10 years ago today!

That was the day that Roger Federer first became World No 1. It came the day after a stunning display in the Australian Open to take the first of his four titles there. From the BBC report and think piece after the match, its funny to see that after only his second major and, only just becoming the top ranked player, he was already being described as a great. John McEnroe described him as being probably the most talented player ever and it just strikes me as unusual to use words like "majestic" and "reigns supreme" to describe a 22 year old. These are the words, surely, for a older and more accomplished champion. But Federer always attracted that kind of commentary.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Would you have predicted that level of achievement ten years later. From the second article:

"Federer is already being compared to the greats of the past, including Pete Sampras and Rod Laver. Grand Slam titles tend to be the measure of greatness and with only two to his name, Federer is not yet ready for the history books. And with such an array of quality in the world's top 10, it would be an astonishing achievement, even for Federer, to claim the 14 majors that Sampras managed"

Guess no-one told Ms Cheese that it was a week era. It's funny how history gets re-written to explain new realities - in explaining how today's top players beat Federer, its easier to say the quality them days was poorer than to acknowledge that Federer declined from 2008.

I mean sometimes you would think that Nadal only came around in 2008:

"Teenager Rafael Nadal gave his already glowing reputation another boost with a third-round appearance in which he tested Hewitt to the limit."

Fascinating reading.

Interesting that at the time people were commenting on the strength of the men's game and the quality of the top ten.

I think media always have a tendency to make the then current players better than they are; after all they are part of the industry and indirectly depend on how well the product sells.

Even the comparisons of Fed with all time greats I suspect were more a sales pitch than a genuine assessment - notwithstanding the fact that they ended up being correct.  The same with talk about how great the current players are - it is never quite genuine from the media.

When Federer first started winning, I had a feeling that they were hoping to sell him here in the US similarly to how they were selling Tiger Woods at the time.  Tiger Woods was a huge money making machine who also increased TV ratings for PGA dramatically, and I think they were hoping to do something similar with Roger.  I think that was one of the reasons why they were talking him up from very early on, but financially it never quite worked out anywhere near as well as with Tiger here - either because he is not an American or for other reasons.

summerblues wrote:I think media always have a tendency to make the then current players better than they are; after all they are part of the industry and indirectly depend on how well the product sells.

Even the comparisons of Fed with all time greats I suspect were more a sales pitch than a genuine assessment - notwithstanding the fact that they ended up being correct.  The same with talk about how great the current players are - it is never quite genuine from the media.

I think there is truth in it. But it is unusual to do it after the second slam. And the type of praise used to describe him are unusual. But yes, its always going on.

That was interesting. I wasn't watching much men's tennis in 2004 as I still assumed it was mostly dull serve dominated stuff although I had seen Federer at Wimbledon in 2003 and thought there might be a glimmer of hope. Funny that Nadal already gets a mention for his third round appearance. There was talk recently here about Federer and Nadal's semi at the FO in 2005 something that I didn't see. I recently found an interesting article on Nadal in 2004 but I will post it on another thread as this should be about Fed  

Interesting that Fed slipped comfortably in the position of number one. From an early age he'd heard people talk about his ability and that he should be winning slams and getting to numero uno - and for a while it didn't happen.
But after a while at the very top he was saying how much he enjoyed being No 1 and how it had relaxed him. Rafa, to an extent, always seems happier being the hunter rather than the hunted. There were some recent stats about just how many slams Rafa has won while number one and how many from other seeding positions. Djoko, too, has a better GS-win record as non-number one, I think.

The desire for an eternal legend, in any sport, is a journalistic goal. Tomic, and now Krygios and Kokkinakis are being portrayed as heirs to Hewiit, as Tomic is seen as somewhat fallen from grace.

At the time, I though Safin would actually achieve much more than this ponytailed kid.

First comment - the media will always super sensationalise anything in order to sell magazines, papers, the such; that is, what it is, and always will be. It has nothing to do with the 'actual reality' of the "things" of which are being spoken of, discussed, so leave it as to what it is - irrelevant.

