PDA

View Full Version : Federer Task to be the GOAT


pepe01
01-15-2009, 09:17 AM
After all discussion in this forum about if Federer is or is not the GOAT.

According to you what need to do Federer to be considered with out any doubt the GOAT?.

Regards.

rommil
01-15-2009, 09:24 AM
GOAT is subjective(everybody will have their own reasons/arguments). In my eyes, Federer has already achieved GOAT. It's not only of his accomplishments but also how he did it. Also, it's a side issue but he has managed to surround himself with the right people and his family is not too overbearing. It seems like he has balanced everything out. My 2 cents.

Bolivian Ace
01-15-2009, 09:24 AM
Change his last name to Sampras....just kidding!
IMO there is no ONE GOAT there can be a few. We all meassure them by their records, and some have a record the other one hasn't and mosto of them belong to different generatios, thus different game.

pepe01
01-15-2009, 09:30 AM
GOAT is subjective(everybody will have their own reasons/arguments). In my eyes, Federer has already achieved GOAT. It's not only of his accomplishments but also how he did it. Also, it's a side issue but he has managed to surround himself with the right people and his family is not too overbearing. It seems like he has balanced everything out. My 2 cents.

Agree with you, just comment, if Federer takes the stage on RG and win it ( you can say Nadal gets injure) i can pay to see Nadal_freak and game sampras comments.

pepe01
01-15-2009, 09:30 AM
[QUOTE=Bolivian Ace;3008519]Change his last name to Sampras....just kidding!
Good one !! jajajaj

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 09:34 AM
To be the undisputed GOAT, He does need to win a French OPen, though that boat may have sailed and/or surpass Pete which Im sure he will in the GS count.

Then I will crown Roger as the GOAT.. Yes coming from a Pete fan.. But looking back, Fed's consistency at the French Open really solified his legacy over Pete's. Where Pete had 13 tries and failed each time.. Of course its not as though Pete was terrible by any means on clay. He beat some great clay court players in his day. Muster, Bruguera, Courier etc. But he didnt do jack all at the French. Though I will say this.. Pete IMO would have had more success at RG today then he did in the 90s

Pete is the GOAT at wimbeldon without a doubt and maybe you could argue the US OPEN. Though I dunno. Once Fed either gets a FRench Open title which would place him next to laver or reach 15 GS, you cant argue Roger really as being overral the Greatest that ever played the game. Even though it PAINS ME TO NO END to admit it.

Though maybe we cant say there isnt an undisputed GOAT unless all the records are shattered by someone. While Fed has dominated he hasnt shattered some of the records set. The closest thing to an objective opinion is each era has it's player.

But still... How can u argue against Fed.

One thing Fed wont break though is the 6 years of Number 1 though. I still question Feds competition compared to Petes in the early to mid 90s as I think Pete had it much tougher against a more talented crew in the top 10. But Domination is domination.. And no one dominated like Roger. And you can only dominate your era

rommil
01-15-2009, 09:35 AM
Agree with you, just comment, if Federer takes the stage on RG and win it ( you can say Nadal gets injure) i can pay to see Nadal_freak and game sampras comments.

Well I don't think Roger will win RG.(Granted everybody else right now stay healthy and competitive).

pepe01
01-15-2009, 09:41 AM
To be the undisputed GOAT, He does need to win a French OPen, though that boat may have sailed and/or surpass Pete which Im sure he will in the GS count.

Then I will crown Roger as the GOAT.. Yes coming from a Pete fan.. But looking back, Fed's consistency at the French Open really solified his legacy over Pete's. Where Pete had 13 tries and failed each time.. Of course its not as though Pete was terrible by any means on clay. He beat some great clay court players in his day. Muster, Bruguera, Courier etc. But he didnt do jack all at the French. Though I will say this.. Pete IMO would have had more success at RG today then he did in the 90s

Pete is the GOAT at wimbeldon without a doubt and maybe you could argue the US OPEN. Though I dunno. Once Fed either gets a FRench Open title which would place him next to laver or reach 15 GS, you cant argue Roger really as being overral the Greatest that ever played the game. Even though it PAINS ME TO NO END to admit it.

Though maybe we cant say there is an undisputed GOAT unless all the records are shattered by someone. While Fed has dominated he hasnt shattered some of the records set. The closest thing to an objective opinion is each era has it's player.

But still... How can u argue against Fed

Man, this post shows me real gamesampras, agree with you, if Federer wins RG, nobody can deny he is the best, huge task for federer, mean while, thank you for be part of this thread.

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 09:46 AM
Man, this post shows me real gamesampras, agree with you, if Federer wins RG, nobody can deny he is the best, huge task for federer, mean while, thank you for be part of this thread.

NO prob. But untill then. LOL I guess its still arguable for Pete and Laver. But once Fed does one of the two, he should be set as the GOAT.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 09:49 AM
There are already 500 threads on the subject, you could just bring back an old one, everything has already been said on this issue!

edmondsm
01-15-2009, 09:49 AM
+1^^^^^^^^^

baseliner
01-15-2009, 09:51 AM
To start with, in order to be considered GOAT, he needs to win 2 Grand Slams before we even start talking. He currently has 0 Grand Slams. I know he has won some majors but before it can be said he won a Grand Slam he needs all 4 in a calendar year. Rod Laver is so far out in front as the GOAT, no further discussion is warranted. 2 Grand Slams years apart.

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 09:53 AM
I agree with the above poster. But did Laver have the field to compete against that Pete or Roger did? Should we take that into account as well?

pepe01
01-15-2009, 09:58 AM
There are already 500 threads on the subject, you could just bring back an old one, everything has already been said on this issue!

Yeap, but before i start to search on TW threads, what is your conclusion?, i mean, GameSampres gave me a very good comments very clear and specific, you have been parts of those thread so winning RG is the final show down to Federer?

Tell me.

drakulie
01-15-2009, 09:59 AM
To start with, in order to be considered GOAT, he needs to win 2 Grand Slams before we even start talking. He currently has 0 Grand Slams. I know he has won some majors but before it can be said he won a Grand Slam he needs all 4 in a calendar year. Rod Laver is so far out in front as the GOAT, no further discussion is warranted. 2 Grand Slams years apart.

Laver won 3 of of the 4 majors on grass, one on clay. So unless we change the surfaces back to what they were>> there is no sense bringing Laver into it. Additionally, Fed won on 3 different surfaces in one year (twice), something Laver never did, as it was much easier to win on two surfaces, than on 3.

TennezSport
01-15-2009, 10:03 AM
IMO there is no ONE GOAT there can be a few. We all meassure them by their records, and some have a record the other one hasn't and mosto of them belong to different generatios, thus different game.

OK, so I see it's "Greats Of All Time" right??? Kinda like the great worriors throughout history thing; not bad. :wink:

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

pepe01
01-15-2009, 10:04 AM
Laver won 3 of of the 4 majors on grass, one on clay. So unless we change the surfaces back to what they were>> there is no sense bringing Laver into it. Additionally, Fed won on 3 different surfaces in one year (twice), something Laver never did, as it was much easier to win on two surfaces, than on 3.

So win RG is final task?, agree with you, Laver is among the greatest but not the big fish.

drakulie
01-15-2009, 10:07 AM
^^^^ Personally, Federer, a long time ago, was already **THE BEST** player I have ever seen. Everything he has done since then, is icing on the cake.

As for the GOAT thing and "The French", I agree with the following:

1. His chance to have won it may have passed.

2. he doesn't need it, but it would be great to witness him win one.

3. he happens to play in an era where possibly the GOAT of clay is playing.

TennezSport
01-15-2009, 10:09 AM
Laver won 3 of of the 4 majors on grass, one on clay. So unless we change the surfaces back to what they were>> there is no sense bringing Laver into it. Additionally, Fed won on 3 different surfaces in one year (twice), something Laver never did, as it was much easier to win on two surfaces, than on 3.

Major point! And.....grass was really slimy back then so no bounce, very fast and the balls were very hard (meaning 1 style of play S&V), while clay was .............well clay (no disrespect intended).

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

P_Agony
01-15-2009, 10:15 AM
IMO Federer is already GOAT for some time now. Never before has a player dominated the sport like him for so many years, and not only that, he dominated the sport with the most beautiful tennis there is. I stopped watching tennis years ago and came back just because of Federer.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 10:16 AM
Yeap, but before i start to search on TW threads, what is your conclusion?, i mean, GameSampres gave me a very good comments very clear and specific, you have been parts of those thread so winning RG is the final show down to Federer?

Tell me.
My opinion is that the GOAT (past or future) has to win all 4 slams and if he can have most slams overall on top (among other stuff like # 1 record) , then it's even better. As I said in another thread Fed has NEITHER won the FO NOR won the most slams. He's not even a "half-goat" if he doesn't do one of the 2 (no matter how many SEMIS he has played ;-) -private joke)

edmondsm
01-15-2009, 10:19 AM
I agree with the above poster. But did Laver have the field to compete against that Pete or Roger did? Should we take that into account as well?

I think so. Laver's achievements are amazing and it is tragic that he got screwed by the tennis establishment. However, if you look at some of his opponents at slams, especially in the early years, there is no comparison to Samp and Fed's competition. Sampras and Federer never played a single match against a non-pro, but Laver played most of his matches against non-pros.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
01-15-2009, 10:20 AM
The only way to convince me who the GOAT is if every candidate in their prime played a tournament. Single elimination, with a court that's one part grass, one part clay one part hardcourt. The winner is the GOAT. But then fanboys for each player would be crying because it wasn't on a good court, blah blah blah. We will never know who the GOAT is.

pepe01
01-15-2009, 10:21 AM
My opinion is that the GOAT (past or future) has to win all 4 slams and if he can have most slams overall on top, then it's even better. As I said in another thread Fed has NEITHER won the FO NOR won the most slams. He's not even a "half-goat" if he doesn't do one of the 2 (no matter how many SEMIS he has played ;-) -private joke!)

Thanks, win 4 slams is not going to happen, FO ?, well, if NY giants won last superbowl, all is possible, even Federer will takes RG, as i stated before huge task for Roger.

wangs78
01-15-2009, 10:22 AM
If Fed wins the FO (assuming Nadal is healthy and partakes in the tournament) and also breaks the 14GS mark, Fed will be the GOAT. He will have more GSs than anybody and he'll have a FO which Sampras didn't. Laver played in an altogether different era. Different equipment and a much smaller field of competitors. IMO, today's game is more demanding than yesteryears. The real GOAT test is whether Fed can we a few more slams, including RG, against Nadal, Djoker and Murray, who are now hitting their prime. If he does that then I think all the stronger arguments why Fed isn't the GOAT will fall by the wayside.

380pistol
01-15-2009, 10:25 AM
There is no one definitive answer to this question, as so many things need to be considered.

Pancho Gonzales shoud definitly be in the conversation (if not have the title) but the amateur/pro split killed his #'s. Laver has 2 calendar slams (throw out the 1st one). Sampras and Federer both lack the French, though Roger is still active.

What if Sampras (and even Federer) got to contest 3 of 4 slams on grass??? What if Pete and Roger got net rushing Aussies Emmerson, Roche, Newcombe(I don't think either beats Rosewall at RG) instead seasoned claycourters, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Nadal, Kuerten??? What if Laver had to deal with Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzalez, Blake, Davydenko, Nalbandian at his peak instead of Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe and Emmerson???

There are so many qustions, and generally people tend to give more weight to things that favour who they like, and less to those that do a disservice to their respective favourite.

You wanna know who the GOAT is. Take the top 16 contenders, make them play (in their primes) at all 4 slams and a final one on indoor carpet over a certain period of time, and there you have it. Then if one player has more slam and another has more points, there will be another debate. Outside of Pancho Gonzales in a fair one you know who I go with.

wangs78
01-15-2009, 10:25 AM
Btw, IMO, the key arguments against Fed being the GOAT are:

1) He hasn't won the FO
2) Currently he's only #2 in GS count
3) Many think his contemporaries until '08-'09 were sub-par by historical standards (Roddick, Davydenko, Bagdatis, Gonzalez, Blake, even Safin (who is an undeniable talent) but hardly played to his potential on 90% of occasions). The trio of Nadal, Murray and Djoker are a much more formidable bunch, IMO.

ksbh
01-15-2009, 10:26 AM
TOP POST! Couldn't agree more, especially the bolded part!

To start with, in order to be considered GOAT, he needs to win 2 Grand Slams before we even start talking. He currently has 0 Grand Slams. I know he has won some majors but before it can be said he won a Grand Slam he needs all 4 in a calendar year. Rod Laver is so far out in front as the GOAT, no further discussion is warranted. 2 Grand Slams years apart.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 10:26 AM
Thanks, win 4 slams is not going to happen, FO ?, well, if NY giants won last superbowl, all is possible, even Federer will takes RG, as i stated before huge task for Roger.
Both FO and winning 2 more slams are realistic goals for Fed. I don't know if it WILL happen but it's not arguable that Fed is the current player closest to these achievements.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 10:31 AM
I've just read that Laver has won around 198 titles in his career :shock: How is that possible? He has also won more than 1 of each slam, either the guy was a beast or his competition wasn't that strong. Either way, scary numbers!

The-Champ
01-15-2009, 10:33 AM
He is already the GOAT! Deal with it Sampras fans!

380pistol
01-15-2009, 10:39 AM
Btw, IMO, the key arguments against Fed being the GOAT are:

1) He hasn't won the FO
2) Currently he's only #2 in GS count
3) Many think his contemporaries until '08-'09 were sub-par by historical standards (Roddick, Davydenko, Bagdatis, Gonzalez, Blake, even Safin (who is an undeniable talent) but hardly played to his potential on 90% of occasions). The trio of Nadal, Murray and Djoker are a much more formidable bunch, IMO.

1) Yes and No. If he never wins the French does it make him any less of a player?? Not really. He's an excellent player overall, but on that singular surface he's good but not elite.

I mean Laver's great but at his best vs Nadal at the French I go with Nadal. Then again no Lendl for Wimbledon, but remove Becker, Edberg and Cash and give him Roddick, Hewitt etc. he maybe gets one. So this is as much Nadals' greatness on the dirt as well as Roger not winning it.

2) Again yes and no. Then Emmerson would be 3rd, Pancho Gonzalez only has 2, etc. Federer has forever enshrined himself in the GOAT debate. Being #1 on the list would definitely help his case though.

3) Yeah somewhat. It isn't his fault he can only play who's in front of him, but there's an old addage "You're only as good as what you come up against".

Still I feel if Federer had to walk in Sampras', Borg's, Laver's shoes etc. he'd still be #1 in their positions (like them) and winning slams. Would there 3 slas a year 3 times and 5 in row at SW19 and Flushing??? I'm not sure, not likely. But he would hold his own. But people will question what if Safin was focused (and healthy) and if Nadal, Djokovic and Murray had peaked alongside Federer, not a few years after??

P_Agony
01-15-2009, 11:06 AM
Btw, IMO, the key arguments against Fed being the GOAT are:

1) He hasn't won the FO
2) Currently he's only #2 in GS count
3) Many think his contemporaries until '08-'09 were sub-par by historical standards (Roddick, Davydenko, Bagdatis, Gonzalez, Blake, even Safin (who is an undeniable talent) but hardly played to his potential on 90% of occasions). The trio of Nadal, Murray and Djoker are a much more formidable bunch, IMO.

So Nadal wasn't there before 2008? Wasn't Djokovic playing in th 2007 AO? Wasn't Murray there too? Sure, other than Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were not reaching their best form at the time, but you somehow forgot to mention guys like Hewitt (who gave Fed a lot of trouble in past years) and Nalbandian (who is IMO just as talented as the trio perhaps even more), not to mention Agassi in a very good form. The argument of Federer having no real trouble is pathetic. The field was very strong, but people have a short term memory. It seems so weak because Fed destroyed everybody.

wangs78
01-15-2009, 11:14 AM
1) Yes and No. If he never wins the French does it make him any less of a player?? Not really. He's an excellent player overall, but on that singular surface he's good but not elite.

I mean Laver's great but at his best vs Nadal at the French I go with Nadal. Then again no Lendl for Wimbledon, but remove Becker, Edberg and Cash and give him Roddick, Hewitt etc. he maybe gets one. So this is as much Nadals' greatness on the dirt as well as Roger not winning it.

2) Again yes and no. Then Emmerson would be 3rd, Pancho Gonzalez only has 2, etc. Federer has forever enshrined himself in the GOAT debate. Being #1 on the list would definitely help his case though.

3) Yeah somewhat. It isn't his fault he can only play who's in front of him, but there's an old addage "You're only as good as what you come up against".

Still I feel if Federer had to walk in Sampras', Borg's, Laver's shoes etc. he'd still be #1 in their positions (like them) and winning slams. Would there 3 slas a year 3 times and 5 in row at SW19 and Flushing??? I'm not sure, not likely. But he would hold his own. But people will question what if Safin was focused (and healthy) and if Nadal, Djokovic and Murray had peaked alongside Federer, not a few years after??

Agree with all your points. But all I was trying to say is that those are the 3 most commonly cited reasons why Fed isn't the GOAT. If he is able to win for a couple more years and turn each of those 3 points in his favor, then it will be VERY hard for ppl to argue that he is not the GOAT. Or at least, they'd have to come up with new arguments.

Ari Gold
01-15-2009, 12:02 PM
11 of Federer's 13 slams came in a three year period. The reason he has so many slams is because, unlike all of the other contenders for the greatest player of all time, he didn't have 4/5 other players capable of winning a major.

A great player, for sure. I just don't believe that he's anywhere near the greatest of all time.

danb
01-15-2009, 12:16 PM
Fed needs to marry Rafa - then he can be (Rafa's) GOAT. Just joking - do not start shooting.:):):)

pepe01
01-15-2009, 12:41 PM
this debate goes on and on. Why not wait and see where fed is at the end of his career, before crowning him best ever.

Yeap, i know, but with this thread i try to see any common point, or task to Federer, as i can see 80% or more of us are thinking that Federer must win RG, and its possible, not imposible, also all of us knows if there is somebody to get this crown ( GOAT) is Federer, nobody puts Federer out of stage.

I think this is very good to Tennis sport, wait about what is going to happen with Federer, if Nadal will maintain great level than 2008, if Murray will be a real treat on grand slams and if Novak at the end will get number one spot.

Lets see.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 12:43 PM
Fed needs to marry Rafa - then he can be (Rafa's) GOAT. Just joking - do not start shooting.:):):)
He's already Rafa's b---- Can't be so many animals at once! (joking too :))

ksbh
01-15-2009, 12:44 PM
Not sure about if the qualifications used are appropriate but needless to say, Rod Laver has achived something no man has ... winning 2 grand slams.

FlamEnemY
01-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Some people say that Hewitt, Safin and Roddick (and occasionaly Nalbandian) are somewhat easy competition for a "GOAT" contender(not that there is a proof of who really this is, but whatever, I'll just play along), but why not turn it the other way around? Safin is extremely talented. Nalby too. Hewitt in his prime was a great player and would probably hold his own quite well versus those other legendary players. Roddick is not a "no-talented server".
Actually, Federer utterly dominating Hewitt and double bageling him in a final of a slam is a proof of Fed's calibre. Not many players could do that, I belive. Let's not underestimate Federer, let's give credit where credit is due.

West Coast Ace
01-15-2009, 05:49 PM
I've just read that Laver has won around 198 titles in his career :shock: How is that possible? He has also won more than 1 of each slam, either the guy was a beast or his competition wasn't that strong. Either way, scary numbers!The 198, if true, was probably bolstered by the 'barnstorming' during the early pro years - '63 - '68 when pros weren't allowed to play the majors. He and the other pros drove from city to city in the US every week (for months and months) and played a 'tournament' (probably more like exhibitions - not a 32 person draw). As the best player of the time he'd win a lot more than he lost - sure he racked up some amazing numbers.

Not sure about if the qualifications used are appropriate but needless to say, Rod Laver has achived something no man has ... winning 2 grand slams.Well said. And you left out the extra credit - there were a lot of years in between those two amazing years - first was '62 and the repeat performance was in '69...

JeMar
01-15-2009, 06:37 PM
Btw, IMO, the key arguments against Fed being the GOAT are:

1) He hasn't won the FO
2) Currently he's only #2 in GS count
3) Many think his contemporaries until '08-'09 were sub-par by historical standards (Roddick, Davydenko, Bagdatis, Gonzalez, Blake, even Safin (who is an undeniable talent) but hardly played to his potential on 90% of occasions). The trio of Nadal, Murray and Djoker are a much more formidable bunch, IMO.

I personally don't agree with number three on this list for two reasons:
1.) You can only play the person across the net from you, and you have no control over who that is.
2.) There are way too many subtle differences in the games from back then and now to be able to make an objective comparison.

