34 years old Federer has double the point of 29 year old Nadal!

90's Clay

Banned
It's an excuse.

If Pete was really lacking motivation post 2000 Wimbledon, why did he spend more weeks at #1 in the latter part of the year?

Maybe in 2001 he lacked a bit of motivation, but I highly doubt it.. The wheels just started to come off.

Pete went 35-16 or the year in 2001 with ZERO titles. Lack of motivation after breaking the record had a lot to do with it.

When he was motivated he looked awfully good still. Mainly at Flushing with the american crowd pumping him up
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
If Djokovic wins 10 or 11 majors and along with Roland Garros, he's above Pete.
 

AngieB

Banned
Just to clarify going forward:

The phrase "#Weak Era", i.e. "#Mug Era", et al are terms used by disgruntled fans whose sole purpose is to #diminish the accomplishments of generational champions in favor of their favorite. "#Weak Eras" never existed in the sport of tennis because every generational champion played the best players available during their tenure. The "#Weak Era" #MYTH has no other purpose than to troll, which most consider a #sin.

Get it together, #kids.

#AngiesLyst
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Pete went 35-16 or the year in 2001 with ZERO titles. Lack of motivation after breaking the record had a lot to do with it.

When he was motivated he looked awfully good still. Mainly at Flushing with the american crowd pumping him up
He just started to rapidly decline..

The crowd didn't do him any favors against Hewitt either. And don't give me excuses about Pete being gassed, he beat Safin in straights beforehand. He just wasn't good enough anymore.
 

Epic

Banned
"#Weak Eras" never existed in the sport of tennis because every generational champion played the best players available during their tenure.
This is false. Rod Laver won many of his #ITFsanctioned Slam events in split fields where many of the best players were either banned or absent.

#LearnHistory
#Don'tBeIgnorant
#PoorAngieB
#EmbarrassedAgain
 

Epic

Banned
When he was motivated he looked awfully good still. Mainly at Flushing with the american crowd pumping him up
Is that why he got destroyed in two US Open finals to two "mugs" from the "weak era"? :lol:

So Pete Sampras, even when he was motivated and "awfully good", was getting destroyed by weak era mugs in Grand Slam finals :lol:
 

Epic

Banned
In my opinion he would be.

Grand Slams aren't everything and Sampras only had 11 Masters anyway.
Sampras played in an era when Masters were only played for points. This is also true of Federer till around 2006. These guys figured it's better to go play a 500 and a 250 instead of a Masters. You can't hold that against Sampras too much. It'd be like saying Becker > Pancho Gonzales because he has more Slams.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
In my opinion he would be.

Grand Slams aren't everything and Sampras only had 11 Masters anyway.
Sampras has better number one stats and cleaned up at two slams. He did not ever win the FO that is true but in order for Djokovic to surpass Sampras, Djokovic would have to at least equal Sampras' slam count. You can't surpass another player with a 3 or 4 slam deficit. If Djokovic equals Sampras' slam count and Djokovic is able to get the Career Slam, then that would be a different story.
 

Epic

Banned
Sampras has better number one stats and cleaned up at two slams. He did not ever win the FO that is true but in order for Djokovic to surpass Sampras, Djokovic would have to at least equal Sampras' slam count. You can't surpass another player with a 3 or 4 slam deficit. If Djokovic equals Sampras' slam count and Djokovic is able to get the Career Slam, then that would be a different story.
You can be sure that if Djokovic does get to 14, he will have at least 1 French Open title.

For me, Djokovic would need at least 13 Slams to contend with Sampras. If he can get to 13, I'd probably still give the edge to Sampras, but I'll look at the specifics of his other achievements to make a fair judgment.
 

Epic

Banned
New Users everywhere already very, very frustrated. Short-tenures for you!

#AngiesLyst
Are you gonna keep complaining about new users, or are you gonna address my points?

#PoorAngieB
#DestroyedAgain
#NoAnswers
#CompletelyClueless
#Gobsmacked
 

90's Clay

Banned
He just started to rapidly decline..

The crowd didn't do him any favors against Hewitt either. And don't give me excuses about Pete being gassed, he beat Safin in straights beforehand. He just wasn't good enough anymore.


A Draw of a peaking Agassi (Who just destroyed Federer before that) /Rafter/Safin/Hewitt back to back to back to back. .. That would make anyone "gassed" dude. Especially a 30 year old. Sorry:roll:


What do you mean he wasn't good enough anymore? He won a slam before he retired. ROFLMAO and reached the finals of the USO 2 years before that.
 