Federer - those in relative positions of "power," and "knowledge," knew we were seeing "something very special," and that has indeed "come to pass." What Federer has done, and the manner in which he has done it, is something quite special. There is little to suggest we will see it's "like" ever again. And for all of us who have witnessed it's entirety or portions thereof, we are blessed to have done so, come whatever may from here on out.

What he "did" to those already established in the game, and the "pretenders" that come along shortly forthwith, was to render them redundant in their own game. Such was his talent, ball striking, retrieval, and magnificence of shot - it completely emasculated them in their own profession. It truly was something the likes of which the game had never seen before, that was bestowed on us, and for the most part, one "reveled" in it's magnificence.

When Lendl was "done," I remember thinking that we would never see that kind of dominance again, day in, day out - then came Sampras with his 6 year-end No1 rankings!

When you look at the plethora of opponents who succumbed before Federerer, time and time again, these players 'folded," often before a match was well and truly underway. What makes his "destiny" or "legacy" all the more enriched is, that once he had a true "rival" with all that that means, in Nadal, the dynamic changed. Here was someone who was not the slightest "subued" or "frightened" because they were playing Roger Federer.

What has made Federer's legacy in the game, goes almost hand in hand with the fact that someone had arrived who gave him "no quarter" because of who he was, or what he had done, was doing; but took each match as it's own entity, and fought for each of those matches with all that he had. Until Nadal came around, Federer had NO contemporary, who battled with him year in and year out, for Major titles, time after time. You had Roddick at SW19 but that was basically the exception and on a surface where that massive serve, "ruled."

They are inextricably "bound" by their time in the game, their fight for the Major prizes, and this simply "adds" to the dichotomy that is Roger versus Rafa. Without the other, well, the numbers would be in another "realm." Without Rafa, Roger may well have won 3 str8 Grand Slams, and by that I mean "Grand Slam" - the winning of the four Major titles in one year, in the same discipline, and not the oft' bandied about term for simply, a Major. Without Roger, I am not sure Rafa would have made the improvements that he has made.

Suffice so say that 10 years on from his "taking" of the World No 1 ranking, Roger has shown us something that so many would have doubted would EVER have come around again. He ruled the game from early 2004 through mid 2008 with absolute dominance, and were it not for the same thinking post-Lendl, I would say we would never see it again but, I am not so sure now. You can just not say with absolute certainty that this won't happen again, as unlikely as it may seem today. He really HAS been something special and extraordinary, but I cannot say we will never see such again. Many would have thought so back in 1990, and yet.....

yloponom68 wrote:Until Nadal came around, Federer had NO contemporary, who battled with him year in and year out, for Major titles, time after time.

Very well said, Monopoly.

The quoted sentence will fan fires of the Wee Keira incessantly.

Let us not forget 2009-2010, either.

There's a catch 22 about being dominant in tennis. There are four major prizes and someone has to win them. It's alot for any sport. There aren't four superbowls or champions league titles. Obviously golf has their four majors but the randomness of the weather, the free-for-all tournaments rather than H2h and the fine line between a great day and missing the cut means that dominance can never translate into a monopoly of the major prizes. Conversely, it is understood that being at the top doesn't necessarily translate into a major, nor does winning a major demonstrate that you are the best.

In tennis, it's different- especially now. If you are the best or thereabouts you ought to win a major. The game is set-up to ensure that you're competitors need more than a purple streak or a great weekend to come away with a major. And if you don't win a major (or multiple majors), you are obviously not a great player. And so, if you monopolise those titles it creates the illusion - and it is an illusion - that those around you (who have won less or.none) are weaker.

Lionel Hutz wrote: And so, if you monopolise those titles it creates the illusion - and it is an illusion - that those around you (who have won less or.none) are weaker.

The problem is, it needn't be an illusion.

If there is weak opposition, one player can dominate. Conversely, the same results can occur as a result of one player being outstandingly good.

At the other end of the scale, a lack of a dominant player can show a great depth to the game or it could be an absence of quality.

