Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Prisoner of Birth, Feb 2, 2013.
That's not in the least bit complicated. They didn't play, end of. Doesn't matter why. I didn't get to play Wimbledon, either. Who knows, I could've Rosoled my way to 10 Championships.
Yeah but you have Sampras' avatar so is it fair to assume you're a Sampras fan as well ?
I have to ask again, does this mean Nadal isn't the undisputed CC GOAT because Rosewall could have achieved more if he was allowed to compete?
Rosewall is very underrated in general. I have him as the #2 clay courter all time, ahead of Borg. I also have him the #3 player all time, behind only Laver and Gonzales. His longevity at the very top of the game is the greatest in history.
Starting any poll with Federer on it in this forum is a huge LOL. The poll could be greatest clay courter ever, best backhand ever, best server ever, best volleyer ever, best nose ever, hottest wife ever, and Federer would win all those too, with atleast 70% votes on each.
Yes. The most underrated clay-court player in history is Tony Wilding, though, who was unbeaten for over 4 years on the surface. Ken Rosewall won 6 majors at Roland Garros, 1 as an amateur, 4 as a pre-open era professional, and 1 in the open era. 4 of Rosewall's 8 French Pro titles were on indoor wood.
the crazy gang
Short version: Sampras was more dominant, played better opponents in a greater era and played better.
Sampras is statistically the most dominant Wimbledon player of all time with 7 Wimbledons in 8 years. Federer never achieved this level of dominance. For exactly the same reason Federer is a better USO player than Sampras.
Sampras faced greater competition.
Nadal in 2006-2007 was losing to journeymen off clay. He benefited from an arguably rigged draw to reach the 2006 final, and in 2007 was a set and a break down versus Youzhny before Youzhny suffered a very serious back injury that has ruined his subsequent career, and then in the semi finals he was a set (and possibly a break?) down against Djoker before Djoker retired with a toe injury.
The fact that Nadal was able to push Federer so hard in the finals says more about the Federer/Nadal match up than anything else.
Like every other encounter on hard court going back to 2004, whenever Nadal managed to get through the journeymen off clay he was able to give Federer hell. Despite being dominated by inferior players to Federer off clay.
Federer only won the 2009 Wimbledon because Nadal was injured. He was playing the worst tennis of his career, his backhand was an unforced error machine and Djoker and Murray were routining him up to the slams. Djoker mentally imploded (I believe he lost to Santoro later that year) and Murray is a choker in slams, and with Nadal out injured he only had to face his old pigeon Roddick in the final.
Roddick was playing as bad as ever, but Federer was playing so badly in 2009 he almost lost. Like Gasquet and Kohlschreiber Federr was able to hit ridiculous stats against Roddick. He hit something like 50 aces.
Murray was beating Federer until the roof was closed. Federer has consistently been 100% better indoors against Murray, Djoker and Rafa over the last few years. As a shotmaker with no wind or sun he was able to go for the lines and hit winners.
God only knows how many Wimbledons Sampras could have carried on winning if there was a roof installed when he was 31!
So although Mark Philipoussis, Roddick in 2004 and 2005 were great compeition for Federer, he was the beneficiary of rigged draws giving him easy opponents in 2006 and 2007 (ESPN have stated the draws the slams produce are statistically impossible), Nadal's non involvement and the choking of Djoker and Murray in 2009, and the roof in the 2012 final.
Now, Sampras only had one easy final: Pioline. His other opponents were Rafter, Courier, Becker, Agassi and Ivanisevic. Becker (1996 AO, Stuttgart) and Agassi were both back to their best, Rafter had won two USO's and proven he could beat Sampras. Courier was the man of the moment like Djoker in 2011 and Agassi had proven a baseliner could win Wimbledon.
Ivanisevic had the greatest serve of all time and as a left hander was playing into Sampras's supposed weakness. He'd proven he could beat Sampras at Wimbledon too. Unlike Federer against Nadal, Sampras's backhand didn't implode against this onslaught.
In addition Sampras's performance in 1999 is the greatest at Wimbledon ever, rivaled only by Federer in the 2004 USO final.
Yeah, the more I learn about him the more I'm convinced he should be at the very top, I'm starting to believe it isn't even a clear cut case as to whom is better between him and Laver for example.
Sure, polls here are largely meaningless because the majority of people here are Fed fans who will vote him but this IMO is a legit question (as long as it's limited to greatest Wimbledon player, not greatest grasscourt player ever) especially after Fed's 2012 Wimbledon which I found very impressive considering all the circumstances.