Last edited:

Bogdan_TT

Professional
The only possible GOAT debate is Fed vs Sampras. Those that squeeze Nadal in this discussion are either tennis innocent or Nadal hot heads. The end.
 

90's Clay

Banned
The only possible GOAT debate is Fed vs Sampras. Those that squeeze Nadal in this discussion are either tennis innocent or Nadal hot heads. The end.
You can make arguments for Laver,Pancho,Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden, Federer and Nadal.

Laver- The best possible choice. Did it all and never had such a lopsided h2h against any main rival. Could you play on anything at win. 200 titles and only player to win 2 calendars. Mastery of surfaces in a calendar year

Pancho-Dominated the game for around a decade. 8 years straight at #1.

Rosewall- 24 majors, ridiculous longevity

Tilden- Dominated the game to a ridiculous degree in the early 20th century

Federer- Ridiculous consistency and domination over majority of the field , but exposed so many times vs. Nadal/Nole. Hurts him and his greatness

Sampras- Kept his entire era at bay. Maybe the best "big match" player ever. but couldn't win the French.

Nadal- Dominated the other GOAT candidate. Injury riddled career which took some major achievements away from him
 

Smasher08

Legend
Fed got to Inflate his resume in a talentless 2003-2007 era.
Wrong. Nads played in 2004-2007. But Nads wasn't good enough to reach Federer oftentimes. Conversely, Fed seldom got to play Nads when Nads was eminently beatable.

In fact, for most of 2003-2007, Fed was busy decimating all the guys who decapitated Sampras.

In addition to a one-sided rivalry with an all-time great named Agassi.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I don't know about that. If thats the case, why can't we put Nadal above Federer right now then?
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all had competition superior to that of Sampras. So the debate between Nadal and Federer is not settled, especially when they played alongside each other..

Meanwhile, Sampras played part-time Agassi and a few other semi-greats like Moya and Rafter..

Tell me how that's more difficult than what Federer has dealt with.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
A Draw of a peaking Agassi (Who just destroyed Federer before that) /Rafter/Safin/Hewitt back to back to back to back. .. That would make anyone "gassed" dude. Especially a 30 year old. Sorry:roll:


What do you mean he wasn't good enough anymore? He won a slam before he retired. ROFLMAO and reached the finals of the USO 2 years before that.
Agassi was better in 2002, and he still failed to win due to his mental weakness against Sampras.. moot point. He gave Sampras every match at the USO.

Rafter wasn't peaking either. He peaked at Wimbledon, but not the USO.

Hewitt was only 20 years old at the time. Nowhere near his peak, which came in 2005..

How was it that strong?
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
A mountain called K2 is the second-tallest in the world. It is also THE most difficult and dangerous mountain to climb. However, there exists Everest, and most people think it is GOAT of all mountains on Earth.

Likewise, Nadal may beat Federer all he wants, but Federer is the Everest of tennis.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
You're reading too much into a 6-4 h2h there. You can't extrapolate and pull huge information from a 10 match sample size. Certainly not like you can THIRTY THREE match Sample size.
It's not just Richard. Sampras has negative h2hs vs more than 20 people and all of them are 2nd tier players.

That is a huge sample size and what's worse is that those players aren't even great.

Not, to mention, Sampras has a negative h2h vs the field on clay. On entire surface.

And you nitpick about Fed having negative h2h on clay vs 9 RG champ?

How did this become about the h2h? Anyway, Sampras also didn't do anything at age 34. Actually he didn't have the longevity, you brag about all the time how he was washed up at age 29-31, so his losses shouldn't count.

So, this means in the spirit of this thread, Federer being nr.2 at age 34 where Sampras was washed up solidifies Fed's goat status.
 
