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

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

  1. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Yes, when Sampras was good, he was good, and..? Sampras suspect in the first week and a bit, an argument against Federer, really..? He he
     
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    AO wasn't significant in borg's time ... the YEC/Dallas were far more important ...and borg won them both

    borg @ the USO >>>>>>>>>>> sampras at the FO ...

    borg was the best player in the world for 4 years (77-80 ) ( even if the dumb ATP rankings at those time evaluate it completely wrongly ) , that's much longer than nadal who was only for 2 years (2008 and 2010 ) ....

    and borg's 1981 ( FO win, wimbledon final , USO final ) was >>>>>>> sampras 98 ( QF @ AO, 3R @ FO, win @ wim, Sf @ USO ) and sampras' 96 ( 3R @ AO, SF @ RG, QF @ wim, win @ USO ) ....... yet sampras ended 96 and 98 at no 1 and borg ended 81 at no 2 ...... reason being obviously 1981 was far more competitive than 96 or 98 ....

    hell, even borg's 76 ( FO QF, wimbledon win, USO final , win @ dallas) was better than sampras' 96 and definitely better than sampras' 98 .... again ,reason same as above ..

    and given his simultaneous domination over two 2 polar opposites , clay and grass, hell yeah, borg is pretty much comparable to sampras ..

    realistically speaking, the only place where there is no business of comparison is that of sampras to federer because federer has him beat in almost every area , in many areas pretty badly !
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  3. chatt_town

    chatt_town Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,007
    I think the fact that Fed has been able to win as many as he has despite being handled by Nadal says even more to fact that he is the best to ever play. I love Pete and the one hander. I generally don't like to compare eras but I often wonder how Pete would have done against Nadal bouncing balls up around his shoulder with his one hander. At the end of the day I think that has made the difference in Fed and Nadal(fact that Nadal plays left handed). What Pete says is a great arguement but I think the fact that Fed is what 4 or 5 ahead of him at this point pushes Fed over the top.

     
  4. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    The same dumb logic. "Better to lose in the 4th round than in the final!"
     
  5. BHud

    BHud Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,300
    WTF are you talking about? Check out his weeks spent at #1...not to mention his slam count (the tour's marque events) before you make such an idiotic comment. Everyone can have an opinion, but yours is baseless.
     
  6. Relinquis

    Relinquis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,335
    Location:
    On the courts; hard & clay ...
    What do the pros think?

    Two short clips by players*, including Sampras, discussing Federer as the GOAT and Federer vs. Sampras.

    Pro Players on Fed as GOAT (Sampras and Nadal comment from 2:30 onwards, but worth watching in whole)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5p_nu-OyM0

    Sampras, and other pros from his era, on Roger:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QslTiKVyh2s

    I think the consensus is that Federer is the Greatest ever, but that he is not perfect as he hasn't dominated Nadal, his main rival on clay.

    *All time great players and slam winner, current and past.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  7. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Nobodys perfect, thank God.
     
  8. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,371
    Actually Sampras has no business being compared to Roger.

    17 slams > 14
    24 finals > 19
    21 MS > 11
    76 titles > 64
    302 > 286

    Fed has more records in his pinky than Sampras can ever dream of.
    Federer's Records and Streaks


    There's a distinct 1 tier separation between them.
     
  9. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,762
    Clearly, you are the "moron,' as your knowledge of tennis history is so limited, that you were never aware of the celebrated significance of the Grand Slam--the reason Laver is the true greatest, and why a player such a Graf was considered that the year she won the Grand Slam--when she had more years of majors yet to win.

    Next time, try not to show just how immature you are with posts like that in the quote above. You come off like kids who think every new song or film is "the best evar, LOL!"

    Thanks for playing, kid.
     
  10. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,762
    Get the name straight, unless you are itching for a prime spot on the ban list. ..and if your respose to this is more flaming, then you have not learned anything about the first part of this reply.

    Consistently means nothing if the one time you win is when the master of the event is not there. That is too glaring to ignore, but continue thinking Federer's fluke FO had nothing to do with Nadal not being there, when we know the results when he faced Nadal in four FO finals.

    Hint: Federer did not defeat Nadal, thus Federer's one FO victory was not inevitable, as we can assume--from the record--that he would have lost to the man who owned him at the FO.

    Fluke.

    .
     
  11. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,420
    Oh this one's a doozy. This is coming from the same guy who claimed Sampras stopped trying to win the French after the age of 24!
     
  12. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I agree.

    I have Borg ranked just ahead of Sampras.

