View Single Post
Old 11-01-2012, 04:58 PM   #203
Talker
Hall Of Fame
 
Talker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
I feel sorry for Sampras because he takes the biggest hit of all the goat candidates after Federer have surpassed him. Sampras doesn't have a leg to stand on when compare to Roger because Roger is ahead of him in almost every categories. And since their era is only 10 years apart, there's not much excuse to say the game/condition was difference. Besides Sampras, Nadal and Agassi take a big hit too because they are playing in modern time. Unlike Laver/Rosewall, their fans always have reasons to say you can't compare to the 60s because tennis was so much different than today. So no matter how much Roger accomplished, they will never conceded him as a goat. Every year since 2009, Roger continue to win and they move the goalposts which is ridiculous. Roger can win 20 slams in the future and he's still doesn't move further ahead of Laver. Don't you find that absurd ?

The funny thing is it's accepted that Roger continue to distant himself from the past great players except a few like Laver, Pancho, Rosewall.

Basically, Sampras was neck in neck with Laver as a goat BEFORE the arrival of Federer. However, things changed because Roger's succcess removed Sampras, and Laver is still in the discussion. It makes no sense at all. Either all the past great players continue to fall below Federer(since he's still active), or none of them at all. You can't pick and choose certain players(ie Laver) have no effect while certain players(ie Sampras) is falling further away. The truth is....ALL OF THEM ARE CONSTANTLY FALLING FURTHER AWAY FROM ROGER.
There are a lot of people who don't like to crown Federer the GOAT.
Sampras was one person who had the slams to challenge Federer, Laver wasn't a good argument and still isn't.

Laver was looked at playing in a time and field where the game has changed too much and the players look levels below the level of today and in Sampras's time, so Sampras was the best argument.

When Federer passed up most of the areas that was used to challenge him then Sampras fell by the wayside but there was a void left.

Laver was the only one left, the problem is what it has always been.
The game has changed and the players at the top now are light years ahead of players in Laver's time.
There are no arguments but mostly what ifs and this is the only thing that can be used for Laver now.

Just go through past posts, you'll see that many arguments are about theoreticals that Laver might have won 20 slams or the players were so good then and other maybe's.

Look at the old clips, how many OMG shots do you see by Laver who others at that time couldn't do?
Talker is offline   Reply With Quote