Fed Fans – Roger Federer Talk

[DarthFed]

I don't buy the "best or you suck" mentality, Darth. Of course he wants to keep the majors lead over Rafa and Novak, but if he doesn't it isn't the end of the world and he's still always going to be considered one of the very best tennis players ever.

In the end, does it really matter? Even if he holds the lead, someone someday will surpass him. That is just the nature of the beast. And of course no matter what the final tally is, the title of GOAT will always be in dispute. That's part of the fun of it, no?

Don't get me wrong, I want Roger to maintain the Slam lead. I just don't see it as the end of the world if he doesn't, or that his greatness will be hugely diminished. As it stands, the three together are possibly--quite likely, really--the three greatest players in tennis history, so it isn't exactly bad company to be mixed with.

Of course he will be surpassed someday but it goes without saying it's much different if it's player X who does it 25 years in the future as opposed to Nadal or even Djoker. The main threat is Nadal, if he gets the slam record then Roger looks more like a Chris Evert where he was dominated by someone who also had a better career. No one aside from serious tennis fans knows much about Evert just 30 years after she retired. Much different story when we are talking about Navratilova, Graf, and Serena.

In theory all the current sport GOAT's will be overtaken and will someday be held in way less esteem than they currently are but it's a matter of how long they were the gold standard of excellence. If Roger holds the record for 30 years he will still be revered long after its broken. Otherwise if it's a short reign...well how famous is Pete Sampras right now compared to 10-15 years ago?

 

[El Dude]

Why is it so important to you that your (our) favorite is viewed more like Navratilova than Evert? I get why it is important, but why so important? You and I, as serious fans, both know that while Martina had an overall better career, Evert was very close - and still one of the very best (in the top 5 all-time, adding Court to the mix). Why isn't that enough?

Again, I get wanting your favorite to be the best of the best. But it isn't the end of the world if he isn't, and it shouldn't diminish our appreciation for him as fans. In the end, I don't care how famous Roger is or to what degree people remember him in 10-15 years. He's my favorite player ever and will probably always be, even if Rafa and Novak both surpass his Slam count.

Furthermore, I think Roger transcends the sport in a way that Sampras never quite did. Pete was the best player of the 90s and for a time might have been considered the greatest player of the Open Era. But I don't think he ever quite had the glamour that Roger has. And to be honest, I think the greatness of the Holy Trinity is only made greater due to them competing against each other. For better or worse, they'll always be tied together - like Borg and McEnroe, or Laver and Rosewall.

 

[herios]

Of course he will be surpassed someday but it goes without saying it's much different if it's player X who does it 25 years in the future as opposed to Nadal or even Djoker. The main threat is Nadal, if he gets the slam record then Roger looks more like a Chris Evert where he was dominated by someone who also had a better career. No one aside from serious tennis fans knows much about Evert just 30 years after she retired. Much different story when we are talking about Navratilova, Graf, and Serena.

In theory all the current sport GOAT's will be overtaken and will someday be held in way less esteem than they currently are but it's a matter of how long they were the gold standard of excellence. If Roger holds the record for 30 years he will still be revered long after its broken. Otherwise if it's a short reign...well how famous is Pete Sampras right now compared to 10-15 years ago?

I disagree with you. Since when is Navratilova more famous than Evert?

 

[DarthFed]

I disagree with you. Since when is Navratilova more famous than Evert?

She's almost always considered the greater player than Evert. More casual fans have heard of Martina compared to Evert.

 

[Horsa]

She's almost always considered the greater player than Evert. More casual fans have heard of Martina compared to Evert.

I've heard of both of them & I'm not exactly the most clued up person on tennis on here. I'm more of an animal-loving, literary-minded, music-loving rhyme-artist.

 

[Fiero425]

She's almost always considered the greater player than Evert. More casual fans have heard of Martina compared to Evert.

Outside this country maybe! Martina never got much play with advertisers or fans when she was at the top of the game! In fact, she didn't get a Nat'l commercial hawking RV's until she was long gone from the game! We'll never know if it was some form of bigotry due to a preference for the tennis queen Evert for all kinds of reasons! It's so hypocritical of Americans to now laud strength, athleticism, and power when Martina was put down for it! She was barely a half size over Evert, but you would have thought she was some kind of ogre muscling the ball around the court! It was obscene and disgusting since now the players are twice her size! The emotional rollercoaster she must have been on just trying to make a life here; regardless of her supposed $$ and affluence! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

Of course he will be surpassed someday but it goes without saying it's much different if it's player X who does it 25 years in the future as opposed to Nadal or even Djoker. The main threat is Nadal, if he gets the slam record then Roger looks more like a Chris Evert where he was dominated by someone who also had a better career. No one aside from serious tennis fans knows much about Evert just 30 years after she retired. Much different story when we are talking about Navratilova, Graf, and Serena.