While there are many threads about this, this one deserves to stand because it features GameSampras providing some actual rational insight. Kudos to you, sir. Keep it up. (Keep in mind I only read the first three pages in case he gets off the wagon again :))

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 06:40 PM
I personally don't agree with number three on this list for two reasons:
1.) You can only play the person across the net from you, and you have no control over who that is.
2.) There are way too many subtle differences in the games from back then and now to be able to make an objective comparison.

While there are many threads about this, this one deserves to stand because it features GameSampras providing some actual rational insight. Kudos to you, sir. Keep it up. (Keep in mind I only read the first three pages in case he gets off the wagon again :))



Whys that JMAR because I was pro Fed for once?:) Wait until the Australian Open. LOL. I may not be so kind.


Just have to call a spade a spade. 13 tries for Sampras at the RG.. Its very hard to defend that, even for the most diehard pete fans. I mean what do I blame it on? Sampras' Thalassemia Minor?

Dilettante
01-15-2009, 06:54 PM
Actually, Federer utterly dominating Hewitt and double bageling him in a final of a slam is a proof of Fed's calibre. Not many players could do that, I belive. Let's not underestimate Federer, let's give credit where credit is due.

I agree.

Hewitt is not the kind of guy that would give up and let you double bagel him easily.

Roger Federer has a hell of a tennis game. Personally I've never seen any other player so complete and "artistic". Some great players leave one's eyes in big awe once or twice on a regular match. Maybe four or five times in a inspired day. In his best years, Federer could left you in awe ten times in a match.

Can't really talk about the pre-Open era, but in modern tennis, Federer has been the absolute best for me. All respect and admiration to Sampras, Borg, etc. But Federer is something else. I've seen him solve plays in a magical way so many times on a regular basis that I can't think in anybody else as the best Open era player.

JeMar
01-15-2009, 06:55 PM
I believe he could've taken RG if he had stuck with his two-handed backhand, but he would've also given up many of his other majors.

Dilettante
01-15-2009, 07:03 PM
Federer didn't take RG just because Nadal, and Nadal on clay is up there with the humongous Bjorn Borg.

So I can't really say not winning RG is a big failure for Federer. Three finals and one semi all lost to Rafael Nadal, in a strange way that just speaks about Fed's greatness to me. For God's sake, Nadal has been as near to being unbeatable as a player can be, and Federer was just there in the finals because he beat everyone else, on his supposed "worst" surface.

It's not like he lost in FO 3rd round against some guy named John Doe.

egn
01-15-2009, 07:17 PM
NO prob. But untill then. LOL I guess its still arguable for Pete and Laver. But once Fed does one of the two, he should be set as the GOAT.

Question what about Borg? I mean why does Pete get to compete with Laver..

I think Pete, Borg, Laver and Fed all get to fight this out. No offense but Sampras is not lightyears ahead of Borg or Fed they are all relatively close and in many opinion Sampras can fall fourth on that list. I mean at least Borg and Fed madethe final of the slamthey could not conQuer

CyBorg
01-15-2009, 07:25 PM
Roger has four great years under his belt (2004-2007) and a couple of second-tier ones (2003, 2008 ).

That's good, but nothing unprecedented. In fact, it's not particularly eye-popping when compared to the accomplishments and particularly the longevity of some of the past greats. Yes, those four great years were amazing and are right there with those of Laver, but Roger still needs to surround them with some consistently good ones.

If his career ends now it would not only be remarkably short, it would also have a fair share of warts, particularly his record against Nadal (his closest nemesis) and his inability to master clay.

Now contrast this with Laver who mastered and dominated on all surfaces and had a peak stretch of circa six years with lots of quality ones to surround that.

Frankly I don't see how Roger is even close. Perhaps in the same neighbourhood as Gonzales, Sampras, Borg and Budge. But definitely not in Laver's league and probably not Rosewall's either.

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 07:28 PM
Question what about Borg? I mean why does Pete get to compete with Laver..

I think Pete, Borg, Laver and Fed all get to fight this out. No offense but Sampras is not lightyears ahead of Borg or Fed they are all relatively close and in many opinion Sampras can fall fourth on that list. I mean at least Borg and Fed madethe final of the slamthey could not conQuer



Borg was finished by 25. No longevity there at all.. Granted he was the dominant one of his era but when your career only lasts until your mid 20s, that should take something away from your legacy. Granted Laver has 11 but we know the circumstances involved and dominated the multi surfaces . Realistically, Laver could/should be sitting on close to 20. Borg shouldnt be mentioned with Fed/Sampras/Laver IMO

CyBorg
01-15-2009, 08:02 PM
Borg was finished by 25. No longevity there at all.. Granted he was the dominant one of his era but when your career only lasts until your mid 20s, that should take something away from your legacy. Granted Laver has 11 but we know the circumstances involved and dominated the multi surfaces . Realistically, Laver could/should be sitting on close to 20. Borg shouldnt be mentioned with Fed/Sampras/Laver IMO

You should read up more on Borg. You're looking at age, but missing the big picture.

Borg has more years of elite tennis on his resume than Federer.

The difference is that Borg entered the elite ranks at 17 and stayed there. Federer didn't make the top-3 until he was about 22.

Mileage was a factor to Borg's early retirement. Young in years, somewhat old in actual playing years and matches.

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 08:08 PM
You should read up more on Borg. You're looking at age, but missing the big picture.

Borg has more years of elite tennis on his resume than Federer.

The difference is that Borg entered the elite ranks at 17 and stayed there. Federer didn't make the top-3 until he was about 22.

Mileage was a factor to Borg's early retirement. Young in years, somewhat old in actual playing years and matches.
Yeah Federer started his career on the pro tour in 1998 but he played crap for 5 years after that. Very different from Borg who took the tour by storm as a teenager!

CyBorg
01-15-2009, 08:10 PM
Yeah Federer started his career on the pro tour in 1998 but he played crap for 5 years after that. Very different from Borg who took the tour by storm as a teenager!

Yeah, I don't give Roger any credit for the early years. He played in them, but made no real impact to speak of. 2002 was really the first year of his to care about and even that one is only okay. He made a very sudden rise to prominence in 2003, even after a somewhat uncertain and disappointing spring.

Really, the only thing that matters to me are good and great years. Everything else is filler.

GameSampras
01-15-2009, 08:12 PM
The fact that the likes of Andre, Connors, Sampras etc were winning slams throughout a 10 year period or even more isnt that important? I dont think roger will do that. Personally i think thats more a feat than dominating a 4 year period of time. Especially in tennis when most only have that small couple years window of opportunity to win a slam or at least have the best chance in their primes. I think what makes a player GREAT in helping solidify their legacy in what they can do outside their primes and how they perservere when the cards are stacked against them or when people thinking they are washed up. These next few years, will prove ultimately what kind of legacy Fed will really make.. How he can do it when they are cards are stacked against him and he slowly leaves his prime

veroniquem
01-15-2009, 08:16 PM
Yeah, I don't give Roger any credit for the early years. He played in them, but made no real impact to speak of. 2002 was really the first year of his to care about and even that one is only okay. He made a very sudden rise to prominence in 2003, even after a somewhat uncertain and disappointing spring.

Really, the only thing that matters to me are good and great years. Everything else is filler.
Even 2002 was nothing special (apart from winning Hamburg). He was completely dominated by Hewitt and Nalby at the time, even Santoro beat him. I agree that his rise was very sudden and totally unexpected (for me at least)

CyBorg
01-15-2009, 08:29 PM
The fact that the likes of Andre, Connors, Sampras etc were winning slams throughout a 10 year period or even more isnt that important? I dont think roger will do that. Personally i think thats more a feat than dominating a 4 year period of time. Especially in tennis when most only have that small couple years window of opportunity to win a slam or at least have the best chance in their primes. I think what makes a player GREAT in helping solidify their legacy in what they can do outside their primes and how they perservere when the cards are stacked against them or when people thinking they are washed up. These next few years, will prove ultimately what kind of legacy Fed will really make.. How he can do it when they are cards are stacked against him and he slowly leaves his prime

Longevity is worth noting as well. Whether it's more important than peak dominance is debatable. I don't think so, great players are 'great' players, not just 'good' players for a really long time.

Sampras was a great player for a handful of years. Good player in some surrounding years.

380pistol
01-15-2009, 09:00 PM
So Nadal wasn't there before 2008? Wasn't Djokovic playing in th 2007 AO? Wasn't Murray there too? Sure, other than Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were not reaching their best form at the time, but you somehow forgot to mention guys like Hewitt (who gave Fed a lot of trouble in past years) and Nalbandian (who is IMO just as talented as the trio perhaps even more), not to mention Agassi in a very good form. The argument of Federer having no real trouble is pathetic. The field was very strong, but people have a short term memory. It seems so weak because Fed destroyed everybody.

This is what is strange about Federer fans. They are so blinded by their love for him they don't see arguments like this do more to damage Roger's brilliant career rather than help.

NADAL - zero slam SF on hardcourts (50% of slams), while Roger won his 1st 12 slams, but was the longest #2 in history, when he became a force outside of clay took Fed to 5 sets on grass, then took his title

DJOKOVIC - had accomplished what by the time Roger won his 11 th slam?? One master, and one slam SF. Then choked leads in the final as Federer took his 12th.

MURRAY -worse than the above two. When he started to blossom Roger already had 12 slams, 237 weeks at the top and was on wis down to... #2

AGASSI - a Sampras era holdover, who Roger didn't defeat 'til after Dre's 33rd b-day

So according to you, during Roger's peak, along with Nadal (mainly on clay for a period of time), Nalbandian and Hewitt. And this is what you want to compare to what other kings of their respective eras had to deal with. We don't have short term memory, you're just remebering it the way you want it to be, not as it actually was.

Some people say that Hewitt, Safin and Roddick (and occasionaly Nalbandian) are somewhat easy competition for a "GOAT" contender(not that there is a proof of who really this is, but whatever, I'll just play along), but why not turn it the other way around? Safin is extremely talented. Nalby too. Hewitt in his prime was a great player and would probably hold his own quite well versus those other legendary players. Roddick is not a "no-talented server".
Actually, Federer utterly dominating Hewitt and double bageling him in a final of a slam is a proof of Fed's calibre. Not many players could do that, I belive. Let's not underestimate Federer, let's give credit where credit is due.

More proof to this. Safin talente, but as Roger sits wih 13 slams, can he claim to beat a top 20 Marat Safin in a slam once??? No. He beat Safin when he was ranked 86,24 and 75. Yes Safin is incredibly talented, but he's a headcase, unfocused, and when he wants to play has unfortunately been injured.

Look at Marcelo Rios and Micheal Stich, are they not talented??? Rios is a head case, and Stich incositent. Call a spade a spade. Marat Safin has an immense ammount of talent, but he's put more of it to use chasing *** rather than hitting balls. Pat Cash is another one. But he was always injured or fighting some physical ailment.

Go back to 1998 Ryan Leaf was the more talented(physically/skill set) QB out of him and Peyton Manning, yet who's going to the hall of fame?? He did nothing with all his abilty, yett who considers him great.

Nalbandian, who I think is overblown, all this talk amout his skill level, and I've never really seen the depths of it, but he's inconsitent. I don't think Roddick is just a server or talentless, but he's neve taken in context from what I see. Either he's made out to better than he really is, or a whole lot worse, when he really is what he is.

Like I said earlier I can't blame Roger as he can only play who's in front off him, and he handles his business, but at some point you gotta call a spade a spade. It hurts Roger more than it helps.

paulorenzo
01-15-2009, 09:21 PM
The fact that the likes of Andre, Connors, Sampras etc were winning slams throughout a 10 year period or even more isnt that important? I dont think roger will do that. Personally i think thats more a feat than dominating a 4 year period of time. Especially in tennis when most only have that small couple years window of opportunity to win a slam or at least have the best chance in their primes. I think what makes a player GREAT in helping solidify their legacy in what they can do outside their primes and how they perservere when the cards are stacked against them or when people thinking they are washed up. These next few years, will prove ultimately what kind of legacy Fed will really make.. How he can do it when they are cards are stacked against him and he slowly leaves his prime
indeed, it's all about legacy. that's why majors tend to be the major factors in determining greatness. i can still see roger winning a slam a few years from now, it just will not be as often.
like some have stated in the forum: he'll have to focus more on slams, not rankings, just as pete did in the latter half of his career. fed is just going to have to adapt to the circumstances if he's going to win slams throughout a 10 year span.

380pistol
01-15-2009, 10:37 PM
1) Yes and No. If he never wins the French does it make him any less of a player?? Not really. He's an excellent player overall, but on that singular surface he's good but not elite.

I mean Laver's great but at his best vs Nadal at the French I go with Nadal. Then again no Lendl for Wimbledon, but remove Becker, Edberg and Cash and give him Roddick, Hewitt etc. he maybe gets one. So this is as much Nadals' greatness on the dirt as well as Roger not winning it.

2) Again yes and no. Then Emmerson would be 3rd, Pancho Gonzalez only has 2, etc. Federer has forever enshrined himself in the GOAT debate. Being #1 on the list would definitely help his case though.

3) Yeah somewhat. It isn't his fault he can only play who's in front of him, but there's an old addage "You're only as good as what you come up against".

Still I feel if Federer had to walk in Sampras', Borg's, Laver's shoes etc. he'd still be #1 in their positions (like them) and winning slams. Would there 3 slas a year 3 times and 5 in row at SW19 and Flushing??? I'm not sure, not likely. But he would hold his own. But people will question what if Safin was focused (and healthy) and if Nadal, Djokovic and Murray had peaked alongside Federer, not a few years after??

Agree with all your points. But all I was trying to say is that those are the 3 most commonly cited reasons why Fed isn't the GOAT. If he is able to win for a couple more years and turn each of those 3 points in his favor, then it will be VERY hard for ppl to argue that he is not the GOAT. Or at least, they'd have to come up with new arguments.

The only one I can see changing his fate is the 1st winning the French. He would be only the 3rd man in the open era (and 6th overall) to claim all four, which would tremendously help his case.

Slam count, unless he gets to 20 or something, I don't how much a difference it makes. It would certainly be nice (in his case) if he retired with the #1 spot there as well. But like I said if we proclaim the slam leader this, that and the 5th, where does it leave Pancho??? What does it mean for Emerson?? It's one of those things respective to era, and time frame etc.

And the 3rd one... impossible. Unless he's somehow gonna go back in time, he can't change that. Not his fault though.

P_Agony
01-16-2009, 12:06 AM
This is what is strange about Federer fans. They are so blinded by their love for him they don't see arguments like this do more to damage Roger's brilliant career rather than help.

NADAL - zero slam SF on hardcourts (50% of slams), while Roger won his 1st 12 slams, but was the longest #2 in history, when he became a force outside of clay took Fed to 5 sets on grass, then took his title

DJOKOVIC - had accomplished what by the time Roger won his 11 th slam?? One master, and one slam SF. Then choked leads in the final as Federer took his 12th.

MURRAY -worse than the above two. When he started to blossom Roger already had 12 slams, 237 weeks at the top and was on wis down to... #2

AGASSI - a Sampras era holdover, who Roger didn't defeat 'til after Dre's 33rd b-day

So according to you, during Roger's peak, along with Nadal (mainly on clay for a period of time), Nalbandian and Hewitt. And this is what you want to compare to what other kings of their respective eras had to deal with. We don't have short term memory, you're just remebering it the way you want it to be, not as it actually was.



Of course Murray, Djokovic and in some ways Nadal weren't in their primes then. But they weren't in their primes then just as Fed isn't today. People say his H2Hs with Nadal and Murray are affecting his GOAT status, and I say many of these losses came in 2008, when Fed's level of play was very low compared to his former years. So this goes both ways. This is just like saying Nadal won the 2008 Wimbeldon because the field was weak and Fed wasn't at his best form - this takes away from Nadal's much deserved credit, and it's clearly a stupid thing to say. Federer's field was strong - Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Blake, Roddick, Haas, very talented guys, and I'd argue some of them are just as talented as the trio of Murray and Djokovic, and this is just a small list. Federer deserves credit over every major he ever won, and it's pathetic to say otherwise.

aphex
01-16-2009, 02:15 AM
Of course Murray, Djokovic and in some ways Nadal weren't in their primes then. But they weren't in their primes then just as Fed isn't today. People say his H2Hs with Nadal and Murray are affecting his GOAT status, and I say many of these losses came in 2008, when Fed's level of play was very low compared to his former years. So this goes both ways. This is just like saying Nadal won the 2008 Wimbeldon because the field was weak and Fed wasn't at his best form - this takes away from Nadal's much deserved credit, and it's clearly a stupid thing to say. Federer's field was strong - Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Blake, Roddick, Haas, very talented guys, and I'd argue some of them are just as talented as the trio of Murray and Djokovic, and this is just a small list. Federer deserves credit over every major he ever won, and it's pathetic to say otherwise.

what people dont understand is that the result in the grand slams roger won from '04 to '07 would have been exactly the same whatever the field_he was truly untouchable...in fact i believe he is unlucky that he stumbled on nadal_the worst matchup he could ever have--in fact, had it been any other field, he would have 3 calendar slams.

West Coast Ace
01-16-2009, 03:21 AM
what people dont understand is that the result in the grand slams roger won from '04 to '07 would have been exactly the same whatever the field_he was truly untouchable...in fact i believe he is unlucky that he stumbled on nadal_the worst matchup he could ever have--in fact, had it been any other field, he would have 3 calendar slams.Amen. Fed has the complete game and is able to win with a variety of shots. Sampras - GOAT of the serve: look at his major number: 7 wins on very fast Wimby courts where he could just serve people off the court; 5 wins on fast USO courts; 2 wins on fast (but slower than USO) courts; 0 wins, and not even a trip to the Final (without a ticket!) at RG. Fed makes it to 10 straight major finals and only loses to Rafa, who will probably go down as the greatest clay courter ever...

Still laughing at the people trying to prop up the Sampras 'era' like it was some lineup of Gods he had to beat week in, week out - too funny. I guess that's what Dogma is - tell yourself the same lie over and over and it becomes true.

egn
01-16-2009, 04:14 AM
Borg was finished by 25. No longevity there at all.. Granted he was the dominant one of his era but when your career only lasts until your mid 20s, that should take something away from your legacy. Granted Laver has 11 but we know the circumstances involved and dominated the multi surfaces . Realistically, Laver could/should be sitting on close to 20. Borg shouldnt be mentioned with Fed/Sampras/Laver IMO



Borg retired. Borg had a ton of other issues that came into the way. Borg lost himself thats why he retired, his mental state was horrible he just lost it. How does that take away. Borg has 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons. 4 of his French were in a row and 5 of his wimbledon in a row. He had 3 consecutive 2 slam years, made 3 slam finals in multiple years. Simply because his career ended in his 20s? Borg and Sampras have almost the same exact ammount of ATP titles, and if you count Borgs non atp titles he blows Sampras out of the water. Borg won 41 percent of the grand slams he entered and made it to a slam final in 59 percent of them. Borg went down because his life went into a downward spiral, drugs, suicide, failing marriages and horrible mental state. His tennis domination however was insane. In his prime he won 11 titles in 77, 8 in 78, 13 in 79, 9 in 80. Borg dominated tennis, his grand slam count might only be 11, but than he used to play only 3 slams in a year so take it in retrospect. Its not saying oh he would have won the Australian Open's but you can't use what he didn't do against him. Like you can't hold the fact that Laver played no slams for 6 years against him. Borg definitly deserves to be in the conversation you greatly underrate borg.

drakulie
01-16-2009, 05:12 AM
I've just read that Laver has won around 198 titles in his career :shock: How is that possible? He has also won more than 1 of each slam, either the guy was a beast or his competition wasn't that strong. Either way, scary numbers!

By beating a lot of club players in early rounds of **MANY** smaller tournaments.

It is very well known, that back when Laver played, many smaller venues had local recreational players in the draw of the events to "beef up the draws".

He is already the GOAT! Deal with it Sampras fans!


I agree. I could care less about the "Total Numbers" at this point>> he is clearly the best player to walk on the planet in the history of the game. Period. The "numbers" are just icing on the cake.

Ari Gold
01-16-2009, 05:46 AM
I've seen them both play before and I think Federer is the better player. For someone to claim to hate Sampras you sure spend a lot of time praising him.

Show me where I've ever praised Sampras. I'm not sure I've even typed his name until now.

Ari Gold
01-16-2009, 06:42 AM
is he top 50 at least? lol

Of course, he's top 5 - when I say nowhere near what I mean is that he isn't close to claiming to be the best, not that he's not one of the best.

thejoe
01-16-2009, 06:43 AM
Of course, he's top 5 - when I say nowhere near what I mean is that he isn't close to claiming to be the best, not that he's not one of the best.

