Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[DarthFed]

Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:

The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

Debacle is the right word...good call. There are several matches that could have gone into his W column.the 5 set loss to Rafa in Aussie, er CryingGate...the 5 set loss in the dark at Wimby.

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.

2 of those were up 40-15 match point against Nole in the 5th.

Yep, and then AO 2005 he lost a match point in the 4th set too, and lost to mental midget Safin in the 5th. That final would have been a slam dunk for sure.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

Debacle is the right word...good call. There are several matches that could have gone into his W column.the 5 set loss to Rafa in Aussie, er CryingGate...the 5 set loss in the dark at Wimby.

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.

2 of those were up 40-15 match point against Nole in the 5th.

Yep, and then AO 2005 he lost a match point in the 4th set too, and lost to mental midget Safin in the 5th. That final would have been a slam dunk for sure.

that one was a shocker. i forgot that one.....

 

[Moxie]

^ It starts to become really unattractive when you want to remake so many classic 5-set match as simply debacles for Roger. There was another player on the other side of the net who held tougher and played better, in the end.

 

[Moxie]

Debacle is the right word...good call. There are several matches that could have gone into his W column.the 5 set loss to Rafa in Aussie, er CryingGate...the 5 set loss in the dark at Wimby.

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.

2 of those were up 40-15 match point against Nole in the 5th.

Yep, and then AO 2005 he lost a match point in the 4th set too, and lost to mental midget Safin in the 5th. That final would have been a slam dunk for sure.

that one was a shocker. i forgot that one.....

LB: my above was indicated to Darth's comment. We just posted at the same time. However, as much as that match was an upset, it was a great match. I'll credit Safin for playing the last great tennis of his career, but also Peter Lundgren, for gluing Marat's head together just long enough for him to win that AO title.

 

[I.Haychew]

He (Phederer) could've "killed two birds with one stone" iph only he'd have beaten Pholks in a phew more major phinals. Three or phour more majors AND a slightly less lop-sided head-to-head. Can you imagine? Would there even be a GOAT debate?

Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:

The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

Debacle is the right word...good call. There are several matches that could have gone into his W column.the 5 set loss to Rafa in Aussie, er CryingGate...the 5 set loss in the dark at Wimby.

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.

^ It starts to become really unattractive when you want to remake so many classic 5-set match as simply debacles for Roger. There was another player on the other side of the net who held tougher and played better, in the end.

Agreed. Since Phederer didn't "hold tough" and he lost those matches to "mental midgets", then maybe he isn't/wasn't so great, after all?

 

[Moxie]

Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:

The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.

As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

Debacle is the right word...good call. There are several matches that could have gone into his W column.the 5 set loss to Rafa in Aussie, er CryingGate...the 5 set loss in the dark at Wimby.

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.

^ It starts to become really unattractive when you want to remake so many classic 5-set match as simply debacles for Roger. There was another player on the other side of the net who held tougher and played better, in the end.

Agreed. Since Phederer didn't "hold tough" and he lost those matches to "mental midgets", then maybe he isn't/wasn't so great, after all?

Roger is plenty great. Which is one of the reason why I don't think it's necessary to remake some tight matches he lost against worthy opponents. Yes, he could have had more Majors had he won them. But he lost those matches. That's it.

 

[I.Haychew]

^ "Mental midgets" does not equal "worthy opponents"...is all I'm sayin'. And I'm not the one who called anyone a "mental midget". Being the politically correct person that I'm not, I'd have (not) referred to the mental midget as "the cerebral vertically challenged".

 

[Luxilon Borg]

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.

2 of those were up 40-15 match point against Nole in the 5th.

Yep, and then AO 2005 he lost a match point in the 4th set too, and lost to mental midget Safin in the 5th. That final would have been a slam dunk for sure.

that one was a shocker. i forgot that one.....

LB: my above was indicated to Darth's comment. We just posted at the same time. However, as much as that match was an upset, it was a great match. I'll credit Safin for playing the last great tennis of his career, but also Peter Lundgren, for gluing Marat's head together just long enough for him to win that AO title.

I have to agree with you. And Safin also came back from a set and a break against Hewitt if I remember correctly.

 

[Federberg]

^ It starts to become really unattractive when you want to remake so many classic 5-set match as simply debacles for Roger. There was another player on the other side of the net who held tougher and played better, in the end.

well said! :clap

 

[britbox]

Using athletics as an analogy, I think Fed's a better middle distance runner than a long distance runner. I think it's more to do with his engine than folding in crunch moments. His tiebreak record is good and in some of those five setters, he's had his back to the wall in the fourth set and come through in the crunch.

Having said that, I think he definitely gets tighter now than he did back in his halcyon days. Take that Safin match - I think you can make a better argument that Federer played too loose rather than getting tight. His shot selection on some of the key points was just reckless - as if he knew he was going to win anyway. Safin was far from a mental midget in that semi - he held it together all tournament and played some of the best tennis of his career.

The final thing... and this is always something that bugs me a little. Using this sort of criteria would indicate it's better to lose in straight sets or even better, never make the final in the first place. I'll never be able to marry up the fact that losing early is somehow better than losing late in a tournament.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.

The obvious answer would be Andy Murray.

 

[britbox]

Anyhow, here are my Tier 1 greats...

Federer, Pancho Gonzalez, Laver, Sampras, Nadal.

Borg and Rosewall maybe.

