Susan Kim2
Active Member
94 messages
joined Jan 2019
From the perspective of a casual tennis fan, I think people take it for granted how long Federer has stayed at the top. He’s basically traded raw physical dominance for pure technical mastery to stay relevant.
Both Novak and Roger hit their massive peaks around the same age. Using their head-to-head record as the ultimate deciding factor isn't exactly fair, considering Roger hit his prime six years earlier. In a high-intensity individual sport like tennis, six years is an eternity.
Another thing that didn't help Roger was the shift in the game itself. There aren't enough grass court tournaments anymore, surfaces have slowed down at most major events, and ball technology changed. Right when he was in his prime, the game moved from fast-paced action to a lot more grinding.
The third thing that comes to mind is Roger's style. Personally, I think he contributed way more to the sport's global popularity than either Novak or Nadal ever did.
It’s like how Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant popularized basketball significantly more than someone like Tim Duncan. That kind of impact matters.
When we talk about the "Greatest of All Time," it usually boils down to whether we’re throwing everyone into one giant bucket just to fill up a list. Laver, Connors, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Novak.
Or in basketball: Russell, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron.
Every single one of them broke records and pushed boundaries within their specific eras.
You can see how much a sport evolves by looking at something like the UFC. We watched MMA grow right before our eyes. Most fans know the early days, and many will still list Fedor, Mirko, Minotaur, or Cain as the legends. But today, there are fighters three times better than them—they just happen to be fighting in their shadows. In twenty years, hardly anyone will be putting Fedor in their top five.