In your eyes, who is?

shintan17
01-16-2009, 07:06 AM
Who cares....seriously.

It's impossible to compare players from different eras and decide who is greater or the greatest. You guys keep doing it. Unbelievable...

Fed is one of the greats without a doubt. That's all. Nothing less or more.

hyogen
01-16-2009, 07:07 AM
After all discussion in this forum about if Federer is or is not the GOAT.

According to you what need to do Federer to be considered with out any doubt the GOAT?.

Regards.

with out any doubt - win the french open. without it, he's just one of the very best :)

Ari Gold
01-16-2009, 07:15 AM
So, you think Sampras is the GOAT

No, I think its between Laver and Sampras

yet you post on this page of this thread:

"I think Federer is a better player than Sampras."

Greatest is completely different to better. Sampras has won more slams and did it against harder opposition but has had a whole career, that's something that Federer hasn't had yet.

I much prefer watching Federer to Sampras, he has much more style than Sampras. Is he greater than Sampras - that's a different question.

autumn_leaf
01-16-2009, 07:29 AM
i think to be undisputed GOAT he needs to beat nadal at french. since i agree with others that nadal is the best on clay.

i already think federer is up there with sampras, if not better with all his finals at RG, the french would just make it plain and clear to everyone who is not in complete denial.

pepe01
01-16-2009, 08:23 AM
Ok, ok, ok, so as i can see, if Federer wins his 15 th slam put down Sampras and final show down is between Federer and Laver?, due numbers are so close between them ( Pete and Roger) and Roger is must complete player than Sampras ( nobody can deny that), so sampras is almost out of this race.

Let me know your comments.

pepe01
01-16-2009, 08:32 AM
Also....

1.- Roger needs to win RG ( against Rafa will be better).

2.- He needs win two slams ( four big ones), (eaaaaaasy!!!!!) Veroniquem thinks it is possible ( uffffff)

Then Roger will be the GOAT.

After this thread, i guess:

If Roger wins more than 14 big ones and win RG.....then is the GOAT.

Am I right?

NamRanger
01-16-2009, 08:42 AM
Even if Federer won 20 more slams, 5 FOs, 5 Wimbledons, 5 USOS, 5 Australian Opens (meaning a Grand Slam 5 times in a row) he still wouldn't be considered the GOAT according to Ari Gold.

David L
01-16-2009, 08:59 AM
These comments from some of the best who played the game, illustrate how silly these lack of competition arguments are.

23 December 2003

"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html


COVER STORY: SEPTEMBER 2006

IT: Few others have seen more changes in tennis. What adjustments did you have to make since the early days of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl?

ANDRE AGASSI: The fitness level has only increased over the years. Connors was 5-foot-9. Now you've got guys routinely that are 6-foot-3 and above. It's rare that you play somebody under that. The physicality has changed dramatically. Compare Nadal at 20 to me at 20. It's a sport that has started to figure out that the stronger and more physical you are, the more capable you are as an athlete. I was onto that earlier than most, building my strength and the base that was the foundation of my game. As a result, I served bigger and was able to handle pace better so as the game got faster, I could just shorten my swing. I got smarter with my shots. I've had to get more aggressive. It used to be where I could just run people around until they fell to the ground. But guys are just too strong now. It's a different game than in the past.

http://www.insidetennis.com/0906_agassi.html


By John McEnroe Jul 2005

Depth may put Sampras record beyond Federer

"This may not be the right time to say it, with Roger Federer on the verge of claiming his third Wimbledon title, but I think as time goes by we will see what a remarkable achievement it was by Pete Sampras to win here seven times. I don't think the Swiss, maybe even a better player than Sampras when compared on all surfaces, will surpass his record.

I'm not saying it's impossible and I do believe that he will win, maybe, as many as five Wimbledon titles, I just think that there is more depth in the game today than there was in Sampras's era, guys who could step up on the grass, like Rafael Nadal and Marat Safin. The big Russian threatened to do so this time, but in the end, as usual, left the Championships prematurely. When Federer gets to five then we can start talking about his chances of overhauling Pete, but not before."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/2361935/Depth-may-put-Sampras-record-beyond-Federer.html


AUSTRALIAN OPEN

January 14, 2001

Q. You had a career that went for something like 23 years. You were still playing at the top level at age 38. Now we have a fellow like Pat Rafter contemplating retirement at age 28. What has changed, do you think?

ROD LAVER: Well, I think certainly competition is stiffer now......

Q. Do you see any of the younger players like Safin dominating the game like Sampras has done over the last seven or eight years?

ROD LAVER: I really don't. There is so many good players out there and I look at Lleyton Hewitt who has just come on in the last two, three years. And he came on at age 17. He is all of 19 now. So there are many young kids coming along, Safin winning the US Open. It is incredible to think that, you know, three weeks, four weeks earlier he couldn't beat anybody. He was having a terrible time. But you hit a spirt and you play some great tennis. You get confident. That is -- that can happen with probably 60 or 70 players here in this tournament that if they catch fire and you are not talking about the steadies, the Samprases and Agassis and Todd Martin. Just so many young players out there that can rise up and play their best tennis. I have always thought a lot of times that now you improve overnight, sometimes you play a match the day before and you have a struggle with it and you finally win that match and you come out the next day and all of a sudden you are a different person and you are playing great. You are confident hitting the ball in the middle of the strings. That is what I think happens with all the upsets that you see.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=913

urban
01-16-2009, 09:25 AM
To cite some recent dissenting voices. Federer just today in an interview with the Australian newspaper 'Melbourne Age (see The Age) has said, that to win the Grand Slam is easier now, because the surfaces are more similar today, than in times, when grass and clay played really differently. Look at court coverage by K. Tendon.

ksbh
01-16-2009, 09:28 AM
I can deny it. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses. Federer's weak backhand, for example. Neither is 'more complete' than the other, unless you're listening to one of their fanboys or are one yourself.

Ok, ok, ok, so as i can see, if Federer wins his 15 th slam put down Sampras and final show down is between Federer and Laver?, due numbers are so close between them ( Pete and Roger) and Roger is must complete player than Sampras ( nobody can deny that), so sampras is almost out of this race.

Let me know your comments.

380pistol
01-16-2009, 09:29 AM
David L.....

I 'm a Sampras fan and I can give you....

-Pancho Gonzalez "I rate him potentially with anybody, including Lew Hoad." Pancho on Hoad "He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me. I think his game was the best game ever. Better than mine."
-Rod Laver "only player I'd put above myself"
-Roy Emmerson
-Billie Jean King "If Laver says Pete's the best, then Pete's the best"
-Mats Wilander "Can't fathom Roger being better than Pete at his best"
-Boris Becker "Pete will always be the best to me..... Pete would beat Roger in 5 on grass (see Mike about that)
-John McEroe "Arguably the greatest player that ever lived" (see Inside Tennis Magazine July 2007 and US Open 2007)
-Yevgeny Kafelnikov "Federer is good on all surfaces, very universal. Maybe his weakness is clay, but he can be successful there too. The best ever? For me, it is hard to think that anyone could be better than Sampras, not even Federer. (The Independant 2004 or 2005)
-Gustavo Kuerten "Sampras much better than Federer" (September 2006)
-Carlos Moya "Federer not in his league" (October 2006)
-Andre Medvedev "The greatest to ever pick up a racquet"
-Juan Carlos Ferrero "I prefer Sampras. He does everything so easily in the court. Roger does too, but I prefer to watch Sampras." (When asked who's better Pete or Roger in terms of sheer talent)
-Novak Djokovic "He's the greatest that ever played"
-Roger Federer "It all starts with Sampras" (when asked who's the GOAT during Asia ex series)
-Goran Ivanisevic "Some things he does better than Pete. I mean, on the court he's like magician. Pete was destroying. Pete was serving. Nobody talked ever about Pete's serve. They were only talking about my serve. But when you play Pete, you couldn't touch his serve, you know. Even when you returned, then he hits forehand winner and the point is finish. But Federer, the way he plays, he's back, he comes in. When you look him, you think tennis is very easy sport, but it's not.

Maybe toughest player I ever play is Pete, (interview after losing to Hewitt)

So the point of quotes means what exactly???

drakulie
01-16-2009, 09:36 AM
-Boris Becker "Pete will always be the best to me..... Pete would beat Roger in 5 on grass

which explains why Federer beat him in 5, in there only meeting and at Wimbledon Center Court of all things.

abmk
01-16-2009, 09:37 AM
I can deny it. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses. Federer's weak backhand, for example. Neither is 'more complete' than the other, unless you're listening to one of their fanboys or are one yourself.

LOL ! Federer does not have a weak BH. That's so utterly biased and you talk about others being 'fanboys' !

veroniquem
01-16-2009, 09:38 AM
Also....

1.- Roger needs to win RG ( against Rafa will be better).

2.- He needs win two slams ( four big ones), (eaaaaaasy!!!!!) Veroniquem thinks it is possible ( uffffff)

Then Roger will be the GOAT.

After this thread, i guess:

If Roger wins more than 14 big ones and win RG.....then is the GOAT.

Am I right?
People will probably still argue Laver but other than that yes he will be the GOAT of open era if he does that (and yes I still think he can :)) Winning FO is enough, against who is irrelevant.

ksbh
01-16-2009, 09:39 AM
Was that the year they started installing green clay?

which explains why Federer beat him in 5, in there only meeting and at Wimbledon Center Court of all things.

ksbh
01-16-2009, 09:39 AM
Sir, everybody is a fanboy on this forum from what I can tell.

Federer does not have a weak backhand? Maybe Rafa should stop hitting there, then!

LOL ! Federer does not have a weak BH. That's so utterly biased and you talk about others being 'fanboys' !

veritech
01-16-2009, 09:40 AM
Was that the year they started installing green clay?

whatever year it was, it's a lot faster than 2008 ;)

ksbh
01-16-2009, 09:42 AM
LOL, Veritech ... sure, I can agree with that. Green clay just got slower, that's all :)

whatever year it was, it's a lot faster than 2008 ;)

aphex
01-16-2009, 09:48 AM
^^^why do you make fun of black people???

what??
i hope you're joking cause u seemed like one of the rational people on these boards

the joke has nothing to do with the colour of the guy--maybe you should ask yourself why you thought so...

thejoe
01-16-2009, 09:50 AM
^He's joking. Thats what he does. :p

David L
01-16-2009, 09:50 AM
So the point of quotes means what exactly???
The point is you have Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe and Laver saying the competition was getting better at the turn of the century, not worse. Are they all wrong? Do the people on here know more than those who were right in the midst of it? You even have McEnroe and Laver saying it's too competitive for anyone to dominate or accumulate double digit Slams. This was all before Federer started racking them up. Those were the facts then. They did not change because Federer started to dominate.

drakulie
01-16-2009, 09:50 AM
what??
i hope you're joking cause u seemed like one of the rational people on these boards

the joke has nothing to do with the colour of the guy--maybe you should ask yourself why you thought so...

Yes, I was joking. :)

However, I like to think of myself as one of the crazier people (not rational). :)

abmk
01-16-2009, 09:55 AM
Sir, everybody is a fanboy on this forum from what I can tell.

Federer does not have a weak backhand? Maybe Rafa should stop hitting there, then!

*yawn* . people can still be objective to a extent even though they are fans of certain players. You appearently are not one of them.

aphex
01-16-2009, 09:55 AM
Yes, I was joking. :)

However, I like to think of myself as one of the crazier people (not rational). :)

sorry, my bad then :)

drakulie
01-16-2009, 10:01 AM
sorry, my bad then :)

No problems. I just like making jokes every once in a while (especially in these type of threads). :)

pepe01
01-16-2009, 10:09 AM
No problems. I just like making jokes every once in a while (especially in these type of threads). :)

Thats why this type of threads, you can be serius, you can just jocking, may be we never going to get a conclusion.

We need FEDACE here.........Just jocking .

aphex
01-16-2009, 10:10 AM
David L.....

I 'm a Sampras fan and I can give you....

-Pancho Gonzalez "I rate him potentially with anybody, including Lew Hoad." Pancho on Hoad "He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me. I think his game was the best game ever. Better than mine."
-Rod Laver "only player I'd put above myself"
-Roy Emmerson
-Billie Jean King "If Laver says Pete's the best, then Pete's the best"
-Mats Wilander "Can't fathom Roger being better than Pete at his best"
-Boris Becker "Pete will always be the best to me..... Pete would beat Roger in 5 on grass (see Mike about that)
-John McEroe "Arguably the greatest player that ever lived" (see Inside Tennis Magazine July 2007 and US Open 2007)
-Yevgeny Kafelnikov "Federer is good on all surfaces, very universal. Maybe his weakness is clay, but he can be successful there too. The best ever? For me, it is hard to think that anyone could be better than Sampras, not even Federer. (The Independant 2004 or 2005)
-Gustavo Kuerten "Sampras much better than Federer" (September 2006)
-Carlos Moya "Federer not in his league" (October 2006)
-Andre Medvedev "The greatest to ever pick up a racquet"
-Juan Carlos Ferrero "I prefer Sampras. He does everything so easily in the court. Roger does too, but I prefer to watch Sampras." (When asked who's better Pete or Roger in terms of sheer talent)
-Novak Djokovic "He's the greatest that ever played"
-Roger Federer "It all starts with Sampras" (when asked who's the GOAT during Asia ex series)
-Goran Ivanisevic "Some things he does better than Pete. I mean, on the court he's like magician. Pete was destroying. Pete was serving. Nobody talked ever about Pete's serve. They were only talking about my serve. But when you play Pete, you couldn't touch his serve, you know. Even when you returned, then he hits forehand winner and the point is finish. But Federer, the way he plays, he's back, he comes in. When you look him, you think tennis is very easy sport, but it's not.

Maybe toughest player I ever play is Pete, (interview after losing to Hewitt)

So the point of quotes means what exactly???

you seem to have conveniently forgotten to date some of the quotes??

anyway the one that matters the most:

I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.

Jack Kramer

drakulie
01-16-2009, 10:15 AM
We need FEDACE here.........Just jocking .

This is a Great IDEA!!! I LOve Fedace! :)

GameSampras
01-16-2009, 10:17 AM
One thing for sure.. Sampras-Fed would have been one hell of a rivalry. Probably the greatest rivalry of all time. I dont think either would get the advantage over the other to be honest.

Id give Pete the decisive advantage over Roger on Grass and the slight edge at the US OPEN and indoors. While Roger get the advantage at the Australian and French for sure. I think Roger would would set the bar high of course and Pete would have to incorporate some things in his game to consistently compete. Much Like when pete said, "Andre being the greatest I ever played against, made me develop the big 2nd serve."

Its a shame they were 10 years apart. It really is. I dunno who the better player was to be honest. Both were great great player in their own way. Sampras had things Fed didnt have in his game and vice-versa. Sampras with the mental toughness, more big game mentality and clutchness in big match situations, while Fed is just great at everything and probably the most pure talented player that ever came along. Fed's resume certainly looks much better though. At least to this point

drakulie
01-16-2009, 10:22 AM
One thing for sure.. Sampras-Fed would have been one hell of a rivalry. Probably the greatest rivalry of all time. I dont think either would get the advantage over the other to be honest.



Federer has a winning record against Sampras. In fact, he has never lost to him.

GameSampras
01-16-2009, 10:24 AM
Federer has a winning record against Sampras. In fact, he has never lost to him.

Oh come on. A 30 year old Pete ending the near of his run in 2001 with a 35-16 record and 0 TITLES. Dont make me post the pitiful h2h records Roger had against players when he was not in his prime

David L
01-16-2009, 10:26 AM
In his teens Federer never managed to get wins against Rafter or Bruguera, with whom he stands at 0-3 and 0-1 respectively in the h2h . However, he could clearly hang with Sampras' generation, even before his game really started to take off. Most of these wins were in his teens or at 20. Given Federer was a late developer and would get much better later on, you can get a good idea of how he would have faired in Sampras' era. Obviously, some of those who hung around longer, like Agassi, Santoro, Bjorkman and Henman, would have met Federer more often later, so the numbers are a bit larger for them, but looking at these figures it is clear Federer would not have had any trouble handling and dominating Sampras' generation by the time his game fully matured.

2-0 Federer v Krajicek
2-0 Federer v Ivanisevic
4-1 Federer v Chang
3-2 Federer v Albert Costa
2-0 Federer v Rios
2-4 Federer v Kafelnikov
8-3 Federer v Agassi
1-0 Federer v Sampras
4-1 Federer v Rusedski
1-0 Federer v Pioline
9-2 Federer v Santoro
1-1 Federer v Larsson
2-0 Federer v Arthurs
2-3 Federer v Corretja
1-2 Federer v Ferreira
1-3 Federer v Enqvist
3-1 Federer v Kucera
2-2 Federer v Rosset
5-0 Federer v Bjorkman
1-1 Federer v Mantilla
7-6 Federer v Henman

GameSampras
01-16-2009, 10:33 AM
All 8 wins over Andre were after Andre's 33rd birthday I believe. and how about Rafter's dominance over Roger?

David L
01-16-2009, 10:43 AM
Oh come on. A 30 year old Pete ending the near of his run in 2001 with a 35-16 record and 0 TITLES. Dont make me post the pitiful h2h records Roger had against players when he was not in his prime
Excuse me, Sampras was making Slam finals and winning them in his 30s. He also felt he played a good match against Federer in 2001. He could still play at a very high level in his 30s and was always motivated for the Slams. If Stepanek can beat up on Soderling, Gasquet and Verdasco at 30, even Federer last year at 29, Sampras would have been fine at the same age. At 29 you are still physically going to be at prime levels. Obviously the motivation is not the same, hence his No.6 ranking (which is still very good by the way), but Sampras would have been motivated as the defending champion at Wimbledon. To beat him on centre court at 19 is huge. Sampras was definitely up for that match, as was the underdeveloped Federer.

drakulie
01-16-2009, 10:50 AM
Oh come on. A 30 year old Pete ending the near of his run in 2001 with a 35-16 record and 0 TITLES. Dont make me post the pitiful h2h records Roger had against players when he was not in his prime

Sampras won the US Open the following year, and he served awesome in the match against Fed, so don't give me any BS.

As for their record against other players, not that it matters>> but since you want to go their>>>> Sampras has a losing record against Roddick, hewitt, and safin>> all players that Fed owns.

batz
01-16-2009, 10:54 AM
Fed wins RG then he probably has to be considered GOAT.

GameSampras
01-16-2009, 10:54 AM
Sampras won the US Open the following year, and he served awesome in the match against Fed, so don't give me any BS.

As for their record against other players, not that it matters>> but since you want to go their>>>> Sampras has a losing record against Roddick, hewitt, and safin>> all players that Fed owns.

So are u implying Sampras at 30 years old was in his prime and at the top of his game? LOL And Sampras even the following year was out of his prime. Pete's true prime ended probably at 28 years old at least in terms of playing on a week in-week out level. He still could play well but his consistency and focus decreased. He even said this HIMSELF in 2007. Sampras put the beatdown on Roddick at the US OPEN when all pete cared about were the slams at that point in his career even by his own admission. Just as Fed today, caring more about the slams than the rinky dink tournaments. Hewitt... Again.. PEte was 30 years old. Pete lost to Safin in 00 and returned the favor destroying Safin in straight sets the following year the US OPEN. Rogers win over pete carry as much weight as his wins over old crippled sciatica,, Passed his prime Agassi bottom line. There is a 10-11 year difference between Pete,Andre and Roger. So it doesnt mean a DAMN THING. And no conclusion can be drawn. Prime Roger never played Pete and Andre at their peaks.

David L
01-16-2009, 10:58 AM
All 8 wins over Andre were after Andre's 33rd birthday I believe. and how about Rafter's dominance over Roger?
I think I already addressed these in my comment. Federer was 17-19 and far from what he would become when he played Rafter, yet their last match went to 3 sets and ended with Rafter winning 4-6 7-6(6) 7-6(4) in Halle. Federer would have owned him later on. Federer was 17 the first time they played and a late developer to boot.

Everyone knows Agassi stayed around longer, but he was playing at his best level, by his own admission, in his 30s. Only when he started to have health problems in his last couple of years did things became more difficult for him and even then he could still reach his best if his body would allow. He won 5 of his 8 Slams between 29-32 and was still making Slam finals upto 35.

pepe01
01-16-2009, 11:02 AM
So are u implying Sampras at 30 years old was in his prime? LOL And Sampras even the following year was out of his prime. Pete's true prime ended probably at 28 years old. Sampras put the beatdown on Roddick at the US OPEN when all pete cared about were the slams at that point in his career even by his own admission. Just as Fed today, caring more about the slams than the rinky dink tournaments. Hewitt... Again.. PEte was 30 years old. Pete lost to Safin in 00 and returned the favor destroying Safin in straight sets the folling year the US OPEN

But also Roger was not on his prime when he defeated Sampras (i am trying to be realistic), also Pete was defending champion ( we can not put aside this fact), if he won one year ago and then won USA open at that moment he had a lot of tennis to spread.

