Povl Carstensen
Legend
It would be a stronger era with Nadal with a claim for goat being the strongest. Federer changed that.
Apparently, Sampras still thinks he's the GOAT!!!
- Thread starter fed_rulz
- Start date
Well if we speculate that players would have changed their style.I can see Why Sampras wouldnt as well.
90's Clay
Banned
Medvedev with multiple clay titles and a French OPen final.. Whats Haas done on clay?
except he didn't. you keep touting the "surface variety" that existed in the 90s... surely, slower courts existed then? what sort of changes did Pete do on clay to reach ZERO finals?
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
The point is he has 7 grass slams, 7 HC slams and 5 YECs on carpet. Yes he has nothing on clay which is a weakness.
Nadal could theoretically get 14 slams of which 10 were at the FO. Then he would have 10 clay slams, 2 grass and 2 hard. No YECs.
I just don't think a guy can focus so much on one surface - even if he has won on others - and rack up numbers which supposedly allow him to surpass greats like Sampras and Borg.
I'm sure you would agree that if Nadal reached 17 slams, with 13 at the FO, that he wouldn't be greater than Federer.
Federer has a career Grand Slam. Sampras doesn't. Nadal does.
Federer has made at least 5 finals at ALL Grand Slams. Sampras made 0 finals at the FO. Nadal (already) has at least 2 finals everywhere.
I mean, Sampras is a definite notch below Federer.
Now we're getting somewhere
. So you do use achievements as a barometer to judge who is better. I presume you lied when you earlier claimed it's impossible to compare against eras.btw, based on your above criterion on who is better b/n Medvedev and Haas, we can safely say Federer >>>> Sampras?
more slams, more titles, more finals? thanks for playing!
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I'm not denying that Sampras is below Federer.
The point is about Nadal supposedly being able to surpass Sampras by just racking up FO titles.
Fed didnt have that much influence on Nadal career.With out Fed Nadal would have won maybe 13 slams ( Nadal was a bit fortunate to reach the final 06 Wimby) So he would definitely win 12 slams not lose 07 Wimbledon final. Nadal couldnt dominate between 03 and 06 because he was too young for that and that is nothing to with Fed.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Now we're getting somewhere
btw, based on your above criterion on who is better b/n Medvedev and Haas, we can safely say Federer >>>> Sampras?
more slams, more titles, more finals? thanks for playing!
Well played, sir. Well played.
pringles
Semi-Pro
Well Federer lost in 2003 to Horna. Let's go further through the draw if you like.
-Verkerk who was taking everyone down. The guy beat Moya and Coria like they were nothing on clay, he would've blown Sampras off the court (but if by some miracle Sampras managed to beat him he would have to play Moya and then Coria - just to get to the final where Ferrero was waiting)
1996 FO - Bruguera was coming off of an injury so he wasn't really that great that year. Courier was tough until he started to choke midway through the match. After 1994 Courier was mostly known for choking leads, he had a 2-0 lead against Agassi at the AO that year but also found a way to lose. Then there's also Berdych and Ancic in the draw. And Nadal waiting in the final of course.
Should we even discuss 1997-2002 (or the 2007-2012 draws if you like?). In 1997 Sampras lost to Norman, how on earth was Sampras going to beat Davydenko from 2007? Or even Robredo who was playing fantastic at the time?
As for Soderling - if he was so crap how on earth did he manage to replicate his 2009 performance in 2010 (this time by taking out Federer)? This guy was no fluke.
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."
But perhaps I was too nice saying Nadal would have a claim for goat, had Federer not been there.
Last edited:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Yes, 10 out of 14 titles being FOs isn't the best way to win them, I agree. But what Nadal lacks in multi-surface dominance, I think he makes up for with multi-surface competence. I mean, Sampras never made the FO finals, which is frankly pathetic for a player of his calibre. Nadal, on the other hand, has made 2 finals apiece at the USO and the AO, winning both. I think it evens out. But hey, I do admit it would be debatable. If Nadal gets to 15, however, I'd say the argument is won.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
You said the Magic Words, and what this is all about, whether you are approaching this a die-hard Sampras fan, Federer fan, Nadal fan, Laver fan. Borg fan, Agassi fan, Djokovic fan etc...It is always about bragging rights and getting one up on fans of other players.
Sometimes to get bragging rights, people see only what they want to see. For me, I don't really care who the GOAT is. I love Roger, Novak, Sampras a few others, but this GOAT title debate really does put a negative spin on this sport, because everyone keeps fighting. They are all remarkable players in their own right, and have carved their own legacy in the times they played, and they should all be respected for what they have brought instead of mocked or insulted every single time.
