Federer Says Todays Top Four Maybe Not The Best Ever

Golden era or weak era? Federer isn't so sure about today's top four.

“I'd say no, but I don't know,” Federer told reporters. “Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don't know who else. Those guys weren't good or what? You look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the Lendls. Those weren't good either? I mean, I don't know. So for me I think that's respectful.

It's just different times and definitely more athletic, there's no doubt about that. But then again we don't play doubles. We don't play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it's more taxing, but we do play less best of five set tennis than they used to play.

You can't compare really, but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It's nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It's definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It's very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. But then best ever? The four of us? That's a really difficult call.”

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/08/federer-big-four-maybe-not-best-ever/39039/#.UDsgV6Bket8

So he says its nice that Andy made a move at the Olympics and that Novak had a ridiculous year. That's how he sums up their place in the top four. Also of course himself and Rafa (say no more). Ever the diplomat but maybe he sees it as a top two? I hope Novak doesn't read this.

hawkeye wrote:But then best ever? The four of us? That's a really difficult call.

What do you make of this?

Fairly even-handed type of response. If he says this is the greatest top four he's accused of arrogance, if he says it isn't, then he's not respecting his rivals enough. Can't win.
There's little doubt that he's enjoying himself back at number one. I recall he was asked back in 04 how he was finding it at numero uno and he replied he loved being number one. Some prefer to be the hunter than the hunted, Fed is content to be everyone's target, it seems

laverfan

I did say what I made of it? What do you make of it?

sirfredperry

I'm sure all players would like to be at number one but I know what you mean about the difficulties of being hunted. The thing is with Nadal absent there is no one around with the qualifications to hunt him down or threaten him in any way. He's safe at the top of the tree with 18 slams. Of course he can be beaten as he was recently at the Olympics but that sort of loss doesn't hurt. He can just smile smugly, maybe ruffle some hair safe in the knowledge that it changes nothing. Federer is playing completely stress free. How many US Open titles does he have? I think I've lost count.

Agrees precisely with what I always say, that this is A golden era but not THE golden era, that is it is a better than average top 4 but then so was Borg/Connors/Mcenroe period.

Actually, the most interesting comment is that he claims the "depth" is greater than ever, implying outside the top 4. Can't say I agree with that, but surely that is the more interesting point for debate in this quote.

It was interesting that, in that same interview, he describes the late 90s to 2004 as a transitional period. That's a subject that has generated some heat on this forum in the past!

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2012-08-25/201208251345928881885.html

Excellent summary by Federer.

Could the BBC please take note, and maybe learn some tennis history before they resort to "greates xxxxx ever".

Hmmm it is odd though is it not? I thought we all took with a pinch of salt what pros said about fellow pros?

Murray hasn't even won a slam, so I'm not sure why we're talking top 4 rather than top 3.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmmm it is odd though is it not? I thought we all took with a pinch of salt what pros said about fellow pros?

No, it's not odd. It just shows perspective of the history of the game and appreciation of the standard of former greats, and former great rivalries. Perhaps he also recognises that surface homogeneity has made it easier for a single style to succeed across all four Slams.

He certainly took a swipe at the premium on athleticism today.

I can see how, contrasted with the Goldfish mentality of contemporary commentators, that you'd think it odd though.

So Roger always tells it as he sees it then? Ah thanks for clearing that up.

I don't think he took a swipe at the game being more athletic. He just made an observation about it. Every sport is more athletic than it was 25-30 years ago. Yes, slower surfaces have made it more of a pre-requisite for success than it ever has been before, but whether that diminishes the quality is subjective.

I prefer today's style of tennis. I like that's it's more attritional and that there are longer rallies.

Frankly I feel vindicated this is an argument I have been making since old 606 days and from then till now I have received a huge amount of flak from posters that there is nothing special in the top group of guys in today's tennis. Well when Federer himself, and others like Mcenroe and Courier come out and say the same exact thing I have been saying for years now it proves my point. The top level talent determines the strength of the era and the top 4 guys are extremely good able to match up pretty well with the best eras of the past. For my money however the greatest era was the one fed mentioned with lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker, and Edberg in the early to mid 90s was probably the best era of tennis for top level talent. We had a very good class with the Nadal, Djoko, Murray group of players. So far those that have come after them have been underwhelming so when these guys age we may be in trouble unless some more young talent starts proving itself.

I love Fed, he really should enter politics after he's retired

Well, the current top 4 consists of 2 all time greats, one great and one extremely good player, so is well up there for consideration as one of the strongest ever, but is not away and clear as the best ever (top 3 might be, only really Borg, Mac and Connors match up for my money, and that might be as much because of the rivalries between them than absolute quality).