Comments please....

GameSampras
01-16-2009, 11:05 AM
But also Roger was not on his prime when he defeated Sampras (i am trying to be realistic), also Pete was defending champion ( we can not put aside this fact), if he won one year ago and then won USA open at that moment he had a lot of tennis to spread.

Comments please....

True he wasnt.. But I always said that Roger played closer to his prime and year ahead of himself during THAT MATCH than usual at the time. He played better that match then alot of the matches I seem him playing even now. But anyways.. How much conclusion can be drawn from one match? Thats like saying, Petes win over Roger in 07 in Macau meant a alot.

GameSampras
01-16-2009, 11:06 AM
I think I already addressed these in my comment. Federer was 17-19 and far from what he would become when he played Rafter, yet their last match went to 3 sets and ended with Rafter winning 4-6 7-6(6) 7-6(4) in Halle. Federer would have owned him later on. Federer was 17 the first time they played and a late developer to boot.

Everyone knows Agassi stayed around longer, but he was playing at his best level, by his own admission, in his 30s. Only when he started to have health problems in his last couple of years did things became more difficult for him and even then he could still reach his best if his body would allow. He won 5 of his 8 Slams between 29-32 and was still making Slam finals upto 35.

I will disagree with what Andre said. He certainly wasnt playing at the level in his 30s as he was at 29 in 1999 or even at 25 in 1995 for that matter. He reached the finals of Wimbeldon in 99 . Won RG and the US OPEN and reached the finals of the YEC then won the 00 Australian. His biggest feat before reaching 30 years of age

pepe01
01-16-2009, 11:12 AM
True he wasnt.. But I always said that Roger played closer to his prime and year ahead of himself during THAT MATCH than usual at the time. He played better that match then alot of the matches I seem him playing even now. But anyways.. How much conclusion can be drawn from one match? Thats like saying, Petes win over Roger in 07 in Macau meant a alot.

Agree with you, one match is not enough to know it, but if you refer about Macau match meant to me Pete is amazing, he has been retire for about more than 4 years and he is playing very well, may be Roger was not taking so seriously but does not metter, just to see how Pete played all three matches.

David L
01-16-2009, 11:15 AM
I will disagree with what Andre said. He certainly wasnt playing at the level in his 30s as he was at 29 in 1999 or even at 25 in 1995 for that matter. He reached the finals of Wimbeldon in 99 . Won RG and the US OPEN and reached the finals of the YEC
Yes, but as he, Sampras, McEnroe and Laver say, the competition was getting better. In the comment I posted, Agassi says he got better, he hit bigger, had a bigger serve, could handle pace better, but the game got faster and players were too strong to push around as he had in the past. His words; 'It's a different game than in the past.'

drakulie
01-16-2009, 11:17 AM
So are u implying Sampras at 30 years old was in his prime and at the top of his game?

When did I say this????

However, since you want to talk about primes, Sampras was much more seasoned and much ***CLOSER to his prime***, than Federer was>>> yet still lost. Additionally, as I already pointed out>>> won the US Open the following year.

FiveO
01-16-2009, 11:19 AM
I think I already addressed these in my comment. Federer was 17-19 and far from what he would become when he played Rafter, yet their last match went to 3 sets and ended with Rafter winning 4-6 7-6(6) 7-6(4) in Halle. Federer would have owned him later on. Federer was 17 the first time they played and a late developer to boot.

Everyone knows Agassi stayed around longer, but he was playing at his best level, by his own admission, in his 30s. Only when he started to have health problems in his last couple of years did things became more difficult for him and even then he could still reach his best if his body would allow. He won 5 of his 8 Slams between 29-32 and was still making Slam finals upto 35.

Agassi has been quoted, qualifying that self-assessment, as something he "told himself".

Sampras also "told himself that". However while in the depths of the deepest slump of his career the then self describe "better" Sampras went 3-2 vs. "the best" Agassi going 1-0 on clay and 2-0 in their only meeting in Majors, both of which were played AFTER the US Open implemented the first of two slow downs of playing conditions in three years and that is all before AA's string of limiting injury.

5

David L
01-16-2009, 11:32 AM
True he wasnt.. But I always said that Roger played closer to his prime and year ahead of himself during THAT MATCH than usual at the time. He played better that match then alot of the matches I seem him playing even now. But anyways.. How much conclusion can be drawn from one match? Thats like saying, Petes win over Roger in 07 in Macau meant a alot.
Yes, you cannot draw huge conclusions from one match, but given how much better Federer got, you can see Sampras would have had his hands full with a mature Federer. Federer was not close to his prime in this match. He played well, yes, but this was not a shot out of the blue. He displayed this kind of level on many occasions, but just could not win matches for a long time. You cannot just produce quality out of nowhere. He became much better later on. Even in his next round match against Henman, which he lost, his quality is evident. Henman himself had become a better player and may well have beaten Sampras had they played. He had won their last meeting in 2000, but never got to play Sampras again.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wQTMUryA_7A

David L
01-16-2009, 11:39 AM
Agassi has been quoted, qualifying that self-assessment, as something he "told himself".

Sampras also "told himself that". However while in the depths of the deepest slump of his career the then self describe "better" Sampras went 3-2 vs. "the best" Agassi going 1-0 on clay and 2-0 in their only meeting in Majors, both of which were played AFTER the US Open implemented the first of two slow downs of playing conditions in three years and that is all before AA's string of limiting injury.

5
A source would be good here. I'm sure players tell themselves all kinds of things, but there will also be other things amongst those thoughts which are genuinely true. Just from watching Agassi and Sampras in their late 20s and 30s, you can see they were hitting very high levels. They do not need to say anything. You do not make Slam finals unless you are playing at the highest level and still have the capacity to play at the highest level.

David L
01-16-2009, 12:05 PM
A source would be good here. I'm sure players tell themselves all kinds of things, but there will also be other things amongst those thoughts which are genuinely true. Just from watching Agassi and Sampras in their late 20s and 30s, you can see they were hitting very high levels. They do not need to say anything. You do not make Slam finals unless you are playing at the highest level and still have the capacity to play at the highest level.
And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

GameSampras
01-16-2009, 12:36 PM
And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

You really believe that? You really believe Sampras 00,01,02 was the same player he was 93-99? Sad thing is I cant believe Sampras would even think that. Look at the result differential. Look at the differences in championships. Hell look at his overrall game from 93-98 or 99 as opposed to the tail end of his career. His Movement slowed big time which affected his overrall game. Not to mention the herniated disc

fastdunn
01-16-2009, 12:43 PM
I think the herniated disk injury was pretty serious blow to Sampras' career.

If Federer stays injury-free, he can stay as much as Agassi did.

FiveO
01-16-2009, 01:06 PM
And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

I'll get the AA quote later:

June 26, 2002, Wimbledon
G. Bastl/P. Sampras 6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4
An interview with: PETE SAMPRAS

Q. What were you reading between the points?

PETE SAMPRAS: Just some notes. Just some thoughts and a letter that I was reading just to keep me positive and, you know, just to -- you get your mind set on what's happening out there. It's nice to have something else to look at, think about. So it was something that I pulled out and read it and made me feel a little better.

Q. Your own notes? Notes you wrote yourself?

PETE SAMPRAS: My wife did.

Q. You used to do that?

PETE SAMPRAS: I've never done that.

Q. As Becker said, "If I go to a Slam, I cannot win it, I will stop." Is that also a moment for you now, or do you think there's still a Slam in you?

PETE SAMPRAS: ... to come up pretty empty here for the first six months is pretty, pretty discouraging. You know, still feel like I can go out there and do it. Not maybe as dominant as I once was, but when it comes to majors, I believe I can win here, the US Open, or the others.

*****
Q. Coaches like Bob Brett say you might have to pay the price now for having improved the game -- not having improved the game while you were still leading from the others. Now that they've caught up, they are in front of you, they are better, because you haven't got that in your game.

PETE SAMPRAS: Well, I still feel like my game is very dangerous, you know. Always will have my serve. You know, players are better today and, you know, like I said, I'm not as intimidating as I was five years ago. ...

Q. How much do you look at your legacy and think about it in terms of whether it's being diminished by these losses, and how much do you think, "I'm not going to give in to the critics"?

PETE SAMPRAS: Well, I'm not going to give in to the critics. I'm going to stop on my own terms, not on when someone else thinks I should stop. What I've done here and what I've done in the game is always going to stick, no matter what happens over the next couple years. But it's not fun losing. I still believe I have a major in me, you know. ...

Q. How much of your tennis right now is a fight against age as opposed to the guy on the other side of the net?

PETE SAMPRAS: It's a little bit of both. Like I said, guys are a little bit more confident against me. I'm maybe not, you know, quite as sharp as I used to be. And, you know, you lose a little bit of confidence, and it's been showing all year. You know, I'm just going to have to stop here and just kind of reflect a little bit but also not, you know, get too down. I mean, I still want to continue to play. And there is the US Open in another month or so. I just hope I can find it pretty soon.

http://www.geocities.com/hovav13/Quotes_from_Pete_and_his_Colleagues.html

5

SpaceCadet
01-16-2009, 01:14 PM
A true GOAT excels in Singles AND Doubles!!! Each requires a unique set of skills, and if you've won GS titles in both disciplines, then you've got some mad skills.

Off the top of my head, I can only name Laver, McEnroe and Edberg (there's more, right?).

McEnroe has a GS title in Singles, Doubles, and Mixed Doubles. Can Federer say the same?

380pistol
01-16-2009, 01:36 PM
you seem to have conveniently forgotten to date some of the quotes??

anyway the one that matters the most:

I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.

Jack Kramer

I didn't bother to date them as they're not the be all and end all. Take Laver for instance, why does Kramer matter the most?? I wonder.

Laver the man of two calendar slam called Sampras the greatest in 1994 and 2000. He said Federer could have better #'s than anyone and has too much talent for one body. then he said hold off on crowning Roger, and let's wait. I don't recall him doing that for Pete.

The point was bring anyone, Pete, Roger, Pancho, Laver etc. and I can find you quotes on each. In 2006 or 2007 Bud Collins gave his top 5 of all time to MSNBC... in order of appearance Tilden, Pancho, Laver, Borg and Sampras. Now how much weight does that hold to you?? Not much, but I'm sure if a certain players name was on there then you'd give it more merit.

They're opinions.

380pistol
01-16-2009, 01:39 PM
The point is you have Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe and Laver saying the competition was getting better at the turn of the century, not worse. Are they all wrong? Do the people on here know more than those who were right in the midst of it? You even have McEnroe and Laver saying it's too competitive for anyone to dominate or accumulate double digit Slams. This was all before Federer started racking them up. Those were the facts then. They did not change because Federer started to dominate.

The only one of the the four who said it was getting better was Agassi. McEnroe, Becker, Stich, Sampras, Kuerten and many more have been crtical of the competition (top players) during Roger's reign.

Wait ferrero was excellent in 2003. So Ferrero in 2006, that didn't change, it just couldn't happen. Was Federer 2006 the same Federer in 2000?? Be serious.

David L
01-16-2009, 01:44 PM
I'll get the AA quote later:



http://www.geocities.com/hovav13/Quotes_from_Pete_and_his_Colleagues.html

5
I think it's self-evident Sampras was not as dominant in his latter years, the weekly results speak for themselves. The motivation would not have been there for the smaller events, competition was also improving, as he mentions. However, when he was interested, such as at the Slams, he could still play at the highest level. After his career and in retirement, when he has been able to reflect more, he has had this to say. He clearly sites 1999-2002 as producing some of his best performances, in addition to saying he was a better player, when it mattered, than in the mid 90s. He played at a great level on many occasions in his later years.

REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN CHAMPIONSHIPS MEDIA CONFERENCE

January 15, 2009

Q. What is the best match that you ever participated in? What is your favorite?

PETE SAMPRAS: I think the highest level that I played was when I beat Andre for my sixth Wimbledon. I think it was 2000 or '99. I think that was probably -- probably it's harder to get in the zone in a major just because of nerves. But that one from 3-All, Love-40 in the first, to the rest of the match. I was in the zone. It's hard to do in that situation, but everything clicked at the right time.
You know, he was playing probably the best tennis of his career, and I just sort of steam rolled him. I can do that sometimes in practice, but on the final of Wimbledon, it's not easy to do. I think that one from the level-wise, was probably the highest level just as far as purely I felt untouchable that day.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_conference.php?id=53770

Tuesday, 23 December 2003

Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 - when he collected nine of his majors - as his prime. But Sampras contends: "The best tennis I played was when I was older. I wasn't as consistent week in and week out but that match I played against Andre [Agassi] at the 2002 US Open - my last match ever - was the highest level I have ever played.

"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html

380pistol
01-16-2009, 01:46 PM
David L if you think 1999-2002 Pete posted some of his best performances, please let me (and us know) which ones please???

David L
01-16-2009, 02:00 PM
The only one of the the four who said it was getting better was Agassi. McEnroe, Becker, Stich, Sampras, Kuerten and many more have been crtical of the competition (top players) during Roger's reign.

Wait ferrero was excellent in 2003. So Ferrero in 2006, that didn't change, it just couldn't happen. Was Federer 2006 the same Federer in 2000?? Be serious.
McEnroe and Sampras clearly state, in the examples I provided, the level had improved from the period when Sampras dominated. Do you have any sources where they contradict this? It's no good saying the level is worse when someone comes along to dominate. They already said the level was better before. Also, do you have sources of Becker, Stich or Kuerten saying the level is worse today?

Regarding Ferrero, who says he was worse in 2006? Maybe he just could not put in the same commitment on a weekly basis. Is it also not possible others stepped up?

Levels do not drop amongst whole populations just like that. A few players may not keep up with the tour, but the standard always remains very high. And even if a player cannot keep up week in week out as they used to, it does not mean they cannot find their best level when it matters to them most. There's a difference between enduring the grind of the tour on a weekly basis and producing your best at the right moments.

David L
01-16-2009, 02:14 PM
David L if you think 1999-2002 Pete posted some of his best performances, please let me (and us know) which ones please???
Sampras himself says the 1999 Wimbledon final and the 2002 US Open final were the highest levels he ever obtained. The 2000 Wimbledon against Rafter also gets memorable mention. Then you have the 2000 and 2001 US Opens, the 2000 Australian Open or 1999 World Championships. Basically, anywhere where he was a contender making finals and giving himself a chance at the big prize. He also did very well at some of the Masters Series tournaments during this period, Davis Cup and some other tournaments. It's not only about winning, but also about playing at the highest level. You can play crap but still win or play great and lose.

aphex
01-16-2009, 03:19 PM
I didn't bother to date them as they're not the be all and end all. Take Laver for instance, why does Kramer matter the most?? I wonder.

Laver the man of two calendar slam called Sampras the greatest in 1994 and 2000. He said Federer could have better #'s than anyone and has too much talent for one body. then he said hold off on crowning Roger, and let's wait. I don't recall him doing that for Pete.

The point was bring anyone, Pete, Roger, Pancho, Laver etc. and I can find you quotes on each. In 2006 or 2007 Bud Collins gave his top 5 of all time to MSNBC... in order of appearance Tilden, Pancho, Laver, Borg and Sampras. Now how much weight does that hold to you?? Not much, but I'm sure if a certain players name was on there then you'd give it more merit.

They're opinions.

it matters the most because he is himself one of the greatest ever, the manager of some of the greatest ever and was playing before laver...so he has arguably the greatest frame of reference+tennis knowledge than any other man i can think of...

as to the 2nd bolded part...you are kinda proving my point-laver said that about sampras BEFORE federer appeared.

as to your last point, i don't know who mr collins is...is he a great player from the past??

380pistol
01-16-2009, 08:43 PM
it matters the most because he is himself one of the greatest ever, the manager of some of the greatest ever and was playing before laver...so he has arguably the greatest frame of reference+tennis knowledge than any other man i can think of...

as to the 2nd bolded part...you are kinda proving my point-laver said that about sampras BEFORE federer appeared.

as to your last point, i don't know who mr collins is...is he a great player from the past??


Laver TWICE called Sampras the greatest and never went back. Said Federer "could be" the greates and then said to wait. Funny how he didn't need to wait for Pete.

That speaks for itself.

380pistol
01-16-2009, 08:54 PM
McEnroe and Sampras clearly state, in the examples I provided, the level had improved from the period when Sampras dominated. Do you have any sources where they contradict this? It's no good saying the level is worse when someone comes along to dominate. They already said the level was better before. Also, do you have sources of Becker, Stich or Kuerten saying the level is worse today?

Regarding Ferrero, who says he was worse in 2006? Maybe he just could not put in the same commitment on a weekly basis. Is it also not possible others stepped up?

Levels do not drop amongst whole populations just like that. A few players may not keep up with the tour, but the standard always remains very high. And even if a player cannot keep up week in week out as they used to, it does not mean they cannot find their best level when it matters to them most. There's a difference between enduring the grind of the tour on a weekly basis and producing your best at the right moments.

McEnroe told his comment to the BBC. He said "there really isn't that much" when asked about the top players surrounding Roger.

Sampras said his here...
"Roger is head and shoulders above everyone, and there are many good players today," Sampras said. "But I think there are fewer great players than there were 10 years ago. Down to 50 to 70 (in the rankings), it's probably deeper, but the guys two through seven aren't as strong as the players I was having to beat to win Slams."
http://216.194.87.192/20060407a.htm

Gustavo Kuerten called Federer's direct competition "a vaccum".

Others like Becker and Sttich have sounded off as well.

And if Ferrero can go week in and week out like he did in 2003 then he wasn't that much of a threat in 2006 then was he. Federer must have been excelent in 2001-02, he just couldn't bring it consistently but he was still as good as he would become later. See how asinine you sound??

Sampras himself says the 1999 Wimbledon final and the 2002 US Open final were the highest levels he ever obtained. The 2000 Wimbledon against Rafter also gets memorable mention. Then you have the 2000 and 2001 US Opens, the 2000 Australian Open or 1999 World Championships. Basically, anywhere where he was a contender making finals and giving himself a chance at the big prize. He also did very well at some of the Masters Series tournaments during this period, Davis Cup and some other tournaments. It's not only about winning, but also about playing at the highest level. You can play crap but still win or play great and lose.

So this is your response to....

And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

And you come up with this!!!! From a man who played 984 professional matches this is what you come up with???

1999 Wimbledon F
1999 YEC F
2001 US Open 4th, QF SF
2002 US Open F

I see 6 matches there and some refernces to Masters (which ones???) and Davis Cup. Did you you see Sampras in his prime. Bring me one DC performance 1999-2002 that can even come close to what Pete did to Australia(P'sis and Rafter) in 1997???

You're a joke. He had some great performances 1999-02, but if you are trying to suggest those are more than he had prior to that, or never reached (or surpassed) it prior to 1999, I'd advise you to leave "Tina" alone.

Have you even seen Pete's highest level???

Dilettante
01-16-2009, 09:19 PM
Regarding Ferrero, who says he was worse in 2006? Maybe he just could not put in the same commitment on a weekly basis. Is it also not possible others stepped up?

Ferrero just went down the hill after losing US Open final for various reasons and the 2003 Ferrero was not seen again on tour. His peak was sadly short-timed. And although I'm saying this, he was one of my very favorite players to watch (such a beautiful game back then) but he just didn't get back his X factor.

SirBlend12
01-16-2009, 09:43 PM
Gustavo Kuerten called Federer's direct competition "a vaccum".

Hahaha. "Hello.. Kettle? It's pot. You're black." If Fed's competition is a vacuum then Guga's was a damn black hole.

And you come up with this!!!! From a man who played 984 professional matches this is what you come up with???

1999 Wimbledon F
1999 YEC F
2001 US Open 4th, QF SF
2002 US Open F

He played at an inhuman level in that match. It was just like Becker in '96, but even more ruthless.


10 characters, Colonel.

380pistol
01-16-2009, 11:33 PM
10 characters, Colonel.

You may have missed....
-1990 US Open F
-1995 Wimbledon F vs Becker (68 winners, 7 unforced, 23 aces, no break points allowed)
-1997 Davis Cup SF vs Rafter (62 winners [at least 10 from each serve, forehand, backhand, volley], 15 unforced, no break pts allowed, and was better with his 2nd serve than Rfater was with hs 1st)

That's only 3 but do I have to continue?? How about the 1994 YEC F where Pete struck 66 winners to 12 unforced errors?? Did I say Sampras did not ha great performances 1999-2002???

