Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

[Feather]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Nadal still leads 3-2 on grass and hard court slams. Even on Nadal's worst surfaces, he still dominated Federer. Fed's pathetic H2H vs Nadal is certainly a big hole in his career.

How about some perspective?

Roger lost to Rafa in AO 2009 when he was 27.

What were Pete's results in AO in 2009-2012? He couldn't even reach final let alone.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Nadal still leads 3-2 on grass and hard court slams. Even on Nadal's worst surfaces, he still dominated Federer. Fed's pathetic H2H vs Nadal is certainly a big hole in his career.

For one of those losses Federer was 30 years old. Bit unfair to expect him to keep up with someone 5 years younger than him. I don't see why only the slam h2h should count anyway. Federer has beaten Nadal plenty of times on hardcourts. If Nadal went further in these tournaments when Federer was at his peak the slam H2H and H2H in general would look very different. Federer has done better against the field than Nadal has. His matchup disadvantages with Nadal aren't a major blot. Considering that...

[zagor]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Nadal still leads 3-2 on grass and hard court slams.

LOL, nice spin there.

Well I could just as easily say that in the part of the season after the FO Fed is 5-1 against Nadal.

Also remember, Agassi was undefeated against Sampras at AO+FO as well, what if the vast majority of their meetings occurred there, ever thought about that?

Originally Posted by helloworld

Even on Nadal's worst surfaces, he still dominated Federer.

Slow HC is definitely not Nadal's worst surface, indoor HC is.

Nadal dominated H2H against Fed at AO and FO.

At Wimbledon Fed leads the H2H, they never met at USO and on indoor HC Fed is 4-0 against Nadal.

Originally Posted by helloworld

Fed's pathetic H2H vs Nadal is certainly a big hole in his career.

Or so would Petey fans like yourself like to think .

It's a hole, but how big exactly largely depends on whom you ask.

One way of looking at this is that if Fed was as good (bad) as your hero on clay, skipped 2009 AO (like your hero did in 1999) and lost in 4th round of AO in 2012 he would have been a better player except that I find that way of thinking to be quite ridiculous.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Feather

How about some perspective?

Roger lost to Rafa in AO 2009 when he was 27.

What were Pete's results in AO in 2009-2012? He couldn't even reach final let alone.

Pete reached the SF of the AO in 2000 and was beating Andre before he got injured.. Andre in 2000 was more impressive then Nadal in 2009 in Australia

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Pete reached the SF of the AO in 2000 and was beating Andre before he got injured.. Andre in 2000 was more impressive then Nadal in 2009 in Australia

If we're going to go down that route, Federer won the AO in 2010.

[axel89]

should nadal be placed amongst the goats he didn't win the WTF

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by The Moonballer

Nadull is so lucky his biggest strength (moonball) plays to Federers biggest weakness (taking high backhands).

I don't see how this is related to the Sampras GOAT case.

Btw this is one of the worst threads, proof that the season is over.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by axel89

should nadal be placed amongst the goats he didn't win the WTF

Yes, because he's got the most FO titles in the open era.

[DropShotArtist]

Sampras is great but he was really lucky to play in a weak era.

[cknobman]

Saw thread title just wanted to post

WTF????

[cknobman]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Nadal still leads 3-2 on grass and hard court slams. Even on Nadal's worst surfaces, he still dominated Federer. Fed's pathetic H2H vs Nadal is certainly a big hole in his career.

Question, do you think Laver is greater than Borg?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Sampras is the greatest of the 90s. Federer is the greatest of the 2000s. Laver is the greatest of the 60s. We should leave it as just that. Discussing further more who is greater in different playing conditions and equipments is just plain silly.

ROFL!! Of course you're heading to this route because Sampras is now 1 tier below Federer.

Anyway, The Tennis Channel team have come to a conclusion that Fed is #1. And Sampras and Laver have said Federer is the greatest.

"I have to give it to him," he said. "He's won all the majors[15] now, and he will win a few more. So in my book he is."
-Sampras

“Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing”
-Laver

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

Sampras is at the top of the bunch of goats since he was more dominant in his era than any one else has ever been in their era by winning 175% the amount of slams as the next best in his era.

No he's not. He won 14 GS in 52 slam appearances, Fed won 17 in 54 appearances.

