PDA

View Full Version : Is Federer now the GOAT?


bank5
06-07-2009, 09:33 AM
One vote for yes.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 09:37 AM
He certainly has a legitimate case. Whos to say though. He avoided some great players who could have taken him out.

He needs to take out Nadal at a slam or two, to solidify himself I think

Aykhan Mammadov
06-07-2009, 09:38 AM
If GOAT means not only "one of greatest" but really means " the greatest between all great players" then the answer is BOLD YES. He is the greatest player in the history of the humankind after today.

Cenc
06-07-2009, 09:38 AM
simply: no
wins over soderling arent something that makes greatest players of all times
he still has losing record with 2 or 3 main rivals and just 4 years as world number 1

Cesc Fabregas
06-07-2009, 09:38 AM
Laver won 2 calander slams its taken Federer years to win the career slam how is Fed above Laver?

grimmbomb21
06-07-2009, 09:42 AM
No. But he should send thank you cards to the players that upset the rest of the big four. Soderling deserves a nice watch or even a sports car.

grafselesfan
06-07-2009, 09:45 AM
No. But he should send thank you cards to the players that upset the rest of the big four. Soderling deserves a nice watch or even a sports car.

Federer playing like he did today would have destroyed either Djokovic or Murray (on clay). Djokovic has some success vs Roger only because he is such a good player, but he isnt a tough matchup for Roger like Nadal and Murray are. If Federer plays reasonably well he will pretty much always beat Djokovic, and today he played extremely well. Murray on clay isnt that good yet, he would have been dust facing Federer's barrage today on this surface. Only Nadal would have even had a shot vs Federer today, and with his health/physical situation right now even that is probably doubtful unless Federer had a bit of a mental breakdown from facing Nadal which is quite possible.

Rexking
06-07-2009, 09:45 AM
Laver won 2 calander slams its taken Federer years to win the career slam how is Fed above Laver?

um..calender slams with 3 of the 4 slams played on grass is not a legitimate comparison with todays grand slams which are played on 4 different surfaces. It is a much greater achievement today.

malakas
06-07-2009, 09:47 AM
hahah anyone see gamesampras thread bout rafa novak and murray tanking get deleted haha shame

yes!I didn't even get the chance to respond!:cry: :cry: so unfair!

maximo
06-07-2009, 09:47 AM
Federphiles

That's a new word in my book. LOL

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 09:48 AM
Fed aint GOAT. It took lightning to strike twice with Djoker and Nadal getting taken out and a clown draw of clown draws for Roger to even win an RG title

paterson
06-07-2009, 09:49 AM
Yes, Federer is the GOAT. He is the most complete champion in the modern era. He plays on a championship level on the 2 hardcourt major surfaces, Wimbledon and now clay. The H2H with Nadal is distorted because of the number of clay matches. Clay is Federer's worst surface. He gets my vote.

Dutch-Guy
06-07-2009, 09:49 AM
The umpteenth GOAT thread.Ughhhhhhhhhhhhh

Cenc
06-07-2009, 09:49 AM
No. But he should send thank you cards to the players that upset the rest of the big four. Soderling deserves a nice watch or even a sports car.

:D good one man

malakas
06-07-2009, 09:50 AM
That's a new word in my book. LOL

philes = friends.You can make countless such words with this in the end.



Fed aint GOAT. It took lightning to strike twice with Djoker and Nadal getting taken out and a clown draw of clown draws for Roger to even win an RG title

come onn..don't make me quote you again.We know how you really feel!I even put this in my sig!:)

malakas
06-07-2009, 09:52 AM
Federer playing like he did today would have destroyed either Djokovic or Murray (on clay). Djokovic has some success vs Roger only because he is such a good player, but he isnt a tough matchup for Roger like Nadal and Murray are. If Federer plays reasonably well he will pretty much always beat Djokovic, and today he played extremely well. Murray on clay isnt that good yet, he would have been dust facing Federer's barrage today on this surface. Only Nadal would have even had a shot vs Federer today, and with his health/physical situation right now even that is probably doubtful unless Federer had a bit of a mental breakdown from facing Nadal which is quite possible.

who are you and what happened to real grafselsfan?:shock:

maximo
06-07-2009, 09:52 AM
[QUOTE=malakas;3530607]philes = friends.You can make countless such words with this in the end.

The things people come up with is just soo funny. ;)

Seany
06-07-2009, 09:52 AM
I hate the phrase "GOAT"...it's over used.

Federer is the BPTEL, the best player that ever lived.

Screw goat.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 09:53 AM
Fed playing the way he did through the whole slam having trouble against Mathieu, Haas and Del Potro would not have been enough to take out both Nadal and Djoker b2b, End of story. We all know its true

Kaptain Karl
06-07-2009, 09:54 AM
Why don't we wait until he retires? By then all these silly discussions may be moot.

- KK

Docalex007
06-07-2009, 09:54 AM
Laver won 2 calander slams its taken Federer years to win the career slam how is Fed above Laver?

1) Laver had basically no competition back then (not many pros back then either)

2) Weren't most of them on one surface? Yeah. :)

Case closed.

Seany
06-07-2009, 09:55 AM
Fed playing the way he did through the whole slam having trouble against Mathieu, Haas and Del Potro would not have been enough to take out both Nadal and Djoker b2b, End of story. We all know its true

Not feds fault that rafa and Novak suck so much that they can't even make it to the 2nd week...what is Roger supposed to do?

corners
06-07-2009, 09:56 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jRgKD28VMw8FWfbPwI1xgQ13Iq7AD98LURL81

lambielspins
06-07-2009, 09:56 AM
He avoided some great players who could have taken him out.