Don't make me start brining Pete's performance pre 1999, just don't.

380pistol
01-16-2009, 11:36 PM
Ferrero just went down the hill after losing US Open final for various reasons and the 2003 Ferrero was not seen again on tour. His peak was sadly short-timed. And although I'm saying this, he was one of my very favorite players to watch (such a beautiful game back then) but he just didn't get back his X factor.

The guy's a clown. Ferrero 2006 is the same as Ferrero 2003. JCF was a beast in 2003, the first since Lendl to win 30 on hard and clay in same year, if not for bad weather and him playing 4 matches in 5 days (or whatever it was) may have taken the US Open in 2003. He contracted chicken pox as well as some other health issues and has never been the same, unfortunately.

Next thing you know this guy is gonna tell us how Safin has been a model of consistency from 2000-2008?!?

David L
01-16-2009, 11:39 PM
McEnroe told his comment to the BBC. He said "there really isn't that much" when asked about the top players surrounding Roger.

Sampras said his here...
"Roger is head and shoulders above everyone, and there are many good players today," Sampras said. "But I think there are fewer great players than there were 10 years ago. Down to 50 to 70 (in the rankings), it's probably deeper, but the guys two through seven aren't as strong as the players I was having to beat to win Slams."
http://216.194.87.192/20060407a.htm

Gustavo Kuerten called Federer's direct competition "a vaccum".

Others like Becker and Sttich have sounded off as well.

And if Ferrero can go week in and week out like he did in 2003 then he wasn't that much of a threat in 2006 then was he. Federer must have been excelent in 2001-02, he just couldn't bring it consistently but he was still as good as he would become later. See how asinine you sound??

So this is your response to....

And you come up with this!!!! From a man who played 984 professional matches this is what you come up with???

1999 Wimbledon F
1999 YEC F
2001 US Open 4th, QF SF
2002 US Open F

I see 6 matches there and some refernces to Masters (which ones???) and Davis Cup. Did you you see Sampras in his prime. Bring me one DC performance 1999-2002 that can even come close to what Pete did to Australia(P'sis and Rafter) in 1997???

You're a joke. He had some great performances 1999-02, but if you are trying to suggest those are more than he had prior to that, or never reached (or surpassed) it prior to 1999, I'd advise you to leave "Tina" alone.

Have you even seen Pete's highest level???

Sampras has never been one to shirk from blowing his own trumpet ever since Federer started to threaten his records. In 2003 he says the competition was better at the turn of the century than during his period of domination, then the moment someone comes along to threaten his records, he tries to take it back. Sampras' later comments cannot be taken seriously because it clearly threw him a bit that everyone was talking about Federer being the greater player. It's apparent Sampras' ego felt a little bruised by all the favourable comments Federer was getting over him from past players, so he had to make a case for himself. Now he's making a desperate attempt not to be forgotten by playing all these exos. Sampras was a great player, in the top 5 of all-time greats, but his fragile ego is a little embarrassing. He does'nt need to defend himself, he should be proud of what he achieved and accept what others achieve without trying to diminish them. The reason why there were not more Slam winners during Federer's domination was because he was beating them to the punch.

Kuerten made his comments back in 2005 or somewhere around that time, before some could realize the full extent of Federer's talent. I doubt he would make the same comments now. Plus you have players like Rios and Bruguera saying Federer is much better or 10x better than Sampras, so you have to be able to distinguish between sensible, considered opinions and hyperbole. Kuerten's are hyperbole, just as Rios' and Bruguera's were. I think Federer is better than Sampras too, but not 10x better.

I'm still waiting for your sources on Becker and Stich.

Just because you are not consistent on a weekly basis, does not mean you are not a threat or cannot reach your best level at various times. I mean, there are hundreds of examples of this in tennis. Any number of players can turn it on at any random time in an event.

I'm not going to list every single tournament Sampras played in during this period. It's enough to see a selection of the quality he was capable of during this time. If you go to the ATP website you can see some of his deep runs for yourself. He was competing in the finals of Cincinnati, Indian Wells and Miami or otherwise getting to the semis and quarters. He was also making appearances in the finals of Houston, Long Island, Los Angeles, Queens etc, having to deal with the likes of Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter, Kafelnikov etc, players in the top 5 or 10. He himself was in the top 5 for much of this period and only momentarily ventured outside the top 10, which was understandable considering he was not interested in killing himself playing all the small tournaments to maintain his ranking. The fact that he might have been ranked 10, does not mean he was 10 in terms of the hierarchy of his ability, when it mattered, compared to the rest of the tour. He was obviously better than that, but prioritized for the big events.

Sampras looks stronger than ever in these clips and you also have his own words saying he was a better player during this period, if not as consistent or interested on a weekly basis. What's important is the level Sampras had in him for the big events, not what he did in all the little tournaments which held little interest for him.

2001 US Open
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY&fmt=18

2002 US Open
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_oizEjkreZw&feature=related&fmt=18

1999 Wimbledon
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRv4TC73Ro&feature=related&fmt=18

David L
01-16-2009, 11:54 PM
Just to add, Agassi made 8 Slam finals between 1999 and 2005 (winning 5 of them) more than he made in his entire career before that. Agassi was hot and playing at his best level at the turn of the century, so if Sampras was so past it by this stage, what was he doing routining Agassi whenever they met at a Slam? For an experienced commentator to say their 2001 US Open quarter final was the best match he ever saw up to that point, not some previous Sampras match, there must have been some serious tennis being played in that match, and there was.

World Beater
01-17-2009, 12:38 AM
Just to add, Agassi made 8 Slam finals between 1999 and 2005 (winning 5 of them) more than he made in his entire career before that. Agassi was hot and playing at his best level at the turn of the century, so if Sampras was so past it by this stage, what was he doing routining Agassi whenever they met at a Slam? For an experienced commentator to say their 2001 US Open quarter final was the best match he ever saw up to that point, not some previous Sampras match, there must have been some serious tennis being played in that match, and there was.

it is always funny for me to see posters on here disagree with players' own admissions of their performances, and competition.

its just laughable really...

i remember agassi clearly favored sampras over federer early on but then switched over and is not so much impressed as he is AWED by federer's game.

kuerten has made some comments recently about how easy federer makes the game look and that he's on his way to becoming the GOAT

380pistol
01-17-2009, 01:00 AM
Sampras has never been one to shirk from blowing his own trumpet ever since Federer started to threaten his records. In 2003 he says the competition was better at the turn of the century than during his period of domination, then the moment someone comes along to threaten his records, he tries to take it back. Sampras' later comments cannot be taken seriously because it clearly threw him a bit that everyone was talking about Federer being the greater player. It's apparent Sampras' ego felt a little bruised by all the favourable comments Federer was getting over him from past players, so he had to make a case for himself. Now he's making a desperate attempt not to be forgotten by playing all these exos. Sampras was a great player, in the top 5 of all-time greats, but his fragile ego is a little embarrassing. He does'nt need to defend himself, he should be proud of what he achieved and accept what others achieve without trying to diminish them. The reason why there were not more Slam winners during Federer's domination was because he was beating them to the punch.

Kuerten made his comments back in 2005 or somewhere around that time, before some could realize the full extent of Federer's talent. I doubt he would make the same comments now. Plus you have players like Rios and Bruguera saying Federer is much better or 10x better than Sampras, so you have to be able to distinguish between sensible, considered opinions and hyperbole. Kuerten's are hyperbole, just as Rios' and Bruguera's were. I think Federer is better than Sampras too, but not 10x better.

I'm still waiting for your sources on Becker and Stich.

Just because you are not consistent on a weekly basis, does not mean you are not a threat or cannot reach your best level at various times. I mean, there are hundreds of examples of this in tennis. Any number of players can turn it on at any random time in an event.

I'm not going to list every single tournament Sampras played in during this period. It's enough to see a selection of the quality he was capable of during this time. If you go to the ATP website you can see some of his deep runs for yourself. He was competing in the finals of Cincinnati, Indian Wells and Miami or otherwise getting to the semis and quarters. He was also making appearances in the finals of Houston, Long Island, Los Angeles, Queens etc, having to deal with the likes of Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter, Kafelnikov etc, players in the top 5 or 10. He himself was in the top 5 for much of this period and only momentarily ventured outside the top 10, which was understandable considering he was not interested in killing himself playing all the small tournaments to maintain his ranking. The fact that he might have been ranked 10, does not mean he was 10 in terms of the hierarchy of his ability, when it mattered, compared to the rest of the tour. He was obviously better than that, but prioritized for the big events.

Sampras looks stronger than ever in these clips and you also have his own words saying he was a better player during this period, if not as consistent or interested on a weekly basis. What's important is the level Sampras had in him for the big events, not what he did in all the little tournaments which held little interest for him.

2001 US Open
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY&fmt=18

2002 US Open
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_oizEjkreZw&feature=related&fmt=18

1999 Wimbledon
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRv4TC73Ro&feature=related&fmt=18

Sampras said the competiton today is not as strong as what it used to be, as Federer approaches his records. The what would McEnroe,Wilander, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Kuerten etc. excuses be??? They're trying to protect Sampras as well??? First you claim Sampras said it was better, and when proven wrong "Pete can't be taken seriously". You're a clown!!!!

You agree with Bruguera, but not 10X, I agree with Keurten, Moya etc. Bruguera (where's your source???) said "the only thning Sampras does better than Roger is serve". So there goes Sergi's credibilty. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

As for Becker and Stich....
http://insidetennis.com/YB08_first_serve.html
#7 Lady Luck. Inside Tennis Magazine January-February 2008
They reference the comments.

"On a grander scale, some voices of the past claim Fed’s fortunate to have played in an era with a relatively soft field. Boris Becker contended, “He hasn’t got any competition. In the days of McEnroe, there was Borg. I had Lendl, Agassi and Sampras. Now, on grass, do you see anyone who can beat him?” Sampras sounded a similar theme: “No one is looking to come in and put any pressure on him, so he’s able to dominate...He’s playing in a generation where I don’t see as many great players...He’s not up against three or four serious threats. The game is probably stronger across the board. But at the top, outside of Nadal...it is a little bit thinner...I was facing multiple Grand Slam winners..."

Kuerten's comment came in fall of 2006, after Federers best Year. Sampras "much better". Moya said "not in Pete's league". What about Ferrero??? Kafelnikov said no ones highest levels above Pete and Wilander said at the height of your boy's dominance he "couldn't fathom anyone being better than Pet at his best". So leave it alone.

Those were 3 great matches from Sampras. And you're point would be???

1999 Wimbledon was an excellent match from Pete.

The 2002 US Open he was brilliant for the 1st 2.5 sets, and then he started to tire, do you consider that??? Did you forget his 46 unforced errors??? What about his 13 double faults and 12 break points allowed compared with 6 doubles and 6 break chances in the 1995 final. What about the 1990 final??? 1double and didn't face a break point til the 3rd set!!!!


You said.....
And even in retirement, Sampras has referred to his best performances taking place between 1999 and 2002.

And you have done nothing to show that his performances from 1999-2002 are better than his pre 1999 perfomances, or show he had more outstanding performances 1999-2002 than he did prior to 1999. All you're doing is talking out of your ***.

Federer beat Sampras in 2001,and called his performance vs Safin in 2002 Hamburg final one of his finest performances. Oh my according to you Federer's best performances must have come 2001 and 2002 then. You're an idiot.

aphex
01-17-2009, 02:08 AM
please try to understand:
the notion that ANY of sampras' contemporaries could have stopped federer
in any of his GS victories is laughable...
had he had sampras' field, he'd have multiple calendar slams.

zagor
01-17-2009, 03:50 AM
well sampras ***** can do nothing about federer's way to GOATness other than demerit his acheivements by belittling his competition.

Well that's been mostly true since I joined these boards.However Fed's achievements speak for themselves and it's really telling that some(not all)Sampras fans feel the need to constantly belittle Fed's achievements/competition/game etc..It shows their insecurity but it also shows that Fed is still very much a threat to Pete's records,otherwise they wouldn't bother.

Some people who feel that the Fed was the best they ever seen are Jim Courier,Andre Agassi,Henman,Kramer,Bruguera,Rios,Marat Safin etc.even Wilander said that Federer is better than Sampras and that he hits the ball harder after AO 2007 although he changes his mind a lot so I don't buy that much into what he says.Then again some others(Kafelnikov,Moya,Kuerten,Becker,Stich etc.) feel that Sampras is the better and that's fine,those are just educated opinions from former or current pros,they can't know for sure just like the rest of us can't as well.Personally out of all that bunch the opinion that I respect the most is Agassi's as he has played many great champions in his long career but that's my personal preference.

We will never know how Fed and Sampras would match-up in their primes,they played only one match in which a still very green but talented Federer beat a past his prime but still a defending champion Sampras in Wimbledon.It was a good high-quality match(both of them served great,especially Sampras with 70% first serve in and averaging 110 mph on a second serve)but neither of them was in his prime(although I would say that Sampras was closer to his since he won the USO next year while Fed wouldn't get past the quarters of another slam until Wimbledon 2003)and it wasn't really changing of the guard since Fed didn't win Wimbledon until 2 years after in 2003.Also one match is too small of a sample too conclude anything other than that it would have probably been a great rivalry(although GOAT condidates don't tend to coexist with one another,otherwise they wouldn't be GOAT candidates).

My opinion is that people should wait before Fed's career is over before comparing him to Sampras or other greats.He's 27 years old and reached 3 slam finals last year,winning the last one of them so I say let's be fair to Fed and allow him to finish his career and then compare his achievements to any other past player whose career is completely finished and done with long ago.

One more thing,while I consider Sampras's prime to have been 1993-1997 period,the best I've ever seen him play was in '99 Wimbledon and TMC final,just my opinion.He also did reach 3 consecutive USO finals in 2000-2002 period(something he never did in the 90s)so while he was past his prime he could still turn it on and play well at majors(his 2001 USO match with Agassi is one of the best matches I've ever seen).

P_Agony
01-17-2009, 12:25 PM
I can deny it. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses. Federer's weak backhand, for example. Neither is 'more complete' than the other, unless you're listening to one of their fanboys or are one yourself.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=4vrojpBD2iU

TheTruth
01-17-2009, 12:47 PM
But also Roger was not on his prime when he defeated Sampras (i am trying to be realistic), also Pete was defending champion ( we can not put aside this fact), if he won one year ago and then won USA open at that moment he had a lot of tennis to spread.

Comments please....

Roger was not in his prime, just played the match of his career to that point. He promptly went out in the next round to Henman.

Just because Pete won a slam the next year does not denote he was still in his prime. How many players won a grand slam one year and didn't do well the next year? Too many to count. Not a lot of conclusions can be drawn from one match.

World Beater
01-17-2009, 01:05 PM
Laver TWICE called Sampras the greatest and never went back. Said Federer "could be" the greates and then said to wait. Funny how he didn't need to wait for Pete.

That speaks for itself.

actually..after laver called sampras the best, he then called federer the best...and after that he has never ever referred to sampras as the best, but perhaps one of the best.

the PC answer is that laver, federer, sampras, borg, lendl etc were the best answer of their era and this is what laver believes currently until perhaps federer does the amazing, which is not likely and win the GS.

laver has also subtlely belittled sampras when he said "you cant blame pete for the others not returning his serve".

whereas with federer he has said multiple times "he has every shot in the book".

so it goes both ways. however, the majority of players have hailed federer ever since he was winning his 4th or 5th slam...with sampras there was no glorification until the record was near. sampras did not garner anywhere near the level of adulation that federer did.

TheTruth
01-17-2009, 01:05 PM
I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. I like to think of myself as fair, and while I'm a fan of Federer, I'm no Nadal hater. Being called that annoys me. While I sometimes say unfavourable things about Rafa's game, I also have bad things to say about Federer, which if you look in the Pro Match Results section, you will see.

No sarcasm implied. You have your favorites, but you tend to see both sides of the coin without trying to shove your opinion down people's throats. I'm being sincere.

P.S.-pay no attention to some on this board who will try to say otherwise. The Truth is a fair poster too!

thejoe
01-17-2009, 01:17 PM
No sarcasm implied. You have your favorites, but you tend to see both sides of the coin without trying to shove your opinion down people's throats. I'm being sincere.

P.S.-pay no attention to some on this board who will try to say otherwise. The Truth is a fair poster too!

Well thank you, and I extend the same compliment your way.

I'm bored of discussing something that can never be resolved. I'm one for saying that the stats don't tell you everything, and I don't believe that the issue will be resolved if Federer passes Sampras, because it is such a personal statement.

Subconsciously, those who watched Sampras during the 90's will want to pick fault in the other GOAT candidates, in the same way that those who watched Federer or Laver will for Sampras. I doubt you will find anyone impartial who has the required knowledge to answer the question, because tennis is full of such endearing characters, that it is impossible not to be partisan, if you know enough.

I have my opinion, and I've stated it enough times. I've never seen anyone play like Federer, and due to my fanaticism, I subconsciously pick fault with Sampras or Laver etc. If you tell me you are a fan of player x, and your opinion is without bias, you are lying. Thats my two cents.

ksbh
01-17-2009, 02:11 PM
Agony ... that was a breathtaking array of backhands from Federer. Thanks for the link. Despite all the Federer-bashing that I engage in, I have admitted several times that he is a brilliant player par excellence!

However I'm yet to see a 'complete' tennis player with absolutely no weaknesses. Such a player would be unbeatable. Has Federer been unbeatable? Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=4vrojpBD2iU

Andres
01-17-2009, 03:22 PM
Why do people mix up "greatest of all time" with "most achieved of all time" ?

ThugNasty
01-17-2009, 03:24 PM
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=4vrojpBD2iU
Federers backhand is great, but cheesy vids like this make me wanna hurl.

David L
01-17-2009, 03:34 PM
No he didn't. He was on the receiving end of an adolescent rant that had little to do with tennis.
It wasn't a rant and there was quite a bit of tennis in it. Just my own humorous response to his abusive posts. It made me laugh anyway.:lol:

David L
01-17-2009, 05:55 PM
Federers backhand is great, but cheesy vids like this make me wanna hurl.
I agree. This one is much better.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0w1G4Jm-M&feature=related&fmt=18

zagor
01-17-2009, 11:45 PM
Agrre and disagree. Quotes and opinions hold weight, but aren't the be all and end all. As I said earlier I can find quotes from players, experts (so-called) whatver in favour of many players. People just took the quotes and ran with it whichever way they felt.

Yes but they still remain opinions,an educated opinions since they come from former or current players but it's not like pros can't make mistakes.I also heard players like Andre Agassi,Jim Courier,Kramer,Rios,Bruguera,Wilander(the biggest flip flopper),Henman,Safin,Roddick etc. say Fed is best ever or similar,I even remember Mcenroe saying before FO 2006 that if Fed wins it,he's the GOAT.I will find you the links of the ones I read on internet later if you want.But while I respect their opinion(s)I can still from my own.I think both Federer and Sampras are obviously amazing players(although as I said I'll wait before Fed is completely done with his career before comparing them as I think that's fair)but I'm personally most impressed by Borg's achievements,the guy went from winning clay by grinding people down to playing serve and volley at Wimbledon.Back then those surfaces were complete polar opposites(unlike now)so that was the ultimate test of player's adaptability and nobody passed that test as well as Borg.To holds such dominating records like 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 overall FOs on such opposite surfaces is nothing short of spectacular for me so I personally put him above both Sampras and Federer(for nowsince Fed isn't done yet but I dout that'll change in the future).Sure he didn't win USO but he reached 4 finals there and lost to some of the best USO players ever in Jimbo and Mcenroe,that's a great resume in your worst slam as far as I'm concerned.Another blemish(sp?) on his career is that he also retired early but what most people here don't seem realize is that Borg was an early bloomer and won a major each year since 1974-1981,that's some solid period of playing at a very high level.Maybe slightly off topic but since we're talking about GOATs,Borg's the one for me.

I have qualms with you're assertions. In 2001 he started the year #3 and finished #13. Two rounds before federer he went 5 sets with Barry Sanders. Yes... Sanders, cuz Cowan sounds terrible. And Federer played very well that day not to say Sampras played badly. .

Well Pete could have some trouble in early rounds at slams even during his peak years and then raise it up a notch when he played better players,I remember he pushed by that crazy German fellow in 1995 in the first round(Kaarsten Braasch) but then again the last time before that he got pushed to five sets in Wimbledon was back in '98 against Goran so I guess it was telling that Sampras wasn't the same.As for the bolded part,I think they both played well.It's was a quality match and the one I still watch from time to time(it was nice to see Fed serve and volley)bit as I said no matter how much we argue whether Fed was closer to his prime or Sampras,bottom line is that:

a)Neither player was in his prime.

b)One match is too small of a sample to conclide how a whole potential rivalry between 2 GOAT candidates would go.

c)It wasn't changing of the guard(like how it is apparently seen by a lot of people here,wrongly IMO)since Fed didn't win Wimbledon till 2003.