This is why using results to prove/disprove the strength of an era very quickly heads down a rather futile cul-de-sac.

Lionel Hutz wrote: And so, if you monopolise those titles it creates the illusion - and it is an illusion - that those around you (who have won less or.none) are weaker.

 
I think you've ended more ambiguously than you intended - it's not an illusion that they are "weaker" than the dominant player, they are.  What is an illusion is that they are weaker than players of other eras who have managed to snatch a slam or two because the slams aren't all being hoovered up by the same dominant monster like Federer or Nadal (or Djoko in 2011).
 
Tennis is a sport in which you can directly affect the opponent's play.  Such sports lend themselves to dominance by one, or a handful, of players or teams much more than sports like golf where each person is free to concentrate on their own performance without direct interference (there can be indirect interference in the form of the opponent's excellence, especially at clutch moments, but your performance is still in your hands).  It's not possible to measure objectively how good players of one era are vs. others - there are no times, distances, heights, lengths, scores vs. par or what have you.  Dominance by one figure may be explained by them being absolutely the best ever or by their opponents being relatively weak.  The explanation given tends to say more about the proclivities of the person offering it than the unmeasurable reality.
 
One thing that has changed is that dominance is more common across many sports.  Prior to Manchester United's first double in 1994 there had been 5 doubles in 100 years of the football league, two were in the late 1800's, and then Spurs 1961, Arsenal 1971, and Liverpool 1986 (they were a hugely dominant team in the 1970's and 1980's, but the double eluded them except once).  Since 1994 Man U have picked up two more doubles (one part of a treble), Arsenal two more, and Chelsea one.  In Germany there were two doubles prior to 2000, and nine since then (seven by Bayern), Italy is a bit more evenly spread but not much with four between the 1940's and 1994 and four after 1994.  Spain and Scotland have always had doubles, but they have always had super-dominant teams at the top - although Spain's double winners include Athletic Bilbao and Atletico Madrid.  If you look at Trebles, in England, Spain, Germany, and Italy (the traditional powerhouses) there have been one each, all since 1999, and three of them in the last 4 years (although one needs to be a bit careful because the Champions League now means you don't have to win your domestic league two years in a row to win a treble).
 
Like the current story of older players doing better, my view is that it is the product of professionalism as well as re-organising competitions.  Everyone is now working harder, including the very best, who are seeking to eke out every last bit of advantage that they start with, and are not satisfied with anything less than winning every big tournament they enter.

barrystar wrote:

Lionel Hutz wrote: And so, if you monopolise those titles it creates the illusion - and it is an illusion - that those around you (who have won less or.none) are weaker.

 
I think you've ended more ambiguously than you intended - it's not an illusion that they are "weaker" than the dominant player, they are.  What is an illusion is that they are weaker than players of other eras who have managed to snatch a slam or two because the slams aren't all being hoovered up by the same dominant monster like Federer or Nadal (or Djoko in 2011).

What I meant is that it looks like they weaker than they actually are. I think it's particularly the case if you run up against a player who is a poor match up. Roddick is a prime example in relation to Federer. He faced a road block.

With regards to team sports I think the difference is more to do with the money at the top of the game. These days it takes bankruptcy to take out a top team. Man United are going to get back to the top soon enough. It's inevitable. Other teams were not so disadvantaged then.

With regards to the older players issue. I thought the idea that the difference is because tennis has changed much in about ten years was interesting. And worth a bit of research

I see - that's fair enough.

Re Man U - I agree that money is crucial, but I'm not sure I agree that money creates the reason for the distinction in the way you describe it. Man U were always the richest club with the biggest support in the 1970's and 1980's but they got blown away by the more professional approach of Liverpool.

Now money goes hand-in-hand with professionalism so by and large the richest clubs are also the most professional because they are driven by desire for more money as well as glory and because it is glory that brings in money far more explicitly and directly than used to be the case. The same is true of tennis players, who correspondingly work harder at their game in part because of the financial rewards at the top and the difference between those rewards and the smaller amounts for less successful players.