Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

[NatF]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal has 11 slams and counting, 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.

Most of Nadal succes - including his h2h with Federer (and Djokovic for that matter)

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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.

This goes to show that the GOAT discussion is multifactorial ie not just based on one criteria like head to head. No, time at number 1, number of important titles won, range of surfaces one has performed at the top level on etc etc...all have to be considered

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by NatF

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...

yes but even if you consider 04-09 (which is highly unfair towards nadal who was probably as much pre prime as fed is now past prime most of that time) and non clay (again unfair towards nadal) then the record is 4-4. prime federer while not getting totally owned never dominated baby nadal.

If there were only prime vs prime matches equally distributed between all surfaces the reocord would have been more equal but still nadal would win about 60%. this is a serious dent in Feds resumee (he is still greater than nadal though) which pete never had.

I still argue that fed is the goat but I would strongly argue against that he is one of the most dominant athletes ever. there just happened to be noone better to date in tennis.

[TheFifthSet]

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)

We're not talking about who the better player is, but of the seperation between the two, so who cares that Nadal has 3 more slams? Federer also has 3 more than Sampras.

Even if the seperation is bigger, it's not by a massive margin at this point. Federer is clearly the player of his era. Sampras was clearly the player of his. Federer also had a stronger number 2 and 3 players of the era to contend with, as Nadal + Djokovic > Agassi + Courier (maybe it was Becker, in which case it would be very close, but Becker wasn't the same force he was when Sampras started winning compared to his prime).

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.

Do you, then, disagree that Nadal is a better player than Agassi? If not, I don't see what you're arguing about.

Also, how was he better on more surfaces? Nadal is much better on grass, and so so much better on clay. Agassi was much better on HC and indoors, but not by the same margin.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

yes but even if you consider 04-09 (which is highly unfair towards nadal who was probably as much pre prime as fed is now past prime most of that time) and non clay (again unfair towards nadal) then the record is 4-4. prime federer while not getting totally owned never dominated baby nadal.

If there were only prime vs prime matches equally distributed between all surfaces the reocord would have been more equal but still nadal would win about 60%. this is a serious dent in Feds resumee (he is still greater than nadal though) which pete never had.

I still argue that fed is the goat but I would strongly argue against that he is one of the most dominant athletes ever. there just happened to be noone better to date in tennis.

There has never been a comparable situation in tennis history where the player in consideration has, the majority of time he has played his main rival, played on his weakest surface and his opponents strongest surface. This has created a very strange anomoly. That is why head to head should never be spoken of except referencing surface. Imagine what the borg/mcenroe head to head would have been if they had played the majority of their matches on clay? (Note: Federer leads Nadal 8 to 6 non-clay)

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

This guy didn't win a single French Open.

That is his only weak spot.

However his strengths are above almost everyone else's, so yes he definitely deserves a place in the GOAT discussion.

Don't forget that almost every GOAT contender has a weakness in their resume somewhere.

[cork_screw]

Yeah and there's really talented players who haven't won an australian, a wimbledon, or a USO. Lendl never won a wimbledon, so does that take away from all of his accomplishments? Fed never won a calendar slam. And Rod Laver won just 11 slams compared to the others who have won more. Fed was considered the GOAT even before he won the french. And if he never won it, he would have just been in parallel territory with Pete. But pete has something that most guys don't which is the number 14. That is why he was in talks as the GOAT and obviously with all of fed's accomplishments, he's out. But he's still considered a "GOAT" as you would call it, but if you wanna be technical, you shouldn't be using GOAT is plural terms, just like how 110% does not exist but it used as an allusion.

Why do people here write threads like this? Rub your brain cells together before you want people to hear what you have to say.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

...
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?)

For crying out loud - this is not a "strike against his name".. it has only become so by internet flacks and die-hard Nadal fans.

AGAIN, beating someone in itself means nothing in tennis. There is no trophy for beating any particular person, no award for it, no bonus points and there is certainly no head to head system factored into rankings, seedings, points etc.

The only thing other than performances at tournaments that matters in tennis is the ranking race. Neither depend one bit on any particular head to head. They never will.

