Federer - Major #19 - Wimbledon win without dropping a set
- Thread starter T2Kplus10
- Start date
I believe great athletes would find a way to excel and win. If you take best athletes from previous era and put them into this era with training, etc. they would still be ranked at the top. The older era players don't have advantage of training, but wouldn't be dependant on great equipment for advantages either.
Maybe so, but that not usually how we think of it. I think we usually think of it like "who was better X or Y." Maybe if you are talking about the best athlete in whatever sense, but to the question of who was better at a given sport, the more recent the player, generally the better they are.
Considering Babe Ruth's career had he faced modern pitching, but also been in great shape by today's standard is a bridge too far for me. To distill it down though, I think back in the day the candidate pool was smaller, and they were relying on some talent to excel, even to the point they could overcome not being in the best shape. Today, the talent pool for professional US sports is global, or nearly global. Its way, way harder to be "good" and being good without being in great shape is out of the question.
PS - do you own that truck?
Not only were they better they were way more entertaining.
Watching Federer sweep through an entire major with no one able to challenge him is boring as hell. And speaks more to the lack of competition than his game.
Why do you assume he is dominating because everyone else is not that good, rather than that he is just that much better?
If you wanted to make an assumption across decades, isn't it a fairer assumption that the general level of professional competition stays about level, so that if one person is dominating, they are probably really good?
In your universe, how would someone ever prove they were better than Borg? Is it impossible? Because Federer has done everything possible to prove he is better. He has been more dominant, and the guys he has defeated along the way have won more slams than the guys Borg beat.
That because there are only 3 guys who can win a major besides him. No depth to the field
Name the top ten guys during Federer's era. After maybe 5 you get names nobody has heard of.
The 80's had Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Vilas, Wilander, Aggasi, Chang, Noah, Gerulaitis, Edberg...
Since 2003 only 9 people have won major and only 5 have more than 1.
From Borg's first major victory to the end of the 80s, 17 different players won a major and 8 won 2 or more.
You are stretching periods to fit your narrative. Borg was primarily in the 70s. Agassi was not a contemporary of Borg and barely overlapped a couple of the others. Agassi was primarily in the 90s era with Sampras, Courier, and others. Chang should also be off that list of names...won a single major at 89 French, i.e. he's a relative no-name whom you likely are more familiar with because he is American. So he is equally worthy of dismissal from any list of relevant top players as you subscribe to the 2000s era players with one or zero majors.
Very good points.
Borg, Connors, and McE
Sampras and Agassi
Lendl doesn't really fit in with either group. Maybe Lendl, Becker, Mats W, and Edberg?
Well you are sure ill informed. My point is/was/has been that tennis was better in the 80s. Chang won his major in the 80s and both he and Aggasi were top 10 ranked in 1989.
Chang a no name?? He was ranked in the top 10 his entire career. Was ranked #2.
Want to compare TV ratings from each era? Well there is none. Nobody is watching tennis anymore as much as ESPN/ABC is trying to force feed you.
How am I stretching my time frame? You can just use the 10 year stretch of the 80s compared to the 14 year period of Federer winning majors. My narrative is the same.
Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Johan Kriek all won multiple majors in the 80's.
Tennis in the 80's was meh. The stars of the 70's were old and fading and the true 80's guys were dull and boring. Also a much slower game.
How were Borg and McEnroe doing in '89? Is Rod Laver in your McEnroe Borg Connors Lendl group too?
Those won as many titles in 89 as Federer won 2013, 2014,2015,2016 combined. Whats your stupid point?
So you are including Laver. Excellent. Makes sense. Not as much sense as your argument about how easy Federer had it this year because he didn't lose a set and how hard he had it from 2013-16 when he couldn't win a single major. But pretty sensible. I assume Sampras is in your group too, since he won a major just a year after 1989 and the reign of the legendary Michael Chang. I mean, Sampras beat Lendl. And don't forget how much you loved Vitas Gerulaitis and his hair. Another legend.
Ok tell me the 10 legendary tennis players who have come into tennis since Sampras retired in 2002.
Please explain why if tennis is so good and Federer is so great why isnt anyone watching? Best TV ratings in the 80s. Now no one.
Which TV ratings? US? We all know that answer and why. Well, maybe all but one of us.
Last edited:
No world wide. Way down. Federer being king has added nothing world wide.
Well, quite obviously, cricket must now have its greatest generation of cricket players.
TV rights deals worldwide Tennis isn't even in the top 10.
And please give me the 10 HOF players since Sampras retired, which you keep ignoring.
As for non US popularity, it is not on the wane. When traveling in Europe the sports news is always soccer, bball and then tennis and cycling. In US its way down the chain but there it is near the top.
And look at French Wimbledon and Australia attendance -and the run up tourneys to French and Wimbledon (Look at US open too). It's just a US thing since we have no current players who challenge.
And look at French Wimbledon and Australia attendance -and the run up tourneys to French and Wimbledon (Look at US open too). It's just a US thing since we have no current players who challenge.