Everybody has. Unless you invent a time machine and put Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Federer, Borg, Sampras, Perry, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Nadal all in it together this will remain true. I see you are a Sampras fan by your name but Sampras's biggest competition was Agassi who while a great player probably isnt even a top 15 player alltime. Nadal will almost certainly outrank Agassi by the end of his career and he is Federer's biggest rival. Laver and Borg had the toughest overall competition of anyone, and even they avoided many great player who could take them out since it is impossible to not do so unless you invented the time machine.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 09:57 AM
1) Laver had basically no competition back then (not many pros back then either)

2) Weren't most of them on one surface? Yeah. :)

Case closed.

You got your facts wrong and now the case is closed?

Hilarious stuff. This board is a hoot, just as anticipated.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 09:58 AM
1) Laver had basically no competition back then (not many pros back then either)

2) Weren't most of them on one surface? Yeah. :)

Case closed.

Laver had no competiton? What the hell do u call Fed's clown RG draw? Competition? When he only had to deal with 1 damn top 10 player the whole time? THATS NO COMPETITION my friend

bank5
06-07-2009, 09:58 AM
I hate the phrase "GOAT"...it's over used.

Federer is the BPTEL, the best player that ever lived.

Screw goat.

How about just "greatest ever"? I don't think many people know what BPTEL means.

DoubleDeuce
06-07-2009, 09:59 AM
You got your facts wrong and now the case is closed?

Hilarious stuff. This board is a hoot, just as anticipated.

Laver was a good badminton player.

Get over it.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 10:00 AM
Everybody has. Unless you invent a time machine and put Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Federer, Borg, Sampras, Perry, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Nadal all in it together this will remain true. I see you are a Sampras fan by your name but Sampras's biggest competition was Agassi who while a great player probably isnt even a top 15 player alltime. Nadal will almost certainly outrank Agassi by the end of his career and he is Federer's biggest rival. Laver and Borg had the toughest overall competition of anyone, and even they avoided many great player who could take them out since it is impossible to not do so unless you invented the time machine.


Maybe Nadal will overtake Andre. Who knows though. Thats if Nadal can even get his footing back now because of his injuries. Nadal was insignificant on hardcourts for years during Fed's domination. So thats one less major player Fed had to deal with during that time. And Nadal may not even come back in top form. He cant even make it through a whole season healthy and lost alot of points getting taken out early at the french.

Ballinbob
06-07-2009, 10:01 AM
Fed aint GOAT. It took lightning to strike twice with Djoker and Nadal getting taken out and a clown draw of clown draws for Roger to even win an RG title

Agreed..... I've never seen an easier draw

DoubleDeuce
06-07-2009, 10:01 AM
Laver was too short to compete in today's game. He could do as good as Davydenko, and that's about it.

bank5
06-07-2009, 10:04 AM
Laver was a good badminton player.

Get over it.

Like most sports the game has changed quite a bit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

navratilovafan
06-07-2009, 10:04 AM
Fed aint GOAT. It took lightning to strike twice with Djoker and Nadal getting taken out and a clown draw of clown draws for Roger to even win an RG title

I now realize more than ever you are such a hypocritical joke. You often pump up your 2nd favorite player Agassi by speaking in the reverential over his career slam. His French Open title was an even bigger joke than Federer's if one examines the circumstances and the overall event yet that is something you never acknowledged. If he had played Kuerten his chances would have been even less than Federer's vs Nadal. He was having mighty trouble with Kuerten on hard courts around then, being spanked by Kuerten on hard courts in easy straight sets twice in big events in 2000. On clay he wouldnt have had a hope in hell if they played. Rios, the 2nd best clay courter at the time, who went out the round before he played Agassi would have been far more likely to take Agassi out than Djokovic take Federer out. Rios had an easy time with Agassi on hard courts those times they played within the previous 15 months of that match, so imagine on clay. Djokovic has only 1 career win over Federer on clay in a match Federer played like garbage and still choked away a big lead, and is overall nowhere near as accomplished as Federer or as strong a big match player as Federer. If beating Soderling in the final is a joke than what about beating a way past his prime 100th ranked Medvedev. Oh yeah Federer did in commanding fashion in the final atleast, not an ugly 5 setter requiring the opponent to choke it away after killing you in the first half the way Agassi did in his final. If you point out Medvedev even in the obvious twilight of his career was having a great tournament and beat Kuerten and Sampras by the time Sampras had become sucky on clay late in his career, then I would point out Soderling was having a great tournament and beat Rafa, Davydenko, and Gonzalez which overall is even better. If struggling vs Haas and Mathieu is bad then what is struggling with Clement, Squillari, and Hrbaty.

Agassi's French Open title was 3x as lucky and under crazy circumstances as Federer so if you are going to gush over Agassi's career slam then you sure as heck had better credit Federer's. I will be happy to bring up your comments here anytime I notice you bringing up Agassi's career slam in the Former Pro Player section from now on and expose your hypocriticy for all to see.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 10:06 AM
You are such a hypocritical joke. You often pump up your 2nd favorite player Agassi by lording over his career slam. His French Open title was an even bigger joke than Federer's yet that is something you never acknowledged. If he had played Kuerten his chances would have been even less than Federer's vs Nadal. He was having mighty trouble with Kuerten on hard courts around then, being spanked by Kuerten on hard courts in easy straight sets twice in big events in 2000. On clay he wouldnt have had a hope in hell if they played. Rios, the 2nd best clay courter at the time, who went out the round before he played Agassi would have been far more likely to take Agassi out than Djokovic take Federer out. Rios had an easy time with Agassi on hard courts within the last 15 months of that match, so imagine on clay. Djokovic has only 1 career win over Federer on clay in a match Federer played like garbage and still choked away a big lead. If beating Soderling in the final is a joke than what about beating a way past his prime 100th ranked Medvedev. Oh yeah Federer did in commanding fashion, not an ugly 5 setter requiring the opponent to choke it away after killing you in the first half. If you point out Medvedev was having a great tournament and beat Kuerten and Sampras by the time Sampras had become sucky on clay late in his career, then I would point out Soderling was having a great tournament and beat Rafa, Davydenko, and Gonzalez which overall is even better. If struggling vs Haas and Mathieu is bad then what is struggling with Clement, Squillari, and Hrbaty.