*He never had a winning percentage of over 90 in a year.
*Never won 3 slams per year
*Never was a force on clay
*Only won 11 MS(Nole has already pass him)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

No he's not. He won 14 GS in 54 slam appearances, Fed won 17 in 52 appearances.

*He never had a winning percentage of over 90 in a year.
*Never won 3 slams per year
*Never was a force on clay
*Only won 11 MS(Nole has already pass him)

You have it reverse actually. Sampras won 14 in 52 and Federer has won 17 in 54. Didn't you get that info from me?

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay. So he was somewhat of a force on clay. Overall I don't think he's logically a name you should use with the top few of the GOAT candidates list.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Blocker

In answer to the OP, Sampras is very much one of the GOAT contenders, but I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, you can't single one man out as GOAT. There's too many things to consider, which works against every player to ever play the game.

Slam count is not the be-all and end-all, but it's the most important criteria in goat debate. 17 to 14 slam is a huge difference. Even great players(hall of famers) wasn't able to win 3 slams in their career. Sampras doesn't have a career slam. he reached 18 slam finals but Fed reached 24. Sampras have less winning % at the slam, less matches won, etc...


We can compare other stats ouside of the slam and Fed is still ahead.

Federer/Sampras:
21 MS/11
6 WTFs/5
76 titles/64
302 wks #1/286

FEDERER CLEARLY IS ONE TIER ABOVE SAMPRAS.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

You have it reverse actually. Sampras won 14 in 52 and Federer has won 17 in 54. Didn't you get that info from me?

Ok, I adjusted my post.

Originally Posted by pc1

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay. So he was somewhat of a force on clay. Overall I don't think he's logically a name you should use at the top of the GOAT candidates list.

Yes his 6 years #1 fabulous, but that's only one stat. Fed has the record weeks #1, and fans have said wks at #1 is more telling than year end #1. He also had 237 straight weeks. So if we specificially compare ranking stats only, Fed is still more impressive.

It depends how you define "a force". I don't think winning just 1 MS on clay in an entire career is a force, because you can include any player with 1 MS is a force on that surface.

The last sentence I can accept.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Seriously? Masters series tournaments mean next to nothing when we are discussing who is GOAT - it's all about slams/pro majors, YEC's, amount of time spent at No 1. Pete set out to break the slam record, he didn't care about breaking the Masters series record.

It doesn't have the weight of the slam but you're selling players like Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Nole real short. Focus on both slams and MS to be able to win consistently is a real challenge. Too bad Sampras takes the easy route.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by pc1

You have it reverse actually. Sampras won 14 in 52 and Federer has won 17 in 54. Didn't you get that info from me?

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay. So he was somewhat of a force on clay. Overall I don't think he's logically a name you should use with the top few of the GOAT candidates list.

Originally Posted by TMF

Ok, I adjusted my post.



Yes his 6 years #1 fabulous, but that's only one stat. Fed has the record weeks #1, and fans have said wks at #1 is more telling than year end #1. He also had 237 straight weeks. So if we specificially compare ranking stats only, Fed is still more impressive.

It depends how you define "a force". I don't think winning just 1 MS on clay in an entire career is a force, because you can include any player with 1 MS is a force on that surface.

The last sentence I can accept.

I have a question for you. You are throwing out some stats but what about the players that may have better stats than Federer like Bill Tilden for example. Below is the info on Tilden and Federer taken from a thread I started a few months ago. The information on Federer is should be correct since I edited it a few minutes ago.

Originally Posted by pc1

There has been a thread in which Jimmy Connors' career is being compared to Roger Federer's. All fine and dandy. Many assumed Federer wins by a Slam Dunk and with all the acclaim Federer gets today I can understand why. And frankly Federer does have the accomplishments to be compared with anyone in tennis history. But still I would prefer cold facts then people writing Federer is superior to player A on hard courts, clay courts, blue clay, grass courts and indoor courts. I've seen comments in the other thread stating Federer was superior to Connors on most surfaces and yet by some incredible magic Mr. Connors has a slightly higher winning percentage for his career. So to me the comments don't work.

Federer may very well be superior to Connors but Connors' career accomplishments are fantastic and if you look carefully it doesn't seem to me at least that it's all that clear.