    The RG-Wimbledon double was extremely difficult (back when it was slow clay and fast grass), and extremely impressive.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  13. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

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

    As I explained in my post, it doesn't really matter how Fed got those achievements. He got them, end of story. There can't be a case of Fed has achieved more but I'm gonna ignore it. On the basis of what? A lot of Wimbledon draws that Sampras got were actually easier than Fed's draws. Fed also won 5 grass titles outside of Wimbledon. His grass winning % is higher. You cannot take that away just because one day, Doohan beat Becker. Rosol also beat Nadal. So what? What does that prove? Nothing. In the meantime, Fed still has the most grass achievements.
     
  14. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    No it's not. Sampras for most of the time at no 1 was just "barely" ahead of everyone else by a mere 200 or 300 points (how do you think guys like Rios, Kafelnikov, Muster, Moya or Rafter go to no 1 in the first place? If Sampras was so dominant he wouldn't allowed such mortals to get ahead of him in the rankings). He never won 3 majors in a year, sucked on clay, got often upset in majors at his very peak by journeymen (1994 US Open, 1996 Wimbledon, 1997 US Open to mention a few and the whole FO) He was the best of his generation, no doubt about that, but he never dominated THE TOUR (except for a brief period in 1993/1994 but I wouldn't call that domination). He did dominate Wimbledon, however. But that's it.

    If you wanna see domination check out Borg in 1978-1980, or Mac in 1984, or Federer in 2004-2007 or Nadal's clay results since 2005.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,371
    Dominate on grass but mediocre on clay is a wash. That's not dominating the tour.
     
  16. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    And Federer has dominated the clay-courts for several years, right? :p
     
  17. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Federer has won practically squat all on clay, only 1 title at the 2 biggest events on clay (the same number as Sampras actually, lol), so by that logic Federer has not dominated the tour either.
     
  18. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,371
    Nadal(#1) and Fed(#2) both dominated the clay since 2005. No players are above them. The problem with Sampras is too many players are above him.
     
  19. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    LOL you talk as if Federer was the 2nd best clay courter all the years since 2005. 2010, 2011, 2012, Federer was certainly not the 2nd best clay courter. In 2008 I would argue he wasnt either, Djokovic played higher level of clay court tennis at every event except Monte Carlo.

    Getting your butt kicked in all the finals by someone else is not dominating a surface by any measure. By that logic Chris Evert dominated Wimbledon throughout his career by losing all those finals, especialy to Navratilova.
     
  20. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I rank Federer as the GOAT but some of your posts annoy me, especially trying to claim that Federer is a tier above the likes of Sampras and Laver.

    There's a certain level of tennis great (Laver,Sampras,Borg,Rosewall,Gonzales) that *has* to be ranked in the Tier 1 of players all-time. Even if Federer is at the top of that tier, you cannot relegate those guys from the top tier and place Federer in a special tier of his own.
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,371

    Are you saying reaching the final means nothing?. Since 2005, Fed made 5 finals, no player except rafa is remotely close to Roger. He also was consistently making the MS finals(and won a few)...Hamburg, Madrid, MC, Rome. Also, he won at least 50 matches at the FO, and the only player to win 50+ matches on all four slams. That sound more than enough to say he dominated the tour.
     
  22. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    he doesn't have to, because he wasn't a wash on clay.
     
  23. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    I was just making the point that you blunder so many times ........ is it that hard to get ?

    oh and I'm sooooooo scared about a ban for pointing out dumb posts and posting from someone ......


    in which part of my post did I say federer not facing nadal had nothing to do with it ?

    since when is beating nadal @ RG a pre-requisite for a RG win not to be called a fluke ? face it, almost everyone , including laver would be defeated by prime nadal @ RG all those times ......

    master of the event ???? LOL, what if there is a different champion for every year in a time-frame of 5 years for an event ? then who is the master ? so is every one of them a fluke ? LOL !!!!!! what if a player dominated an event and then retired ? the next winner would automatically be a fluke ? LOL !!!!

    A fluke would be if a player was missing for most part, but only took advantage when the draw opened up big time ...... not the case here .....

    and finally get a life : a calendar GS, while wonderful, isn't the only thing in tennis !
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  24. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    LOL. you must have a tough time keeping track of your BS. Federer was the 2nd best clay courter from 2005 - 2008, and the best clay courter of 2009. if Federer wasn't the 2nd best clay-courter in 2008, then Djoker has no claim of being the 2nd best in 2012.
     
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,371
    There's a 1 tier distinction between Lendl and Borg, Nole and Agassi. If I annoyed you for separating Fed and Sampras, would that also annyoy to all the Lendl and Nole's fans? I'm just trying to be consistent. There's no rules in how to separate players from 1 tier. However, based on what I've seen the gap that separate the players from 1 tier, I see the gap between Fed and Sampras is large enough for the separation. If you don't, then you can't separate Lendl/Borg, Agassi/Nole, Connors/Borg, Nadal/JMac, etc...
     
