PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Fed will go down as the GOAT is he wins ?


bribeiro
06-09-2006, 05:43 PM
Just wondering, how much of a positive impact will this match have on feds career? I think that if he wins this match, and wimby again, hell go down as the goat, but thats just me

Rhino
06-09-2006, 05:45 PM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=103671

yes

Ivanišević
06-10-2006, 10:52 AM
how could he be GOAT? what does that make sampras, or connors, or borg, or emerson or laver or lendl and so on...? not so great? come on..

Rickson
06-10-2006, 10:54 AM
Federer is already the best tennis player in history.

Ivanišević
06-10-2006, 10:59 AM
Federer is already the best tennis player in history.
do u have arguments? or do u predict future? i'm just curious..

Rickson
06-10-2006, 11:02 AM
do u have arguments? or do u predict future? i'm just curious..
I predict future and future say learn English. Bok, nema problema.

Ivanišević
06-10-2006, 11:09 AM
I predict future and future say learn English. Bok, nema problema.
oh, that's good argument!
i'm curious... what did i spell wrong? and.. does future say or says?

Fischer76
06-10-2006, 11:44 AM
how could he be GOAT? what does that make sampras, or connors, or borg, or emerson or laver or lendl and so on...? not so great? come on..

Totally agree. How can Federer be GOAT when he has only one true competition.. Nadal, and he has only managed to beat him once!!!:confused:
He has yet to eclipse AA record and then PS 14 slams and 286 weeks as #1. Maybe it's a case of "lowered expectations?":mrgreen:

chaognosis
06-10-2006, 03:02 PM
Totally agree. How can Federer be GOAT when he has only one true competition.. Nadal, and he has only managed to beat him once!!!:confused:
He has yet to eclipse AA record and then PS 14 slams and 286 weeks as #1. Maybe it's a case of "lowered expectations?":mrgreen:

It seems to me that Agassi cannot really enter the GOAT debate because he did not dominate the game for any extended period of time. Only a single year finished ranked No. 1 is a pretty significant blemish, far more so, I think, than Sampras's lack of a French Open title. (One also cannot forget that he lost most of his critical confontations with Sampras.) Agassi is a great player, yes, and his modern "Career Slam" is an impressive achievement, but he's not in the GOAT territory. Federer, I think, is not there yet either -- but he seems to be on the path. With a win tomorrow, I think Federer surpasses all but Laver, Borg, and Sampras in the Open Era. He still has to pay his dues for a few more years though before beating out those three, as well as those earlier immortals, Tilden and Budge.

Fischer76
06-11-2006, 03:31 AM
It seems to me that Agassi cannot really enter the GOAT debate because he did not dominate the game for any extended period of time. Only a single year finished ranked No. 1 is a pretty significant blemish, far more so, I think, than Sampras's lack of a French Open title. (One also cannot forget that he lost most of his critical confontations with Sampras.) Agassi is a great player, yes, and his modern "Career Slam" is an impressive achievement, but he's not in the GOAT territory. Federer, I think, is not there yet either -- but he seems to be on the path. With a win tomorrow, I think Federer surpasses all but Laver, Borg, and Sampras in the Open Era. He still has to pay his dues for a few more years though before beating out those three, as well as those earlier immortals, Tilden and Budge.


You won't get an argument from me Chaognosis on the points that you've made. But before Federer can truly be on his way to being GOAT he needs to eclipse AA's record. Records are there as a reference point. True AA was never dominant but his record of winning all 4 slams is still in no small way an achievement and Federer still needs to equal, then surpass them. Then, we all can start thinking about the "potential" of Federer equaling PS records before we can seriously consider him as GOAT. I believe that with the current depth in the mens game, Federer has a good shot at it. Personally I would like Federer to break PS records and really be the GOAT but that's just me. The reality tho' is that, it's quite difficult even for Federer. But this story is by no means over yet. As Federer said, it is quite unfair to compare him with the greats as he is not finished with his career yet.

siber222000
06-11-2006, 03:53 AM
oh, that's good argument!
i'm curious... what did i spell wrong? and.. does future say or says?
his probably mentioning about you typed "u" instead of you, but thats just my guess :rolleyes:

arnz
06-11-2006, 04:22 AM
I predict future and future say learn English. Bok, nema problema.

I find a certain arrogance in people whose native language is English, expecting the entire world to know their language perfectly. I credit people for learning any foreign language in the first place.

Condoleezza
06-11-2006, 04:56 AM
how could he be GOAT? what does that make sampras, or connors, or borg, or emerson or laver or lendl and so on...? not so great? come on..


Fed is already on the same level as Agassi, Mac, Connors and Lendl.
Only Sampras, Laver and Borg are still ahead of him.

Condi

Condoleezza
06-11-2006, 05:00 AM
You won't get an argument from me Chaognosis on the points that you've made. But before Federer can truly be on his way to being GOAT he needs to eclipse AA's record. Records are there as a reference point. True AA was never dominant but his record of winning all 4 slams is still in no small way an achievement and Federer still needs to equal, then surpass them. ...

Having 3 Wimbledons easily beats having the NCYGS and only 1 Wimbledon.

Condi

Ivanišević
06-11-2006, 05:16 AM
Fed is already on the same level as Agassi, Mac, Connors and Lendl.
Only Sampras, Laver and Borg are still ahead of him.

Condi
i don't see how...
jimmy connors has 109 (!) single ttles including 8 grand slams, Lendl has 94 single titles including 8 grand slams, McEnroe has 77 single titles including 7 grand slams and agassi has 60 single titles including 8 grand slams..
and federer has only(:) ) 37 titles including 7 grand slams..