Frankly,I think that for the reasons stated above,that match is somewhat overrated although it was still a high-quality match IMO,both of them served great and had good winner to error ratio.So it was a good match but as I said not really the changing of the guard so I think some people give that match too much importance.

It's somewhat like Sampras/Lendl 1990 US Open. Sampras was playing beyond his prime and Lendl was just 3 weeks removed from the #1 spot despite skipping the French Open. Who would agree that Lendl was at his peak due to the fact he reached the Aus Open F 5 months later. Bad comparison though, cuz Lendl was playing better than Sampras.

I would agree since Lendl was a late bloomer that he was closer to his peak in 1990 than Sampras was in 2001 but then again Sampras was playing better in USO 1990 than Fed in Wimbledon 2001 as Pete went on to win tournament and Fed lost in quarters.But you're right about Lendl,he reached 8 USO finals in a row up until that point so Pete cut Lendl streak there but on the other hand Fed also cut Pete's streak of 4 Wimbledons in a row(and had Borg thank him).It happens even to all-time greats at some point as they get older,they get knocked out by fearless talented young guns,that's just the nature of the sport.

You talk of the 2001 US Open. Outside of that Pete was 29-15 in 2001. In 2002 he was 20-17 going into the US Open. So Sampras still reaching US Open finals isn't a true indicator of how he was playing. he lost to "lucky loser" George Bastl at Wimbledon, so he was fading... and fast. The 33 tournament, 26 month title drought??? Not the hallmark of someone still relatively close to their prime.

Well I never argued that Pete was in his prime,especially in 2001 and 2002.His prime was in 1993-1997 but even in 1999-2002 he could still put "some" great performances in majors(which were all he gave a damn at that point,hardly blame him for that),especially in 1999(which actually could have been a much better year if he didn't injure himself during a training with Kuerten,he was in very good form heading into USO that year) and 2000 when it took some great performances from both Agassi and Safin to stop him at AO and USO respectively and when he won Wimbledon on one leg so to speak,at FO he lost early that year but Pete never got around to being a contender there anyway(might have if Tim stayed alive but that's another topic).I still consider USO QF between Sampras and Agassi 2001 to have been one of the best matches I've ever seen but no week-in,week-out Sampras wasn't the same player he was in 1993-1997,few people will argue that.As any great champion,he could still play great in some matches,but normally as players get older those great performances became rarer and rarer,that's the way things work.Time affects even the greatest champions.

As far as Pete's 1999 performances at Wimbldeon that summer and YEC F,they were excellent. Pete played great in 1999, but the problem was his body didn't hold up. He missed 2 slams, competed in 14 tournaments, only completing 8 (5 of those he won).

Yes,I'm fully aware of injuries Sampras had that year,especially the one that forced him to miss USO,the back injury he sustained while practicing with Kuerten but hey not all was bad,he did meet Bridget during that break :)) so some good came from that atleast.But regadless those 2 performances against Agassi in that year(Wimbledon and TMC final)were still the best I've ever seen Sampras play(along with some others like DC '97 against Rafter and TMC final against Becker in '96,maybe even '96 USO final against Chang).Mind you,I mean those 2 matches,not the whole year obviously.

But when a certain buffoon says "his best" performances came 1999-2002 that clown better be able to show me how Pete's best performances 1999-2002 surpass his best performance prior to 1999, and or that he had more 1999-2002. If not he really should shut the f*** up.

That's an argument with someone else.I already said my stance on that issue but I'll repeat it again,no I do not think Sampras was in his prime in 1998-2002 period.His prime IMO was 1993-1997 period.

P.S. Off topic but I don't really think you need to get that personal over an internet debate.If you call me an idiot or dumbass or whatever it hardly affects me that much since this is just internet and I take in that way but getting personal and insulting people too often can get you banned here.We're all just a bunch of die-hard tennis fans here and both Federer and Sampras are/were amazing player,I personally feel priviliged to have watched them both.

Sentinel
01-17-2009, 11:49 PM
first of all - Happy Birthday ROTFLx100 (er .. ksbh)
Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.
You mean the guy who plays with TWO right hands. The lefty who is actually a rightie ? :-D

zagor
01-18-2009, 12:17 AM
Agony ... that was a breathtaking array of backhands from Federer. Thanks for the link. Despite all the Federer-bashing that I engage in, I have admitted several times that he is a brilliant player par excellence!

However I'm yet to see a 'complete' tennis player with absolutely no weaknesses. Such a player would be unbeatable. Has Federer been unbeatable? Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.

Laver,maybe? Despite his height even his serve was pretty good,his volleys were obviously sublime since he had so much succes on grass and to go toe-to-toe with someone as great as Rosewall on clay he had to have great groundies as well.But I do think Federer is a very complete player,his BH is a weakness against Nadal but otherwise Fed's BH is very good for point construction,he can create great angles with it,has a very good BH slice and his passing shots off that side are great as well.Fed's BH is not a winner machine(like say Kuerten's,Gasquet's or Korda's),but you'd be surprised how often does he use it to force a ball he can attack or put away with hs FH.

zagor
01-18-2009, 12:19 AM
Oh and BTW. Happy birthday KSBH(Karolina Sprem's Backhand as Sentinel would say :)),all the best wishes from me.

aphex
01-18-2009, 01:54 AM
Laver,maybe? Despite his height even his serve was pretty good,his volleys were obviously sublime since he had so much succes on grass and to go toe-to-toe with someone as great as Rosewall on clay he had to have great groundies as well.But I do think Federer is a very complete player,his BH is a weakness against Nadal but otherwise Fed's BH is very good for point construction,he can create great angles with it,has a very good BH slice and his passing shots off that side are great as well.Fed's BH is not a winner machine(like say Kuerten's,Gasquet's or Korda's),but you'd be surprised how often does he use it to force a ball he can attack or put away with hs FH.

you talk of federer as being incomplete because he has a losing record on ONE surface to nadal and yet you consider the man, who at the peak of his carreer got a beatdown from a 41 year old gonzales as being complete ??

zagor
01-18-2009, 02:01 AM
you talk of federer as being incomplete because he has a losing record on ONE surface to nadal and yet you consider the man, who at the peak of his carreer got a beatdown from a 41 year old gonzales as being complete ??

Nope didn't say that,I think Fed is a complete player and I consider his BH to be a very good shot,especially on lower bouncing surfaces.

I also said from what I read that Laver was probably a very complete player considering his success but I watched Fed during his prime and since that's not the case with Laver(I only watched him on youtube)I can only speculate.

aphex
01-18-2009, 02:05 AM
oh, ok---just wanted to show that h2h has nothing to do with being complete
(i a previous post someone said that because he has a losing record to nadal, he's incomplete)

David L
01-18-2009, 02:22 AM
oh, ok---just wanted to show that h2h has nothing to do with being complete
(i a previous post someone said that because he has a losing record to nadal, he's incomplete)
For me, Federer is the most complete player in the history of the game. Like Jack Kramer, I have never seen another player who could do so many things on a tennis court.

Have you ever come across Bollettieri's assessments below?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/federer-has-talent-to-be-the-greatest-player-ever-546216.html

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=15055&ne_id=7755996&type=realaudio

aphex
01-18-2009, 03:30 AM
For me, Federer is the most complete player in the history of the game. Like Jack Kramer, I have never seen another player who could do so many things on a tennis court.

Have you ever come across Bollettieri's assessments below?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/federer-has-talent-to-be-the-greatest-player-ever-546216.html

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=15055&ne_id=7755996&type=realaudio

thanks for the interesting read!

they don't call him the maestro for nothing-he has every instrument (stroke) at his disposal and can use them at will...

ksbh
01-18-2009, 06:00 AM
Yes, that's the one! The '1-dimensional' Spaniard :wink:

first of all - Happy Birthday ROTFLx100 (er .. ksbh)

You mean the guy who plays with TWO right hands. The lefty who is actually a rightie ? :-D

ksbh
01-18-2009, 06:04 AM
Zagor & Sentinel ... you 2 are the epitome of gentlemanliness! :)

Of all the people in the forum, including the Nadal fans, it's 2 Federer fans that wish me Happy B'day! Says a lot about you two. Much love & respects, dear fellow posters.

Oh and BTW. Happy birthday KSBH(Karolina Sprem's Backhand as Sentinel would say :)),all the best wishes from me.

David L
01-18-2009, 07:58 AM
Laver,maybe? Despite his height even his serve was pretty good,his volleys were obviously sublime since he had so much succes on grass and to go toe-to-toe with someone as great as Rosewall on clay he had to have great groundies as well.But I do think Federer is a very complete player,his BH is a weakness against Nadal but otherwise Fed's BH is very good for point construction,he can create great angles with it,has a very good BH slice and his passing shots off that side are great as well.Fed's BH is not a winner machine(like say Kuerten's,Gasquet's or Korda's),but you'd be surprised how often does he use it to force a ball he can attack or put away with hs FH.
I don't think Federer's backhand is the problem against Nadal on clay. This is a cliché and myth perpetuated on these boards. Even Federer's forehand finds it difficult to penetrate Nadal's defences on clay and we saw what Nadal did to Djokovic. You'll notice Federer can rally fine with Nadal, he is not overwhelmed at all, but Nadal is so consistent and moves so well it is difficult to get through him. His biggest weapon is his movement and retrieving ability. If he still had his strokes, but moved like almost any other player on clay, Federer would do significantly better against him.

musicalmedic81
01-18-2009, 08:02 AM
This may have already been said, but I think for Fed to be considered as the greatest of all time, he needs to be able to regain the number one ranking and prove that he can be knocked down and still climb back to the top. When he was on top, it was almost like there was no one that could challenge him. Now that he has some major competition at the top of the game, we will see where his heart truly is. To be the GOAT, he has to show some real fighting spirit.

ThugNasty
01-18-2009, 08:43 AM
Zagor & Sentinel ... you 2 are the epitome of gentlemanliness! :)

Of all the people in the forum, including the Nadal fans, it's 2 Federer fans that wish me Happy B'day! Says a lot about you two. Much love & respects, dear fellow posters.
Hey KSBH! Happy Birthday! hope you have a great day.

P_Agony
01-18-2009, 08:49 AM
Agony ... that was a breathtaking array of backhands from Federer. Thanks for the link. Despite all the Federer-bashing that I engage in, I have admitted several times that he is a brilliant player par excellence!

However I'm yet to see a 'complete' tennis player with absolutely no weaknesses. Such a player would be unbeatable. Has Federer been unbeatable? Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.

Well, as I see it, a complete player is by no means a perfect player. There is no perfect player as each player has his bad matchup who can beat him. Federer's backhand is not perfect, and it clearly breaks down against Nadal on clay and as we have seen latley it's not only on clay and it's not only against Nadal. However, it's still a very poerful weapon. First, Federer has the best backhand slice in the world. He can do anything with it. His top spin backhand, when on, is not only a beautiful shot to watch, but also very effective. Yes, it can break down and yes it's someimes too short and not powerful enough, but it's still an amzaing shot, and when Fed was in his prime, it was almost as good as his forehand. You want to see a bad backhand, look at Andreev's - that's bad.

bolo
01-18-2009, 08:54 AM
This may have already been said, but I think for Fed to be considered as the greatest of all time, he needs to be able to regain the number one ranking and prove that he can be knocked down and still climb back to the top. When he was on top, it was almost like there was no one that could challenge him. Now that he has some major competition at the top of the game, we will see where his heart truly is. To be the GOAT, he has to show some real fighting spirit.

Talent can compensate for fighting spirit. In the end all that really matters is how your game translates into wins.

Kaptain Karl
01-18-2009, 09:01 AM
<Mod Mode> This thread will be NUKED if the (mostly deleted now) flaming continues. </Mod Mode>

- KK

GameSampras
01-18-2009, 09:32 AM
And in terms of competition, I think many would agree early-mid 90s probably had a tougher upper echelon competition of quality players then Roger's 04-07 era and today as well. The overrall depth from rank 1-50 or 100 may be tougher, but the top 10 there is no comparison IMO. The early to mid 90s had a steeper tougher top 10 array of talent

FiveO
01-18-2009, 09:43 AM
I don't think Federer's backhand is the problem against Nadal on clay. This is a cliché and myth perpetuated on these boards. Even Federer's forehand finds it difficult to penetrate Nadal's defences on clay and we saw what Nadal did to Djokovic. You'll notice Federer can rally fine with Nadal, he is not overwhelmed at all, but Nadal is so consistent and moves so well it is difficult to get through him. His biggest weapon is his movement and retrieving ability. If he still had his strokes, but moved like almost any other player on clay, Federer would do significantly better against him.\

It is and it isn't. Federer's bh is one of the best, most versatile on tour. However, within the framework of his game it is his WEAKER side. That doesn't mean it sucks. Federer's game is primarily biased toward patience and consistency to a large degree. At his dominant best, Fed would outwait every other player on tour, outwait his opponents hotstreaks, would retreat to a higher safety mode when he hit a short lived rough patch during matches, creating the impression in the opponents mind that their own A game wasn't going to work, resistance was futile and paint them into a corner, faced with only two choices, a bad one or a worse one: overplay their A game or playing their B game, an alternative in today's day and age, that really doesn't exist. Then Fed can pass very well, so when the vast majority of opponents throw caution to the wind, frustrated by Fed's ability to control them from the baseline, and decide to employ their mediorce [and generally worse] transition and net games they get smoked. Again creating the thought in the opponent's mind that Agassi describe "there's nowhere to go". Tennis' version of a "Catch 22", that many opponent's who had the displeasure of suffering in the past, or watched from the sideline prior to, then entered matches with, hence, the palpable feeling that onlookers had that a lot of good players started matches v. Fed, already looking defeated.

That goes away with Nadal.

For Nadal it is equal parts of three qualities. His own patience, his relentlessness and that singular ability to get the ball up in the only place Fed can't hurt him. And that third element is very real, and far from cliche.

Tennis: Nadal's New Spin
By EBEN HARRELL / PARIS
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2009


All athletes develop their own mix of style and technique. But Nadal's peculiarity is quantifiable. San Francisco–based tennis researcher John Yandell has used video-capture technology to record the topspin of Nadal's forehand. He found that Nadal's shot rotates at an average of 3,200 times a minute. Andre Agassi, one of the game's great shotmakers, generated 1,900 rotations per minute in his prime, and current world No. 2 Roger Federer, whose forehand is considered among the game's best, generates 2,700. [B]As U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe has said of Nadal, "His normal safe forehand is the toughest shot in the world."

Later in the same article, regarding Uncle Toni's "tinkering" with Nadal's game during this, just passed off-season, making him "more conventional", and shorten the grind, point to point and in the long term, that Nadal subjects himself to:

Nadal will never lose certain aspects of what makes him so effective: his pugilist spirit, and the ability to impose his muscular game on more talented players. But so much of his success stems from his resistance to tradition that Toni's plan to make his charge more orthodox may dim Nadal's aura among fellow pros. When I asked the American player Andy Roddick about the changes, he couldn't believe that Nadal would voluntarily reduce the spin on his forehand. "One of the things that is difficult about facing [Nadal] is the extreme topspin he gets on the ball," Roddick told TIME. "If it's true, I don't think it would make him more effective."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870373-2,00.html


Federer plays down talk of rivalry with Nadal
Posted on: Friday, 10 March 2006, 23:52 CST

"I think it would be impossible for anybody to dominate in the past two years the way Roger did," Agassi said.

"It's great to see that the one person that closes to him in the rankings is his most difficult matchup. Nadal can hit that one shot that everybody wishes they can hit against Roger and that's getting the ball up to his backhand side.

"It's isn't brain surgery. Nobody likes it up there. That's the only area that Roger doesn't hurt you with. So it's great to see a matchup that lends for a rivalry for a long time to come."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/sports/424094/federer_plays_down_talk_of_rivalry_with_nadal/

5

FiveO
01-18-2009, 10:10 AM
Nadal can do it while remaining well inside his own safety and comfort zone and his fh is a large part of it, in that its absolute safest target dovetails perfectly to the only spot where Fed can't hurt him.

So Nadal can outwait even Federer, stymie and frustrate him with that ability.

IMO it has become compounded by the fact that Fed, who had clearly demonstrated his ability to transition to and play from the net earlier in his career has allowed those abilities to atrophy during his period of dominance.

His approach game has deteriorated. Too many of his approaches are hit with excessive topspin and are poorly directed often landing nearer the service line than the baseline and well inside the sideline.

Fed also appears to be in a quandry now as to where to go with the approach v. Nadal. It isn't automatic anymore, he doesn't commit to the shot as he once had, and it almost seems he is trying to "outguess" Nadal, predicating his direction choice on where Nadal will break to. Fed also hasn't/doesn't do it often enough to make the "dtl line 90% of the time" approach axiom, work for him in terms of percentages.

Nadal's fh and his ability to get it up on Fed's bh with the safest margin for error, whether brimming with confidence or when tight is a huge factor in this match-up.

5

ksbh
01-18-2009, 10:25 AM
Thanks Thug! Yes, it's been a great day so far ... I spent an hour shovelling all the snow from my driveway and it's just beginning to snow again! LOL!

Have a great day yourself, my friend.

Hey KSBH! Happy Birthday! hope you have a great day.

David L
01-18-2009, 10:25 AM
I'm not saying it's child's play dealing with Nadal's ball, just that it's not the primary difficulty Federer has with his game, it's his movement and retrieving. Furthermore, the combination of Nadal's game on clay, creates the same problem for everyone, so it's not unique to Federer. We are most likely talking about the GOAT claycouter after all.

You'll notice the players have little difficulty rallying with Nadal, even Donald Young was holding his own in most of their rallies. The problems arise when you try to outmanoeuvre him or outlast his consistency. Especially on clay, he's more likely to outmanoeuvre you (because he moves better than anyone on that surface, plus has the unique open stance on the backhand), be more consistent than you (because of his high margin for error) or outlast you (because of his endurance). These are professional players, they have no trouble dealing with the heaviest of balls if they can get to it. All of them hit a heavy ball in one form or another, so Nadal's ball is amongst the least of their concerns when it comes to him. Sure it's not the easiest ball to attack with a one-hander, but Federer deals with it pretty comfortably, it's just very difficult to get Nadal out of position and match his consistency on clay.

A British commentator, Chris Bailey, described Federer's backhand as the weaker strength and I think this is apt. It's a strength, it's just not as strong as his forehand, which is ridiculous. This is common to all players. All players will have a stronger side and Federer is no different.

FiveO
01-18-2009, 10:57 AM
I would submit that if you took either one away from Nadal, either his tenacity/willingness or his singular ability off the fh side, he would fall back to the middle of the pack.

Trade his fh for AA's, Roddick's, Blake's, Gonzo's or whoever else, perhaps except for Fed's and Nadal starts to look a lot more like Ferrer, Davydenko, et al, and simplifies Fed's solution of him.

IMO everything is amplified because Nadal troubles Fed in this way. As AA said "It isn't brain surgery" no one likes the ball up there. When Nadal does it to anyone else he is merely "the better player" when he does it to Fed, the explanation, for some onlookers, I think NEEDS to be more complicated than that.

IMO its pretty straight forward.

5

David L
01-18-2009, 11:11 AM
I would submit that if you took either one away from Nadal, either his tenacity/willingness or his singular ability off the fh side, he would fall back to the middle of the pack.

Trade his fh for AA's, Roddick's, Blake's, Gonzo's or whoever else, perhaps except for Fed's and Nadal starts to look a lot more like Ferrer, Davydenko, et al, and simplifies Fed's solution of him.

IMO everything is amplified because Nadal troubles Fed in this way. As AA said "It isn't brain surgery" no one likes the ball up there. When Nadal does it to anyone else he is merely "the better player" when he does it to Fed, the explanation, for some onlookers, I think NEEDS to be more complicated than that.

IMO its pretty straight forward.

5
Like I said, it's a factor, but I don't think the biggest. Even as we are, Federer has had many close matches with Nadal on clay and engaged in many extensive rallies. He has only beaten him once, but had the upper hand on many other occasions and may have got a few more wins if the imponderables had been a little different. We could just as easily hypothesize how well Federer would fair if we made Nadal a step slower, but with the same strokes. Give him the movement of Soderling or Roddick, even someone who likes clay like Robredo. Given Federer has been so close on many occasions in the past, this would be enough to make the difference.

David L
01-18-2009, 11:30 AM
Nadal can do it while remaining well inside his own safety and comfort zone and his fh is a large part of it, in that its absolute safest target dovetails perfectly to the only spot where Fed can't hurt him.

