Apparently, Sampras still thinks he's the GOAT!!!

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by fed_rulz, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    I agree.. I think Laver, Pancho, Federer, Sampras and Rosewall could all make statements saying their the greatest ever, and they would all have a case. Just my opinion
     
    #51
  2. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,109
    Location:
    New York

    But Sampras and Fed are close enough in time that it's not that difficult to compare their achievements and observe that Fed has surpassed Sampras on any surface and in any department.
     
    #52
  3. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    Fed and Sampras are close but still far apart in comparing.. The game has changed so much just since the mid 90s. Nevermind the 50s and 60s.

    Its a totally different game now
     
    #53
  4. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    um, no.. Sampras does not belong in the conversation anymore.
     
    #54
  5. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,109
    Location:
    New York

    What huge changes have taken place since the 90s?
     
    #55
  6. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    14 slams
    Record Year #1
    Tied for Most Wimbledon titles
    5 USO titles (most finals appearances)
    2nd longest reign (or 3rd if you factor in Pancho was on top longer then Fed and Sampras) at #1 in history
    Stopped and dominated his main rivals
    Davis Cup
    2 AO's


    He deserves to be in the conversation regardless of how much you hate him
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #56
  7. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    yet, you have no problem comparing Roddick, Hewitt etc. to Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, and make claims about 2000s being the weakest era of all?
     
    #57
  8. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    Racket technology, carpet is gone, fast courts in general are gone, variety is gone, surface specialists are gone
     
    #58
  9. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    12,205
    I prefer still not to compare them. I am sure you are aware at how polarized the surfaces were in the 90s, there were very distinct characteristics shown between the slams, that are not around in todays game. Again, I am not saying Federer wouldn't have had the exact same success, he is very adaptable, and I am not even saying that Nadal wouldn't have the same success, but even between their time and Pete's time, things have radically changed.

    I will say this, Federer and Nadal to a slightly lesser extent have done remarkably well, and have incredible champion's mentality, but so did Sampras. But Fedal have played in conditions that are different from what Sampras did.

    Now, you can say that it makes things easier for Federer and Nadal, since there is less surface change, the balls are similiar etc. But you can also say that it also makes things harder, since other players who would have struggled more in 90s with changing surfaces, now are able to compete on more and more events and slams, thus making it even more difficult for Fedal to win. It goes both ways, and again, I am not fighting a case either way.

    I am just saying, Sampras did play in a time when conditions were drastically different, to what Federer and Nadal have, so you already have to look at surfaces as a discussion point. And if arguments are being made, yeah....you can still say who you think is GOAT, but there will be question marks always. Speculations and hyptheticals will always come up. I am happy with what Roger, Rafa and Pete have done in their careers, but I don't need to be giving GOAT titles around to underline they were the best. In the times they played, they simply were the best.
     
    #59
  10. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Sampras is probably the best player currently who doesn't have a case for being the GOAT. Federer took it away from him by matching him on grass/hard courts (even surpassing him on hard courts) and being 3 leagues above him on clay. Sampras doesn't have any "special achievements" to put him in the coversation unlike:
    - Borg who did the channel Slam 3 times on completely different surfaces
    - Nadal who completely dominated a surface, won all 4 majors and has a positive h2h against virtually everybody
    - Laver with 2 calender slams
    - Federer who almost completely dominated half a decade, I could write a whole chapter about Federer's "special" achievements but let's name a couple: winning Wimbledon/US 5 times in a row each, 23 major SF in a row, 17 majors
     
    #60
  11. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549

    Borg had NO hardcourt slam title, and retired at 25-26 years of age (So to put Borg there and not Pete is nuts).. He also doesn't have nearly the time on top that Sampras and Fed have had. Fed couldn't dominate his main rival (In fact, he got beat by his main rival on THREE different surfaces at the slams). Who did that to Sampras? No one.

    And If you're gonna put Borg as a GOAT candidate then you have to put Nadal.. Simple as that.. Nadal has gotten the best EVERY ONE of his main rivals.. Borg couldn't do that. Nadal won all 4 slams.. Borg didn't. Nadal also has the same number of slams as Borg.
     
