Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Razoredge, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,536
    Masters 1000's

    You could even throw in Laver as well (having more Masters 1000's than Sampras). Laver won 14 Masters 1000 equivalents, AFTER THE AGE OF 30. For whatever reason Sampras didn't focus on Masters 1000's. It was only when I put together the Open Era rankings thread that I noticed this gap in his Resume.

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445573

    Having said that I still think he is top 5 of all time.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
    #51
  2. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    1000 tournaments should not be in consideration when talking about GOAT, really. They're just warm-up tournaments for players to prepare for slams.
     
    #52
  3. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,536
    Masters 1000's shouldn't be part of GOAT assessment - Really?

    They are not AS important as Slams -that is true...but that is why they only get 1/2 the points that a Slam produces. However, they are still important wins on a Resume. Why do the top players work so hard to win them then? How does Nadal feel about Monte Carlo? If a player does well in the Slams but another plays incredibly well in the Masters 1000's then the latter player can still score the number 1 ranking. The players know that vital ranking points are on the line for these tournaments. Hence, the players wins at these tournament reflect concerted efforts in dominance. If Pete Sampras had won more Masters 1000's maybe there would be less gaps in his number 1 ranking periods during 1993 to 2000.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
    #53
  4. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    All depends on your perspective of importance for them. Sampras was still able to manage more Year #1's then anyone ever by peaking for the most important tournaments most of the time. He was a "slam guy".

    I didn't like that from Sampras truth be told. He took the Masters events more seriously earlier in his career but he did what he had to do to be the best. I wish he would have took some of the lesser tournaments a little more seriously though.
     
    #54
  5. The Moonballer

    The Moonballer New User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Messages:
    35
    Doesn't matter about RG, leave that for the mindless retrievers like ****** and his ugly muscle tennis. Of course it won't work as well on other surfaces.

    [​IMG]

    Fatbutt Nadal = epitome of physical high percentage tennis, Sampras = talent and shot making
     
    #55
  6. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,409
    Location:
    USA
    ^^^
    That first pic is photoshop of some bodybuilder with Nadal's head on top. Or are you telling me Nadal has massive trapeziums?
     
    #56
  7. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    He used to back when he was roiding out of his mind:)
     
    #57
  8. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,536
    Masters 1000's

    But Sampras should be given credit for not making the effort with Masters 1000's and players who did put the effort in like Lendl - their effort shouldn't be discounted. I have weighted the Masters 1000's appropriately in the rankings I produced.
     
    #58
  9. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,536
    It is him. There is enough pictures of him around to know that is him....
     
    #59
  10. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    Lendl is easily an all time great for sure.. If he had more success in slam finals, he would be a GOAT candidate
     
    #60
  11. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    You do realize that there is a greater gap in the weeks at number one between Fed and Nadal, in addition to a much bigger gap in titles won and the same gap in slams won (6)..?
     
    #61
  12. kalyan4fedever

    kalyan4fedever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,956
    head to head doesnt matter, its the total titles won that eventually matter and rafa is 5 years younger to federer lets not forget it. Also if federer were to play 5 more years and racks up some slams, its all that matters not h2hs.
     
    #62
  13. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    Sampras has a strong case for being the undisputed GOAT of Tier II greats. Too bad Federer immediately followed Sampras and eclipsed all but one major record of his, in addition to setting new milestones of his own (not to mention taking him down at the greatest stage in tennis when Pete was a 4-time defending champion); if Federer and Sampras played, say a decade apart, then one could entertain the classic Pete-worshippers "but eras cannot be compared.." line of defense, and make a case for Pete being ranked among Tier I candidates; as things stand, there can be no ambiguity about Federer > Sampras, which rules out Pete from Tier I (and it can only get worse from here..). Sorry Pete!
     
    #63
  14. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,102
    Location:
    Australia
    Nadal will always be the clay GOAT, not the GOAT in general.
     
    #64
  15. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Sampras is the greatest of the 90s. Federer is the greatest of the 2000s. Laver is the greatest of the 60s. We should leave it as just that. Discussing further more who is greater in different playing conditions and equipments is just plain silly.
     
    #65
  16. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    Sampras is at the top of the bunch of goats since he was more dominant in his era than any one else has ever been in their era by winning 175% the amount of slams as the next best in his era.
     
