Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

[Razoredge]

This guy didn't win a single French Open.

[WhiskeyEE]

FO is optional for goat contention. Nice to have, not compulsory.

[90's Clay]

Laver didn't even play a HC slam (3 slams played on grass in his day) which Sampras would have been licking his lips if he got to have in the 90s. And laver failed to win a big tournament or two in his career.
Borg didn't win a single USO or AO title
Fed's been owned by his main rival his entire career on the big stage (How can you be a GOAT if you can't even handle your rival at the slams?)
Rosewall-No wimbledon title

etc..


Most if not all GOAT candidates has some strikes against their name. Sampras is obviously a GOAT candidate. tied for most wimbledon titles, most year end #1s, 5 USO titles and most finals appearances, 286 Weeks as #1, 2 AO titles, h2h advantage over his main rival on the big stage, 5 Year end titles, The 2nd or 3rd best of his era didn't even come CLOSE to his accomplishments,(Whereas Rosewall and Pancho are close to Laver, Nadal is close to Federer) Thats GOAT material

[Talker]

I have Sampras in tier two but ahead of Laver.

Gonzalez said Sampras' ERA was much tougher than his, which matches the way I look at it.

[Hood_Man]

Are the year end #1 and total weeks at #1 worth nothing?

[dominikk1985]

also dominating all his main rivals. not all goat candidates can claim that.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Laver didn't even play a HC slam (3 slams played on grass in his day)
Borg didn't win a USO or AO
Fed's been owned by his main rival his entire career on the big stage (How can you be a GOAT if you can't even handle your rival at the slams?)

etc..


Most GOAT candidates has some strikes against their name. Sampras is obviously a GOAT candidate. tied for most wimbledon titles, most year end #1s, 5 USO titles and most finals appearances, 286 Weeks as #1, 2 AO titles, 5 Year end titles, No one in his era even came CLOSE to his accomplishments, Thats GOAT material

Owned on clay like everyone else and marginally behind Nadal up until his mono year and decline. No doubt Federer's faultered against Nadal before (AO 09 and Wimbledon 08 spring to mind) but most of those meetings have been on Nadal's best and Federer's worst surface. Pre 2008 they were 8-6 with Federer winning 5 of the last 7 meetings they had. Hardly owning...

Having said that Sampras is underrated, he's overshadowed by Federer though. There's no way to put Pete ahead of Roger. He's in the top tier of greats but he can hardly be number one when someone else has broken nearly all his meaningful records.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

also dominating all his main rivals. not all goat candidates can claim that.

Exactly.. The 2nd or 3rd best of Pete's era came up 6-8 slams shy of Pete's record, and nowheres even CLOSE to his overall accomplishments

[timnz]

GOAT Criteria has changed over the years. Sounds like you put a strong case towards having to win all of the important tournaments at least once. However, if you take that position almost all players in history who we term great wouldn't even be in the discussion of GOAT candidicy.

Borg - no US Open or Australian open

McEnroe - no French Open

Lendl - no Wimbledon

Connors - no French Open

Rosewall - no Wimbledon

I could go on and on.

One has to remember that winning all of the majors has become easier since 2002 with the homogenization of surfaces and the massive slowdown at Wimbledon.

The season end finals has historically been a very important tournament - Nadal has never won that.

Pretty much all the great players have a hole in their resume.

The only player who probably does have any hole in his resume is Agassi (though I would argue in the 90s the Grand Slam Cup was important and he only got to the final of that tournament), and very few commentators would argue for Agassi being the absolute GOAT

So being a GOAT candidate has to be decided on a range of other criteria.....eg dominance at the top, time at number 1 in the world, numbers of important titles won....etc etc

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by NatF

Owned on clay like everyone else and marginally behind Nadal up until his mono year and decline. No doubt Federer's faultered against Nadal before (AO 09 and Wimbledon 08 spring to mind) but most of those meetings have been on Nadal's best and Federer's worst surface. Pre 2008 they were 8-6 with Federer winning 5 of the last 7 meetings they had. Hardly owning...

Having said that Sampras is underrated, he's overshadowed by Federer though. There's no way to put Pete ahead of Roger. He's in the top tier of greats but he can hardly be number one when someone else has broken nearly all his meaningful records.

He was owned at the Australian Open by Nadal too.. And most would bet against Federer if he had to deal with Nadal on anything but an indoor surface. Nadal has been having the overall h2h advantage over Federer since he was 17. Thats not worthy of being a hands down GOAT in IMO. If you have to favor the other guy on most if not all outdoor surfaces.