Agassi's French Open title was 3x as lucky and under crazy circumstances as Federer so if you are going to lord over Agassi's career slam then you sure as heck had better credit Federer's.



All I know is...

Martin
Acususo
Monfils
Haas
Del Potro
Soderling.

One top 10 player in the whole draw Fed had to deal with. There it is.. Read em and wheap.

And Speaking of Kuerten, even Guga with a plastic hip, old and decrepid straight set whooped Roger at the French

beernutz
06-07-2009, 10:10 AM
He certainly has a legitimate case. Whos to say though. He avoided some great players who could have taken him out.

He needs to take out Nadal at a slam or two, to solidify himself I think

Been there, done that.

It is really too bad for Pete that you don't have 1% of the class he does. I am sure if he knew what you were doing he'd ask you to stop.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 10:12 AM
Laver was a good badminton player.

Get over it.

Yeah, this makes perfect sense.

navratilovafan
06-07-2009, 10:15 AM
All I know is...

Martin
Acususo
Monfils
Haas
Del Potro
Soderling.

One top 10 player in the whole draw Fed had to deal with. There it is.. Read em and wheap.

And Speaking of Kuerten, even Guga with a plastic hip, old and decrepid straight set whooped Roger at the French

and even if he had a plastic hip he probably would have still hammered Agassi at the 99 French if they had played. Agassi owes Medvedev an even bigger thank you gift than Federer owes Soderling. Actually he owes him two, one for taking care of Kuerten who Agassi had 0 shot against, the other for gifting him the final on a silver platter with many ribbons on it after making a fool of Agassi for over 2 sets before one of the ugliest chokes and collapses in recent major final history. Combine the two together and he should purchase Medvedev a mansion. Here is Agassi's draw to win the French:

First round- 38th ranked Franco Squillari. Lost first set 6-3, and barely won 2nd and 3rd sets 7-5 each.

Second round- 81th ranked Arnaud Clement. Was 2 points from a 4 set defeat before Clement cramped right at that moment exactly pretty much.

Third round- 158th ranked Chris Woodruff (who had still beaten Agassi at the French 3 years earlier)

Fourth round- 4th ranked Moya who he trailed a set and two breaks in the 2nd before the choke.

Quarters- 140th ranked something Filippini

Semis- 30th ranked Dominik Hrbaty who he was in some trouble against before the rain delay. A tough 4 set win.

Final- 100th ranked way past his prime Andrei Medvedev. Still hammered Agassi 6-1, 6-2 in the first two sets before a huge collapse.

Just one top 10 player, same as Federer, an even bigger joke draw all around and even more trouble and help getting through it. Again if you are going to ever continue praising the Agassi career slam you have no choice but to praise the Federer career slam. If you insist on mocking Federer's French Open title, Agassi's is even more easy to mock and ridicule so have it your way. The only reason I am bringing this up is I have seen you many times in the Former Pro Section gushing over Agassi's Career Slam. Fine, if you want to use that to promote him while being consistent with others who achieved it then go ahead, but dont think for even a second you are going to be able to continue to do that and now diminish Federer's Career Slam when Agassi's was won under even more fortunate circumstances. If Federer's Career Slam is somehow worthless and a fluke, Agassi's was even moreso given the way the 99 French panned out. Silly that you thought you would get away with that kind of two faced logic with nobody calling you out on it. To be expected as you use that kind of two faced argument all the time.

8PAQ
06-07-2009, 10:15 AM
Fed aint GOAT. It took lightning to strike twice with Djoker and Nadal getting taken out and a clown draw of clown draws for Roger to even win an RG title

You mean like 1997 AO win for Sampras?

navratilovafan
06-07-2009, 10:23 AM
You mean like 1997 AO win for Sampras?

Well lets take a look at that shall we:

First round- 169th ranked Pescariu guy.
Second round- 48th ranked clay court specialist Voinea, went 4 sets
Third round- 28th ranked doubles specailist Mark Woodroffe
Round of 16- 76th ranked Dominik Hrbaty, a future top 20 player. Was down 4-2 and break points for a double break deficit in the 5th set before reallying.
Quarters- 13th ranked clay court specialist Albert Costa, a tough 5 setter.
Semis- 5th ranked clay court specailist Thomas Muster, in his only ever hard court slam semi.
Finals- 25th ranked Carlos Moya in his first slam final

Yet again only 1 top 10 player, lots of trouble with alot of these "lower ranked" type guys, in these cases not even really hard court players. I suppose somehow GameSampras will try to spin this into something extraordinary while continue to argue Federer's French Open triumph here is a something much less.

AAAA
06-07-2009, 10:31 AM
All I know is...

Martin
Acususo
Monfils
Haas
Del Potro
Soderling.

One top 10 player in the whole draw Fed had to deal with. There it is.. Read em and wheap.

And Speaking of Kuerten, even Guga with a plastic hip, old and decrepid straight set whooped Roger at the French

Sampras's Wimbledon 2000 run:

1R : Vanek (3-0 in sets)
2R : Kucera ( 3-1 in sets)
3R : Gimelstob (3-1 in sets)
4R : Björkman (3-0 in sets) (best results in doubles)
QF : Jan Michael Gambill (3-1 in sets)
SF : Vladimir Voltchkov (3-0 in sets) (Qualifer in the semi's WTF)
F: Rafter (seed #12) (3-1 in sets)

No top 10 players to deal with and none competitive enough to push Sampras to 5 sets.

