Bigger blemish: 1 French Open Semi or 7-13?
- Thread starter JennyS
- Start date
ATXtennisaddict
Hall of Fame
He may be 2-5 in slam finals against Nadal but you've got to realize 3 of those losses were at the FO against the king of clay (possibly GOAT on it). No to mention a bunch of those losses too.
If Nadal made it a point to reach more hard court/grass finals against Fed, the record might not look so lopsided.
If Nadal made it a point to reach more hard court/grass finals against Fed, the record might not look so lopsided.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
anyplayer will take a french open, wimbledon, us open, ao open, for a losing record against another player.
To add, I'm quite sure all the players who have reached #1 in the world, and have never won a slam, will trade in the #1 ranking for any slam.
Lastly, Sampras, I'm sure will trade in one of his year-end number 1's for a french open.
To add, I'm quite sure all the players who have reached #1 in the world, and have never won a slam, will trade in the #1 ranking for any slam.
Lastly, Sampras, I'm sure will trade in one of his year-end number 1's for a french open.
Head to head not bad - Clay Skews it
Federer is the inferior clay court player. He knows it, Nadal knows it, everybody else knows it. However, everybody else in history is an inferior player to Nadal on clay with the possible exception of 6 time French Open winner Borg. But, there other surfaces than clay - hard, grass and indoor. On surfaces other than clay Federer is leading 5-4.
Hence, the head to head is skewed greatly because of the 20 times they have met 11 times have been on clay - Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst. Hence, unfortunately there head to head matches are not the best representation of what Federer especially is capable of. Its not really a fair comparison comparing two players if the majority of times they have faced each other is on one of the players worst surface and the other players best surface. If the major of matches had been on indoor or grass, then Federer would have been winning by a significant margin.
So, Federer is a marginally better player than Nadal on every surface except Clay (where Nadal is superior).
So, now that is out of the way, Federer's record is superior to Sampras'.
Federer is the inferior clay court player. He knows it, Nadal knows it, everybody else knows it. However, everybody else in history is an inferior player to Nadal on clay with the possible exception of 6 time French Open winner Borg. But, there other surfaces than clay - hard, grass and indoor. On surfaces other than clay Federer is leading 5-4.
Hence, the head to head is skewed greatly because of the 20 times they have met 11 times have been on clay - Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst. Hence, unfortunately there head to head matches are not the best representation of what Federer especially is capable of. Its not really a fair comparison comparing two players if the majority of times they have faced each other is on one of the players worst surface and the other players best surface. If the major of matches had been on indoor or grass, then Federer would have been winning by a significant margin.
So, Federer is a marginally better player than Nadal on every surface except Clay (where Nadal is superior).
So, now that is out of the way, Federer's record is superior to Sampras'.
Lionheart392
Professional
Well said.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
nah samprastards of course will choose 7-13, because, as per their criteria, you must never be dominated by anyone, especially at the slams. however, they also have another criteria that if you're dominating everyone, your era is weak. so if federer is dominating nadal, who's to say they won't call nadal a clown? they will always find a hole to criticize.
TheFifthSet
Legend
IMO, Federer is more than just marginally better on Grass and HC.
theroleoftheunderdog
Professional
dumb question
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Probably one exception to this....Rios. I don't think he cared enough about being #1 or winning a Major.
I don't know that I'd call anything Sampras did a blemish. He had a better career than 99% of not only his peers, but anyone who ever picked up a racquet, wood or not.
Likewise, I don't think Emerson's amateur career and major count is a blemish. Emerson was an iron man in his day. I think several Aussies on the boards commented that Emerson was more of a hero to them for not going pro when all his compatriots did. There are some who will quote Emerson as saying he couldn't compete with the pros, but that is a typically Aussie remark, self-effacing. Emerson proved he could compete with anyone after Open tennis.
And again, Laver's two Grand Slams are legitimate. Those who point to his first one as being less than a great accomplishment miss one thing. If it was so easy, how come no one else has done it? I mean if competition gets better and players are bigger, stronger and faster, how come no one did it before 62 or since (noted exception of course is Budge).
Finally there is Federer. I said it on these boards before Sampras retired. There were those trumpeting how great Sampras was, denigrating champions of the past in the process. I wondered how long it would take before there were those trumpeting the next latest, greatest and denigrating Sampras' contribution to the history of the game. How long would it take before they said that he had no real competition or the game was not as keen as it is now.
