Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

[MTF07]

Originally Posted by 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

You do realize that there is a greater gap in the weeks at number one between Fed and Nadal, in addition to a much bigger gap in titles won and the same gap in slams won (6)..?

[kalyan4fedever]

head to head doesnt matter, its the total titles won that eventually matter and rafa is 5 years younger to federer lets not forget it. Also if federer were to play 5 more years and racks up some slams, its all that matters not h2hs.

[fed_rulz]

Sampras has a strong case for being the undisputed GOAT of Tier II greats. Too bad Federer immediately followed Sampras and eclipsed all but one major record of his, in addition to setting new milestones of his own (not to mention taking him down at the greatest stage in tennis when Pete was a 4-time defending champion); if Federer and Sampras played, say a decade apart, then one could entertain the classic Pete-worshippers "but eras cannot be compared.." line of defense, and make a case for Pete being ranked among Tier I candidates; as things stand, there can be no ambiguity about Federer > Sampras, which rules out Pete from Tier I (and it can only get worse from here..). Sorry Pete!

[Sabratha]

Nadal will always be the clay GOAT, not the GOAT in general.

[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.

[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.

[edmondsm]

It was tougher to be an all-surface player back then. You HAD to be able to serve and volley to win Wimbledon and you HAD to be a baseliner with heavy shots to win the FO. This is why Agassi was so exceptional, he did what the guys today did but without the poly strings. Now with these new strings everybody just stays back and pummels the ball. Not that I don't like it, but it's different.

[Blocker]

Gee don't you just love the hypocriscy of some Fed fans when it comes to Sampras and Nadal. They chop and change their argument when it suits them.

They are very quick to dismiss Fed's poor H2H record against Nadal, but invariably bring up Fed's one and only match against old man Sampras to prove he is better than Sampras when Sampras is brought into the fray.

Beating the field we are told, that's the only thing that counts we are told. Okay Fed *****, have it your way. Whilst Sampras' and Fed's careers overlapped, Sampras beat the field at least once, the 2002 USO. Sampras retired as the most recent slam champion. He won his last 7 slam matches. What did Federer do in Sampras' last slam before he retired? Bananas, that's what. A straight sets loss to Mimyi in the 4th round. Very underwhelming. Now let's see who Sampras had to beat:

Portas in 3
Pless in 3
Rusedski in 5
Haas in 4
Roddick in 3
Schalken in 3
Agassi in 4

Very very impressive field to get through, and he only dropped 4 sets along the way.

It was only after Sampras retired that Federer started to dominate. Based on Sampras's most recent slam form, and with renewed enthusiasm and confidence, who is to say that Sampras would not have won the AO , W and the USO in 2003?

As for total slam count, it has been stated time and time again, yes it is important, but due to many factors, it cannot be the only measure of GOATness. Homeginisation of courts, where baseliners are now winning Wimbledon more than ever before, the extinction of the serve and volley game, again, due to the homeginisation of courts, the fact that players from the past did not go out of their way to play, let alone win, every slam on offer, means that slam count can never be the only measurement of GOAT determination. By trying to impose a one size fits all methodology, ie, by stating that slam count should be 'it' across all of time, you are comparing apples to oranges.

So if you want to chop and change the H2H and beat the field arguments for when it suits yourselves, just remember, baby Fed did beat Sampras in H2H whilst their careers overlapped, but Sampras won the beat the field count whilst their careers overlapped. So which argument would you like to use? By your reasoning, Sampras was the better of the two when their careers overlapped. Sampras retired as the most recent slam champion, therefore giving everyone else a chance to win slams once he retired. What Fed did after Sampras retired is irrelevant, Sampras got him when they were in competition for slams. The fact Fed's slam count has overtaken Sampras' is also irrelevant because of the reasons stated above, apples and oranges.

What I said seems ridiculous to you? Well welcome to non-******* world, we see this sort of chop and change stuff every day on here.

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.

In answer to my question above about which argument to use, if you know anything about tennis and it's history, you'll say both. If you're a jonny come lately, keep ******* out the most slam count.

