PDA

View Full Version : Agassi: Federer the best of All Time, Now


Pages : [1] 2 3

OddJack
12-07-2011, 06:56 PM
Since you guys love the goat talk so much, here it is, again. This time by one of the American greats, Agassi.

..."(Federer has) changed the game of tennis, he’s raised the standard. To me he’s the best of all time now - maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently, but right now I think Roger’s the all-time best..."


"Mybe Nadal"...he means if he wins 6-7 more majors, he can prove differently.

A pleasant change in tt is that many Nadal fans have come forward and admit the goatness of the goat. I predict in few more months and maybe a year this will be an easy admittance.

Enoy :^)

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/9239/federer-forever/

DoubleDeuce
12-07-2011, 07:36 PM
Agassi basically says the same thing Borg said before him, and they are both right, of course.

Nadal has no chance of catching him though, Agassi knows that.

Sentinel
12-07-2011, 07:36 PM
Great article, even our TMF could not have put it better.

Even if Rafa catches or surpasses Fred's slam tally, Rafa still hasn't "raised the standard of tennis" , more so brought it down (imho).

tusharlovesrafa
12-07-2011, 08:09 PM
Since you guys love the goat talk so much, here it is, again. This time by one of the American greats, Agassi.

..."(Federer has) changed the game of tennis, he’s raised the standard. To me he’s the best of all time now - maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently, but right now I think Roger’s the all-time best..."


"Mybe Nadal"...he means if he wins 6-7 more majors, he can prove differently.

A pleasant change in tt is that many Nadal fans have come forward and admit the goatness of the goat. I predict in few more months and maybe a year this will be an easy admittance.

Enoy :^)

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/9239/federer-forever/

Basically he's repeating the same thing as I said before..:)

GasquetGOAT
12-07-2011, 10:10 PM
Agassi basically says the same thing Borg said before him, and they are both right, of course.

Nadal has no chance of catching him though, Agassi knows that.

also Laver said before Borg, and all of them are right, obviously!

BeHappy
12-07-2011, 10:19 PM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.

also Laver said before Borg, and all of them are right, obviously!

Laver says that Sampras was better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM#t=02m20s

GasquetGOAT
12-07-2011, 10:28 PM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better first and second serve.

If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.



Laver says that Sampras was better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM

Agassi had two careers, he won more slams in his second career, you can't prove he was better in 1995 than his later career.

BeHappy
12-07-2011, 10:45 PM
He dominated in 1995 like he never did before or after, so that was his peak. Went 73-9.

ViscaB
12-07-2011, 10:52 PM
Great article, even our TMF could not have put it better.

Even if Rafa catches or surpasses Fred's slam tally, Rafa still hasn't "raised the standard of tennis" , more so brought it down (imho).

How can Nadal have brought down the level. Without Nadal Federer himself would not have had to raise his level and we would probably not have Djokovic as great as he is now motivated by all those losses versus Rafa to improve.

TMF
12-07-2011, 10:54 PM
What Andre said is nothing new. He believes Fed is the best player since 2005, and we will continue to hear from him again in the future. Andre had a chance to play Sampras, Becker, Courier, Edberg, Lendl, Mac, Connors, Wilander, so he knows exactly what he's talking about.

helloworld
12-08-2011, 01:34 AM
Laver says that Sampras was better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM#t=02m20s

This sums it all. Spoken by the true GOAT himself. :)

fed_is_GOD
12-08-2011, 02:29 AM
This sums it all. Spoken by the true GOAT himself. :)

see what was the question...

Laver didnt say Sampras was better.. he replied to the question 'who would win: sampras or federer at wimbledon'

even in the end he said it would be tough.. so on sampras' best surface he is marginally ahead.. soo it is fed all the way..

fed_is_GOD
12-08-2011, 02:31 AM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.



Laver says that Sampras was better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM#t=02m20s

the question was : who would win at wimbledon: federer or sampras? laver replied sampras has an edge.. doesnt mean laver is saying sampras is better than federer.. laver knows how bad sampras was on clay.. he would never say sampras is better.. he is not that stupid..

zagor
12-08-2011, 02:34 AM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

And Sampras said Hewitt had better ROS than Agassi in 2001, why does he hate Andre so much ?

Regardless of whether Agassi hates Sampras or not(and vice versa) the fact remains that before Fed arrived( entered his peak and started dominating) Agassi answered a question on who are the top 5 players of all time with Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras so while he may not have liked the guy he acknowledged his ability. He just happens to think Fed is even better, it's just an opinion, no harm done.

If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.

Tennis is about match-ups, I could just as easily say if Sampras is so much better than Federer how come he lost to Yzaga at USO(at his peak) or something. Drawing conclusions on a sample of few matches(and a single match-up) is simply flawed.

Laver says that Sampras was better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM#t=02m20s

This sums it all. Spoken by the true GOAT himself. :)

You do realize Laver was very likely talking about grass here considering the question was posed before a Wimbledon final? Most people would take Sampras on grass over anyone else(same with Fed on HC, Nadal on clay etc.)

Besides why does his(Laver's) opinion hold more weight than Andre's? I mean you could argue that given that Agassi played both Fed and Sampras he's more qualified to judge.

kiki
12-08-2011, 02:38 AM
The day Federer win a Gran Slam, then we can talk.Not before.

Emet74
12-08-2011, 03:37 AM
If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.



Wouldn't say he's "so much better" than Sampras; it's a question of accomplishment and versatility, Fed is more balanced among the surfaces.

As far as Agassi's matchup against them, from 2003 on Fed's record against Agassi was 8-0.

Even against Sampras Agassi got some wins at masters events tho' he struggled in USO and Wimby. He had 8 chances against Fed and couldn't win a single match. Nice that he won some sets, but that's as far as it went.

THUNDERVOLLEY
12-08-2011, 04:21 AM
see what was the question...

Laver didnt say Sampras was better.. he replied to the question 'who would win: sampras or federer at wimbledon'

Laver (and others) flip-flopped on the matter; that much has been discussed on this board several times.

Until Federer wins the Grand Slam, he's no so-called GOAT, and since we know he could not accomplish that--even at his alleged peak--his GOAT status does not exist.

Side note: BeHappy is right about:

Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve

Agassi knows he sh*t the first half of his career away, so he still attacks the master of his generation in any way possible. He should have concentrated on taking his career seriously, rather than taking drugs/expressing his horrid fashion taste...not that it would have changed his status when compared to Sampras.

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 04:25 AM
Wouldn't say he's "so much better" than Sampras; it's a question of accomplishment and versatility, Fed is more balanced among the surfaces.

As far as Agassi's matchup against them, from 2003 on Fed's record against Agassi was 8-0.

Even against Sampras Agassi got some wins at masters events tho' he struggled in USO and Wimby. He had 8 chances against Fed and couldn't win a single match. Nice that he won some sets, but that's as far as it went.

You dramatically understate what a big deal taking Federer to 5 sets at the 2004 USO and 4 at the 2005 USO, at 34 and 36 with a crippled back is.

And Sampras said Hewitt had better ROS than Agassi in 2001, why does he hate Andre so much ?

He does, and that's why their statements on each others games should be ignored.



Tennis is about match-ups, I could just as easily say if Sampras is so much better than Federer how come he lost to Yzaga at USO(at his peak) or something. Drawing conclusions on a sample of few matches(and a single match-up) is simply flawed.

Doesn't really make sense to compare a random loss to Agassi consistently pushing Federer just as hard at the USO as Sampras did. Think about this for a minute, Agassi was losing in 4 to Sampras at the USO in 2001 and 2002, then in 2004 he loses in 5 to Federer, then in 2005 he loses in 4 in the final.

Sentinel
12-08-2011, 04:56 AM
How can Nadal have brought down the level. Without Nadal Federer himself would not have had to raise his level and we would probably not have Djokovic as great as he is now motivated by all those losses versus Rafa to improve.
That's puzzling, isn't it ? How he can raise Fred's game while making tennis more of a moon-ball fest at the same time.

It's like playing pushers at lower levels.

Legend of Borg
12-08-2011, 05:09 AM
That's puzzling, isn't it ? How he can raise Fred's game while making tennis more of a moon-ball fest at the same time.

It's like playing pushers at lower levels.

I think you're on to something.

Rafa has made tennis into a 4.5 pusher moonballer fest.

I think a solid 5.0 club level player could handle Rafa's moonballs, but they keep sending this Feeder chap out against him who feeds him short balls on the backhand side.

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 05:45 AM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.


The problem is that 1995 Agassi lasted for 9 months. Never in his life has he produced the same tennis so it's pretty fair to say a 33-year old Agassi who hit harder, was fit and consistent in results as ever, would have a shot against his younger self.

I remember the Fed-Agassi 2004 US QF and it was a very high quality match in the first 3 sets before the wind tore it apart. Andre could still play extremely well at 34. Also, he didn't have a bad back at the time (as in 2005) but I see some people can deliberately lie to support their argument.

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 05:47 AM
The problem is that 1995 Agassi lasted for 9 months. Never in his life has he produced the same tennis so it's pretty fair to say a 33-year old Agassi who hit harder, was fit and consistent in results as ever, would have a shot against his younger self.

I remember the Fed-Agassi 2004 US QF and it was a very high quality match in the first 3 sets before the wind tore it apart. Andre could still play extremely well at 34.

Do you think a 33 year old Federer would have a chance against a 2006 Federer? What about the same with Nadal?

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 05:50 AM
Do you think a 33 year old Federer would have a chance against a 2006 Federer? What about the same with Nadal?

Unlike Agassi, Federer's peak lasted longer than 9 months. Btw Federer hasn't wasted any of his seasons because of injuries or mental lapses like Agassi did so obviously Fed won't have much in the tank left at 33. Look at Fed - he has played around 1000 matches and he's 30 years old. Agassi retired aged 36 having played 1150 matches so it's a 150 match swing but a 6 year difference.

As for Nadal - how many matches has he played in his career? 650? All of that aged 25, Agassi played his 650th match when he was in his late 20's, 28 or 29 I think. It's not the age - it's the mileage.

Agassi from 2003 could well beat Agassi from 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, first part of 1994, some of 1990-1992.

Sliding Winner
12-08-2011, 05:55 AM
Do you think a 33 year old Federer would have a chance against a 2006 Federer? What about the same with Nadal?
Obviously not.
Amongst other things, Federer/Nadal rely on their speed way more than Agassi ever did. Agassi often was inside the court and let his opponents do all the running.
That's why he could compensate aging pretty well by improving his serve, overall consistency, strategies und fitness.

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 05:56 AM
Unlike Agassi, Federer's peak lasted longer than 9 months. Btw Federer hasn't wasted any of his seasons because of injuries or mental lapses like Agassi did so obviously Fed won't have much in the tank left at 33. As for Nadal - how many matches has he played in his career? 650? All of that aged 25, Agassi played his 650th match when he was in his late 20's, 28 or 29 I think. It's not the age - it's the mileage.

Agassi from 2003 could well beat Agassi from 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, first part of 1994, some of 1990-1992.

No he couldn't. Not with his bad back or his shattered ankle. He was half the player.

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 05:59 AM
No he couldn't. Not with his bad back or his shattered ankle. He was half the player.

Aha, so Agassi had a bad back in 2003 as well? Were there any years where he could play without a cane?

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 06:05 AM
Aha, so Agassi had a bad back in 2003 as well? Were there any years where he could play without a cane?

Not from his mid thirties onwards.

prosealster
12-08-2011, 06:11 AM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.



quoting one match to support your claims is laughable, player A might be having a bad day whereas player B might be having a good one, conditions such as wind can be a good equaliser etc.... you simply choose the match that suits you... why dont we talk about AO a few months later, on AA's best surface, he was schooled...did you see the match, it was brutal, AA never had a chance...it was more one sided than the score line even suggested. Further more, even if it was a valid argument, just because player A beats player B easily but player C beats player B with more difficulty, it doesnt mean player A is better than play C...just as this yr, joker was beating up nads easier than he was beating Fed, doesnt mean that Fed is a better player than nads this year..

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 06:14 AM
quoting one match to support your claims is laughable, player A might be having a bad day whereas player B might be having a good one, conditions such as wind can be a good equaliser etc.... you simply choose the match that suits you... why dont we talk about AO a few months later, on AA's best surface, he was schooled...did you see the match, it was brutal, AA never had a chance...it was more one sided than the score line even suggested. Further more, even if it was a valid argument, just because player A beats player B easily but player C beats player B with more difficulty, it doesnt mean player A is better than play C...just as this yr, joker was beating up nads easier than he was beating Fed, doesnt mean that Fed is a better player than nads this year..

Then in 2005 Agassi took a set off Federer in the USO final.

CDestroyer
12-08-2011, 06:29 AM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

Sampras absolutely owned Agassi their whole career and Agassi is just butt hurt about it.

Sampras has thick skin and always handled Agassis lame verbal assaults and shenanigans then and now with total class.

He was one of the coolest tennis players to play the game.

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 07:28 AM
Then in 2005 Agassi took a set off Federer in the USO final.

Wow. He took a set off Federer having the support of the entire stadion and playing 150 % for as long as he could before Federer destroyed him.

Lendl BEAT Sampras in STRAIGHT SETS on a hard court in 1993 when Sampras was in his very prime while Lendl (33 at the time) retired a year later.
If taking sets off is a such a major feat, Connors in 1992 being 40 years old at the time almost took a set off Sampras (21) on clay.

NadalAgassi
12-08-2011, 07:58 AM
The problem is that 1995 Agassi lasted for 9 months. Never in his life has he produced the same tennis so it's pretty fair to say a 33-year old Agassi who hit harder, was fit and consistent in results as ever, would have a shot against his younger self.

I remember the Fed-Agassi 2004 US QF and it was a very high quality match in the first 3 sets before the wind tore it apart. Andre could still play extremely well at 34. Also, he didn't have a bad back at the time (as in 2005) but I see some people can deliberately lie to support their argument.

Agassi's best tennis ever was summer 1994-1995, spring 1999-early 2000, and 2001. Granted it was erratic but in no way was it ever even close to when Federer played him. Agassi of 1990-1992, 2002-early 2003, was also better than the version Federer played which was a good as could be imagined at 34-35 years old with a bad back, but was still a 34 and 35 year old with a bad back. BeHappy is right that Agassi has a huge grudge against Sampras, if you read his book it is clear how much he despises Sampras, Becker, and a few of his former rivals, so it would be silly to not take his word with a huge grain of salt in this case.

ManFed
12-08-2011, 08:01 AM
Wow. He took a set off Federer having the support of the entire stadion and playing 150 % for as long as he could before Federer destroyed him.

Lendl BEAT Sampras in STRAIGHT SETS on a hard court in 1993 when Sampras was in his very prime while Lendl (33 at the time) retired a year later.
If taking sets off is a such a major feat, Connors in 1992 being 40 years old at the time almost took a set off Sampras (21) on clay.

We can add, that 30 years old Federer past his prime, took 1 set of RG final 2011, to the Rafito, The greatest clay courter ever.

The rafito couldn’t take one set of very old past his prime Federer in WTF 2011. Federer took to 2 sets from superman 24 years old Djokovic in US Open.

So, if taking one set means so much when you are old, then Federer is the GOAT all the way. He managed to take sets of the Top Players at their prime, while he is old and has lost 2 steps.

nikdom
12-08-2011, 08:08 AM
Since you guys love the goat talk so much, here it is, again. This time by one of the American greats, Agassi.