Nadal plainly was a crap player outside of his favourite surface for years - a cunning detail which helped him face Federer again and again on his favourite surface. Off his favourite surface he regularly lost to chumps who usually couldn't even muster a set off Federer.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

For crying out loud - this is not a "strike against his name".. it has only become so by internet flacks and die-hard Nadal fans.

AGAIN, beating someone in itself means nothing in tennis. There is no trophy for beating any particular person, no award for it, no bonus points and there is certainly no head to head system factored into rankings, seedings, points etc.

The only thing other than performances at tournaments that matters in tennis is the ranking race. Neither depend one bit on any particular head to head. They never will.

Nadal plainly was a crap player outside of his favourite surface for years - a cunning detail which helped him face Federer again and again on his favourite surface. Off his favourite surface he regularly lost to chumps who usually couldn't even muster a set off Federer.

This is no not knock against Fed's career? So if Nadal was a "crap player" for years off his favorite surface, what does that say about Nadal beating Fed way back in 2004 on his favorite surface (hard courts?) Its a MAJOR knock against Federer's career.. Bottom line. Nadal has been the primary favorite vs. Federer (especially once he honed his craft outside of clay) for the good majority of his career.


When your main rival is the FAVORITE against you 85-90 percent of the time, how is that not a knock on someone?

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by 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

If these are the criteria then Sampras has many.

He failed to dominate Fabrice Santoro, Leander Paes, Max Mirnyi, George Bastl, Christian Saceanu.....

Throw him off the GOAT bridge already. What a chump that he couldn't dominate these guys.

[Towser83]

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

2 words. WEAK ERA

When Federer was dominating everyone and no-one was close to him, that proved a weak era. Now Nadal is closer to him than Sampras's rivals, the argument is changed.

In answer to the OP question, of course he is a GOAT candidate. He was one of the best players of all time on 2 out of 3 surfaces, that alone make him a candidate. Though I don't beleive anyone can claim to be the GOAT. so it's all moot but Sampras is one of the greatest of all time.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

This is no not knock against Fed's career? So if Nadal was a "crap player" for years off his favorite surface, what does that say about Nadal beating Fed way back in 2004 on his favorite surface (hard courts?) Its a MAJOR knock against Federer's career.. ..

Anomaly wins matter nothing in the bigger picture. That is half the point.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

When your main rival is the FAVORITE against you 85-90 percent of the time, how is that not a knock on someone?

It is a knock to flacks but means nothing in the truer picture of how great a player is/was.

The only head to head that matters in a player's career or tournament is: you vs everyone else. Federer smokes Nadal in that respect. It's not even a close contest.

[smoledman]

The point is certain people on this board hold that "dominating all your main rivals" is the #1 GOAT criterium.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by 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

I could be wrong, but aren't Nadal's weeks at number 1 similar to Borg's?.

Originally Posted by timnz

There has never been a comparable situation in tennis history where the player in consideration has, the majority of time he has played his main rival, played on his weakest surface and his opponents strongest surface. This has created a very strange anomoly. That is why head to head should never be spoken of except referencing surface. Imagine what the borg/mcenroe head to head would have been if they had played the majority of their matches on clay? (Note: Federer leads Nadal 8 to 6 non-clay)

Which isn't dominance. Nadal's numbers against Fed on clay though, and overall, are.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

I could be wrong, but aren't Nadal's weeks at number 1 similar to Borg's?.



Which isn't dominance. Nadal's numbers against Fed on clay though, and overall, are.

Yes Nadal has 100+ weeks at #1. His only real hole is not winning a single YEC.

[tennisMVP]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

This guy didn't win a single French Open.

Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.

[firepanda]

He is one of the GOAT by virtue of results. However, I never thought he was fantastically skilled, almost entirely relying on the best serve in the game and great speed.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by tennisMVP

Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.

No he isn't. No one is "by far" and he can't be the best in both if you use the same criterion for both. Not very inventive trolling at all.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

You can make some cases for Pete over Federer.

Federer is ahead and the gap is even wider now. Wide enough to separate them from one tier.

You can argue the gap between Nadal and Sampras is closer than the gap between Sampras and Federer.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by tennisMVP

Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.

It dosnt make up for not winning one of the majors..sampras was too rubbish to win the french or even be in the final.

anyhow federer is the greatest wimbledon player ever, by far.