PDA

View Full Version : Is Sampras the GOAT (yes/no)?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Bud
05-06-2009, 06:27 PM
Simple poll... yes or no

No other explanation/evidence/justification required (although welcome) :wink:

rubberduckies
05-06-2009, 06:32 PM
He is GOAT by the metric he created himself.

If Borg had been operating under the same Tour mindset, there isn't a chance in hell he doesn't get more than 14.

Andres
05-06-2009, 06:35 PM
Since GOAT means greatest of all time, and not most achieved of all time, I'm saying YES.

drakulie
05-06-2009, 06:37 PM
^^^trouble maker.

Leublu tennis
05-06-2009, 06:37 PM
Since GOAT means greatest of all time, and not most achieved of all time, I'm saying YES.No kidding? Laver, Tilden, Connors, etc disregarded??

Leublu tennis
05-06-2009, 06:38 PM
Oh, I voted no. Would have voted h*** no, if that were given as a choice.

GameSampras
05-06-2009, 06:38 PM
In my biased opinion he is. :)

Realistically? There is no GOAT in tennis. Too difficult to compare the eras and the best of each era objectively. Tennis is one sport that I just dont think here is a GOAT for to be honest.


Of course maybe none of the sports. You can argue for and against many players. You can argue MJ, Wilt, Russell, Kareem in NBA. All have legit cases.


At the end of the day its just opinions. Numbers and stats arent the be all end all in sports.

Andres
05-06-2009, 06:39 PM
No kidding. In my opinion, the three greatest players of all time are between Borg, Sampras and Federer.

Achievements cannot be compared between eras, but I think those three were the crème de la crème regarding tennis abilities.

GameSampras
05-06-2009, 06:41 PM
People have to remember though.. If Laver got to play the pro tour during his prime years, he would have had 20 slams or more.

Are slams the only measuring stick? I dunno. Slam counts never really became important until Pete started chasing Emerson

GameSampras
05-06-2009, 06:46 PM
Btw.. I can tell this thread is going to be quite a few pages. There will be a rumble. I just get that feeling

egn
05-06-2009, 06:49 PM
Is it really necessary to have these same style threads every week...seriously it is like have any answers changed since the last is this player goat thread. Is there some rule thread somewhere that we must have is this player goat thread every single time?

gj011
05-06-2009, 06:55 PM
No, but neither is Federer.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
05-06-2009, 07:07 PM
Oh god, another goat thread. I'll get outta here before the *********s, ***********s, *******s and the likes get here.

egn
05-06-2009, 07:30 PM
Oh god, another goat thread. I'll get outta here before the *********s, ***********s, *******s and the likes get here.

=[ why are there no lavertards..I think I am going to become one. =]

Leublu tennis
05-06-2009, 07:34 PM
No, but neither is Federer.Thats for sure. And, quite frankly, I am not overly optimistic that Nadal will make it either.

GameSampras
05-06-2009, 07:37 PM
Thats for sure. And, quite frankly, I am not overly optimistic that Nadal will make it either.

Nadal will have a case most likely if he can stay healthy and keep on the winning ways and continue his dominance. But who knows if he can. Just 2-3 years ago Fed was already being considered the hands down GOAT, now look. Alot can happen in the span of a few years. Nadal needs quite a few more years on top to prove his worthiness as GOAT.

tudwell
05-06-2009, 07:42 PM
Re: Nadal, he spent so long at number 2, I feel it took him a little too long to overcome Federer. He's got a lot more miles behind him than most 22-year-olds. He'll have to stay at the top of the game another 4 or 5 years at least to be in GOAT contention. And that's no easy feat. But who knows? Maybe he'll do it.

JoshDragon
05-06-2009, 07:52 PM
No, he couldn't win the French so he can't be the GOAT.

GameSampras
05-06-2009, 07:56 PM
Re: Nadal, he spent so long at number 2, I feel it took him a little too long to overcome Federer. He's got a lot more miles behind him than most 22-year-olds. He'll have to stay at the top of the game another 4 or 5 years at least to be in GOAT contention. And that's no easy feat. But who knows? Maybe he'll do it.

4-5 more years? Doubtful.. Extremely doubtful. Nadal has a lot of miles on those legs and alot wear and tear. Not good for any sense of longevity. The older you get especially Nadal, the more he will be feeling those matches the next morning when he rolls out of bed. If Nadal is even around in 5 years I will be surprised. I give Nadal 2-3 years at the very most to where he MAYBE can win more slams. Once the wheels go on Nadal, hes finished though. He relies on his movement too much and lacks weapons which would help him win easy, free points.

Unless nadal somehow devlops a Roddick, Karlovic, or Sampras serve in the next year

egn
05-06-2009, 08:01 PM
No, he couldn't win the French so he can't be the GOAT.

Exactly why Laver is the GOAT...he won 7 unique majors..lol I am liking this Lavertard thing.

Australian Open
French Open
Wimbledon
US Open
Wembley (London Indoor)
U.S Pro
French Pro

who else can claim 7 majors on 3 different surfaces..grass, clay, and indoor wood..nobody. Hence Laver being GOAT.

Lol I can sense this is going to be fun..

GameSampras
05-06-2009, 08:03 PM
Exactly why Laver is the GOAT...he won 7 unique majors..lol I am liking this Lavertard thing.

Australian Open
French Open
Wimbledon
US Open
Wembley (London Indoor)
U.S Pro
French Pro

who else can claim 7 majors on 3 different surfaces..grass, clay, and indoor wood..nobody. Hence Laver being GOAT.

Lol I can sense this is going to be fun..


No thats "Most achieved" not GREATEST. LOL

Most achieved is presented and proved by numerics. Greatest is OPINION. :)

Bud
05-06-2009, 08:09 PM
No kidding? Laver, Tilden, Connors, etc disregarded??

Oh, I voted no. Would have voted h*** no, if that were given as a choice.

Lol... next poll I'll add a H*** No! option. That's 'Heck' to the moderators :wink:

egn
05-06-2009, 08:10 PM
No thats "Most achieved" not GREATEST. LOL

Most achieved is presented and proved by numerics. Greatest is OPINION. :)

OH NO YOU DIDNT! Lol.

If Laver was around today he would be making fools of everyone with their lame baseliner styles and destroyed on the wicked fast grass of the 90s...Sampras and Federer would be crying and forget what Nadal would be doing.

What I fear even more now is people not recognizing my sarcasm and I accidentally start a flame war. However Laver is still GOAT in my eyes under my honest opinion. Laver dominated his era, was number 1 for a long period of time, won tons and tons of titles and when he was on (see 1969) did not let anyone get in his way. Besides winning a calendar year slam is hard enough amateur or pro but doing it twice...that's ridiculous.

Bud
05-06-2009, 08:11 PM
Btw.. I can tell this thread is going to be quite a few pages. There will be a rumble. I just get that feeling

I hear ya... was just measuring the current feeling of Sampras and GOAT status.

GameSampras
05-06-2009, 08:12 PM
I hear ya... was just measuring the current feeling of Sampras and GOAT status.

Obviously Pete is not going to get any GOAT love around these parts. :). This is a Laver lovefest around here.

Apparently most achieved equates to the GOAT title. I dunno if thats true or not. But thats everyone's perogative. I dont have to agree with it though

egn
05-06-2009, 08:15 PM
Obviously Pete is not going to get any GOAT love around these parts. :). This is a Laver lovefest around here.

Apparently most achieved equates to the GOAT title. I dunno if thats true or not. But thats everyone's perogative. I dont have to agree with it though

Well obviously if Pete had gotten his act together and won that damn calendar slam.... =] lol lol

theduh
05-06-2009, 08:24 PM
If only time machines are invented then we could get all of the greatest of each eras whilst they are on their prime and bunch them all together on a single tournament to settle once and for all who's GOAT. That would be fun.

GameSampras
05-06-2009, 08:25 PM
If only time machines are invented then we could get all of the greatest of each eras whilst they are on their prime and bunch them all together on a single tournament to settle once and for all who's GOAT. That would be fun.

Thats the only way to really prove it my man. The only way. Everything else is subjective. Besides the numbers. But thats not fair to judge the GOAT based on pure number alone when comparing eras. WInning the numbers race means you were the most achieved of all time. Does it really mean you are the "greatest?" Not necessarily. The greatest is a subjecive term. . The only way to prove the greatest is to stick the greatest in the same era and have them duke it out

egn
05-06-2009, 08:29 PM
Thats the only way to really prove it my man. The only way. Everything else is subjective. Besides the numbers. But thats not fair to judge the GOAT based on pure number alone when comparing eras. WInning the numbers race means you were the most achieved of all time. Does it really mean you are the "greatest?" Not necessarily. The greatest is a subjecive term. . The only way to prove the greatest is to stick the greatest in the same era and have them duke it out


yea but cue the whiny technology freak...and then this time machine theory goes out the window was now every player needs some 1 year prep time with the technology of the era they are going to...

Ljubicic for number1
05-06-2009, 08:31 PM
Lance Armstrong is the GOAT of sport.

Pete is GOAT of tennis.

flying24
05-06-2009, 08:32 PM
Obviously Pete is not going to get any GOAT love around these parts. :). This is a Laver lovefest around here.

I think anyone who wins the Grand Slam twice deserves a lovefest. Would you bebrudge Nadal or Federer one if they ever pulled it off.

Tennis_Monk
05-06-2009, 08:49 PM
Federer is already better than Sampras. Only 1GS less but has more french open finals to show. So the question of Sampras as a GOAT doesnt even come into play.

Now where does Federer himself rank among the GOAT argument...hmmm a diff argument outside context of this poll.

Bottom line : Sampras is no longer a GOAT candidate.

flying24
05-06-2009, 08:53 PM
Federer is already better than Sampras. Only 1GS less but has more french open finals to show. So the question of Sampras as a GOAT doesnt even come into play.

Now where does Federer himself rank among the GOAT argument...hmmm a diff argument outside context of this poll.

Bottom line : Sampras is no longer a GOAT candidate.

Federer is NOT better than Sampras at this point in time. I am a bigger Federer fan than a Sampras fan but this simply is not true. Fewer slams, yes only one fewer but still fewer at the moment, pitiful record vs his main rival, 2 years short of matching Pete's year end #1 record, inferior record at Wimbledon, like Pete failed to win the French, questionable longevity especialy compared to Sampras if he doesnt turn his current momentum around.

Bud
05-06-2009, 08:53 PM
4-5 more years? Doubtful.. Extremely doubtful. Nadal has a lot of miles on those legs and alot wear and tear. Not good for any sense of longevity. The older you get especially Nadal, the more he will be feeling those matches the next morning when he rolls out of bed. If Nadal is even around in 5 years I will be surprised. I give Nadal 2-3 years at the very most to where he MAYBE can win more slams. Once the wheels go on Nadal, hes finished though. He relies on his movement too much and lacks weapons which would help him win easy, free points.

Unless nadal somehow devlops a Roddick, Karlovic, or Sampras serve in the next year

This will be a major factor with Nadal's longevity. If he could develop his serve into a weapon... he'd be almost unbeatable on any surface. It will allow him to end points much more quickly.

flying24
05-06-2009, 08:54 PM
This will be a major factor with Nadal's longevity. If he could develop his serve into a weapon... he'd be almost unbeatable on any surface. It will allow him to end points much more quickly.

Nadal will never have a serve of Sampras or Karlovic level. If he could get his serve to the Federer level he would be unbeatable though.

Bud
05-06-2009, 08:56 PM
Federer is NOT better than Sampras at this point in time. I am a bigger Federer fan than a Sampras fan but this simply is not true. Fewer slams, yes only one fewer but still fewer at the moment, pitiful record vs his main rival, 2 years short of matching Pete's year end #1 record, inferior record at Wimbledon, like Pete failed to win the French, questionable longevity especialy compared to Sampras if he doesnt turn his current momentum around.

I agree.

Federer is almost like Pete's Mini-Me... their game is very similar and their achievements are also very similar at this point in time. Federer is also racing against the clock for GS titles.

clayman2000
05-06-2009, 08:56 PM
Federer is already better than Sampras. Only 1GS less but has more french open finals to show. So the question of Sampras as a GOAT doesnt even come into play.

Now where does Federer himself rank among the GOAT argument...hmmm a diff argument outside context of this poll.

Bottom line : Sampras is no longer a GOAT candidate.
Finally someone understands that most GS wins isnt everything.

Anyways, if the GOAT meant the person who played the best tennis in his prime, we could mention Nalbandian, Safin, Tsonga to the list. However the GOAT is the player who has had the best average of:
length, achievments, greatness, fighting ability

While Sampras is decent in all categories, he does not have everyhitng done
For example, By age 30 he had declined a lot. Federer will be 30 in 1.5 years, and its likely that hell still be top 5, contending for GS's. Sampras never won the FO, he was lucky that his time the best were mainly baseliners

Toxicmilk
05-06-2009, 08:57 PM
Tiger Woods. Woot woot.

Initial_d
05-06-2009, 09:10 PM
=[ why are there no lavertards..I think I am going to become one. =]

Cause any Lavertards is old enough to understand that this debate is a road leading to nowhere :D

Tennis_Monk
05-06-2009, 09:31 PM
Federer is NOT better than Sampras at this point in time. I am a bigger Federer fan than a Sampras fan but this simply is not true. Fewer slams, yes only one fewer but still fewer at the moment, pitiful record vs his main rival, 2 years short of matching Pete's year end #1 record, inferior record at Wimbledon, like Pete failed to win the French, questionable longevity especialy compared to Sampras if he doesnt turn his current momentum around.

Sorry dude. Pitiful record against a player or two doesnt diminish other great acheivements. I will apply the same logic and say Sampras couldnt win againt Federer at Wimbledon clearly showing that he is an inferior player-- though i wouldnt.

Sampras didnt even come close to winning a french open..forget winning he didnt even come close to contesting for french title.

Federer on the other hand, came as close as two sets to winning a calendar Grandslam.

Like it or not, Federer has been more dominant and more consistent.

Guess what once he wins another slam , Game completely over for Sampras. Federer wins by most counts.

I really want Federer to win one more slam just to shut this argument by people who think Sampras is tennis god. He is a great player but no means wth out flaws.

Initial_d
05-06-2009, 09:33 PM
I really want Federer to win one more slam just to shut this argument by people who think Sampras is tennis god. He is a great player but no means wth out flaws.

Aren't they all??

Cenc
05-06-2009, 09:41 PM
imo yes...

flying24
05-06-2009, 09:45 PM
Sorry dude. Pitiful record against a player or two doesnt diminish other great acheivements. I will apply the same logic and say Sampras couldnt win againt Federer at Wimbledon clearly showing that he is an inferior player-- though i wouldnt.

Sampras does not have a poor record vs any of his main rivals. Krajicek and Stich are NOT "main" rivals, and his record vs them is nothing near as bad as Federer vs Nadal. Federer's poor record vs Nadal is a big mark against him in potential GOAT discussions, you are kidding himself if you think otherwise.

Sampras didnt even come close to winning a french open..forget winning he didnt even come close to contesting for french title.

Federer did better than Sampras at the French of course. You see the thing is he still didnt win the French. That is the only thing that would really matter, if either of them had been good enough on clay to win the French even once. Since neither won the French even once it really doesnt matter or mean anything really, despite that Federer did better at the French. Lendl did better at Wimbledon than Sampras at the French, Borg better at the U.S Open than Sampras at the French, but you dont hear anyone talk about that much do you. All that matters for each of these great players it they failed to win 1 of the biggest events in the world. Ultimately it is a mark equally against each, it doesnt matter which came closest when you are talking about players of that caliber.

Federer on the other hand, came as close as two sets to winning a calendar Grandslam.

Close but no cigar. Tough luck.

Like it or not, Federer has been more dominant and more consistent.

I already said I like Federer more than Sampras. However Federer at this point cannot be ranked over Sampras by any objectionable measure.

Guess what once he wins another slam , Game completely over for Sampras. Federer wins by most counts.

Once he wins another slam? Are you so sure it is a sure thing anymore.

Tennis_Monk
05-06-2009, 09:46 PM
Aren't they all??

Sure. Every player except the TW forum members have some flaws in their games.

The question is most Sampras fans over look their players obvious flaws but more than happy to point out Other player's. I am just trying to be objective (though my bias towards Federer is obvious) and indicate that Sampras argument for GOAT is lil hollow.

flying24
05-06-2009, 09:49 PM
Sure. Every player except the TW forum members have some flaws in their games.

The question is most Sampras fans over look their players obvious flaws but more than happy to point out Other player's. I am just trying to be objective (though my bias towards Federer is obvious) and indicate that Sampras argument for GOAT is lil hollow.

How is Federer's GOAT argument not hollow? What are his biggest records?

Not most weeks at #1. Not most years at #1. Not most slam titles. Not most Wimbledons. Not most U.S Opens (tied for Open era but not ahead). Not most Australian Opens (even Open era). Not the Calender Slam or even Career Slam. Not the best W-L of any given year (he had a chance to tie McEnroe's Open Era mark and failed). Not the most tournaments won in any year. Not even close to the most tournaments won for a career. Not the most Masters titles. Not the longest match win streak.

Poor record vs his biggest rival, and increasingly poor records vs a couple of other main rivals. Questionable longevity, especialy if he doesnt turn things around. This is a strong argument for the GOAT?

Tennis_Monk
05-06-2009, 10:15 PM
How is Federer's GOAT argument not hollow? What are his biggest records?

Not most weeks at #1. Not most years at #1. Not most slam titles. Not most Wimbledons. Not most U.S Opens (tied for Open era but not ahead). Not most Australian Opens (even Open era). Not the Calender Slam or even Career Slam. Not the best W-L of any given year (he had a chance to tie McEnroe's Open Era mark and failed). Not the most tournaments won in any year. Not even close to the most tournaments won for a career. Not the most Masters titles. Not the longest match win streak.

Poor record vs his biggest rival, and increasingly poor records vs a couple of other main rivals. Questionable longevity, especialy if he doesnt turn things around. This is a strong argument for the GOAT?

You may be right (or not as i can challenge u r assertions). Most important thing is If Fed's case is Hollow then Sampras is Hallower.

I really dont care who the real GOAT is. It can never be objectively determined (may be subjectively there is a possibility). All i care about is Fed better than Sampras. The answer is most cases is resounding yes. Sampras is not even in contention when it comes to CLAY. Federer is an accomplished Clay player. Fed won GS much quicker than Sampras did.

lawrence
05-06-2009, 10:21 PM
how can you be a goat if your clay game is terribad

colonelforbin
05-06-2009, 10:33 PM
How is Federer's GOAT argument not hollow? What are his biggest records?

Not most weeks at #1. Not most years at #1. Not most slam titles. Not most Wimbledons. Not most U.S Opens (tied for Open era but not ahead). Not most Australian Opens (even Open era). Not the Calender Slam or even Career Slam. Not the best W-L of any given year (he had a chance to tie McEnroe's Open Era mark and failed). Not the most tournaments won in any year. Not even close to the most tournaments won for a career. Not the most Masters titles. Not the longest match win streak.

Poor record vs his biggest rival, and increasingly poor records vs a couple of other main rivals. Questionable longevity, especialy if he doesnt turn things around. This is a strong argument for the GOAT?

But he does have the most consecutive weeks at #1, and unquestionably the most dominant four years of any player. And it is likely he will break the slam record. He may not be doing so well right now, but realistically his slump hasn't been going on for so long. He won the US Open less than a year ago. If you look back at Agassi's slump in 97/98, he was doing much much worse (falling into the 100s). And he still managed to right the ship. Federer's still at #2 and 27 years-old. It is highly probable he will win a few more slams, despite his current performance. He's too talented not to sneak a few more in there. And if he doesn't, well, we'll have to wait until the end of his career to find out and only then can we honestly assess his GOAT candidacy.