In theory all the current sport GOAT's will be overtaken and will someday be held in way less esteem than they currently are but it's a matter of how long they were the gold standard of excellence. If Roger holds the record for 30 years he will still be revered long after its broken. Otherwise if it's a short reign...well how famous is Pete Sampras right now compared to 10-15 years ago?

It's quite clear that your worry is that Roger will be passed in Majors by a contemporary, but it won't change the fact that he'll always be one of the best ever in men's tennis...always. And you're comparing apples to oranges with some of your examples. Serena isn't even retired. Chris and Martina are actually very front-and-center in tennis because they also commentate. Steffi is less remembered than you think, because of her low profile in the game now, but she's married to Andre, and her records are still in contention. Pete is less remembered because he's out of the game completely. He also never had the superstar quality of Roger. But the real fact is that when they retire they do become less relevant, and more forgotten by the casual fan.

 

[herios]

She's almost always considered the greater player than Evert. More casual fans have heard of Martina compared to Evert.

Maybe in your circle
As far as accomplishments, they are dead even, both won 18 slams .
Navratilova is the greatest Wimbledon champion, Evert the best clay court female champ with the 7 record RG titles. And they usually are mentioned together because of their rivalry.

 

[Moxie]

Maybe in your circle
As far as accomplishments, they are dead even, both won 18 slams .
Navratilova is the greatest Wimbledon champion, Evert the best clay court female champ with the 7 record RG titles. And they usually are mentioned together because of their rivalry.

Well said. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that Martina is more remembered than Chrissie, as they are remembered together, in the way that Roger and Rafa will be, along with Novak, though Darth just hates that. Martina stuck around longer in doubles and mixed doubles, but no one really thinks about that much. There is an excellent doc on them in the ESPN series "30 for 30," if you manage to catch it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree with Darth here. I think most of the non-serious fans of Tennis would know Martina much better than Chris Evert. When I say, non-serious fans of tennis, I am excluding all of us who post here, obviously.

Martina has much better name recognition among casual fans than Chrissy.

 

[Moxie]

I agree with Darth here. I think most of the non-serious fans of Tennis would know Martina much better than Chris Evert. When I say, non-serious fans of tennis, I am excluding all of us who post here, obviously.

Martina has much better name recognition among casual fans than Chrissy.

I'm not sure who you're talking about, then, or what recognition you're claiming. As you exclude all of us who post here, I think you rightly say that we have no idea about "casual tennis fans." However, you should remember that Chris Evert was a darling of American tennis in her day and very high-profile for a lot of years. Martina, aside from her defection, was played as a villain, and also excluded from endorsements for many years, because she was an out-lesbian. Now they are both commentators. What makes one more visible/memorable than the other? I agree with @herios, who says they are linked and dead-even. He says in records, and I would include in profile and memory for all tennis fans, casual and non-.

 

[Fiero425]

I'm not sure who you're talking about, then, or what recognition you're claiming. As you exclude all of us who post here, I think you rightly say that we have no idea about "casual tennis fans." However, you should remember that Chris Evert was a darling of American tennis in her day and very high-profile for a lot of years. Martina, aside from her defection, was played as a villain, and also excluded from endorsements for many years, because she was an out-lesbian. Now they are both commentators. What makes one more visible/memorable than the other? I agree with @herios, who says they are linked and dead-even. He says in records, and I would include in profile and memory for all tennis fans, casual and non-.

You are understating Navratilova's prowess in doubles; able to play with anyone and win majors! She was even able to drag that tired, old carcass of BJK's over the finish line to her 20th Wimbledon title! Martina was just as dominating in MxD's with various partners, finishing up her career @ the '06 USO taking the MxD's w/ Bob Bryan! She actually completed her "Box Set" a few years earlier by winning AO MxD with L. Paes IIRC! She ended up with more doubles titles than singles; 177 over 167 Singles (59 MAJORS)! This is why I think MN is incomparable; more like the female John McEnroe! They were "artists;" this coming from someone that HATES JM's guts!