Ivanišević
06-11-2006, 05:19 AM
his probably mentioning about you typed "u" instead of you, but thats just my guess :rolleyes:
i tipe "u" instead of "you" because is easier..:)

Fischer76
06-11-2006, 05:49 AM
Having 3 Wimbledons easily beats having the NCYGS and only 1 Wimbledon.

Condi

Well I'm sure that gives Federer a lot of assurance going to the final at the French. lol:mrgreen:

Gilgamesh
06-11-2006, 06:59 AM
i don't see how...
jimmy connors has 109 (!) single ttles including 8 grand slams, Lendl has 94 single titles including 8 grand slams, McEnroe has 77 single titles including 7 grand slams and agassi has 60 single titles including 8 grand slams..
and federer has only(:) ) 37 titles including 7 grand slams..

Comparing Federer's career to other GOAT candidates is unfair because Federer's career is not finished yet.

But if we compare them as players and their skill set there is definite argument that Federer could arguably be the most skilled and talented tennis player ever.

If we go by career, Pete Sampras is perhaps the GOAT. His absolute dominance of the tour for so many years and his 14 career GS. Federer's career is not on that level yet but he is quickly closing in.

If we compare Sampras vs. Federer as players/skill set the argument becomes more even out.

theace21
06-11-2006, 07:02 AM
Seems like many current and ex players say he is and I would have to agree...

Gilgamesh
06-11-2006, 07:08 AM
Totally agree. How can Federer be GOAT when he has only one true competition.

There is no question that the perception of the depth of Men's tennis right now is bleak but the same was said about Sampras' competition.

Truth is Federer has just destroyed his competition to the point that the perception is that there isn't any (except Nadal) just like Sampras did his.

Are we talking about 80s competition? No. But I don't think the competition today is as bad as people think. I just think one man is head and shoulders above his competition he makes them disappear.

Fischer76
06-11-2006, 08:19 AM
There is no question that the perception of the depth of Men's tennis right now is bleak but the same was said about Sampras' competition.

Truth is Federer has just destroyed his competition to the point that the perception is that there isn't any (except Nadal) just like Sampras did his.

Are we talking about 80s competition? No. But I don't think the competition today is as bad as people think. I just think one man is head and shoulders above his competition he makes them disappear.

Perception!!?!! He makes them disappear!!???!!!

Well Gilgamesh, how many GS has the current top ten have between them? (excluding Agassi). Again how many GS has the top ten in the 90's (in Sampras time) between them?:confused:

Ivanišević
06-11-2006, 08:21 AM
There is no question that the perception of the depth of Men's tennis right now is bleak but the same was said about Sampras' competition.

Truth is Federer has just destroyed his competition to the point that the perception is that there isn't any (except Nadal) just like Sampras did his.

Are we talking about 80s competition? No. But I don't think the competition today is as bad as people think. I just think one man is head and shoulders above his competition he makes them disappear.

well, i would still say that sampras had a greater competition.. he competed with agassi, becker, rafter, courier, stich, kafelnikov, ivanisevic, chang, krajicek, muster, bruguera..
look at the top 20 today... davydenko, robredo, blake, gaudio, stepanek, nieminen, baghdatis, ginepri.. can you compare that?

Gilgamesh
06-11-2006, 09:34 AM
Perception!!?!! He makes them disappear!!???!!!

Well Gilgamesh, how many GS has the current top ten have between them? (excluding Agassi). Again how many GS has the top ten in the 90's (in Sampras time) between them?:confused:

That is the thing. Federer wins so much. After all, he has won 6 of the last 10 GS tournaments.

A lot of the top players on the tour are also still relatively young. Becker, Lendl won majority of the GS in the 80s. When Sampras was in his prime Agassi only won 3 GS. Rafter only has 2 GS, Muster only has 1, Chang only has 1 and he won that in 89'.

If you're going to discount Agassi then you have to discount Lendl when Sampras played.

I will say again, a lot of the top players on the tour today are young therefore you don't expect them amass a load of GS wins especially competing against a Federer prime.

Sampras' competition is not that much better it is just that when he came in there were more established guys. When Federer came in Sampras was going out and Agassi was fading by his prime.

Gilgamesh
06-11-2006, 09:41 AM
well, i would still say that sampras had a greater competition.. he competed with agassi, becker, rafter, courier, stich, kafelnikov, ivanisevic, chang, krajicek, muster, bruguera..
look at the top 20 today... davydenko, robredo, blake, gaudio, stepanek, nieminen, baghdatis, ginepri.. can you compare that?

I agree. Sampras' competition is still better but Federer's competition is not that much worse. That is my argument.

Nadal is a stud. He is already the master of clay and can beat Federer on hard court. That is why he needs this rivalry and more importantly find a way to beat Nadal (and not just on grass if they ever meet) to really cement his legacy.

If Sampras never had Agassi to compete with and even if he won 14 GS I don't think he would be as highly remembered of at least for me personally.

I think great players need to compete against other great players to in essence validate their greatness. I agree with people who believe in this merit.

Federer is great but if he can't beat Nadal he can't be considered the greatess.

Ivanišević
06-11-2006, 11:20 AM
I agree. Sampras' competition is still better but Federer's competition is not that much worse. That is my argument.

Nadal is a stud. He is already the master of clay and can beat Federer on hard court. That is why he needs this rivalry and more importantly find a way to beat Nadal (and not just on grass if they ever meet) to really cement his legacy.

If Sampras never had Agassi to compete with and even if he won 14 GS I don't think he would be as highly remembered of at least for me personally.

I think great players need to compete against other great players to in essence validate their greatness. I agree with people who believe in this merit.

Federer is great but if he can't beat Nadal he can't be considered the greatess.
I totaly agree with you on this one..