So Nadal can outwait even Federer, stymie and frustrate him with that ability.

IMO it has become compounded by the fact that Fed, who had clearly demonstrated his ability to transition to and play from the net earlier in his career has allowed those abilities to atrophy during his period of dominance.

His approach game has deteriorated. Too many of his approaches are hit with excessive topspin and are poorly directed often landing nearer the service line than the baseline and well inside the sideline.

Fed also appears to be in a quandry now as to where to go with the approach v. Nadal. It isn't automatic anymore, he doesn't commit to the shot as he once had, and it almost seems he is trying to "outguess" Nadal, predicating his direction choice on where Nadal will break to. Fed also hasn't/doesn't do it often enough to make the "dtl line 90% of the time" approach axiom, work for him in terms of percentages.

Nadal's fh and his ability to get it up on Fed's bh with the safest margin for error, whether brimming with confidence or when tight is a huge factor in this match-up.

5
Personally, I don't think the way to beat Nadal is to rush the net, look what happened in the last French Open final. Obviously it's good to mix it up, but I think you have to be prepared to do battle. Nadal loves to chase balls, so I think a good strategy would be to try and dictate from the baseline with patient but aggressive play. Get him to run more than you throughout the match, rather than looking for quick winners. Nadal is human and if you can get him to run more than you, you could outlast him. Naturally, for this you have to make sure you are as fit or fitter. We have seen Nadal when he is tired and he is much more manageable when this is the case. Federer, Mathieu, Hewitt, Davydenko, even Nieminen have demonstrated how you can pressure Nadal by playing aggressively from the baseline on clay, then you could change it up when it suited you.

I heard a story about Rocky Marciano (don't know if it's true), where he apparently defeated an opponent by simply punching their arms until the arms were so fatigued they could no longer be held up to protect the opponent, after which Marciano knocked them out. Could the same idea work in a tennis match? It would be interesting to try.

David L
01-18-2009, 11:35 AM
I just googled the Rocky Marciano story. It is true.

Lendl and Federer Fan
01-18-2009, 02:29 PM
Federer is already the GOAT. He would be the unsurpassed GOAT if he can improve his H2H record against Nadal. :) Federer needs to sit down and analyze Nadal's game and tactics more, perhaps with a few more people, well, Jose should not be one of them. :twisted:

We know Nadal like to pin Federer down on his BH, Federer should mix up his reply, few slices and few topspin cross court, more importantly, slice down the line more to Nadal's 2hbh. No 2hbder likes to bend down and scoop up the ball specially for the whole match, that is why Nadal goes the extra distance to try to punish Federer for slicing the ball back everytime, the aim is to discourage Federer for mixing up his backhand to make Federer one dimensionall on his backhand. And we know Nadal like to go cross court on both wings, so a slice down the line to Nadal's BH when Nadal has to move, most of the time, Nadal would hit it cross court to Federer's FH, and if Federer can anticipate that, he can step up and drill the down line FH winner or at least put Nadal on the run instead of being pin down on the BH. If Nadal's reply is the down the line to Federer's BH, Federer can run around and hit the inside out FH cross court to Nadal's FH, that would make Nadal scramble. Most likely Nadal's next shot would be cross court to Federer's BH, that reply should be weak since he is on the run, at that point, Federer can drill the down the line BH winner.

Nadal like target at the net. Strategically Federer should come to the net on a strong FH approach, or Nadal is on the run, and just finish the point at the net. :)

FiveO
01-18-2009, 03:03 PM
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.

There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.

So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.

5

zagor
01-18-2009, 03:07 PM
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.

There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.

So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.

5

Nalbandian is certainly not slow(he's actually deceptively fast)and Safin is something like 2-9 against Federer and in his one sole slam victory against Federer he had to save a MP so don't think he's the best example.Better example than Safin would be Murray IMO.

Lendl and Federer Fan
01-18-2009, 03:33 PM
Federer, practice your down the line slice and topspin, you will see good result. :) Perhaps should change the slice a little, make it faster and more penetrating like Graf's. The slice moment should be more forward/in front instead of down.

David L
01-18-2009, 04:33 PM
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.

There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.

So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.

5
When you get down to it, if you took any number of things away from Nadal or any other player for that matter, beating them would become an easier proposition. It's a combination of things which make Nadal difficult, but to isolate the forehand as the one thing or main thing, I don't believe is accurate. Federer is always in the rallies, he just struggles to push through Nadal on clay, then runs out of patience. I mean, you can see some of the troubles he has encountered against other great movers/retrievers like Simon, Canas and Murray, and this is on hardcourt. On clay it will be even worse because Nadal's movement and poise seem to only improve on that surface, while Federer will be losing half a step because of the lack of traction. Then he has to deal with the fact his serve and strokes penetrate less and so you have the match-up falling more into Nadal's lap.

I actually think Nalbandian is excellent in the movement/anticipation department, as well as being an all-round great player and Safin is a good player in his own right too, both however have lost most of their recent encounters with Federer. Nalbandian has lost 10 of the last 13 meetings and Safin is 2-9 down overall. Ferrer and Davydenko, while good movers, move no way near as well as Nadal, especially on clay and don't play with his consistency or margin for error. Players with almost 'mediocre' groundstrokes however, but with great retrieving ability, like Murray, Simon and Canas, have been able to try Federer's patience with their defence and ultimately win, on hardcourt no less. This to me seems to be Federer's biggest challenge with Nadal on clay.

FiveO
01-18-2009, 06:47 PM
Nalbandian is certainly not slow(he's actually deceptively fast)and Safin is something like 2-9 against Federer and in his one sole slam victory against Federer he had to save a MP so don't think he's the best example.Better example than Safin would be Murray IMO.

When you get down to it, if you took any number of things away from Nadal or any other player for that matter, beating them would become an easier proposition. It's a combination of things which make Nadal difficult, but to isolate the forehand as the one thing or main thing, I don't believe is accurate. Federer is always in the rallies, he just struggles to push through Nadal on clay, then runs out of patience. I mean, you can see some of the troubles he has encountered against other great movers/retrievers like Simon, Canas and Murray, and this is on hardcourt. On clay it will be even worse because Nadal's movement and poise seem to only improve on that surface, while Federer will be losing half a step because of the lack of traction. Then he has to deal with the fact his serve and strokes penetrate less and so you have the match-up falling more into Nadal's lap.

I actually think Nalbandian is excellent in the movement/anticipation department, as well as being an all-round great player and Safin is a good player in his own right too, both however have lost most of their recent encounters with Federer. Nalbandian has lost 10 of the last 13 meetings and Safin is 2-9 down overall. Ferrer and Davydenko, while good movers, move no way near as well as Nadal, especially on clay and don't play with his consistency or margin for error. Players with almost 'mediocre' groundstrokes however, but with great retrieving ability, like Murray, Simon and Canas, have been able to try Federer's patience with their defence and ultimately win, on hardcourt no less. This to me seems to be Federer's biggest challenge with Nadal on clay.

"Slower" as in slower than Nadal.

We're discussing a guy who has given Fed fits on everything since his arrival on tour, not just the last 12 months where Simon and Murray got all or the bulk of their wins. Canas is another guy on the list of dtl bh weapons, similar to those of a hobbled Kuerten that routined Fed at RG in 2004.

As far as the critique of how to beat Nadal, attacking in that manner is not the blueprint for every player v. Rafa, but there is a long enough track record between Fed and Nadal to identify the fact that Nadal's singular ability to continually pound the ball up and away to Fed's bh as the deciding factor and it is less likely that Fed will improve his all ready very good bh, so I don't know what you suggest he do. Fed isn't being pinned there by Nadal's court coverage he is being pinned there by the ball Nadal hits. No one else can do that to Fed, actually no one else can do that, period.

Other than that we'll have to agree to disagree.

5

World Beater
01-18-2009, 07:08 PM
"Slower" as in slower than Nadal.

We're discussing a guy who has given Fed fits on everything since his arrival on tour, not just the last 12 months where Simon and Murray got all or the bulk of their wins. Canas is another guy on the list of dtl bh weapons, similar to those of a hobbled Kuerten that routined Fed at RG in 2004.

As far as the critique of how to beat Nadal, attacking in that manner is not the blueprint for every player v. Rafa, but there is a long enough track record between Fed and Nadal to identify the fact that Nadal's singular ability to continually pound the ball up and away to Fed's bh as the deciding factor and it is less likely that Fed will improve his all ready very good bh, so I don't know what you suggest he do. Fed isn't being pinned there by Nadal's court coverage he is being pinned there by the ball Nadal hits. No one else can do that to Fed, actually no one else can do that, period.

Other than that we'll have to agree to disagree.

5


good points but i would also add to the bolded part that noboy defends or retrieves as well as nadal. not canas, not murray, hewitt etc
nadal can hit winners from defensive positions that nobody else in the world can.

so its two things. nadal can turn an advantage in a rally for federer to a neutral one through his left fh by hitting fed's bh high.

second is that nadal can defend and pass federer from almost anywhere.

FiveO
01-18-2009, 07:32 PM
good points but i would also add to the bolded part that noboy defends or retrieves as well as nadal. not canas, not murray, hewitt etc
nadal can hit winners from defensive positions that nobody else in the world can.

so its two things. nadal can turn an advantage in a rally for federer to a neutral one through his left fh by hitting fed's bh high.

second is that nadal can defend and pass federer from almost anywhere.


Fair points but I think that second part is allowed by how far Fed's transition game has slipped. Nadal can pass for sure, but it's alot easier off poor approaches and as I alluded to in an earlier post, Fed's transition game has slipped markedly from disuse and isn't the player type to employ it with the frequency required to shift percentages in his favor. This is what I believe Fed can shore up and use effectively, not exclusively, but with much more frequency than he does now.

5

380pistol
01-18-2009, 10:35 PM
Yes but they still remain opinions,an educated opinions since they come from former or current players but it's not like pros can't make mistakes.I also heard players like Andre Agassi,Jim Courier,Kramer,Rios,Bruguera,Wilander(the biggest flip flopper),Henman,Safin,Roddick etc. say Fed is best ever or similar,I even remember Mcenroe saying before FO 2006 that if Fed wins it,he's the GOAT.I will find you the links of the ones I read on internet later if you want.But while I respect their opinion(s)I can still from my own.I think both Federer and Sampras are obviously amazing players(although as I said I'll wait before Fed is completely done with his career before comparing them as I think that's fair)but I'm personally most impressed by Borg's achievements,the guy went from winning clay by grinding people down to playing serve and volley at Wimbledon.Back then those surfaces were complete polar opposites(unlike now)so that was the ultimate test of player's adaptability and nobody passed that test as well as Borg.To holds such dominating records like 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 overall FOs on such opposite surfaces is nothing short of spectacular for me so I personally put him above both Sampras and Federer(for nowsince Fed isn't done yet but I dout that'll change in the future).Sure he didn't win USO but he reached 4 finals there and lost to some of the best USO players ever in Jimbo and Mcenroe,that's a great resume in your worst slam as far as I'm concerned.Another blemish(sp?) on his career is that he also retired early but what most people here don't seem realize is that Borg was an early bloomer and won a major each year since 1974-1981,that's some solid period of playing at a very high level.Maybe slightly off topic but since we're talking about GOATs,Borg's the one for me.

I agree that they are opinions, an educated ones and that, from people who understand the game better than most. But if we took three of the best from the 1990's you'd get this.....

Becker says Pete, Andre says Federer and Sampras says Laver. Are they all not educated??? Who's opinion holds more weight??? OK if Becker is right does that make Pete and Anre wrong??? That's all I was saying.

I love Borg to pieces and I often feel he gets left out or forgotton when these discussions arise. His French/Wimbledon may be the single greatest feat in tennis. But 3 things always bother me about Borg

A) He couldn't handle McEnroe, he lost 3 of 4 slam finals. I know matchups and all that but I felt if Borg came back he could done well in 1982, I mean an almost 30 yr old Connors beat Mac at SW19, and 22 yr old Lendl who hadn't mentall developed got him in Flushing.

B) The US Open. Among men missing one is common, but Borg played the US Open on 3 surface (well the green clay isn't really clay), I'm sure others would like to get chances at the slam the didn't win on ther surfaces.

C) Just 109 weeks and 2 years at #1. Then again the ranking system is known to be flawed at times, but those #'s don't accurately reflect The Angelic Assassin. Hewitt in this regard comes very close to Borg, and can't hold a candle to Bjorn.

I don't like mentioing these things cuz it looks like it's tarninshes Borg's resume, and it shouldn't cuz he has an outstanding one. I can't really argue against Borg, he certainly does not get the credit he desreves in GOAT discussions.



Well Pete could have some trouble in early rounds at slams even during his peak years and then raise it up a notch when he played better players,I remember he pushed by that crazy German fellow in 1995 in the first round(Kaarsten Braasch) but then again the last time before that he got pushed to five sets in Wimbledon was back in '98 against Goran so I guess it was telling that Sampras wasn't the same.As for the bolded part,I think they both played well.It's was a quality match and the one I still watch from time to time(it was nice to see Fed serve and volley)bit as I said no matter how much we argue whether Fed was closer to his prime or Sampras,bottom line is that:

a)Neither player was in his prime.

b)One match is too small of a sample to conclide how a whole potential rivalry between 2 GOAT candidates would go.

c)It wasn't changing of the guard(like how it is apparently seen by a lot of people here,wrongly IMO)since Fed didn't win Wimbledon till 2003.

Frankly,I think that for the reasons stated above,that match is somewhat overrated although it was still a high-quality match IMO,both of them served great and had good winner to error ratio.So it was a good match but as I said not really the changing of the guard so I think some people give that match too much importance.

Pete on occasion had some lengthy early rd matches, true. But this was a man who stred the year #3 and finished #13, certainly not at his best.

a) Agreed
b) Agreed
c) Agreed

All I've said about this match it's similar to Sampras/Lendl 1990 US Open. Lendl may have been playing a little better than Pete was at that stage of their careers (though Pete played well in 2001 match), and Pete wasn't in his prime yet, but Sampras played beyond his years. Same with Federer he wasn't in his prime in 2001, but on that day he played beyond his years.



I would agree since Lendl was a late bloomer that he was closer to his peak in 1990 than Sampras was in 2001 but then again Sampras was playing better in USO 1990 than Fed in Wimbledon 2001 as Pete went on to win tournament and Fed lost in quarters.But you're right about Lendl,he reached 8 USO finals in a row up until that point so Pete cut Lendl streak there but on the other hand Fed also cut Pete's streak of 4 Wimbledons in a row(and had Borg thank him).It happens even to all-time greats at some point as they get older,they get knocked out by fearless talented young guns,that's just the nature of the sport.

The main difference betwwen Sampras (1990) and Federer (2001) was that Sampras as he said "got hot for two weeks", Federer's didn't last, hence he lost to Henman in the QF.

Like Chang in 1989, his hot streak lasted just long enough to garner him the French. Federer coud play well but was inconsitent. Like a year later he played what he called one of his best claycourt matches beating Safin in the Hamburg final, then lost in the 1st rd of the French. He didn't bring it consitently as he would a couple of years later when he put it all together.



Well I never argued that Pete was in his prime,especially in 2001 and 2002.His prime was in 1993-1997 but even in 1999-2002 he could still put "some" great performances in majors(which were all he gave a damn at that point,hardly blame him for that),especially in 1999(which actually could have been a much better year if he didn't injure himself during a training with Kuerten,he was in very good form heading into USO that year) and 2000 when it took some great performances from both Agassi and Safin to stop him at AO and USO respectively and when he won Wimbledon on one leg so to speak,at FO he lost early that year but Pete never got around to being a contender there anyway(might have if Tim stayed alive but that's another topic).I still consider USO QF between Sampras and Agassi 2001 to have been one of the best matches I've ever seen but no week-in,week-out Sampras wasn't the same player he was in 1993-1997,few people will argue that.As any great champion,he could still play great in some matches,but normally as players get older those great performances became rarer and rarer,that's the way things work.Time affects even the greatest champions.

That wasn't directed at you.

It was said (by you know whom) that Pete's best performance came 1999-2002. I never once denied Pete did not put up some his greatest performance during 1999-2002. But to say his "best" performances came from that span he who said that would have to show those performance surpass his best performances from prior to 1999, and/or occurred more frequently. They couldn't so they started to talk wreckless which I was not having.

I spoke on 1999, but 2000 falls under that categor of "(blank) happens". He tore his hip flexor in 1st set of 2000 Aus Open SF, nothing against Dre cuz he played very well, and the US Open F, Safin just played out his mind, Got to give credit to them.

The 2001 Sampras/Agassi was a great match. But does Pete's performance surpass is 1990 and 1995 US Open F vs Agassi??? Maybe, maybe not. But to the guy who used this match as example of his 1999-2002 statement, he needs to show how. If not he's not really saying anything of substance.


Yes,I'm fully aware of injuries Sampras had that year,especially the one that forced him to miss USO,the back injury he sustained while practicing with Kuerten but hey not all was bad,he did meet Bridget during that break :)) so some good came from that atleast.But regadless those 2 performances against Agassi in that year(Wimbledon and TMC final)were still the best I've ever seen Sampras play(along with some others like DC '97 against Rafter and TMC final against Becker in '96,maybe even '96 USO final against Chang).Mind you,I mean those 2 matches,not the whole year obviously.

See this a reasonable statement. I never once questioned Pete's 1999 Wimbledom and YEC F performances. Or even his 2001 and 2002 (well the 1st 2.5 sets anyway). But like you said Davis Cup, 1996 YEC F etc. So dude needs to explain how those are superior to anything Pete played prior to 1999HIS words.

Off the top of my head I giave you Pete 10 greates single match performances only one would come from after 1999 (the 1999 Wimbldeon F). Not saying he didn't put up great performances 1999-2002, or they're not top 10 worthy, it's just when he said what he said and had nothing to support it, I felt he just needed to be quiet.

380pistol
01-18-2009, 10:52 PM
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.

There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.

So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.

5

Well said. Many don't understand Nadal will always trouble Roger regardless off surface, much in the same way Agassi into his mid 30's was playing Roger tough. Tennis is linear with boxing in the sense styles make fights, and Federer's style does not mesh well with Nadal's.

For instance we live in a world where 85%+ are right handed, meaning the 85% of the world is domnant to their right side. 90%+ of tennis players are right handed, and 95% of tennis players are dominant to their forehand side. The last 30 yras how many notable players have been dominant with their backhand side??? Connors, Wilander, Edberg, Agassi, Kuerten, Safin, Nalbandian, and maybe Djokovic and Gasquet. Federer's best shot is the inside out forehand, which attacks the left side of his opponent, 95%+ of the time that' the weaker side. But with Nadal it goes at his strength.

What makes it worse is Nadal can take his strenght and go at the weakest part of Federer's arsenal, his backhand. So while Federer is going strength vs strength, Rafa is going strength vs weakness.

Two.... Federer plays east to west. Nadal is too fast, is such a great athlete and defends so well, this makes it a difficult task. Roger would be better served to play north and south and push Nadal back, but his natural style is east to west (side to side). Using angles, court geometry... but that's something Nadal can deal with better than most.

Consitency. Nadal is too consisent. Federer's game is built on shot making, artistry, while Rafa is built to last. Federer is the one who when the two match up looks to end the point (he normally nds up with more winners and unforced errors than Nadal). But due to Nadal's speed, defensive abilities, and what he's able to do even while defending, causes Federer to go for mare thus his higher winner and unforced eerror count. Staying and rallying, and waiting for Nadal to blink is not a good option as that is one of Rafa's hallmarks, and Fed's backhand becomes a liability.

Like 5 said is not only Nadal's style, but he also possesse the abiltit How many many times has Nadal worked over Federer's backhand then ended the point with an inside out forehand???

It's not a slight on Roger, it's just match up thing. I tried to explain this regarding Federer/Agassi, but of course, most are blinded and or don't listen.

DoubleDeuce
01-18-2009, 11:06 PM
380pistolsConsitency. Nadal is too consisent. Federer's game is built on shot making, artistry, while Rafa is built to last.

I found this comment rather odd. Built to last? Federer's Shot making is not gonna last?

You appear to be clinging to Nadal hoping he will save your guy Pete.

Everything about Federer has last longer so far, and I bet he'll last longer in history also. More than either Nadal or Sampras, like it or not.

David L
01-18-2009, 11:07 PM
"Slower" as in slower than Nadal.

We're discussing a guy who has given Fed fits on everything since his arrival on tour, not just the last 12 months where Simon and Murray got all or the bulk of their wins. Canas is another guy on the list of dtl bh weapons, similar to those of a hobbled Kuerten that routined Fed at RG in 2004.

