Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by fed_rulz, Dec 30, 2012.
Pete will not say that. He only cares about the majors and Nadal is 6-3 vs Nole.
LOL, you guys are comparing a player from the previous era to the current active players. There is simply no way to compare. Anyway, have fun discussing something that are totally based on opinions and Happy New Year!
Try all of the threads you either launched or posted in where your pro Fed agenda was/is clear. As if that was not enough, your username closes that case, kid.
No honest, sound mind would base threads on "supposed" statements--but then again, anyone doing it knows no grounds existed to base a criticism of Sampras and where he stands in relation to Federer. This is another example of attacking anyone held high regard who happens not to be your false "god.".
Oh, you mean Laver--the one who won the Grand Slam--the ultimate tennis accomplishment Federer could not even come close to on his best day. Yes...that Laver.
Which Laver? The little guy who beat up on amateurs to win most of his Slams? That Laver?
No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there--in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.
^ the statement revealing how much you do not know about tennis.
Saved for future use.
yeah, unfortunately for you, you are NOT the one who gets to decide that.
Oh please. There is no such thing as "golden career slam." The whole thing was invented because of Agassi. Olympics still doesn't have a great history for tennis no matter which way you slice it.
Irrelevant--as it is easy to collect any of the four over the span of years. He was incapable of concentrated dominance over the field at majors during a season (calendar year), like Laver.
To modify your words, without the Grand Slam, Federer is a definite drop below Laver.
If it was invented, then it exists. Davis Cup didn't exist before that Davis guy invented it but now it does. Same goes for golden career slam. Couldn't care less for whom it was invented. It was and now it exists and Nadal has it, Agassi has it, Sampras doesn't.
Nothing "unfortunate" there, as the fact remains he only won a FO due to the luck of Nadal not being on the opposite side of the net.
It was invented by the Agassi-loving media (no complaints there, I like Andre). But I rarely see the term being used now, leaving aside Nadal's most ardent followers of course. So yeah, even the media thinks its passe
It's okay, even Nadal got his fair share of luck at USO particularly considering the fact that previously, his best result there was one SF in all these years.
Incorrect, that would mean that they awarded the FO trophy to Fed the minute Nadal lost which obviously didn't happen.
Regarding calling his FO win "fluke", incorrect again, we're talking about a player with 5 FO finals to his name here.
Eh, sure he did, he won 7 BO5 matches and thus won the title in the end.
I haven't studied the frequency of its use (lol) but I have seen it. In any case the big deal is not the "golden" part, the big deal is the career slam which Sampras doesn't have, not even a final at RG.
But it's certainly not easy to win 17 slams, holds 302 weeks at #1, 23 straight semifinals, or reaching 24 slam finals. Those are just a few records that lifted him above everyone else, including Laver.
And Laver have conceded Federer is the greatest, that speaks volume.
Those records just scratch the surface of his what he's achieved.
What was the problem for poor Rafa to reach the final that year?
Nadal played the French Open in 2009. You sound confused.
For someone who has a problem with me starting a thread based on what Sampras "supposedly" said, you sure make a **** load of assumptions based on my motives and agenda... all based on my username.
Still not sure why you feel the need to assert that Laver is the "true" GOAT based on the 2 CYGS he won. I ask you again... why do you feel the need to bash Federer and remind everyone that Laver is the GOAT since he won the CYGS, when (a) the thread is not a discussion on who the GOAT is and has nothing to do with Laver, and (b) you should be directing your anger at Pete, because if the quotes attributed to him are true, then he sure does not think highly of Laver, thus violating his sanctity, and desecrating your place of worship in the process.
*******s love to quote others about how good Federer is, but as soon as Sampras says something about Federer losing to his greatest rival, all up in arms. Way to stir the pot, this thread is 17 pages already and growing strong.