Federer by comparison played at least two 5 setters and a number #5 seed.

There it is.. Read em and wheap

Indeed. Get over it.

navratilovafan
06-07-2009, 10:38 AM
GameSampras leaves his arguments so open to being exposed for giant holes that it isnt even funny.

cueboyzn
06-07-2009, 10:48 AM
Federer playing like he did today would have destroyed either Djokovic or Murray (on clay). Djokovic has some success vs Roger only because he is such a good player, but he isnt a tough matchup for Roger like Nadal and Murray are. If Federer plays reasonably well he will pretty much always beat Djokovic, and today he played extremely well. Murray on clay isnt that good yet, he would have been dust facing Federer's barrage today on this surface. Only Nadal would have even had a shot vs Federer today, and with his health/physical situation right now even that is probably doubtful unless Federer had a bit of a mental breakdown from facing Nadal which is quite possible.

I Agree.

The only reason Murray and Djokevich have good recent records against Federer is because they are playing him in tournaments he literally doesn't give a toss about anymore, and are all the best of 3 sets.

The last time Federer played Djokovic in a Grand Slam was at the US Open where he handed him a handy defeat in the semi-final.

The last (and only) time Federer played Murray in a Grand Slam he turned him into dust in the US Open final in New York.

In both those matches Roger played like the old Roger we all know.

Easier to beat the Master in tournaments that mean little to him now but still mean a lot to them, they are still young/hungry. Federer is hungry for only one thing: Grand Slams. Either of them (Murray, Djoker) in the final today would have gotten squashed in 3 or 4 sets.

Speranza
06-07-2009, 10:50 AM
Fed aint GOAT. It took lightning to strike twice with Djoker and Nadal getting taken out and a clown draw of clown draws for Roger to even win an RG title

Fed playing the way he did through the whole slam having trouble against Mathieu, Haas and Del Potro would not have been enough to take out both Nadal and Djoker b2b, End of story. We all know its true



Usually I just pass such comments off as immature or having lack of depth, but can’t do on this these two.

Let me ask you this, what is the point of ANY slam having the amount of players other than the top current 4 for you? Why not just have a round robin style for the top 4 and whoever does the best, wins? Like an even smaller end of seasons masters. Wouldn’t this please you more? TOUGH – you can only play the guy in front of you. Djokovic wasn’t good enough this time to reach the semis to meet Roger. That is HIS fault, because of HIS playing. (The same way that it was Roger’s fault that he couldn’t beat Nadal the last 3 years). Furthermore, even without playing at his best he got through the matches you mentioned. Where as Djoker and Murray didn’t. Neither did his very own nemesis this time.

Yours (and many others too) sense of reasoning just doesn’t make sense – Fed even playing the way he did WOULD have taken out Novak and Andy playing the way THEY were, because although his level wasn’t his best, it was better than both Gonsalez and Kohls. in those matches.

By you reasoning, the ONLY way for any player to reach a GOAT status (and by definition GOAT has faults as changes in the game/equipment/fitness etc. over timelines change) is for ALL said players to be playing at their peak of ability and fitness, both mentally and physically. All guys at 100%. But guess what? That will never happen, what they do is try and play at such a level, in tournaments known as Grandslams and Masters events (at least for the ATP).

Sorry, I’m a Fed fan, but I know that his level on clay is not as consistent as Nadal. Nadal wasn’t good enough because of whatever reason (please fill in yourselves what you believe here) to get there this time, neither were the other two of the four. This year, Fed was. Please just accept it, and stop making poor excuses that he isn’t deserving a possible greatest of all time accolade. His records alone prove that he is.

Second thoughts, I might just pass your comments of as indeed being immature with lack of depth.

AAAA
06-07-2009, 10:56 AM
GameSampras leaves his arguments so open to being exposed for giant holes that it isnt even funny.

The debate should be over. No big deal though cos' Federer is the French Open Champion of 2009. I thought I'd never have the chance to write that.

vtmike
06-07-2009, 10:59 AM
Laver had no competiton? What the hell do u call Fed's clown RG draw? Competition? When he only had to deal with 1 damn top 10 player the whole time? THATS NO COMPETITION my friend

Sampras said. "I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jRgKD28VMw8FWfbPwI1xgQ13Iq7AD98LVS1O0

cueboyzn
06-07-2009, 11:08 AM
The debate should be over. No big deal though cos' Federer is the French Open Champion of 2009. I thought I'd never have the chance to write that.

:) Well now you do :)

maximo
06-07-2009, 11:10 AM
Sampras said. "I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jRgKD28VMw8FWfbPwI1xgQ13Iq7AD98LVS1O0

I don't really like Federer, but GameSampras just got owned.

Cesc Fabregas
06-07-2009, 11:15 AM
Lets go through Roger's draw

Martin- A nobody
Acasuso- Never done anything at the slams in his career and Fed still relied on his choking 4 sets points in the 1st set and a 5-1 lead in the 3rd set
Mathieu- Again never done anything and Fed had to go back from a set to beat him.
Haas- Old and past his prime whats he done in the last 2 years? and Roger still relied on Haas throwing away a 2 set lead and Haas had 2 break points at 4-3 in the 3rd.
Monflis- Clearly not fully fit
Del Potro- Playing in his 1st slam semi and was leading Roger 2 sets to 1.
Sonderling- Playing in his 1st slam final and never been beyond the 3rd round in a slam before.

I would say thats a extremly soft draw and Federer should count his blessings.