..."(Federer has) changed the game of tennis, he’s raised the standard. To me he’s the best of all time now - maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently, but right now I think Roger’s the all-time best..."


"Mybe Nadal"...he means if he wins 6-7 more majors, he can prove differently.

A pleasant change in tt is that many Nadal fans have come forward and admit the goatness of the goat. I predict in few more months and maybe a year this will be an easy admittance.

Enoy :^)

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/9239/federer-forever/

How trustworthy is this Pakistani newspaper blog? I mean how come if Agassi said this recently, no other newspaper in the western world has reported on it?

A simple google news search brings up nothing like this from the recent past.

Just curious that's all.

ImAGrinch
12-08-2011, 08:16 AM
If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.


You don't seem to get it. Agassi at 34 years old made it to the FINAL of the USO. That means he beat 6 other players to get there, so obviously his level of play was pretty high the entire tournament. The difference between a 34 year old and a 25 year old is not really peak performance, but the ability to play consistently at a high level of play day in and day out.

So your reasoning that you keep using that a player outside their prime should never be competitive with a player still in their prime is deeply flawed.

How else do you explain that 30 year old Federer defeated 24 year old Djokovic at RG when Djokovic was having one of the best season's in history? Federer's results the last couple years shows he's clearly not in his prime anymore but still on occasion and quite often can compete at a very high level.

DRII
12-08-2011, 08:38 AM
Some of you Federer fanatics need to stop while you're slightly ahead!

G.O.A.T. encompasses many things, including level of competition, record against greatest rivals, winning the true grand slam, longevity, slam record, transcending tennis (or at least bringing it) into pop-culture, etc, etc...

On several counts Federer falls short!

Of course he's in the running, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

TMF
12-08-2011, 08:44 AM
Fed also deprived Agassi from winning at the big stage, and demoralized him by beating him 8 straight times. Agassi think he doesn’t have an answer against Fed but against Sampras, there’s a place to go.

I noticed everyone ignored zagor's post....

Regardless of whether Agassi hates Sampras or not(and vice versa) the fact remains that before Fed arrived( entered his peak and started dominating) Agassi answered a question on who are the top 5 players of all time with Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras so while he may not have liked the guy he acknowledged his ability. He just happens to think Fed is even better, it's just an opinion, no harm done.


Agassi believed Sampras was the best BEFORE the arrival of Federer. He changes his mind simply b/c he played against a better player(Federer). According to the OP’s article, Agassi said Fed right now is the best until someone in the future prove otherwise. If he changes his mind about Sampras 6 years ago, he will changes his mind about Fed in the future when another player surpassed Federer. Right now Fed is by himself at the top.

TMF
12-08-2011, 08:48 AM
Some of you Federer fanatics need to stop while you're slightly ahead!

G.O.A.T. encompasses many things, including level of competition, record against greatest rivals, winning the true grand slam, longevity, slam record, transcending tennis (or at least bringing it) into pop-culture, etc, etc...

On several counts Federer falls short!

Of course he's in the running, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Sure, throw in EVERY criteria you can find. When you compare to all the great players, Fed's achievements are more complete/balance, and fewer holes than the rest.

Pwned
12-08-2011, 08:48 AM
I think the greatest of all time talk is a waste of time. Comparing between eras is impossible. I think you have a handful or two of players throughout tennis history who are all in a similar category and who would be overall competitive with one another. Being in the conversation and debate for the greatest of all time is the best that you can do. Because every player throughout history has positive and negative attributes when looking at their careers as a whole.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-08-2011, 08:51 AM
Some of you Federer fanatics need to stop while you're slightly ahead!

G.O.A.T. encompasses many things, including level of competition, record against greatest rivals, winning the true grand slam, longevity, slam record, transcending tennis (or at least bringing it) into pop-culture, etc, etc...

On several counts Federer falls short!

Of course he's in the running, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

All of those things are objective except level of competition which of course you will conjure up with those ever so objective feelings of yours. LOL.

DRII
12-08-2011, 09:05 AM
All of those things are objective except level of competition which of course you will conjure up with those ever so objective feelings of yours. LOL.

No dunce!

they are not objective criteria, that is why there are so many GOAT debates. There are many differences between eras that were not in the players' control i.e. surfaces, equipment, professional politics, etc...

This is why the GOAT debate can never be settled, theres too many what ifs.

I don't expect you to understand this, you've proven yourself to be oblivious to subjective factors and discussions which has resulted in your opinion being nearly moot and laughable at best!

sunof tennis
12-08-2011, 09:05 AM
I think the greatest of all time talk is a waste of time. Comparing between eras is impossible. I think you have a handful or two of players throughout tennis history who are all in a similar category and who would be overall competitive with one another. Being in the conversation and debate for the greatest of all time is the best that you can do. Because every player throughout history has positive and negative attributes when looking at their careers as a whole.

bingo!!!!!

DRII
12-08-2011, 09:08 AM
Sure, throw in EVERY criteria you can find. When you compare to all the great players, Fed's achievements are more complete/balance, and fewer holes than the rest.

Not neccesarily.

Especially considering that some of those greats competed before the Open Era, and therefore their results are scewed.

Devilito
12-08-2011, 09:11 AM
Some of you Federer fanatics need to stop while you're slightly ahead!

G.O.A.T. encompasses many things, including level of competition, record against greatest rivals, winning the true grand slam, longevity, slam record, transcending tennis (or at least bringing it) into pop-culture, etc, etc...

On several counts Federer falls short!

Of course he's in the running, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

pretty much. Tennis constantly changes in terms of rules, rankings, tournament prestige, surfaces, competition, equipment etc. It's not like say Baseball where you can reasonable compare modern players to those from 100 years ago using statistics.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-08-2011, 09:20 AM
No dunce!

they are not objective criteria, that is why there are so many GOAT debates. There are many differences between eras that were not in the players' control i.e. surfaces, equipment, professional politics, etc...

This is why the GOAT debate can never be settled, theres too many what ifs.

I don't expect you to understand this, you've proven yourself to be oblivious to subjective factors and discussions which has resulted in your opinion being nearly moot and laughable at best!

Slam record is not an objective stat? Hmmmm

corners
12-08-2011, 09:23 AM
OP's link to second-rate blog pulls the Agassi quote from a June story in an Australian newspaper. The original story ran just after the French Open.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/the-swiss-maestro-wont-be-stopping-any-time-soon-says-agassi-20110605-1fne4.html

Devilito
12-08-2011, 09:25 AM
Slam record is not an objective stat? Hmmmm

Until the early 90s you can't even factor in total slam wins as a big percentage of players didn't even play the Australian Open. Some clay courters wouldn't even go to Wimbledon. Surfaces change etc. So unless you want to factor all those into a computer model I don’t think “total slam count” is really all that meaningful. It’s just one factor among many.

TennisLovaLova
12-08-2011, 09:26 AM
We dont need agassi or anyone tell ussay Federer is the goat.
We already know he is.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-08-2011, 09:32 AM
Until the early 90s you can't even factor in total slam wins as a big percentage of players didn't even play the Australian Open. Some clay courters wouldn't even go to Wimbledon. Surfaces change etc. So unless you want to factor all those into a computer model I don’t think “total slam count” is really all that meaningful. It’s just one factor among many.

It's the lesser of many evils. In this matter it's the closest thing we have to objectivity. You can't blame guys of today if guys of yesteryear didn't play AO. IT's better than saying weak era this strong era that. Completely meaningless.

Warriorroger
12-08-2011, 09:35 AM
Agassi and Borg are champions who are secure with their own acclomplishments and honest in their opinions, that's why players like Wilander/Mcenroe/Becker/Cash alwyas put down the player who destroys their legacies (IMO), just like Navratilova will never acknowlegde Graf as the greates female single player. Federer already has proven what he's made off, so what if his record with Nadal is lopsided, Nadal is just a bad matchup for Federer, in terms of accomplishments Roger is the greatest, and comes across as nice and genuine person too!

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 11:19 AM
Agassi's best tennis ever was summer 1994-1995, spring 1999-early 2000, and 2001. Granted it was erratic but in no way was it ever even close to when Federer played him. Agassi of 1990-1992, 2002-early 2003, was also better than the version Federer played which was a good as could be imagined at 34-35 years old with a bad back, but was still a 34 and 35 year old with a bad back. BeHappy is right that Agassi has a huge grudge against Sampras, if you read his book it is clear how much he despises Sampras, Becker, and a few of his former rivals, so it would be silly to not take his word with a huge grain of salt in this case.

I don't think it would make a difference to be honest. Federer played Agassi in 2003 twice at the WTF and won both matches (including a bagel in the second match). Fed never lost to Agassi again after their Miami final in April 2002 (which was competitive) - that's one way to look at it.

zagor
12-08-2011, 11:43 AM
You dramatically understate what a big deal taking Federer to 5 sets at the 2004 USO and 4 at the 2005 USO, at 34 and 36 with a crippled back is.

Agassi never played Fed at the age of 36. And no taking Fed to 5 sets in 2004 isn't a huge deal, it's just one match. You could say it shows that Agassi can beat even Fed in his best years on HC but we know that regardless of that match, Agassi is one of the best HC players of all time.

He does, and that's why their statements on each others games should be ignored.

So I should ignore Agassi's statements(again a guy who faced both Sampras and Fed at their best) because of his bias but I should give your statement (an internet poster) more weight than his because supposedly you're bias free.

No, given that before the emergence of Fed Agassi claimed Sampras was by far the best player of all time I choose not to ignore it(which doesn't mean I take it for granted, I just don't dismiss it).

Doesn't really make sense to compare a random loss to Agassi consistently pushing Federer just as hard at the USO as Sampras did.

It doesn't make sense to isolate two matches and draw all sort of bombastic conclusions from them.

So let's say at USO Sampras lost to Yzaga and 30 year old Korda, is getting pushed to the limit by Agassi(even old Agassi) as bad as that?

And again I have to repeat, an individual match-up is not crucual when comparing two players overall.

Think about this for a minute, Agassi was losing in 4 to Sampras at the USO in 2001 and 2002, then in 2004 he loses in 5 to Federer, then in 2005 he loses in 4 in the final.

You still don't get the idea of match-up do you? But here think about this, Agassi was losing to Sampras at the USO in 2001 and 2002 (at a point in their careers in which Agassi was clearly the better in-form player) while Sampras and Hewitt straight setted Sampras in 2000 and 2001 USO final, now why is that?

pame
12-08-2011, 12:16 PM
Some of you Federer fanatics need to stop while you're slightly ahead!

G.O.A.T. encompasses many things, including level of competition, record against greatest rivals, winning the true grand slam, longevity, slam record, transcending tennis (or at least bringing it) into pop-culture, etc, etc...

On several counts Federer falls short!

Of course he's in the running, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

I just love how Fed has to meet all these qualifications, while at the same time we don't seem to ask any of the other goat contenders to get close to Fed's gazillion records.

Steve132
12-08-2011, 01:26 PM
I just love how Fed has to meet all these qualifications, while at the same time we don't seem to ask any of the other goat contenders to get close to Fed's gazillion records.

Exactly.

The other strategy is to cherry-pick results. Although Fed has played almost 1,000 professional matches, his critics tend to focus on two or three to show that "he's not all that great." I've lost count of the number of times they cite his 2004 loss to "broken-hipped" Kuerten in the French Open while ignoring his subsequent record at RG - SF, F, F, F, W, QF, F. Or Agassi's taking a set or two from Fed is supposed to be significant - even though Agassi himself, who has a much better idea of his own capabilities at various points in his playing career than anyone posting on this forum, has repeatedly stated that he considers Fed to be the GOAT.

These days I try to avoid GOAT discussions - and Fed is not even my favored candidate anyway. But some of the arguments made are too bizarre to be allowed to pass unchallenged.

TMF
12-08-2011, 01:36 PM
It's a shame that the anti-fed fans are critical of Agassi's well knowledge/experience since he picked Fed the best player ever. It's pointless to argue against a guy who actually played both of them in the 90's and 00's.

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 01:37 PM
You still don't get the idea of match-up do you? But here think about this, Agassi was losing to Sampras at the USO in 2001 and 2002 (at a point in their careers in which Agassi was clearly the better in-form player) while Sampras and Hewitt straight setted Sampras in 2000 and 2001 USO final, now why is that?
Because 30-31 year old Sampras played the second semi final on super saturday the night before each

final? He beat each of them in the semi final each year, only to lose to the other the next 2 years in a row.

Yzaga was a journeyman so his result was obviously a blip, Agassi consistently pushed Federer in the slams just as hard as he pushed Sampras. He lost to Sampras in four in 2001 (qf) and 2002 (f), then took federer to 5 in 2004 and 4 in 2005.

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 01:39 PM
Because 30-31 year old Sampras played the second semi final on super saturday the night before each

final? He beat each of them in the semi final each year, only to lose to the other the next 2 years in a row.

what a paethetic excuse, he won both semis in straight sets yet got cremated in both finals

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 01:41 PM
what a paethetic excuse, he won both semis in straight sets yet got cremated in both finals

Beat each of them in the semi's each year.

TMF
12-08-2011, 01:44 PM
Sampras was still a slam materials during that period since he did win 2000 W and 2002 USO. The fact that a young Hewitt and Safin beat him in his hometown(USO) was a testament of a new stronger era begin to establish in a new millenium.

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 01:49 PM
Beat each of them in the semi's each year.

Yes, and? Safin beat Sampras in the 2000 US Open final, reached the no 1 soon afterwards and finished the year at no 2. In 2001 he ended the season out of the top 10. See the difference?

Sampras beat teenage Hewitt at the 2000 US Open but once the Ozzie matured he played with Sampras like a puppet winning 5 of the last 6 meetings.

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 01:50 PM
Sampras was still a slam materials during that period since he did win 2000 W and 2002 USO. The fact that a young Hewitt and Safin beat him in his hometown(USO) was a testament of a new stronger era begin to establish in a new millenium.

Beat each of them in the semi finals each year.

Here he is beating Hewitt 2000:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjY7o5GPJzA


Here he is beating Safin in 2001:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qy0aJHlp2I

Povl Carstensen
12-08-2011, 01:55 PM
No no TMF, that was the weak era Federer dominated! And this:
I just love how Fed has to meet all these qualifications, while at the same time we don't seem to ask any of the other goat contenders to get close to Fed's gazillion records.
Generalizing from single matches pales compared to overall records, imo.

zagor
12-08-2011, 02:08 PM
Because 30-31 year old Sampras played the second semi final on super saturday the night before each .

Ok then.

2004 USO QF the winds were terrible which obviously aided Agassi as he's most likely the best player in such conditions ever(because of his ballstriking talent).

2005 F well Fed just wasn't used to playing with crowds against him and was himself a bit overwhelmed by the situation(what was Agassi's last slam final). Once Fed got his head together he blew Agassi away.

See, I can make excuses too.

final? He beat each of them in the semi final each year, only to lose to the other the next 2 years in a row.

Doesn't really disprove my point, it's clear that from 2000 onwards Agassi was the much more inform player than Sampras yet he still failed to beat him at USO in 2001 and 2002 while Hewitt and Safin managed to do so in straights, why is that Sampras still was able to handle his old customer Andre at USO but had trouble with young guns?