As far as the critique of how to beat Nadal, attacking in that manner is not the blueprint for every player v. Rafa, but there is a long enough track record between Fed and Nadal to identify the fact that Nadal's singular ability to continually pound the ball up and away to Fed's bh as the deciding factor and it is less likely that Fed will improve his all ready very good bh, so I don't know what you suggest he do. Fed isn't being pinned there by Nadal's court coverage he is being pinned there by the ball Nadal hits. No one else can do that to Fed, actually no one else can do that, period.

Other than that we'll have to agree to disagree.

5
Yes, we'll have to agree to differ. I personally feel Federer has been good from the baseline in most of their clay encounters. I never really got the impression he was under duress, just that Nadal was the better mover on clay and the better player on that surface generally. Sure he targets the backhand, especially on the serve, but Federer has always been in those matches, apart from the last time they played when he tried to attack more. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how things progress.

grafrules
01-19-2009, 12:36 AM
Well said. Many don't understand Nadal will always trouble Roger regardless off surface, much in the same way Agassi into his mid 30's was playing Roger tough.

Agassi from 2003-2005 ages 33-35 went 0-8 vs Federer, was just destroyed in half of those matches, and sets won were 20-5 in Federer's favor. If that is "playing someone tough" I would hate to see what a one sided battle is. I guess you think Roddick and Hewitt were playing Federer tough from 2003-2005 too, they had about the same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer after all, well maybe they did a bit better since they each actually got a win.

380pistol
01-19-2009, 09:25 AM
380pistols

I found this comment rather odd. Built to last? Federer's Shot making is not gonna last?

You appear to be clinging to Nadal hoping he will save your guy Pete.

Everything about Federer has last longer so far, and I bet he'll last longer in history also. More than either Nadal or Sampras, like it or not.

When I said "built to last", I meant in a rally (a singular point), Nadal can outlast Federer. Roger's the type who after a while (certain # of strokes) will moreso look to end the point on his own terms, work the point, go for a winner, and at times come in. Nadal is more content to rally believing the opponent will make an error before him. Federer's not the type to just sit and rally thinking his opp wil blink before him, after a while he'll take matters into his own hands whether he wins or loses the point. That's what I meant about "built to last", not that all of sudden Fed's shotmaking will go. Hence I even went as far to explain as this is why in the majority of their encounters, Roger ends up with more winners and unforced errors.

That part was about Roger and Rafa's respective playing ideologies, not playing abilites. But I do find it funny in general analogy about the respective games o Nadal and Federer, you mention Pete, and the talk about about my insecurities about him. Speaks volumes!!!

380pistol
01-19-2009, 09:52 AM
Agassi from 2003-2005 ages 33-35 went 0-8 vs Federer, was just destroyed in half of those matches, and sets won were 20-5 in Federer's favor. If that is "playing someone tough" I would hate to see what a one sided battle is. I guess you think Roddick and Hewitt were playing Federer tough from 2003-2005 too, they had about the same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer after all, well maybe they did a bit better since they each actually got a win.

Federer destroyed Agassi in half of those matches. But those half came in.....
-November 2003
-January 2005
-March 2005
-April 2005

3 of those 4 came when Agassi was appraching his 35th b-day. Keep in mind Federer didn't beat Agassi until very late 2003. So lets's not say 2003 loosely, as if it happened in early in 2003. It was November 2003!!! The other 4 were.....
-7-6 in the 3rd (9-7 in the tie breaker, Dre had a match point)
-6-4 in the 3rd (Federer broke at 4-4)
-5 sets over 2 days
-Agassi led 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0

Say what you say this was not the best of Agassi at 33-35, he back problems in the 2005 US Open encounter, and after the 3 beatdowns Roger gave Agassi in 2005, Dre ended up crawling out of the French Open and missing Wimbledon.

And do you (or anyone consider).....
-that from Miami 2004 (after losing to Roger in Indian Wells SF) to Canada 2004 Agassi went 5-6???
-that in 2005 the only vicories he had over top 10 players were 2 over Gaudio and one over Coria, all on hard???

So what Agassi was Federer really getting??? Yet he struggled 50% of the time.

As far as Roddick.....
From November 2003 to September 2005 (the time where Fed went 8-0) vs Agassi Roger went.....
-6-0 vs Andy
-won 14 of 15 sets

Hewitt (Nov 2003 - Sept 2005), well Federer went....
-9-0
-won 24 of 27 sets
-Lleyton ate 5 bagels

So Agassi won 5 sets in his 8 matches (24 sets) while Roddick/Hewitt won a combined 4 sets in 15 matches (42 sets).

Roddick and Hewitt were far closer to their primes an physical playing peaks than Agassi was during this time. Outside of the 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick/Hewitt didn't really push Federer or really threaten him. 1 of 15. Yet on 4 distinctive occasion Agass at 33+ gave Roger all he could handle.

So the Agassi - Roddick/Hewitt is clearly not an accurate one, as it shows Roddick and Hewitt did not have the "same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer".

And what win did Roddick or Hewitt have over Federer from November 2003 to September 2005???

GameSampras
01-19-2009, 10:02 AM
Federer destroyed Agassi in half of those matches. But those half came in.....
-November 2003
-January 2005
-March 2005
-April 2005

3 of those 4 came when Agassi was appraching his 35th b-day. Keep in mind Federer didn't beat Agassi until very late 2003. So lets's not say 2003 loosely, as if it happened in early in 2003. It was November 2003!!! The other 4 were.....
-7-6 in the 3rd (9-7 in the tie breaker, Dre had a match point)
-6-4 in the 3rd (Federer broke at 4-4)
-5 sets over 2 days
-Agassi led 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0

Say what you say this was not the best of Agassi at 33-35, he back problems in the 2005 US Open encounter, and after the 3 beatdowns Roger gave Agassi in 2005, Dre ended up crawling out of the French Open and missing Wimbledon.

And do you (or anyone consider).....
-that from Miami 2004 (after losing to Roger in Indian Wells SF) to Canada 2004 Agassi went 5-6???
-that in 2005 the only vicories he had over top 10 players were 2 over Gaudio and one over Coria, all on hard???

So what Agassi was Federer really getting??? Yet he struggled 50% of the time.

As far as Roddick.....
From November 2003 to September 2005 (the time where Fed went 8-0) vs Agassi Roger went.....
-6-0 vs Andy
-won 14 of 15 sets

Hewitt (Nov 2003 - Sept 2005), well Federer went....
-9-0
-won 24 of 27 sets
-Lleyton ate 5 bagels

So Agassi won 5 sets in his 8 matches (24 sets) while Roddick/Hewitt won a combined 4 sets in 15 matches (42 sets).

Roddick and Hewitt were far closer to their primes an physical playing peaks than Agassi was during this time. Outside of the 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick/Hewitt didn't really push Federer or really threaten him. 1 of 15. Yet on 4 distinctive occasion Agass at 33+ gave Roger all he could handle.

So the Agassi - Roddick/Hewitt is clearly not an accurate one, as it shows Roddick and Hewitt did not have the "same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer".

And what win did Roddick or Hewitt have over Federer from November 2003 to September 2005???

You are just a fountain of information 380 Pistol. LOL. Way to put things into perspective. Thats my biggest problem with alot of people especially Fed fans who want to look back at the past with the Rosey tinted-Fed Glasses on.. Not very objective when you look at the situation with Andre. Fed's wins were AFTER Andre's 33rd birthday. If the roles were reversed and Roger was 33 and older, then what.


Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO

hoodjem
01-19-2009, 10:04 AM
To start with, in order to be considered GOAT, he needs to win 2 Grand Slams before we even start talking. He currently has 0 Grand Slams. I know he has won some majors but before it can be said he won a Grand Slam he needs all 4 in a calendar year. Rod Laver is so far out in front as the GOAT, no further discussion is warranted. 2 Grand Slams years apart.

Yep. Ditto!

abmk
01-19-2009, 10:04 AM
It's not a slight on Roger, it's just match up thing. I tried to explain this regarding Federer/Agassi, but of course, most are blinded and or don't listen.

LOL @ blinded and or don't listen ! :) If federer is in the zone, there isn't too much that agassi can do against him since he hits flat , right into federer's strike zone. Which is one of the reasons why I think agassi said that there was nowhere to go against federer when he was on or something similar to that.

Only if federer is slightly off, then only the UE count from federer would increase and agassi would have more chances. Agassi is NOT a bad matchup for federer.

NamRanger
01-19-2009, 10:16 AM
You are just a fountain of information 380 Pistol. LOL. Way to put things into perspective. Thats my biggest problem with alot of people especially Fed fans who want to look back at the past with the Rosey tinted-Fed Glasses on.. Not very objective when you look at the situation with Andre. Fed's wins were AFTER Andre's 33rd birthday. If the roles were reversed and Roger was 33 and older, then what.


Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO



There were only a handful of matches that Agassi was competitive in. The majority of them were due to weather conditions (US Open 04), Federer doing his routine lolly gaggle routine in the middle of a match (US Open 05), or Federer doing his routine shank a billion shots in a row (Indian Wells SF).


Otherwise, Federer dominated Agassi from pretty much all parts of the court.

War, Safin!
01-19-2009, 10:21 AM
After all discussion in this forum about if Federer is or is not the GOAT.

According to you what need to do Federer to be considered with out any doubt the GOAT?.

Regards.Beat Nadal at this year's AusO.

Forget the French, if he ties 14 slams by beating Nadal in 2 weeks then that makes him 'THE G.O.A.T.'

fastdunn
01-19-2009, 10:27 AM
I think Federer has pretty good chance to top Sampras' achievements.

But that doesn't mean Federer will be everyone's GOAT forever( open era only by the way ).

Under current homogenious ATP conditions, ATP might be able to produce a new champion who can better Federer's achievement.

Federer and Sampras' legacy will be re-interpreted again and again in the future, IMHO.

Otherside
01-19-2009, 10:43 AM
look at him go in the Blake match at the USO-06
Hewitt final USO -04

Thats all I need to see to give him the GOAT title. Its a thing of beauty to watch him on court, the level he can play at is in my mind unmatched and the estetchics makes it unreal.

I'd like to shake his hand and thank him for some of the shots he has made over the year=)

Peter

War, Safin!
01-19-2009, 11:02 AM
look at him go in the Blake match at the USO-06
Hewitt final USO -04

Thats all I need to see to give him the GOAT title. Its a thing of beauty to watch him on court, the level he can play at is in my mind unmatched and the estetchics makes it unreal.

I'd like to shake his hand and thank him for some of the shots he has made over the year=)

PeterYeah, the USO final '04 was pretty impressive.
What was Hewitt back then? Top 5?
Federer beat Hewitt like he stole something from him...

Otherside
01-19-2009, 11:14 AM
Yeah, the USO final '04 was pretty impressive.
What was Hewitt back then? Top 5?
Federer beat Hewitt like he stole something from him...

yeah he was 5, 3rd after the Open I believe?

I remember when the commentators Mac and someone else allready in that match said that it was the best tennis ever played. "he has such perfect form on the forehand, In ten years people will look back at that forehand, It's textbook material" something like that was said=)

380pistol
01-19-2009, 12:35 PM
LOL @ blinded and or don't listen ! :) If federer is in the zone, there isn't too much that agassi can do against him since he hits flat , right into federer's strike zone. Which is one of the reasons why I think agassi said that there was nowhere to go against federer when he was on or something similar to that.

Only if federer is slightly off, then only the UE count from federer would increase and agassi would have more chances. Agassi is NOT a bad matchup for federer.


The bolded parts are the clearly illustrate why this post does need even warrant a response!!!!!

380pistol
01-19-2009, 12:40 PM
Agassi from 2003-2005 ages 33-35 went 0-8 vs Federer, was just destroyed in half of those matches, and sets won were 20-5 in Federer's favor. If that is "playing someone tough" I would hate to see what a one sided battle is. I guess you think Roddick and Hewitt were playing Federer tough from 2003-2005 too, they had about the same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer after all, well maybe they did a bit better since they each actually got a win.

Federer destroyed Agassi in half of those matches. But those half came in.....
-November 2003
-January 2005
-March 2005
-April 2005

3 of those 4 came when Agassi was appraching his 35th b-day. Keep in mind Federer didn't beat Agassi until very late 2003. So lets's not say 2003 loosely, as if it happened in early in 2003. It was November 2003!!! The other 4 were.....
-7-6 in the 3rd (9-7 in the tie breaker, Dre had a match point)
-6-4 in the 3rd (Federer broke at 4-4)
-5 sets over 2 days
-Agassi led 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0

Say what you say this was not the best of Agassi at 33-35, he back problems in the 2005 US Open encounter, and after the 3 beatdowns Roger gave Agassi in 2005, Dre ended up crawling out of the French Open and missing Wimbledon.

And do you (or anyone consider).....
-that from Miami 2004 (after losing to Roger in Indian Wells SF) to Canada 2004 Agassi went 5-6???
-that in 2005 the only vicories he had over top 10 players were 2 over Gaudio and one over Coria, all on hard???

So what Agassi was Federer really getting??? Yet he struggled 50% of the time.

As far as Roddick.....
From November 2003 to September 2005 (the time where Fed went 8-0) vs Agassi Roger went.....
-6-0 vs Andy
-won 14 of 15 sets

Hewitt (Nov 2003 - Sept 2005), well Federer went....
-9-0
-won 24 of 27 sets
-Lleyton ate 5 bagels

So Agassi won 5 sets in his 8 matches (24 sets) while Roddick/Hewitt won a combined 4 sets in 15 matches (42 sets).

Roddick and Hewitt were far closer to their primes an physical playing peaks than Agassi was during this time. Outside of the 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick/Hewitt didn't really push Federer or really threaten him. 1 of 15. Yet on 4 distinctive occasion Agass at 33+ gave Roger all he could handle.

So the Agassi - Roddick/Hewitt is clearly not an accurate one, as it shows Roddick and Hewitt did not have the "same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer".

And what win did Roddick or Hewitt have over Federer from November 2003 to September 2005???

You are just a fountain of information 380 Pistol. LOL. Way to put things into perspective. Thats my biggest problem with alot of people especially Fed fans who want to look back at the past with the Rosey tinted-Fed Glasses on.. Not very objective when you look at the situation with Andre. Fed's wins were AFTER Andre's 33rd birthday. If the roles were reversed and Roger was 33 and older, then what.


Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO

I just broke down Agassi's performances vs Roger and Hewiit and Roddicks over the same time period. I know it's objective and fact based. Other will say whatever.

BullDogTennis
01-19-2009, 12:47 PM
he done did it. you could square the GOAT if he won roland garos

abmk
01-19-2009, 09:05 PM
The bolded parts are the clearly illustrate why this post does need even warrant a response!!!!!

You just don't have any response, that's it ! I might've exaggerated a bit there, but that is nothing compared to saying agassi played federer tough from 2003 when he had a 0-8 record against him since then.

abmk
01-19-2009, 09:13 PM
Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO

Nalbandian actually beat federer in USO 2003

380pistol
01-19-2009, 10:48 PM
LOL @ blinded and or don't listen ! :) If federer is in the zone, there isn't too much that agassi can do against him since he hits flat , right into federer's strike zone. Which is one of the reasons why I think agassi said that there was nowhere to go against federer when he was on or something similar to that.

Only if federer is slightly off, then only the UE count from federer would increase and agassi would have more chances. Agassi is NOT a bad matchup for federer.

The bolded parts are the clearly illustrate why this post does need even warrant a response!!!!!

You just don't have any response, that's it ! I might've exaggerated a bit there, but that is nothing compared to saying agassi played federer tough from 2003 when he had a 0-8 record against him since then.

I'll speak to you in a language you can understand.....

"Federer is the almighty as far as tennis is concerned, he can do no wrong when he's on a tennis court or has a racquet in his hand. The only time he's threatend or pushed is due to his own doing, and playing up to his usual playing standards (you the one which no other player can see with a telescope), not due to anything the player on the other side of the net does."

Am I speaking your language now?? I just don't have response, you're absolutely right. Federer breezed through his 4 wins over Agassi cuz Federer just can't be touched. The reason Federer struggled in the other half of his victories (twice in slams) had absolutely nothing to with Agassi at all, or matchup issues, it was Fed who never played well on those occasions. The same cannot apply for Dre, cuz every time Dre steps on the court and Federer is on the other side of the net Agassi is automatically at his pinnacle, and Federer with a torn MCL, playing with his left hand will still straight set him.

Federer .... all praises due.

NamRanger
01-19-2009, 10:58 PM
I'll speak to you in a language you can understand.....

"Federer is the almighty as far as tennis is concerned, he can do no wrong when he's on a tennis court or has a racquet in his hand. The only time he's threatend or pushed is due to his own doing, and playing up to his usual playing standards (you the one which no other player can see with a telescope), not due to anything the player on the other side of the net does."

Am I speaking your language now?? I just don't have response, you're absolutely right. Federer breezed through his 4 wins over Agassi cuz Federer just can't be touched. The reason Federer struggled in the other half of his victories (twice in slams) had absolutely nothing to with Agassi at all, or matchup issues, it was Fed who never played well on those occasions. The same cannot apply for Dre, cuz every time Dre steps on the court and Federer is on the other side of the net Agassi is automatically at his pinnacle, and Federer with a torn MCL, playing with his left hand will still straight set him.

Federer .... all praises due.



Federer was a terrible match-up for Agassi though, in the same respect as how Safin is a bad match-up for Agassi also. Federer can do everything Andre can do, and better in some respects (forehand, backhand variety, defense, movement, etc). Andre maybe does two things better than Federer (backhand and return of serve), while Federer has a plethora of things that he does better than Andre.



Also what abmk said is true. Federer in general hits outside of Agassi's strike zones, while Agassi hits flat balls, which is perfect for Federer who uses a mild-SW grip / extreme eastern grip, and a eastern backhand grip, all which are suited for hitting low to mid level balls.



The matches that were competitive were generally because Federer pulled a lollygaggle (after Federer demolished Agassi in the 1st set of the USO 05 final, he kinda just disappeared and woke up in the 3rd, then blew past Agassi in the 4th), or the weather conditions were not favorable towards Federer (the 04 QF match had tons of wind).



Agassi WAS competitive a few matches, but more times than not, Federer literally blew him off the court.

abmk
01-20-2009, 03:40 AM
I mean break down Federer and Murray games and arsenals, and how superiror is Roger. Yet he can only win 2 of 7 and Roger was in his prime for all 7, and Murray wasn't. But Roger only bothered in 2 matches, the other 5 he just didn't care. It's a match up thing. Understand... "MATCH UP".

Out of those 7 matches, federer played well in only 4 of them - 2 of which he won, madrid masters and TMC match ; even murray played well in 4 of them ( all of their matches post 2008 except USO ) . All I can say at roger being in his prime for all those 7 and murray wasn't is lol :)

FiveO
01-20-2009, 03:56 AM
IMO the Fed v. Murray thing from this point forward will only be settled if they start meeting in Majors regularly.

Fed had stated early last year that he intended to focus on the Majors over everything else. I'll take him at his word.

Murray has joined the elite by getting himself truly fit. Fed's newer stated approach carries risks but I think, in the big picture, it is his best approach allowing him the freedom of re-kindling some of his dormant skills in matchplay in smaller events and then bringing them into the events he stated he was going to prioritize. The risk of course is losing his aura of invincibility by treating matchplay as practice and opponents then "believing" v. Fed at the Majors.

Let it play out. We'll see.

5

abmk
01-20-2009, 03:56 AM
Murray has advantages over Federer that Agassi does not have.

Murray's advantages over Federer :

1st serve
Movement
Backhand
Patience
Point Construction
Consistency
Return of Serve
Shot Selection



Agassi had none of these, except the BH and the Return of Serve.

I assume you are talking about the present-day federer and murray ?

FiveO
01-20-2009, 04:11 AM
Murray has advantages over Federer that Agassi does not have.



Murray's advantages over Federer :

1st serve
Movement
Backhand
Patience
Point Construction
Consistency
Return of Serve
Shot Selection



Agassi had none of these, except the BH and the Return of Serve.

The only thing for sure that Murray has over Fed is youth and hunger.

And in the Majors, after last year, the latter is in doubt.

Murray improved all of the elements you described as compared to himself. But clearly better than Fed? Murray registered wins not routs, and those wins were in events that Fed had stated, well before Murray's emergence as a contender in the second half of last year, that would no longer be his priority. When it came to a priority, a Major, there was a rout and it went the other way.

Again if both Fed and Murray find their way to the AO final, we'll see. Maybe it will signal a change in the order, I don't know. Or if Fed gets there and Murray doesn't or vice versa it won't be by luck it will be what is. But until they start facing each other in late rounds of Majors the above described break down of game elements reads like massive overstatement IMO.

5

Kaptain Karl
01-20-2009, 09:26 AM
This horse is dead.

** Thread Lock **

- KK