Without Fed and Nadal would have been No 1 as early as 07 not before that. Djokovic has took a lot from Nadal not Fed.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Nadal would have been #1 in 2005. If not then, definitely by 2006.
pringles
Semi-Pro
So who exactly was going to be no 1 in 2005 with Nadal winning a major and 4 Masters (add Miami - so 5 total - if Federer doesn't exist) and 12 titles total for the year? Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin would've all traded titles.
2006 surely Nadal would be no 1 at the end of the year. 2 Masters on clay (make that 3 cause nobody would've pushed Nadal so hard in the Rome final - Nadal would then go on to win Hamburg comfortably), the French Open, Wimbledon and a better showing in the WTF (a final at least).
Povl Carstensen
Legend
You can discuss that with Toni Nadal.
Yet Federer was nr 1 this year, 5-7 years of his peak. It puts the "weak era" in perspective.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes look at all the weeks he was nr. 2 behind Federer. 160 + 102 at nr 1, 262 weks at nr 1 in total. That is 5 years.
Last edited:
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
well said. And the sad thing is when someone's favourite player retires they carry on holding onto those days instead of enjoying the next line of players. I wonder if say Dimitrov started dominating the game, would most Federer fans actually hate him even though they should (and do at the moment) like his game, and instead latch on to the anti-fed and hope he will stop Dimitrov from breaking a single one of Fed's records?
Some fans are so obsessive thay can't bear any aspect of their favourite player to be compared unfavourably with someone else. I like the fact that Djokovic has the most masters in a season, has a longer win streak than Fed and Nadal, that Nadal has a longer single surface streak etc.. it's boring if one person has all the records. Deep down I am pleased Sampras still has 6 YE number ones. The thing is the samptards go on about this like it's so great and much greater than 300+ weeks at number one.Just cos you're number one in december rather than another month. It's all bragging rights.
Nadal was just clay courter in 05, lost very early in both Wimbledon and Us Open.Nadal didnt play in 06 AO and again lost very early in Us open.After 06 his slam results becomes consistent in all surfaces and didnt missed a slam tournament until 09 Wimbledon.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Look at the Masters titles he won. He was definitely gonna be YE#1 if it wasn't for Federer. Who else?
90's Clay
Banned
Soderling was CRAP in the finals of the French OPen in 2009.. We should all agree on that.
I'm not denying Federer was superior to Sampras on clay.. I'm just putting into perspective, if Pete had the lollipop draws Fed had en route to the French Open finals that Fed has had over the years, he may have had 1-2 French Open titles himself where if Pete reached the finals (even with Nadal there especially if it was on faster clay and not monte carlo slow type clay) anything could happen.
The argument is that if fed not existed.İf he not existed somebody would have won that points,not the baby Nadal who didnt even play a full year until 07,plus losing early many times.Fed didnt even give half of the damage that Djokovic has given to Nadal.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
What a joke. The Sampras who went 5 wins and 6 losses aged 25-31 was apparently gonna win 1-2 French Open titles :lol:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Somebody, who? Santa Claus?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Nadal was nr 2 behind Federer for 160 weeks. Add his 102 weeks at nr 1 and you get 262 weeks. That is 5 years. Still behind Federers 302 weeks, but anyway.
Last edited:
90's Clay
Banned
Sampras from 92-96 (Barring 1995) would go out to the eventual winner of the tournament and former finals and/or Champion. If you gave Sampras bums like Horna or Starace in place of Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, yea I would like Pete's chances much greater of winning a French OPen final or two
No, no one should agree to it. you're just making things up now. Federer was superb in that match; in the 2nd set TB, all his serves were aces (4 serves).. that's how good he was.
90's Clay
Banned
And Soderling was AWFUL. Bottom line. Not as good as he was when he played Fed the year after or not even nearly as good as he was when he played Rafa the round before.
and that is a big deal, but Soderling beating Nadal, a 4-time defending champion, who has never lost more than a set in a match at the RG until then, is a mug... gotta love the double-standards from GS.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Still, he was not close to winning 6, let alone 7 matches in a row.
there is no bottom line here. Federer was better; that was the bottom line. everything else is just plain made up BS.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
So basically Sampras went out to champions/finalists just 4 times in his French Open career. The rest of the time he lost to total mugs in the 1st and 2nd rounds :lol: And apparently that's something to gloat about.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
so Pete is not better than Federer on clay but somehow he could have beaten Nadal in a RG final if he had got there?