    #66
  17. edmondsm

    edmondsm Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    6,902
    Location:
    In an in between place.
    It was tougher to be an all-surface player back then. You HAD to be able to serve and volley to win Wimbledon and you HAD to be a baseliner with heavy shots to win the FO. This is why Agassi was so exceptional, he did what the guys today did but without the poly strings. Now with these new strings everybody just stays back and pummels the ball. Not that I don't like it, but it's different.
     
    #67
  18. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Gee don't you just love the hypocriscy of some Fed fans when it comes to Sampras and Nadal. They chop and change their argument when it suits them.

    They are very quick to dismiss Fed's poor H2H record against Nadal, but invariably bring up Fed's one and only match against old man Sampras to prove he is better than Sampras when Sampras is brought into the fray.

    Beating the field we are told, that's the only thing that counts we are told. Okay Fed tards, have it your way. Whilst Sampras' and Fed's careers overlapped, Sampras beat the field at least once, the 2002 USO. Sampras retired as the most recent slam champion. He won his last 7 slam matches. What did Federer do in Sampras' last slam before he retired? Bananas, that's what. A straight sets loss to Mimyi in the 4th round. Very underwhelming. Now let's see who Sampras had to beat:

    Portas in 3
    Pless in 3
    Rusedski in 5
    Haas in 4
    Roddick in 3
    Schalken in 3
    Agassi in 4

    Very very impressive field to get through, and he only dropped 4 sets along the way.

    It was only after Sampras retired that Federer started to dominate. Based on Sampras's most recent slam form, and with renewed enthusiasm and confidence, who is to say that Sampras would not have won the AO , W and the USO in 2003?

    As for total slam count, it has been stated time and time again, yes it is important, but due to many factors, it cannot be the only measure of GOATness. Homeginisation of courts, where baseliners are now winning Wimbledon more than ever before, the extinction of the serve and volley game, again, due to the homeginisation of courts, the fact that players from the past did not go out of their way to play, let alone win, every slam on offer, means that slam count can never be the only measurement of GOAT determination. By trying to impose a one size fits all methodology, ie, by stating that slam count should be 'it' across all of time, you are comparing apples to oranges.

    So if you want to chop and change the H2H and beat the field arguments for when it suits yourselves, just remember, baby Fed did beat Sampras in H2H whilst their careers overlapped, but Sampras won the beat the field count whilst their careers overlapped. So which argument would you like to use? By your reasoning, Sampras was the better of the two when their careers overlapped. Sampras retired as the most recent slam champion, therefore giving everyone else a chance to win slams once he retired. What Fed did after Sampras retired is irrelevant, Sampras got him when they were in competition for slams. The fact Fed's slam count has overtaken Sampras' is also irrelevant because of the reasons stated above, apples and oranges.

    What I said seems ridiculous to you? Well welcome to non-******* world, we see this sort of chop and change stuff every day on here.

    In answer to the OP, Sampras is very much one of the GOAT contenders, but I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, you can't single one man out as GOAT. There's too many things to consider, which works against every player to ever play the game.

    In answer to my question above about which argument to use, if you know anything about tennis and it's history, you'll say both. If you're a jonny come lately, keep ******* out the most slam count.

    Sampras did not win the FO which is a mark against him. But at the end of the day, he won the most slams in his era, held the no. 1 position the longest in his era and he did not get outrighted owned by anyone in slams in his era. Aside from not winning the FO, he can't do much more than that. Therefore he is a GOAT contender and he stands alongside, not in front of or behind, but alongside, every great of the game.
     
    #68
  19. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Seriously? Masters series tournaments mean next to nothing when we are discussing who is GOAT - it's all about slams/pro majors, YEC's, amount of time spent at No 1. Pete set out to break the slam record, he didn't care about breaking the Masters series record.
     
    #69
  20. The Moonballer

    The Moonballer New User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Messages:
    35
    Yes, ****** doesn't have a real case for GOAT because it is too one-sided. 7/11 GS are RG. The only way he won so much is with his injury prone style of retrieving every ball and pushing them back. Dull hasn't won a title off clay in how long? 2 years?
     