380pistol
05-06-2009, 10:38 PM
People have to remember though.. If Laver got to play the pro tour during his prime years, he would have had 20 slams or more.

Are slams the only measuring stick? I dunno. Slam counts never really became important until Pete started chasing Emerson


Can't do it like that B. Laver won 6 of 11 slams between 1960 and 1962 when Rosewall and Hoad couldn't compete. If we're compensating Laver for the slams he missed, Hoad and Rosewall need to be compensated the same. Laver keeps his 5 from the open era, and then one must figure out how many gets based on abilites other pros still being able to compete in slams.

Also you'd have to players like Borg, Sampras and Federer and try an estimate how they would have done back in those times, and transplant Laver forward and estimate what (and others) would do in this modern climate.

380pistol
05-06-2009, 10:42 PM
I know I can take Sampras in fair one over anyone to play the game and have him as the favourite.

grafselesfan
05-06-2009, 11:06 PM
If hypotheticals about how many slams so and so would have won had it been Open tennis were used as the main barometer than perhaps Rosewall and Gonzales should be even stronger GOAT choices than Laver. After all it seems likely both would have won slams than Laver had the 50s and 60s been completely Open tennis, especialy Rosewall who no doubt would have won multiple titles at each slam including Wimbledon in this case, and probably a true calender slam at some point. Rosewall's longevity is also in another league from anyones, including Laver's. Yet it seems the considerations to them are hardly ever brought up, atleast not to the same degree, and it is only "oh Laver would have won this or that". The early slams Laver won which he probably would have won none of are rarely brought up, and his 62 slam which is really a joke is still given full credit. So only what he would have won, and not what he wouldnt have won are considered.

Laver is of course a great player, quite possibly still the greatest ever, but everything arranged for him in the most favorable way possible, even though they arent for others I find amusing.

Pirao
05-06-2009, 11:12 PM
Yes, I would say so.

Mike Werblin
05-06-2009, 11:18 PM
The edge I would give to Federer over Sampras as GOAT is that the overall talent pool is deeper and while Federer is definitely comparable to Sampras on Hard and Grass court, Sampras is not even in the same ballpark as Federer on Clay. Although Fed hasn won the French Open he is a multiple time Finalist and Semi-Finalist there and has won a few Masters Series Clay Court events. There is no question that Nadal has been the best Clay Court player in the world over the past 5 years but I dont think there is any doubt that Federer has been the 2nd best Clay Court player during that time. Sampras was not at any time in his career one of the 100 best clay court players in the world If Roger had not had to contend with Rafa, maybe the best clay courter ever but unquestionably one of the three best ever, he would have atleast one and probably two French Open titles now..

grafselesfan
05-06-2009, 11:19 PM
The edge I would give to Federer over Sampras as GOAT is that the overall talent pool is deeper and while Federer is definitely comparable to Sampras on Hard and Grass court, Sampras is not even in the same ballpark as Federer on Clay. Although Fed hasn won the French Open he is a multiple time Finalist and Semi-Finalist there and has won a few Masters Series Clay Court events. There is no question that Nadal has been the best Clay Court player in the world over the past 5 years but I dont think there is any doubt that Federer has been the 2nd best Clay Court player during that time. Sampras was not at any time in his career one of the 100 best clay court players in the world If Roger had not had to contend with Rafa, maybe the best clay courter ever but unquestionably one of the three best ever, he would have atleast one and probably two French Open titles now..

Flying said it best. While Federer is better than Sampras on clay and his French Open record is better he still didnt win the French so it doesnt really matter. Only if Federer had won the French once or more than once would it have been any kind of factor in comparing them. Since neither won the French it really is meaningless and moot.

BorisBeckerFan
05-07-2009, 12:16 AM
I won't answer the poll question because I'm not all that knowledgable about tennis before the 80's. Since the 80's Sampras has been the best player. I also won't answer the poll because I don't fully buy into the GOAT theory (hard to compare eras) unless someone won like 30 slams with 3 or 4 Grandslams, 10 years finishing at number 1 and just really set himself apart from everybody else. I think Sampras has done the most to differentiate himself from the rest but not enough to be a difinitive GOAT. As long as as you are talking about a difference of a couple of slams or a year or two of finishing as the number one player or you're missing a title it's really up for debate. Borg, Fed and Pete are all missing slams. Laver didn't win enough slams in the open era. Everybody has knocks against them as far as crowning open era GOAT. For me 14 slams and 6 years in a row finishing at number one is hard to argue with but not difinitive.

dem331
05-07-2009, 01:02 AM
GOAT discussions are pointless, although they can be fun provided one approaches them with the right spirit. Who was greater Jesse Owens, Carl Lewia or Usain Bolt? Statistics are not that helpful since obviously Bolt was the fastest and would win a hypothetical contest. In the same way, Nadal would probably beat prime Laver, Borg, Sampras or Federer if they were to play now (on any surface).

It also irrelevant to argue about wooden /graphite etc, each would have to use their own technology, history has shown that the greats could not transition easily to other technologies, and in any case irrespective of technologies the current players are better than the past, just as Usain is faster than Owens, Woods would undoubtedly beat Nicklaus at his prime and Phelps would swim faster than Mark Spitz even without the swim suit technology of today.

However all this does not make the current players greater, just as Montgomery was not necessarily a greater general than Napoleon or Alexander the Great (the Great not the GOAT).

In any case, and in the context of a fun discussion, I would have thought that any sensible person would rule out Sampras because he could not really play on clay (his game was not complete, it was too reliant on the serve), Federer because of his manifest lack of mental toughness, and Nadal because he is not really a natural of the game (weak serve, lack of ability to dominate clearly on non-clay surfaces). However all three will probably be regarded as the greatest of their time (Nadal is still working on this, the other two have achieved it).

Who do I think is the GOAT? From the tennis I have seen the greatest dominance I remember is that of McEnroe in the 81 and 83 Wimbledon finals -simply stunning, although I think he underachieved in the rest of his career - a player with his talent should have won 10 majors at least. For sheer beauty and raw talent I never saw anybody better than Nastase, and for mental toughness and making the most out of their abilities Borg and now Nadal. But I would still not consider them GOATs. Based on what I have read, I think I would pick Laver or Gonzales, but who knows. I prefer to have a Pantheon of tennis gods, and Nadal, Federer and Sampras are there despite not being qualified to be considered GOAT.

ckthegreek
05-07-2009, 01:27 AM
GS wins is not everything, otherwise Emerson would be in the mix - but he doesn't even feature in any of these discussions.

Federer's chances to be considered as the GOAT are diminishing fast. Federer came along (properly) in 2003 when the standard of pro tennis was the lowest it has been for decades. Nalbandian v Hewitt Wimbledon final in 2002, Roddick USO champion in 2003 are just two notable surprises. Between 2003 and 2007 it was far to easy as Nadal, Djoko and Murray were still kids.

His record this year against all 3 is pretty poor and I cannot see it improve without some drastic changes to his approach.

Even if Federer wins 2-3 Grand Slams between now and 2011 I still won't consider him to be the GOAT. At 27, Federer should be at his peak. Regardless of what the rankings say he is truly the 4th best player in the world right now.

aphex
05-07-2009, 01:55 AM
How is Federer's GOAT argument not hollow? What are his biggest records?

Not most weeks at #1. Not most years at #1. Not most slam titles. Not most Wimbledons. Not most U.S Opens (tied for Open era but not ahead). Not most Australian Opens (even Open era). Not the Calender Slam or even Career Slam. Not the best W-L of any given year (he had a chance to tie McEnroe's Open Era mark and failed). Not the most tournaments won in any year. Not even close to the most tournaments won for a career. Not the most Masters titles. Not the longest match win streak.

Poor record vs his biggest rival, and increasingly poor records vs a couple of other main rivals. Questionable longevity, especialy if he doesnt turn things around. This is a strong argument for the GOAT?

fyi:

Roger Federer holds a number of records in tennis history, the most prominent being winning the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open in the same year three times: 2004, 2006, and 2007.

He has surpassed or equaled many long-standing records, including:

* Equaling Björn Borg's open era record of five consecutive Wimbledon singles titles in 2007
* Capturing the open era record of most consecutive US Open titles (five) in 2008
* The only player in tennis history to have won 5 consecutive Grand Slam titles at two separate Grand Slam Events (Wimbledon 2003–2007 and US Open 2004–2008)
* Ranked World #1 for a record of 237 consecutive weeks as of August 17, 2008, outlasting Jimmy Connors's record of 160 consecutive weeks as #1 men's player and Steffi Graf's record of 186 weeks as #1 singles player in the world

Safinator_1
05-07-2009, 02:26 AM
Yes they are all good records but still it is not enough for definitive case for GOAT. and if things go for roger this year as it has been lately then his case would become even more diminishing to the eyes of more people

TheNatural
05-07-2009, 02:38 AM
you're right. The main problems for Fed v Sampras are:

1/ Rafa has a dominant 5-2 winning record v Fed in slam finals.

They even have a page dedicated to the rivalry on wiki:
Head-to-head tallies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry)


The following is a breakdown of their head-to-head results:


* All Matches: Nadal 13–6
* All Finals: Nadal 11–4
* Grand Slams: Nadal 6–2
* Grand Slam Finals: Nadal 5–2
* Masters Cup: Federer 2–0
* Masters Series: Nadal 6–2
* Masters Series Finals: Nadal 5–2

http://i41.tinypic.com/1214coj.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/zu2rna.jpg

2/ Fed has no Davis Cups. All the greats have at least a few Davis cups. Federer has none. Laver had 5. Tilden had 7. Sampras had 2.



Federer is NOT better than Sampras at this point in time. I am a bigger Federer fan than a Sampras fan but this simply is not true. Fewer slams, yes only one fewer but still fewer at the moment, pitiful record vs his main rival, 2 years short of matching Pete's year end #1 record, inferior record at Wimbledon, like Pete failed to win the French, questionable longevity especialy compared to Sampras if he doesnt turn his current momentum around.

velkov
05-07-2009, 03:15 AM
def. no !!!!!!!!!!!!

mandy01
05-07-2009, 03:21 AM
2/ Fed has no Davis Cups. All the greats have at least a few Davis cups. Federer has none. Laver had 5. Tilden had 7. Sampras had 2. another idiotic comment from you TheNatural.Davis Cup is about team work.Have you seen the rest of the Swiss team? Nothing against them,but Roger probably is the biggest sports star in Switzerland ever.Even if he wins his matches,if the other members dont win theirs its of no use.

luckyboy1300
05-07-2009, 05:32 AM
how can someone be the GOAT if he's a non-factor in one of the surfaces? clay is a major surface, second to hard, and sampras is a "joke" in that surface if anyone would regard him as the GOAT.

ckthegreek
05-07-2009, 06:07 AM
I think 'Joke' is kind of heavy. We all saw the amount of effort required to win in Rome last week. Sampras won Rome in 94.

sp00q
05-07-2009, 06:19 AM
One French Open, Pete, only one would have done it... Sorry man, I love you but I voted 'No'. Being the dominant player for so long on the tour isn't enough if you can't even make it to the Roland Garros final...

viduka0101
05-07-2009, 06:20 AM
no!
why?
well because i think you have to be more versatile in your game
he was serve & volley,serve & volley,serve & volley...
borg i think had the game to beat anyone on any given surface
i mean it could obviously be discussed more but in some simple lines this is my opinion (and i think borg is the GOAT)

Andres
05-07-2009, 06:21 AM
no!
why?
well because i think you have to be more versatile in your game
he was serve & volley,serve & volley,serve & volley...
borg i think had the game to beat anyone on any given surface
i mean it could obviously be discussed more but in some simple lines this is my opinion (and i think borg is the GOAT)
No he wasn't, no he wasn't, no he wasn't....
Tennis didn't start in 2000.

luckyboy1300
05-07-2009, 06:23 AM
I think 'Joke' is kind of heavy. We all saw the amount of effort required to win in Rome last week. Sampras won Rome in 94.

well if a GOAT can only manage a single MS title on clay and a single semis on RG then he's a "joke" on clay, and not worthy of the title.

viduka0101
05-07-2009, 06:30 AM
No he wasn't, no he wasn't, no he wasn't....
Tennis didn't start in 2000.

and you were trying to say...

veroniquem
05-07-2009, 06:54 AM
I don't think there is a GOAT yet (I don't know if there will ever be), at least not in open era.
To me one can't be a GOAT without winning all slams, that is the minimum requirement in my book.
Actually, Agassi is closer to being a GOAT than Sampras because he won almost everything in his career whereas Sampras was more specialized surfacewise:
Agassi won all 4 slams on grass, clay and hard, he won 7 master shields out of the 9 (Sampras won only 5, Fed and Nadal 6), he won the TMC as well and the Olympic gold.
He doesn't have the records for # weeks at #1 but it was still more than 100, he had 8 slams which is the highest after Sampras, Fed and Borg, he has the absolute record for master shields. He has 60 overall titles (not far from Sampras who had 64). He played several finals at each slam (like Fed except Fed hasn't won RG). His versatility, ability to play at the highest level on every surface is matched only by Fed and his longevity is exceptional (he was able to win big even older than Connors).
Of course the one negative is the fact that he has never dominated a season the way Federer has and hasn't stayed #1 as long as Sampras. Still with everything factored in, at this moment, he would be the player closest to the concept of GOAT for me. (Notwithstanding the fact that he was also immensely more charismatic than Sampras and IMO had much more influence on the evolution and popularity of the game).

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 07:28 AM
No, he couldn't win the French so he can't be the GOAT.

would Agassi be the goat then? I don't believe Laver won all four GS on four different surfaces.

Cesc Fabregas
05-07-2009, 07:29 AM
I don't think there is a GOAT yet (I don't know if there will ever be), at least not in open era.
To me one can't be a GOAT without winning all slams, that is the minimum requirement in my book.
Actually, Agassi is closer to being a GOAT than Sampras because he won almost everything in his career whereas Sampras was more specialized surfacewise:
Agassi won all 4 slams on grass, clay and hard, he won 7 master shields out of the 9 (Sampras won only 5, Fed and Nadal 6), he won the TMC as well and the Olympic gold.
He doesn't have the records for # weeks at #1 but it was still more than 100, he had 8 slams which is the highest after Sampras, Fed and Borg, he has the absolute record for master shields. He has 60 overall titles (not far from Sampras who had 64). He played several finals at each slam (like Fed except Fed hasn't won RG). His versatility, ability to play at the highest level on every surface is matched only by Fed and his longevity is exceptional (he was able to win big even older than Connors).
Of course the one negative is the fact that he has never dominated a season the way Federer has and hasn't stayed #1 as long as Sampras. Still with everything factored in, at this moment, he would be the player closest to the concept of GOAT for me. (Notwithstanding the fact that he was also immensely more charismatic than Sampras and IMO had much more influence on the evolution and popularity of the game).


Sorry how can Agassi be more of a GOAT candiate than Sampras?

Years ending no.1 Sampras-6 Agassi-1
Weeks at no.1 Sampras-286 Agassi-101
Slams Sampras-14 Agassi-8
Years where they have won 2 slams Sampras-4 Agassi-1

Sampras was the best player in the world 93-98 whilst Agassi was only in 99 and that was a largely due to a Sampras injury. Sampras was way more dominant and consistant Sampras also lead there head to head 20-14. Theres just no way Agassi is more of a GOAT candiate than Sampras.

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 07:35 AM
Exactly why Laver is the GOAT...he won 7 unique majors..lol I am liking this Lavertard thing.

Australian Open
French Open
Wimbledon
US Open
Wembley (London Indoor)
U.S Pro
French Pro

who else can claim 7 majors on 3 different surfaces..grass, clay, and indoor wood..nobody. Hence Laver being GOAT.

Lol I can sense this is going to be fun..

Mr. Wikipedia,
The guy won all of his majors on 2 surfaces, grass and clay. sorry. those indoor tourneys are not considrered majors and rarely discussed. Pete won on 3 different surfaces. Agassi won on 4 different surfaces. get your facts straight.

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 07:36 AM
Obviously Pete is not going to get any GOAT love around these parts. :). This is a Laver lovefest around here.

Apparently most achieved equates to the GOAT title. I dunno if thats true or not. But thats everyone's perogative. I dont have to agree with it though

sad thing is I doubt anyone actually watched him play. a bunch of you tube Laver fans.:mad:

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 07:38 AM
I think anyone who wins the Grand Slam twice deserves a lovefest. Would you bebrudge Nadal or Federer one if they ever pulled it off.

considering the fact its now 4 different surfaces instead of 2, it would be more amazing now.

P_Agony
05-07-2009, 07:43 AM
No he's not. Neither is Federer, Laver, Nadal, you get the idea. Nobody is the GOAT in my opinion.

Winners or Errors
05-07-2009, 07:50 AM
OK, let's say that the GOAT, by my definition, is the guy who had the most complete game of all time and turned it into success on the court.

Looking at Sampras, just from the perspective of strokes and leaving out things like court coverage.
Forehand. Very solid, great on the run, beautiful stroke.
Backhand. I don't understand why people underrate his backhand. I thought it a weapon. Honestly, I think the best one-handed backhand I ever saw was Edberg's when it was on, and Sampras' was close to matching that.
Volleys. Brilliant, largely because he was good at closing on the net.
Overheads. Great anticipation of lobs = great overheads. Solid here.
Serve. Maybe the best server of all time.
Return of Serve. As many have said here, opportunistic. With his serve, all he really had to do is wait for the other guy to have a bad service game and pounce, which he often did.

Bottom line, I can think of few people who have ever had such complete games. Laver is certainly one. Maybe Borg. Maybe Federer.

If there is a GOAT, Sampras is definitely on the list of people who should be there. The only thing that keeps him from being the GOAT in my mind is the fact that he could never get himself to be patient enough to win a French Open. He had all the strokes, but he could not adjust.

It is tough to adapt. Had he been able to do so, I think he would have truly been the GOAT.

Nadal's ability to adapt his game may get him my vote in the end. We shall see.

Winners or Errors
05-07-2009, 07:53 AM
considering the fact its now 4 different surfaces instead of 2, it would be more amazing now.

That, combined with the greater depth in pro tennis today, make it a daunting challenge indeed.

TheNatural
05-07-2009, 08:44 AM
Mandy, Ignorance is bliss.

Davis cup is also about inspiring and leading your team to victory, and its been extremely significant to all the great players since they've all won it a few times or many times. Wawrinka has been a good player for some years now. Switzerland is one of the strongest teams. Federer still has time to lead and inspire his team to victory before he retires, or it will count against him as all the past greats have won the Davis cup.

Tom Gullikson: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/memories/1995/95ten2.htm)
"The great players have a sense of history. . . . "When the great players go down in the history books, not only will they be remembered by Grand Slam singles titles but how many times did they help their country win the Davis Cup. . . . It's a special thing, it's a team thing."

Since you're ignorant about the Davis cup and try to use the 'teamwork ' excuse, Fed has also failed to win a any type of singles Olympic medals despite 3 attempts at the 2000, 2004, and 2008 Olympics, and despite it meaning the world to him.The closest he's coming is losing the bronze medal match in the Sydney 2000 Olympics which caused him to sulk like a baby. Losing again in London 2012 on grass will look bad for him if he has 0 singles medals from 4 Olympics, especially when the greatest rival and a great of the era, Rafael Nadal, has a singles Olympic Gold Medal.




another idiotic comment from you TheNatural.Davis Cup is about team work.Have you seen the rest of the Swiss team? Nothing against them,but Roger probably is the biggest sports star in Switzerland ever.Even if he wins his matches,if the other members dont win theirs its of no use.

TheNatural
05-07-2009, 08:55 AM
Another thing that makes Sampas so great is that Sampras was better than the next best guy in his era but a wide margin.

