Has Federer Ruined Our Perspective on Achievements?

[McEnroeisanartist]

Originally Posted by Towser83

I guess it isn't unusual, it's just both players could be the GOAT. Federer already is in many people's eyes but it would be impossible to argue against if he didn't have Nadal around, Nadal could also be the GOAT to most people if Federer hadn't set the bar so high. Not sure if that's the case with most other rivalries, perhaps with some of them. I guess Agassi with let's say 11 slams and a full set might be considered the GOAT if Sampras had never existed

I find this lame for some reason. If you need another person to define if you are the GOAT or not, then you are not the GOAT. Federer is GOAT based soley on all of his achievements.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Using either one of those guys to try and bolster your argument is laughable. They are both Fed's pigeons, and gave him little trouble more often than not.

If that's laughable, then using Murray to bolster any argument about depth of competition is also laughable.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Towser83

I guess it isn't unusual, it's just both players could be the GOAT. Federer already is in many people's eyes but it would be impossible to argue against if he didn't have Nadal around, Nadal could also be the GOAT to most people if Federer hadn't set the bar so high. Not sure if that's the case with most other rivalries, perhaps with some of them. I guess Agassi with let's say 11 slams and a full set might be considered the GOAT if Sampras had never existed

Agassi would have 14 slams without Sampras. Actually he might have about 18 as his 96-98 slump would have never happened without Sampras beating him at the 95 U.S Open. No player has suffered as much from another player as Agassi did from Sampras.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

I find this lame for some reason. If you need another person to define if you are the GOAT or not, then you are not the GOAT. Federer is GOAT based soley on all of his achievements.

You find it lame because you're a massive Federer fan. All I'm saying is without Federer the man to beat would be Sampras who Nadal could probably top. I'm not saying it should be something people think about a lot, not something that should keep Nadal or his fans awake thinking "If only Federer hadn't set the bar so high" it's just an interesting idea that people don't give much thought because it is always assumed that Nadal robbed Federer of so much that if he didn't exist then Federer would gain so much, but Nadal would gain a big boost in status without Federer.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Agassi would have 14 slams without Sampras. Actually he might have about 18 as his 96-98 slump would have never happened without Sampras beating him at the 95 U.S Open. No player has suffered as much from another player as Agassi did from Sampras.

How did you arrive at 14 slams? You mean because Agassi lost 6 times in slams to Sampras? You're assuming every time that Agassi lost to Sampras he would have gone on to win the slam if he didn't play Sampras. That is really flawed logic, especially since not all of the matches he lost were even finals.

Let's look at each loss.
US Open 1990, ok Agassi would have probably beaten McEnroe who lost to Sampras in the semis, but Sampras also beat Lendl who would have had a great shot vs Agassi in the final (he beat him at the US Open in 1989 and had won the AO that year) If Lendl makes the final which he probably does, Agassi is the underdog.

Wimbledon 1993. Agassi lost in the quarters, yet he's a sure bet for the title? (with all those grass greats around ) There's Becker, Courier, and Edberg. Becker lost in a 5th set to Agassi in 1992 but beat him in 4 in 1995. No sure thing for Agassi at all and I maintain he was far from a great grass court player.

US Open 1995. This one I see Agassi winning, don't think anyone else would have beaten him here.


Wimbledon 1999. Late in the 90s there wasn't much competition around at Wimbledon and Henman would likely have made the final in which case Agassi wins.

US Open. 2001. Playing back to back against Safin and Hewitt, who knows? 50/50 chance.

US Open 2002. Pete had a pretty easy draw so no-one he beat would have really been that dangerous. Roddick was too young, Haas may have beaten Agassi if he got to the final but most likley Agassi wins this one.

So out of that I say 3 more slams, 4 tops. 12 slams with the full set might put him where Sampras is at the moment.

Also no player has suffered as much from one other as Agassi from Sampras? Erm Fed and Nadal..

[Talker]

15 slams and 20 finals out of a 25 slam period, six years.

2003 Wimbledon to 2009 Wimbledon.

That can alter the perspective some.