Yzaga was a journeyman so his result was obviously a blip, Agassi consistently pushed Federer in the slams just as hard as he pushed Sampras. He lost to Sampras in four in 2001 (qf) and 2002 (f), then took federer to 5 in 2004 and 4 in 2005.

So one result is a blip but two(!) is somehow soo much of a larger sample that it shows a clear pattern? Please.

If Sampras was so much better than Fed why did he lose to journeyman at USO at his peak? Also you didn't forget the part about him losing to 29-30 year old Korda as well, did you? Heck Agassi had a better years in 2004 and 2005 than Korda did in 1997.

BeHappy
12-08-2011, 02:23 PM
Doesn't really disprove my point,

Yes it does.

it's clear that from 2000 onwards Agassi was the much more inform player than Sampras yet he still failed to beat him at USO in 2001 and 2002 while Hewitt and Safin managed to do so in straights, why is that Sampras still was able to handle his old customer Andre at USO but had trouble with young guns?

He only lost to them because of Super Saturday and getting 15 hours rest before the final at 31-32. He beat each of them in the semi's each year so that proves it.

And toanswer your second question: because at that stage of his career Sampras trained to peak for Wimbledon/USO. Got his timing wrong at Wimbledon but it worked at the USO.



So one result is a blip but two(!) is somehow soo much of a larger sample that it shows a clear pattern? Please.

Yeah.

zagor
12-08-2011, 02:43 PM
Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

Fact-Safin and Hewitt both managed to beat Sampras at USO while Agassi even in 2000s at which point he was clearly better against the field than Sampras couldn't. Why? Because Sampras is a bad match-up for him.

He only lost to them because of Super Saturday and getting 15 hours rest before the final at 31-32. He beat each of them in the semi's each year so that proves it.

And Fed got pushed to five against Agassi in 2004 USO because he doesn't handle wind conditions well while Agassi is one of the best ever at dealing with wind and that match was played in one of the worst windy conditions I've ever seen.

Yeah.

Nah.

Sampras can't be better than Fed though because he lost to Yzaga and Korda at USO at his peak. At his peak Fed was undefeated at USO.

Emet74
12-08-2011, 04:03 PM
[QUOTE=BeHappy;6164987]You dramatically understate what a big deal taking Federer to 5 sets at the 2004 USO and 4 at the 2005 USO, at 34 and 36 with a crippled back is.
[QUOTE]

Not at all; I think it was an impressive accomplishment on the part of Andre. What I don't think is that it shows that Fed somehow wasn't that good a player. 8-0 H2H from 2003 - 2005 speaks for itself.

TopFH
12-08-2011, 04:14 PM
Some of you Federer fanatics need to stop while you're slightly ahead!

G.O.A.T. encompasses many things, including level of competition, record against greatest rivals, winning the true grand slam, longevity, slam record, transcending tennis (or at least bringing it) into pop-culture, etc, etc...

On several counts Federer falls short!

Of course he's in the running, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Federes is the GOAT inside the tennis court. He doesn't need the "transcend into pop-culture" bullsh*t.

gsharma
12-08-2011, 06:24 PM
Laver says that Sampras was better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM#t=02m20s

What's wrong with Laver in that video? He looks as if he needs to rush to the bathroom. Maybe he had a Vegemite sandwich.

OddJack
12-08-2011, 06:45 PM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.



Laver says that Sampras was better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM#t=02m20s


Haha...No he did not.

I just watched the vid.

BeHappy, your jokes are not funny dude.

OddJack
12-08-2011, 06:48 PM
Agassi and Borg are champions who are secure with their own acclomplishments and honest in their opinions, that's why players like Wilander/Mcenroe/Becker/Cash alwyas put down the player who destroys their legacies (IMO), just like Navratilova will never acknowlegde Graf as the greates female single player. Federer already has proven what he's made off, so what if his record with Nadal is lopsided, Nadal is just a bad matchup for Federer, in terms of accomplishments Roger is the greatest, and comes across as nice and genuine person too!

Good points. I like this post, makes perfect sense.

adamX012
12-08-2011, 06:58 PM
Since you guys love the goat talk so much, here it is, again. This time by one of the American greats, Agassi.

..."(Federer has) changed the game of tennis, he’s raised the standard. To me he’s the best of all time now - maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently, but right now I think Roger’s the all-time best..."


"Mybe Nadal"...he means if he wins 6-7 more majors, he can prove differently.

A pleasant change in tt is that many Nadal fans have come forward and admit the goatness of the goat. I predict in few more months and maybe a year this will be an easy admittance.

Enoy :^)

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/9239/federer-forever/

Bingo.. he is the best one now...

TennisLovaLova
12-09-2011, 02:33 AM
Bingo.. he is the best one now...

You're wrong.
He's the best ever, and the best there ever will be.
AKA, the GOAT.

aphex
12-09-2011, 02:48 AM
Some of you Federer fanatics need to stop while you're slightly ahead!

G.O.A.T. encompasses many things, including level of competition, record against greatest rivals, winning the true grand slam, longevity, slam record, transcending tennis (or at least bringing it) into pop-culture, etc, etc...

On several counts Federer falls short!

Of course he's in the running, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

You're forgetting some other important criteria by which Federer also falls short like loudest vamosing, buttpicking style and bottle arrangement.

OddJack
12-09-2011, 02:54 AM
You're forgetting some other important criteria by which Federer also falls short like loudest vamosing, buttpicking style and bottle arrangement.

Also he falls short of 20 seconds to start the point

1970CRBase
12-09-2011, 03:08 AM
Agassi and Borg are champions who are secure with their own acclomplishments and honest in their opinions, that's why players like Wilander/Mcenroe/Becker/Cash alwyas put down the player who destroys their legacies (IMO), just like Navratilova will never acknowlegde Graf as the greates female single player. Federer already has proven what he's made off, so what if his record with Nadal is lopsided, Nadal is just a bad matchup for Federer, in terms of accomplishments Roger is the greatest, and comes across as nice and genuine person too!

The bad matchup or bad surface is the technical obstacle, if you are playing sufficiently well, it is possible to overcome it. I have believed that if Graf herself had a bad matchup, it was Navratilova (lefty swinging serve and follow in with volley to the back hand slice), but there is imo also a deeper dimension and that is there is also the not visible mental match up between two characters, two minds. After all, it isn't just a battle of forehands and backhands out there. Graf was never afraid of Navratilova, but I somehow got the feeling from certain of their matches that somehow, somewhere, deep down, Martina was frightened of Graf. e.g; Berlin 86, you could see something else in Martina's face, sort of tension, that you never saw against Chris.

And of course, people like Novotna - who had a game which should theoretically have done better against Graf, or at least made the H2H somewhat more decent, were absolutely terrified of Graf on court.

1970CRBase
12-09-2011, 03:38 AM
I also agree that the bad match up does not of itself prove who is the superior contemporary player but only proves the technical modifier between two individuals games.

OddJack
12-09-2011, 03:54 AM
The bad matchup or bad surface is the technical obstacle, if you are playing sufficiently well, it is possible to overcome it. I have believed that if Graf herself had a bad matchup, it was Navratilova (lefty swinging serve and follow in with volley to the back hand slice), but there is imo also a deeper dimension and that is there is also the not visible mental match up between two characters, two minds. After all, it isn't just a battle of forehands and backhands out there. Graf was never afraid of Navratilova, but I somehow got the feeling from certain of their matches that somehow, somewhere, deep down, Martina was frightened of Graf. e.g; Berlin 86, you could see something else in Martina's face, sort of tension, that you never saw against Chris.

And of course, people like Novotna - who had a game which should theoretically have done better against Graf, or at least made the H2H somewhat more decent, were absolutely terrified of Graf on court.

This is also a good post. The "invisible mental match" is an interesting point.

Let's take a look at the H2H for Graff and Navra
By surface:

Clay 2-0 Graf
Grass 2-1 Graf
Indoors 3-3 tie
Hard 5-2 Navratilova

Now Rodge - Rafa

Clay 12-2 Nadal
Grass 2-1 Fed
Hard 5-4 Fed
Indoors 4-0 Fed

If you expected a "fear factor" playing a role in their H2H, you would expect a more one sided h2h across the surfaces, wouldnt you.

The bad matchup or bad surface is the technical obstacle, if you are playing sufficiently well, it is possible to overcome it.



Bad matchup, as wells as surface, plays a huge role in deciding your chances. Players are very much different not only in their skills,and talent, but also in their anatomy and their physical abilities. You cannot send Leonardo Da Vinci against Hulk Hogan and expect him to "overcome the obstacles". Nadal is simply stronger on a slow high bouncing clay and Federer's agility on a fast low indoor is superior.
The tree-tall Isner will always out-ace Ferrer no matter how hard he tires. Ferrer will out-run Isner because he moves faster and for longer. This has everything to do with their anatomy and less to do with technical issues and how they try to " overcome the obstacle".

These are facts that show "the invisible mind match" does not always play a deciding factor on the outcome.

mxmx
12-09-2011, 04:18 AM
I know we will never know...but here is what i believe:

1) Federer does not have the same quality of opponents that Sampras had to continuously face. Players like Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Lendl and so forth (to name a few) were all players with extreme potential and that stuck around for ages. There was an intense cluster of players of higher talent than what we would find clustered today. For Sampras to basically dominate those "goat" players, is something that needs to be considered. I really don't believe that the average top 10 players are as consistently tough as the ones were in Sampras' days.

2) Head to head, Federer would not be able to deal with Sampras' serve. The backhand chip return would be put away by Sampras at the net. Sampras' serve is just too powerful and accurate and on grass, this would have been worse for Federer. His second serve was just as good as his first basicall. A matchup between the two would probably end up in tie breakers where Sampras wins the tie breaker because of his serve and the fact that he comes in after his serve.

3) Where is Federers' grand slam?

Maybe Sampras would have dominated more than Federer does now if Sampras was born a few years later. I wonder what the top 10 players of a few years back would have done to Nadal...

The only real thing i can convincingly believe Federer is the GOAT at, is his technique and mentality. He is also very cool and calm...i'll give him that.

qindarka
12-09-2011, 04:36 AM
Edberg and Lendl's best years were over before Sampras reached his prime so it would not be accurate to present them as Sampras's competitors. Even Becker only won one slam during Sampras's prime.

aphex
12-09-2011, 04:41 AM
I know we will never know...but here is what i believe:

1) Federer does not have the same quality of opponents that Sampras had to continuously face. Players like Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Lendl and so forth (to name a few) were all players with extreme potential and that stuck around for ages. There was an intense cluster of players of higher talent than what we would find clustered today. For Sampras to basically dominate those "goat" players, is something that needs to be considered. I really don't believe that the average top 10 players are as consistently tough as the ones were in Sampras' days.

2) Head to head, Federer would not be able to deal with Sampras' serve. The backhand chip return would be put away by Sampras at the net. Sampras' serve is just too powerful and accurate and on grass, this would have been worse for Federer. His second serve was just as good as his first basicall. A matchup between the two would probably end up in tie breakers where Sampras wins the tie breaker because of his serve and the fact that he comes in after his serve.

3) Where is Federers' grand slam?

Maybe Sampras would have dominated more than Federer does now if Sampras was born a few years later. I wonder what the top 10 players of a few years back would have done to Nadal...

The only real thing i can convincingly believe Federer is the GOAT at, is his technique and mentality. He is also very cool and calm...i'll give him that.

What would be the score in each tie-breaker?

Bobby Jr
12-09-2011, 04:42 AM
..Even Becker only won one slam during Sampras's prime.
And Chang won none during Sampras' very broad prime era.

GasquetGOAT
12-09-2011, 07:37 AM
2) Head to head, Federer would not be able to deal with Sampras' serve. The backhand chip return would be put away by Sampras at the net. Sampras' serve is just too powerful and accurate and on grass, this would have been worse for Federer. His second serve was just as good as his first basicall. A matchup between the two would probably end up in tie breakers where Sampras wins the tie breaker because of his serve and the fact that he comes in after his serve.






This is a great post. Lots of imaginary match up issues for Fed, damn, I'm convinced Fed would only win 2 slams if Sampras was 10 years younger.:(

TMF
12-09-2011, 08:34 AM
This is a great post. Lots of imaginary match up issues for Fed, damn, I'm convinced Fed would only win 2 slams if Sampras was 10 years younger.:(

I'm convinced too. Sampras would have multiple years winning over 90% and even win a calendar slam. And then Agassi declare him as the greatest of all time.

:roll:

aphex
12-09-2011, 08:41 AM
The weak grass era of the 90s really helped Pete inflate his tally...

DjokovicForTheWin
12-09-2011, 08:45 AM
Poor Pete, he might win maybe a couple of Wimbledons in this area. He's vastly overrated since he had no competition in the 90s of good grass court players in their prime.

helloworld
12-09-2011, 08:51 AM
Poor Pete, he might win maybe a couple of Wimbledons in this area. He's vastly overrated since he had no competition in the 90s of good grass court players in their prime.

Becker, Stich, Krajicek, Goran, were all far better than Djokovic on grass. Heck, even way past his prime Marat Safin could beat prime Djokovic in straight sets at Wimbledon 2 years ago. The era on grass now is a complete JOKE!! Nobody in this era has the right game to play on grass anymore. How can they when all tournaments are either on hard or clay court...

DjokovicForTheWin
12-09-2011, 08:55 AM
Becker, Stich, Krajicek, Goran, were all far better than Djokovic on grass. Heck, even way past his prime Marat Safin could beat prime Djokovic in straight sets at Wimbledon 2 years ago. The era on grass now is a complete JOKE!! Nobody in this era has the right game to play on grass anymore. How can they when all tournaments are either on hard or clay court...

Most of those guys were past their prime. And yes I agree, Krajicek was better than Pete at Wimbledon. Didn't he destroy him there at Pete's absolute prime?

helloworld
12-09-2011, 09:03 AM
Most of those guys were past their prime. And yes I agree, Krajicek was better than Pete at Wimbledon. Didn't he destroy him there at Pete's absolute prime?
Didn't Soderling destroy Nadal at French Open in his absolute prime? Is Soderling better than Nadal? I don't think so.

Pwned
12-09-2011, 09:06 AM
I know we will never know...but here is what i believe:

1) Federer does not have the same quality of opponents that Sampras had to continuously face. Players like Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Lendl and so forth (to name a few) were all players with extreme potential and that stuck around for ages. There was an intense cluster of players of higher talent than what we would find clustered today. For Sampras to basically dominate those "goat" players, is something that needs to be considered. I really don't believe that the average top 10 players are as consistently tough as the ones were in Sampras' days.

2) Head to head, Federer would not be able to deal with Sampras' serve. The backhand chip return would be put away by Sampras at the net. Sampras' serve is just too powerful and accurate and on grass, this would have been worse for Federer. His second serve was just as good as his first basicall. A matchup between the two would probably end up in tie breakers where Sampras wins the tie breaker because of his serve and the fact that he comes in after his serve.

3) Where is Federers' grand slam?

Maybe Sampras would have dominated more than Federer does now if Sampras was born a few years later. I wonder what the top 10 players of a few years back would have done to Nadal...