The next best guy, Agassi, won 6 slams less than Sampras.

This information measures dominance in an objective way. And shows that no one in his era even came close to challenging him as the best.






OK, let's say that the GOAT, by my definition, is the guy who had the most complete game of all time and turned it into success on the court.

Looking at Sampras, just from the perspective of strokes and leaving out things like court coverage.
Forehand. Very solid, great on the run, beautiful stroke.
Backhand. I don't understand why people underrate his backhand. I thought it a weapon. Honestly, I think the best one-handed backhand I ever saw was Edberg's when it was on, and Sampras' was close to matching that.
Volleys. Brilliant, largely because he was good at closing on the net.
Overheads. Great anticipation of lobs = great overheads. Solid here.
Serve. Maybe the best server of all time.
Return of Serve. As many have said here, opportunistic. With his serve, all he really had to do is wait for the other guy to have a bad service game and pounce, which he often did.

Bottom line, I can think of few people who have ever had such complete games. Laver is certainly one. Maybe Borg. Maybe Federer.

If there is a GOAT, Sampras is definitely on the list of people who should be there. The only thing that keeps him from being the GOAT in my mind is the fact that he could never get himself to be patient enough to win a French Open. He had all the strokes, but he could not adjust.

It is tough to adapt. Had he been able to do so, I think he would have truly been the GOAT.

Nadal's ability to adapt his game may get him my vote in the end. We shall see.

mandy01
05-07-2009, 09:10 AM
Mandy, Ignorance is bliss.

Davis cup is also about inspiring and leading your team to victory, and its been extremely significant to all the great players since they've all won it a few times or many times. Wawrinka has been a good player for some years now. Switzerland is one of the strongest teams. Federer still has time to lead and inspire his team to victory before he retires, or it will count against him as all the past greats have won the Davis cup.

Tom Gullikson: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/memories/1995/95ten2.htm)
"The great players have a sense of history. . . . "When the great players go down in the history books, not only will they be remembered by Grand Slam singles titles but how many times did they help their country win the Davis Cup. . . . It's a special thing, it's a team thing."

Since you're ignorant about the Davis cup and try to use the 'teamwork ' excuse, Fed has also failed to win a any type of singles Olympic medals despite 3 attempts at the 2000, 2004, and 2008 Olympics, and despite it meaning the world to him.The closest he's coming is losing the bronze medal match in the Sydney 2000 Olympics which caused him to sulk like a baby. Losing again in London 2012 on grass will look bad for him if he has 0 singles medals from 4 Olympics, especially when the greatest rival and a great of the era, Rafael Nadal, has a singles Olympic Gold Medal. He won the gold in doubles..whatever it is,he got a gold home for Switzerland.Did Pete do that? dont even start your BSing with me.You are beyond ignorant.There's difference between being able to inspire and actually making your team play.Look at the team Pete had when he played.Stop talking out of your *****.Roger has done all he could for his nation and is still doing.Dont be ridiclous and stop trolling.

Andres
05-07-2009, 09:37 AM
Roger has done all he could for his nation and is still doing.Dont be ridiclous and stop trolling.
Sure, like skipping... how many Davis Cup ties?

veroniquem
05-07-2009, 10:04 AM
Sorry how can Agassi be more of a GOAT candiate than Sampras?

Years ending no.1 Sampras-6 Agassi-1
Weeks at no.1 Sampras-286 Agassi-101
Slams Sampras-14 Agassi-8
Years where they have won 2 slams Sampras-4 Agassi-1

Sampras was the best player in the world 93-98 whilst Agassi was only in 99 and that was a largely due to a Sampras injury. Sampras was way more dominant and consistant Sampras also lead there head to head 20-14. Theres just no way Agassi is more of a GOAT candiate than Sampras.
I agree with all of the great achievements by Sampras. I am not trying to demean him in any way. However he couldn't even get to a final at RG. That's automatic elimination for me in the context of a GOAT conversation. I've agreed that Agassi was never as dominant as either Sampras or Fed that's why I said there is no GOAT, just an "almost" GOAT if you wish but at least Agassi played more than 1 final in each slam, won all of them at least once and was more dominant in masters than Sampras. That doesn't take away anything Sampras has achieved but it's worth a lot of points IMO.

tudwell
05-07-2009, 10:45 AM
sad thing is I doubt anyone actually watched him play. a bunch of you tube Laver fans.:mad:

Why is that a bad thing? I think it's a sign that Laver-supporters are rational individuals who judge players based on their achievements and not their own subjective opinion of who they liked most growing up.

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 10:56 AM
OK, let's say that the GOAT, by my definition, is the guy who had the most complete game of all time and turned it into success on the court.

Looking at Sampras, just from the perspective of strokes and leaving out things like court coverage.
Forehand. Very solid, great on the run, beautiful stroke.
Backhand. I don't understand why people underrate his backhand. I thought it a weapon. Honestly, I think the best one-handed backhand I ever saw was Edberg's when it was on, and Sampras' was close to matching that.
Volleys. Brilliant, largely because he was good at closing on the net.
Overheads. Great anticipation of lobs = great overheads. Solid here.
Serve. Maybe the best server of all time.
Return of Serve. As many have said here, opportunistic. With his serve, all he really had to do is wait for the other guy to have a bad service game and pounce, which he often did.

Bottom line, I can think of few people who have ever had such complete games. Laver is certainly one. Maybe Borg. Maybe Federer.

If there is a GOAT, Sampras is definitely on the list of people who should be there. The only thing that keeps him from being the GOAT in my mind is the fact that he could never get himself to be patient enough to win a French Open. He had all the strokes, but he could not adjust.

It is tough to adapt. Had he been able to do so, I think he would have truly been the GOAT.

Nadal's ability to adapt his game may get him my vote in the end. We shall see.

good points made. I also question he has to win all 4 majors considering only one person won all 4 on 4 different surfaces.

TheNatural
05-07-2009, 10:59 AM
great,that doubles win won't do anything to enhance Fed's singles greatness, but the doubles win will help rate Fed against other doubles players where he a long way down the ladder behind guys like Fitzgerald, Nestor,Bjorkman, Harhuis, Santoro, Llodra, Zimonjic, Paes, Bhupathi, Wayne Black, Kevin Ullyett etc. Do you even remember who won the last 4 slams in doubles?-I didn't think so.:)

Fed hasn't done everything he could in the Davis cup. He's hardly played in the last 4 or 5 years. Greats of the past have been able to achieve Davis cups alongside their other career achievements and slam tally. Fed hasn't yet, but he still has time.


He won the gold in doubles..whatever it is,he got a gold home for Switzerland.Did Pete do that? dont even start your BSing with me.You are beyond ignorant.There's difference between being able to inspire and actually making your team play.Look at the team Pete had when he played.Stop talking out of your *****.Roger has done all he could for his nation and is still doing.Dont be ridiclous and stop trolling.

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 11:02 AM
Sorry how can Agassi be more of a GOAT candiate than Sampras?

Years ending no.1 Sampras-6 Agassi-1
Weeks at no.1 Sampras-286 Agassi-101
Slams Sampras-14 Agassi-8
Years where they have won 2 slams Sampras-4 Agassi-1

Sampras was the best player in the world 93-98 whilst Agassi was only in 99 and that was a largely due to a Sampras injury. Sampras was way more dominant and consistant Sampras also lead there head to head 20-14. Theres just no way Agassi is more of a GOAT candiate than Sampras.

she is a clueless poster. its obviosu she never watched Pete nor Andre play. if her only requirement is the 4 GS then whatever. then Agassi is the best ever, yet as you point out he cannot possibly be the best based on on the FACT he was not the best in his own era. again, I just love the clueless posters on this forum.

TheNatural
05-07-2009, 11:04 AM
by the way if Laver is the standard of greatness, then his 5 Davis cups are also one of the standards that the other goat contenders have to try to match. Sampras' 2 Davis cups come a lot closer to matching that standard than federer's 0.

Why is that a bad thing? I think it's a sign that Laver-supporters are rational individuals who judge players based on their achievements and not their own subjective opinion of who they liked most growing up.

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 11:05 AM
He won the gold in doubles..whatever it is,he got a gold home for Switzerland.Did Pete do that? dont even start your BSing with me.You are beyond ignorant.There's difference between being able to inspire and actually making your team play.Look at the team Pete had when he played.Stop talking out of your *****.Roger has done all he could for his nation and is still doing.Dont be ridiclous and stop trolling.

have you even looked at his davis cup record and his attendance? the doubles title was for HIM, not Switzerland.

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 11:12 AM
Why is that a bad thing? I think it's a sign that Laver-supporters are rational individuals who judge players based on their achievements and not their own subjective opinion of who they liked most growing up.

I could watch all the youtube videos of Vitus, Borg, Connors and other players from the 70's and I could say how good their game was. but I would have no idea how they played in the era and that matters more than anything. You see, I can easily compare guys of today to guys from the 80's and 90's. reason is I was a hardcore fan of tennis since 1982-83. I remember how players battled and the imprtnace of the matches. you just don't get that feeling and understanding of their games based on clips and old matches. its easy to say they were great players in THEIR generation aganist their peers, but its not fair to compare them to today's player or other generations that have only seen one generation play..it would be too subjective and ignorant at the same time.

I love the Tilden fans out there that think he could play the game today and compare him to Borg and other players...absolute joke. There are very few people on Earth that are able to compare generations from the 40's, 50's and 60's. But the "teens" and "newbies" on this board that watch video clips and rate players is a joke. I may say a player from the 40's can't play today's game and I make that a generalization...NONE of those players can. I don't talk about rating players I never watched.

Its like watching Joe Namath clips and saying he is a better QB than P.Manning. No differrent..its a joke both ways.

smart_player
05-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Pete is better than Federer PERIOD

jimbo333
05-07-2009, 01:08 PM
Pete was best during his period in 90's, Roger was best during his period in 00's!

Oh and Laver is the GOAT:):)

GameSampras
05-07-2009, 01:13 PM
I will just say Statistics wise and accomplishments wise, you really cant go against Laver in this regard. But if were only judging the GOAT in this regard, then Laver has the GOAT title easy overall.


HOWEVER.. If you were to put Laver, Budge, Fed, Borg, Pancho, Tilden etc.. all in the same era, with access to the same racket technology, I would choose Sampras over every one at the end of the day overrall in the h2h category due to how he could turn it up when he had to. Pete at his best, was better than anyone Ive seen, be it Laver in 69, Fed in 06, Mac in 84, etc. In terms of level of play. While he wasnt as domininat week in week out, Pete responded to the "big matches" better than anyone I feel. When alot was on the line, and Pete was challenged by a fellow rival, Pete would not accept losing. He found ways to win.


You wont see Pete's name among the week in week out winning percentage players, but Pete had something to his game that no other player had. That next level when he had turn it on. The level that very few players could attain. If any

GameSampras
05-07-2009, 01:20 PM
OK, let's say that the GOAT, by my definition, is the guy who had the most complete game of all time and turned it into success on the court.
Looking at Sampras, just from the perspective of strokes and leaving out things like court coverage.
Forehand. Very solid, great on the run, beautiful stroke.
Backhand. I don't understand why people underrate his backhand. I thought it a weapon. Honestly, I think the best one-handed backhand I ever saw was Edberg's when it was on, and Sampras' was close to matching that.
Volleys. Brilliant, largely because he was good at closing on the net.
Overheads. Great anticipation of lobs = great overheads. Solid here.
Serve. Maybe the best server of all time.
Return of Serve. As many have said here, opportunistic. With his serve, all he really had to do is wait for the other guy to have a bad service game and pounce, which he often did.

Bottom line, I can think of few people who have ever had such complete games. Laver is certainly one. Maybe Borg. Maybe Federer.

If there is a GOAT, Sampras is definitely on the list of people who should be there. The only thing that keeps him from being the GOAT in my mind is the fact that he could never get himself to be patient enough to win a French Open. He had all the strokes, but he could not adjust.

It is tough to adapt. Had he been able to do so, I think he would have truly been the GOAT.

Nadal's ability to adapt his game may get him my vote in the end. We shall see.


Thats the problem with the GOAT title right there. What necessary requirements does it take to be GOAT? To one person something could be the most important, while to another something else is more important. Its all in the eye of the beholder. The GOAT is a subjective term

flying24
05-07-2009, 01:20 PM
I will just say Statistics wise and accomplishments wise, you really cant go against Laver in this regard. But if were only judging the GOAT in this regard, then Laver has the GOAT title easy overall.


HOWEVER.. If you were to put Laver, Budge, Fed, Borg, Pancho, Tilden etc.. all in the same era, with access to the same racket technology, I would choose Sampras over every one at the end of the day overrall in the h2h category. Pete at his best, was better than anyone Ive seen, be it Laver in 69, Fed in 06, Mac in 84, etc. In terms of level of play. While he wasnt as domininat week in week out, Pete responded to the "big matches" better than anyone I feel. When alot was on the line, and Pete was challenged by a fellow rival, Pete would not accept losing. He found ways to win.


You wont see Pete's name among the week in week out winning percentage players, but Pete had something to his game that no other player had. That next level when he had turn it on. The level that very few players could attain. If any

I think one can compare Pete and Roger playing their best fairly and yes I agree Pete is better. I think it is pretty hard to just watch someone playing in the 60s and compare them to someone playing in the 90s though. Tennis was so different then. I doubt Court, Laver, Rosewall, King, Bueno, Emerson, and Newcombe would play the same tennis in the 90s as they did in the 60s. I wouldnt compare Court to Graf just by watching them play either.

thejoe
05-07-2009, 01:21 PM
Thats the problem with the GOAT title right there. What necessary requirements does it take to be GOAT? To one person something could be the most important, while to another something else is more important. Its all in the eye of the beholder. The GOAT is a subjective opinion.

You couldn't have put it any better.

flying24
05-07-2009, 01:22 PM
Actually, Agassi is closer to being a GOAT than Sampras because he won almost everything in his career whereas Sampras was more specialized surfacewise:

That is ridiculous. Sampras has a very strong argument to be the GOAT. Agassi has an iffy argument to even be top 15 all time at best. Agassi has more holes in his career that put him way below GOAT than Sampras: never a dominant player, never the true #1, only once 2 slams in the same year (because of Pete missing the U.S Open with last minute injury), horrible consistency issues, never defended a slam title except once defending an Aussie Open title but never at one of the big 3 majors, only 3 combined titles at the big 2 majors, poor records vs almost all great rivals.

GameSampras
05-07-2009, 01:23 PM
she is a clueless poster. its obviosu she never watched Pete nor Andre play. if her only requirement is the 4 GS then whatever. then Agassi is the best ever, yet as you point out he cannot possibly be the best based on on the FACT he was not the best in his own era. again, I just love the clueless posters on this forum.

Well what Andre did was totally phenomenal. How his game could adapt anywheres especially in era with diversity in play as well surfaces, not many people could do what Andre did. But he also had a 20 year career. Now if he would have gotten the slam in the 90s instead of the career slam that would have been HUGE.



Unfortunately, Agassi suffered from what Fed is suffering. How can you be a GOAT candidate when you are not even the best of your generation?

flying24
05-07-2009, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, Agassi suffered from what Fed is suffering. How can you be a GOAT candidate when you are not even the best of your generation?

Agassi suffers in far more ways than Federer. Federer is not the GOAT but he is far above Agassi on the list. Federer was atleast the dominant player for quite a few years consecutive, and has been very consistent over a number of years. He has a ton of titles at the big 2 slams, has defended many slam titles. Also until Nadal wins atleast 12 slams or the calender slam, Federer is the best player of his generation still regardless the head to head. I do expect Nadal to surpass him in the future though, and in fact Nadal is a strong possability for the future GOAT IMO.

Cyan
05-07-2009, 01:35 PM
No. I would vote for Laver.

clayman2000
05-07-2009, 01:54 PM
That is ridiculous. Sampras has a very strong argument to be the GOAT. Agassi has an iffy argument to even be top 15 all time at best. Agassi has more holes in his career that put him way below GOAT than Sampras: never a dominant player, never the true #1, only once 2 slams in the same year (because of Pete missing the U.S Open with last minute injury), horrible consistency issues, never defended a slam title except once defending an Aussie Open title but never at one of the big 3 majors, only 3 combined titles at the big 2 majors, poor records vs almost all great rivals.

Ok i know Sampras has way more of a case than Agassi, thats not what this is about, but to you critisize Agassi way too much

When you finish a year at number 1, you are the true number one. Also, Agassi's 2002 and 2003 years were incredibly good. Big 3 and Big 2 majors.... no such thing now. All the top players played at the AO when he won. Horrible consistency issues:: are you mad. Yes Agassi had an off year, but with the expection of 97, he won at leasr 1 title between 90 and 04, not bad. Also his play in summer 05, was some of the greatest tennis i have seen. At age 35 in a young mans game, this would be like a player in the 60's doing this at age 45. Age 35 in a game of baseliners and counterpunshers is amazing

flying24
05-07-2009, 02:01 PM
Horrible consistency issues:: are you mad.

Agassi did have horrible consistency issues, you are blind if you dont realize this. There probably isnt a player with 6 slams or more with worse career consistency. Compared to even Lendl, McEnroe, Connors level greats he is a huge fail in the consistency category, even compared to Edberg and Becker in fact. 1992 he finally wins his first slam. 1993 he has horrible results, loses 1st round of the U.S Open, and ends year out of the top 20. 1994 he is back up to #2 and wins the U.S Open. 1995 he is #1 most of the year. 1996 he has horrible year including embarassing losses at both French and Wimbledon and drops down to #8. 1997 you already mentioned was the epic low. 1998 he gets up to #6 based on small tournament wins, but has poor performances in all 4 slams, only 1 time making the 4th round. 1999 he has an amazing year. 2000 he wins the Australian Open, doesnt win a tournament the rest of the year including very early exits at both the French and U.S Opens and drops to #8 again. 2001 he is back up to #2. He hardly ever has more than 1 or 2 years back to back as even a top 5 caliber player. His longevity was excellent, that and his versatility are his trump cards. His dominance, consistency, and performance vs main rivals all suck compared to pretty much any even secondary all time great player.

Also Wimbledon and the U.S Open are still the biggest 2 historical slams, and the French still the 3rd biggest. Yes the Australian Open is more on par with the others now that everyone is playing when able, but in historical significance what I said is still true. Most everyone will tell you this still.

Winners or Errors
05-07-2009, 02:06 PM
Thats the problem with the GOAT title right there. What necessary requirements does it take to be GOAT? To one person something could be the most important, while to another something else is more important. Its all in the eye of the beholder. The GOAT is a subjective term

That's why I qualified the statement before making it...

MrAWD
05-07-2009, 02:10 PM
The way things are going for Nadal lately, I have a feeling that he will be the most achieving player of all time in few more years. At his young age he went further then any of the guys that are on the top of the G.O.A.T list. And even though I don't like the way he plays, I still believe in what I said above!

So, for right now, I think Sampras is pretty much there to be a G.O.A.T counting till now. That doesn't mean that Federer can't figure out how to control him self and win few more (including beating Nadal along the way more then once), which would tip the scale in his way.

