How could someone call Sampras the Goat

[tennisbuck]

It doesn't make sense? what has he done that federer hasn't? If someone argues that Fed isn't the GOAT and Laver is i have no problem with that. But how could it be Pete?

[90's Clay]

Beat his main rival more times then not. ROFLMAO

Something your boy couldn't do

[sureshs]

LOL that was a good one. A GOAT needs to have a winning H2H against his main rival

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by sureshs

LOL that was a good one. A GOAT needs to have a winning H2H against his main rival

A hands down GOAT does.. Yes. Thus why Fed is only in the GOAT "discussion" not given the hands down label.

How can you be a hands down GOAT when your rival has owned your arseee your entire career?

[NatF]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

A hands down GOAT does.. Yes. Thus why Fed is only in the GOAT "discussion" not given the hands down label.

How can you be a hands down GOAT when your rival has owned your arseee your entire career?

Owned on clay, Federer leads off it; go back into your cave troll. The whole board is wise to your crap.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

A hands down GOAT does.. Yes. Thus why Fed is only in the GOAT "discussion" not given the hands down label.

How can you be a hands down GOAT when your rival has owned your arseee your entire career?

Exactly. Federer will always have that stigma around his career, and it is why he will never be given the title of undisputed GOAT as much as his fanboys are desperate to push that onto him.

As for the ****s who bring out the tired old clay court excuse Federer is 0-5 vs Nadal in slams on clay, 2-3 on slams off clay (meaning they played as many slams off clay as on, and Federer trails even off clay in slams, lol), 2-8 in slams overall, and was 27 or younger for all but 2 of those 10 meetings. Federer is Nadal's beetch plain and simple. It doesnt make Nadal GOAT, but it does bring into heavy question whether Federer is. None of Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, Tilden, even Rosewall were "owned" by anyone. They were too good for that (PS- Rosewall has quite respectable head to heads vs both Gonzales and Laver so he wasnt owned).

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Exactly. Federer will always have that stigma around his career, and it is why he will never be given the title of undisputed GOAT as much as his fanboys are desperate to push that onto him.

As for the ****s who bring out the tired old clay court excuse Federer is 0-5 vs Nadal in slams on clay, 2-3 on slams off clay (meaning they played as many slams off clay as on, and Federer trails even off clay in slams, lol), 2-8 in slams overall, and was 27 or younger for all but 2 of those 10 meetings. Federer is Nadal's beetch plain and simple. It doesnt make Nadal GOAT, but it does bring into heavy question whether Federer is. None of Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, Tilden, even Rosewall were "owned" by anyone. They were too good for that (PS- Rosewall has quite respectable head to heads vs both Gonzales and Laver so he wasnt owned).

Everyone has their faults. Despite the head-to-head with Nadal, Federer has destroyed pretty much every other record Sampras held, except for the six year-end no. 1 finishes. Other than that, Federer is superior in every single way. More slams, more Masters, more WTFs, more tournaments, more weeks at number one, more dominance, better longevity, etc. I agree that Federer is not the GOAT, but the argument for Sampras has fallen by the wayside, and that's what this thread is about.

[pennc94]

When you cannot advance far enough in the draw of an event taking place on a surface (clay) that better suits your main rivals, it certainly makes your H2H look nicer.

[tennisaddict]

Originally Posted by pennc94

When you cannot advance far enough in the draw of an event taking place on a surface (clay) that better suits your main rivals, it certainly makes your H2H look nicer.

This needs to be the signature of all Sampra fans.

[Polaris]

The TW scale of GOATS (in descending order of GOATness)

[Based on the collected wisdom of TW armchair critics]

1. Nadal
2. the GOAT = undisputed GOAT = hands down GOAT
3. Open Era GOAT
4. in-discussion GOAT
5. probable GOAT = GOAT candidate
6. surface GOAT
7. transition GOAT
8. slow-grass GOAT
9. fast-grass GOAT
10. joke grass GOAT
11. HC GOAT
12. clay GOAT (generally = red clay GOAT)
13. blue clay GOAT
14. Plexicushion GOAT
15. one-slam-wonder GOAT
16. slamless GOAT
17. not GOAT
18. joke GOAT
19. Federer

[Agassifan]

Originally Posted by Polaris

The TW scale of GOATS (in descending order of GOATness)

Except when there is a poll, 90% of posters pick Federer. Just a couple of insecure people start all these threads.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by pennc94

When you cannot advance far enough in the draw of an event taking place on a surface (clay) that better suits your main rivals, it certainly makes your H2H look nicer.