[tacou]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Yes, Nadal's clay court streak is impressive, but it is more impressive that Federer has the longest streaks on two different surfaces, so I think Nadal's streak gets overshadowed in my opinion. Yes, Rafa's consistency at slams pales terribly in comparison to Federer. Consecutive grand slam finals: Federer - 10, Nadal - 5. Consecutive grand slam semifinals: Federer - 23, Nadal - 5. Consecutive grand slam quarterfinals: Federer - 34, Nadal - 11. Grand Slams where they reached at least 5 consecutive semifinals - Federer - all 4. Nadal - 0.

Only 4 players ever have more major titles than Rafa... one of them is Roger. Federer's slam history is remarkable, no doubt, but things like "consecutive quarterfinals" don't amount to more than trivia. 17 to 11 is fair close considering only 7 players have ever reached double digits

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Towser83

How did you arrive at 14 slams? You mean because Agassi lost 6 times in slams to Sampras? You're assuming every time that Agassi lost to Sampras he would have gone on to win the slam if he didn't play Sampras.

Yes I do believe that.

US Open 1990, ok Agassi would have probably beaten McEnroe who lost to Sampras in the semis, but Sampras also beat Lendl who would have had a great shot vs Agassi in the final (he beat him at the US Open in 1989 and had won the AO that year) If Lendl makes the final which he probably does, Agassi is the underdog.

Well Agassi beat Becker at this U.S Open, and Becker had beaten Lendl at the previous years. Even if Agassi and Lendl met I think Agassi's chances would be good. Lendl was already on decline, he had won his last ever major already in fact, and Agassi never lost to Lendl again after 1989.

Wimbledon 1993. Agassi lost in the quarters, yet he's a sure bet for the title? (with all those grass greats around ) There's Becker, Courier, and Edberg. Becker lost in a 5th set to Agassi in 1992 but beat him in 4 in 1995. No sure thing for Agassi at all and I maintain he was far from a great grass court player.

Becker is Agassi's slave. A better grass court player than Agassi (although at this phase of his career it is closer) but even on grass Agassi is favored due to the matchup. Agassi had beaten Becker at Wimbledon 92, and yes Becker beat him in 95 but that was a HUGE upset and he was boosted by some great tactical advice and motivated by Agassi's former coach Bolliteiri, and the motivation of Becker and Bolliteiri's feud with Agassi at the time, and Agassis arrogance by then towards the matchup. Agassi is easily a better grass courter than Courier, and also was a bad matchup for Edberg who you repeatedly claim was not any good by this point anyway.

US Open 1995. This one I see Agassi winning, don't think anyone else would have beaten him here.


Wimbledon 1999. Late in the 90s there wasn't much competition around at Wimbledon and Henman would likely have made the final in which case Agassi wins.

For sure.

US Open. 2001. Playing back to back against Safin and Hewitt, who knows? 50/50 chance.

Agassi had never lost to Hewitt up to this point. Only after Hewitt gained the confidence of being #1 and a slam winner did he start beating Agassi. Hewitt majorly lucked out with his draw at this U.S Open, he struggled and could have easily lost to any of Blake, Haas, and Roddick, and would never have gotten past a draw of Rafter and Agassi instead. Safin was not any good in 2001 at all, even though he made the semis here which turned out to be his year highlight, he was still playing at best in neutral gear, Agassi would have had no problems with this Safin.

US Open 2002. Pete had a pretty easy draw so no-one he beat would have really been that dangerous. Roddick was too young, Haas may have beaten Agassi if he got to the final but most likley Agassi wins this one.

Agreed.

Also no player has suffered as much from one other as Agassi from Sampras? Erm Fed and Nadal..

Oh please, even with Nadal, Federer has most people and ALL of his fans claiming he is the GOAT today, what suffering. Agassi goes from a potential top 3 player all time to barely a top 15 player all time due to Sampras.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Well Agassi beat Becker at this U.S Open, and Becker had beaten Lendl at the previous years. Even if Agassi and Lendl met I think Agassi's chances would be good. Lendl was already on decline, he had won his last ever major already in fact, and Agassi never lost to Lendl again after 1989.

oh please, agassi was a nervous wreck in the finals .... lendl would be even more intimidating for him to play against than sampras ... yes, becker beat lendl in 89 USO, but that was becker's best USO performance, he did lose to lendl in 92 @ the USO .....and he wasn't playing as well in 90 as he was in 89 ...

lendl had already beaten agassi in 89 USO and was 6-0, yes SIX-ZERO vs him at that point ....