I am about to reach the conclusion that there is no all-time one GOAT. There are GOATS. These are players who so dominate the landscape of the sport as to be immortal in status. These are the players that appear to do the impossible routinely. Folks take them for granted. There have only been two since I've followed tennis, 1970 or so, who were universally cheered on winning or not. They are Borg and Federer. I have never seen any other champion who was so revered and had a universal fan following.
Blemish? Hardly. There are certainly comparison points between Sampras and Federer, just as there are between Sampras and Laver or Sampras and Borg. The comparison of Sampras/Federer H2H is disingenuous, flawed, and downright wrong. Take any 4 of these champions on their best day, let them play 10 times on any surface and odds are they wind up 5/5. They all are really that good. They do play a game with which we are not familiar.
Add to that the #1s - #5s throughout the history of the sport, who on their best day could rival any of these greats. Who would bet against John McEnroe in his 1984 form? Certainly McEnroe is not the same caliber as the guys mentioned above, but that is based on results alone. McEnroe at his best could win an even number against any of the guys listed above. So could Lendl...so could Edberg...so could Becker.....so could Connors...so could.....
My point is, the complimenting of the present at the expense of the past is really not fair. It's an easy thing to do as the past can no longer defend itself and the current wave of public opinion is that the current #1 is the best of all time. But....for those of us who've been following the game long enough, you hear that bantered about by commentators whenever a player becomes dominant. And using what former champions say is not legitimate. Tradition dictates that former champions speak no ill of their modern contemporaries.
The sport owes much to the Australians who ruled in the 60s for it was they who dictated how champions would act for years to come. It is only of late that the fist pumps and stare downs have become prevalent. In the past, professionals did the impossible and acted as if it were routine (becaue to them it was).
JennyS
Hall of Fame
Yup that's the way I see it.
This is what it would take for Fed to have had a winning record against Nadal:
-With a 2-9 record against Nadal on clay, he would need to go undefeated (9-0) against Nadal in non clay tournaments. That would still only get him to 11-9 against him.
-Fed would then be 4-3 against Nadal in Slam finals and 4-4 in Slams overall.
JennyS
Hall of Fame
Some Sampras fans think the h2h is very important. After all, Sampras was 14-10 against Agassi, 6-3 against him in Slams and 4-1 against him in Slam finals.
Then again, what if Agassi and Sampras's first 8 Slam meetings had been
1. FO
2. FO
3. W
4. FO
5. W
6. FO
7. W
8. AO
I bet Agassi would have won at least 3 of the FO matches plus the AO one.
JennyS
Hall of Fame
Federer has 8 Hardcourt Slams, Nadal has 1.
Federer has 6 Grasscourt Slams, Nadal has 1.
Nadal won 4 claycourt Slams before winning a Slam on another surface
Also, from 2005-2007, Federer went 5-1 against Nadal off clay. People often overlook that fact!
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
Anyone actually calling either of these 'blemishes' obviously hasn't started watching tennis since about 2005, 2006 or so.
Fed's overall stats are fantastic, and it remains to be seen whether any a player will be able to surpass them in a lifetime.
Fed's overall stats are fantastic, and it remains to be seen whether any a player will be able to surpass them in a lifetime.
a slam is a slam is a slam
and the "GOAT" couldn't make it to the finals in Paris,that's the bottom line
Federer made ALL 4 slam FINALand lost to the same opponent every year he got there:roll:
no shame in that
Federer despite being "inferior" to Nadal on clay is 10x better than the rest
rest assure I bet Sampras would give 1 Aussie;1 USO even his Davis Cup trophy;his several #1 rankings;Masters Series for just 1 FO if he could in a heart beat
and the "GOAT" couldn't make it to the finals in Paris,that's the bottom line
Federer made ALL 4 slam FINALand lost to the same opponent every year he got there:roll:
no shame in that
Federer despite being "inferior" to Nadal on clay is 10x better than the rest
rest assure I bet Sampras would give 1 Aussie;1 USO even his Davis Cup trophy;his several #1 rankings;Masters Series for just 1 FO if he could in a heart beat
Last edited:
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I don't know that I'd bet on that. Agassi's first major final was the French Open against a 30-year old Andres Gomez at the French. He lost. His next final was against Sampras at the US Open, he lost again. His 3rd was against Jim Courier at the French and...he lost. In all 3 of those finals, Agassi was heavily favored over his opponent. Your contention then that Agassi would have won is not a good one as Agassi had a reputation for losing the big one until he won at Wimbledon in '92 against a guy who had an even bigger reputation as a head case.