Tiger during the same time frame we saw worldwide viewership explode. Federer declined every year. And the GOAT in Tennis is Serena. And she can't save that sport, worldwide or in the US
Ha. Another stupid comment. Tiger still makes more money than Federer and he doesn't even play anymore.
This is a ludicrous argument you are making. You should have stuck with the strength of competition angle. At least it was a viable argument.
Were you really?? Please highlight your post in this thread where you mention Serena. You cant even remember what you posted! Stop drinking and pay attention.
And none of you have answered the 10 HOF that Federer played against. Im still waiting for your stupid responses.
Federer is definitely the GOAT. Who else had to deal with 2 other players with 10+ major wins under their belts? If you are going to talk up Michael Chang, you could just throw in Roddick, Del Potro or Cilic on the other side (all decent players for a stretch with 1 major title. The field isn't littered with major champions because of the clear domination by 3-5 men. Fed made it to 3 major finals in 2014-5, but that was during the 2/3 year period where Novak was playing like a mad man. How many French finals losses does he have to the greatest clay court player ever? Fed also has a mental game that is unmatched today, which is seldom talked about.
I think the interesting argument would be Fed vs Serena. You could use the same argument that WhiteBus is making about Fed for her (shallow pool of competition). IMO, both are the greatest ever in their sport. I think the nod would have to go to the lady there. Not only has she been dominant, but has done it while also winning doubles majors too (multiple titles at all 4 majors in singles AND doubles).
I think the interesting argument would be Fed vs Serena. You could use the same argument that WhiteBus is making about Fed for her (shallow pool of competition). IMO, both are the greatest ever in their sport. I think the nod would have to go to the lady there. Not only has she been dominant, but has done it while also winning doubles majors too (multiple titles at all 4 majors in singles AND doubles).
Listen a hole. Viewpoints can be different on this board but calling anyone a retard is way out of bounds.
Please never respond to another one of my posts.
As a person who raises big money for Autism that word is way beyond offensive.
Your are a complete idiot thinking that is an acceptable phrase.
Not surprised that you are another scum bag that think using that word is funny.
Another very sane point. So we can all agree that Tiger is one of the 10. The other nine are, of course, cricket players.
I didn't coin it. It's obviously from a movie. One that was number one opening week at the box office and grossed almost $200MM worldwide. So by your logic it's awesome.
And get your facts straight. Fed makes more now than Tiger in endorsements. And he didn't play for six months. And if you raise such big money, you'd likely know this basic fact. A person with autism isn't necessarily mentally retarded.
1) I liked Chang but he never broke through to win multiple majors, that was my point. There are several one-off major winners in the current era who are or have also been Top 10 players, perhaps not as consistently as Chang (I don't have the data so I'll take your word for it). But it's a stretch to put him in the 80s group when he had just broken in at the end of that decade. He was the youngest champion at 17 when he won the French in '89. Thus his career and relative success was largely in the 90s.
2) You moved the goal posts since the message you posted earlier talked about 74-89 (Borg's first title thru end of 80s), not just the decade of the 80s as you have since shifted to. The years of 74-79 represent the bulk of Borg's career and most of Connors' prime so eliminating that dilutes your point.
3) I'll concede that the earlier period may have had more personalities, and by extension, you seem to believe it was a much more popular sport then. Perhaps, but that wasn't where this discussion started.
To your point, Borg never won a major after '81, Connors after '82, and McEnroe after '84. So just get more guys from afterward. Laver and Rosewall will soon be added on the other end.
Michael Chang was not even close to ranked in the top ten his whole career. White Bus careens from one wrong statement to the next.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/michael-chang/c274/rankings-history
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/michael-chang/c274/rankings-history
I just want to know why the tears from Cilic. A 6' 6" bearded man crying like a child on network television because he was getting his *** handed to him by a superior player.
These monster serves have destroyed tennis players. You see, once an opposing player is able to return a serve it comes down to real tennis and most of these guys are not tennis players, they're big servers and nothing more. Does Andy Roddick come to mind?
These monster serves have destroyed tennis players. You see, once an opposing player is able to return a serve it comes down to real tennis and most of these guys are not tennis players, they're big servers and nothing more. Does Andy Roddick come to mind?
So now you are saying 1980 to 1984 are no longer considered to be in the 80s?? Sure makes sense to me.[eyeroll]
And im still waiting for any off you to list the top 10 future HOF from the post Sampras generation.
Latest
-
01
The Knight Report
Rutgers Women's Basketball 2026-27 Season Preview: The Schedule
-
02
The Knight Report
Join The Knight Report TODAY and get it for 60% off!
-
03
The Knight Report Football
Every throw from Rutgers Football Quarterbacks versus Northwestern
-
04
The Knight Report
Rutgers Football PFF Grades + Snap Counts versus Northwestern
-
05
On3 Football
College football hot seat check after Week 8: Pressure growing at TCU, Rutgers & more