Fedja

veroniquem
05-07-2009, 03:11 PM
she is a clueless poster. its obviosu she never watched Pete nor Andre play. if her only requirement is the 4 GS then whatever. then Agassi is the best ever, yet as you point out he cannot possibly be the best based on on the FACT he was not the best in his own era. again, I just love the clueless posters on this forum.
No need to insult because you happen to disagree. Not only did I watch both Agassi and Sampras play , but I watched them live in several tournaments around the world and on several surfaces, so I know what I'm talking about. Agassi could adjust his game to any surface, Sampras could not adapt to clay. Agassi was a more complete player than Sampras. Rather than attacking me, explain to me why Sampras only won 5 out the 9 masters and why he could never play a final at RG. Agassi didn't just win RG, he played 2 other finals there. All in all he played 3 finals at RG, 2 at Wimbledon, 4 at AO and 6 at USO. He was definitely more versatile than Sampras, Pete's weakness was clay.

grafselesfan
05-07-2009, 03:21 PM
Agassi was not even close to a more complete player than Sampras. All Agassi could do was hit groundstrokes and return serve, granted he did those things amazingly well. He had a decent serve too I guess, not really much of a weapon, and he couldnt volley worth a damn. Sampras could hit arguably the greatest serve ever, hit punishing groundies, skilled returns, was a great volleyer, and could play defense far better than Agassi despite not being a baseliner. Translating your game better to your worst surface doesnt equate to being more complete a player always. Even Federer is a more complete player than Agassi, but still less so than Sampras.

grafselesfan
05-07-2009, 03:28 PM
If you break down the games of Sampras, Federer, and Agassi it goes like this:

Sampras vs Federer:

Serve- Sampras by alot
Return- Federer by a bit
Forehand- Even
Backhand- Federer by a bit
Volleys- Sampras by alot
Movement- Federer by a bit
Mental Toughness- Sampras by alot

Federer vs Agassi:

Serve- Federer by alot
Return- Agassi
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Agassi
Volleys- Federer by alot
Movement- Federer by alot
Mental- Federer by a bit

Sampras vs Agassi:

Serve- Sampras by a chasm
Return- Agassi by alot
Forehand- Sampras
Backhand- Agassi
Volleys- Sampras by a chasm
Movement- Sampras by alot
Mental- Sampras by a chasm

Overall: Sampras > Federer > Agassi clearly beyond a doubt.

veroniquem
05-07-2009, 03:30 PM
Agassi was not even close to a more complete player than Sampras. All Agassi could do was hit groundstrokes and return serve, granted he did those things amazingly well. He had a decent serve too I guess, not really much of a weapon, and he couldnt volley worth a damn. Sampras could hit arguably the greatest serve ever, hit punishing groundies, skilled returns, was a great volleyer, and could play defense far better than Agassi despite not being a baseliner. Translating your game better to your worst surface doesnt equate to being more complete a player always. Even Federer is a more complete player than Agassi, but still less so than Sampras.
Whatever Sampras could do it didn't work on clay and it even worked a little less on slow hard court. Sampras organized his game around a huge serve. He was mostly a fast surface specialist. Agassi's return game was unparalleled IMO (in his era).

Tennis_Monk
05-07-2009, 04:07 PM
S


Federer did better than Sampras at the French of course. You see the thing is he still didnt win the French. That is the only thing that would really matter, if either of them had been good enough on clay to win the French even once. Since neither won the French even once it really doesnt matter or mean anything really, despite that Federer did better at the French. Lendl did better at Wimbledon than Sampras at the French, Borg better at the U.S Open than Sampras at the French, but you dont hear anyone talk about that much do you. All that matters for each of these great players it they failed to win 1 of the biggest events in the world. Ultimately it is a mark equally against each, it doesnt matter which came closest when you are talking about players of that caliber.



Excellent argument. I like it. I havent won the French open yet. Federer didnt win one yet. Neither did Sampras. So applying u r logic Tennis_monk, Federer and Sampras are at same level as far as French open is concerned. oh boy...I knew i play good tennis at times but i never knew i was this close to the Top players.

GameSampras
05-07-2009, 04:10 PM
I dunno about Andre not being as complete as Pete. Hell Andre may be the most COMPLETE player in terms of being able to adapt his game to any surface in tennis. Andre could win on fast grass, Slow and Fast hardcourts, Indoors, and clay. You name it. There isnt a surface he wasnt good at it. He won the career slam in a very polarized surface era. You cant get more complete than that. Not to mention the longevity he had. I mean he was a top player at 35 years of age and was beating on the young guns at the slams 10 years younger than him.

What hurt Agassi is his lack of domination over the field, inconsistency, getting destroyed more times than not in the slams by Pete, his MIA issues in the late 90s, not winning enough slams etc. That sort of discards him from any GOAT candidacy, though he did have the game. Maybe the best returner and ball striker ever, and maybe the best player in terms of adapting to various surfaces. He could destroy serve-volleyers and destroy grinders..

lambielspins
05-07-2009, 04:25 PM
Agassi was good enough to sneak out a win once in a blue moon on any surface given the right circumstances. Sampras though was good enough to win on any surface at any given time except clay. Even the very slow high bouncing rebound ace hard courts, his 2nd worst surface after clay, he won 2 Aussies in completely dominant fashion and could have easily won say 4 with just a bit more luck.

Agassi could not beat the best players on either grass or clay. He is not good enough on grass to beat Sampras, prime Becker, prime Edberg, Federer, prime McEnroe, prime Connors, and I doubt even Nadal. He could never beat Kuerten, prime Courier, Muster, Ferrero, Bruguera, and certainly not Nadal on clay. He won the biggest titles once each on those two surfaces over an extremely long 20 year career, and only when he got a draw where he avoided facing those caliber of opponents on those surfaces. If he had faced any of the opponents I mentioned on grass or clay he would have been toast.

Agassi can sneak out a win on any surface once in a blue moon if he gets alot of luck and gets lucky to avoid all the toughest opponents on grass or clay. It is not like he can beat anyone on any surface, that is for sure. For him to win on grass or clay he has to have a great draw avoiding a number of people, and the stars have to align. The only surface he really always has a decent shot is hard courts, and on fast hard courts only if he avoids Pete. Pete truly can win on any surface except clay anytime out.

helloworld
05-07-2009, 06:36 PM
Sampras is the current GOAT because he's the most accomplished player so far. All this "He didn't win on clay." is just an excuse to diminish his success. If someone could win 14 slams with a french open title or just win more than 14 slams, then he could be GOAT. Otherwise, Sampras is the current champ.

GameSampras
05-07-2009, 06:41 PM
Lendl was great and very consistent at losing in Slam finals. LOL.

How many slam finals did he lose? Some ridiculous amount. Could u imagine if Lendl would have actually won those finals?


19 Slam finals.. and only 8 slams to show for it

ksbh
05-07-2009, 07:33 PM
IMO yes, Pete Sampras is the greatest of all time.

thalivest
05-07-2009, 07:34 PM
Lendl was great and very consistent at losing in Slam finals. LOL.

How many slam finals did he lose? Some ridiculous amount. Could u imagine if Lendl would have actually won those finals?


19 Slam finals.. and only 8 slams to show for it

Lendl could easily have been the GOAT if he was a great big match player his whole career. Well as long as that included winning atleast 1 of his Wimbledon finals.

Tennis_Monk
05-07-2009, 07:35 PM
Sampras is the current GOAT because he's the most accomplished player so far. All this "He didn't win on clay." is just an excuse to diminish his success. If someone could win 14 slams with a french open title or just win more than 14 slams, then he could be GOAT. Otherwise, Sampras is the current champ.

I buy this argument if the only criteria for GOAT is # of Grandslam titles. I wish it was that simple. It isnt.

Not too long ago many top players skipped Aus Open and during those times AO isnt par with other Grandslams (personally i love AO)

Then there is open Era vs "Closed". Then we have ATP titles, Years at number 1, record against major rivals, etc etc list goes on.

I can agree with this "Sampras is reigning GOAT according to helloworld."

clayman2000
05-07-2009, 07:37 PM
Sampras is the current GOAT because he's the most accomplished player so far. All this "He didn't win on clay." is just an excuse to diminish his success. If someone could win 14 slams with a french open title or just win more than 14 slams, then he could be GOAT. Otherwise, Sampras is the current champ.

Winning on clay is part of success. Part of being an accomplished player is winning everything there is to win. Now I know Federer hasnt won a FO, but he's been close 4 times. Also 19 straight SF and 10 straight finals in GS is unheard of in any time period

Now obviously Federer and Sampras are close for Open Ear GOAT, but it comes down to the little things

thalivest
05-07-2009, 07:37 PM
I buy this argument if the only criteria for GOAT is # of Grandslam titles. I wish it was that simple. It isnt.

Not too long ago many top players skipped Aus Open and during those times AO isnt par with other Grandslams (personally i love AO)

Then there is open Era vs "Closed". Then we have ATP titles, Years at number 1, record against major rivals, etc etc list goes on.

I can agree with this "Sampras is reigning GOAT according to helloworld."

This is very true. Comparing players only based on slam titles is something that can only be started since 1983 really. Well even then more has to be considered but only since 1983 is that a fair comparision.

Tennis_Monk
05-07-2009, 07:41 PM
Agassi was good enough to sneak out a win once in a blue moon on any surface given the right circumstances. Sampras though was good enough to win on any surface at any given time except clay. Even the very slow high bouncing rebound ace hard courts, his 2nd worst surface after clay, he won 2 Aussies in completely dominant fashion and could have easily won say 4 with just a bit more luck.

Agassi could not beat the best players on either grass or clay. He is not good enough on grass to beat Sampras, prime Becker, prime Edberg, Federer, prime McEnroe, prime Connors, and I doubt even Nadal. He could never beat Kuerten, prime Courier, Muster, Ferrero, Bruguera, and certainly not Nadal on clay. He won the biggest titles once each on those two surfaces over an extremely long 20 year career, and only when he got a draw where he avoided facing those caliber of opponents on those surfaces. If he had faced any of the opponents I mentioned on grass or clay he would have been toast.

Agassi can sneak out a win on any surface once in a blue moon if he gets alot of luck and gets lucky to avoid all the toughest opponents on grass or clay. It is not like he can beat anyone on any surface, that is for sure. For him to win on grass or clay he has to have a great draw avoiding a number of people, and the stars have to align. The only surface he really always has a decent shot is hard courts, and on fast hard courts only if he avoids Pete. Pete truly can win on any surface except clay anytime out.

If a new entrant to Tennis world read your post, he could be forgiven for thinking that Sampras won every match he played in his career on Grass and Hard courts. Hardly!.

Draw is not something a player can control. So i wouldnt use it as an excuse for someone who player 15 yrs of professional tennis.

Your logic of luck is flawed as well. I would say Sampras got lucky and happened to have a good serve. he also got lucky that in most finals he played well.....blah blah

Bottom line: Sampras is a great player---not a GOAT. How can one be called Greatest of all time when he isnt even greatest in his time (he lost to no namers on claycourts)

lambielspins
05-07-2009, 07:47 PM
If a new entrant to Tennis world read your post, he could be forgiven for thinking that Sampras won every match he played in his career on Grass and Hard courts. Hardly!.

Draw is not something a player can control. So i wouldnt use it as an excuse for someone who player 15 yrs of professional tennis.

Your logic of luck is flawed as well. I would say Sampras got lucky and happened to have a good serve. he also got lucky that in most finals he played well.....blah blah

Bottom line: Sampras is a great player---not a GOAT. How can one be called Greatest of all time when he isnt even greatest in his time (he lost to no namers on claycourts)

Of course it was possible for Sampras to lose on hard courts or grass. Almost never happened on grass, so nearly impossible, but did happen once in awhile (eg- Krajicek in 96). However he still could win any of the Australian Open, Wimbledon, or U.S Open anytime he played and could beat anyone to do it. He did require any pieces of luck or any circumstances to be able to win any of those events at any given point. Yeah he is 0-2 vs Agassi at the Australian Open but get real here, he was fully capable of beating Agassi there. The two years they played was Agassi at his absolute best, an emotionaly distraught Sampras in 95 and an injured Sampras 99, and both were still really tough matches. Sampras was up a mini break late in the 4th set tiebreak and on the verge of winning even with this injury which would keep him from playing for 5 weeks after the AO.

There were players Agassi could absolutely never beat on clay or grass so needed alot of luck and ideal circumstances to ever win. He could not beat Sampras on grass, so if he were to ever win Wimbledon it would require not meeting him (which happened in 92). He could not beat any of prime Courier, Lendl, Bruguera, Muster, or Kuerten at the French Open so he really needed to avoid alot of people if he were ever going to win there. He still somehow got lucky enough to do so twice (1990 and 1999) and barely made good on one of the two (1999).

lambielspins
05-07-2009, 07:50 PM
Bottom line: Sampras is a great player---not a GOAT. How can one be called Greatest of all time when he isnt even greatest in his time (he lost to no namers on claycourts)

He isnt even the greatest in his time!??! Are you implying Agassi is greater than Sampras, LOL!

veroniquem
05-07-2009, 09:21 PM
I dunno about Andre not being as complete as Pete. Hell Andre may be the most COMPLETE player in terms of being able to adapt his game to any surface in tennis. Andre could win on fast grass, Slow and Fast hardcourts, Indoors, and clay. You name it. There isnt a surface he wasnt good at it. He won the career slam in a very polarized surface era. You cant get more complete than that. Not to mention the longevity he had. I mean he was a top player at 35 years of age and was beating on the young guns at the slams 10 years younger than him.

What hurt Agassi is his lack of domination over the field, inconsistency, getting destroyed more times than not in the slams by Pete, his MIA issues in the late 90s, not winning enough slams etc. That sort of discards him from any GOAT candidacy, though he did have the game. Maybe the best returner and ball striker ever, and maybe the best player in terms of adapting to various surfaces. He could destroy serve-volleyers and destroy grinders..
+1. Apparently you're a Sampras fan but your description of Andre is entirely accurate.

West Coast Ace
05-07-2009, 09:27 PM
Sampras is the GOAT - of serving. He's well behind Laver and Fed, both who I think achieved more and had much, much, much better all around games.

There's more to tennis than winning 12 slams on super fast courts (W and USO) and getting the year end #1 by playing a few last minute tournaments you had no intention of playing, just to grab a few points.

TheNatural
05-07-2009, 10:18 PM
Fed is a baseline player, he only comes to net to shake hands at the end of the match, so his game can be compared to other baseline players like Lendl, Nadal, Djokovic etc. Even at the Wimbledon finals like on 07 08 he came to net about 2 times all match.

Sampras and Laver have true all around games,they'd adept in all areas and they USE their all around games to win matches!

Sampras is the GOAT - of serving. He's well behind Laver and Fed, both who I think achieved more and had much, much, much better all around games.

There's more to tennis than winning 12 slams on super fast courts (W and USO) and getting the year end #1 by playing a few last minute tournaments you had no intention of playing, just to grab a few points.

Bud
05-07-2009, 11:10 PM
Sampras is the GOAT - of serving. He's well behind Laver and Fed, both who I think achieved more and had much, much, much better all around games.

There's more to tennis than winning 12 slams on super fast courts (W and USO) and getting the year end #1 by playing a few last minute tournaments you had no intention of playing, just to grab a few points.

The GOATS? :)

380pistol
05-08-2009, 12:04 AM
Whatever Sampras could do it didn't work on clay and it even worked a little less on slow hard court. Sampras organized his game around a huge serve. He was mostly a fast surface specialist. Agassi's return game was unparalleled IMO (in his era).

Hohohohohoho..... hihihihihihihihihihi......... hahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!

That would make your boy Nadal a slow surface specialist. As he dominates clay, and fastest slam today (US Open) would come in 3rd on the speed chart in Sampras' era. Fast surface specialist. Thanks for the laugh though.

380pistol
05-08-2009, 12:16 AM
another idiotic comment from you TheNatural.Davis Cup is about team work.Have you seen the rest of the Swiss team? Nothing against them,but Roger probably is the biggest sports star in Switzerland ever.Even if he wins his matches,if the other members dont win theirs its of no use.

Guys like Smith and Sampras have had to win all 3 ties to deliver Davis Cups for their countires. In 1995 Sampras played in 3 ties and went 7-0 (6-0 in singles) including 5-0 on clay. He damn near delivered the 1995 Davis Cup to the USA single handidly. Agassi was MIA in the final a 2 time French Open champ lost his match on clay. Also Becker won the Davis Cup for Germany how many times and with who??

It's not like Roger even goes anyway. If he did won his matches and Switzerland still couldn't come through, I'd see your point. But until then, as much as I'm not a big supporter of Davis Cup (now anyway), your boy needs to go and do some damage.

egn
05-08-2009, 03:26 AM
Mr. Wikipedia,
The guy won all of his majors on 2 surfaces, grass and clay. sorry. those indoor tourneys are not considrered majors and rarely discussed. Pete won on 3 different surfaces. Agassi won on 4 different surfaces. get your facts straight.

lol it was sarcasm..which you missed because you didn't read the whole thread...and actually those 3 were considered to be the pro major championships in the 60s. They are not looked upon with high regard anymore (because they are now all gone if I am correct), but in the 1950s-1960s they were the 3 big tournaments for all the pro players so they should be held with more regard. They get pushed to the corner now as we focus on the slams, but in the 60s guys like Laver + Rosewell could not play in slams so ignoring them or not discussing them is quite unfair to the players who actually went pro, which many did, so I think those should a get a little bit more regard. You do not want to consider them majors fine but it is all personal opinion.

egn
05-08-2009, 03:33 AM
Guys like Smith and Sampras have had to win all 3 ties to deliver Davis Cups for their countires. In 1995 Sampras played in 3 ties and went 7-0 (6-0 in singles) including 5-0 on clay. He damn near delivered the 1995 Davis Cup to the USA single handidly. Agassi was MIA in the final a 2 time French Open champ lost his match on clay. Also Becker won the Davis Cup for Germany how many times and with who??

It's not like Roger even goes anyway. If he did won his matches and Switzerland still couldn't come through, I'd see your point. But until then, as much as I'm not a big supporter of Davis Cup (now anyway), your boy needs to go and do some damage.

I agree with you on the Sampras part as he deserves some mention for Davis Cup as there were a few times he really won a round all on his own and it would be nice if Roger went to the Davis Cup more often..however I feel things have changed with the Davis Cup since the 90s. It is not as huge anymore and it didn't really recently pick up until Nadal won his most recent title and with the way the stupid ATP makes their schedule trying to maintain ranking and playing for the Davis Cup is demanding as we saw last year when Nadal was burnt out by the end of the year due to all the tennis. Roger's best Davis Cup chances were this year...he failed to show up. We will see next year if Roger is still good and Stan is still there than maybe.

Oh the topic of great Davis Cup players Wliander and Edberg were pretty damn amazing there in the 80s+90s brought quite a few home for Sweden.

pound cat
05-08-2009, 03:37 AM
No. he never a slam on clay. Sorry, Pete. This applies to Federer also if he never wins RG.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:05 AM
Ok i know Sampras has way more of a case than Agassi, thats not what this is about, but to you critisize Agassi way too much

When you finish a year at number 1, you are the true number one. Also, Agassi's 2002 and 2003 years were incredibly good. Big 3 and Big 2 majors.... no such thing now. All the top players played at the AO when he won. Horrible consistency issues:: are you mad. Yes Agassi had an off year, but with the expection of 97, he won at leasr 1 title between 90 and 04, not bad. Also his play in summer 05, was some of the greatest tennis i have seen. At age 35 in a young mans game, this would be like a player in the 60's doing this at age 45. Age 35 in a game of baseliners and counterpunshers is amazing

Good post. I agree with you.

vtmike
05-08-2009, 06:20 AM
huh?? you are mistaken. He had a few yips here and there, but he was a top 10 player for like 17 years out of 20..how is that horrible???

Did you go through his entire post? I think his point is that Agassi did not have consistency issues...

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:26 AM
No need to insult because you happen to disagree. Not only did I watch both Agassi and Sampras play , but I watched them live in several tournaments around the world and on several surfaces, so I know what I'm talking about. Agassi could adjust his game to any surface, Sampras could not adapt to clay. Agassi was a more complete player than Sampras. Rather than attacking me, explain to me why Sampras only won 5 out the 9 masters and why he could never play a final at RG. Agassi didn't just win RG, he played 2 other finals there. All in all he played 3 finals at RG, 2 at Wimbledon, 4 at AO and 6 at USO. He was definitely more versatile than Sampras, Pete's weakness was clay.