    #61
  12. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    regardless of how much I hate him or you idolize him, he does not "deserve" to be in the conversation.. it used to be that you can make a case for him, but not anymore. how can he be in the conversation when a fellow-contender has completely eclipsed him??
     
    #62
  13. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    And Pete had no FO. Your point?

    Besides Borg just barely missed out on a US Open title, he reached 4 finals and IMO was just unlucky not to score once at least, he had a great shot in 1980 and 1976 but just couldn't deliver that final blow.

    Primo Sampras never dominated Agassi in majors. He was 0-3 in majors against Andre on surfaces that suited Andre and 6-0 on surfaces which favored Sampras. Could've easily been 6-3 for Agassi if Sampras didn't suck on clay or Agassi sucked at the US Open.

    Besides, you don't get extra points for beating your rival more often than not. Only in one way - you get more titles to your total resume. Who cares, for example, that Sampras could beat Agassi at the 2001 US Open when later on he was squashed by Hewitt in the final?
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #63
  14. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    My point is you can put Borg there and not sampras? Laughable. Sampras won slams 12 years apart, had way more time on top then Borg, way more longevity, more slams, dominated his best surface more then Borg dominated his, more YEC, dominated his main rivals, Borg couldn't (Neither could Fed for that matter) etc..
     
    #64
  15. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,109
    Location:
    New York

    Racquet technology? OK but not that drastically since the 90s, I would not call that a major change. Carpet was already marginal in the 90s. Fast courts are not gone, neither is variety (Isner plays nothing like Simon) and Nadal must be the biggest specialist that ever lived, so I disagree with all the rest.
     
    #65
  16. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,436
    if beating the field counts laver is the greatest. beating the field is important but quality of opposition and beating your main rivals is important too. rivalries make legends, not wins alone.

    but still IMO Fed is the GOAT. nadal is a serious dent in feds resumee (as he lost to him also in his prime and also off clay -was not owned but baby nadal was always at least his equal on all surfaces exept indoor) however I cannot overlook sampras weakness on clay.

    not the 3 more slams make fed the GOAT but that he was a dominant force on all surfaces. without nadal he would have 4+ slams on all surfaces and that is unique in tennis history. federer is the most complete player ever considering the diversity of surfaces.
     
    #66
  17. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    that's the last straw that Pete and his legion of tards seem to want to hold on to... something they manufactured in a desperate attempt to knock Federer and still keep pete in the discussion.

    Pete's main "rival" Agassi had exactly 2 slams when Pete's prime ended!! If having such credentials constitutes a "main" rival, then you must concede that Pete faced almost no competition during his prime. How can someone with 2 slams constitute a "main" rival. If that were to be the case, then Hewitt, Safin and to some extent Roddick were Federer's comparable rivals, whom he dominated!

    btw, contrary to your claim that eras can't be compared, you seem perfectly ok indulging in that exercise as long as you can draw favorable mileage from it?
     
    #67
  18. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    If there is such thing as a GOAT its probably Laver or Pancho. The have the least holes in their resumes
     
    #68
  19. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549

    ROFLMAO.. Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Rafter etc.. is no competiton?

    Then whats On and off again Safin, Nalbandian, Baby Pup Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, 40 year old Agassi, Gonzales, Baghdatis? Roadkill? Outside of Nadal and (who didn't hit his prime until 2008) and Agassi who's prime was over before Fed's began, there is less then half a dozen slams between all those guys
     
    #69
  20. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    You don't understand what we're arguing about. I said Sampras had no "special achievements" and I stick to that. He has no single achievement that will make people say "wow no-one is ever going to match that!". At least nobody thinks so now, back in 2002-2003 a lot of people thought that no-one is going to touch his 14 majors and 7 Wimbledons for a long long time.

    1)He has 7 Wimbledons? Great. Federer has 7 as well and 8 finals.
    2)He has majors 12 years apart? Who cares? Should Federer get more credit for winning 15 majors in barely 6 years?
    3)He dominated his main rivals? And who would that be again? With Federer it's obvious you have Djokovic and Nadal (Murray might join later on) - all-time greats already. Who did Sampras beat again? Ivanisevic and Rafter?