AAAA
06-07-2009, 11:22 AM
Lets go through Roger's draw

Martin- A nobody
Acasuso- Never done anything at the slams in his career and Fed still relied on his choking 4 sets points in the 1st set and a 5-1 lead in the 3rd set
Mathieu- Again never done anything and Fed had to go back from a set to beat him.
Haas- Old and past his prime whats he done in the last 2 years? and Roger still relied on Haas throwing away a 2 set lead and Haas had 2 break points at 4-3 in the 3rd.
Monflis- Clearly not fully fit
Del Potro- Playing in his 1st slam semi and was leading Roger 2 sets to 1.
Sonderling- Playing in his 1st slam final and never been beyond the 3rd round in a slam before.

I would say thats a extremly soft draw and Federer should count his blessings.

Sampras's Wimbledon 2000 run:

1R : Vanek (3-0 in sets)
2R : Kucera ( 3-1 in sets)
3R : Gimelstob (3-1 in sets)
4R : Björkman (3-0 in sets) (best results in doubles)
QF : Jan Michael Gambill (3-1 in sets)
SF : Vladimir Voltchkov (3-0 in sets) (Qualifer in the semi's WTF)
F: Rafter (seed #12) (3-1 in sets)

No top 10 players to deal with and none competitive enough to push Sampras to 5 sets.

Federer by comparison played at least two 5 setters and a number #5 seed.

vtmike
06-07-2009, 11:23 AM
Sampras's Wimbledon 2000 run:

1R : Vanek (3-0 in sets)
2R : Kucera ( 3-1 in sets)
3R : Gimelstob (3-1 in sets)
4R : Björkman (3-0 in sets) (best results in doubles)
QF : Jan Michael Gambill (3-1 in sets)
SF : Vladimir Voltchkov (3-0 in sets) (Qualifer in the semi's WTF)
F: Rafter (seed #12) (3-1 in sets)

No top 10 players to deal with and none competitive enough to push Sampras to 5 sets.

Federer by comparison played at least two 5 setters and a number #5 seed.

LMAO! You just owned Cesc Fabregas! :lol:

Cesc Fabregas
06-07-2009, 11:24 AM
Sampras's Wimbledon 2000 run:

1R : Vanek (3-0 in sets)
2R : Kucera ( 3-1 in sets)
3R : Gimelstob (3-1 in sets)
4R : Björkman (3-0 in sets) (best results in doubles)
QF : Jan Michael Gambill (3-1 in sets)
SF : Vladimir Voltchkov (3-0 in sets) (Qualifer in the semi's WTF)
F: Rafter (seed #12) (3-1 in sets)

No top 10 players to deal with and none competitive enough to push Sampras to 5 sets.

Federer by comparison played at least two 5 setters and a number #5 seed.


Sampras was injured during that Wimbledon that makes up for the easy draw.

AAAA
06-07-2009, 11:27 AM
:) Well now you do :)

I've hoped for years Federer would win the French Open and I said years ago Federer would need to wait for a window of opportunity and when the chance came Federer like a champion raised his game getting better and better as he went through Hass, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling.

AAAA
06-07-2009, 11:29 AM
Sampras was injured during that Wimbledon that makes up for the easy draw.

Can't beat an 'injured' opponent? what 'clowns' they are.

tudwell
06-07-2009, 11:31 AM
Voltchkov was 256 in the world. That's right, 256!! In a slam semi. This is the draw Sampras needed to break the slam record. Next year, he faced some quality opposition. Federer. Guess what? He lost.

F: Rafter (seed #12) (3-1 in sets)

Rafter was seeded 12? At the time, he was ranked 21 (or so says the ATP website). Which would mean Sampras didn't play a single top 20 player.

malakas
06-07-2009, 11:31 AM
I've hoped for years Federer would win the French Open and I said years ago Federer would need to wait for a window of opportunity and when the chance came Federer like a champion raised his game getting better and better as he went through Hass, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling.

YUP.That's what I admire about him the most.After loss and loss and loss he never gave up.He never stop believing he had a chance and kept trying.


btw BBC did a poll if Fed is GOAT and the results were:85% yes and only 15% no with 18832 votes.

imalil2gangsta4u
06-07-2009, 11:34 AM
Sampras was injured during that Wimbledon that makes up for the easy draw.

Oh please, you got owned.

All-rounder
06-07-2009, 11:34 AM
Sampras was injured during that Wimbledon that makes up for the easy draw.
Sampras was injured?? that just shows what weaklings they were if they can barely get a set off a injured sampras

Cesc Fabregas
06-07-2009, 11:36 AM
Sampras was injured?? that just shows what weaklings they were if they can barely get a set off a injured sampras

Yes Sampras was injured he had a shin injury and could not pratice between matches.

AAAA
06-07-2009, 11:39 AM
LMAO! You just owned Cesc Fabregas! :lol:

It's an effective BS antidote. I have a few copies as you never know when they might come in handy.

henryshli
06-07-2009, 11:48 AM
Laver won 2 calander slams its taken Federer years to win the career slam how is Fed above Laver?

because it was easier to defend a slam then. Plus. The competition isn't as strong. So jusging by your post you are measuring the goat simply by achievment? Isn't a very good way.

BTURNER
06-07-2009, 11:53 AM
Here's the deal. This victory is a reward, not for an easy draw, but for a habit. He has made it to the semis or better in all of the last 20 slams regardless of surface, how he felt or the competition. THAT is what makes a champion. It gets him slams other champions don't get, because he is where he needs to be when opportunity strikes. All champions have lucky draws. Some would have capitalized more, had they the discipline to get through those scares in the early rounds when they weren't at their best.

this slam isn't about Nadal's failure, its about Federer being one of the most consistent of modern champions, and being able to come through in that final.

tintin
06-07-2009, 11:54 AM
nobloody question about it

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 11:55 AM
Here's the deal. This victory is a reward, not for an easy draw, but for a habit. He has made it to the semis or better in all of the last 20 slams and THAT is what makes a champion. It gets him slams other champions don't get, because he is where he needs to be when opportunity strikes. All champions have lucky draws. Some would have capitalized more, had they the discipline to get through those scares in the early rounds when they weren't at their best.

