View Single Post
Old 11-11-2012, 04:24 AM   #55
Talk Tennis Guru
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Weak era
Posts: 25,785

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
Yeah, until someone comes along and breaks the slam record. If someone is going to get to 18, there's a good chance they're going to get to 19. No count is ever safe. Records are made to be broken.
No, winning slams gets harder and harder over time, when you get into 15+ territory and especially at the twilight stage of Fed's career every additional slam has tremendous value.

Also remember, Fed grew up idolizing Sampras and thus very likely values slam count above everything else.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
However, if a player wins the career Grand Slam and Olympic gold in singles...nobody can ever take that away from him. You can only win everything once...once.
Sorry, but SOG just doesn't have anywhere near the same historic value as slams do, if we look at the history of the sport the vast majority of tennis greats couldn't even compete at the Olympics, tennis simply wasn't an Olympic sport for the majority of its existence (was till 1924 then wasn't all the way until 1988 ).

I know Fed haters like yourself obsess over SOG because that's one of the rare things Fed doesn't have but that's your subjective view influenced heavily by your personal bias.

It doesn't matter whether anyone can take your SOG away from you or not, when comparing tennis greats the "meat" of the career is about slam performances (# of slams won, Calendar Grand slam, Career Grand Slam etc.), overall dominance (time spent as the world's best player) etc. SOG is a bonus, it's only the highlight of one's career if you're Nicholas Massu or something.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
Basically, this is the same as arguing that Federer would have preferred to end with 15 non-French Open majors over 14 with a French Open.
No, it's definitely not the same, here you're arguing about slams not about bonus stuff like SOG, DC, H2H etc.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
Variety/completeness counts in tennis. It's what gives Federer the edge over Pete Sampras.
Variety/completeness in slam performances, the main knock on Sampras was always him being a non-contender at FO (made one measly FO SF in his entire career) and arguably the lack of truly dominant tennis seasons (like for example Laver's CYGS, Fed's 3 slam years, Novak's 2011, Nadal's 2010 etc.) , not because he didn't have a SOG or trails in masters record when compared to Nadal, Fed, Lendl and Agassi for example.

Besides that's hardly the only area in which Fed has the edge over Sampras, here's the list of the top of my head:

-3 more slams
-More weeks at #1
-5 USOs in a row
-5 Wimbledons in a row (was regarded as one of the greatest achievement in the history of tennis when Borg did it in his day)
-3 years in which he won 3 slams (compared to zero)
-2 years in which he reached 4 slam finals (compared to zero)
-Their performance at their weakest slam- FO (5 finals and a title compared to one final)

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
Otherwise, just looking at both of their strengths - on faster courts - they're basically even, with a slight edge to Sampras in the faster slams.
You don't compare players solely by their strengths (otherwise Nadal is the GOAT basically because no one dominate any surface to the degree he did clay), you look at players' overall careers, not to mention that it's your subjective opinion Sampras gets the edge in faster slams, many would disagree on that.

Last edited by zagor; 11-11-2012 at 04:28 AM.
zagor is offline   Reply With Quote