What's this got to do with # of fans? It's just raw numbers. Samprastards don't post his numbers because they pale in comparison.
GameSampras
Banned
Now that the 7-13 record has stretched across entire surfaces and Fed hasnt beaten Nadal in 2 years...
I would still say thats a bigger blemish.. Proving you cannot beat your rival at a slam for years, and now on clay, grass, hards, is a big problem.. Especially when you are being considered GOAT.
Even many past former greats, say the same thing.. How can you be the GOAT, if your rival has bested you?
I would still say thats a bigger blemish.. Proving you cannot beat your rival at a slam for years, and now on clay, grass, hards, is a big problem.. Especially when you are being considered GOAT.
Even many past former greats, say the same thing.. How can you be the GOAT, if your rival has bested you?
theroleoftheunderdog
Professional
?? isnt TMC 07 and madrid 09 within the span of the last 2 years??
Nadal didn't really lose. He was tired, sick, injured or something else. :???:
theroleoftheunderdog
Professional
drwood
Professional
You forget that Andre SMOKED Pete in the 92 French Open QF losing only 9 games...no way Pete beats Andre at FO. And BTW, Pete was always a head case on clay.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Yes, but you'll have to admit that Agassi was a head case in major finals. Agassi was just as impressive in his marches to his first 3 major finals only to lose them all. He snuck out a win in '99 at the French after being on the verge of defeat.
drwood
Professional
But back in the early 90s (before 93), Pete was a head case on any surface that wasn't HC, so both would have been equally fragile. Plus its not like Andre lost to clowns -- Courier was clearly the best clay-court player of the early 90s, and Pete at the US Open...well, that speaks for itself. Gomez was a bad loss, but he was a perennial top-10 player who just happened to be owned by Lendl in the QF of previous French Opens.
1 French open semi final is definitely a bigger blemish. I mean, I am not a Federer fan, but that guy has achieved (and continues to achieve) it all. It's then when critics look for all the minor details to prove some flaws in his resume.
I never thought he could win back Wimbledon crown (after last year's Wimbledon final and the RG drubbing before that). And then Federer ends up winning 3 out the next 4 slams (and one of them is a RG title) and thats phenomenal.
I never thought he could win back Wimbledon crown (after last year's Wimbledon final and the RG drubbing before that). And then Federer ends up winning 3 out the next 4 slams (and one of them is a RG title) and thats phenomenal.
VivalaVida
Banned
The FO semi is a bigger blemish . that h2h record is soo askewed between federer and Nadal because Federer went into clay court tournaments week in and week out and dominate everyone on the way to the final and then lose to Nadal. Despite losing to Nadal, Federer's record on clay has been excellent and if Sampras played 10 plus meetings on clay with Nadal is H2H record would be even more dismal ( Federer has at least grabbed 2 wins on clay). The fact is that playing soo many clay court matches against Nadal has hurt Feds H2H but at least Federer got to the finals and competed for FO's unlike Sampras who in all his years managed to make one measly SF.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
But wait...if Sampas was such a head case on any surface, how'd he manage to beat a then peaking Agassi on Agassi's best surface? The US Open was Sampras' first final and Agassi's second of that year. Sampras was younger and not as experienced as Agassi. Butterflies abound.
Point being, Agassi had more demons between his head than Sampras. Sampras thought he wasn't ready and Agassi thought he was. Agassi's problem, IMO, stemmed from the fact that he did think he was ready and put too much pressure on himself.
GameSampras
Banned
This continues.. Fed fans snuffing their faces at the blaring obviousness hitting them in the side of their faces and up their skirts. How can one be the GOAT, If He has FAILED time and time again to defeat his rival on not just clay, but EVERY SURFACE now?
Yes a lack of a French Open hurts Pete, but at the same time, lack of the USO never really hurt Borg either and many consider him a definite GOAT candidate.