Agreed 100%.

DoubleDeuce
06-07-2009, 11:58 AM
Today I remembered that Forehand at Break point in Haas match. Haas would've served for the match.

What a difference.

BreakPoint
06-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Anyone who thinks that any player only won any Grand Slam because they had "an easy draw" are.......wait for it.......MORONS!!!!

Go look at any record book. It only states the name of the champion of that particular Grand Slam tournament. There is no notation nor asterisk that says - "won due to an easy draw".

Just three words - "GET OVER IT!!!!"

Oh, and who did Nadal beat in the final to win HIS first French Open? Mariano Puerta. So did Nadal not really win that FO? I rest my case.

:-?

Cesc Fabregas
06-07-2009, 12:00 PM
Anyone who thinks that any player only won any Grand Slam because they had "an easy draw" are.......wait for it.......MORONS!!!!

Go look at any record book. It only states the name of the champion of that particular Grand Slam tournament. There is no notation nor asterisk that says - "won due to an easy draw".

Just three words - "GET OVER IT!!!!"

Oh, and who did Nadal beat in the final to win HIS first French Open? Mariano Puerta. So did Nadal not really win that FO? I rest my case.

:-?



Nadal beat Federer in the semis in the 2005 French Open.

sliceroni
06-07-2009, 12:04 PM
20 slam semis in a row, longest consecutive wks at #1, my vote for GOAT..Sampras, Agassi, and Jmac believe he is too.

Blue Drop
06-07-2009, 12:04 PM
Mac said at least twice today that Fed is now the GOAT. Agassi said it, too. Sampras himself said it. What more do you want? It's decided.

BreakPoint
06-07-2009, 12:05 PM
Nadal beat Federer in the semis in the 2005 French Open.
So? Was Federer the defending champion? Nope.

Does anyone remember everyone Agassi had to beat to win his FO?

Does anyone remember everyone who Laver had to beat to win his two calendar Slams?

No! Because IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!

johnmcc516
06-07-2009, 12:10 PM
Fed playing the way he did through the whole slam having trouble against Mathieu, Haas and Del Potro would not have been enough to take out both Nadal and Djoker b2b, End of story. We all know its true

Fortunately, Nadal and Djoker weren't good enough this year to make it that deep in the tournament. Call Fed whatever you want, most accomplished, greatest ever, one of the greatest.

IMO he is the greatest player of the modern era to ever play Tennis and will continue to win grand slams over the rest of his career (another 6-7 years).

TennisVeritas
06-07-2009, 12:11 PM
Fed aint GOAT. It took lightning to strike twice with Djoker and Nadal getting taken out and a clown draw of clown draws for Roger to even win an RG title

Clown draw like what...Umm let me see..Like in '99 when the N#2 seed was facing in his second round a guy which ranking was #100..Still the n#2 managed to move out from the event: Guess what the N#2 at that time was Pete who lost in 4 sets to A Medvedev..

Now, the second round of FED was against José Acasuso who had definitely a better ranking than 100..

Guess what: I definitely believe if the '09 FED's draw was full of clowns the Pete's '99 was a lot worst still he was out in the second rounfd your GOAT LOL...

Kaptain Karl
06-07-2009, 02:10 PM
Says Sampras: "Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jRgKD28VMw8FWfbPwI1xgQ13Iq7AD98LURL81

Somebody who cares about these silly GOAT arguments should put this in their Sig. (The Admins should put it in GameSampras' Sig.)

- KK

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 02:25 PM
Clown draw like what...Umm let me see..Like in '99 when the N#2 seed was facing in his second round a guy which ranking was #100..Still the n#2 managed to move out from the event: Guess what the N#2 at that time was Pete who lost in 4 sets to A Medvedev..

Now, the second round of FED was against José Acasuso who had definitely a better ranking than 100..

Guess what: I definitely believe if the '09 FED's draw was full of clowns the Pete's '99 was a lot worst still he was out in the second rounfd your GOAT LOL...



You know what.. At least I will ADMIT, that Pete did have some cakewalks over the years during the slams. Most noteably probably the late 90s. But I again I will call a spade a spade.

christos_liaskos
06-07-2009, 02:54 PM
If anything the fact that he didnt have to beat Rafa in the final is what separates him from everyone else, makes him the GOAT, puts him at the top of the pile and everyone else still scrambling to decide exactly what order they should be remembered in.

This is why I say that... all the other contenders for GOAT, which may eventually include rafa, all suffer some shock defeats in an early round somewhere. This french open was rafa's turn. Federer on the other hand has never suffered such a defeat. Since winning his first Wimbledon title in 03 he has been to atleast the semis of every major except for 2 occasions (03 US losing to Nalbandian and 04 French losing to Kuerten). Apart from those two defeats which came early on in his dominance, when it was nowhere near clear he would turn into the player he has, he has atleast reached the final on 19 occasions. The rest of his grand slam record since Wimby 03 is made up of 3 semis appearances.

When rafa lost in the French this year he said that the loses give more meaning to the victories. They show just how hard it is to achieve the 4 RG's in a row that he did. Those loses suffered by Rafa, Djok and Murray should also give more meaning to Federer's victory. Like all other great players, those 3 suffered shock defeats. All apart from one. Federer stands alone as the only one who just keeps ploughing through regardless of what else is going on.