    Besides, Sampras didn't dominate grass more than Nadal did clay, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Sampras didn't give a damn about grass bar one tournament - Wimbledon while Nadal has gone like 300-10 in the last 7-8 years or so on that surface which includes a major and 3 Masters. Sampras would NEVER dominate to that degree on grass if there was Wimbledon backed up with 3 Masters. Heck, he couldn't even dominate Queen's Club and won like 11 Masters titles in his whole career...imagine him winning 2-3 Masters for 7-8 years like Nadal did. Really...
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #70
  21. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    really? care to compare and contrast the "holes" in the resumes of Laver, Pancho and Federer?
     
    #71
  22. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    your point is about dominating the main rival, so stick to it. if you want to include ALL rivals, then let's sum up the h2h counts for Pete vs his rivals, and Federer vs his rivals. Are you ready?

    btw, you're again comparing Becker, Edberg etc. with Hewitt, Safin etc., despite your claims to the contrary that players across eras cannot be compared (nevermind the fact that Hewitt and Safin pwned Pete in their maiden slam finals... lol, so much for mental strength; can't hold off first timers).
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #72
  23. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549


    Rightt... So :

    Most Wimbledon titles in history (tied with Federer)
    Davis Cup
    5 USO titles and most finals
    Most year end #1s
    2nd or 3rd longest reign in history at #1
    4 YEC
    14 slams
    etc...

    Isn't "special".


    Go to bed ****
     
    #73
  24. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Sampras can't. Stop kidding yourself.
     
    #74
  25. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,650
    Sampras comments and greatness vs Nadal

    I agree that Sampras is ahead of Nadal for the moment. Though I see Nadal surparsing him.

    Sampras makes the same mistake as a lot of people in talking about head to head without reference to surface. If Sampras had played Agassi the majority of times on Clay, then Agassi would have had the dominant head to head. Head to head discussions without reference to surface are irrelevant. (Pick the head to head score Borg vs McEnroe if they had played all their matches on clay rather than none on clay). Until commentators and people interested in tennis stop mentioning head to head without reference to surface then we are going to have these problems of perception.

    The Federer Nadal head to head aberation is unique in tennis where two rivals have played the majority of their matches on one of the players best surface and the other players worst surface. Have there ever been any other occassions in history when the top 2's rivalry surface has favoured one player massively?

    So in Summary

    1/ Sampras is wrong about his analysis of head to head vs main rival because he doesn't factor in surface.

    2/ Sampras is still ahead of Nadal in terms of Greatness factors - but perhaps not for too many more years. Though I have to say, I rate the WTF highly as an event - and Nadal's lack of success there hurts him. (Though one in the same breath could talk about Sampras' relatively weak Masters 1000 showings).
     
    #75
  26. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    you might want to add "sucked on clay" to the list, and it will make it truly special.
     
    #76
  27. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Once again, you're proving that you can't read properly. Does anyone go "wow, nobody is going to break that record!" at any of Sampras' records? Or any you mentioned? Besides, those aren't even records. On top of my head Federer has more majors and WTF, Nadal has more Davis Cups, Federer has spent more time at no 1.

    I'm not saying that Pete didn't have a great career, it's simply not GOATworthy anymore after watching Federer surpass Sampras in every department. He does NOT have any special achievements anymore. There is no single record of Sampras that makes people think that no-one will ever break it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #77
  28. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549


    And Fed can't hold off his main rival. Hasn't been able to his ENTIRE career.. In fact, he gets taken to the woodshed on THREE count them THREE surfaces.. And has let his rival gather 11 slams and counting. Sampras only allowed Andre to gather 8 (And most of those came after Sampras' prime was done)
     
    #78
  29. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    actually, Sampras can (and it appears that he has been). the only difference is, if other did, they DO have a case, but Sampras doesn't.
     