This week in 93 had Courier, Sampras, Edberg and Becker as the top 4 - one definite all time great, two borderline ATG and a borderline great in Courier. Based on GS records, I'd place this marginally ahead of the current top 4 mainly because Courier has a more impressive record than Murray.

1990 does pretty well too, with Edberg, Lendl, Becker and Agassi as a top 4. 1989 and Johnny Mac was still top 4 instead of Agassi from the above list - actually the top 7 then was pretty impressive: Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Wilander, Agassi and Chang. Certainly better strength in depth than the current top 10.

Pretty accuracte post and read of the situation Dummy. For my money the early 1990s was pretty insane in terms of great players at the top. I don't think this era is the best ever, I think the early 80s and early 90s both match up pretty well with this era and for my money the best period ever was the early 90s. But that is subjective of course, still I think we look at the level of accomplishment of the top guys and thier talent levels and get a feel for what periods where particularly strong.

Roger Federer responds to another journo question ahead of the US Open, without calling the journo an ass whole.

It seems the journo wants Federer to respond to something that McEnroe and Agassi may or may not have said, and with or without the context in which the attributable comments were generated.

My questions to the esteemed members of 606v2 are:
a) when have all four Grand Slam tournaments been taken seriously? Is this just a recent phenomenon?
b) when have all four Grand Slam tournaments been played similarly? It has been said that in recent years due to relative speeds of the court and improved racquet & string technology, all four GS tournaments play a lot more similar than in the past. In the past you used to have "specialist" players. In the recent era one doesn't talk of "specialist" players. Why might this be?

I don't think Fed is paying this era is not great or weak etc. I think he is merely avoiding saying this is the strongest era for a while. If he came out and said his era is the best it could be interpreted as blowing his own trumpet. Why? Because if he says this is the best era he is inadvertently saying 'I am the best because in the strongest era I am no 1 and have 17 slams'. That will certainly not go down too well and it is being disrespectful to players in the past.

I think this is the strongest era and if you look back maybe 25 years the players have been great. The reason its seen as weak is because you have 3 or 4 guys dominating because they are a cut above the rest. I am sure if they were not as good as they are there would be many more slam winners than them in the last 10 years.

People like Cash for example say Laver is the greatest player due him having won a proper grand slam twice but I am not thoroughly convinced. Why? Because all the slams except FO were played on grass, making the transition from one surface to another practically non existent. Today you start on hard in Australia, then clay, then grass and back to hard. Plus the speed and intensity has gone up unbelievably with faster and stronger players with booming serves etc.

Watching McEnroe in the 80's and the slower pace makes me sometimes think today's ladies could easily have won mens singles titles back them as the athleticism is amazing.

FedsFan. Good point about three of the Slams being on grass in the days of Laver (great player though he was). It's something that people forget when they talk about the lack of difference in surfaces now.
Wonder how, say, Henman, would have got on with three of the four Slams being on grass ? Of course, those of us watchingon black and white TV in the old days had no idea what surface was in use. It took me years to work out Wimbledon was grass !

Well if anything Fed is being diplomatic with how he worded the answer. It is very difficult to say as I always fondly remember the likes of Borg/McEnroe and Connors and the early 90's was very strong. The current top players are certainly in the debate to ne amongst the best ever but on the other side of the coin we could muse over what definitely isn't the best top four ever and you could throw the early 2000's in there.

sirfredperry wrote:FedsFan. Good point about three of the Slams being on grass in the days of Laver (great player though he was). It's something that people forget when they talk about the lack of difference in surfaces now.
Wonder how, say, Henman, would have got on with three of the four Slams being on grass ? Of course, those of us watchingon black and white TV in the old days had no idea what surface was in use. It took me years to work out Wimbledon was grass !

I recall Becker saying recently that he does not think this is the best era in tennis as he is going on the fact that you have had the last 30 odd slams being one by 3 particular players whereas he said in his time it was more difficult to dominate due to the depth in the mens game so slams were shared.

There is some truth in that but it depends how you want to interpret that. In recent years we have become accustomed to the top 4 seeds reaching the semis in grand slams and the masters events. How often did that occur say 5-10 years ago? More often than not No 1 and No 2 are in the slam/masters finals too. That is consistency and utter dominance. Sampras for example made one FO semi if I recall right just to illustrate my point.

No disrespect meant to great players of the past but I think you cannot look further than the current crop in terms of a great era. The game has become extremely physical as have the players training routines, racquets have become lighter now and there is a huge focus on string tensions etc which have made serving at 150mph possible. I think the players are more like machines today whereas in days gone by players did not push their bodies to the limit and have problems such as those Nadal is having. This is why players could play on into their thirties.

As I said earlier, look how the womens game has moved on from the soft serving and volleying to exchanges at the net. Now you have Serena hitting 22 aces in a match and Sharapova crushing winners at amazing angles on the court!