Refer to my “Why the GOAT does not exist” thread, it sums up the GOAT, or lack thereof perfectly. Unless Federer can address the deficit, history will always judge him as the man who was Nadal’s little *****. Eventually someone will overtake 17 slams, but Federer’s poor H2H record against Nadal will stand for all time. Where does that leave Federer? Because the way some of you tennis 'gurus' talk about Sampras, that will leave Federer in no man’s land.
Some of you talk about Sampras as if he is some tennis hack, as if he is in no man’s land as far as tennis history is concerned. To those that think he is a hack, here is a reminder of his resume:
• Only man to make 7 or more slam finals in at least 2 of the 4 slams.
• Undefeated in the final at Wimbledon.
• During his prime years, owned or equalled his rivals in the H2H slams. Please note, prime years, so losses to Edberg, Safin and Hewitt don’t count. And just for the record, he’s 1-0 against Stich in the slams and 1-1 against Krajicek in slams.
• Dominated his era moreso than any other era champion.
• Record 6 years ending number 1.
You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.
So if you think the above equates to a tennis hack which renders Sampras in no man's land, then you’re an idiot.
To you, losing to Nadal may not mean much, but I’m very sure it means a hell of a lot to Federer. It must eat at him to know that there is a guy out there who hands him his ass on a platter at the slams (let me reiterate, this will be acknowledged in all future tennis statistical and other books). This is something Federer has to live with. Talk all you like about beating the field, but at the end of the day, the GREATEST OF ALL TIME must also be able to beat any player in history at least 2 times out of 3 on 3 different surfaces. GREATEST remember, BETTER than anyone else. In that regard, the Federer v Nadal scoreline is a miserable one for Federer, not just miserable, but an epic fail, whether you choose to include the RG matches or not. Live with it, it’s the truth.
Federer's Records and Streaks
Can you list Laver's records?
A Grand Slam against Amateurs.
Another in a weak era against weak pros.
How can Federer be the greatest of all time if Nadal in this era alone is already beating him 8-2 in slams on 3 different surfaces, and Nadal is not even the greatest of all time? Imagine what would guys like Sampras,Laver, Borg, Pancho, etc. would do to Federer. In fact, Federer is not even the best of his own era, Nadal is.
It was also 3 on grass and 1 on clay. But according to smoledman, Fed's zillions records only scratch the surface of Laver's achievement.
And don't forget Nadal has to win 34 slams to surpass Sampras.
For Nadal to dominate his era to an extent as Sampras did, Nadal has to compile twice more slam count than his nearest rival, Federer. I don't think he will ever achieve it, but he can try.
No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business, Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed has never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.
Petetards have comprehension problems, and this post sums it up perfectly. No one claimed Pete was a tennis hack; just that he has no argument over Federer. if you believe anyone in this thread claims or believes that Pete was a tennis hack (he was pretty poor on clay), then you're the idiot.
you see, you'll have to come up with made-up stats like "never lost a wimbledon final" or "owned his rivals in his prime" to keep him in the discussion. If pete owned his rivals in his prime, how is that he ended up with lesser slams than Federer in his prime (both their primes spanned the same length...)? and losing in the QF is more impressive than losing in the final? what sort of puke-worthy record is that?
i think you may have misunderstood smoldeman (or i might have ) -- i understood that he meant that the records that you quoted for Federer are just a few of the many of the other records he owns..
can't believe vernoquiem has come to the defense of Federer; in any case, huge props
Rosewall won 23 majors(amateur slams+open era slams+pro majors) to Laver 19. According to your logic, Laver has to win 46 majors to surpass Sampras.
If I did I appologize.
But everyone should know by now that smoledman is LOLvile. He's pretending to support Roger just to avoid his identity.
I have subjective preferences but I'm super honest about records. No way around facts, no cheating allowed. Otherwise, where would be the glory at achieving anything?
Comparing Fed to other players, you support him, but comparing him to Nadal, you knock him down. You don't have to explain, we already know why.:-|
Will you marry me?