  26. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    GTFO with Laver that midget.

    People talking about Laver as a GOAT candidate, without ever seeing him play an actual match. LOL just LOL.
     
  27. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Federer is the 2nd greatest Claycourter of his era. Sampras won 5 matches in his last 6 appearances at the FO :lol:
     
  28. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,109
    Location:
    New York
    Lol just lol but 2 calendar slams is nothing to spit on.
     
  29. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    1 was against amateurs.
     
  30. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,109
    Location:
    New York
    well, one wasn't.
     
  31. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Interesting, so had Djoker won FO2011, you would put him about Federer, did I get that right?
     
  32. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    But 1 was.
     
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,467
    Frankly I don't know what's the big deal. Great players have egos. Even when Sampras said Federer was the GOAT you knew he didn't mean it. In his heart Sampras believes he's the GOAT. I'm sure Federer in his heart believes he's the GOAT. Don Budge believed he was the GOAT. Jack Kramer believed he was the GOAT.

    Great players believe in themselves.
     
  34. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,553
    I suppose every thread which mentions a former player will now be moved here automatically
     
  35. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I saw Sampras as dominating from 1993 Wimbledon to 1994 Wimbledon, particularly in the first half of 1994 when Sampras won the Australian Open, Indian Wells, Miami, Rome and Wimbledon. Sampras was also pretty dominant in 1997, winning the Australian Open, Wimbledon, Cincinnati, the Grand Slam Cup, Paris Indoors and the World Championships (now World Tour Finals) in Hanover, and also some great performances in Davis Cup, like the way he beat Rafter. At times in 1999, Sampras played arguably his highest level of tennis ever, like in the Wimbledon final when he was even out-rallying Agassi, but he missed too many crucial periods of the year through either fatigue or injury, so Agassi was number 1 for the year.

    I agree that Borg had a far greater period of dominance in terms of his results from 1976-1981 than what Sampras managed for any sustained period, no matter how often people talk about Sampras' 6 years in a row of being year-end number 1.

    Laver won all the majors in 1962 in the amateurs, in 1967 in the professionals, and in 1969 in the open era. That is phenomenal whichever way you look at it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  36. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    I love how you selectively put Rome on the level of RG and above the likes of Hamburg/Madrid in order to further your argument. How objective.

    I know Rome is more prestigious than Hamburg/Madrid but the difference between them is far less than the difference between Rome and RG.
     
  37. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Everyone knows Rome has always been the 2nd biggest clay event, and well above the likes of Hamburg and the all time joke of a clay Masters Madrid in prestige. That isnt exactly news. It is like comparing Miami to the Canadian Masters tournament when talking about hard courts (which if I were catering to Nadal I wouldnt even say as he has won the latter twice, and never the former).
     
  38. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Djokovic and Federer on clay in 2008:

    Monte Carlo- Federer runner up, Djokovic semi (loser to Federer). Federer did better here.

    Rome- Djokovic champion, Federer quarterfinal loser. Djokovic did MUCH better here.

    So at this point Djokovic is ahead.

    Hamburg- Djokovic semis, loses to Nadal, Federer finals, loses to Nadal

    French Open- Djokovic semis, loses to Nadal, Federer finals, loses to Nadal

    So while Federer went one round further, both lose to exactly the same person one round apart, so it is hard to say he really outperformed Djokovic in anyway. Furthermore Djokovic was playing much better tennis than Federer at Roland Garros and would almost certainly have beaten him, evidenced by his winning 3 times more games vs Nadal than Federer managed, and Federer struggling past mediocre opponents like Monfils in the semis.

    It is very easy to say Djokovic was possibly a better clay courter than Federer in 2008, while impossible to say Federer was better than Djokovic in either 2011 or 2012 overall, while both were crap and nowhere near even 2nd or 3rd best in 2010.

    All that said overall at this point of course Federer is overall the 2nd best clay courter of his era (definitely not the 2nd best every year as you and TMF imply), but Djokovic is quite likely to overtake him for that in the next few years. With Nadal`s career coming to an end it seems, Djokovic will almost certainly win atleast 2 French Opens, which would put him above Federer on clay without any debate. Even 1 French Open by beating Nadal in the finals or semis would likely do it, especialy as he is likely to add to his Masters titles collection, and has a good chance of having won all the available Masters on clay which is in sharp contrast to Federer who could only win Hamburg, and its replacement Madrid, never once managing to win either Rome or Monte Carlo.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 31, 2012
  39. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    ROFLMAO @ bolded.. even you cannot be that stupid to make such a lol-worthy argument.

    Federer beat Nole at MC in 2008. the rest of your speculation is garbage as usual.
     