Since I don't believe a word you typed, I will not even bother with you. Other posters consistently call you out and you are to ignorant to realize some of us are not as stupid to believe you actually watched tennis in the 80-90's during their primes.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:29 AM
Agassi was not even close to a more complete player than Sampras. All Agassi could do was hit groundstrokes and return serve, granted he did those things amazingly well. He had a decent serve too I guess, not really much of a weapon, and he couldnt volley worth a damn. Sampras could hit arguably the greatest serve ever, hit punishing groundies, skilled returns, was a great volleyer, and could play defense far better than Agassi despite not being a baseliner. Translating your game better to your worst surface doesnt equate to being more complete a player always. Even Federer is a more complete player than Agassi, but still less so than Sampras.

exactly...that is why I know for a FACT she never watched them play in the 90's. Agassi had no serve and no volley/transition game to the net. Pete on the other hand was an all-court player that could do EVERYTHING. I just love how right I am about her. thanks for confirming what I noted in a previous post.:)

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:32 AM
I dunno about Andre not being as complete as Pete. Hell Andre may be the most COMPLETE player in terms of being able to adapt his game to any surface in tennis. Andre could win on fast grass, Slow and Fast hardcourts, Indoors, and clay. You name it. There isnt a surface he wasnt good at it. He won the career slam in a very polarized surface era. You cant get more complete than that. Not to mention the longevity he had. I mean he was a top player at 35 years of age and was beating on the young guns at the slams 10 years younger than him.

What hurt Agassi is his lack of domination over the field, inconsistency, getting destroyed more times than not in the slams by Pete, his MIA issues in the late 90s, not winning enough slams etc. That sort of discards him from any GOAT candidacy, though he did have the game. Maybe the best returner and ball striker ever, and maybe the best player in terms of adapting to various surfaces. He could destroy serve-volleyers and destroy grinders..

I don't think you are using the term "complete" player correctly. Complete player would have a full arsenal of weapons and when you compare the two players mentioned, Pete is obviously more complete (another words less holes). Did Agassi have a game that allowed him to play all surfaces, yes but that does not make him a more complete player.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:41 AM
Sampras is the GOAT - of serving. He's well behind Laver and Fed, both who I think achieved more and had much, much, much better all around games.

There's more to tennis than winning 12 slams on super fast courts (W and USO) and getting the year end #1 by playing a few last minute tournaments you had no intention of playing, just to grab a few points.

LOL...another one of the amazingly clueless. if that were true, he would not have won 14 slams.

Larry Lava
05-08-2009, 06:42 AM
In my biased opinion he is. :)

Realistically? There is no GOAT in tennis. Too difficult to compare the eras and the best of each era objectively. Tennis is one sport that I just dont think here is a GOAT for to be honest.


Of course maybe none of the sports. You can argue for and against many players. You can argue MJ, Wilt, Russell, Kareem in NBA. All have legit cases.


At the end of the day its just opinions. Numbers and stats arent the be all end all in sports.
I agree 100% with all that is quoted above. I think that if Sampras has a more "exciting" personality, he would have been even more popular, which tends to lead to more GOAT votes. In another thread, somebody was touting Safin as the GOAT because of his antics. Sampras was just a class act and his stats speak for themselves against all other GOAT candidates.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:46 AM
lol it was sarcasm..which you missed because you didn't read the whole thread...and actually those 3 were considered to be the pro major championships in the 60s. They are not looked upon with high regard anymore (because they are now all gone if I am correct), but in the 1950s-1960s they were the 3 big tournaments for all the pro players so they should be held with more regard. They get pushed to the corner now as we focus on the slams, but in the 60s guys like Laver + Rosewell could not play in slams so ignoring them or not discussing them is quite unfair to the players who actually went pro, which many did, so I think those should a get a little bit more regard. You do not want to consider them majors fine but it is all personal opinion.

I was not aware of those tourneys, but I just have a hard time giving credence to a tourney that is no longer played. I only discuss opne era and players I have seen. none of us should judge players we never seen (in certain sports and tennis is one of them-the change is too much to ignore).

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:46 AM
No. he never a slam on clay. Sorry, Pete. This applies to Federer also if he never wins RG.

so hoes does Laver get it...he never won a major on hard courts.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:48 AM
Did you go through his entire post? I think his point is that Agassi did not have consistency issues...

oops, posted to the wrong person. meant it towards Flyer24.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 06:52 AM
Agassi did have horrible consistency issues, you are blind if you dont realize this. There probably isnt a player with 6 slams or more with worse career consistency. Compared to even Lendl, McEnroe, Connors level greats he is a huge fail in the consistency category, even compared to Edberg and Becker in fact. 1992 he finally wins his first slam. 1993 he has horrible results, loses 1st round of the U.S Open, and ends year out of the top 20. 1994 he is back up to #2 and wins the U.S Open. 1995 he is #1 most of the year. 1996 he has horrible year including embarassing losses at both French and Wimbledon and drops down to #8. 1997 you already mentioned was the epic low. 1998 he gets up to #6 based on small tournament wins, but has poor performances in all 4 slams, only 1 time making the 4th round. 1999 he has an amazing year. 2000 he wins the Australian Open, doesnt win a tournament the rest of the year including very early exits at both the French and U.S Opens and drops to #8 again. 2001 he is back up to #2. He hardly ever has more than 1 or 2 years back to back as even a top 5 caliber player. His longevity was excellent, that and his versatility are his trump cards. His dominance, consistency, and performance vs main rivals all suck compared to pretty much any even secondary all time great player.

Also Wimbledon and the U.S Open are still the biggest 2 historical slams, and the French still the 3rd biggest. Yes the Australian Open is more on par with the others now that everyone is playing when able, but in historical significance what I said is still true. Most everyone will tell you this still.

This is ridiculous, you are obviously blind and I find you to be a consistently bad poster.

mandy01
05-08-2009, 06:58 AM
I agree with you on the Sampras part as he deserves some mention for Davis Cup as there were a few times he really won a round all on his own and it would be nice if Roger went to the Davis Cup more often..however I feel things have changed with the Davis Cup since the 90s. It is not as huge anymore and it didn't really recently pick up until Nadal won his most recent title and with the way the stupid ATP makes their schedule trying to maintain ranking and playing for the Davis Cup is demanding as we saw last year when Nadal was burnt out by the end of the year due to all the tennis. Roger's best Davis Cup chances were this year...he failed to show up. We will see next year if Roger is still good and Stan is still there than maybe.

Oh the topic of great Davis Cup players Wliander and Edberg were pretty damn amazing there in the 80s+90s brought quite a few home for Sweden.
RN did not play the Davis Cup finals last year though.He was injured and even Roger had legit problems this year.

GameSampras
05-08-2009, 08:46 AM
I agree 100% with all that is quoted above. I think that if Sampras has a more "exciting" personality, he would have been even more popular, which tends to lead to more GOAT votes. In another thread, somebody was touting Safin as the GOAT because of his antics. Sampras was just a class act and his stats speak for themselves against all other GOAT candidates.

Sampras mentioned in a 2007 interview, that he kind of took the brunt of the post Mac, Lendl, Connors era. Things were more personal between these guys where as in the rivalry of Pete and Andre it was strictly a professional rivalry as is the Nadal-Fed rivalry. I think that maybe what was why the tennis boom occured in the 80s. More personal rivalries instead of professional rivalries. IMO

matchmaker
05-08-2009, 09:06 AM
I find this whole GOAT debate a bit ridiculous, but if any GOAT there is, it would be Sampras because of his 14 Slams and 6 consecutive years at the number one spot.

It is a big stain on his carreer though that he did not win the FO.

I personally believe that there are many Greats and that there is not really a Greatest.

Without talking about the period of tennis I have never been able to witness I think Laver, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, and Federer are all tennis greats.

Only Laver and Agassi have been able to win all Slams, others had more GS victories, but they all had a Slam they never got: FO (Mc Enroe, Sampras, Connors, Federer), Wimbledon (Lendl), USO (Borg).

I feel Mc Enroe falls just short, as does
Nadal for the moment but with at least a Slam more (8 Slams being the minimum for entrance in this club) he would probably be up there.

Every great has his arguments. Borg winning an insane number of RG's and Wimbys, Lendl being so consistent and reaching so many finals, Sampras being number 1 for such a long time.

Others have there question marks: Agassi's and Connors' total is too low. Laver did not play enough during the Open Era to know his real worth, Lendl lost too many finals...

I feel the three biggest players are probably Borg, Sampras and Federer but why does there always have to be a "the best"?

dem331
05-08-2009, 09:43 AM
I find this whole GOAT debate a bit ridiculous, but if any GOAT there is, it would be Sampras because of his 14 Slams and 6 consecutive years at the number one spot.

It is a big stain on his carreer though that he did not win the FO.

I personally believe that there are many Greats and that there is not really a Greatest.

Without talking about the period of tennis I have never been able to witness I think Laver, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, and Federer are all tennis greats.

Only Laver and Agassi have been able to win all Slams, others had more GS victories, but they all had a Slam they never got: FO (Mc Enroe, Sampras, Connors, Federer), Wimbledon (Lendl), USO (Borg).

I feel Mc Enroe falls just short, as does
Nadal for the moment but with at least a Slam more (8 Slams being the minimum for entrance in this club) he would probably be up there.

Every great has his arguments. Borg winning an insane number of RG's and Wimbys, Lendl being so consistent and reaching so many finals, Sampras being number 1 for such a long time.

Others have there question marks: Agassi's and Connors' total is too low. Laver did not play enough during the Open Era to know his real worth, Lendl lost too many finals...

I feel the three biggest players are probably Borg, Sampras and Federer but why does there always have to be a "the best"?

At last some sense ...

Nadal_Freak
05-08-2009, 10:01 AM
Sampras is the GOAT until proven otherwise. Federer is getting exposed now that he has some competition. He is practically the same player that still dominates weaker opponents like Del Potro but can't handle Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray.

vtmike
05-08-2009, 10:04 AM
Sampras is the GOAT until proven otherwise. Federer is getting exposed now that he has some competition. He is practically the same player that still dominates weaker opponents like Del Potro but can't handle Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray.

You think repeating the same thing in every thread is going to change the facts? :-?

380pistol
05-08-2009, 10:06 AM
I find this whole GOAT debate a bit ridiculous, but if any GOAT there is, it would be Sampras because of his 14 Slams and 6 consecutive years at the number one spot.

It is a big stain on his carreer though that he did not win the FO.

I personally believe that there are many Greats and that there is not really a Greatest.

Without talking about the period of tennis I have never been able to witness I think Laver, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, and Federer are all tennis greats.

Only Laver and Agassi have been able to win all Slams, others had more GS victories, but they all had a Slam they never got: FO (Mc Enroe, Sampras, Connors, Federer), Wimbledon (Lendl), USO (Borg).

I feel Mc Enroe falls just short, as does
Nadal for the moment but with at least a Slam more (8 Slams being the minimum for entrance in this club) he would probably be up there.

Every great has his arguments. Borg winning an insane number of RG's and Wimbys, Lendl being so consistent and reaching so many finals, Sampras being number 1 for such a long time.

Others have there question marks: Agassi's and Connors' total is too low. Laver did not play enough during the Open Era to know his real worth, Lendl lost too many finals...

I feel the three biggest players are probably Borg, Sampras and Federer but why does there always have to be a "the best"?

Nice post makes a lot of sense except the highlighted part.

There has to be a best for the same reason players/teams in a myriad of sports don't get to the SF, and say they all did well, but there is no champion. It's the nature of competition.

As Herman Edwards once said..... "You play...... to win.... the game?!? HELLO!!!!!"

Since we can't get all the greats to slug it out, we have these debates. It's been going on for many years and in many sports. It is what it is.

Nadal_Freak
05-08-2009, 10:07 AM
You think repeating the same thing in every thread is going to change the facts? :-?
There are no facts to change. Sampras beat players in a very strong era. He was mentally tough when playing the best out there. Federer hasn't had to play the best until the last couple years. Yeah I know it must hurt to hear the weak era but it definitely was from 2003-2006. Even than Federer couldn't handle Nalbandian at his prime. Too many players have Fed's number.

vtmike
05-08-2009, 10:09 AM
There are no facts to change. Sampras beat players in a very strong era. He was mentally tough when playing the best out there. Federer hasn't had to play the best until the last couple years. Yeah I know it must hurt to hear the weak era but it definitely was from 2003-2006. Even than Federer couldn't handle Nalbandian at his prime. Too many players have Fed's number.

You have no idea what you are talking about! I shouldn't be surprised anymore because you never do...So what is this proof that makes Sampras the GOAT?

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 11:04 AM
There are no facts to change. Sampras beat players in a very strong era. He was mentally tough when playing the best out there. Federer hasn't had to play the best until the last couple years. Yeah I know it must hurt to hear the weak era but it definitely was from 2003-2006. Even than Federer couldn't handle Nalbandian at his prime. Too many players have Fed's number.

how is it possible you are not banned. you argue with almost everyone. you are clueless about tennis and that is a fact.

JoshDragon
05-08-2009, 11:14 AM
I think Laver, Federer, and Sampras all have a legitimate case for the GOAT. Nadal, will be there soon if he continues to win majors. Especially if he wins the US Open this year.

veroniquem
05-08-2009, 11:25 AM
I think Laver, Federer, and Sampras all have a legitimate case for the GOAT. Nadal, will be there soon if he continues to win majors. Especially if he wins the US Open this year.
Why would he need the USO? Both Fed and Sampras are constantly referred to as potential GOATs and they have won only 3 slams out of 4. What's up with the double standard? He needs to win a few more slams that's all, I mean the USO would be great of course and I hope he WILL get it but he will be up there at the top regardless.

Chadwixx
05-08-2009, 11:38 AM
One dimentional

Poor fitness

Average on non glass surfaces

JoshDragon
05-08-2009, 12:19 PM
Why would he need the USO? Both Fed and Sampras are constantly referred to as potential GOATs and they have won only 3 slams out of 4. What's up with the double standard? He needs to win a few more slams that's all, I mean the USO would be great of course and I hope he WILL get it but he will be up there at the top regardless.

If Nadal does win the US Open and maybe 5 or 6 more majors, especially if he won a calendar year grand slam, then he would have a better case as the GOAT.

At this point Federer and Sampras, have twice as many majors as Nadal. Nadal, has won on all 3 different surfaces but he still needs something huge, like the US Open to put him up there with Federer, Laver, and Sampras.

Tennis_Monk
05-08-2009, 06:29 PM
At last some sense ...

I find it little amusing that someone with 22 posts is saying "atlast".

TheNatural
05-08-2009, 06:55 PM
For Nadal to have a good case for the goat Nadal obviously just needs to keep adding to the slam count to approach Feds tally.(The US open will be a bonus) IF he can do that he will overcome Fed as the best of the era with his dominating 5-2 slam final record v Fed.

Fed lags behind other goat other goat candidates like Sampras even if he gets more slams than Sampras because he was dominated by someone from his own era. Fed needs to address the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal.

If Nadal does win the US Open and maybe 5 or 6 more majors, especially if he won a calendar year grand slam, then he would have a better case as the GOAT.

At this point Federer and Sampras, have twice as many majors as Nadal. Nadal, has won on all 3 different surfaces but he still needs something huge, like the US Open to put him up there with Federer, Laver, and Sampras.

35ft6
05-08-2009, 07:00 PM
By default, for now, I'll say yes. At his best, he would have smoked every guy before him. But he never won the French and was in general has a mediocre record on clay (yeah, I know he won a masters on clay, so did a lot of other dudes....). If Fed ties Pete's record, he becomes new GOAT for his superior performance on clay.

TheNatural
05-08-2009, 07:16 PM
I think most importantly Fed needs to reverse the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal to overcome Sampras. You can't be dominated by someone in your own era and be goat. It's illogical.

By default, for now, I'll say yes. At his best, he would have smoked every guy before him. But he never won the French and was in general has a mediocre record on clay (yeah, I know he won a masters on clay, so did a lot of other dudes....). If Fed ties Pete's record, he becomes new GOAT for his superior performance on clay.

navratilovafan
05-08-2009, 07:21 PM
No Sampras is not the GOAT. Federer certainly is not either though.

35ft6
05-08-2009, 07:25 PM
I think most importantly Fed needs to reverse the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal to overcome Sampras. You can't be dominated by someone in your own era and be goat. It's illogical. Point taken, but how is Sampras' GOAT status being determined? By number of Slams? Like does the last US Open not count because he was getting beat by a lot of people that year? In a way, Fed is a victim of his own success in that regard. Sampras could and often did lose to a lot of different people, but Fed is more consistent, getting deep into more tournaments and more frequently, to get the chance to meet Nadal, usually the number 2 seed, in the finals. I see what you're saying, but in a way Fed is being faulted for winning more against more people than Sampras did in his time.

Anyway, for a few years, Fed dominated in a way nobody else did, too bad he is playing in the time of the greatest clay courter of all time, or else he would have 3 French Opens now. No GOAT is considered GOAT for dominating everybody from the very beginning to the very end. Their best years are considered and their record at the big tournaments. This goes for tennis to football to boxing.

clayman2000
05-08-2009, 07:46 PM
This is coming from a Roddick and Nadal fan so im pretty sure i am unbiased:

Federer is Open era Goat followed by Sampras and Borg
Laver is all time GOAT followed by Pancho and Rosewall then Federer

Why i feel Federer > Sampras:
Stats:
Federer: Sampras:
GS wins: 13 14
GS finals: 18 18
Wks no 1: 237 286
Consec wks: 237 102
complete year 1: 3 2
Masters wins: 14 11
Year w~ 10 titles: 3 1
Year w~ 90% win %: 4 0
Clay titles: 7 3
Grass titles: 10 10
Hard titles: 38 37
Carpet titles: 2 14 (flawed cause Fed plays only 2 a year, now only 1)
Master Cup: 4 / 7 5 / 11
Career win %: 81% 77%

Now by the stats, it is clearly tied. Then in GOAT judging it goes to dominance. Like i said, Sampras has never lost less than 10 matches in his career, roger did it 4 times. Federer has made the finals of all four GS titles twice, Sampras has never made 3 major finals in a year ( Fed did this 4 time). Roger also has the longest winning streak on both grass and hard. But even that does not make Fed the GOAT.

I know this has been said so much, but how can the GOAT have won 1 big clay title, and never made a final at the clay major. Now I know Federer never won it (thank God), but 1 match should not make or break a players GOATness.

egn
05-08-2009, 07:46 PM
There are no facts to change. Sampras beat players in a very strong era. He was mentally tough when playing the best out there. Federer hasn't had to play the best until the last couple years. Yeah I know it must hurt to hear the weak era but it definitely was from 2003-2006. Even than Federer couldn't handle Nalbandian at his prime. Too many players have Fed's number.

Wait a second..Fed who is 10-8 vs. Nalbandian and while Fed was no.1 was 7-3 vs. Nalbandian. Nalbandian who could not catch up to Fed after winning the first 5 in a row against Fed in his first prime year. However once Fed got rolling destroyed Nalbandian when he was playing even his own best tennis from 2004-2008..Kind of funny how Nadal has a losing record against Nalby also...no wait those happenend in 2007 so of course they don't count as Nadal is argubley not "in his prime" however Fed 2003 was obviously "so into his prime that those should be held to the stone." Nalbandian handled Nadal with ease in fall 2007 beating him 6-1, 6-2 and 6-4, 6-0..By the way 2003 Nalbandian was not even his best year as that was 2005 or 2006...Fed has had two players that have caused him trouble..Nadal and Murray.