Last edited:

Epic

Banned
A Draw of a peaking Agassi (Who just destroyed Federer before that) /Rafter/Safin/Hewitt back to back to back to back. .. That would make anyone "gassed" dude. Especially a 30 year old.
Why? Aren't Hewitt and Safin weak era mugs? Are you saying Sampras can't even take weak era mugs, when motivated and in front of a home crowd? Actually, don't answer, we already know what happened :lol:


What do you mean he wasn't good enough anymore? He won a slam before he retired. ROFLMAO and reached the finals of the USO 2 years before that.
So he was good enough? How do you explain his Grand Slam losses to Hewitt, Safin, and Federer? At his two best Slams, no less!
 

donquijote

G.O.A.T.
Actually what's more amazing is that Federer at 34 can compete with Novak ( 28 ) who is at his absolute best ever. 6 years is HUGE in professional tennis and this kind of 6 years ( 34 vs 28 ) is even bigger. Federer is the most amazing tennis player ever for many different reasons. We'll see how Novak will hold up after 30.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Actually what's more amazing is that Federer at 34 can compete with Novak ( 28 ) who is at his absolute best ever. 6 years is HUGE in professional tennis and this kind of 6 years ( 34 vs 28 ) is even bigger. Federer is the most amazing tennis player ever for many different reasons. We'll see how Novak will hold up after 30.


Fed can't compete w/ Nole anymore. Thats a complete fairy tale If Fed/Nole played 10 matches in a row now, Nole will win 9 of them. . . . Good lord. And hes NEVER been able to compete w/ Nadal overall on outdoor surfaces.
 
Last edited:

90's Clay

Banned
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all had competition superior to that of Sampras. So the debate between Nadal and Federer is not settled, especially when they played alongside each other..

Meanwhile, Sampras played part-time Agassi and a few other semi-greats like Moya and Rafter..

Tell me how that's more difficult than what Federer has dealt with.

Fed/Nadal/Nole never had to depth to deal w/ on tour on polarized conditions like Sampras did. They just had to deal with each other. Everything was a wash before the later rounds because of lack of depth Sampras had:

Clay- Bruguera, Muster, Courier, Agassi, Kafelnikov
Grass- Goran,Becker, Agassi, Rafter etc.
Hards- Rafter, Edberg, Agassi,Courier, Chang, etc. and later on Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc.


There was more depth across all surfaces in Pete's day unlike now.
 

90's Clay

Banned
It's not just Richard. Sampras has negative h2hs vs more than 20 people and all of them are 2nd tier players.

That is a huge sample size and what's worse is that those players aren't even great.

Not, to mention, Sampras has a negative h2h vs the field on clay. On entire surface.

And you nitpick about Fed having negative h2h on clay vs 9 RG champ?

How did this become about the h2h? Anyway, Sampras also didn't do anything at age 34. Actually he didn't have the longevity, you brag about all the time how he was washed up at age 29-31, so his losses shouldn't count.

So, this means in the spirit of this thread, Federer being nr.2 at age 34 where Sampras was washed up solidifies Fed's goat status.

Talk about clueless. Sampras won slams 12 YEARS apart. Has Fed done this?? How is that not longevity?? :shock:
 

Epic

Banned
Fed can't compete w/ Nole anymore. Thats a complete fairy tale If Fed/Nole played 10 matches in a row now, Nole will win 9 of them. . . . Good lord. And hes NEVER been able to compete w/ Nadal overall on outdoor surfaces.
Federer has the edge against Nadal on grasscourts and indoor hardcourts. Sampras has a losing record against Krajicek on Grasscourts and Harcourts.
 

OddJack

G.O.A.T.
It simply means he is a better athlete. Longevity of course is a part of goatness.

You will have to go back to meaning and purpose of sports if you want to argue that point.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Federer has the edge against Nadal on grasscourts and indoor hardcourts. Sampras has a losing record against Krajicek on Grasscourts and Harcourts.


And he wouldn't if they played after 2008 at Wimbledon as most everyone knows.

So that leaves indoors. Thats the only real place Fed has ever had a true advantage over Nadal.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Fed can't compete w/ Nole anymore. Thats a complete fairy tale If Fed/Nole played 10 matches in a row now, Nole will win 9 of them. . . . Good lord. And hes NEVER been able to compete w/ Nadal overall on outdoor surfaces.

That explains why Federer has a few wins over Nadal on outdoor HC surfaces. Ok. I mean, pretty sure Federer actually beat Nadal quite easily on a slow HC in windy conditions in 2012, but what do I know.
 
Last edited:

Epic

Banned
lay- Bruguera, Muster, Courier, Agassi, Kafelnikov
That is very weak compared to Nadal, Ferrero, Gaudio, Coria, and Djokovic.

Grass- Goran,Becker, Agassi, Rafter etc.
Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, and Roddick are also better.

Hards- Rafter, Edberg, Agassi,Courier, Chang, etc. and later on Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc.
Much worse than Djokovic, Agassi, Nadal, Murray, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Wawrinka, and Del Potro.