LMAO. Ok dude. I mean maybe Henman could have beaten nadal in a RG final.
There is not one single match between Sampras and Nadal on any surface to even remotely speculate about Pete's chances. At least with Federer he has won on clay and he has been close to winning in 5 sets and has had 2 finals where he had a glimmer of a hope. Sampras can only be judged on his clay prowess and sadly there is nothing to suggest he would do any better than Federer, in fact any data you can use suggests he would be lucky to even get a set off him.
There is the chance that Sampras would be a bad matchup for Nadal on clay. But I don't see that at all.
Sorry, you can argue Pete is superior on grass or HC with some shred of credability, but to make out he would have possibly 2 RG titles in the same era with Nadal, is pure ****ism.
05 Nadal lost early in AO is that anything to do with FED?
He lost early in Wimbledon and US Open is that anything to do with fed ?
Except clay he wasnt a factor in non clay slams.
06 maybe he would have win Wimbledon big if ı still give someone like Roddick half a chance in 06 against Nadal.
Fed real influence came in 07.Rafa cry after that much for a reason.Fed has still not a major influence towards Nadals career like Djokovic and thats a fact.
90's Clay
Banned
Theres a little thing called "match ups". We don't know how Sampras would have matched up with Nadal.. Sampras had the ace in the pocket service game.. While Fed's service game goes to CRAP vs. Nadal more times then not.
And on a faster clay who knows. Ive seen big hitters like Soderling/Isner take Nadal to 5 and/or beat him at the french. And Sampras was a huge hitter and big server
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes, a very weak argument. And still, Toni Nadals 4 years could be a good, albeit conservative estimate.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
I ask again. If not Nadal, who would've ended ranked #1 in 2005 and 2006?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Being delegated to nr 2 for 160 weeks is not a major influence, funny stuff...
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
yeah we don't know how he would match up... yet that gives you hope that he would matchup really well vs the clay goat when he had enough time dealing with good clay players?
I mean MAYBE he would have matched up well, but like I said, maybe prime henman would :lol: Maybe davydenko would have been a nightmare for laver... you know what's the point in speculating? I could speculate that Federer would match up well against every player in the 90s and win 22 slams back then. There is no evidence to "prove" me wrong.
Pete did have a great serve but that's not as important on clay, and there's no way of knowing if Pete would have gone to crap vs nadal. You know, Isner had a pretty hefty serve and even against a ropey nadal he couldn't win. Is sampras seriously going to break Nadal enough times? Once the rally begins he'd be in trouble. Nadal got taken to 5 by Federer but never lost in 5 to him. Isner and soderling were one off matches, neither of them have ever repeated that performance so Pete winning RG by beating Nadal is a 100/1 shot. But he maybe does it twice.. yeah not buying that.
Last edited:
90's Clay
Banned
Isner is a big slow CLUMSY bugger, yet managed to take Nadal to 5. If Nadal is off form, like I said who knows. Nadal was never AS comfortable vs. big hitters and big servers.
Isner took Nadal to 5 at the French with huge serving and hitting despite being as SLOW as he is. .. Fed has never even been able to do that.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Desperate stuff, I would say. But if Nadal was off form, and Sampras got to the final, and, and, and, he he... The odds look pretty slim.
Last edited:
pringles
Semi-Pro
I see Sampras was unlucky to play in the 90's. He could've racked a FO or 2 if he played in the 00's against Nadal.
Sampras a bad match-up for Nadal on clay haha...Djokovic is supposedly a bad match-up for Nadal and he has an identical clay record against Nadal on clay as Federer. Which is something like 2-12.
pringles
Semi-Pro
Make a case for Isner being a better clay courter than Federer, then. I can even help you out on this one - Isner beat Federer on clay this year. He leads the h2h with Fed on clay 1-0, he took Nadal to 5 sets. These are all numbers, can't run away from them. The writing's on the wall.
Just as you're making a case for Sampras having a better chance to beat Nadal at the FO than Federer.
90's Clay
Banned
Nadal hasn't dominated all of the 2000's on clay.. 2000-2004 was up in the air for anyone to grab it. Fed had to deal with a clay GOAT, Sampras had to deal with more talented clay threats in the 90s.
pringles
Semi-Pro
Davydenko would end 2006 ranked 1st? When there's Nadal holding 3 Masters on clay, the French Open and Wimbledon?
I'm not so sure about Roddick winning Wimbledon in 2005 had there been no Federer. Hewitt would have a good shot as well, I'd even favor him slightly.
Last edited:
Similar threads