LOL @ the statement in bold, makes it look like agassi beat him plenty of times after 89 .... he just beat him twice, once in 92, once more in 93 ... and lendl in 90 was by some distance better than he was in 92/93 ...

hell, Jmac in decent form would have more than decent chance to beat the nervous wreck agassi, let alone a lendl who was playing well ( his match vs the in-form sampras was a close 5-setter )

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Becker is Agassi's slave. A better grass court player than Agassi (although at this phase of his career it is closer) but even on grass Agassi is favored due to the matchup. Agassi had beaten Becker at Wimbledon 92, and yes Becker beat him in 95 but that was a HUGE upset and he was boosted by some great tactical advice and motivated by Agassi's former coach Bolliteiri, and the motivation of Becker and Bolliteiri's feud with Agassi at the time, and Agassis arrogance by then towards the matchup. Agassi is easily a better grass courter than Courier, and also was a bad matchup for Edberg who you repeatedly claim was not any good by this point anyway.

lol, you cannot be serious ... agassi at this point was having wrist problems and had to alter his service motion .... it was because of sampras having a dip in concentration that he won 2 sets .. he was playing decent tennis, not great tennis

courier was an inferior grass courter to agassi, but he was in better form by some distance and he owned agassi at that time anyways ...

agassi playing his very best grass tennis needed 5 sets to defeat a sub-par becker in 92 wimbledon.. becker was in better form in 93 and agassi in worse form

edberg's form was also just decent ... so agassi would have more of a shot at beating him than the other 2, but still no lock considering he wasn't in great form himself ...

all of courier/becker/edberg would have a decent shot of defeating agassi at wimbledon in 93 ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Agassi had never lost to Hewitt up to this point. Only after Hewitt gained the confidence of being #1 and a slam winner did he start beating Agassi.

this is a load of cr*p ...

very young hewitt beat a returning from hiatus agassi in 98 ...

their LA match in 99 was a hewitt retirement at 5-4 , which really says nothing

their IW match in 2001 was a 3-setter, 6-4,3-6,6-4 ... this on slow HC, agassi was better on slow HC than on fast HC and vice versa for hewitt ...

again, doesn't really say that much tbh ...

you can't draw many conclusions based on these 3 matches ....

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Hewitt majorly lucked out with his draw at this U.S Open, he struggled and could have easily lost to any of Blake, Haas, and Roddick, and would never have gotten past a draw of Rafter and Agassi instead.

yes, problem is hewitt struggled in the first week, but by the time the semis and finals came around, he was in brilliant form, trouncing both kafelnikov and sampras

but then again even agassi was playing very well ... so it would have been a close match

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Safin was not any good in 2001 at all, even though he made the semis here which turned out to be his year highlight, he was still playing at best in neutral gear, Agassi would have had no problems with this Safin.

this I agree with

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by tacou

Only 4 players ever have more major titles than Rafa... one of them is Roger. Federer's slam history is remarkable, no doubt, but things like "consecutive quarterfinals" don't amount to more than trivia. 17 to 11 is fair close considering only 7 players have ever reached double digits

Except look how tough it was for Roger to win #12 to #17. It gets a lot harder once you're into double digits.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Hewitt majorly lucked out with his draw at this U.S Open, he struggled and could have easily lost to any of Blake, Haas, and Roddick, and would never have gotten past a draw of Rafter and Agassi instead.

Strongly disagree with this. He handled the atmosphere much better than Roddick in their 5-set QF, and thrashed both Kafelnikov and Sampras (picking Sampras apart when he came to the net, passing him with ease - Hewitt would have done the exact same against Rafter...)

Actually I consider Hewitt's USO 2001 win to be very impressive.

[Mustard]

Hewitt was being demonised by the media after the linesman controversy against Blake at the 2001 US Open. But Darren Cahill, Kim Clijsters and his parents all rallied around him, and to end up winning the tournament like he did, was very impressive.