The only real thing i can convincingly believe Federer is the GOAT at, is his technique and mentality. He is also very cool and calm...i'll give him that.
I think Federer would win - 7-6 5-7 6-4 6-7 7-5....:rolleyes:

TMF
12-09-2011, 09:08 AM
Didn't Soderling destroy Nadal at French Open in his absolute prime? Is Soderling better than Nadal? I don't think so.

Your desperate weak competition argument came back to bite you !

DjokovicForTheWin
12-09-2011, 09:15 AM
Didn't Soderling destroy Nadal at French Open in his absolute prime? Is Soderling better than Nadal? I don't think so.

In other words it comes down to total achievements right? You can nod your head now.

15_ounce
12-09-2011, 09:19 AM
A great comment from the only tennis player in the world who has won:

Career Grand Slam
Olympics Gold
Year End Championship

The Agassi Slam!

GasquetGOAT
12-09-2011, 09:20 AM
I think Federer would win - 7-6 5-7 6-4 6-7 7-5....:rolleyes:

But mxmx made it very clear that "A matchup between the two would probably end up in tie breakers where Sampras wins the tie breaker because of his serve and the fact that he comes in after his serve." so its not possible Fed would win any of the tiebreakers at all. Also "the factthat Sampras comes in after his serve" would frighten Federer and thus wins the match by default.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-09-2011, 09:24 AM
Sampras could definitely have challenged Nadal (matchups), but he's simply not in Federer's league.

TMF
12-09-2011, 09:26 AM
Young Hewitt was 2-1 against Sampras on grass. The one loss was very close which was decided in a 3rd set tie-breaker. It could easily be 3-0.

And Hewitt is frightened by Sampras rushing in after his serve. :roll:

helloworld
12-09-2011, 09:29 AM
In other words it comes down to total achievements right? You can nod your head now.

Not just achievement. Nadal raped Soderling the following year and reclaim the French title. :oops:
How old are you by the way?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-09-2011, 09:38 AM
Not just achievement. Nadal raped Soderling the following year and reclaim the French title. :oops:
How old are you by the way?

If not just achievements, then Sampras won all his Wimby's in a weak grass court era.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-09-2011, 09:38 AM
Young Hewitt was 2-1 against Sampras on grass. The one loss was very close which was decided in a 3rd set tie-breaker. It could easily be 3-0.

And Hewitt is frightened by Sampras rushing in after his serve. :roll:

This proves the strong grass court era only began after Sampras was done.

GasquetGOAT
12-09-2011, 09:47 AM
I'm convinced too. Sampras would have multiple years winning over 90% and even win a calendar slam. And then Agassi declare him as the greatest of all time.

:roll:

I agree Sampras is the GOAT "because of his serve and the fact that he comes in after his serve." (mxmx's exact words), can't argue with that.:|

helloworld
12-09-2011, 09:48 AM
If not just achievements, then Sampras won all his Wimby's in a weak grass court era.

Your logic makes no sense. How does one's achievement leads to weak era? If you're going to argue, at least use some logic or stats to back up your argument. Again, you seem like someone who doesn't follow 90s tennis. The only explanation is that you started following tennis after 2000.

TMF
12-09-2011, 09:50 AM
Not just achievement. Nadal raped Soderling the following year and reclaim the French title. :oops:
How old are you by the way?In other words it comes down to total achievements right? You can nod your head now.
Didn't Soderling destroy Nadal at French Open in his absolute prime? Is Soderling better than Nadal? I don't think so.



You didn't answer his question. It's not about the competition, but...
"it comes down to total achievements right?"

GasquetGOAT
12-09-2011, 09:54 AM
Your logic makes no sense. How does one's achievement leads to weak era? If you're going to argue, at least use some logic or stats to back up your argument. Again, you seem like someone who doesn't follow 90s tennis. The only explanation is that you started following tennis after 2000.

So if someone disagrees with you, the only explanation is that he doesn't know what he's talking about? Right?

TMF
12-09-2011, 09:54 AM
I agree Sampras is the GOAT "because of his serve and the fact that he comes in after his serve." (mxmx's exact words), can't argue with that.:|

If you keep this up they will labeled you as a Petard.:)

DjokovicForTheWin
12-09-2011, 09:56 AM
Your logic makes no sense. How does one's achievement leads to weak era? If you're going to argue, at least use some logic or stats to back up your argument. Again, you seem like someone who doesn't follow 90s tennis. The only explanation is that you started following tennis after 2000.

No you don't get it. What leads to a weak era designation is meaningless subjective evaluations. This guy is great, this guy is not. What you can't seem to comprehend is that the label 'great' was applied to said player precisely and ONLY because of their achievements. So the point is, either you wallow in weak era crap favouring your own favourite player or you realize that there is no such thing and the objective data we have or the closest thing we have to it are the achievements. It doesn't matter who you play, but only what you yourself achieved. As one person on here keeps mentioning, you can only play who is in front of you. Dude I know more about even 80s tennis than you ever will.

TMF
12-09-2011, 09:58 AM
This proves the strong grass court era only began after Sampras was done.

But you'll start hearing his fans claim Sampras was old, washed-up, and ignore he was still a slam materials who matchup poorly against Hewitt. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sleep/schla18.gif

aphex
12-09-2011, 10:07 AM
Your logic makes no sense. How does one's achievement leads to weak era? If you're going to argue, at least use some logic or stats to back up your argument. Again, you seem like someone who doesn't follow 90s tennis. The only explanation is that you started following tennis after 2000.

You are making a fool of yourself. You have been owned. Accept it and move on.

NadalAgassi
12-09-2011, 12:18 PM
Funny how the 3 village idiots- DjokovicFakeFanWin, TMF, and aphex are in every thread together posting one after another like 3 blind dogs searching for their bone. I guess up against more intelligent posters like helloworld (or anyone who can type with their own hand) it takes a tag team effort, yet they still get owned.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-09-2011, 12:21 PM
Funny how the 3 village idiots- DjokovicFakeFanWin, TMF, and aphex are in every thread together posting one after another like 3 blind dogs searching for their bone. I guess up against more intelligent posters like helloworld (or anyone who can type with their own hand) it takes a tag team effort, yet they still get owned.

I hate crazy Graf fanatics like Joe Pike. Aphex is a smart person like me who like me realizes Graf is a fraud who won half her slams by a knife in the back of a rival and almost all by pitiful competition, but is really a hack in comparision to the real historic greats of womens tennis.

Come again? Who's the idiot? Contradict much? Games Set match :)

aphex
12-09-2011, 12:32 PM
Funny how the 3 village idiots- DjokovicFakeFanWin, TMF, and aphex are in every thread together posting one after another like 3 blind dogs searching for their bone. I guess up against more intelligent posters like helloworld (or anyone who can type with their own hand) it takes a tag team effort, yet they still get owned.

Poor dummy25...oops I mean davey25...woops I mean nadalagassi.

Talker
12-09-2011, 12:41 PM
Funny how the 3 village idiots- DjokovicFakeFanWin, TMF, and aphex are in every thread together posting one after another like 3 blind dogs searching for their bone. I guess up against more intelligent posters like helloworld (or anyone who can type with their own hand) it takes a tag team effort, yet they still get owned.

LOL. That was pretty good. :)

kiki
12-09-2011, 02:29 PM
Nikos Kalogeropoulos is the GOAT.

Greece misses him in those hard moments...

nadalwon2012
12-09-2011, 03:11 PM
Agassi basically says the same thing Borg said before him, and they are both right, of course.

Nadal has no chance of catching him though, Agassi knows that.


That would all depend on Nadal vs Djokovic, since nobody else can stop Nadal in slams. Djokovic must be ruling the Nadal-haters little heads :lol:

OddJack
12-09-2011, 04:44 PM
That would all depend on Nadal vs Djokovic, since nobody else can stop Nadal in slams. Djokovic must be ruling the Nadal-haters little heads :lol:

Nobody else can?

Was it Ferrer last year? Wasnt it Murray the year before?

Tsonga cant?

You think Tsonga has declined since he last defeated him and Nadal has improved?
Nadal has his hands full, buddy. Open your eyes.

nadalwon2012
12-09-2011, 05:50 PM
Ummm...Nadal has made 6 of the last 7 slam finals :lol: and it took a serious muscle tear to force out out of the AO (unless you really think Nadal is supposed to run slowly to each wide-ball vs Ferrer).....and btw Tsonga may have beaten Nadal before, but Nadal has won 4 of their last 5 hardcourt meetings, and even indoors a couple of weeks ago Tsonga almost fell :lol:

zorroman
12-09-2011, 08:09 PM
Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.



Laver says that Sampras was better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM#t=02m20s

Don't be selevtive in trying to put down a player. Roger was taken to sets for 2 reasons:
(1) the winds were absolutely crazy and that did not allow either Roger or Agassi to play at their best.
(2) It is the US open, Agassi's home court. The crowds really got behind Andre.

One could conversely make the argument that Fed is so much better than Sampras because he crushed Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 in the final - the same player who beat Sampras a few years earlier. But I don't buy this argument myself, the logic is too circular.

Basically, both Roger and Sampras are true greats, so I just appreciate both of them.

merlinpinpin
12-10-2011, 12:03 AM
First of all, hi board! :)

The GOAT debate is always the same, anyway--either you consider that there is no possible GOAT as tennis changed so much during its 100+ year history (in this case you've just got a handful of possible candidates, see below), or you define several categories in which the GOAT must be the best (some of which are necessarily going to be pretty subjective) and you're left which another quandary : either the GOAT must be the best in *all* of these categories, in which case nobody fits the bill, or he must be the best in *most*, and subjectivity is going to get the upper hand again, as no two posters will agree on what are the most important cats (except from the most obvious, one can hope).

So, depending on how you approach this, Federer is either a strong GOAT candidate, or the GOAT if he fits your bill. He seems to be for Agassi (and for other past greats such as Laver), but that is debatable, of course.

The funny thing in this discussion is that you get the feeling that the people who disagree the most vocally with Federer's possible GOAT status are doing this so they can push forward Sampras' claim. But the truth is, Sampras is no longer part of the A-list (his claim was always shaky to begin with, and it's been non-existant since 2009), as *he* can be compared with Federer and comes up short in *all* the relevant categories. Any way you look at it, Federer's status as greater player of the open era (GOTOE?) can't be disputed, as he is ahead of Sampras and Borg (the only other obvious contenders) by a mile.

(Except if you consider that the GOAT is only determined by the number of wins at Wimbledon, of course, but in this case, Sampras comes up short again--against Renshaw, who is not even a contender either.) ;)

In all fairness, I think the number of possible GOATs can be trimmed down to four (or maybe five), whom I guess everyone will agree on. These are, in chronological order:

Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
(Ken Rosewall--overshadowed by Laver, though, so this is debatable)
Roger Federer

All of them clearly have merits (and demerits), and however you look at it, they are miles ahead of the rest of the field. All the rest is just a matter of personal preference, I guess. :)

Warriorroger
12-10-2011, 02:52 AM
Good points. I like this post, makes perfect sense.

Thanks OddJack for noticing!

Sentinel
12-10-2011, 04:23 AM
Federes is the GOAT inside the tennis court. He doesn't need the "transcend into pop-culture" bullsh*t.
That pop-culture part was pure gold. Start a post very seriously and then suddenly throw in some thing funny like that.

I remember last year someone started a thread with a long serious post. Suddenly in the middle he wrote "serena's penis". Everyone who read that post was spilling coffee.

tusharlovesrafa
12-10-2011, 04:31 AM
That pop-culture part was pure gold. Start a post very seriously and then suddenly throw in some thing funny like that.

I remember last year someone started a thread with a long serious post. Suddenly in the middle he wrote "serena's penis". Everyone who read that post was spilling coffee.

hehehehehehehehehehehe......Where was I??:)

kiki
12-10-2011, 08:33 AM
In his book, Agassi said he gave up on drugs...really?

nadalwon2012
12-10-2011, 10:49 AM
In his book, Agassi said he gave up on drugs...really?

Yes, the book is "Open". If Agassi was open about doing crystal meth (1997) then the odds are he's open about no longer doing crystal meth. Otherwise, not a whole lot of reason to admit it in the first place. Plus if he had been doing crystal meth all these years the odds are he would look a lot uglier (crystal meth tends to do that - google some images of crystal meth users).

aphex
12-10-2011, 10:53 AM
Yes, the book is "Open". If Agassi was open about doing crystal meth (1997) then the odds are he's open about no longer doing crystal meth. Otherwise, not a whole lot of reason to admit it in the first place. Plus if he had been doing crystal meth all these years the odds are he would look a lot uglier (crystal meth tends to do that - google some images of crystal meth users).

This came up:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sFsNh9JurJo/TaopbUgErnI/AAAAAAAAAbs/SWSYwJzNOQU/s1600/5b1a9d3cdb8a0cffcc1aebcff429fc78-getty-110166542jf045_atp_masters_.jpg

nadalwon2012
12-10-2011, 11:15 AM
This came up:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sFsNh9JurJo/TaopbUgErnI/AAAAAAAAAbs/SWSYwJzNOQU/s1600/5b1a9d3cdb8a0cffcc1aebcff429fc78-getty-110166542jf045_atp_masters_.jpg

Not what I was expecting. But google never lies....I guess.

CCNM
12-10-2011, 12:53 PM
As far as I'm concerned Borg is the god of tennis. Nobody can replace him, they can only sit next to him, and I'd put Roger in that spot.

Magnus
12-10-2011, 12:55 PM
Nadal should also start working on winning some WTFs. He only reached one final there his whole career, while Fed has won 6 of them.

nadalwon2012
12-10-2011, 01:01 PM
Nadal should also start working on winning some WTFs. He only reached one final there his whole career, while Fed has won 6 of them.

Considering Federer has won the last 2 World Tour Finals and no slams in between, another reminder that indoor tennis is a lot different to outdoor tennis. Federer only won one Roland Garros. Nadal, probably needs to win one World Tour Finals, no more than that. Plus Nadal has the Olympic singles Gold (and a good chance at winning another next year). Also, Nadal holds the Masters shields record, and will probably win several more to put big space between himself and Federer, so that counts just as much as the World Tour Finals.

Povl Carstensen
12-10-2011, 01:06 PM
Yes, but then there are ALL the other records.

IvanisevicServe
12-10-2011, 03:41 PM
Love the logic of BeHappy's stuff.

Kuerten beat Federer in straights in the 04 French Open with a bad hip that would cause him to retire soon. This obviously means a younger Kuerten would've beaten him 6-0 6-0 6-0, of course.

Federer double bageled Gaudio in the Masters Cup in 05 with a bad ankle. What does this mean? I'll tell you. It means a healthy Federer would've been the first man to ever win sets with his opponent in a negative number. The rules of tennis would've changed to accommodate him. Gaudio wouldn't have won a single point in the match.

nadalwon2012
12-10-2011, 09:29 PM
The biggest and rarest record is Nadal being the only man since 1969 to win Roland Garros, Wimbeldon and US Open all in the same calendar year. And more importantly Nadal is the ONLY MAN EVER to win 3 slams in a calendar year on clay, grass, hard. Most versatile achievement in tennis history. Also I'd say the 81 straight matches he won on clay is one of the more incredible records, the single-surface record.

Povl Carstensen
12-10-2011, 11:09 PM
But then theres ALL the other records.

Sentinel
12-11-2011, 12:39 AM
And still some more after that.

