Missed Edit.Sampras’s performance after winning the 1990 US were patchy. Courier won the 1991 French and was dominant for the next 2 years. Edberg was still around and he won the next 2 US Opens after Sampras, and he defeated Sampras in the 1992 final. Courier also beat Sampras in at least one of the tournaments he won, though not in the final. Becker would win the 1991 Australian Open and Michael Stich the 1991 Wimledon. Agassi triumphed in the 1992 Wimbledon (Sampras lost to Goran in the semis) and I think Courier won everything else. Lendl, McEnroe and Walinder were still around as was Connors and each reached a grand slam semi in that time, I think.
Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon, beating Courier in a fairly tough match (and Becker in the semis) he would also win the next two slams and become world number 1. Till late 1999 except for a core a few months in 1995 he would not be challenged as the premier player in the world. Edberg retiredin 1996 after falling in the rankings for several years, with his last major final being the 1993 Australian Open.Becker lost in1995 at Wimbledon final to Sampras, won the 1996 Australian Open. He would be number 2or number 3 for many of these years and had at least 2 semi defeats to Sampras. Becker also began a habit in the latter part of his career of losing early in grand slams to some unknown for whom this was the highlight of their career. Courier never again reached a final, although he had a couple of quarters and semis defeats to, you guessed it, Sampras.
Courier won the Australian and the French and Edberg won the U.S. Open. Courier won the Australian and the French twice each - he never won in New York.
Earlier I compared Roddick to Chang since they both won one Grand Slam title. Courier won four of them and spent 58 total weeks at #1 spread over about a year and a half. Roddick had 13 weeks total at #1, and Courier had two separate streaks that were longer than that.
Chang reached 4 finals and lost three of them, all to different player. Roddick has never lost to anyone but Federer.
I think Courier coould be compared to Hewitt actually, though I still maintain he was a far better player than that that Aussie surf boy. Reaching at least two Grand Skam finals three years in a row is quite an accomplishment.
Another guy who I think under achieved was Boris Becker. 6 Grand slams do not do him justice, especially only 2 in the 1990s. In the second half of his career his results in the slams fell off, dramatically and he started a habit of getting upset by bums, In addition, at least two of the Wimbledon finals he lost, he should have won, the player who defeated him was Boris Becker. He let his emotions get the better of him too often in a very un German like way. Surprisingly he continued doing well in non Grand slam tournaments pretty much till the end of his career.
People don’t generally realize how quickly tennis players drop from the top level; almost none of the top men did as well after his 26th birthday as before. Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, and Courier between them have 29 Slams and none won anything after his 26th; other guys with a lot of wins have a few stray ones (like Becker, who has 5 before and 1 after, or Edberg, who has 4 and 2), but the only guys I found who won more Slams after turning 26 than before are Lendl and Agassi. (I only looked at men who played in the 80s and later; there might be a couple others from earlier.)
Of his 17 titles 14 have been against players who were former and or future number 1s. The muliple wins have been against Roddick and Nadal, both world number 1 players and Murray, who has lost three finals to him.He has list 7 finals and 6 of those have been against Nadal and one against Del Porto.
Sampras
Australian
Martin
Moya
Wimbledon
Courier
Ivanisivich x 2
Becker
Pioline
Agassi
Rafter
US open
Agassi x 3
Pioline
Chang
Except for Chang, Pioline, Martin and Goran, all players who had been number 1 in the world. 8 out of 14. 4 Final losses, to Edberg, Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, all multiple grand slam winners and all world number 1s.
So, in the who beat bums in finals, Federer actually better.
Oh, that’s bizarre. The top of the Wikipedia entry for Rosewall says he won Wimbledon in 1974, but lower down it says Connors won. The entry for the tournament that year (and Google in general) say Connors beat Rosewall in the finals. So Rosewall did make the Wimbledon final when he was 39, but his last major win came at the Australian in 1972, when he was 37.
Sadly, I can still recall the match. I didn’t see it but the folks I was with were all hoping for an Australian victory but thinking Rosewall was just too old. As it turned out. Rosewall had the nickname of “Muscles” probably due to him being such a shrimp.
From what I understand he was a nice guy. And (O/T) the most genuine nice guy of the Australians of that era was Lew Hoad.
I’ve never understood tennis fans using the argument of “how many slams has he won” of being indicative of a weak or strong field. The total number of slams won per year is always going to be 4, and thus if you have someone winning a lot of them, you will by definition have a lot fewer grand slam winners in the player pool.
Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djoker, etc. could all be twice as good as Connors & McEnroe et al, for all we know. Or only 50% as good. We’ll never know, as the Grand Slam results would be the same.
The reason many of Federer’s rivals are perceived as so “weak” as to not have won Slams is because Federer himself was taking them! It’s impossible to say whether the competition was actually abnormally weak in a historical context, or whether Federer was abnormally strong in a historical context, or maybe some combination.
All we can really do is compare each player to the era he played in, and it seems fairly evident (pre-open era aside) that Federer has dominated his era more than any other male tennis player has. He has 3 more Grand Slams than the next most player (Sampras 14), which by itself is already a number of Slams that many fine players have never achieved. On his least successful surface (French Open’s clay), Federer has made the finals 5 times, and won once, being beaten by none other than the Nadal, most successful clay court player of all time, all 4 times. Sampras never even made it past the semis, which he only got to once.
That’s not even counting the weeks at #1 record (which Fed now has), and the absurd streak of 23 straight semi-final slam appearances that Fed had, which is an amazing, unprecedented consistency (next most is 10 by Lendl).
Is Fed the best tennis player who ever lived? That will always be debatable, since we’ll never have seen players from different eras matched up with each other at their peaks. And there’s Fed’s trouble against his chief rival, Rafa Nadal. But Roger is by a noticeable margin the most successful, and it would be odd not to consider him the “greatest”.
And this is coming from a guy who doesn’t even like Fed’s personality, from what little I’ve gleaned from his interviews and on-court behavior. Beneath that gentleman’s veneer lies an arrogant douche, of middling douchiness to be fair. But I’ll admit to being captivated by the man’s actual playstyle.