You can make some cases for Pete over Federer.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He was owned at the Australian Open by Nadal too.. And most would bet against Federer if he had to deal with Nadal on anything but an indoor surface. Thats not worthy of being a hands down GOAT in IMO. If you have to favor the other guy on most if not all outdoor surfaces over the other guy

A 5 set match is hardly owning is it? And a hard fought 4 setter with someone 5 years younger than you is hardly shameful. Nadal only has such a distinct edge since Federer left his prime and Nadal entered his. Stop cherry picking the facts to denigrate Federer. A better view of the head to head would be to see how many times Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Federer. Otherwise you end up with; Nadal > Federer > Fernando González > Nadal at the AO 07. Which obviously doesn't make much sense.

I never said Federer was the hands down GOAT, he's just above Sampras. More titles, more time at no.1, more complete resume etc...

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He was owned at the Australian Open by Nadal too.. And most would bet against Federer if he had to deal with Nadal on anything but an indoor surface. Nadal has been having the overall h2h advantage over Federer since he was 17. Thats not worthy of being a hands down GOAT in IMO. If you have to favor the other guy on most if not all outdoor surfaces.

Curious as to who you would pick as the absolute GOAT. (Obviously not Federer given your comments, but then who...surely not Nadal who, out of the top 5 tournaments has dominated (say winning at least 4 times) only 1 of them, whereas Sampras has dominated 3 of them and Federer 4 out of 5).

[Talker]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He was owned at the Australian Open by Nadal too.. And most would bet against Federer if he had to deal with Nadal on anything but an indoor surface. Nadal has been having the overall h2h advantage over Federer since he was 17. Thats not worthy of being a hands down GOAT in IMO. If you have to favor the other guy on most if not all outdoor surfaces.

You can make some cases for Pete over Federer.

Fed set most of his records while Nadal was playing against the same field.


Cases can be made for many but Pete over Fed will take some serious work.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by timnz

Curious as to who you would pick as the absolute GOAT. (Obviously not Federer given your comments, but then who...surely not Nadal who, out of the top 5 tournament has dominated (say winning at least 4 times) only 1 of them, whereas Sampras has dominated 3 of them and Federer 4 out of 5).

In terms of resume and overall achievements and taken into account h2h's against main rivals etc.. Probably Laver or Pancho. Followed by Rosewall, Fed and Sampras

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

In terms of resume and overall achievements and taken into account h2h's against main rivals etc.. Probably Laver or Pancho. Followed by Rosewall, Fed and Sampras

Well those 2 guys are definitely up there (Laver and Gonzales)

[Sabratha]

Sampras deserves to be placed up there with the GOATs, but he isn't the GOAT.

[NatF]

Sampras is top 5 all time.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Exactly.. The 2nd or 3rd best of Pete's era came up 6-8 slams shy of Pete's record, and nowheres even CLOSE to his overall accomplishments

Well, firstly, Nadal and Djokovic are the 2nd and 3rd best of Federers era, with Nadal being better than Agassi and Djokovic being far better than Courier. So maybe that has something to do with it?

Also, I don't see how at this point the margin between Sampras and Agassi is that much bigger than Federer and Nadal. If anything you could argue the opposite. Fed has 77 titles, Nadal 50. 17 majors to 11, 6 YE finals to Nadals 0.

With Sampras and Agassi its 14 to 8, 64 to 60, 5 to 1, and Agassi had 6 more masters titles.

[smoledman]

The GOAT thing(Open Era only) is fascinating because each of them have a significant hole in their CV.

Fed - failed to dominate Nadal
Sampras - failed to win FO
Borg - failed to win US Open and went 1-3 against Mac in GS
Nadal - failed to win YEC and post significant weeks at #1

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Well, firstly, Nadal and Djokovic are the 2nd and 3rd best of Federers era, with Nadal being better than Agassi and Djokovic being far better than Courier. So maybe that has something to do with it?

Also, I don't see how at this point the margin between Sampras and Agassi is that much bigger than Federer and Nadal. If anything you could argue the opposite. Fed has 77 titles, Nadal 50. 17 majors to 11, 6 YE finals to Nadals 0.

With Sampras and Agassi its 14 to 8, 64 to 60, 5 to 1, and Agassi had 6 more masters titles.

Nadal has 11 slams and counting (Agassi only 8 and he couldn't beat Pete at 2 of the 4 slams no matter how hard he tried and Nadal has taken Fed out at 3 of the 4 slams) , and he is much worse indoors (and on hard courts) then Agassi was. Agassi was better on more various surfaces overall then Nadal is where most of Nadal's success has came on clay.