What makes this era so strong? Who actually can beat Nadal..wasn't Feds era so weak because he destroyed everyone and lost once in a blue moon...well isn't that what Nadal is doing. You throw this amazing double standard around...Nadal's era is not weak and I don't think Feds is either they are just strong enough to dominate the rest of the tour. What happens if Murray and DJoker never win another slam (or for Murray's case a slam)..is this era now weak..I would not consider it any weaker or stronger. At this given moment in time they put the pressure on..they would go down as the men who got screwed by Fed and Nadal not the men who were talentless and weak. Calling the past era weak is not only an attempt to take a cheap stab at Fed but an insult to a whole field of players.

Hell besides then hold that same standard to Nadal he won those French Opens in that weak era.

navratilovafan
05-08-2009, 08:02 PM
From the 2003 year end Masters onwards Nalbandian's only 3 wins in many matches were indoors, Nalbandian's best surface by far and a non-slam surface. 1 of those 3 was when Federer was badly injured and hobbling around the court and Federer was still 2 points from winning. Federer is overall 10-3 vs Nalbandian at that point. Unless Nalbandian's prime mysteriously ended after the 2003 U.S Open that is. Talking out of his *** is a Nadal_Freak specialty.

egn
05-08-2009, 08:02 PM
From the 2003 year end Masters onwards Nalbandian's only 3 wins in many matches were indoors, Nalbandian's best surface by far and a non-slam surface. 1 of those 3 was when Federer was badly injured and hobbling around the court and Federer was still 2 points from winning. Talking about of his *** is a Nadal_Freak specialty.

Its even more funny that Nadal has a losing record against the one player he mentioned lol.

navratilovafan
05-08-2009, 08:04 PM
Its even more funny that Nadal has a losing record against the one player he mentioned lol.

Yes so true. Was also very lucky to win their only match he did win and not be 0-3. Was embarassed in both losses winning only 4 games. I like Nadal, in fact I like him more than Federer, but Nadal_Freak's twisted double standards to make everything favorable to Nadal, everything unfavorable to Federer or other players he doesnt like, and never acknowledge anything that isnt, are comedic.

TheNatural
05-08-2009, 08:47 PM
knowing that slams are the most significant events by far, Fat Nalby should start thinking about making one of the slam surfaces his best surface and making 5 setters his best match length.:shock:

Fat Dave has about 0 relevance in this thread since he hasn't done anything in slams.

From the 2003 year end Masters onwards Nalbandian's only 3 wins in many matches were indoors, Nalbandian's best surface by far and a non-slam surface. 1 of those 3 was when Federer was badly injured and hobbling around the court and Federer was still 2 points from winning. Federer is overall 10-3 vs Nalbandian at that point. Unless Nalbandian's prime mysteriously ended after the 2003 U.S Open that is. Talking out of his *** is a Nadal_Freak specialty.

navratilovafan
05-08-2009, 08:53 PM
knowing that slams are the most significant events by far, Fat Nalby should start thinking about making one of the slam surfaces his best surface and making 5 setters his best match length.:shock:

Fat Dave has about 0 relevance in this thread since he hasn't done anything in slams.

I agree with that. Nalbandian better hurry too, he is running out of time as after the surgery and the return he will already be 28. I agree he has no place in this thread.

Tennis_Monk
05-08-2009, 09:17 PM
Sampras probably had chances of being called a GOAT until Federer came in. Now May be federer becomes a GOAT candidate may be he doesnt.. He effectively knocked out Sampras by virtue of his Claycourt Play. How could one be called a greatest player of all time when he isnt even a factor in one Major tournament and a 2-3 month season every year.

Inferior record for fed against Nadal, Sampras fans put this to good use but isnt at the same level as being top#2 clay court player.

navratilovafan
05-08-2009, 09:19 PM
Federer basically knocked Sampras off by virtue of his clay court play? Federer NEVER won the French. Just an absurd statement. I agree Sampras is not the GOAT but it isnt based on Federer's clay court play.

TheNatural
05-08-2009, 09:54 PM
If it was about coming 2nd then Lendl would be the Goat.

Winning things is what determines greatness.

Winning the Davis cup a few times for example like all the past greats have done will help Fed become greater than coming 2nd all the time on clay.

Federer basically knocked Sampras off by virtue of his clay court play? Federer NEVER won the French. Just an absurd statement. I agree Sampras is not the GOAT but it isnt based on Federer's clay court play.

navratilovafan
05-08-2009, 10:01 PM
If it was about coming 2nd then Lendl would be the Goat.

Winning things is what determines greatness.

Winning the Davis cup a few times for example like all the past greats have done will help Fed become greater than coming 2nd all the time on clay.

Since Federer flakes out on Davis Cup you can forget about that. He hasnt won the French Open, Olympics in singles, Davis Cup, and he doesnt hold the record for most slams or at any of the 4 slam venues. Yet he is somehow the GOAT according to some? Pretty ridiculous.

luckyboy1300
05-08-2009, 10:22 PM
since the smart-as*es want to always bring the davis cup why don't we take a look at each's davis cup profiles and investigate the ridiculous claims of many here regarding federer's davis cup play.

sampras: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001217

wins=19, losses=9.

federer: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10019424

wins=35, losses=11

WOW am i surprised!! federer played almost twice more davis cup matches than pete and has a better winning record in his matches, yet it's federer who gets chastised and has the reputation of skipping davis cup matches. LOL

TheNatural
05-08-2009, 10:44 PM
That's good but Fed he didn't win the davis cup. Lendl won a lot of Wimbledon matches too 48-14, more than a lot of guys who won Wimbledon, but he didn't win. Its about winning the final, not just winning preliminaries. :shock:

since the smart-as*es want to always bring the davis cup why don't we take a look at each's davis cup profiles and investigate the ridiculous claims of many here regarding federer's davis cup play.

sampras: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001217

wins=19, losses=9.

federer: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10019424

wins=35, losses=11

WOW am i surprised!! federer played almost twice more davis cup matches than pete and has a better winning record in his matches, yet it's federer who gets chastised and has the reputation of skipping davis cup matches. LOL

luckyboy1300
05-08-2009, 11:03 PM
That's good but Fed he didn't win the davis cup. Lendl won a lot of Wimbledon matches too 48-14, more than a lot of guys who won Wimbledon, but he didn't win. Its about winning the final, not just winning preliminaries. :shock:

sure, but at least you do know that davis cup requires TEAM effort, right? whenever federer plays he always had to save the country from being eliminated from the world group, while sampras has only to build up on what his country already did. in 1995 sampras has to only play 2 matches each in qf's and semis and the us are sure to win. federer wins his 2 singles rubbers and still switzerland loses. you can't expect more than those from federer when he still has his career to think about.

sampras did not even play in 93, 96, 98 and 01, while federer is still to miss a year not playing davis cup. questioning federer's davis cup integrity is ridiculously stupid, imo.

thalivest
05-08-2009, 11:03 PM
Federer plays the relegation matches mostly which are against weak countries and playing fighting to stay in the World Group. He mostly skips the World Group ties. So of course his record should be good.

thalivest
05-08-2009, 11:05 PM
sure, but at least you do know that davis cup requires TEAM effort, right? whenever federer plays he always had to save the country from being eliminated from the world group, while sampras has only to build up on what his country already did. in 1995 sampras has to only play 2 matches each in qf's and semis and the us are sure to win. federer wins his 2 singles rubbers and still switzerland loses.

sampras did not even play in 93, 96, 98 and 01, while federer is still to miss a year not playing davis cup. questioning federer's davis cup integrity is ridiculously stupid, imo.

Federer had a great shot to win in 2003 but he CHOKED a big lead away vs Hewitt in the semis which would have put Switzerland into the final and Australia went on to win. Lack of team depth cant explain that, and he should have been able to finish off Hewitt who he would beat the next 200 times they played but didnt. He wimped out of World Group ties for a long time after that. Then this year with Wawrinka beating Blake the Swiss probably would have advanced with Federer playing but he wimped out with some little bad sore which didnt kept him out of any other tournaments. Federer can take alot of blame for never winning Davis Cup.

TheNatural
05-08-2009, 11:12 PM
In the biggest chance Fed had he blew it for Switzerland by losing to Hewitt in the semis.:shock:

Fed and Wawrinka would have had a great chance in the last 5 years if Fed played more than the first round matches. Other greats have had to win the Davis cup along side their slams and thus they set the standard for future greats to follow. Fed fails in Davis cup.

sure, but at least you do know that davis cup requires TEAM effort, right? whenever federer plays he always had to save the country from being eliminated from the world group, while sampras has only to build up on what his country already did. in 1995 sampras has to only play 2 matches each in qf's and semis and the us are sure to win. federer wins his 2 singles rubbers and still switzerland loses. you can't expect more than those from federer when he still has his career to think about.

sampras did not even play in 93, 96, 98 and 01, while federer is still to miss a year not playing davis cup. questioning federer's davis cup integrity is ridiculously stupid, imo.

vtmike
05-08-2009, 11:12 PM
since the smart-as*es want to always bring the davis cup why don't we take a look at each's davis cup profiles and investigate the ridiculous claims of many here regarding federer's davis cup play.

sampras: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001217

wins=19, losses=9.

federer: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10019424

wins=35, losses=11

WOW am i surprised!! federer played almost twice more davis cup matches than pete and has a better winning record in his matches, yet it's federer who gets chastised and has the reputation of skipping davis cup matches. LOL

Thats a very good post! But unfortunately the haters will still find a way to discredit & insult him...

luckyboy1300
05-08-2009, 11:20 PM
Federer had a great shot to win in 2003 but he CHOKED a big lead away vs Hewitt in the semis which would have put Switzerland into the final and Australia went on to win. Lack of team depth cant explain that, and he should have been able to finish off Hewitt who he would beat the next 200 times they played but didnt. He wimped out of World Group ties for a long time after that. Then this year with Wawrinka beating Blake the Swiss probably would have advanced with Federer playing but he wimped out with some little bad sore which didnt kept him out of any other tournaments. Federer can take alot of blame for never winning Davis Cup.

federer is still an up and coming player in 2003, and who knows if they would've won had federer won that match. they still have to play the deciding rubber and i don't think they can get away with it, especially against the aussies in australia.

to carry the switzerland to the final federer basically has to play 1st round, qf, sf and final and win all 3 of his matches, and that is a MONUMENTAL task, something that not even sampras is capable. especially that he has a career to think of. name me a former great who won the davis cup and played from 1st round to final and playing 2 or 3 rubbers each. and with a joke team, to add.

luckyboy1300
05-08-2009, 11:27 PM
In the biggest chance Fed had he blew it for Switzerland by losing to Hewitt in the semis.:shock:

Fed and Wawrinka would have had a great chance in the last 5 years if Fed played more than the first round matches. Other greats have had to win the Davis cup along side their slams and thus they set the standard for future greats to follow. Fed fails in Davis cup.

again, name me a former great who has a good year in slams and singlehandedly carried his team from 1st round to davis cup championship. sampras did not do that in 1995 (skipped the 1st round), hence i cannot say "he" won the davis cup in 95. to win something, you need to play from start to finish.

TheNatural
05-08-2009, 11:29 PM
Wawrinka and Fed isnt a Joke team

Boris Becker (http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000110) :shock:

John Mcenroe (http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000894) :shock:



federer is still an up and coming player in 2003, and who knows if they would've won had federer won that match. they still have to play the deciding rubber and i don't think they can get away with it, especially against the aussies in australia.

to carry the switzerland to the final federer basically has to play 1st round, qf, sf and final and win all 3 of his matches, and that is a MONUMENTAL task, something that not even sampras is capable. especially that he has a career to think of. name me a former great who won the davis cup and played from 1st round to final and playing 2 or 3 rubbers each. and with a joke team, to add.

luckyboy1300
05-08-2009, 11:42 PM
Wawrinka and Fed isnt a Joke team

Boris Becker (http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000110) :shock:

John Mcenroe (http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000894) :shock:

wawrinka and fed only came together in 2008, though. and good examples on mcenroe and becker, btw. what mcenroe did in 1982 was impressive, but his singles career that year wasn't, though. so as becker in 1989. the thing is, had federer prioritized the davis cup like these guys did during his best years 04-07, he might've snatched one for switzerland. but i don't think his singles career would get to where he is now.

TheNatural
05-08-2009, 11:46 PM
Exactly that's what makes the greats greater. They were able to achieve some slams and some Davis cups.

wawrinka and fed only came together in 2008, though. and good examples on mcenroe and becker, btw. what mcenroe did in 1982 was impressive, but his singles career that year wasn't, though. so as becker in 1989. the thing is, had federer prioritized the davis cup like these guys did during his best years 04-07, he might've snatched one for switzerland. but i don't think his singles career would get to where he is now.

luckyboy1300
05-08-2009, 11:58 PM
Exactly that's what makes the greats greater. They were able to achieve some slams and some Davis cups.

it's definitely not sampras, though. though he did singlehandedly win the final, he did not carry the team to the final. plus considering that he skipped many years of davis cup play, i would call his davis cup record pretty pathetic for an all-time great.

380pistol
05-09-2009, 12:26 AM
since the smart-as*es want to always bring the davis cup why don't we take a look at each's davis cup profiles and investigate the ridiculous claims of many here regarding federer's davis cup play.

sampras: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001217

wins=19, losses=9.

federer: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10019424

wins=35, losses=11

WOW am i surprised!! federer played almost twice more davis cup matches than pete and has a better winning record in his matches, yet it's federer who gets chastised and has the reputation of skipping davis cup matches. LOL


You do realize 15 of Federer's Davis Cup matches were either Qualifying or play-off matches???

federer is still an up and coming player in 2003, and who knows if they would've won had federer won that match. they still have to play the deciding rubber and i don't think they can get away with it, especially against the aussies in australia.

to carry the switzerland to the final federer basically has to play 1st round, qf, sf and final and win all 3 of his matches, and that is a MONUMENTAL task, something that not even sampras is capable. especially that he has a career to think of. name me a former great who won the davis cup and played from 1st round to final and playing 2 or 3 rubbers each. and with a joke team, to add.

Stop with the excuses will you?? In 1995 Sampras played the QF, SF and F. Winning both singles in QF and SF and all 3 in F. Of the 9 ties the USA needed Pete won 7 (5 of them on clay). As for the 1st rd at most Fed would need to win 1 match (maybe 2) and it's in February between Aus Open and Indian Wells. No he hasn't done it, but he hasn't exactly shown up either. So what's the reason for him not even showing up??

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 12:27 AM
Yeh he did win it single handed, and on clay too, so he has won a bigger clay title than Fed has won in his career.

Sampras won 2 Davis cups and so has Nadal so you'll just have to get used to it. You can always email the Davis Cup people with you're suggestions if you want new rules about who becomes a Davis cup winner. :)

Fed said he wants to play until he's 35, so he has plenty of Davis cup years to look forwards to,to try to win a few.



it's definitely not sampras, though. though he did singlehandedly win the final, he did not carry the team to the final. plus considering that he skipped many years of davis cup play, i would call his davis cup record pretty pathetic for an all-time great.

BorisBeckerFan
05-09-2009, 12:31 AM
At 155 votes Pete is at nearly 40% in favor. That means the other 60 percent are likely Laver, Borg, Federer, Pancho etc supporters for GOAT. I wonder if any of them would gobble up 40% of the vote or would that other 60% be more evenly split between the rest? I have not voted for Pete mainly because I don't suscribe to the GOAT theory but I am not surprised that Pete is getting this much support. I'm not sure that any of the other candidates would take 40% out of the 60% that's left over.

ckthegreek
05-09-2009, 12:37 AM
At this point Federer and Sampras, have twice as many majors as Nadal. Nadal, has won on all 3 different surfaces but he still needs something huge, like the US Open to put him up there with Federer, Laver, and Sampras.

The USO is not a prerequisite. If he wins the FO another 3-4 times and at SW19 2 more times he will get closer to Sampras than Federer. It's quality over quantity.

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 12:51 AM
Yeh he did win it single handed, and on clay too, so he has won a bigger clay title than Fed has won in his career.

Sampras won 2 Davis cups and so has Nadal so you'll just have to get used to it. You can always email the Davis Cup people with you're suggestions if you want new rules about who becomes a Davis cup winner. :)

Fed said he wants to play until he's 35, so he has plenty of Davis cup years to look forwards to,to try to win a few.

the thing is, with a country like the usa one would expect a GOAT candidate like sampras to contribute at least 5 davis cups to his country. i can't expect the same for switzerland, who has a player in the top 10, another at top 20 (recently) then the rest lingering at top 100 or worse.

sampras did not win the davis cup, usa did. nadal did not win davis cup, spain did. its as ridiculous as saying michael jordan won 6 nba championships lol

final point: federer has done anything he can for his country without sacrificing his career. he played more matches and won more, but with a pathetic team like that you can't expect more.

and a big LOL at sampras winning a bigger clay title than fed.

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 01:05 AM
You do realize 15 of Federer's Davis Cup matches were either Qualifying or play-off matches???



Stop with the excuses will you??In 1995 Sampras played the QF, SF and F. Winning both singles in QF and SF and all 3 in F. Of the 9 ties the USA needed Pete won 7 (5 of them on clay). As for the 1st rd at most Fed would need to win 1 match (maybe 2) and it's in February between Aus Open and Indian Wells. No he hasn't done it, but he hasn't exactly shown up either. So what's the reason for him not even showing up??

and that's what makes things harder for fed. he always need to save his country from world group elimination while sampras doesn't have to worry about that. of course anyone would hardly be motivated carrying a team like that. there were quite a lot of times where fed won both his singles rubbers and still switzerland loses. he has a legit reason in not showing up this year, as his back is still definitely troubling him. you can't always be patriotic like that. with their davis cup records compared, it's either sampras is more selfish for playing less matches, or that usa is strong enough for him not to be needed in a lot of matches. both of these things cant be said for fed and switzerland.

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 01:09 AM
But he failed at Davis cup unlike the past greats no matter how you spin it.

What you're failing to recognize is that the Davis cup is part of his career, so he sacrificed one part of his career for another part.

the thing is, with a country like the usa one would expect a GOAT candidate like sampras to contribute at least 5 davis cups to his country. i can't expect the same for switzerland, who has a player in the top 10, another at top 20 (recently) then the rest lingering at top 100 or worse.

sampras did not win the davis cup, usa did. nadal did not win davis cup, spain did. its as ridiculous as saying michael jordan won 6 nba championships lol

final point: federer has done anything he can for his country without sacrificing his career. he played more matches and won more, but with a pathetic team like that you can't expect more.

and a big LOL at sampras winning a bigger clay title than fed.

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 01:15 AM
But he failed at Davis cup unlike the past greats no matter how you spin it.

What you're failing to recognize is that the Davis cup is part of his career, so he sacrificed one part of his career for another part.

no he did not; his country failed him at davis cup.

and another thing, no one remembers a player for his davis cup contributions. you can't convince me that davis cup is very prestigious.

federer did enough. he brought switzerland a gold medal, something sampras hasn't done.

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 02:05 AM
No they didn't , Fed failed himself at the Davis Cup by losing the semi for them and by rarely turning up for the last 5 years.

The doubles achievements like his doubles Gold help Fed's care in the 'doubles goat' thread where Fed would rate very lowly. :) It's totally irrelevant to the singles goat discussion.

I don't have to convince you that the Davis cup is prestigious, the fact that all the greats find is prestigious makes it prestigious. Everyone that has a sense of history remembers the contribution of the greats to the Davis cups and their Davis cups victories greatly enhances their greatness.