    #70
  21. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Borg won 6/11 at RG (just one fewer than Nadal), and 11/11 at RG and W. Are you saying he is not a GOAT candidate?
     
    #71
  22. The Moonballer

    The Moonballer New User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Messages:
    35
    He could have been. But he only played one AO and retired early. He is more of a GOAT candidate than ****** because of his records. ****** is a clay court specialist only.
     
    #72
  23. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,536
    But

    But masters 1000 are one aspect of a players career. Not the total picture but still an aspect. It shouldn't detract from Lendl's great effort in winning 22 masters 1000 equivalents, just because Sampras wasn't willing to put the effort into winning them and only has half the total of lendl. Why should Lendl be penalised because of Pete's philosophy?
     
    #73
  24. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Short answer-yes.

    Nobody (aside from maybe Laver) is an undisputed GOAT but Sampras earned his place amongst GOAT candidates/contenders.
     
    #74
  25. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Sampras was the greatest of his era. That alone is worthy enough to put him among one of the greatest of all time. Plus, he didn't get completely owned by anyone in slams, even at the French Open he did beat Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Agassi.
     
    #75
  26. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    you really dont want to start trying to talk up sampras french open record...

    its like trying to claim that a plate of dog sh1t is the best meal ever in the history of food.
     
    #76
  27. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    They are a very small aspect when judging the GOAT.

    Pete's six extra slams compared to Lendl is far more important than Lendl's 11 extra Masters series. Really, Masters series should only be used as a tiebreaker between candidates who are fairly equal, not as one of the prime factors for determining who is GOAT.
     
    #77
  28. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,414
    BTW: I did not say the H2H makes Nadal the GOAT. fed is obviously still greater than him.

    I just said it is a serious dent in Feds GOAT case. However Fed is not the only GOAT candidate having such a dent (see sampras lack of FO win) so to me he is still the GOAT.
     
    #78
  29. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,740
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    It's not a serious dent. It would be serious if Nadal dominated Federer on hardcourts and grass. He didn't, he trails 8-6 on those surfaces. It's knock on Federer for sure but it isn't a serious dent in his case. Federer has done better against the field compared to Nadal. He's the superior player be cause of it. Nadal's matchup advantages and his domination of clay shouldn't detract much from Federer.
     
    #79
  30. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Nadal still leads 3-2 on grass and hard court slams. Even on Nadal's worst surfaces, he still dominated Federer. Fed's pathetic H2H vs Nadal is certainly a big hole in his career.
     
    #80
  31. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    How about some perspective?

    Roger lost to Rafa in AO 2009 when he was 27.

    What were Pete's results in AO in 2009-2012? He couldn't even reach final let alone.
     
    #81
  32. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,740
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    For one of those losses Federer was 30 years old. Bit unfair to expect him to keep up with someone 5 years younger than him. I don't see why only the slam h2h should count anyway. Federer has beaten Nadal plenty of times on hardcourts. If Nadal went further in these tournaments when Federer was at his peak the slam H2H and H2H in general would look very different. Federer has done better against the field than Nadal has. His matchup disadvantages with Nadal aren't a major blot. Considering that...
     
    #82
  33. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    LOL, nice spin there.

    Well I could just as easily say that in the part of the season after the FO Fed is 5-1 against Nadal.

    Also remember, Agassi was undefeated against Sampras at AO+FO as well, what if the vast majority of their meetings occurred there, ever thought about that?

    Slow HC is definitely not Nadal's worst surface, indoor HC is.

    Nadal dominated H2H against Fed at AO and FO.

    At Wimbledon Fed leads the H2H, they never met at USO and on indoor HC Fed is 4-0 against Nadal.

    Or so would Petey fans like yourself like to think :).

    It's a hole, but how big exactly largely depends on whom you ask.

    One way of looking at this is that if Fed was as good (bad) as your hero on clay, skipped 2009 AO (like your hero did in 1999) and lost in 4th round of AO in 2012 he would have been a better player except that I find that way of thinking to be quite ridiculous.
     
    #83
  34. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    Pete reached the SF of the AO in 2000 and was beating Andre before he got injured.. Andre in 2000 was more impressive then Nadal in 2009 in Australia
     
    #84
  35. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,102
    Location:
    Australia
    If we're going to go down that route, Federer won the AO in 2010.
     