What no Martina?
Yes and especially since NA spewed his usual overblown bombast saying there was 0% chance Federer to win W2012
Everybody knows this forum is not Federer's house. That is to say, not any more so than any other forum or the real world. If I made this poll on network TV, we'd get similar results (if it were worldwide). Federer is widely regarded as the GOAT. Pretty much 90% of the Tennis-watching world consider him that, and no less than 80% of the Tennis players. NadalAgassi knows this, is butthurt, and pretends like Federer is only considered the GOAT on this forum so he can sleep at night. He knows full well that more people in the world consider Federer the GOAT than Laver, Sampras, Nadal, Rosewall and Gonzales combined.
I'm sorry that post was so long but there are a lot of factors to be accounted for.
What point though? Ok so Fed will win every poll. Why repeat it again and again. And then when Fed doesn't win a poll, some other excuse pops up. The funny thing is someone calling other ****s is the biggest **** himself and doesn't even see it.
Why "not greatest Grasscourt player"? Federer has more Grasscourt titles than Sampras does.
It looks like a bunch of sore excuses to me. Factually, and statistically, Federer has had more success, been more dominant, shown more consistency, and has had greater longevity. I could just as easily claim Federer had to compete against a deeper field and stronger opposition, which would be true. Nadal on today's grass > anyone Sampras faced on the old grass. And with the surface homogenization, every player has a fighting chance.
My point wasn't about Fed and Sampras, If the question is greatest grasscourt player then it would be fair to include some pre-Open Era greats like Laver who played 3 out of 4 slams on grass, this isn't a two horse race IMO.
Like I said, it's just an excuse so he can sleep better at night. He knows just as well as any of us that Federer is widely regarded as the GOAT; that he's the Marlon Brando of Tennis.
Tough one Federer definitely would have had success even on quicker grass like the 80's or 90's but Pete played some great grass court specialists on genuine quick grass courts! With all due respect to Federer I don't feel like he faced any true grass court specialists during his reign at the top indeed now even top baseliners are able to dominate Wimbledon so it has all changed!
Both won 7 times but Pete's was 7 in 8 years fed was 7 in 10 which again to me shows more dominance on Pete's part!
Right, got it.
They were nuts. They would regularly strip their team-mates naked and burn their clothes. They used to stop the opposition team having any hot water in their dressing rooms. Oh, and they were rough as hell on the pitch. Remember John Fashanu elbowing Gary Mabbutt in the eye, breaking Mabbutt's eye socket and a part of his skull?
The people who moan about Stoke City today don't know how lucky they are to have avoided Wimbledon's crazy gang.
Fast Wimbledon, probably Sampras.
Wimbledon at present, probably Federer.
Wimbledon in general?
It's a toss up for me. Borg isn't far behind neither.
Nobody can ever really say, for a fact unless you have a time machine, imho.
Taylor Dent, a legend in his own right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVv6jvD1W-0 Why Dent is a legend.
I know, but statistically, who would you say is greater? And why? The only sensible argument those who have picked Sampras have made so far is that Sampras had the more dominant 8-year stretch. And that argument is more than offset by Federer's 5-year run, extra final appearance, greater consistency and longevity, sets-won to sets-lost ratio during Championship runs, and the one win he has over Sampras at Wimbledon. The weak-era, depth-of-Grass-field arguments are totally unfalsifiable so they're not reasonable arguments.
I'm going with Goran. He is my all time fav, and I want to pick him!
Statistically, imho it is Federer. But the counter arguments given by the Sampras camp can not be swept under the rug. For me it is all subjective. Really, you'll have to put a peak Sampras vs a peak Federer in a Wimbledon match. And to me, it's a moot point
And definitely the mustache makes him the GOAT. lol.
You look at Newcombe and he scares people with that facial hair.
Obviously it's not my view as I said Pete but I tweeted this question to Brad Gilbert asked him peak Federer v Peak Pete at Wimbledon he said he's taking Federer
How about we put a teenage Federer against the 4-time defending and 7-time champion Sampras against each other on grass? And let's make it fast so that Sampras actually has a chance?
You mean Sampras who was about to retire ? Cool story dude. If that's gonna make you happy by all means. I'm all for fun......:twisted:
To be fair, Sampras was higher ranked, higher seeded, and 1.5 years away from retirement. Not to mention, he still had one more Slam in him. Federer was a total greenhorn then.
That wasn't a good year for Pete though! Didn't win a slam run to USO final saved his year a little bit!
Federer was not Federer by any means but only because he couldn't back up a world class performance but the way he played against Pete was a very high level! Great serving and net play too!