If Borg had the h2h record overrall that Borg did to his rivals, and Pete did to Andre, people would attack that relentlessley. And I think pete would be attacked more for a pathetic h2h against Andre, as he would be a failure to to win a French Open title
You guys are making it seem Nadal only has the edge on Fed on clay.. When its kind of proven otherwise, 3 of the 4 slams, Nadal has had Fed for lunch over the past two years. When the last time Fed has beaten Nadal at a slam? 2007.
Lets no pretend for a minute that Nadal's domination over Fed at the slams, has no bearing on Fed's GOAT status.. You can not OBJECTIVELY say it doesnt. But surely the subjectiveness will try and ignore the issue.
Pete fans have come to admit, Pete's resume took a hit being French Open'less
Yes a lack of a French Open hurts Pete, but at the same time, lack of the USO never really hurt Borg either and many consider him a definite GOAT candidate.
If Borg had the h2h record overrall that Borg did to his rivals, and Pete did to Andre, people would attack that relentlessley. And I think pete would be attacked more for a pathetic h2h against Andre, as he would be a failure to to win a French Open title
You guys are making it seem Nadal only has the edge on Fed on clay.. When its kind of proven otherwise, 3 of the 4 slams, Nadal has had Fed for lunch over the past two years. When the last time Fed has beaten Nadal at a slam? 2007.
Lets no pretend for a minute that Nadal's domination over Fed at the slams, has no bearing on Fed's GOAT status.. You can not OBJECTIVELY say it doesnt. But surely the subjectiveness will try and ignore the issue.
Pete fans have come to admit, Pete's resume took a hit being French Open'less
Last edited:
Pete doesnt beat andre at the AO either, in fact the single time pete won the aussie, agassi wasnt even in the draw.
Agassi suffers the same downfall vs pete as fed does with nadal. Agassi was good enough to go deep into the tourney on all surfaces while pete was only doing it on his two favorite. Thus a dominate head to head.
Sartorius
Hall of Fame
Uhm, so?.. Federer is not a "definite" GOAT candidate?..
This whole GOAT argument (especially with the way people talk about it around here) does nothing useful other than to make great champions look like "failed" players. "Federer can not be the GOAT because of Nadal", "Sampras can not be the GOAT because of French"... It has already started with Nadal too. The hell with the GOAT.
So what if Federer does not "reverse" the h2h with Nadal?.. Will he be a "failed" player?.. Will people remember him as the "player who failed to be the GOAT"?..
Pardon me, but **** that. That's utter crap.
S
Serendipitous
Guest
drwood
Professional
Absolutely Nadal's record against Fed hurts Fed's GOAT status, but let's get real here -- Pete never beat Andre on Rebound Ace either, and only won his 2 Aus Opens when Andre didn't play (94 and 97) -- so Pete DIDN'T dominate his rivals on every surface other than clay.
In Slams, Nadal is 4-0 on clay, 1-2 on grass and 1-0 on HC against Fed....that obviously hurts Fed, but not as much as Pete never even making a French final or winning fewer GS than Federer.
GameSampras
Banned
Fed IS a GOAT candidate.. But a losing h2h against your main rival, is the same kind of blemish as never winning a USO or French Open.
They are all strikes on your resume and Strikes are strikes.
If Fed does not improve and gain some advantage over Nadal at the slams in the next year or two,Fed's GOAT candidacy will remain even more in question..
And I GUARANTEE YOU!!!! If nadal somehow manages to beat Fed at the USO, you will see alot of renigging and recanting going on around here about Fed and his GOAT status. The two slams Fed has managaed to win recently, wouldnt you know.. Nadal was out of the equation..
SO yes.. Its imperative to Fed to equal it up in some capacity and get some revenge on Nadal at the slams.
If Fed retires now and never gets any revenge on nadal, Laver will probably still be considered the GOAT by most in terms of the overrall resume.
I mean its great enough to be a GOAT candidate.. But your resume does look better when there are no holes in it. Be it having every slam or never letting your rival 1 up you on the big stage.
They are all strikes on your resume and Strikes are strikes.
If Fed does not improve and gain some advantage over Nadal at the slams in the next year or two,Fed's GOAT candidacy will remain even more in question..
And I GUARANTEE YOU!!!! If nadal somehow manages to beat Fed at the USO, you will see alot of renigging and recanting going on around here about Fed and his GOAT status. The two slams Fed has managaed to win recently, wouldnt you know.. Nadal was out of the equation..