There was more depth across all surfaces in Pete's day unlike now.
False.
 

Epic

Banned
And he wouldn't if they played after 2008 at Wimbledon as most everyone knows.
You think Sampras could beat Federer at Wimbledon if they played in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006? I guess that means Federer has the edge against Sampras on grass.

So that leaves indoors. Thats the only real place Fed has ever had a true advantage over Nadal.
Grass and Indoor Hards, as opposed to Clay and Outdoor Hards for Nadal. On the other hand, Sampras was being pummelled by Krajicek on multiple surfaces.
 

90's Clay

Banned
That is very weak compared to Nadal, Ferrero, Gaudio, Coria, and Djokovic.

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, and Roddick are also better.

Much worse than Djokovic, Agassi, Nadal, Murray, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Wawrinka, and Del Potro.


False.

Nole is the equivalent of Courier on clay. Peak wise, not as good as Muster either. Ferrero and Gaudio??:lol:


Nadal/Djoker/Murray/Hewitt better than one of the grass GOAT's in Becker? On what planet exactly? ROFLMAO. Goran is as deadly on grass as anyone who has played on the surface in 20-30 years.

ROFLMAO @ you mentioning Wawrinka. That nobody. Del Potro had one good year. He shouldn't even be mentioned either.

Agassi on hards>>>>> anyone bar Federer on hards these past 10-15 years.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Nole is the equivalent of Courier on clay. Peak wise, not as good as Muster either. Ferrero and Gaudio??:lol:


Nadal/Djoker/Murray/Hewitt better than one of the grass GOAT's in Becker? On what planet exactly? ROFLMAO. Goran is as deadly on grass as anyone who has played on the surface in 20-30 years.

ROFLMAO @ you mentioning Wawrinka. That nobody. Del Potro had one good year. He shouldn't even be mentioned either.

Agassi on hards>>>>> anyone bar Federer on hards these past 10-15 years.

Yeah that's why Agassi who was still playing excellent tennis (like ridiculously good tennis) lost to an unseeded Marat Safin at the AO. Okies.


Grass today vs grass in the 90s cannot be compared. The surfaces are completely different. Becker wouldn't survive on today's grass just as Nadal wouldn't survive on the 90s grass.
 

Epic

Banned
Nole is the equivalent of Courier on clay. Peak wise, not as good as Muster either. Ferrero and Gaudio??:lol:
Nadal alone is better than everyone Sampras ever played on clay combined. And when you add in Ferrero, Kuerten, Gaudio, Coria, and Djokovic, it becomes even more laughable.


Nadal/Djoker/Murray/Hewitt better than one of the grass GOAT's in Becker? On what planet exactly? ROFLMAO. Goran is as deadly on grass as anyone who has played on the surface in 20-30 years.
Becker is a 3-time Wimbledon champion. Nadal/Djokovic are 2-time champions. Same ballpark. Either way:

Nadal + Djokovic + Murray + Hewitt = 6 Wimbledon titles
Ivanisevic + Becker + Agassi + Krajicek = 6 Wimbledon titles

If Djokovic, Nadal, or Murray win Wimbledon this year, Federer's competition will have more Wimbledon titles than Sampras's. If Federer wins, well... I pity your sanity :lol:

ROFLMAO @ you mentioning Wawrinka. That nobody.
Yeah, that nobody that beat Nadal in a Grand Slam final. That nobody that beat Nadal on clay and won a Masters on clay. That nobody.
 

Epic

Banned
Agassi on hards>>>>> anyone bar Federer on hards these past 10-15 years.
How? Djokovic is the same caliber player as Agassi on Hards. Many might argue that he's actually better, because he has 4 WTF titles. And he's not even done yet. Don't be stupid.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Yeah that's why Agassi who was still playing excellent tennis (like ridiculously good tennis) lost to an unseeded Marat Safin at the AO. Okies.


Grass today vs grass in the 90s cannot be compared. The surfaces are completely different. Becker wouldn't survive on today's grass just as Nadal wouldn't survive on the 90s grass.

:roll:

Agassi was already like 32 by then? Taking all hardcourt speeds into consideration who exactly today is on par w/ Agassi on HC except for Federer?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Becker hit 15 DF's in the 1995 Wimbledon final. Roddick of 2004 and 2009 was better at Wimbledon...

Edberg wasn't a real factor on HC during Pete's prime years...
 
Top