If roger had beaten Rafa in the final what would that mean? That he is better than Rafa on clay? Dont be ridiculous! Nadal is the GOAT of clay. Doesnt matter if he loses to Federer or Soderling or whoever. Just means he had an exceptionally bad day and his opponent played one of the matches of their lives.

In the same way Nadal's victory at Wimby last year is made no greater in my opinion by the fact that he beat Federer. Ofcourse it was an amazing match, I should know, I was there. But we wouldnt say that if Rafa beat someone else in the final then he had won it by default and that it was meaningless because he didnt play Federer in the final. One match, one win, doesnt mean anything. A career should not be and is not made by one match. And that fact alone is again, what separates Federer from the rest of the pack. A whole career from the age of 21 where he has been nothing short of sensational. Every loss he has suffered since his first Wimby has been to the eventual champion, not a journeyman. The other two loses (US 03 french 04) where to one of the best players to never win a slam and to a player who is one of the best clay courters ever.

Speranza
06-07-2009, 02:59 PM
Christos, what a great post - like many in this thread - appreciated!

Aykhan Mammadov
06-07-2009, 03:11 PM
I don't know why so much words about was Rafa in the final or not. Yes Rafa defeated Fed more than Fed defeated him., but their H2H is not 13:0, it is 13:7, and he defeated Nadal recently in the eyes of the world on CLAY in Masters of Madrid, in 2007 on clay in Hamburg Masters. If u are talking about finals of slams, yes Nadal defeated him, but he also defeated Nadal in W in 2006 and 2007 in the finals.

So what ? Nothing. Today Fed is the greatest in the history of the humankind by his results.

Steve132
06-07-2009, 03:59 PM
Laver had no competiton? What the hell do u call Fed's clown RG draw? Competition? When he only had to deal with 1 damn top 10 player the whole time? THATS NO COMPETITION my friend

Sampras did not face a top 15 player in the 1997, 1998 or 2000 Wimbledons. According to your logic he had "clown draws" with "no competition" in any of these tournaments.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 04:01 PM
Sampras did not face a top 15 player in the 1997, 1998 or 2000 Wimbledons. According to your logic he had "clown draws" with "no competition" in any of these tournaments.

I agree with you. Sampras didnt have much competition after the early to mid 90s at the slams. I mean Pioline was trash of course and a few others pete had to deal with. Rafter was a tough tough player though. Once he aged though by the early 00's it was still pretty impressive what Pete could do to the young guns though

R.Federer
06-07-2009, 04:06 PM
sampras is now a poor mans federer fact

Lion King
06-07-2009, 04:13 PM
Fed playing the way he did through the whole slam having trouble against Mathieu, Haas and Del Potro would not have been enough to take out both Nadal and Djoker b2b, End of story. We all know its true

Only thing that matters is the number of slams you have. Do you remember now who Sampras and Laver beat to get those 14 and 12(?) slams? Does anyone remember? Only the statistics freaks do. You play whoever you get on the other side of the net. If the other great players did not make the final, it's their problem, not Fed's problem.

fed_rulz
06-07-2009, 04:23 PM
You know what.. At least I will ADMIT, that Pete did have some cakewalks over the years during the slams. Most noteably probably the late 90s. But I again I will call a spade a spade.

good. that's a good start. now pls do the following:

1. list all GOAT candidates
2. For each candidate, exclude slams that had "cakewalk" draws
3. Rank the GOAT candidates based on their "remaining" slams

I bet the results would not be any different than it is now. Reason: every multi-slam winner gets an easy draw once in a while. Champions make maximum capital out of the opportunity; others dont. As one poster accurately mentioned earlier, this FO win is Fed's reward for his consistency (20 slam SFs in a row..).

And for the record, I do not consider Fed's FO 2009 draw as a "cakewalk" draw. PHM had earlier troubled nadal in the FO, Monfils almost took out Fed last year, and Soderling did take out Nadal this year. It would have been a cakewalk draw if he trashed every opponent in straights, serving bakery products along the way. Instead, he had to fight his heart out in almost each of the matches. So where do you get the "cakewalk" draw from?

World Beater
06-07-2009, 04:26 PM
What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.

"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.

"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."

PETE SAMPRAS SAYS YES

DoubleDeuce
06-07-2009, 04:34 PM
Before Sampras, Emerson was considered the best ever, just because he had more majors.

Most ordinary people who dont over analyze stuff would look only at numbers, it is the easiest way to decide.

Once Roger gets #15 you wont see so much debates anymore. It would look obvious.

edmondsm
06-07-2009, 04:39 PM
um..calender slams with 3 of the 4 slams played on grass is not a legitimate comparison with todays grand slams which are played on 4 different surfaces. It is a much greater achievement today.

Yes, the Lavertards always leave that part out.

edmondsm
06-07-2009, 04:41 PM
Before Sampras, Emerson was considered the best ever, just because he had more majors.

Most ordinary people who dont over analyze stuff would look only at numbers, it is the easiest way to decide.

Once Roger gets #15 you wont see so much debates anymore. It would look obvious.

There is overanalysis, and then there is just plain common sense. Emerson won all those slams because he was the best AMATUER in the world. The best players were pros and they were banned from the slams during Emerson's slams winning years. Emerson was never, ever considered the greatest. He just had the record do to a dark period in tennis, and I think most people were very relieved when Sampras took it from him.

DoubleDeuce
06-07-2009, 04:42 PM
Only one person out Five has answered no. This is conclusive results.

drake
06-07-2009, 04:48 PM
Is Roger one of the best to ever play? Absolutely. Is Roger the best of the greatest that have ever played? From what I have seen (and I've watched them all, including Laver, Borg and Sampras) Yes he is, however, there is no such thing as GOAT unless today is the end of the world. To me, Federer is the greatest player I have ever seen, up till today.