Sentinel
12-11-2011, 12:41 AM
The biggest and rarest record is Nadal being the only man since 1969 to win Roland Garros, Wimbeldon and US Open all in the same calendar year. And more importantly Nadal is the ONLY MAN EVER to win 3 slams in a calendar year on clay, grass, hard. Most versatile achievement in tennis history. Also I'd say the 81 straight matches he won on clay is one of the more incredible records, the single-surface record.
Winning 3 majors once > winning 3 majors three times (along with WTF).

aphex
12-11-2011, 01:03 AM
The biggest and rarest record is Nadal being the only man since 1969 to win Roland Garros, Wimbeldon and US Open all in the same calendar year. And more importantly Nadal is the ONLY MAN EVER to win 3 slams in a calendar year on clay, grass, hard. Most versatile achievement in tennis history. Also I'd say the 81 straight matches he won on clay is one of the more incredible records, the single-surface record.

I think his magnificent record of failure at defending non-clay titles is far more significant.

ledwix
12-11-2011, 01:45 AM
The biggest and rarest record is Nadal being the only man since 1969 to win Roland Garros, Wimbeldon and US Open all in the same calendar year. And more importantly Nadal is the ONLY MAN EVER to win 3 slams in a calendar year on clay, grass, hard. Most versatile achievement in tennis history. Also I'd say the 81 straight matches he won on clay is one of the more incredible records, the single-surface record.

Haha...what about Federer making every single grand slam final at least five times? That's a far more extensive demonstration of versatility than a single season you picked out in favor of Nadal. Nadal hasn't even made every final twice yet. Plus Federer won 3 majors several times already, plus WTF.

And your disregarding WTF "because indoor is a different surface" is just plain silly. Every surface is different, and its importance depends on the significance of the events played on the surface...WTF is an important event.

nadalwon2012
12-11-2011, 03:33 AM
Some people forget, Federer is 30. Nadal is 25. The 'totals' records come with age. For now he can only break the year by year records. What 25 year old breaks a career record? Federer sure couldn't at age 25. Actually Nadal already has some career records, quite astonishingly (the Masters shields record, the single-surface streak record, and has tied the Roland Garros record and a couple of other lesser event records). Gold medals record is another, maybe 2 or 3 of them. 2016 is on clay.

kiki
12-11-2011, 04:21 AM
Some people forget, Federer is 30. Nadal is 25. The 'totals' records come with age. For now he can only break the year by year records. What 25 year old breaks a career record? Federer sure couldn't at age 25. Actually Nadal already has some career records, quite astonishingly (the Masters shields record, the single-surface streak record, and has tied the Roland Garros record and a couple of other lesser event records). Gold medals record is another, maybe 2 or 3 of them. 2016 is on clay.

How many Slams had Fed won at Nadal´s age?

GasquetGOAT
12-11-2011, 04:32 AM
How many Slams had Fed won at Nadal´s age?

Doesn't matter, all it matters is that The biggest and rarest record is Nadal has the Olympic singles Gold (and a good chance at winning another next year).

That is all.:)

kiki
12-11-2011, 05:55 AM
Doesn't matter, all it matters is that The biggest and rarest record is Nadal has the Olympic singles Gold (and a good chance at winning another next year).

That is all.:)

So, Nadal´s got a few more Slams than Roger did at nadal´s age, yes or not?

Carsomyr
12-11-2011, 06:20 AM
So, Nadal´s got a few more Slams than Roger did at nadal´s age, yes or not?

Not. Federer had 11 majors before he turned 26.

kiki
12-11-2011, 06:27 AM
Not. Federer had 11 majors before he turned 26.

It´s OK, I didn´t know.

tennis_pro
12-11-2011, 07:06 AM
Some people forget, Federer is 30. Nadal is 25. The 'totals' records come with age. For now he can only break the year by year records. What 25 year old breaks a career record? Federer sure couldn't at age 25. Actually Nadal already has some career records, quite astonishingly (the Masters shields record, the single-surface streak record, and has tied the Roland Garros record and a couple of other lesser event records). Gold medals record is another, maybe 2 or 3 of them. 2016 is on clay.

Once it's all said and done Nadal will have nothing on Federer except for more Davis Cups and Masters Series shields, oh and the h2h of course.

Btw good luck with a 30-year old Nadal winning a gold medal at the olympics, even if it's on clay. Good luck with him even playing 5 years from now.

celoft
12-11-2011, 07:22 AM
maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently

"Mybe Nadal"...he means if he wins 6-7 more majors, he can prove differently.



Not a chance in hell.

nadalwon2012
12-11-2011, 07:41 AM
In the end 16 slams is all that matters. Nadal gets more slams than Federer and Nadal owns tennis. Especially since he has the Masters shields record to match and 3 Davis Cups, perhaps multiple Gold medals, plus the big one - only man in history to win slams on clay, grass and hard in a calendar year.

tennis_pro
12-11-2011, 07:42 AM
The biggest and rarest record is Nadal being the only man since 1969 to win Roland Garros, Wimbeldon and US Open all in the same calendar year. And more importantly Nadal is the ONLY MAN EVER to win 3 slams in a calendar year on clay, grass, hard. Most versatile achievement in tennis history. Also I'd say the 81 straight matches he won on clay is one of the more incredible records, the single-surface record.

The sickest record is Federer's 5 consecutive majors at both Wimbledon and the US Open, nothing Nadal has done comes close to it, he couldn't even win 5 French Opens in a row. Damn, he hasn't even won 5 majors TOTAL out of the French, LOLZ

nadalwon2012
12-11-2011, 07:42 AM
Not a chance in hell.

Nadal winning 3 slams in 2012 would make 16+ slams a done deal (since he's got years of clay dominance still remaining).

celoft
12-11-2011, 07:55 AM
Nadal winning 3 slams in 2012 would make 16+ slams a done deal (since he's got years of clay dominance still remaining).

Nadal will never reach 16.

tennis_pro
12-11-2011, 08:01 AM
Nadal will never reach 16.

Nadal would never reach 16 if all majors from now on were played on clay. In 2012 he would get owned by Djokovic all the time (since Djokovic's wins against on clay against Nadal where his easiest ones), by 2013 the field would adapt and 90 % of the players would become clay court specialists, we all know how Nadal deals against a tougher field, just look at his record on hard courts.

nadalwon2012
12-11-2011, 08:07 AM
Face it guys, Djokovic is your god right now. Without him, Nadal wins 3 slams per year. Extremely difficult to stop Nadal from reaching slam finals. So that finals opponent needs to be Djokovic every single time. So you better hope Djokovic toughens up. If late-2011 wussy Djokovic continues, then it's all Nadal in 2012. And that isn't even taking into account the possibility of Nadal upping his game.

tennis_pro
12-11-2011, 08:30 AM
Face it guys, Djokovic is your god right now. Without him, Nadal wins 3 slams per year. Extremely difficult to stop Nadal from reaching slam finals. So that finals opponent needs to be Djokovic every single time. So you better hope Djokovic toughens up. If late-2011 wussy Djokovic continues, then it's all Nadal in 2012. And that isn't even taking into account the possibility of Nadal upping his game.

Lolwut, Nadal won even less ranking points than Djokovic after the US Open. Took a 5-week break to prepare for the WTF (skipped the Paris Masters) where he was kicked out crying about a shoulder injury after he got the biggest spanking of his career by Federer.

If the TREND, as you say, continues, both Nadal and Djokovic will lose thousands of ranking points while Federer and Tsonga will earn a lot.

beast of mallorca
12-11-2011, 08:37 AM
Nadal winning 3 slams in 2012 would make 16+ slams a done deal (since he's got years of clay dominance still remaining).

If Nadal getsto 16 GS, the Fed fans would be on a schizophrenic frenzy (well I guess they're on it right now). I wonder what manner of evil they'll say (or do) against Rafa and his fans, lol

tennis_pro
12-11-2011, 08:43 AM
If Nadal getsto 16 GS, the Fed fans would be on a schizophrenic frenzy (well I guess they're on it right now). I wonder what manner of evil they'll say (or do) against Rafa and his fans, lol

Not as big as some Nadal fans when they realize (if they ever do) Rafito won't even get close to that.

That's just a matter of time I guess.

TennisLovaLova
12-11-2011, 12:06 PM
In the end 16 slams is all that matters. Nadal gets more slams than Federer and Nadal owns tennis.

this is exactly why you're wrong!
Even if nadal wins more slams, he cant and wont be considerer as the goat.
Federer put more style into the game of tennis than nadal ever will, even if rafa wins 17, 23 or 34 slams.
Fed is just the greatest, tennistically speaking. He has the slams, and the style. The goat style.
You cant value tennis vberall achievement only by numbers and palmares.

SirGounder
12-11-2011, 12:12 PM
this is exactly why you're wrong!
Even if nadal wins more slams, he cant and wont be considerer as the goat.
Federer put more style into the game of tennis than nadal ever will, even if rafa wins 17, 23 or 34 slams.
Fed is just the greatest, tennistically speaking. He has the slams, and the style. The goat style.
You cant value tennis vberall achievement only by numbers and palmares.

Wow you really live by that quote in your sig don't you? I am a Fed fan and would love for his records to hold up forever. I don't think Nadal will match or get beyond 16 slams, but it is possible. If he eclipses Fed in slam count, it would be pretty safe to call him goat. Say what you will about his playing style or time between points or his record on clay, he was dominant.

Povl Carstensen
12-11-2011, 12:18 PM
Wow, another if-discussion...

Russeljones
12-11-2011, 12:23 PM
he was dominant.

What? When exactly? One morning? One Afternoon? An entire week you say?

sureshs
12-11-2011, 12:28 PM
Great article, even our TMF could not have put it better.

Even if Rafa catches or surpasses Fred's slam tally, Rafa still hasn't "raised the standard of tennis" , more so brought it down (imho).

Like his topspin brings the ball down at the last instant?

No, in tennis the higher standard of tennis is played by the winner. That is the definition of higher standard. Ugly tennis is also higher standard tennis if it is effective, and elegant strokes are low standard if they are ineffective.

sureshs
12-11-2011, 12:30 PM
this is exactly why you're wrong!
Even if nadal wins more slams, he cant and wont be considerer as the goat.
Federer put more style into the game of tennis than nadal ever will, even if rafa wins 17, 23 or 34 slams.
Fed is just the greatest, tennistically speaking. He has the slams, and the style. The goat style.
You cant value tennis vberall achievement only by numbers and palmares.

If you want elegance, visit the Louvre museum and look at paintings. Real tennis is played in the trenches.

TheMusicLover
12-11-2011, 12:35 PM
Some people forget, Federer is 30. Nadal is 25. The 'totals' records come with age. For now he can only break the year by year records. What 25 year old breaks a career record? Federer sure couldn't at age 25. Actually Nadal already has some career records, quite astonishingly (the Masters shields record, the single-surface streak record, and has tied the Roland Garros record and a couple of other lesser event records). Gold medals record is another, maybe 2 or 3 of them. 2016 is on clay.

:rolleyes: - the 'age argument', again...
How often does this need to get debunked? Rafa was a very young bloomer, Fed a relatively late one. Tennis history tells that there have been plenty of players racking up GS titles in their younger days, only to fall dry immediately around the age of 25. Does Wilander ring a bell with you? Becker? Borg, perhaps?
It's not the age that counts most, it's the total mileage.

sureshs
12-11-2011, 12:37 PM
Agassi will be rooting for Nadal end of 2012 when Nadal will have his second Olympics Gold and a couple more Slams under his belt.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-11-2011, 12:51 PM
Some people forget, Federer is 30. Nadal is 25. The 'totals' records come with age. For now he can only break the year by year records. What 25 year old breaks a career record? Federer sure couldn't at age 25. Actually Nadal already has some career records, quite astonishingly (the Masters shields record, the single-surface streak record, and has tied the Roland Garros record and a couple of other lesser event records). Gold medals record is another, maybe 2 or 3 of them. 2016 is on clay.

This is very true, you have to consider Federer has more time to play than Nadal therefore the totals are still preliminary.

drakulie
12-11-2011, 01:07 PM
Nadal winning 3 slams in 2012 would make 16+ slams a done deal (since he's got years of clay dominance still remaining).

Nadal will be lucky to win one slam in 2012.

Vamos.

TennisLovaLova
12-11-2011, 01:20 PM
If you want elegance, visit the Louvre museum and look at paintings. Real tennis is played in the trenches.

Museums are boring.

nadalwon2012
12-11-2011, 11:55 PM
Nadal will definitely end up dominating Roland Garros for longer than Federer dominated any of the 4 slams.

aphex
12-11-2011, 11:57 PM
Nadal will definitely end up dominating Roland Garros for longer than Federer dominated any of the 4 slams.

Agreed. We all know Ralph is incapable of defending a non clay title.

nadalwon2012
12-12-2011, 12:10 AM
Agreed. We all know Ralph is incapable of defending a non clay title.

Luckily he's only 25. If he was 30 whereas, his best years would be way behind him. Anyway, regardless of defending a hardcourt title (which isn't actually an award, just a stat) he has won an Olympic Singles Gold, 3 Davis Cups, a clay-grass-hard slam season (only man in history to do it), and is just one Roland Garros away from having won more RGs than anyone else in history. So I'm sure he wouldn't swap any of these actual achievements (achievements which nobody else in the game today has) for a boring stat.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/16/magazine/21nadal-600.jpg

merlinpinpin
12-12-2011, 12:49 AM
Luckily he's only 25. If he was 30 whereas, his best years would be way behind him. Anyway, regardless of defending a hardcourt title (which isn't actually an award, just a stat) he has won an Olympic Singles Gold, 3 Davis Cups, a clay-grass-hard slam season (only man in history to do it), and is just one Roland Garros away from having won more RGs than anyone else in history. So I'm sure he wouldn't swap any of these actual achievements (achievements which nobody else in the game today has) for a boring stat.

You're sure nobody else ever won the olympic gold or the Davis Cup? Could have fooled me... :shock:

mxmx
12-12-2011, 01:28 AM
I agree Sampras is the GOAT "because of his serve and the fact that he comes in after his serve." (mxmx's exact words), can't argue with that.:|

I do not base the GOAT only on my feelings of their head to head matchups.
I remember watching a Roddick match against Federer. Roddick had the perfect strategy, coming to the net more often, especially on the serve. The problem was, that Roddick cannot volley like Sampras could. Federer killed Roddick with the chip return because Roddick could not volley as well. Sampras' serve is also more accurate due to the lower pace compared to what Roddick has.

The biggest factor i would say that makes me believe that Sampras is better than Federer, is the overall competition Sampras had to face compared to the lack Federer has. I also base it on the friendly matches they faced when Sampras was already retired.
Don't get me wrong...it would have been tight if both of them were of the same era...I just feel Federer would have had a tougher time against some of the legends of the past. I find the modern tennis to be inconsistent(except for the exceptional few who do well)...hence only few like Nadal and Federer stick around like players did in the past. Basically I am referring to lack of rivalry in the modern game which makes it so much easier for Federer to really dominate. I also believe that Federer has such a huge domination, that the habit of winning has multiplied how close he can reach his potential. A few years back, i believe he would have been restricted more, and probably not been as successful as Sampras if they were in the same era. He would have lost more, and thus maybe not have developed the same self belief he has now. These are all guesses and impossible to prove...but it can still be considered.