  40. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    and then Djokovic won Rome, while Federer went out a whole 3 rounds earlier, a MUCH bigger gap than between the two in Monte Carlo. Then the next 2 events they lose to Nadal in the semis and finals respectively, with Federer just the one who happened to play him second, and at Roland Garros Federer`s play and form was a joke compared to Novak but fortunately for him he didnt land in his half.
     
  41. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Well, you mentioning that both Sampras and Federer have won one of the 2 biggest clay events gives the impression that Sampras's Rome title is as important as Federer's RG title.

    The statement that they are the 2 biggest events might be true on face value but it misleading gives the impression that they are the same in prestige. You are aware of this, hence me accusing you of dishonesty.

    And finals/going further in tournaments do count for a lot, actually.

    How about we wait until he actually does achieve that?
     
  42. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    oh, lol, sampras and rome 1994 ....... lol , gimme a break !

    federer playing even half-decent tennis would have swept through that draw ..........no top 10 players faced, no CCers of repute anywhere near playing well and the best player sampras faced was no-clay title becker !
     
  43. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,762
    Missing the point; after 4 FO finals losing to Nadal, there's no countering evidence to suggest Federer would win that one FO if Nadal happened to be the opponent. There's no getting around that.

    That is a fluke....to anyone with an objective view.
     
  44. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,762
    ....which proves the most important thing: if the Federer fanboys were so confident of his alleged status, they would not drive a thread to 20+ pages, start threads based on no concrete evidence (in order to attack another player) and not--in a nervous, shattered state--attack the greater records of others.

    It is quite clear Federer is a limp "god" at best, as his TW groupies need to defend him instead of being comfortable with his questionable place in tennis history.

    Always amusing.
     
  45. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    again, learn to read , that's a dumb argument .......I already replied to that dumb argument of yours .....

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7089078&postcount=382

    what you do in half of your posts is put down all players and their fans except your 'darlings' serena and laver ....... give it a break !
     
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,371
    According to your "objective" view, Serena 2012 USO title was a fluke because Stosur(defending champion) wasn't in the final. And her 2008 USO title is also a fluke because Henin retire who was a defending champion.
     
  47. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,673
    Location:
    Weak era
    Beating any specific player, even be it Nadal doesn't validate a FO win, not to mention that most FO winners in tennis history wouldn't be able to beat Nadal either so I guess most of them are flukes then?

    No, no one with an objective view would call a 5 time FO finalist winning FO to be a fluke, a fluke is for example Johansson winning AO.
     
  48. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    Nobody has to worry about archiving your posts.

    Any random sample will show how little you know about tennis...
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2013
  49. Tagg

    Tagg New User

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    42
    johansson wasn't a fluke

    he had the big serve and massive ground strokes, and reached later stages of grand slams more than once

    injuries prevented him from achieving more (and forced him out early)

    anyway, federer is a solid clay court player

    however, his continued failure to defeat nadal is a massive black mark on his resume. no top player in history (off the top of my head) has such a horrible record against their main rival, especially in major finals

    but, talking purely about federer's clay court game -

    he never liked it up high on the backhand side. mantilla schooled him in 03(?), accauso nearly ended him in 09, so did haas

    federer has the one RG, and he was bloody lucky to win that one. however, you take your opportunities when they arise

    it has helped federer than clay plays far faster than it used to. the reverse is true of grass and hard courts of course

    the year federer won (09), it was exceptionally fast, helping federer, who has become more and more reliant on his serve as the years have gone by

    would federer win the FO in the 90s? late 90s, possibly. early 90s, doubt it. 70s or 80s, no chance

    anyway, federer is certainly not in the top 5 players on clay in the open era. (he is when it comes to grass and hard court)

    top 15-20, yes. top 10, doubtful
     
  50. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    pretty sure, zagor mentioned in comparison to the far more talented and better players like nalby, rios, mecir, tsonga etc ...

    if safin had his head on in that final, he'd have won it ....

    actually the courts were faster than usual in 09, but not exceptionally faster ....that actually had him in trouble vs the power-hitting of delpo in the semis


    yeah, he has no chance in the 80s with chang, noah winning there ,he couldn't overpower wilander or beat lendl even once there :roll:

    no chance in the 70s either with kodes/panatta winning there :roll: ( borg reached a higher level on clay from 77 onwards, but 74,75,76, while darn good, could still be beaten )


    he is #1 or #2 on grass
    he is #1 on HC

    on clay, I'd say he's definitely outside of the top 5 (nadal,borg,kuerten, lendl,wilander ) ....... but after that not much of a difference b/w the rest - bruguera, courier, fed, muster, vilas, nastase ....
     

Share This Page