Jay can answer this one better. May be he has something to say about the metaphysical state in tennisAre you saying that there is not a One Main Tennis God? Are you not a tennis monotheist? Can we worship different Tennis Gods and still have a working Tennis Religion?
What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro
Moderator: Moderators
- Sandeep
- Moderators
- Posts: 10722
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:21 pm
- Antispam: No
- Please enter the middle number: 5
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro
- PKBasu
- Member
- Posts: 36884
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:04 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: New Delhi / Kolkata
- Been thanked: 8 times
What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro
Religion isn't defined by monotheism. Hinduism, Buddhism (with its Bodhisattvas), Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism -- all are polytheist. So there is no reason why the tennis religion should revert to monotheism.
That said, I would broadly agree with Prashant and Bhushan's fairly comprehensive criteria. If someone achieved all of those things, he would definitely be considered the all-time great. At the moment, Sampras falls short of undisputed all-time greatest status because he lacks a career Grand Slam.
If one takes Bhushan's argument about Laver into account (that he couldn't win more Slams during the 5 years of his career that he couldn't participate in Slams after turning pro), the same applies to Pancho Gonzalez (the greatest pro in the 1950s, who turned pro before really participating in too many majors!), Lew Hoad (the dominant player of 1956 with 3 of the Slams, who would certainly have won the Grand Slam 2-3 times had he played on as an amateur for the next 5 years), and his great rival in the early years Ken Rosewall (in my book, the greatest player of all time, who would certainly have won Wimbledon a few times had he remained an amateur longer -- he was runner-up four times, with a 21-year gap between the first and last, but missed 12 years of Slam tennis in his prime). Rosewall of course outlasted Hoad and even Laver (who was almost a decade younger!). He was still in the top-10 at the age of 41!
Agassi's game (like Jim Courier's) was ideally suited for clay courts, so it was not a surprise that he won the French Open (Americans had a mental block about winning the French after the 1950s, but that was shattered by Chang and Courier -- who paved the way for Agassi). The real surprise was that Agassi won Wimbledon once, but he got really lucky because there was absolutely no rain at Wimbledon in 1992, and the courts were unusually slow that year -- helping Agassi to pull off the near-impossible (for him) there.
Federer is now in line for his 7th career Slam title (he is in his 7th Slam final, and has won all his previous finals!). Rosewall and McEnroe, Connors, Laver, Borg and Sampras have more Slam titles (as indeed does Emerson, but his titles in the amateur era when he clearly wasn't even among the top 4 players in the world, don't count with me). But Roger definitely belongs in that company, and by the end of 2006 may belong near the top of it -- especially if he can win the French.
That said, I would broadly agree with Prashant and Bhushan's fairly comprehensive criteria. If someone achieved all of those things, he would definitely be considered the all-time great. At the moment, Sampras falls short of undisputed all-time greatest status because he lacks a career Grand Slam.
If one takes Bhushan's argument about Laver into account (that he couldn't win more Slams during the 5 years of his career that he couldn't participate in Slams after turning pro), the same applies to Pancho Gonzalez (the greatest pro in the 1950s, who turned pro before really participating in too many majors!), Lew Hoad (the dominant player of 1956 with 3 of the Slams, who would certainly have won the Grand Slam 2-3 times had he played on as an amateur for the next 5 years), and his great rival in the early years Ken Rosewall (in my book, the greatest player of all time, who would certainly have won Wimbledon a few times had he remained an amateur longer -- he was runner-up four times, with a 21-year gap between the first and last, but missed 12 years of Slam tennis in his prime). Rosewall of course outlasted Hoad and even Laver (who was almost a decade younger!). He was still in the top-10 at the age of 41!
Agassi's game (like Jim Courier's) was ideally suited for clay courts, so it was not a surprise that he won the French Open (Americans had a mental block about winning the French after the 1950s, but that was shattered by Chang and Courier -- who paved the way for Agassi). The real surprise was that Agassi won Wimbledon once, but he got really lucky because there was absolutely no rain at Wimbledon in 1992, and the courts were unusually slow that year -- helping Agassi to pull off the near-impossible (for him) there.
Federer is now in line for his 7th career Slam title (he is in his 7th Slam final, and has won all his previous finals!). Rosewall and McEnroe, Connors, Laver, Borg and Sampras have more Slam titles (as indeed does Emerson, but his titles in the amateur era when he clearly wasn't even among the top 4 players in the world, don't count with me). But Roger definitely belongs in that company, and by the end of 2006 may belong near the top of it -- especially if he can win the French.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2348
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:05 pm
What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro
No matter what he does, it will always be argued by some one or the other as to whether Federer is the greatest ever. Even if he wins the full calendar year Grand Slam 4 years in a row (that is 16 titles), there will be a segment of people that will say that Laver could have achieved that if only.... yada, yada. Thus, unless there is an universally accepted set of criteria as to what constitutes "The Greatest" it will always be a subjective, and thus arguable, title.
- shakes1974
- Member
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 1:42 am
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: san jose, CA
What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro
for roger to be declared the goat, imo, he should have at least 12-13 slams with 1 french and 5 wim's. otherwise, sampras' overall achievements are too impressive. i'm pretty sure fed will find it impossible to break sampras' record of 6 yrs in a row ending as no.1 and even sampras' record of 7 wim titles. the only shortcut would be if he wins a calendar year grand slam (cygs). if he can achieve that this yr, he would have 10 slams, and 4 slams over the next few yrs is very possible.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2348
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:05 pm
What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro
How about these parallels between Federer and Sampras. Uncanny.
- prasen9
- Member
- Posts: 19279
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: State College, PA
- Has thanked: 42 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
- Contact:
Re: What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro
Nadal won his 21st. Djokovic will, no doubt, overtake him. I am a Nadal fan but I do not think he is GOAT because a GOAT has to win on all surfaces regularly. Nadal is very FO-centric.