    #79
  30. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549

    I expect records to continue to be broken as long as they are placed.. The only records that probably will never be broken are Laver's 200 titles and 2 Calendar slams. Anything outside of those are ripe for the picking

    It doesn't mean they aren't special records though
     
    #80
  31. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Yeah I agree with you there. Impossible to really say one player is the GOAT, it's mostly about being the best within certain parameters.
     
    #81
  32. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,271
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    It's not. Only a blind Petetard like yourself would try and argue that Pete is special when Federer has matched or surpassed all but the Davis Cup, ye #1 (more than made up by the fact Federer held #1 for 237 consecutive weeks, something Sampras didn't even sniff at), and most USO finals (congrats to Pete, he took more USO's to win 5 than Federer, woo hoo).

    Get out of thread, your argument is crap. Davis Cup is a nonissue for many people, and one more YE#1 certainly doesn't make up for the deficit in both not having A FO, only two AO's, and 3 majors less, AND COUNTING.
     
    #82
  33. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    so? I don't still see the relevance in making tall claims about beating someone who only managed to squeak 2 slams when Pete's prime ended, and was admittedly a meth head.
     
    #83
  34. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Why would claycourters be considered "competition" for Sampras? :lol: And it's hilarious you mention old-guy Becker as competition for Sampras but don't mention Djokovic, Murray or Del Potro as competition for Federer. You are a joke. Sampras isn't even relevant in the GOAT discussion. If the head-to-head is so important, care to explain Sampras's record against Krajicek?
     
    #84
  35. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    If Sampras didn't place those records there would be nothing to shoot for. ALL RECORDS (Barring Laver's will probably be broken).. Thats what records are there for.. To be broke.

    Looks like another clown I have to put on the ignore list.
     
    #85
  36. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    Fed was already working on DOUBLE DIGIT slams by the time Djoker, Murray, and Del Potro ever did CRAP!!!

    Regardless, they aren't Fed's contemporaries. The only bunch out of them was Nadal (And thats because he was an early bloomer). Fed's main contemporaries were Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Davydenko etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #86
  37. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    what about Roddick?
     
    #87
  38. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Pete has a perfectly valid point. The GOAT, whomever that is, owns their main rivals as Sampras did, as Laver did, as Gonzales did, as Tilden did. Federer is probably the only top 10 player all time, let alone serious GOAT candidate, who was owned that badly by a fellow all time great and their greatest rival, 8-2 in slams is quite embarassing. Nadal is overall not much, if any, better than Agassi, and Sampras certainly was the boss in that rivalry, while Nadal is even more the boss in his rivalry with Federer. It doesnt mean Nadal is better than Federer, but it does mean Federer's GOAT claims are dubious at best.
     
    #88
  39. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Okay, I'll play this game.

    Sampras has the Davis Cup? Federer has the Olympic Silver in singles and the Olympic Gold in doubles.

    Sampras has one more YE #1? Federer was #1 for over 4 years, straight.

    Sampras has more USO finals? Federer has more Wimbledon finals. How do you like them apples?

    Now let's look at the REAL records

    Grand Slams : 17 to 14
    French Open titles : 1 to 0 (5 finals to 0 finals)
    Masters titles : 21 titles to 11 titles :lol:
    Head-to-Head : 1-0 Federer leads :lol:

    I mean, need I go on? :)
     
    #89
  40. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    I agree that records are meant to be broken, anything can happen in the next 100 years. I still think that "special records" are such when a player smacks the previous record by a country mile or still makes people jaw drop. For instance:

    I don't consider Federer's 17 majors, 300 weeks at no 1 or 6 WTF's to be special cause he "barely" broke those records. His special records would be more like 23 major SF in a row (the previous record is 10), winning 2 separate majors 5 years in a row or reaching 5 finals in every major - those are the types of records that no-one is going to break for long long time. However, if Djokovic reaches 20 major semi-finals in a row, I won't consider that Federer record to be special anymore, since someone else has come close to it.
     
    #90
  41. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    careful Davey, your hypocrisy is starting to show.