Unfortunately one cannot take away the records Federer broke...nor can one take away the credit dued to him. I just think sometimes people are a bit loose as to why they say Federer is GOAT.

On paper, Federer is the best...but only on paper.

mxmx
12-12-2011, 01:40 AM
Museums are boring.

The more shallow one is, the harder it would be to appreciate the deeper things.
So looking at a painting for example, may have little meaning to someone more shallow, than lets say, someone who may have more depth. Thankfully, one can learn to appreciate the deeper things in life....and unfortunately, one can also choose to ignore it. This is why some people find it hard to love, believe and care. They are things that are less obvious...and sometimes its just so much easier taking the easy route which does not challenge one to become greater than ordinary.

merlinpinpin
12-12-2011, 01:49 AM
The biggest factor i would say that makes me believe that Sampras is better than Federer, is the overall competition Sampras had to face compared to the lack Federer has.

Do you really feel that the overall level was higher in the 90's than it is now? I don't. For the sake of argument, I would say that (most of the time), the players ranked 5 to 10 were generally stronger in the 90's... but conversally, those ranked 2-4 were weaker, so I would say this kind of balances things out. Besides, Sampras never had *any* true competition on the long term. His only "real" rival was Agassi, who went AWOL for the better years of Sampras' carreer. During these years, Sampras only had to weather a succession of one-slam wonders and wait until they exhausted their potential at the top, which was generally only a matter of months (and most of them took the #1 spot away from him, too, although fleetingly). So I personnally don't buy the weak era vs strong era argument.

TennisLovaLova
12-12-2011, 03:53 AM
The more shallow one is, the harder it would be to appreciate the deeper things.
So looking at a painting for example, may have little meaning to someone more shallow, than lets say, someone who may have more depth. Thankfully, one can learn to appreciate the deeper things in life....and unfortunately, one can also choose to ignore it. This is why some people find it hard to love, believe and care. They are things that are less obvious...and sometimes its just so much easier taking the easy route which does not challenge one to become greater than ordinary.

I was joking. 2nd degree humor.
And fyi i've visited and enjoyed some of the finest museums in the world.
Lack of humour imo is the worst thing in life...

nadalwon2012
12-12-2011, 04:51 AM
You're sure nobody else ever won the olympic gold or the Davis Cup? Could have fooled me... :shock:

Nobody in tennis TODAY has won 3 Davis Cups. And nobody in tennis TODAY has won an Olympic Singles Gold. Or is Nicolás Massú still on tour?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-12-2011, 05:22 AM
Nobody in tennis TODAY has won 3 Davis Cups. And nobody in tennis TODAY has won an Olympic Singles Gold. Or is Nicolás Massú still on tour?

You think saying no one on tour has won Olympic singles gold and asking if Nicolas Massu is still on tour really helps your argument? If anything that just shows you don't have to be an all time great to win it.

Sentinel
12-12-2011, 06:05 AM
I was joking. 2nd degree humor.
And fyi i've visited and enjoyed some of the finest museums in the world.
Lack of humour imo is the worst thing in life...
Hey, leave suresh in his "trenches" wrapped up in a trench-coat, sneezing and nose-running.

He's a world-war kind of guy, tough as nails, doesn't wear warm clothes in winter, gets a cold pretty easily though (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=405980), for someone who talks trench-talk !

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=405980


_________________
Warm Vamoses,
Seńor Senti.

GasquetGOAT
12-12-2011, 06:13 AM
Nobody in tennis TODAY has won 3 Davis Cups. And nobody in tennis TODAY has won an Olympic Singles Gold. Or is Nicolás Massú still on tour?

I agree, 3 Davis cups is like 12 slams worth of GOATness as there is only 1 Davis cup winner per calender year while there are 4 slams in a season. And the Olympic Singles Gold, My Oh My, don't even get me started, its like the ultimate GOATnessass of tennis....

nadalwon2012
12-12-2011, 06:14 AM
You think saying no one on tour has won Olympic singles gold and asking if Nicolas Massu is still on tour really helps your argument? If anything that just shows you don't have to be an all time great to win it.
That applies to winning a slam too, seeing as Thomas Johansson has a slam. Either way, Nadal is an Olympic legend if he wins 2 or 3 singles golds. Federer will never have a chance of even winning 2 singles golds.

nadalwon2012
12-12-2011, 06:18 AM
I agree, 3 Davis cups is like 12 slams worth of GOATness as there is only 1 Davis cup winner per calender year while there are 4 slams in a season. And the Olympic Singles Gold, My Oh My, don't even get me started, its like the ultimate GOATnessass of tennis....

No singular achievement makes a player "goat".

Andres
12-12-2011, 06:19 AM
Nadal won't win RG.
Borg's records CAN'T be beaten. It's the curse!

GasquetGOAT
12-12-2011, 06:25 AM
That applies to winning a slam too, seeing as Thomas Johansson has a slam. Either way, Nadal is an Olympic legend if he wins 2 or 3 singles golds. Federer will never have a chance of even winning 2 singles golds.

How miserable must Federer be feeling at the thought of that.:(

TennisLovaLova
12-12-2011, 06:40 AM
No singular achievement makes a player "goat".

Bulls 91-92 Greatest Basketball team of all time

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 06:58 AM
Bulls 91-92 Greatest Basketball team of all time

Nah, 86 Celtics.

celoft
12-12-2011, 08:01 AM
Nadal will be lucky to win one slam in 2012.



I concur............

helloworld
12-12-2011, 08:08 AM
I agree, 3 Davis cups is like 12 slams worth of GOATness as there is only 1 Davis cup winner per calender year while there are 4 slams in a season. And the Olympic Singles Gold, My Oh My, don't even get me started, its like the ultimate GOATnessass of tennis....

Olympic is an amateur level event. Winning Olympic doesn't make a player become an all-time great. Nicholas Massu is not even close to being an all-time great. However, winning a slam will make you an all-time great.

GasquetGOAT
12-12-2011, 08:18 AM
Olympic is an amateur level event. Winning Olympic doesn't make a player become an all-time great. Nicholas Massu is not even close to being an all-time great. However, winning a slam will make you an all-time great.

But (Nadal is an Olympic legend if he wins 2 or 3 singles golds. Federer will never have a chance of even winning 2 singles golds.)

helloworld
12-12-2011, 08:33 AM
But (Nadal is an Olympic legend if he wins 2 or 3 singles golds. Federer will never have a chance of even winning 2 singles golds.)

Ok, Nadal has a chance to become an amateur legend. So what? :confused:

Cup8489
12-12-2011, 08:44 AM
Olympic is an amateur level event. Winning Olympic doesn't make a player become an all-time great. Nicholas Massu is not even close to being an all-time great. However, winning a slam will make you an all-time great.

Wait, Olympics=amateur?

Do you even know what you're saying? Because that's ludicrous.

helloworld
12-12-2011, 08:48 AM
Wait, Olympics=amateur?

Do you even know what you're saying? Because that's ludicrous.

Yes, it is. Muhammad Ali once threw his Gold medal like trash, and decided to enter professional boxing. He thought the Gold medal didn't prove him anything. He had to become the world champion to prove that he is truly the greatest. That's equivalent to winning the Grand Slam event in tennis. Grand Slam event proves that you are the best of the best in tennis world, not Olympic...

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 08:51 AM
Yes, it is. Muhammad Ali once threw his Gold medal like trash, and decided to enter professional boxing. He thought the Gold medal didn't prove him anything. He had to become the world champion to prove that he is truly the greatest. That's equilavent to winning the Grand Slam event in tennis. Grand Slam event proves that you are the best of the best in tennis world, not Olympic...

Thank god for that. Otherwise we'd have Petetards proclaiming Pete as GOAT even without one of the Grand Slam events -- the French open

TMF
12-12-2011, 09:35 AM
Olympic is an amateur level event. Winning Olympic doesn't make a player become an all-time great. Nicholas Massu is not even close to being an all-time great. However, winning a slam will make you an all-time great.

Try to convince nadalwon2012 and other Nadal fans since Fed fans doesn't really care since Fed also won the Olympic Gold. What important is the achievements on the pro tour.

beast of mallorca
12-12-2011, 10:04 AM
Try to convince nadalwon2012 and other Nadal fans since Fed fans doesn't really care since Fed also won the Olympic Gold. What important is the achievements on the pro tour.

Trying to convince yourself, huh. Doubles ? For realllz? And they say Olympics is nothing, and then, TMF is clinging to the doubles. A hoot and a half you are.

TMF
12-12-2011, 10:14 AM
Trying to convince yourself, huh. Doubles ? For realllz? And they say Olympics is nothing, and then, TMF is clinging to the doubles. A hoot and a half you are.

Frankly, many fans believe Olympic gold is just another MS equivalent, so if you want to denigrate Fed's double I don't really care. And you should be addressing to elloworld b/c he's the one who trashed Olympic gold.

Carsomyr
12-12-2011, 01:50 PM
Some people forget, Federer is 30. Nadal is 25. The 'totals' records come with age. For now he can only break the year by year records. What 25 year old breaks a career record? Federer sure couldn't at age 25. Actually Nadal already has some career records, quite astonishingly (the Masters shields record, the single-surface streak record, and has tied the Roland Garros record and a couple of other lesser event records). Gold medals record is another, maybe 2 or 3 of them. 2016 is on clay.

Federer already had the consecutive major finals, semifinals, and weeks at #1 before he turned 26. But nice try.

TennisLovaLova
12-12-2011, 02:19 PM
Nah, 86 Celtics.

Nah, MJ scored 63 points vs boston in 86 during the playoffs at the garden :-)

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 04:24 PM
Nah, MJ scored 63 points vs boston in 86 during the playoffs at the garden :-)

Boston had more overall talent.

asafi2
12-12-2011, 04:38 PM
Yes, it is. Muhammad Ali once threw his Gold medal like trash, and decided to enter professional boxing. He thought the Gold medal didn't prove him anything. He had to become the world champion to prove that he is truly the greatest. That's equivalent to winning the Grand Slam event in tennis. Grand Slam event proves that you are the best of the best in tennis world, not Olympic...

Umm..that's not why Ali threw his gold medal into the Ohio river ha. He threw it because he was refused service at a "whites only" restaurant despite winning a gold medal for his country.

infonoob
12-12-2011, 05:05 PM
Great article, even our TMF could not have put it better.

Even if Rafa catches or surpasses Fred's slam tally, Rafa still hasn't "raised the standard of tennis" , more so brought it down (imho).

Here, let me supplement you two quotes from Tigran Petrosian, a chess player known for his excessively boring playstyle.

Some consider that when I play I am excessively cautious, but it seems to me that the question may be a different one. I try to avoid chance. Those who rely on chance should play cards or roulette. Chess is something quite different. —Tigran Petrosian

They say my chess games should be more interesting. I could be more interesting—and also lose. —Tigran Petrosian

OddJack
12-12-2011, 05:21 PM
Here, let me supplement you two quotes from Tigran Petrosian, a chess player known for his excessively boring playstyle.

That's why Mikhail Tal was, and still is, such a popular chess player. Also Fisher.

What Petrosian got wrong was that many players with an attractive game style did not simply "take chances", they used their imagination to find ways to win.

You could say Petrosian was a one dimensional player, because he only knew one way to win.

BTW, Petrosian was left handed. He should've picked up a racket.

Tony48
12-12-2011, 07:03 PM
It's so funny. People claim that he raised the standard for tennis, but when someone beats him, it's because he's 30 or whatever :rolleyes:

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 07:15 PM
It's so funny. People claim that he raised the standard for tennis, but when someone beats him, it's because he's 30 or whatever :rolleyes:

i hope you re-read your moronic post -- what does one have to do with the other? Federer could've raised the standard of tennis when he was in his mid-20s, and has declined when he's 30 and has lost.

Tony48
12-12-2011, 07:34 PM
i hope you re-read your moronic post -- what does one have to do with the other? Federer could've raised the standard of tennis when he was in his mid-20s, and has declined when he's 30 and has lost.

Broke foot, mono, darkness, WHATEVER.

OddJack
12-12-2011, 07:36 PM
Uncle Tony is here!!!

We should all listen!

SoBad
12-12-2011, 07:40 PM
Agassi is a bald angry junkie and Fereder is worse because he won his slams because of no competition. Either great Sampras or great Nadal alone are much better than both of those two clowns combined.

/thread

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 07:49 PM
Agassi is a bald angry junkie and Fereder is worse because he won his slams because of no competition. Either great Sampras or great Nadal alone are much better than both of those two clowns combined.

/thread

You forgot that Sampras sucks.

SoBad
12-12-2011, 07:55 PM
You forgot that Sampras sucks.

Sampras is far greater than the overrated Feder, which is the point of this thread. He is also much better than Djokovic who has to hide out waiting for Nadal slumps to win any slams. Djokovic would probably get aced four times in a row in every return game against Sampras if he played in that era.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 08:36 PM
Sampras is far greater than the overrated Feder, which is the point of this thread. He is also much better than Djokovic who has to hide out waiting for Nadal slumps to win any slams. Djokovic would probably get aced four times in a row in every return game against Sampras if he played in that era.

No Federer is far greater than Sampras as the data prove. Also it appears Nadal is also > Sampras since even he got the career slam. Hell, Agassi did it too. LOL even Djoker will probably do it in 2012. Sampras must really suck, odd man out. Truth hurts, but you have to learn to accept it.

Andres
12-13-2011, 12:39 AM
Bulls 91-92 Greatest Basketball team of all time

Nah, 86 Celtics.
As cliche as it may sound, 96 Bulls still beats them both.

helloworld
12-13-2011, 01:32 AM
No Federer is far greater than Sampras as the data prove. Also it appears Nadal is also > Sampras since even he got the career slam. Hell, Agassi did it too. LOL even Djoker will probably do it in 2012. Sampras must really suck, odd man out. Truth hurts, but you have to learn to accept it.

Would Djokovic have won Wimbledon in the 90s facing Sampras, Krajicek, Goran, Becker? Not a chance. In fact, he probably would have lost to players as bad as Safin. Oups I forgot. He already did. :lol:
Djokovic winning Wimbledon is a just a prove that the level of grass court play has gone down by several levels.

TennisLovaLova
12-13-2011, 01:43 AM
Boston had more overall talent.

Yes, it may be true. But Bulls defense in 92 playoffs was unreal. And MJ had a great postseason.


As cliche as it may sound, 96 Bulls still beats them both.

72-10, ok.
But are you saying that because Kukoc was in the roster? :D
In terms of style of play, 92's team was superior. Pure basketball, awesome defence, incredible offense

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 01:58 AM
Would Djokovic have won Wimbledon in the 90s facing Sampras, Krajicek, Goran, Becker? Not a chance. In fact, he probably would have lost to players as bad as Safin. Oups I forgot. He already did. :lol:
Djokovic winning Wimbledon is a just a prove that the level of grass court play has gone down by several levels.

This is true. However, his Wimbledon win is still as legit as, say, Sampras ending up 1998 as #1 despite only winning four titles, three of them subpar, and having no competition for the top spot.

In the end, you can only beat the competition that's on the other side of the net, on the surfaces where tennis is played during your carreer. All the rest is just whimsical thinking and fanboy trolling (and trust me, I'm just about as far from a Djokovic fan as one can get...) ;)

mxmx
12-13-2011, 02:32 AM
I was joking. 2nd degree humor.
And fyi i've visited and enjoyed some of the finest museums in the world.
Lack of humour imo is the worst thing in life...