Tier 2...
McEnroe, Agassi, Connors

Djokovic will end up in Tier 2 at the very least.

Pancho's the furthest I'm going back to, so Kramer, Budge etc. won't feature in my line of thinking.

 

[Kieran]

Anyhow, here are my Tier 1 greats...

Federer, Pancho Gonzalez, Laver, Sampras, Nadal.

Borg and Rosewall maybe.

I'd add Lew Hoad in there, from all contemporary accounts he was a giant who even Pancho respected the most. Definitely Borg, and Rosewall on the cusp. He could be omitted without causing an outcry.

Roger and Rafa played in the same era even though they are a generation apart. Their achievements are easier to compare, much different story with the others mentioned, thus the omission.

Well, Rafa won his first slam in 2005, so counting that year onwards, they each won 13, so I don't know if anyone could confidently say Roger is a whole class above Rafa.

I think Britbox list is as "scientific" as it gets, which shows how impossible this task really is. It's obvious there are men who rise above the herd, but it's less obvious how to separate these men...

 

[britbox]

^ I don't think Hoad's a Tier 1 great because he was never a dominant number one. Sure, he gave Pancho kittens but he was also wildly inconsistent. Tier 2 or Tier 3 for me.

 

[Federberg]

The final thing... and this is always something that bugs me a little. Using this sort of criteria would indicate it's better to lose in straight sets or even better, never make the final in the first place. I'll never be able to marry up the fact that losing early is somehow better than losing late in a tournament.

Totally agree with you. That's one of the fallacies that gets parried around on forums that doesn't seem to make much sense in the cold light of day

 

[Front242]

3-7 in 5 set matches in GS semis and finals. Aside from the Rafa H2H that is the worst stat of his career. As awesome as his career has been, had he held tough in the tightest moments you're looking at 20+ slams in all likelihood.

2 of those were up 40-15 match point against Nole in the 5th.

Yep, and then AO 2005 he lost a match point in the 4th set too, and lost to mental midget Safin in the 5th. That final would have been a slam dunk for sure.

that one was a shocker. i forgot that one.....

LB: my above was indicated to Darth's comment. We just posted at the same time. However, as much as that match was an upset, it was a great match. I'll credit Safin for playing the last great tennis of his career, but also Peter Lundgren, for gluing Marat's head together just long enough for him to win that AO title.

Safin was pretty damn good at Wimbledon 2008 too. Don't forget the 2nd round straight sets victory against Djokovic who had just won the AO that year and reached RG semis.

 

[Kieran]

^ I don't think Hoad's a Tier 1 great because he was never a dominant number one. Sure, he gave Pancho kittens but he was also wildly inconsistent. Tier 2 or Tier 3 for me.

It's a difficult one, isn't it? I mean, what was a "dominant number one" in a time when players trouped about the world, playing each other 70 times a season? Both Laver and Gonzalez have said Hoad was the best in Ye Olden Times, and that's some recommendations there. Bud Collins often said the same. I think pro-slams and so forth can't be measured the way we measure majors now, the men were playing for a living more than anything. The prestigious titles were all handed out to amateur geezers in their smoking jackets.

But it's difficult for me to argue persuasively for Hoad, or against Rosewall. It's second hand, or third-hand news, at this stage, almost a different game. Would love to study it a bit more, the pro-tour back then, and what mattered to these men...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ I don't think Hoad's a Tier 1 great because he was never a dominant number one. Sure, he gave Pancho kittens but he was also wildly inconsistent. Tier 2 or Tier 3 for me.

It's a difficult one, isn't it? I mean, what was a "dominant number one" in a time when players trouped about the world, playing each other 70 times a season? Both Laver and Gonzalez have said Hoad was the best in Ye Olden Times, and that's some recommendations there. Bud Collins often said the same. I think pro-slams and so forth can't be measured the way we measure majors now, the men were playing for a living more than anything. The prestigious titles were all handed out to amateur geezers in their smoking jackets.

But it's difficult for me to argue persuasively for Hoad, or against Rosewall. It's second hand, or third-hand news, at this stage, almost a different game. Would love to study it a bit more, the pro-tour back then, and what mattered to these men...

Kieran, if you haven't read "A Handfull of Summers" by Gordon Forbes, check it out and see how the game was back then. In my opinion it is the best tennis book ever written, and maybe top 3 sports books too. Imagine Rafa and Roger sharing a room before Wimbledon...That's how it was back then...Crazy stuff.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, if you haven't read "A Handfull of Summers" by Gordon Forbes, check it out and see how the game was back then. In my opinion it is the best tennis book ever written, and maybe top 3 sports books too. Imagine Rafa and Roger sharing a room before Wimbledon...That's how it was back then...Crazy stuff.

I read it, it's brilliant! Some great characters and loads of humour. I think Forbes covers the amateur game, doesn't he? I don't think he turned pro, but yeah, I'd agree, best tennis book I ever read...

 

[Moxie]

The final thing... and this is always something that bugs me a little. Using this sort of criteria would indicate it's better to lose in straight sets or even better, never make the final in the first place. I'll never be able to marry up the fact that losing early is somehow better than losing late in a tournament.

Totally agree with you. That's one of the fallacies that gets parried around on forums that doesn't seem to make much sense in the cold light of day

Somehow, this doesn't sound at all familiar to me, but I agree, it's a boneheaded thing to say or think.