    #85
  36. axel89

    axel89 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,161
    should nadal be placed amongst the goats he didn't win the WTF
     
    #86
  37. Gonzo_style

    Gonzo_style Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,897
    I don't see how this is related to the Sampras GOAT case.

    Btw this is one of the worst threads, proof that the season is over.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
    #87
  38. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,102
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes, because he's got the most FO titles in the open era.
     
    #88
  39. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Sampras is great but he was really lucky to play in a weak era.
     
    #89
  40. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,092
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    Saw thread title just wanted to post

    WTF????
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
    #90
  41. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,092
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    Question, do you think Laver is greater than Borg?
     
    #91
  42. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    ROFL!! Of course you're heading to this route because Sampras is now 1 tier below Federer.

    Anyway, The Tennis Channel team have come to a conclusion that Fed is #1. And Sampras and Laver have said Federer is the greatest.

    "I have to give it to him," he said. "He's won all the majors[15] now, and he will win a few more. So in my book he is."
    -Sampras

    “Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing”
    -Laver
     
    #92
  43. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    No he's not. He won 14 GS in 52 slam appearances, Fed won 17 in 54 appearances.

    *He never had a winning percentage of over 90 in a year.
    *Never won 3 slams per year
    *Never was a force on clay
    *Only won 11 MS(Nole has already pass him)
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
    #93
  44. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,399
    You have it reverse actually. Sampras won 14 in 52 and Federer has won 17 in 54. Didn't you get that info from me? :)

    But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay. So he was somewhat of a force on clay. Overall I don't think he's logically a name you should use with the top few of the GOAT candidates list.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
    #94
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    Slam count is not the be-all and end-all, but it's the most important criteria in goat debate. 17 to 14 slam is a huge difference. Even great players(hall of famers) wasn't able to win 3 slams in their career. Sampras doesn't have a career slam. he reached 18 slam finals but Fed reached 24. Sampras have less winning % at the slam, less matches won, etc...


    We can compare other stats ouside of the slam and Fed is still ahead.

    Federer/Sampras:
    21 MS/11
    6 WTFs/5
    76 titles/64
    302 wks #1/286

    FEDERER CLEARLY IS ONE TIER ABOVE SAMPRAS.
     
    #95
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    Ok, I adjusted my post.

    Yes his 6 years #1 fabulous, but that's only one stat. Fed has the record weeks #1, and fans have said wks at #1 is more telling than year end #1. He also had 237 straight weeks. So if we specificially compare ranking stats only, Fed is still more impressive.

    It depends how you define "a force". I don't think winning just 1 MS on clay in an entire career is a force, because you can include any player with 1 MS is a force on that surface.

    The last sentence I can accept.
     
    #96
  47. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    It doesn't have the weight of the slam but you're selling players like Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Nole real short. Focus on both slams and MS to be able to win consistently is a real challenge. Too bad Sampras takes the easy route.
     
    #97
  48. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,399


    I have a question for you. You are throwing out some stats but what about the players that may have better stats than Federer like Bill Tilden for example. Below is the info on Tilden and Federer taken from a thread I started a few months ago. The information on Federer is should be correct since I edited it a few minutes ago.
    Edit-Corrected the information on Federer. It should be up to date as of December 3, 2012.

    So all of you. Please discuss. Do you go by simple accomplishments and stats or do you decide otherwise? I believe Tilden would have done extremely well today. He was a gifted athlete and perhaps even more than that he was a great tennis analyst and studied the game, always trying to improve.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
    #98
  49. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    ^ I have Tilden in my all-time top 10 (as I believe everyone should) but to have him as GOAT is to ignore the fact that competition was much less in his days. The number of countries/players who played tennis to a serious level was much lower than it is today. Hence it's no surprise that his percentages were even better than latter-day greats.
     
    #99
  50. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,399
    But the man played to the 1950's. He was able to beat Don Budge (occasionally) when he was in his forties. He played the Muskateers, Bill Johnston, Dick Willams, Vines, Perry, Nusslein, Gonzalez, Riggs everyone and did very well. Most of Europe played, Japan, Australian and of course the United States. He was still almost unbeatable. I mean how much better could he be? If Federer played at that time he would have to win every match to top Tilden!
     

Share This Page