Both Fed and Sampras have won 0 singles medals at the Olympics. The difference is Sampras only played in 1 Olympics during his career in 1992 so he didn't prioritize it, and it was before he was #1, while Fed did prioritize it and has been chasing a singles Olympic medal all of his career. Federer has won a big 0 Olympic medals IN SINGLES in 3 Olympics, despite prioritizing the Olympics IN SINGLES. London will make it 0 from 4 if he fails again. It will be the ultimate insult if he fails again in London ON GRASS. Before the 08 Olympics Fed said:

"In my position, as someone who has won a lot of grand slams(IN SINGLES), it's right up there," he said. "Winning would mean as much to me as an Wimbledon victory".

Fed needs to worry about overcoming Nadal in this era before Fed is even compared to Sampras or other goat candidates.


no he did not; his country failed him at davis cup.

and another thing, no one remembers a player for his davis cup contributions. you can't convince me that davis cup is very prestigious.

federer did enough. he brought switzerland a gold medal, something sampras hasn't done.

fed_the_savior
05-09-2009, 02:10 AM
until some1 wins 15, yes

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 02:12 AM
I don't have to convince you that the Davis cup is prestigious, the fact that all the greats find is prestigious makes it prestigious. It's not these days, most players couldn't care less.

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 02:26 AM
Wrong.

Everyone cares. Do some research.

Federer is the odd one out with 0 Davis cups. Nadal who may well be the best of this era, has 2 Davis cups already.

It's not these days, most players couldn't care less.

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 02:32 AM
No they didn't , Fed failed himself at the Davis Cup by losing the semi for them and by rarely turning up for the last 5 years.

The doubles achievements like his doubles Gold help Fed's care in the 'doubles goat' thread where Fed would rate very lowly. :) It's totally irrelevant to the singles goat discussion.

I don't have to convince you that the Davis cup is prestigious, the fact that all the greats find is prestigious makes it prestigious. Everyone that has a sense of history remembers the contribution of the greats to the Davis cups and their Davis cups victories greatly enhances their greatness.

Both Fed and Sampras have won 0 singles medals at the Olympics. The difference is Sampras only played in 1 Olympics during his career in 1992 so he didn't prioritize it, and it was before he was #1, while Fed did prioritize it and has been chasing a singles Olympic medal all of his career. Federer has won a big 0 Olympic medals IN SINGLES in 3 Olympics, despite prioritizing the Olympics IN SINGLES. London will make it 0 from 4 if he fails again. It will be the ultimate insult if he fails again in London ON GRASS. Before the 08 Olympics Fed said:

"In my position, as someone who has won a lot of grand slams(IN SINGLES), it's right up there," he said. "Winning would mean as much to me as an Wimbledon victory".

Fed needs to worry about overcoming Nadal in this era before Fed is even compared to Sampras or other goat candidates.

no that isn't a fact. that's just your opinion unless you provide an evidence.

whatever dude. you could invent your own criteria as to who's goat but davis cup and h2h are very ridiculous it already overridden the surface factor. i find it really ridiculous that someone is even in the contention of goat after being a joke on clay.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 02:33 AM
Wrong.

Everyone cares. Do some research.

Federer is the odd one out with 0 Davis cups. Nadal who may well be the best of this era, has 2 Davis cups already. 13 GS>6 GS. Whats the point in doing research when I know I am right. Do your own research.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 02:35 AM
no that isn't a fact. that's just your opinion unless you provide an evidence.

whatever dude. you could invent your own criteria as to who's goat but davis cup and h2h are very ridiculous it already overridden the surface factor. i find it really ridiculous that someone is even in the contention of goat after being a joke on clay. Sums it up. You have to be talented on all surfaces.

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 02:43 AM
13>6 duh, Their careers havn't ended yet.:roll:

Do some proper research.

http://www.ericdsnider.com/images/stupid.jpg



13 GS>6 GS. Whats the point in doing research when I know I am right. Do your own research.

jimbo333
05-09-2009, 02:43 AM
This is coming from a Roddick and Nadal fan so im pretty sure i am unbiased:

Federer is Open era Goat followed by Sampras and Borg
Laver is all time GOAT followed by Pancho and Rosewall then Federer

Why i feel Federer > Sampras:
Stats:
Federer: Sampras:
GS wins: 13 14
GS finals: 18 18
Wks no 1: 237 286
Consec wks: 237 102
complete year 1: 3 2
Masters wins: 14 11
Year w~ 10 titles: 3 1
Year w~ 90% win %: 4 0
Clay titles: 7 3
Grass titles: 10 10
Hard titles: 38 37
Carpet titles: 2 14 (flawed cause Fed plays only 2 a year, now only 1)
Master Cup: 4 / 7 5 / 11
Career win %: 81% 77%

Now by the stats, it is clearly tied. Then in GOAT judging it goes to dominance. Like i said, Sampras has never lost less than 10 matches in his career, roger did it 4 times. Federer has made the finals of all four GS titles twice, Sampras has never made 3 major finals in a year ( Fed did this 4 time). Roger also has the longest winning streak on both grass and hard. But even that does not make Fed the GOAT.

I know this has been said so much, but how can the GOAT have won 1 big clay title, and never made a final at the clay major. Now I know Federer never won it (thank God), but 1 match should not make or break a players GOATness.

This is probably the best post I've seen on the subject, I agree, and I'm a Connors fan:)

Laver is the GOAT:):)

Cenc
05-09-2009, 02:50 AM
@luckyboy
u say: sampras was a joke on clay
ok sampras wasnt a top claycourter thats a fact
however except the RG semis he also did few good results on clay
won rome, won 2 matches in DC finals on clay
fed won like 2 or 3 hamburg titles or so
and nothing else, tell me what else he did
roland garros finals
wow, he defeated monfils and benneteau en route to this, oh yeah one year he defeated nalbanadian (ups, nalba retired)
sampras defeated courier in 96 to reach his semis
u can say sampras had few disasterous losses on clay
fed is also prone to that:
volandri, stepanek, wawrinka, gasquet
not players who should beat him, right?

Cenc
05-09-2009, 02:52 AM
btw, guys with stats, u could actually show some real evidence, not just all feds records no matter how pathetic some of them are such as
"year w~90%"
next one is: nicer hair - fed
bandana - fed
2 more things in feds favor

BorisBeckerFan
05-09-2009, 02:53 AM
This is probably the best post I've seen on the subject, I agree, and I'm a Connors fan:)

Laver is the GOAT:):)

clayman2000 made some good points but something he forgot to mention something which in my opinion is the second greatest achievement after Laver's open era slam is Sampras's 6 Year end number one ranked player in a row record. That is the greatest mark of consistently being great. That is a record that may never be equaled.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 02:54 AM
Nadal who may well be the best of this era You speaking in present tense.

+

Their careers havn't ended yet Saying that Nadal is not yet the best.

=

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/7/13/633515408813814239-epic-fail---trainwreck.jpg

BorisBeckerFan
05-09-2009, 03:00 AM
Time will tell but I would venture to say Nadal has a reasonable shot at a Grandslam. Not likely but reasonable. I think his chances of being number 1, 6 years in a row are slim if not close to zero. Fed's chance of being number 1 6 years in a row is non-existent.

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 03:12 AM
@luckyboy
u say: sampras was a joke on clay
ok sampras wasnt a top claycourter thats a fact
however except the RG semis he also did few good results on clay
won rome, won 2 matches in DC finals on clay
fed won like 2 or 3 hamburg titles or so
and nothing else, tell me what else he did
roland garros finals
wow, he defeated monfils and benneteau en route to this, oh yeah one year he defeated nalbanadian (ups, nalba retired)
sampras defeated courier in 96 to reach his semis
u can say sampras had few disasterous losses on clay
fed is also prone to that:
volandri, stepanek, wawrinka, gasquet
not players who should beat him, right?

fed won hamburg 4 times, reached monte carlo finals 3 times, rome 2 times, RG 3 times, and stopped by possibly the greatest claycourter of all time. he ended the winning streak of the clay king handing a bagel in the process. sampras had few disastrous losses on clay? lmao he already has a lot in RG alone, during his prime nonetheless. what's the excuse losing to schaller, blanco, norman, philippoussis, etc? no matter how you spin things sampras' resume on clay will continue to be a joke especially when compared to federer.

Cenc
05-09-2009, 03:17 AM
sampras had much more big wins on clay than federer thats just a fact
guy defeated bruguera, courier, agassi, kafelnikov, muster, albert costa
they were all in their primes
tell me the names of roland garros champions who were defeated by federer while being in their primes?
just dont remind me of amazing victories against davydenko or monfils plz

BorisBeckerFan
05-09-2009, 03:26 AM
sampras had much more big wins on clay than federer thats just a fact
guy defeated bruguera, courier, agassi, kafelnikov, muster, albert costa
they were all in their primes
tell me the names of roland garros champions who were defeated by federer while being in their primes?
just dont remind me of amazing victories against davydenko or monfils plz

I agree with you but I would also ad that it may not be worth stating facts to fed fans because they will say you are spinning things. I know because I use to be one. Next they'll say Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Muster, Albert Costa are jokes and that tennis is much tougher now. Asides from Nadal that is certainly not the case.

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 03:29 AM
I said Nadal may well be the best of this era. Who is #1 and who achieved more a by 22?

Do you know what 'this era ' means? Has this Era ended?:roll:

http://nothingrelevant.net/images/failing.jpg


You speaking in present tense.

+

Saying that Nadal is not yet the best.

=

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/7/13/633515408813814239-epic-fail---trainwreck.jpg

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 04:05 AM
sampras had much more big wins on clay than federer thats just a fact
guy defeated bruguera, courier, agassi, kafelnikov, muster, albert costa
they were all in their primes
tell me the names of roland garros champions who were defeated by federer while being in their primes?
just dont remind me of amazing victories against davydenko or monfils plz

well of course, for someone who regard the 90s era as the era of tennis gods, then yeah they were all big names. of course federer only defeated nadal (with a bagel), ferrero, kuerten (with a bagel), coria, gaudio, and a bunch other claycourt players who could make noise on clay had the greatest claycourt player never existed. if sampras could lose to someone like galo blanco in RG then who's to say he can't lose to davydenko on clay, one of the best baseliners of this generation. well if i'm arguing to someone who regards this generation as clown generation then i have nothing more to add.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 04:10 AM
I said Nadal may well be the best of this era. Who is #1 and who achieved more a by 22?
So you have doubt that Nadal is the best of this era (08-09)?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

I assumed because of your doubt you meant a longer period of time like 03-09. Also I don't know why you start talking about what might happen in the future talk about the present like me 13>6 still stands, you don't know what could happen to them.

Btw players care so much about the Davis cup they play in the early rounds aswell right? Very prestigious.

Also its typical of ***********s and *******s to drop to insults when they are losing the argument (Or alot of the time to start an argument, how sad) and also because of their jealously of Fed and what he has achieved.

Cenc
05-09-2009, 04:22 AM
well of course, for someone who regard the 90s era as the era of tennis gods, then yeah they were all big names. of course federer only defeated nadal (with a bagel), ferrero, kuerten (with a bagel) and a bunch other claycourt players who could make noise on clay had the greatest claycourt player never existed. if sampras could lose to someone like galo blanco in RG then who's to say he can't lose to davydenko on clay, one of the best baseliners of this generation. well if i'm arguing to someone who regards this generation as clown generation then i have nothing more to add.

lol they are not big names just for me
courier isnt a big name in tennis? agassi isnt a big name? do you know what ur talking about?
i am talking about people in their primes
federer defeated guga in 2002 when guga was extremely far from his prime due to an injury
and then in 2004, when guga was ok for like 5 months - he played just few months of solid tennis (top 20 in the world) he destroyed federer in straight sets in roland garros
he defeated ferrero in 2007 which was DEFINITELY not ferreros prime (ferreros prime was 2001-2003)
yes theres one victory (by retirement) in 2003 but it cannot count at all

so only thing that can count is one victory over completely exhausted nadal

in the other hand lets take a look at sampras' clay results (some of them)
bruguera, courier, costa, rios, muster, kafelnikov, agassi, corretja, magnus norman
in davis cup on clay 6-0 w-l record
not an extremely bad claycourter, dont u think so?

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 04:48 AM
You're assuming too much,so you still get a Fail Grade.

Nadal tried to win Davis cups and won 2 Davis Cups because it's prestigious.
Federer tried to win Davis cups because it's prestigious, but failed.

It's simple isn't it?

Davis cup doesn't suddenly become less prestigious because your favorite player loses.


http://nothingrelevant.net/images/failing.jpg




So you have doubt that Nadal is the best of this era (08-09)?



I assumed because of your doubt you meant a longer period of time like 03-09. Also I don't know why you start talking about what might happen in the future talk about the present like me 13>6 still stands, you don't know what could happen to them.

Btw players care so much about the Davis cup they play in the early rounds aswell right? Very prestigious.

Also its typical of ***********s and *******s to drop to insults when they are losing the argument (Or alot of the time to start an argument, how sad) and also because of their jealously of Fed and what he has achieved.

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 04:50 AM
lol they are not big names just for me
courier isnt a big name in tennis? agassi isnt a big name? do you know what ur talking about?
i am talking about people in their primes
federer defeated guga in 2002 when guga was extremely far from his prime due to an injury
and then in 2004, when guga was ok for like 5 months - he played just few months of solid tennis (top 20 in the world) he destroyed federer in straight sets in roland garros
he defeated ferrero in 2007 which was DEFINITELY not ferreros prime (ferreros prime was 2001-2003)
yes theres one victory (by retirement) in 2003 but it cannot count at all

so only thing that can count is one victory over completely exhausted nadal

in the other hand lets take a look at sampras' clay results (some of them)
bruguera, courier, costa, rios, muster, kafelnikov, agassi, corretja, magnus norman
in davis cup on clay 6-0 w-l record
not an extremely bad claycourter, dont u think so?

it is, for someone who claims as the goat. not reaching a single final at the premier claycourt tournament of all time can hurt a goat resume. yes, his clay record is not a joke actually, if we're not talking about a goat claim.

you can twist, turn, spin, etc. all federer's clay wins all you want. this thread is not about him after all. it's about sampras being the goat and his pathetic clay record that goes with it.

Cenc
05-09-2009, 05:19 AM
u know what is interesting? u have no argument to elaborate anything u just say
he was extremely bad
without any proof, any evidence anything
thats the easiest thing man can do: when u get something u have no answer to you just say "im right no matter what u say"
quite immature discussion isnt it? :)

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 07:00 AM
u know what is interesting? u have no argument to elaborate anything u just say
he was extremely bad
without any proof, any evidence anything
thats the easiest thing man can do: when u get something u have no answer to you just say "im right no matter what u say"
quite immature discussion isnt it? :)

LOL look who's talking. do i need to provide further proof that his clay record is pathetic for a goat? here's a challenge: can you give me at least 1 RG final appearance he's had and 5 more clay finals appearance?

you also don't have any further evidence that today's era is weak (your only way of discrediting federer's RG finals appearances) aside from your fetish of the 90s tennis. for all we know monfils can straight-set sampras on clay, nalby can bagel sampras at RG, davydenko may send sampras packing on the early rounds of RG.

Skanavis
05-09-2009, 07:43 AM
LOL look who's talking. do i need to provide further proof that his clay record is pathetic for a goat? here's a challenge: can you give me at least 1 RG final appearance he's had and 5 more clay finals appearance?

you also don't have any further evidence that today's era is weak (your only way of discrediting federer's RG finals appearances) aside from your fetish of the 90s tennis. for all we know monfils can straight-set sampras on clay, nalby can bagel sampras at RG, davydenko may send sampras packing on the early rounds of RG.

Sorry lucky boy but cenc is winning this arguement.

hoodjem
05-09-2009, 07:55 AM
I agree.

Federer is almost like Pete's Mini-Me... their game is very similar and their achievements are also very similar at this point in time. Federer is also racing against the clock for GS titles.Bud, you trouble-maker.


Sampras is in the top-ten easily, but no.

He is not the GOAT.

vtmike
05-09-2009, 08:00 AM
you also don't have any further evidence that today's era is weak (your only way of discrediting federer's RG finals appearances) aside from your fetish of the 90s tennis. for all we know monfils can straight-set sampras on clay, nalby can bagel sampras at RG, davydenko may send sampras packing on the early rounds of RG.

I agree! Nobody knows how Sampras would do today!! Who's to say he would be as successful on the new courts, with the new racquet technology...and also who would know how Fed would do on the older courts! It is just speculation to try and save your fav players legacy!

Good post!

Cenc
05-09-2009, 08:34 AM
sampras wouldnt be as good today due to slower courts
fed wouldnt be as good earlier due to faster courts
i mean, results show that slower courts favor federer much more than they favored sampras

GameSampras
05-09-2009, 08:59 AM
Bud, you trouble-maker.


Sampras is in the top-ten easily, but no.

He is not the GOAT.

Sampras only top 10? COme on now man.. Dont be so generous with Pete:confused:

380pistol
05-09-2009, 09:24 AM
and that's what makes things harder for fed. he always need to save his country from world group elimination while sampras doesn't have to worry about that. of course anyone would hardly be motivated carrying a team like that. there were quite a lot of times where fed won both his singles rubbers and still switzerland loses. he has a legit reason in not showing up this year, as his back is still definitely troubling him. you can't always be patriotic like that. with their davis cup records compared, it's either sampras is more selfish for playing less matches, or that usa is strong enough for him not to be needed in a lot of matches. both of these things cant be said for fed and switzerland.


Just stop. It doesn't make things harder. The reason Fed is playing qualifying and matches playoff matches to save Switzerland from World Group elimination, is cuz his *** isn't showing up to keep them there in the first place!!!! If Fed was showing up, and other Swiss players were not holding up their end, thus forcing Roger to save them from elimination, I could see your stance.

This year he has a legit reason, I'll give you that. 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 what about them?? He could have skipped playing in Rotterdam in Fed 2005 for eg and played couldn't he??

Sampras played in 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997 in the main draw, during his prime, Federer didn't. Pete played and played hurt himself (1994 QF vs Netherlands and 1997 F vs Sweden), he cost himself shots at slams (1994 US Open and 1998 Aus Open) to play.

Sampras showed up when needed, Federer hasn't since what 2003. 21 of his matches in DC were played before January 1st 2003. You can spin it anyway you like, but Roger is a big part of the reason Switzerland faces elimination. How many of those matches also came before Fed was Fed. You can spin it anyway you like but Roger has had opporyunities to show up and help his team in the min world group and hasn't. Sampras damn near single handidly won it for the USA in 1995. Played in 3 ties, and garnered 7 of the USA's 9 points. Now was that the team or him??? Roger has not even made an attempt.

clayman2000
05-09-2009, 10:00 AM
Ya but last i checked:

Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier >>>>>> Federer, Wawrinka, Allegro
by a wide margin. Even if Pete was out, the US could easily take the cup, but without Federer, Switzerland is done

everything is relative to the situation

380pistol
05-09-2009, 02:15 PM
Ya but last i checked:

Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier >>>>>> Federer, Wawrinka, Allegro
by a wide margin. Even if Pete was out, the US could easily take the cup, but without Federer, Switzerland is done

everything is relative to the situation

Has Federer bothered to show up and even try to have any decent run with Switzerland since 2003?? The way Federerphiles talk about him that's 2 rubbers, all they need is to scratch out one of the other 3. But no Roger hasn't made a concerted attemt, and that's due to.....

-Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier >>>>>> Federer, Wawrinka, Allegro
by a wide margin
-Allegro and Warinka aren't good enough
-the US is this and Switzerland is that

.... keep up with the excuses. If he went held up his end and the Swiss couldn't pull through, then I could see it, but he hasn't even gone. Sampras 7-0 in 1995 DC, won 7 of last 9 rubbers for the USA. Stan Smith went 3 for 3 in the final. Or are you gonna cndemn Laver for all those strong Aussi Teams, I mean he played with Hoad, Rosewall, Emerson, Roche and Newcombe. Damn!!!!!!!