I don't support Fed in anything. I just can't let someone say that 14 slams > 17, 11 masters > 21 and 5 WTF > 6 WTF, etc, etc. If I let that happen, nothing makes sense anymore and the world becomes chaos...
I'm already married but thanks anyway
It would still leave him in front of Sampras.
You can talk, but Federers statistics are clearly better.
If Nadal was close to Federer in claim for goat, this would be relevant, not as it is.
But the way some people on here carry on, ie you either have the most slam wins or you're nothing, would not mean much now would it.
İf Fed is goat so Margeret Court in women tennis.Anybody believes Court better than Graf and Navratilova seriosly ???
Fed won 17 majors during the weakest era in mens tennis.
Court won 11 AO titles when AO field was weak,thats why she won record 24 GS titles.Both of them arent the best ever.
Beautiful post Vero, absolutely beautiful.
Sampras is widely considered one of the best ever players - you don't think his 14 slams is a key factor in that?
In Sampras' day, and in the days before Sampras, the first week was always a big risk. Just look at the recent history of Wimbledon.
Lewis making the final in 83
Curren making the final in 85
Doohan knocking off the 2 time champ Becker in Round 2
The way the grass is now, and the way the game is played now, you won't find these journeymen who are damn good grass courters causing upsets.
At Wimbledon, Sampras was always suspect in the first week and a bit. However, once he got 5 or 6 matches under his belt and was in the zone, he was unbeatable. Plain and simply, unbeatable. Same can't be said for Fed.
Not really, no.
Fed beat full fields to win all his slams, in some of Court's AO wins, AO had a 32 player maindraw.
Until say 1988 it's hard to argue AO was on par with other slams, the vast majority of the time it was on par with masters tourney at best.
No, but many people (including Laver ) believe Fed's one of the best ever.
This is a subjective opinion, AO's relevance/draw size compared to other slams in Court's time isn't.
Again, there's no correlation between Court and Fed, educate yourself a bit about tennis history first.
Honestly, who has Fed lost to outside Nadal (and that was extremely close) in the finals? I think you're splitting hairs. There really isn't much difference in terms of achievements between Sampras and Federer. You want to argue Sampras played at a higher level? Go ahead. Granted, Sampras was much more explosive on grass. But he also played in a different set of conditions. The one time that Federer and Sampras met, Federer won playing Pete's game (almost). And if Sampras was old, Federer was still not at his best, playing his first ever match on Wimbledon CC. Nobody expected him to win that encounter. Now, this doesn't tell us that Federer is significantly better than Sampras but it does tell us that the man is capable of adapting his play and could very well have done the same in any "era."
rosol in wimbledon 2012 and safin in wimbledon 2008 and berdych in wimbledon 2010 say HELLO
the main problem with sampras' record @ wimbledon is that at peak of his powers is he got straight-setted by krajicek , didn't even put up much of a fight .....
at the peak of his powers, federer lost only one grass court match (2003-09) - that was the 2008 wimbledon final, where he fought after being down two sets to love and it was a close match ending 9-7 in the 5th .....
sampras didn't seem all that unbeatable in the final vs courier in 93, neither in the 95 SF vs goran, obviously not the 96 QF vs krajicek, nor the 98 final vs goran, nor the 99 QF vs phillippoussis ...... all these in the 2nd week ....
Not really, no.
Borg for example has fewer slam wins than Sampras but notice Laver still put him ahead on his official tennis great ranking list, not to mention that being ranked #3 in the Open Era hardly means you're nothing (it's a great achievement).
Of course, classy humble gentleman that he is, Laver refused to rank himself instead of proclaiming himself as the greatest ever (which shows a combination of arrogance and insecurity) but we all know no one is above him as a player (nor as a tennis analyst).
LOL at putting Borg above Sampras. Borg has 0 US Open title and 0 AO. His dominance at #1 was also not much longer than Nadal. He has no business being compared to Sampras.
Federer has a host of other records in case you forgot, PLUS a subjective quality of play that is extremely highly regarded by many.
Separate names with a comma.