nadal now. Nadal should win some more French Opens, but it’s now been almost two years since he won a major title other than the French. It’s becoming harder to think he’ll win two or three more of those.
Also, “Really?” “Really?” isn’t an argument, and if you’re going to say Federer is the best ever and Nadal might be better than him, you can’t deduct a lot of points from Roddick and Murray for losing to Federer and Nadal. They’re very good players who are not as good as some of the best ever. Roddick alone has lost to Federer in four major finals. In a world where Federer didn’t exist, he’d probably have won four or five or six Slams. Murray is at a crossroads and we’ll see what he does next.
Right. That’s partly because coverage of tennis has become more Grand Slam centric over the years, I think. It’s the easiest stat to focus on. They’re the most important tournaments, but it’s a worldwide tour that lasts almost the whole year. Counting Grand Slams is not the only way to compare the players.
I think you’re a bit late there - it was a big deal He also skipped Wimbledon for several years.
Emerson won most of his titles at a time when Laver, Rosewall and others were not playing because they had turned professional. Laver won the grand slam in 1962, beating Emerson in three of the finals, and then turned professional. Emerson then won 10 of the next 20 slams. He did not win any in the open era, although that could be because he was 31 when it started. Laver was 30 & 31 when he won his second grand slam, in 1969.
Hence it is easy to see one reason why Sampras is compared with Laver - Laver had demonstrated his superiority over Emerson.
You know what’s interesting to me? How close a bunch of the competitors for the most-weeks-at-#1 record are. Federer is on top by himself and he’ll get to 288 weeks at least. He could add to that if he does better than Nadal and Djokovic at the Olympics and I think the ranking will be up for grabs for much of the rest of the year unless one of the three of them has a dominant like winning the Olympics and the U.S. Open, and maybe some of the tournaments in between and after. That could definitely happen, but it’s we’ll see the top ranking go back and forth a few times. That hasn’t happened in a while. Anyway, the all-time list looks this way:
Roger Federer - 288 (including next week)
Pete Sampras - 286
Ivan Lendl - 270
Jimmy Connors - 268
That’s less than four months separating all of those guys. Connors was on top for about five years combined and Federer is around five and a half years. It’s sort of like there is an upper bound on this record. I’m not saying Federer’s mark will stand forever, but I wouldn’t expect someone to blow it out of the water and get to 330 weeks or something like that.
That is interesting Marley. Those totals represent nearly six years at the top and it may well be that it is approaching a natural physical boundary.
However, in terms of consecutive weeks at number 1 Federer is ahead by a mile. He has 237 with the next best being Connors at 160, a year and a half less!
Lendl won his last GS event the same year Sampras won his first (1990). Both Wilander and Becker were in their prime when Sampras came along, but neither achieved very much in GS events thereafter.
Chang was a limited player. Courier can be compared to Roddick, except Courier actually had a couple of years at the top. He reached seven grand slam finals and was world number 1 or there a bouts for nearly 2 years. 4 Grand Slams is a pretty good record. Like Hewitt (who may be reasonably called the anti Federer), Courier was fortunate to come into his prime at the time between the old and the new, but Courier was a far better player than that brat, he reached the finals of all the slams.
Chang while world number 2 for most of 1996 and 1997 behind Sampras achieved as much as he could reasonably have, He reached 4 finals, winning the first one in 1989 at the French against Edberg, but then he lost his next 3, 1995 French to Muster, 1996 Australian to Becker and the 1996 US to Sampras.
2)Sampras won his first Grand Slam in 1990, the US. For the next three years he was a top player