Sampras did not win the FO which is a mark against him. But at the end of the day, he won the most slams in his era, held the no. 1 position the longest in his era and he did not get outrighted owned by anyone in slams in his era. Aside from not winning the FO, he can't do much more than that. Therefore he is a GOAT contender and he stands alongside, not in front of or behind, but alongside, every great of the game.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Well he also has a weaker Masters 1000 resume compared to other greats. His numbers there are just not very impressive compared to other legends. He's got 11. People with more than him include Djokovic, Becker, Borg, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal and Lendl. And Fed and Nadal and Lendl almost have twice as much.

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.

[The Moonballer]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

Nadal will always be the clay GOAT, not the GOAT in general.

Yes, Nadull doesn't have a real case for GOAT because it is too one-sided. 7/11 GS are RG. The only way he won so much is with his injury prone style of retrieving every ball and pushing them back. Dull hasn't won a title off clay in how long? 2 years?

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by The Moonballer

Yes, Nadull doesn't have a real case for GOAT because it is too one-sided. 7/11 GS are RG. The only way he won so much is with his injury prone style of retrieving every ball and pushing them back. Dull hasn't won a title off clay in how long? 2 years?

Borg won 6/11 at RG (just one fewer than Nadal), and 11/11 at RG and W. Are you saying he is not a GOAT candidate?

[The Moonballer]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Borg won 6/11 at RG (just one fewer than Nadal), and 11/11 at RG and W. Are you saying he is not a GOAT candidate?

He could have been. But he only played one AO and retired early. He is more of a GOAT candidate than Nadull because of his records. Nadull is a clay court specialist only.

[timnz]

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.

But masters 1000 are one aspect of a players career. Not the total picture but still an aspect. It shouldn't detract from Lendl's great effort in winning 22 masters 1000 equivalents, just because Sampras wasn't willing to put the effort into winning them and only has half the total of lendl. Why should Lendl be penalised because of Pete's philosophy?

[zagor]

Short answer-yes.

Nobody (aside from maybe Laver) is an undisputed GOAT but Sampras earned his place amongst GOAT candidates/contenders.

[helloworld]

Sampras was the greatest of his era. That alone is worthy enough to put him among one of the greatest of all time. Plus, he didn't get completely owned by anyone in slams, even at the French Open he did beat Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Agassi.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Sampras was the greatest of his era. That alone is worthy enough to put him among one of the greatest of all time. Plus, he didn't get completely owned by anyone in slams, even at the French Open he did beat Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Agassi.

you really dont want to start trying to talk up sampras french open record...

its like trying to claim that a plate of dog sh1t is the best meal ever in the history of food.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by timnz

But masters 1000 are one aspect of a players career. Not the total picture but still an aspect. It shouldn't detract from Lendl's great effort in winning 22 masters 1000 equivalents, just because Sampras wasn't willing to put the effort into winning them and only has half the total of lendl. Why should Lendl be penalised because of Pete's philosophy?

They are a very small aspect when judging the GOAT.

Pete's six extra slams compared to Lendl is far more important than Lendl's 11 extra Masters series. Really, Masters series should only be used as a tiebreaker between candidates who are fairly equal, not as one of the prime factors for determining who is GOAT.

[dominikk1985]

BTW: I did not say the H2H makes Nadal the GOAT. fed is obviously still greater than him.

I just said it is a serious dent in Feds GOAT case. However Fed is not the only GOAT candidate having such a dent (see sampras lack of FO win) so to me he is still the GOAT.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

BTW: I did not say the H2H makes Nadal the GOAT. fed is obviously still greater than him.

I just said it is a serious dent in Feds GOAT case. However Fed is not the only GOAT candidate having such a dent (see sampras lack of FO win) so to me he is still the GOAT.

It's not a serious dent. It would be serious if Nadal dominated Federer on hardcourts and grass. He didn't, he trails 8-6 on those surfaces. It's knock on Federer for sure but it isn't a serious dent in his case. Federer has done better against the field compared to Nadal. He's the superior player be cause of it. Nadal's matchup advantages and his domination of clay shouldn't detract much from Federer.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by NatF

It's not a serious dent. It would be serious if Nadal dominated Federer on hardcourts and grass. He didn't, he trails 8-6 on those surfaces. It's knock on Federer for sure but it isn't a serious dent in his case. Federer has done better against the field compared to Nadal. He's the superior player be cause of it. Nadal's matchup advantages and his domination of clay shouldn't detract much from Federer.

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.