SO yes.. Its imperative to Fed to equal it up in some capacity and get some revenge on Nadal at the slams.
If Fed retires now and never gets any revenge on nadal, Laver will probably still be considered the GOAT by most in terms of the overrall resume.
I mean its great enough to be a GOAT candidate.. But your resume does look better when there are no holes in it. Be it having every slam or never letting your rival 1 up you on the big stage.
Last edited:
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Madrid 2009, anyone?
It wasn't just that he failed to win the French Open. He routinely went out early to far lesser players when he got to the French Open.
In 13 appearances, he had only 4 great runs. That's it. It amazes me how Pete Sampras fans continue to try and look at Pete's FO record through rose colored glasses.
In 13 appearances, he went out in the 1st or 2nd round 8 of 13 times. The other was a 3rd rnd loss. That's 9 of 13 years he went out in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round. How is that something to be proud of?
Bjorn Borg had 4 finals and a SF at the USO. Comparing Borg's lack of a USO title to Sampras' lack of a FO title is laughable, Sampras didn't even make a final, 1 SF, 3 QF, and a host of 1st and 2nd round losses. LOL.
Last edited:
drwood
Professional
Because Pete was (and has always been) much better on US Open HC than Agassi -- hence his 5-0 record against Andre at the US Open. And Andre's best surface back then was clay, followed by US Open HC. Pete won the US Open before he ever won a match on grass -- he was a head case back then on any surface OTHER THAN HC.
Well at least Federer had a main rival in his prime, rather than a headcase journeyman who Pete had in his prime.
Who was Pete's main rival during 93-98 the years he finished #1? Agassi? Whom he met 3 times out of 24 GS tournaments?
GameSampras
Banned
Honestly, I dont think Pete is the GOAT overall, nor do I think he had the best overrall career compared to guys like Laver, Rosewall, Pancho when you factor in their longevitys and comparing the pro slams with the major.. They equal to more slams than 14 or 15.
But at the same time I dont think Roger has had the best career either.. He needs more years on top, needs to get revenge on Nadal.. So Fed has alot of work to do IMO.
We can break the GOAT candidacy down into different categores.. But in terms of OVERRALL CAREERS, Roger isnt the overrall GOAT and neither is Pete objectively speaking
But at the same time I dont think Roger has had the best career either.. He needs more years on top, needs to get revenge on Nadal.. So Fed has alot of work to do IMO.
We can break the GOAT candidacy down into different categores.. But in terms of OVERRALL CAREERS, Roger isnt the overrall GOAT and neither is Pete objectively speaking
drwood
Professional
Completely agree, but only if Nadal were to WIN the US Open by beating Fed; if he just beat Fed and lost to Roddick/Murray, etc, it wouldn't have as great an impact b/c no one would remember -- just like no one remembers Fererro SMOKING Agassi in the 2003 US Open SF to become #1, b/c he lost to Roddick in the final.
drwood
Professional
True, but Borg never won an Australian Open, either. Even though he would have been favored if he played, he didn't -- and part of being a great player is playing.
theroleoftheunderdog
Professional
stop acting like federer has NEVER beaten nadal.
borg made 4 us open finals.
nadal has never had fed for lunch off clay.
theroleoftheunderdog
Professional
when you build a resume, you put the accomplishments on there, not the strikes.
and winning titles>having a great h2h vs everyone
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
next thread i start will be about how having a valid second serve is better than hitting a tweener for match point on the final of Leg mason!
is just as non-sensical as that and shows more knowledge of tennis shots(at least)!
theroleoftheunderdog
Professional
actually a trace of objectivity..
norbac
Legend
Nadal has beaten Fed in HC, grass and clay in Slams. Fed has only beaten him on grass in the Slams. I'm not saying that means anyone's better than the other, just stating an interesting fact...
Has fed ever lost to nadal at the us open? If not, how did he win 5 in a row?
Better yet, how can you be GOAT when you cant win the French Open?
norbac
Legend
By HC I obviously meant the Aussie Open this year, I never mentioned the US Open in my post.
FedFan_2009
Banned
I still don't understand why anyone is counting Laver's 1962 slam as legit. Even he admits all the best players were on the pro tour.
Similar threads