    How is 18-10 "overall not much" better than 20-14? if you factor in Federer is >> Agassi, Nadal's feat becomes all the more impressive.

    You know what other GOAT candidates did? reached at least a final in the clay slam. Would you say Pete's claims are dubious at best? or would you still claim "Pete has a point"?
     
    #91
  42. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    ****s never run out of excuses or double standards.

    Who said it wasnt. I said Nadal wasnt much better than Agassi, not that Nadal didnt do much better against Federer than Agassi did vs Sampras. Nadal just had an easier opponent than Agassi, hence why he did so much better. :) There are some who argue Agassi is better than Nadal on all surfaces except clay though, yet despite that Sampras had the upper hand on Agassi in a way Federer could only dream of vs Nadal.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2012
    #92
  43. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,109
    Location:
    New York

    6 consecutive year ends at #1 was pretty special. I don't think that Sampras was "lesser" than Borg or Nadal, they all have their strengths and weaknesses, but at this point Fed has (unambiguously) achieved more than him. That's pretty irreversible, unfortunately for Pete.
     
    #93
  44. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    as many as that were made for "Pete was past his prime" when he lost as a 4-time defending champion to Federer at Wimbledon.
     
    #94
  45. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Nadal is not just way ahead of Agassi at this point, he will likely be ahead of even Sampras by the time he's done. Let's put this in context. Sampras had to contend with an Agassi-level player. Federer had to contend with a Sampras-level player (in Nadal) and an Agassi-level player (in Djokovic). And that's actually underselling Nadal and Djokovic. I'm fairly sure they'll be considered BETTER than Sampras and Agassi by the time they're done. And again, the head-to-head means nothing. Sampras couldn't even dominate Krajicek. And let's not forget, he is 0-1 against Federer (on his favorite court on his best surface).
     
    #95
  46. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Dont count your chickens before they are hatched. Nadal right now is nowhere near Sampras. Sampras is light years ahead on all surfaces except clay, and it is looking increasingly likely Nadal might be retired from tennis altogether soon, let alone being a safe bet to win the extra 3 or 4 slams, and the extra 1 or 2 non clay slams, to even make be argued as a Sampras level player, even on achievements alone.
     
    #96
  47. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    Fed's been "Old and washed up" since 2007, Dont you know :)
     
    #97
  48. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Who cares? Federer is still winning majors so it doesn't matter. Nadal has been with Federer since the very beginning (Federer has won 13 majors with Nadal around) and has ALWAYS been there unlike Agassi who showed up for 1 major and then dissapeared for 5 years, lol. Same with Djokovic, he has been a factor since 2007 and Federer has won 5-8 majors since (depends if you look at the beginning or the end of 2007). And counting.

    As for the legendary Sampras competition:
    -Edberg - Sampras was 0-2 (and 1-6 in sets) against him in majors. Edberg COULD'VE been serious competition for Sampras if he wasn't gone after 1993. Sampras really dodged a bullet there.
    -Becker - the same Becker who peaked in 1988-1992? Oh that. When was Sampras beating him again? In 1995-1997? Oh and 1999.
    -Bruguera, Courier - clay courters. Sampras sucked on clay anyway so doesn't matter.
    -Rafter - gone past the 4th round of a major for the first time in mid 1997 when Sampras was already sitting at 10 majors. See your arguement above.
     
    #98
  49. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Had Nadal won that Wimbledon final in 2007, Federer would have been washed up since 2006. ****s are probably dissapointed that didnt happen in a sense, as it would allow them to flush away all the Masters losses that year to Nalbandian and Canas, and even having to concede Nadal won 85% of the baseline rallies in a match with "prime" Federer on grass, and only Federer's career serving day and Nadal's slew of missed break points barely saved him.
     
    #99
  50. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,549
    Fed has "by the numbers". Heck "by the numbers" no one should be be able to touch Laver or Pancho or Rosewall. We count the pro slams, Rosewall has more then Federer. Fed won't ever touch 2 calendar slams (nor will anyone else) or 200 titles that Laver managed. He also managed 11 slams and was banned from playing pros in his prime years.
     

Share This Page