 

[Moxie]

You are understating Navratilova's prowess in doubles; able to play with anyone and win majors! She was even able to drag that tired, old carcass of BJK's over the finish line to her 20th Wimbledon title! Martina was just as dominating in MxD's with various partners, finishing up her career at the '06 USO winning the MxD's with Bob Bryan! She actually completed her "Box Set" a few years earlier by winning that MxD with Leander Paes IIRC! She ended up with more doubles titles than singles; 177 over 167 Singles! This is why I think MN is incomparable; more like the female John McEnroe! They were "artists;" this coming from someone that HATES JM's guts!

Oh, I should have figured that someone was going to complain about my point about doubles. I don't mean to demean it, and I'm actually a great admirer of what she did in doubles in the later iteration of her career, as I am of McEnroe. It's just that we were talking about singles, and about what casual fans will remember, and, I'm sorry, but doubles in late career is only mostly for us mega-fans.

 

[Fiero425]

Oh, I should have figured that someone was going to complain about my point about doubles. I don't mean to demean it, and I'm actually a great admirer of what she did in doubles in the later iteration of her career, as I am of McEnroe. It's just that we were talking about singles, and about what casual fans will remember, and, I'm sorry, but doubles in late career is only mostly for us mega-fans.

I'm still confused about WTH you're talking about; "later iteration?" She was winning doubles from the jump taking Evert to major titles very early before Chris nixed the partnership b/c Martina threatened her supremacy! She admitted it in that same ESPN "30 - 30" program!

 

[Moxie]

I'm still confused about WTH you're talking about; "later iteration?" She was winning doubles from the jump taking Evert to major titles very early before Chris nixed the partnership b/c Martina threatened her supremacy! She admitted it in that same ESPN "30 - 30" program!

OK, fine. I was just trying not to make it about the dubs. She and Mac were the same, best doubles team was them + anyone else. Their whole careers.

 

[herios]

I'm not sure who you're talking about, then, or what recognition you're claiming. As you exclude all of us who post here, I think you rightly say that we have no idea about "casual tennis fans." However, you should remember that Chris Evert was a darling of American tennis in her day and very high-profile for a lot of years. Martina, aside from her defection, was played as a villain, and also excluded from endorsements for many years, because she was an out-lesbian. Now they are both commentators. What makes one more visible/memorable than the other? I agree with @herios, who says they are linked and dead-even. He says in records, and I would include in profile and memory for all tennis fans, casual and non-.

I am also confused about the so called "casual fans". Who are they and how do you know about what do they think?
All I know that in Europe where I lived when Martina and Chris were playing, they were equally known and followed.

 

[Moxie]

I am also about the so called "casual fans". Who are they and how do you know about what do they think?
All I know that in Europe where I lived when Martina and Chris were playing, they were equally known and followed.

I think we have enough anecdotal evidence to say that Darth is wrong about the difference in recognition between Martina and Chris. To go back to the topic of Roger, I think there is no chance he's going to fall into obscurity, no matter when his Majors count get eclipsed.

 

[herios]

I think we have enough anecdotal evidence to say that Darth is wrong about the difference in recognition between Martina and Chris. To go back to the topic of Roger, I think there is no chance he's going to fall into obscurity, no matter when his Majors count get eclipsed.

Exactly. Roger is past just a tennis player. He is a "brand". It is just @DarthFed is obsessed with the slam count.

 

[Moxie]

Exactly. Roger is past just a tennis player. He is a "brand". It is just @DarthFed is obsessed with the slam count.

And Rafa passing him on it. Let's face it: he could even live with Djokovic, as he keeps saying that he only beat "geriatric Fed." But if Rafa passes him, Darth will plotz.

 

[El Dude]

Out of curiosity...here's the gap in Slam count, by year:

Year: Roger, Rafa = gap
2003: 1, 0 = 1
2004: 4, 0 = 4
2005: 6, 1 = 5
2006: 9, 2 = 7
2007: 12, 3 = 9
2008: 13, 5 = 8
2009: 15, 6 = 9
2010: 16, 9 = 7
2011: 16, 10 = 6
2012: 17, 11 = 6
2013: 17, 13 = 4
2014: 17, 14 = 3
2015: 17, 14 = 3
2016: 17, 14 = 3
2017: 19, 16 = 3
2018: 20, 17 = 3

So the gap got wider until 2007 then started narrowing in 2010 and has been at 3 for a fifth year in a row. Remember after 2013 it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Rafa would surpass Roger? It is amazing that the gap has remained stuck at 3 for five years, with of course Roger jumping ahead to 4 one in 2017 and once in 2018.