Problem for Federer is though, almost every time Nadal has progressed far enough, he's flat out beaten Federer fair and square. And there is nothing to suggest that had he progressed more times, the 2-8 H2H scoreline wouldn't be 2-12, or 2-15.

As some one else said, you wanna be the hands down undisputed GOAT, you gotta beat your main rival. Simple as that. That's a given.

In 10 slam matches:

5-0 to Nadal at the FO
3-2 to Nadal away from the FO.

It's quite comprehensive. In fact, it's probably the most one-sided H2H scoreline seen between two potential GOATs in the open era. It's a big thorn in Federer's resume, as big as Sampras' non FO thorn. Quite simply, Federer is Nadal's *****, there's no other way to put it.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Problem for Federer is though, almost every time Nadal has progressed far enough, he's flat out beaten Federer fair and square. And there is nothing to suggest that had he progressed more times, the 2-8 H2H scoreline wouldn't be 2-12, or 2-15.

As some one else said, you wanna be the hands down undisputed GOAT, you gotta beat your main rival. Simple as that. That's a given.

In 10 slam matches:

5-0 to Nadal at the FO
3-2 to Nadal away from the FO.

It's quite comprehensive. In fact, it's probably the most one-sided H2H scoreline seen between two potential GOATs in the open era. It's a big thorn in Federer's resume, as big as Sampras' non FO thorn. Quite simply, Federer is Nadal's *****, there's no other way to put it.

Great post.. 100 percent agreed

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Problem for Federer is though, almost every time Nadal has progressed far enough, he's flat out beaten Federer fair and square. And there is nothing to suggest that had he progressed more times, the 2-8 H2H scoreline wouldn't be 2-12, or 2-15.

blah.

Did it ever occur to you that Nadal was not good enough to progress far enough to meet Federer? Or, do you subscribe to the popular fiction that each loss was due to some injury or other. Your post is mere speculation.

Not trying to argue. Just trying to say what the most probable conclusion is, given the facts.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by sureshs

LOL that was a good one. A GOAT needs to have a winning H2H against his main rival

Main rival = the field.

Federer has a winning record vs the field.... much, much moreso than Sampras had.

So, what does Sampras have over Federer again other than consecutive year ending number ones? Pretty much nothing in the bigger scheme of things.

[rajah84]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Main rival = the field.

Federer has a winning record vs the field.... much, much moreso than Sampras had.

So, what does Sampras have over Federer again other than consecutive year ending number ones? Pretty much nothing in the bigger scheme of things.

In a word, balls. If Federer had any wouldn't be having this debate.

He let the number 1.5 player in the world flat out own him. Pete would never have done that. That makes Pete greater right there. It's not just about numbers.

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by rajah84

In a word, balls. If Federer had any wouldn't be having this debate.

He let the number 1.5 player in the world flat out own him. Pete would never have done that. That makes Pete greater right there. It's not just about numbers.

Pete let the clay surface own him.

If federer lacks balls, pete lacks heart.

Pete wanted that RG title badly, and he knew it. He tried everything and then just gave up.

It is revisionist history to suggest that pete didnt care about RG.

Federer took his beatings on clay against nadal like a man. but he fought and his consistency was rewarded finally.

SAmpras??? He just gave up. That is not the mindset of a champion.

Federer is not perfect, but he has definitely got way more heart than sampras.

At age 31, federer is still so dedicated and fighting many rivals in their peak.

Pete??? He was on his way to retirement and lost to many lower ranked players. He wasnt working as hard as he did - he was losing hunger and desire.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by rajah84

In a word, balls. If Federer had any wouldn't be having this debate.

He let the number 1.5 player in the world flat out own him. Pete would never have done that. That makes Pete greater right there. It's not just about numbers.

Pete did do that. He was owned in head to heads by Hewitt, Sergi Bruguera, Paul Haarhuis, Krajicek, Michael Stich, Derrick Rostagno... and these are only the guys who played him at least 3 times.

What explanation do you have for these? Their combined majors (and probably title numbers too) is less and Sampras.

So, what were you saying about the numbers again? Which numbers matter more: the total majors, weeks at number one or all those losses to chumps?

You can't argue it both ways unless you want to show yourself as a partisan flack.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Beat his main rival more times then not. ROFLMAO

Something your boy couldn't do

Man, you must spend a lot of time on the floor. How do you find the time to post?

[Dedans Penthouse]

Originally Posted by tennisbuck

It doesn't make sense? what has he done that federer hasn't? If someone argues that Fed isn't the GOAT and Laver is i have no problem with that.

But how could it be Pete?

__________________