And when Becker was leading Germany to how many DC, he did it with who??? The fact remains the not only did it, but made the attempt. Roger hasn't.

grafselesfan
05-09-2009, 02:25 PM
Ya but last i checked:

Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier >>>>>> Federer, Wawrinka, Allegro
by a wide margin. Even if Pete was out, the US could easily take the cup, but without Federer, Switzerland is done

everything is relative to the situation

That would make sense if you ever had all 4 of those playing Davis Cup together. If you got 2 of the 4 it would be a miracle, 1 of the 4 a rarity. When the U.S won Davis Cup on clay in 1995 Sampras was the only one who was or even wanted to play despite being the least accomplished of the 4 on the surface, and still won it himself on his worst surface. Actually Agassi was injured so also wanted to play but couldnt. Still you get my point.

grafselesfan
05-09-2009, 02:27 PM
And when Becker was leading Germany to how many DC, he did it with who??? The fact remains the not only did it, but made the attempt. Roger hasn't.

In the late 80s when Becker was bringing his Davis Cup heroics to Germany who were the other good Germans really. Stich hadnt emerged yet. Is Carl Uwe Steeb supposed to be much different than Wawrinka?

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 03:02 PM
Sampras is certainly the Open era goat by a good margin.

who else would you rate higher than Sampras and why?

If Fed becomes the best of his era, here are some of the things he has to achieve to measure up to the standards that Sampras set.

He has to try to :
win at least 14 slams possible
win at least 6 more slams than the next best guy in his era. improbable
be year end #1 in the word for 6 years in a row, impossible
win the grand slam cup(yec) at least 5 times, possible
win the davis cup at least twice, improbable
have a dominant record against his greatest rival(reverse the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal), improbable
be in the top 10 for 12 years in a row, possible
win 7 Wimbledon titles, possible
Slam final winning ratio no worse than 14-4(78%). possible
do all the above with a ps85 with a tiny head, tiny sweet spot and old string technology just kidding






Bud, you trouble-maker.


Sampras is in the top-ten easily, but no.

He is not the GOAT.

tank
05-09-2009, 03:07 PM
you prove your status by winnin slams - someting pistol pete has done better than anyone else

he is the goat

BorisBeckerFan
05-09-2009, 05:06 PM
Sampras is certainly the Open era goat by a good margin.

who else would you rate higher than Sampras and why?

If Fed becomes the best of his era, here are some of the things he has to achieve to measure up to the standards that Sampras set.

He has to try to :
win at least 14 slams possible
win at least 6 more slams than the next best guy in his era. improbable
be year end #1 in the word for 6 years in a row, impossible
win the grand slam cup(yec) at least 5 times, possible
win the davis cup at least twice, improbable
have a dominant record against his greatest rival(reverse the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal), improbable
be in the top 10 for 12 years in a row, possible
win 7 Wimbledon titles, possible
Slam final winning ratio no worse than 14-4(78%). possible
do all the above with a ps85 with a tiny head, tiny sweet spot and old string technology just kidding

I stated this earlier in the thread but I couldn't agree more with this stat. Many records seem difficult yet reasonable to break but the 6 year end #1's in row is going to stand for a very long time. That is one record Sampras might be able to take to the grave.

GameSampras
05-09-2009, 05:08 PM
Sampras is certainly the Open era goat by a good margin.

who else would you rate higher than Sampras and why?

If Fed becomes the best of his era, here are some of the things he has to achieve to measure up to the standards that Sampras set.

He has to try to :
win at least 14 slams possible
win at least 6 more slams than the next best guy in his era. improbable
be year end #1 in the word for 6 years in a row, impossible
win the grand slam cup(yec) at least 5 times, possible
win the davis cup at least twice, improbable
have a dominant record against his greatest rival(reverse the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal), improbable
be in the top 10 for 12 years in a row, possible
win 7 Wimbledon titles, possible
Slam final winning ratio no worse than 14-4(78%). possible
do all the above with a ps85 with a tiny head, tiny sweet spot and old string technology just kidding


That why there is your open Era GOAT. The king of swing. No one is going to top that resume overrall. Fed sure as heck wont. His days of World Number 1 are over.

6 years of Number 1? No one is going to break that for quite a long time

VivalaVida
05-09-2009, 05:22 PM
I think Sampras is the current GOAT. lets see what happens. I wanna wait for federer and nadal to end there careers.

egn
05-09-2009, 05:25 PM
Sampras is certainly the Open era goat by a good margin.

who else would you rate higher than Sampras and why?

If Fed becomes the best of his era, here are some of the things he has to achieve to measure up to the standards that Sampras set.

He has to try to :
win at least 14 slams possible


Agreed =]


win at least 6 more slams than the next best guy in his era. improbable


Now I don't see the importance of this...If he wins say 17 slams unrealistic but say he does and Nadal gets 14..is Fed not great because he does not have more than 6 slams of a guy in his era? Is Borg not great because he does not have 6 more slams than McEnroe etc? I think this part really makes no sense? Laver does not have 6 more slams than Rosewell.. and so on and so forth..this seems kind of pointless. If he gets 17 slams and someone else in his era finishes with 14 I think that helps his case it shows he had to beat another strong candidate for those slams..requiring he actually wins slams against that player which right now does not look like it is happening.

be year end #1 in the word for 6 years in a row, impossible


He can't do that...but if he can do a few other things I think this can be weighted out..However I do think he needs to at least be top 3 for a few more seasons.

win the grand slam cup(yec) at least 5 times, possible


Agreed here.


win the davis cup at least twice, improbable


One is good enough for me, as honestly to be frank if he can score one it will help him out immensely..I don't see why he would need two.


have a dominant record against his greatest rival(reverse the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal), improbable


Definite yes. He needs to get a lot closer to Nadal. Honestly I don't care if he finishes off say 16-19 and score the wins on those surfaces off of clay in the slam finials. He needs also make it 7-6 or something in slam finals.

be in the top 10 for 12 years in a row, possible


10 will do the trick for me..though 12 would be nice but Connors I think holds the record for this with something extreme...As long as he gets 10 I think he is okay if he can accomplish the rest.

win 7 Wimbledon titles, possible
Disagree here.. say he finishes 4 AO 1 FO 6 W 6 US...No need for 7 wimbledons..He gets that French Open title he already has one up on Sampras slam wise as with that title he ties the record and has a career grand slam.

Slam final winning ratio no worse than 14-4(78%).


I wouldn't say no worse It can't be too much worse like if he is say 16-5 nothing wrong with that..or 17-5..I mean those aren't 78% but I would rather be 16-5 or 17-5 than 14-4..

possible
do all the above with a ps85 with a tiny head, tiny sweet spot and old string technology just kidding

Lol <3 that would be amazing..especially if he did it against the poly string users.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 05:48 PM
Sampras is certainly the Open era goat by a good margin.

who else would you rate higher than Sampras and why?

If Fed becomes the best of his era, here are some of the things he has to achieve to measure up to the standards that Sampras set.

He has to try to :
win at least 14 slams possible
win at least 6 more slams than the next best guy in his era. improbable Hmm what? So you can only have one good player in a era now not two????
be year end #1 in the word for 6 years in a row, impossible
win the grand slam cup(yec) at least 5 times, possible
win the davis cup at least twice, improbable Theres no "I" in team lol you expect one person to win a Davis cup all by themselves. What if the GOAT is from a weak tennis country like um Switzerland or most countries in the world...
have a dominant record against his greatest rival(reverse the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal), improbable
be in the top 10 for 12 years in a row, possible
win 7 Wimbledon titles, possible
Slam final winning ratio no worse than 14-4(78%). possible
do all the above with a ps85 with a tiny head, tiny sweet spot and old string technology just kidding Lol do all your posts fail?

I will make a fair judgement that isn't bias as your clearly is:

1) Have atleast 75% winning rate on the 3 major surfaces of the day. (Clay, Grass and Hard)

2) Win atleast 10 GS.

3) Make atleast the final of every single slam.

4) Win the YEC 3 times atleast.

5) Win 2 Grand slams more then 4 times.

6) Have atleast 2 years winning percentage is 88% plus.

7) Finish world number one atleast 4 times.

Funny how you ignore Sampras on clay. You have to be top-5 on all surfaces in your era to qualify for GOAT and Sampras wouldn't be top 16 lol.

Pirao
05-09-2009, 05:52 PM
Lol do all your posts fail?

I will make a fair judgement that isn't bias as your clearly is:

1) Have atleast 75% winning rate on the 3 major surfaces of the day. (Clay, Grass and Hard)

2) Win atleast 10 GS.

3) Make atleast the final of every single slam.

4) Win the YEC 3 times atleast.

5) Win 2 Grand slams more then 4 times.

6) Have atleast 2 years winning percentage is 88% plus.

7) Finish world number one atleast 4 times.

Funny how you ignore Sampras on clay. You have to be top-5 on all surfaces in your era to qualify for GOAT and Sampras wouldn't be top 16 lol.

Oh, you're so unbiased, putting criteria Federer qualifies for... I'm sure it's just concidential right? :neutral:

Here is my criteria:

1)Win a calendar year Grand Slam.
2)Win Davis Cup
3) Have more than 10 slams

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 06:02 PM
Oh, you're so unbiased, putting criteria Federer qualifies for... I'm sure it's just concidential right? :neutral:

Here is my criteria:

1)Win a calendar year Grand Slam.
2)Win Davis Cup
3) Have more than 10 slams How is it bias? More then one player fits my criteria.

Federer
Laver (I would say so)

Obviously for Laver it was impossible to do it all and Borg is fairly close if we ignore his AO non-attendence and he got 2 YEC.

TheNatural
05-09-2009, 06:08 PM
You forgot- at least 2 years winning % over 87.4% in matches versus dwarfs on clay on days with temperatures over 44 degrees.:)



Lol do all your posts fail?

I will make a fair judgement that isn't bias as your clearly is:

1) Have atleast 75% winning rate on the 3 major surfaces of the day. (Clay, Grass and Hard)

2) Win atleast 10 GS.

3) Make atleast the final of every single slam.

4) Win the YEC 3 times atleast.

5) Win 2 Grand slams more then 4 times.

6) Have atleast 2 years winning percentage is 88% plus.

7) Finish world number one atleast 4 times.

Funny how you ignore Sampras on clay. You have to be top-5 on all surfaces in your era to qualify for GOAT and Sampras wouldn't be top 16 lol.

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 06:18 PM
That why there is your open Era GOAT. The king of swing. No one is going to top that resume overrall. Fed sure as heck wont. His days of World Number 1 are over.

6 years of Number 1? No one is going to break that for quite a long time

fed doesn't need to top those. his clay resume is already FAR MORE impressive than what sampras would ever dream to acheive. being a nonfactor in a surface? a goat? stop joking.

luckyboy1300
05-09-2009, 06:22 PM
Sorry lucky boy but cenc is winning this arguement.

sorry dude but if you have nothing to contribute then get your as* out of our discussion.

vicnan
05-09-2009, 06:42 PM
There is a concept in mathematics called the efficient frontier -- where you are measuring things in multiple dimensions and there are several best solutions, but none of them dominate the other best solutions in at least one dimension. Arguments of GOAT should account for all metrics, and as such the best we can infer is that these players are non-dominated in at least one metric.

I think the whole GOAT argument is misplaced. It does not make any sense mathematically, i.e., logically. All we can say is that Sampras is a non-dominated player in at least one metric for GOAT.

grafrules
05-09-2009, 06:56 PM
Chelsea_Kiwi's logic is intriguing to say the least. His/her opinion is the female GOAT is someone who never won Wimbledon when there are a bunch of women who won all the slams multiple times. His/her opinion is the male GOAT is someone who is 6-13 vs his main rival and couldnt win slams on all surfaces when his main rival at 22 already has. I could see one as just an unusual opinion but both!?

LurkingGod
05-09-2009, 08:47 PM
Can't we just say Pete & Fed are equal and leave it at that?:neutral:

- It's a given that Fed will win at least 14 slams, it just a matter of time
- Both have more slams than the next best guy in his era. Doesn't matter how many more.
- Pete year end #1 in the word for 6 years in a row = Fed 4.5 years at no.1 WITHOUT a day of droping to no.2
- Pete weakness is his poor record on clay = Fed's weakness for not having a dominant record against his greatest rival
- Pete's 7 Wimbledon titles = Fed's 5 Wimbledon titles in a row (and counting?)
- Pete's superior Slam final winning ratio = Fed's superior record for reaching Slam finals and semis

Sorry but that's how I see it.

Tennis_Monk
05-09-2009, 09:29 PM
Sampras is certainly the Open era goat by a good margin.

who else would you rate higher than Sampras and why?

If Fed becomes the best of his era, here are some of the things he has to achieve to measure up to the standards that Sampras set.

He has to try to :
win at least 14 slams possible
win at least 6 more slams than the next best guy in his era. improbable
be year end #1 in the word for 6 years in a row, impossible
win the grand slam cup(yec) at least 5 times, possible
win the davis cup at least twice, improbable
have a dominant record against his greatest rival(reverse the 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal), improbable
be in the top 10 for 12 years in a row, possible
win 7 Wimbledon titles, possible
Slam final winning ratio no worse than 14-4(78%). possible
do all the above with a ps85 with a tiny head, tiny sweet spot and old string technology just kidding

This is your opinion of what a GOAT qualification is. I respect that and leave it at that. Not that anyone cares but I dont agree with this criteria and several others dont. Why? It is slanted towards Sampras.

Let us not forget that Sampras is a Non factor for 35% of tennis season (clay season). May be if you are making a case for GOAT of 65% Of tennis tournaments, sure SAMPRAS is as good as it can get.

Tennis_Monk
05-09-2009, 09:32 PM
Can't we just say Pete & Fed are equal and leave it at that?:neutral:

- It's a given that Fed will win at least 14 slams, it just a matter of time
- Both have more slams than the next best guy in his era. Doesn't matter how many more.
- Pete year end #1 in the word for 6 years in a row = Fed 4.5 years at no.1 WITHOUT a day of droping to no.2
- Pete weakness is his poor record on clay = Fed's weakness for not having a dominant record against his greatest rival
- Pete's 7 Wimbledon titles = Fed's 5 Wimbledon titles in a row (and counting?)
- Pete's superior Slam final winning ratio = Fed's superior record for reaching Slam finals and semis

Sorry but that's how I see it.

I disagree (as if any1 cares). Sampras and Fed are not equal. Federer is much better. Sampras is a non factor for Clay season. Federer is dominant on clay and is the second best player. This is a very important factor. Clay season is about 35% of calendar tennis season.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 09:37 PM
Chelsea_Kiwi's logic is intriguing to say the least. His/her opinion is the female GOAT is someone who never won Wimbledon when there are a bunch of women who won all the slams multiple times. His/her opinion is the male GOAT is someone who is 6-13 vs his main rival and couldnt win slams on all surfaces when his main rival at 22 already has. I could see one as just an unusual opinion but both!? grafrules logic is more intriguing. He/she thinks that Nadal is the GOAT as he is the only player in the history of tennis to win a slam on all 3 surfaces. He/she has also misinterpreted my point about Seles being the female GOAT. I was just saying before the stabbing Seles was well on track of becoming the GOAT and still is up there despite the stabbing. Funny that he/she finds thinking Fed is the GOAT unusual considering most people consider him the GOAT or atleast second after Laver.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 09:38 PM
This is your opinion of what a GOAT qualification is. I respect that and leave it at that. Not that anyone cares but I dont agree with this criteria and several others dont. Why? It is slanted towards Sampras.

Let us not forget that Sampras is a Non factor for 35% of tennis season (clay season). May be if you are making a case for GOAT of 65% Of tennis tournaments, sure SAMPRAS is as good as it can get. I care about your opinion though expect every *********** and fan to ignore this as this point completly rules Sampras out of GOAT discussions.

grafrules
05-09-2009, 09:52 PM
grafrules logic is more intriguing. He/she thinks that Nadal is the GOAT as he is the only player in the history of tennis to win a slam on all 3 surfaces. He/she has also misinterpreted my point about Seles being the female GOAT. I was just saying before the stabbing Seles was well on track of becoming the GOAT and still is up there despite the stabbing. Funny that he/she finds thinking Fed is the GOAT unusual considering most people consider him the GOAT or atleast second after Laver.

I dont think Nadal is the GOAT. However he will surpass Federer on the GOAT list whether he eventually becomes the GOAT or not. If Nadal gets to within even 3 slams of Federer, whatever Fed's final tally ends up being, he rates over Federer since he owned their rivalry (please dont tell me you have any delusions Federer is going to narrow the gap in their head to head rivalry at this point). Nadal has schooled Federer head to head, beating him in slam finals on every surface, never losing to Federer or even going to 5 sets with him on his surface, beating Federer on Nadal's worst surface repeatedly as a 17 and 18 year old, at this point leading him 5-2 in slams and 13-6 overall. Plus he is almost certain to achieve the Career slam at some point whether he ever achieves the Calender Slam or not. So Nadal with say 12 slam titles would rate over Federer with 15 given all this.

Most people consider Federer the GOAT or 2nd to Laver? Just curious whom are these most people.

Seles is still "up there" despite the stabbing? Seles right now ranks as either the 9th or 10th greatest player of all time behind all of Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Connolly, King, and a toss up with Serena Williams. So not too far up there. As for without the stabbing the only way Seles ever had the slightest hope of being on her to way to being the female GOAT is if Wimbledon was moved to clay. Since I dont believe this accomodation would be made for her then no.

timnz
05-09-2009, 10:17 PM
Lendl was great and very consistent at losing in Slam finals. LOL.

How many slam finals did he lose? Some ridiculous amount. Could u imagine if Lendl would have actually won those finals?


19 Slam finals.. and only 8 slams to show for it

You mean he would have been a much more impressive player if he had lost in the semi-finals of the those 11 tournaments he was a losing finalist. Then his record would be 8 of 8 - 100%. Never understood the logic of depreciating Lendl's accomplishments because he lost 11 slam finals. Which is a better achievement - getting to a Grand Slam final or losing in the first round? Obviously getting to a final is an achievement in itself - not as good as winning it, but still very good.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-09-2009, 10:22 PM
I dont think Nadal is the GOAT. However he will surpass Federer on the GOAT list whether he eventually becomes the GOAT or not. If Nadal gets to within even 3 slams of Federer, whatever Fed's final tally ends up being, he rates over Federer since he owned their rivalry (please dont tell me you have any delusions Federer is going to narrow the gap in their head to head rivalry at this point). Nadal has schooled Federer head to head, beating him in slam finals on every surface, never losing to Federer or even going to 5 sets with him on his surface, beating Federer on Nadal's worst surface repeatedly as a 17 and 18 year old, at this point leading him 5-2 in slams and 13-6 overall. Plus he is almost certain to achieve the Career slam at some point whether he ever achieves the Calender Slam or not. So Nadal with say 12 slam titles would rate over Federer with 15 given all this.

Most people consider Federer the GOAT or 2nd to Laver? Just curious whom are these most people.

Seles is still "up there" despite the stabbing? Seles right now ranks as either the 9th or 10th greatest player of all time behind all of Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Connolly, King, and a toss up with Serena Williams. So not too far up there. As for without the stabbing the only way Seles ever had the slightest hope of being on her to way to being the female GOAT is if Wimbledon was moved to clay. Since I dont believe this accomodation would be made for her then no. Thats your opinion.

Just look at the many threads that have Fed in 1/2/3 in their GOAT threads. Sampras for some unknown reason is up there despite his achievements on clay.

Also he is second on the poll "Greatest mens grass court player" (I voted for Laver however)
First by most peoples opinions in "Greatest mens hardcourt player"