...and i was just making conversation. Wasn't necc aimed at you...

mxmx
12-13-2011, 02:43 AM
Has anyone seen the friendly matches between Federer and Sampras a few years back? Federer had to really work hard to prevent complete embarassment. Federer did impress me with his sportsmanship though...ie. having respect for Sampras.

zagor
12-13-2011, 03:01 AM
Has anyone seen the friendly matches between Federer and Sampras a few years back?

Yes,they're called exos.

Roddick straight setted Fed in Kooyong in 2007 and then went on to have the most lopsided lost to Fed in his career at AO a few weeks later.

If you think someone as careful as Fed is going to risk going full out in some exo(which are very often staged )you're out of your mind.

The only real match they played Fed won, personally I don't draw conclusons from it since neither of them were in their primes when their lone match-up occurred but it's even more stupid analysing exos and using them in your argument.

Federer had to really work hard to prevent complete embarassment.

Eh, what are you talking about?

Federer did impress me with his sportsmanship though...ie. having respect for Sampras.

Of course he respects Sampras, Pete's Fed's idol in a way.

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 03:03 AM
Has anyone seen the friendly matches between Federer and Sampras a few years back? Federer had to really work hard to prevent complete embarassment. Federer did impress me with his sportsmanship though...ie. having respect for Sampras.

Ahem, did you see that they were exos and that the results (ie win 1 Fed, win 2 Sampras, win 3 Fed with reasonably close scores) were obviously planned well in advance? That's always the deal with these matches. Nobody's coming just to get humiliated... ;)

zagor
12-13-2011, 03:06 AM
Ahem, did you see that they were exos and that the results (ie win 1 Fed, win 2 Sampras, win 3 Fed with reasonably close scores) were obviously planned well in advance? That's always the deal with these matches. Nobody's coming just to get humiliated... ;)

Oh no you're completely wrong, we should disregard their official Wimbledon match(in which Sampras was defending his Wimbledon title) in favour of exos :lol:

The stuff you read on internet sometimes.

zagor
12-13-2011, 03:09 AM
Agassi is a bald angry junkie and Fereder is worse because he won his slams because of no competition. Either great Sampras or great Nadal alone are much better than both of those two clowns combined.

/thread

It's worse to be a junkie than having no competition in your field? Strange statement.

Not to mention that Fed's love for the sea increased dramatically over the last few years which alone boosted his all-time ranking on the GOAT list.

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 03:09 AM
:lol:Oh no you're completely wrong, we should disregard their official Wimbledon match(in which Sampras was defending his Wimbledon title) in favour of exos :lol:

The stuff you read on internet sometimes.

Does that make of Sampras the GOAT of exos? :lol:

zagor
12-13-2011, 03:13 AM
:lol:

Does that make of Sampras the GOAT of exos? :lol:

No that would be Roddick, afterall he straight setted Fed when they played in Kooyong in 2007.

helloworld
12-13-2011, 03:30 AM
Has anyone seen the friendly matches between Federer and Sampras a few years back? Federer had to really work hard to prevent complete embarassment. Federer did impress me with his sportsmanship though...ie. having respect for Sampras.

Dude, it was just an exhibition. Besides, the courts were way too fast at Macau. They used the fastest carpet as a surface, which turns Sampras serve into unreturnable bullets. Federer did what he could, but there was no way any human could deal with Sampras serve on a surface like that...

Andres
12-13-2011, 05:10 AM
Yes, it may be true. But Bulls defense in 92 playoffs was unreal. And MJ had a great postseason.




72-10, ok.
But are you saying that because Kukoc was in the roster? :D
In terms of style of play, 92's team was superior. Pure basketball, awesome defence, incredible offense
I'm from Argentina, I'm not croatian ;)
I think 96 balances at least even, or even better than 92s. In the defensive end, I take 92s Jordan, but 96s Pippen. But here's the big thing, and while plenty could disagree with me, Rodman over H. Grant. Longley over Cartwright, averaging almost 7 times more blocks and rebounding pretty much the same, and scoring pretty much the same. I'll never get how Cartwright could average 0.2 blocks a game being 7'1'.

In the offensive end, Jordan and Pippen are pretty much equal, Rodman less than Grant, but Kukoc better than any other 6th man. In the PG position, Harper gets the edge here over Paxson, despite Paxson being a superior shooter.

While not overwhelmingly superior, I'd say 96s beat 92s 6/7 out of 10 times. Of course, all matches would be extremely close.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-13-2011, 05:31 AM
Would Djokovic have won Wimbledon in the 90s facing Sampras, Krajicek, Goran, Becker? Not a chance. In fact, he probably would have lost to players as bad as Safin. Oups I forgot. He already did. :lol:
Djokovic winning Wimbledon is a just a prove that the level of grass court play has gone down by several levels.

Yes he would have. Didn't Sampras lose to Krajick? LOL.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-13-2011, 05:33 AM
Yes, it may be true. But Bulls defense in 92 playoffs was unreal. And MJ had a great postseason.


MJ was definitely more athletically gifted than Bird, but at their peaks no one was more clutch than Bird. I don't see any team other than an equally talented Laker team with Magic beating him when it came down to the wire.

helloworld
12-13-2011, 07:08 AM
Yes he would have. Didn't Sampras lose to Krajick? LOL.
Krajicek was a grass court specialist. Djokovic simply sucks on grass. He has zero result on grass prior to winning Wimbledon. Grass has always been Djokovic's worst surfaces by far. If Federer was in the finals instead of Nadal(Djokovic's personal dog), Fed would have raped Djoker so hard, probably with some bagels and breadsticks as well. LOL.

fed_rulz
12-13-2011, 08:17 AM
Krajicek was a grass court specialist. Djokovic simply sucks on grass. He has zero result on grass prior to winning Wimbledon. Grass has always been Djokovic's worst surfaces by far. If Federer was in the finals instead of Nadal(Djokovic's personal dog), Fed would have raped Djoker so hard, probably with some bagels and breadsticks as well. LOL.

oh, is that why Sampras lost to Krajicek at wimby? I must've been dreaming when I saw Krajicek lead the h2h 6-4 with Sampras. either that or i didn't realize that all matches were played on grass.

fed27
12-13-2011, 08:28 AM
djokovic, nadal and federer.. those 3 are in their own level. the winner can only be determine by the performance at that particular time. but, federer makes tennis beautiful :)

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 08:37 AM
oh, is that why Sampras lost to Krajicek at wimby? I must've been dreaming when I saw Krajicek lead the h2h 6-4 with Sampras. either that or i didn't realize that all matches were played on grass.

Actually, it was more like 6-2, the last two wins by Sampras was at the later stages of Krajicek's carreer, when his level had taken a serious drop (he won his last title in March 99 and just played (and lost) a single final--in Halle--in 2000, when Sampras beat him in four at the USO). Until then, he kind of owned Sampras on any fast surface (his win at Wimbledon was actually their only meeting on grass).

Sampras was actually pretty lucky that Krajicek was only top 5 material (and most of the time top 5-10). Had he been top 3, the American's stock of GS silver may have suffered as a result, as Krajicek and him had the same hunting grounds...) ;)

fed_rulz
12-13-2011, 09:51 AM
Actually, it was more like 6-2, the last two wins by Sampras was at the later stages of Krajicek's carreer, when his level had taken a serious drop (he won his last title in March 99 and just played (and lost) a single final--in Halle--in 2000, when Sampras beat him in four at the USO). Until then, he kind of owned Sampras on any fast surface (his win at Wimbledon was actually their only meeting on grass).

Sampras was actually pretty lucky that Krajicek was only top 5 material (and most of the time top 5-10). Had he been top 3, the American's stock of GS silver may have suffered as a result, as Krajicek and him had the same hunting grounds...) ;)

It's kinda funny when you have Petetards claim Sampras faced "tough" competition unlike Federer, when in reality, it seemed like Pete had it easier -- the guys that could beat him were terribly inconsistent (Krajicek, Stich, etc.), and his biggest "rival" went AWOL for a non-trivial portion of his slam winning prime.

nikdom
12-13-2011, 10:37 AM
^^^ shhhhhhhhh

Don't wake up the trolls with all your logic and reasoning.

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 11:16 AM
It's kinda funny when you have Petetards claim Sampras faced "tough" competition unlike Federer, when in reality, it seemed like Pete had it easier -- the guys that could beat him were terribly inconsistent (Krajicek, Stich, etc.), and his biggest "rival" went AWOL for a non-trivial portion of his slam winning prime.

That's what I wrote in another post, the "weak-era" rubbish when talking of the 2000's is just that, rubbish. In the 1990's, except when Agassi was on top of his game, Sampras had to face an unending series of players who had a good spell of several months, got up to #2 (and even #1 for some of them) and then promptly went down in the rankings. The density was very strong around players ranked 5-10 (much stronger that today, I would say), but the top 2-4 were generally guys from the top 10 who had a couple of good months, there was no *sustained* challenge from any of them. At the drop of a hat, here are the guys who got to the #1 and the #2 spots when Sampras was #1.

#1:
Agassi
Muster
Rafter
Moya
Kafelnikov
Rios


#2:
Stich
Chang
Ivanisevic
Corretja
Korda

And I may be forgetting some of them, too, but all of the guys above were #1 or #2 between 1994 and 1999, and most of them won just 1 or 2 GS during their whole carreer (some didn't win any). As you can see, the list is huge. Basically, during this era, when you won a slam, you got the #1 spot several months later).

By way of comparison, during Federer's dominance, the list of #2's can be summed up as Roddick and Nadal. And as we said in another post, Sampras was able to secure the #1 ranking at year's end by winning only Wimbledon and what amounts to 3 ATP 500's or 250 (no MS), which is light-years behind what is needed today.

If the 1990's were a "strong" era, I would really hate to see what a weak era looks like. And, no, the 2000's just ain't it... ;)

infonoob
12-13-2011, 12:41 PM
That's why Mikhail Tal was, and still is, such a popular chess player. Also Fisher.

What Petrosian got wrong was that many players with an attractive game style did not simply "take chances", they used their imagination to find ways to win.

You could say Petrosian was a one dimensional player, because he only knew one way to win.

BTW, Petrosian was left handed. He should've picked up a racket.

True, but that's not the point. The idea I was trying to get off is that a boring player such as Rafa is not a bad player or one that is counter-beneficial to the game, but one that is a legitimate strategy and deserves a large amount of respect, especially considering how far Nadal has gone with a Petrosian-like playstyle.

Petro being a leftie just reinforces the comparison :P

kiki
12-13-2011, 02:22 PM
oh, is that why Sampras lost to Krajicek at wimby? I must've been dreaming when I saw Krajicek lead the h2h 6-4 with Sampras. either that or i didn't realize that all matches were played on grass.

Krajicek was very dangerous and loved playing Pete.Like Nadal loves playing the swiss guy

kiki
12-13-2011, 02:25 PM
That's what I wrote in another post, the "weak-era" rubbish when talking of the 2000's is just that, rubbish. In the 1990's, except when Agassi was on top of his game, Sampras had to face an unending series of players who had a good spell of several months, got up to #2 (and even #1 for some of them) and then promptly went down in the rankings. The density was very strong around players ranked 5-10 (much stronger that today, I would say), but the top 2-4 were generally guys from the top 10 who had a couple of good months, there was no *sustained* challenge from any of them. At the drop of a hat, here are the guys who got to the #1 and the #2 spots when Sampras was #1.

#1:
Agassi
Muster
Rafter
Moya
Kafelnikov
Rios


#2:
Stich
Chang
Ivanisevic
Corretja
Korda

And I may be forgetting some of them, too, but all of the guys above were #1 or #2 between 1994 and 1999, and most of them won just 1 or 2 GS during their whole carreer (some didn't win any). As you can see, the list is huge. Basically, during this era, when you won a slam, you got the #1 spot several months later).

By way of comparison, during Federer's dominance, the list of #2's can be summed up as Roddick and Nadal. And as we said in another post, Sampras was able to secure the #1 ranking at year's end by winning only Wimbledon and what amounts to 3 ATP 500's or 250 (no MS), which is light-years behind what is needed today.

If the 1990's were a "strong" era, I would really hate to see what a weak era looks like. And, no, the 2000's just ain't it... ;)

Becker? Edberg? Rafter?...vs Nabanidan? Roddick? Old Agassi? Pears and apples, my boy

Talker
12-13-2011, 02:49 PM
I'm from Argentina, I'm not croatian ;)
I think 96 balances at least even, or even better than 92s. In the defensive end, I take 92s Jordan, but 96s Pippen. But here's the big thing, and while plenty could disagree with me, Rodman over H. Grant. Longley over Cartwright, averaging almost 7 times more blocks and rebounding pretty much the same, and scoring pretty much the same. I'll never get how Cartwright could average 0.2 blocks a game being 7'1'.

In the offensive end, Jordan and Pippen are pretty much equal, Rodman less than Grant, but Kukoc better than any other 6th man. In the PG position, Harper gets the edge here over Paxson, despite Paxson being a superior shooter.

While not overwhelmingly superior, I'd say 96s beat 92s 6/7 out of 10 times. Of course, all matches would be extremely close.

96 Bulls were quite a bit better than the 92 Bulls.
Rodman was a monster on the boards but was also very disruptive to other teams mentally.
Pippen was never the offensive threat that Jordan was but was a pitbull on defense.
Kukoc was very clutch and could go on 3 pointer streaks, a big addition to the bulls.
Some of the centers the bulls had were tall like Luke Longley but the poor guy couldn't jump vertically more than a few inches. LOL.

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 11:15 PM
Becker? Edberg? Rafter?...vs Nabanidan? Roddick? Old Agassi? Pears and apples, my boy

Edberg after 1994? Sure, we can also add Tilden to the list, if you like... Even Becker was not really a force in the second part of the 1990's. Those guys were old (relatively speaking) at that time, too.

And Rafter sure was the most dangerous opponent for Sampras at this stage of his career. And he won just 2 GS (and it wasn't because Sampras beat him, except at Wim 2000). All the others won *less*.

At the very top level, the 90's were (much?) less competitive than the 80's had been. Kudos to Sampras for taking full advantage of it (he would have dominated his time anyway, as he was clearly the best around at that time, but this field allowed him to shine even when he wasn't at his best and was playing subpar for him...)

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 11:24 PM
Krajicek was very dangerous and loved playing Pete.Like Nadal loves playing the swiss guy

Spot on. Returning Krajicek's serve was a nightmare for Sampras.

Now, you're right in bringing up Nadal again, as this is exactly the same problem, ie bad matchup for the reigning champ. The difference being that Sampras was lucky that his worse matchup was only top 5-10 material and he roughly had 25% chance only on meeting him on any given tournament when each seed won the matches they were supposed to win (hence, much less in reality). Sampras and Krajicek met 10 times only in eight years, while Federer and Nadal met 26 times.

Now imagine Feder's worse matchup wasn't Nadal but Ferrer (whose ranking is more akin to that of Krajicek in his day). Federer who still be trailing, but as they met only 12 times, maybe it would be something like 4/8 or 5/7. And at the same time, he may be up 15/11 against Nadal, or something like that.