Pete also took a loss to Bastl before that one more slam and it was still an epic I believe Pete has break points which would have left him serving for the match it's was a great match for Federer but it was just one match!
I'm not reading much into it, it's just one (close) match, but Federer showed he had the tools to hurt Sampras on his best surface. Sampras, on the other hand, posted an embarrassingly bad result the one year he played on Federer's best surface (post-2001 Grass of Wimbledon).
2001-2002, George Bastl and Barry Cowen showed they had to the tools to hurt Sampras at wimbledon as well
Who cares.. Pete was close to washed up on grass by that point. His real run ended in 2000.
"a lot" of guys had tools to beat a burned out, older Sampras, who lost most of his passion for the game by 2000-2002.
Sampras from 93-99 isn't exactly the same as Sampras from 2000-2002. Just as Fed 2003-2007, isn't exactly the same as Fed 2010-2013. But Fed has a lot more game and passion in the tank then Pete did after he won Wimbledon 2000
Which is exactly why he is the Greater Wimbledon Champion
What does that mean exactly? ROFLMAO
Both have 7 wimbledon titles
Nobody was saying otherwise (the bolded part ).
And that one match is a bad example, to say the least. Sampras was already in the twilight of his game. Don't get me wrong, I do not like Sampras. I was an Agassi fan, but give the guy some credit and don't make it appear that just because an uprising Fed beat a down the hill Sampras will be the measure by which we can make a factual stance that Fed is greater than Sampras in Wimbledon if they play for a period of time.
Don't really care who is. I'm all for Nadal mannn...........:twisted:
Federer has the Runner-Up trophy and a win over Sampras. One of those has to be the tiebreaker. You of all people, who keeps harping on about head-to-head, have to accept that. Federer > Sampras
I'm not saying it is a decisive factor. It helps Federer's claim, if only slightly. And not to mention, Federer has made the extra final and has shown more consistency/longevity.
A 1-0 h2h? I harp on h2h vs. main contemporary rivals (which hurts Fed's GOAT claim).. I dont harp on 1-0 h2h vs. an old close to washed up player and a younger player (who is not of the same era) playing above his head on a certain day
What about the Runner-up trophy, then? That is the tiebreaker! :lol:
As it stands, they are both equal with 7 titles imo.
It took Fed 10 years from 2003-2012 to get his 7 titles.
Pete won 7/8 which is why I'm guessing some claim that Pete was more dominant during his peak.
Federer has the extra runner up trophy, but that can work for and against him. For because he was good enough to reach an extra final and against because Pete never lost a WIM final whereas Fed did.
Federer has 3 first round exits, one of which he was the #7 seed. Pete has 2 first round exits and 2 second round exits, one of which he was the #6 seed.
Pete had some easy draws but he also had some difficult draws as well.
Difficult: 93, 95, 99
Easy: 94, 97, 98, 00
Same deal with Fed.
Difficult: 04, 07, 12,
Easy: 03, 05, 06, 09
Fed did beat Pete up there, but it was a close match and you cannot draw conclusions from just one match.
VS Top 4 opponents Pete is 7-0, Fed is 8-1
VS multiple GS champions Pete is 7-0, Fed is 6-1
Statistically speaking Fed has the slight edge, but many dismissed this when it came to Rafa's RG dominance vs Borg, Rafa needed that 7th RG title to stake the claim as the RG GOAT, so with many people Fed will need one more WIM to put it out of doubt that he is WIM GOAT.
imo, since they are so close statistically Fed will need one more WIM title to be the WIM GOAT, so I'd say they are equal atm.
LOL, anything to bolster your claim eh? Cedric Pioline? Ah yes, the great grass court players Pioline and Courier. Why not throw in Todd Martin?
Eight Wimbledon finals.
Oh diaper rash Nadal in his 5th grass court tournament ever, or Phillipousis in a wimbledon final is such a big upgrade:shock::shock:
8 Wimbledon finals, baby! Something Sampras can only dream of! Not to mention, a win as a greenhorn over the erstwhile Grasscourt GOAT on Wimbledon's center-court! Federer is the Wimbledon GOAT!
Hey, I never made the claim that they were a juggernaut on grass. You were the one touting Courier and Pioline's grass court prowess. And I'll tell you this. If I were playing in Wimbledon, I'll tell you who would put more fear into me between Philippoussis and Pioline, Philippoussis without a doubt. Just ask Sampras, Mark was cleaning his clock before he got injured in 99.
Separate names with a comma.