BreakPoint
06-07-2009, 04:58 PM
good. that's a good start. now pls do the following:

1. list all GOAT candidates
2. For each candidate, exclude slams that had "cakewalk" draws
3. Rank the GOAT candidates based on their "remaining" slams

I bet the results would not be any different than it is now. Reason: every multi-slam winner gets an easy draw once in a while. Champions make maximum capital out of the opportunity; others dont. As one poster accurately mentioned earlier, this FO win is Fed's reward for his consistency (20 slam SFs in a row..).

And for the record, I do not consider Fed's FO 2009 draw as a "cakewalk" draw. PHM had earlier troubled nadal in the FO, Monfils almost took out Fed last year, and Soderling did take out Nadal this year. It would have been a cakewalk draw if he trashed every opponent in straights, serving bakery products along the way. Instead, he had to fight his heart out in almost each of the matches. So where do you get the "cakewalk" draw from?
Exactly! Well said.

Federer had to go five sets twice, once coming back from 2 sets down and once from 2 sets to 1 down. He also had to go 4 sets twice, coming back from a set down in one and almost losing in straight sets in the other.

If you want to talk about "cakewalk draws", how about Nadal's last year? Not only did Nadal not lose a single set in 7 matches, how many games did he lose? Not many. That's the definition of a "cakewalk draw".

And this year Nadal also had a "cakewalk draw", yet he lost to Soderling. A match that everyone thought should be a "cakewalk" before the match.

Apparently, there are some really bitter people with sour grapes on this board. Federer won and fully deserves his first French Open title. Deal with it.

jukka1970
06-07-2009, 05:01 PM
He certainly has a legitimate case. Whos to say though. He avoided some great players who could have taken him out.

He needs to take out Nadal at a slam or two, to solidify himself I think

"could have" being the operative words. And he has beaten Nadal twice at Wimbledon.

Lendl and Federer Fan
06-07-2009, 07:06 PM
Federer is not the goat, but he is closer to be the greatest tennis player of all time after today's victory. :)

Cenc
06-08-2009, 01:04 AM
good. that's a good start. now pls do the following:

1. list all GOAT candidates
2. For each candidate, exclude slams that had "cakewalk" draws
3. Rank the GOAT candidates based on their "remaining" slams


wouldnt be fair
fed would have 5 slams then :)

hoodjem
08-03-2009, 05:55 AM
The numbers would seem to put Fed in fifth or sixth place--

Combining Grand Slam titles with Pro majors, Rosewall won 23 "major" titles in his career, Laver won 19, Federer has captured 15, and Sampras and Gonzalez both won 14.

Considering all semifinal, final, and championship results in majors, we find Rosewall at unbelievable 52 (total semifinal, final and championship results in majors), followed by Tilden (35), Laver (32), Connors (31), Gonzalez (29), and Federer (22).

Laver won at least 199 tournaments, followed by Tilden (161), Jaroslav Drobny and Connors (each 148 ), Lendl (144), Rosewall (136), Roy Emerson (114), Tony Wilding (112), Borg (100), McEnroe (99), and Federer or Sampras (64).

Gonzalez seems to be the best at World No. 1 being that for at least 6 years, tied with Sampras. Federer owned the year-end top spot for 4 years (2004-2007). But if we include those years when a player has reached a co-No.1 position, we get a significantly different picture: Gonzalez and Rosewall, each 9 years on the top, Laver at 8 years, followed by Budge, Tilden, Vines, and Kramer each 7 years.

In terms of years spent in the top-10 in the world, remember that computer rankings were not used in the pre-Open Era. Tilden and Rosewall lead with 23 years in the top-10, Gonzalez spent 22 years (if we project 1962 and 1963 when Pancho did not play but probably would have been among top ten, even top three), Budge and Segura, each 19 years.

Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden are the outstanding players when it comes to their longevity. All three men were formidable players into their 40s. Rosewall won majors in a remarkable range that spanned from 1953-1972.

Concerning the longest streak of winning majors, this list is headed by Rosewall (9), Tilden (8 ) and Budge (6). Concerning a streak of top placings in majors, two players are outstanding: Rosewall (34) and Federer (21). It's fair to mention that in open era such streaks were more difficult to achieve than in Rosewall's time (1954-1968 ). Rod Laver has still the record regarding big finals reached in a row 1964 to 1968: 14.

Regarding a best 5-year span or career high, the most titles in a five-year period were won by Laver (82). The best percentage of titles in a five-year belongs to Tilden (approximately .815). The most majors won during a five-year period were won by Federer (12). The best percentage of majors in five-year period keep Tilden and Vines at the top (both .1000).

Finally, if one cares to consider doubles play (Federer is rightly proud of his Olympic gold medal in doubles), in the pre-Open Era virtually all players played in the doubles competition (often even the mixed doubles), while today most top players often refuse to play doubles. The players with the most major doubles titles (excluding mixed doubles) are: Rosewall (23), Hoad (21), Newcombe (17) and Emerson (16). Bob Hewitt has won 163 doubles titles which is all-time record.

smack that
08-03-2009, 07:55 AM
He certainly has a legitimate case. Whos to say though. He avoided some great players who could have taken him out.

He needs to take out Nadal at a slam or two, to solidify himself I think

so gamesampras

who besides sampras is the best right now

GameSampras
08-03-2009, 09:45 AM
so gamesampras

who besides sampras is the best right now

Career wise.. Sampras didnt have the best career out of guys like Laver, Pancho, Rosewall, and even Fed.. That doesnt make me believe that I dont think Pete is hands down the greatest and deadliest to ever pick up a racket though.


Laver and Pancho have the best careers thus far IMO