Here's a question I'll ask--Whose career is more impressive, Bill Tilden's or Roger Federer? The reason I'm mentioning this is to point out that we can state opinions that one or another is the de facto GOAT but we also have to examine the information before we accept the judgment. I used to think Don Budge was by everything I've read, virtually unbeatable. I was surprised when he wasn't close to virtually unbeatable. He was excellent but I realized many of the so called information I read on Budge was just plain wrong. So I reevaluated my opinion on Budge due to the information. So in comparing Federer and Tilden I want everyone to examine and give information on both players. Opinion of course is welcome but hopefully it can be backed with logic. I don't need stuff like Federer's backhand always hit winners and is much better than Djokovic's. None of this about the competition because that can't be controlled. Some may say Tilden's competition was bad and some may say Federer's was bad. We'll assume it's equal. So on accomplishments and just objectively evaluating the career, which career is better. No nonsense about the physical nature being tougher today because any era that complains about blue clay isn't that tough.

I also don't want to hear that the game is different today because I think Tilden at 6'2" tall and around 160 to 170 lbs would have adapted and learned. It can be reversed also to see if Federer can adapt to the conditions of the 1920's. Just leave this out. No one can logically prove anything here. It will go on and on forever and it'll be very annoying to read.

Some stats of Tilden versus Federer. Some of this is estimates I've gotten from some tennis experts who have much of the information.

Total tournaments won
Tilden-161-est.
Federer-76

Total majors won (including Pro Majors)
Tilden-14. Tilden won 15 majors if you include the World Hard Court that Tilden won that was really the major clay court championship. The French was not open to foreigners like Tilden.
Federer-17
We have to take into account that airplane travel was not available during Tilden's time so Big Bill did not go overseas that often. It would take many weeks to travel to England, France or Australian. In his prime Tilden may have won several Grand Slams considering how unbeatable he was.

Percentage of majors won
Tilden-14/42=.333
Federer-17/54=.315

Lifetime winning percentage
Tilden-.660-est
Federer-.816
Note-Tilden, according to Bud Collins' book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was .936! Tilden turn pro in the early 1930's and kept playing. The losses he had as an older player lowed his career winning percentage. He lost a good percentage on one night stands to players like Don Budge, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines. For example he lost to Budge with a probable score of 7-46-1. He lost to Vines by 27-46. He played both of these tours in his early to late forties. He lost regularly to Fred Perry (at least according to Perry) and he even played long enough to lose to Pancho Gonzalez!

Grand Slams won
Tilden-0
Federer-0

Percentage of tournaments won
Tilden-.520-est.
Federer-.288

Winning percentage in best five years
Tilden-.980-est.
Federer-.907

Look at the information and discuss.

Federer is acclaimed by many to be the GOAT today. Tilden was named in a poll in the late 1960's to be the GOAT at that point.

One thing I can say that is a fact. Roger Federer is currently the greatest blue clay player of all time. There can be no argument there, he just is and to argue against that would be wrong. And Serena Willilams is also currently the greatest female blue clay player of all time. They have proven themselves unbeatable on blue clay.

Edit-Corrected the information on Federer. It should be up to date as of December 3, 2012.

So all of you. Please discuss. Do you go by simple accomplishments and stats or do you decide otherwise? I believe Tilden would have done extremely well today. He was a gifted athlete and perhaps even more than that he was a great tennis analyst and studied the game, always trying to improve.

[Phoenix1983]

^ I have Tilden in my all-time top 10 (as I believe everyone should) but to have him as GOAT is to ignore the fact that competition was much less in his days. The number of countries/players who played tennis to a serious level was much lower than it is today. Hence it's no surprise that his percentages were even better than latter-day greats.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

^ I have Tilden in my all-time top 10 (as I believe everyone should) but to have him as GOAT is to ignore the fact that competition was much less in his days. The number of countries/players who played tennis to a serious level was much lower than it is today. Hence it's no surprise that his percentages were even better than latter-day greats.

But the man played to the 1950's. He was able to beat Don Budge (occasionally) when he was in his forties. He played the Muskateers, Bill Johnston, Dick Willams, Vines, Perry, Nusslein, Gonzalez, Riggs everyone and did very well. Most of Europe played, Japan, Australian and of course the United States. He was still almost unbeatable. I mean how much better could he be? If Federer played at that time he would have to win every match to top Tilden!