This doesn't mean anything, of course, but had Sampras played a #2-ranked Krajicek a whopping total of 26 times, it's doubtful that the American would have won more than 10 slams, if that many. Sampras was lucky that his worse matchup wasn't his most dangerous rival, as it was for Federer. ;)

TennisLovaLova
12-14-2011, 03:36 AM
I'll never get how Cartwright could average 0.2 blocks a game being 7'1'.


Cartwright understood the triangle offense better than longley

MJ was definitely more athletically gifted than Bird, but at their peaks no one was more clutch than Bird. I don't see any team other than an equally talented Laker team with Magic beating him when it came down to the wire.
I agree, but MJ was also clutch

96 Bulls were quite a bit better than the 92 Bulls.
Rodman was a monster on the boards but was also very disruptive to other teams mentally. Pippen was never the offensive threat that Jordan was but was a pitbull on defense. Kukoc was very clutch and could go on 3 pointer streaks, a big addition to the bulls. Some of the centers the bulls had were tall like Luke Longley but the poor guy couldn't jump vertically more than a few inches. LOL.

92 bulls were a hungry team. Remember how they overcame the knicks that playoffs??!!!!
Maybe I prefer 92 because it reminds me of that sweet period of life...

Steve132
12-14-2011, 04:57 AM
That's what I wrote in another post, the "weak-era" rubbish when talking of the 2000's is just that, rubbish. In the 1990's, except when Agassi was on top of his game, Sampras had to face an unending series of players who had a good spell of several months, got up to #2 (and even #1 for some of them) and then promptly went down in the rankings. The density was very strong around players ranked 5-10 (much stronger that today, I would say), but the top 2-4 were generally guys from the top 10 who had a couple of good months, there was no *sustained* challenge from any of them. At the drop of a hat, here are the guys who got to the #1 and the #2 spots when Sampras was #1.

#1:
Agassi
Muster
Rafter
Moya
Kafelnikov
Rios


#2:
Stich
Chang
Ivanisevic
Corretja
Korda

And I may be forgetting some of them, too, but all of the guys above were #1 or #2 between 1994 and 1999, and most of them won just 1 or 2 GS during their whole carreer (some didn't win any). As you can see, the list is huge. Basically, during this era, when you won a slam, you got the #1 spot several months later).

By way of comparison, during Federer's dominance, the list of #2's can be summed up as Roddick and Nadal. And as we said in another post, Sampras was able to secure the #1 ranking at year's end by winning only Wimbledon and what amounts to 3 ATP 500's or 250 (no MS), which is light-years behind what is needed today.

If the 1990's were a "strong" era, I would really hate to see what a weak era looks like. And, no, the 2000's just ain't it... ;)

Excellent post.

Sampras fans claim that he faced "strong competition". This is the list of players who defeated him in majors between 1993 and 1998, the years in which he ended as the world No. 1:

Edberg, Bruguera, Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado, Rafter.

This is the list of players who defeated prime Federer (2004-2009) in majors:

Kuerten, Safin, Nadal (6 times), Djokovic, del Potro.

Sampras was not stopped because he had to battle an army of giants in order to win majors. He lost to journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado at Roland Garros, and even on faster surfaces was vulnerable to the likes of Yzaga and Kucera. By contrast, ALL of the players who beat Federer won majors (more than once for everyone other than del Potro). They are a far more impressive group than the players who beat Sampras.

In fact, in order to win a major in the Federer era you have to go through Federer. He has won 15 of the 32 majors played since 2004. In 13 other majors the player who beat Federer won the title. On only four occasions in the past 8 years has someone won a major without beating Federer. Sampras was never remotely as consistent a contender.

Moreover, in majors he did not face his main rivals as often as Federer did. People like to throw out lists of Great Names who were active in the 1990's without considering the stage of their career they were at or how often they actually faced Sampras. During his career Sampras played the following opponents in majors:

Agassi 9 times
Courier 8
Chang, Ivanisevic 5
Becker, Rafter, Muster 3
Bruguera, Edberg, Kafelnikov, Krajicek 1
Rios, Stich 1
Kuerten 0

Federer's most frequent opponents in majors include:

Djokovic 9 times
Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick 8
Nalbandian 6
Davydenko, Safin 5
del Potro, Ferrero, Gonzalez 4
Tsonga 3
Murray 2

Note that Federer and all his main opponents other than Safin are still active and can be expected to face each other again. But the conclusion is clear. Federer faced the best players of his era far more often than Sampras did. Ultimately, the "weak era" theory rests on the argument that Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian and Safin were less talented than the people who actually beat Sampras in majors. This argument is not even remotely plausible.

SLD76
12-14-2011, 05:20 AM
Excellent post.

Sampras fans claim that he faced "strong competition". This is the list of players who defeated him in majors between 1993 and 1998, the years in which he ended as the world No. 1:

Edberg, Bruguera, Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado, Rafter.

This is the list of players who defeated prime Federer (2004-2009) in majors:

Kuerten, Safin, Nadal (6 times), Djokovic, del Potro.

Sampras was not stopped because he had to battle an army of giants in order to win majors. He lost to journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado at Roland Garros, and even on faster surfaces was vulnerable to the likes of Yzaga and Kucera. By contrast, ALL of the players who beat Federer won majors (more than once for everyone other than del Potro). They are a far more impressive group than the players who beat Sampras.

In fact, in order to win a major in the Federer era you have to go through Federer. He has won 15 of the 32 majors played since 2004. In 13 other majors the player who beat Federer won the title. On only four occasions in the past 8 years has someone won a major without beating Federer. Sampras was never remotely as consistent a contender.

Moreover, in majors he did not face his main rivals as often as Federer did. People like to throw out lists of Great Names who were active in the 1990's without considering the stage of their career they were at or how often they actually faced Sampras. During his career Sampras played the following opponents in majors:

Agassi 9 times
Courier 8
Chang, Ivanisevic 5
Becker, Rafter, Muster 3
Bruguera, Edberg, Kafelnikov, Krajicek 1
Rios, Stich 1
Kuerten 0

Federer's most frequent opponents in majors include:

Djokovic 9 times
Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick 8
Nalbandian 6
Davydenko, Safin 5
del Potro, Ferrero, Gonzalez 4
Tsonga 3
Murray 2

Note that Federer and all his main opponents other than Safin are still active and can be expected to face each other again. But the conclusion is clear. Federer faced the best players of his era far more often than Sampras did. Ultimately, the "weak era" theory rests on the argument that Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian and Safin were less talented than the people who actually beat Sampras in majors. This argument is not even remotely plausible.


we can all go home now

/thread.

helloworld
12-14-2011, 05:41 AM
Sampras plays a very agressive game, which is very risky. If he has a bad day, he could have lost to anybody. It's not a surprise by any means if Sampras loses to nobodies more often than Federer. It's just the way his game works. He takes high risks. However, the highly riskly game often comes with the highest reward. When Sampras's game is on, nobody can touch him. Federer is good on a consistent basis, but if both players bring out their A game, Federer would be eaten ALIVE.

joeri888
12-14-2011, 05:52 AM
Krajicek was very dangerous and loved playing Pete.Like Nadal loves playing the swiss guy

Krajicek was awesome. He wouldn't stand a chance on current grass, but on the old grass, he'd have Nadal, Djokovic, for breakfast and would give prime Federer a tough time with some tiebreaks in there.

fed_rulz
12-14-2011, 05:58 AM
Sampras plays a very agressive game, which is very risky. If he has a bad day, he could have lost to anybody. It's not a surprise by any means if Sampras loses to nobodies more often than Federer. It's just the way his game works. He takes high risks. However, the highly riskly game often comes with the highest reward. When Sampras's game is on, nobody can touch him. Federer is good on a consistent basis, but if both players bring out their A game, Federer would be eaten ALIVE.
really? then why is that Federer has delivered far more bagels than Sampras in the biggest of stages?

fed_rulz
12-14-2011, 06:00 AM
Krajicek was awesome. He wouldn't stand a chance on current grass, but on the old grass, he'd have Nadal, Djokovic, for breakfast and would give prime Federer a tough time with some tiebreaks in there.

not really. Djoker's return of serve would pose immense problems to ANY player relying a whole lot on their serves. regardless of what one claims or perceives Nadal's ROS to be, he is at the very top of return games won. he'll have a similar effect on big servers too.

helloworld
12-14-2011, 06:11 AM
not really. Djoker's return of serve would pose immense problems to ANY player relying a whole lot on their serves. regardless of what one claims or perceives Nadal's ROS to be, he is at the very top of return games won. he'll have a similar effect on big servers too.

He meant old grass. Djokovic would look like a lost boy if he had to return the serve of Krajicek at Wimbledon on old grass. Seriously, a lost boy who wouldn't know which direction to go. Believe me, Djokovic has never seen a serve like Krajicek. Today, top players don't serve well anymore. They only rely on their baseline game. Sad. :|

merlinpinpin
12-14-2011, 06:20 AM
Sampras plays a very agressive game, which is very risky. If he has a bad day, he could have lost to anybody. It's not a surprise by any means if Sampras loses to nobodies more often than Federer. It's just the way his game works. He takes high risks. However, the highly riskly game often comes with the highest reward. When Sampras's game is on, nobody can touch him. Federer is good on a consistent basis, but if both players bring out their A game, Federer would be eaten ALIVE.

That is just trolling, you know. Anyone could say that of their favourite players, and there would be no way to verify this (hence no way to disprove it) if the players were of different eras. For example, I could tell you following their titanic match last year that, on grass, Sampras would be eaten ALIVE by either Mahut or Isner should they bring their A game. And could you prove me wrong? No you couldn't, cause they've never played against each other and never will.

Besides, this thread isn't about who would be the best in hypothetical one on one situations, it's about what Agassi said about Federer. Sampras may have beaten the Swiss on fast courts, and he may have lost, too (on slow courts, the advantage would clearly go to Federer). Truth is, we don't know. The only reference was this match they played on old Wimbledon grass when Pete was past his prime but had just won his 7th title in eight years, and Roger was still a newbie on the circuit.

Now, considering the result of this match, on Sampras' favourite surface, at his favourite venue and against a player who was just coming into his own and was still far from his best level, we may safely have some serious doubts about your earlier affirmation, but again, who cares? If writing this (and believing it) makes you happy, then by all means, do so. :)

helloworld
12-14-2011, 06:27 AM
That is just trolling, you know. Anyone could say that of their favourite players, and there would be no way to verify this (hence no way to disprove it) if the players were of different eras. For example, I could tell you following their titanic match last year that, on grass, Sampras would be eaten ALIVE by either Mahut or Isner should they bring their A game. And could you prove me wrong? No you couldn't, cause they've never played against each other and never will.

Besides, this thread isn't about who would be the best in hypothetical one on one situations, it's about what Agassi said about Federer. Sampras may have beaten the Swiss on fast courts, and he may have lost, too (on slow courts, the advantage would clearly go to Federer). Truth is, we don't know. The only reference was this match they played on old Wimbledon grass when Pete was past his prime but had just won his 7th title in eight years, and Roger was still a newbie on the circuit.

Now, considering the result of this match, on Sampras' favourite surface, at his favourite venue and against a player who was just coming into his own and was still far from his best level, we may safely have some serious doubts about your earlier affirmation, but again, who cares? If writing this (and believing it) makes you happy, then by all means, do so. :)

This is not trolling, boy. Sampras's 2nd serve is basically his first serve. Nobody does that. Only Sampras takes that much risk, and comes out on top. We're talking about both players A+ game here. There's nothing Federer can do if Sampras was really on his game.

merlinpinpin
12-14-2011, 06:36 AM
This is not trolling, boy. Sampras's 2nd serve is basically his first serve. Nobody does that. Only Sampras takes that much risk, and comes out on top. We're talking about both players A+ game here. There's nothing Federer can do if Sampras was really on his game.

You might be surprised, grandpa, but I *did* see him play, and a few decades of greats before, too. ;) Talking about A game doesn't mean anything per se, there are so many variables. On clay, for example, Sampras' A game probably wouldn't have been enough against Federer's Z game, so that really doesn't mean anything.

We can just surmise that, on slow courts, Federer would probably have destroyed Sampras, and on hard courts, they would probably have played tons of tie-breaks, considering that Pete was nearly unbreakable and a poor returner to boot. Apart from that, who knows?

sadowsk2
12-14-2011, 06:44 AM
This is not trolling, boy. Sampras's 2nd serve is basically his first serve. Nobody does that. Only Sampras takes that much risk, and comes out on top. We're talking about both players A+ game here. There's nothing Federer can do if Sampras was really on his game.

I agree with you... at the USO or Wimby, HUGE advantage to Sampras... The funny thing is, and this may be because the majority of this forum is fully of young 20 somethings or teenagers and never had the opportunity to watch Sampras play early in his career... But his forehand from the baseline was probably the most feared on the tour and his baseline game was always SOLID. Just ask Agassi at Indian Wells when they battled for the #1 ranking and Sampras destroyed him while playing exclusively from the baseline... So for folks to say his game is ALL his serve just shows the ignorance to what Sampras's game truely was. As a matter of fact, he didnt start S&V on his 2nd serve alot until way late in his career....

sadowsk2
12-14-2011, 06:47 AM
You might be surprised, grandpa, but I *did* see him play, and a few decades of greats before, too. ;) Talking about A game doesn't mean anything per se, there are so many variables. On clay, for example, Sampras' A game probably wouldn't have been enough against Federer's Z game, so that really doesn't mean anything.

We can just surmise that, on slow courts, Federer would probably have destroyed Sampras, and on hard courts, they would probably have played tons of tie-breaks, considering that Pete was nearly unbreakable and a poor returner to boot. Apart from that, who knows?

I dont know how you can make your summations there... For someone claiming to be as old and wise as you are, you certainly aren't showing it... Truth be told, you can have your own personal beliefs, but to try and make a general consesus statement like you did without reliable data is foolish. :roll:

merlinpinpin
12-14-2011, 06:50 AM
I dont know how you can make your summations there... For someone claiming to be as old and wise as you are, you certainly aren't showing it... Truth be told, you can have your own personal beliefs, but to try and make a general consesus statement like you did without reliable data is foolish. :roll:

Lol, thanks for telling me this, that's exactly what I've been telling helloworld since the last page. Or maybe you just quoted the wrong message... ;)

aphex
12-14-2011, 07:56 AM
He meant old grass. Djokovic would look like a lost boy if he had to return the serve of Krajicek at Wimbledon on old grass. Seriously, a lost boy who wouldn't know which direction to go. Believe me, Djokovic has never seen a serve like Krajicek. Today, top players don't serve well anymore. They only rely on their baseline game. Sad. :|

Krajicek a better serve than Karlovic?
Lol what a dummy:)

helloworld
12-14-2011, 08:01 AM
Krajicek a better serve than Karlovic?
Lol what a dummy:)
Why do you even compare Karkovic to Krajicek in the first place? Karlovic is not even among the top players. They have different ways of serving. Karlovic aims for just aces, while Krajicek don't need to aim for aces all the time. Unlike Karlovic, Krajicek actually knows how to volley and put away weak returns. Seriously, why Karlovic out of many better top pros on grass in this (weak grass)era? :confused:
Again, read my post. I refer to top players only. Read.

tusharlovesrafa
12-14-2011, 08:06 AM
Krajicek a better serve than Karlovic?
Lol what a dummy:)

I concur..