Argements against Nadal to be GOAT

roysid

Legend
Experts often argue Nadal to be GOAT due to his winning all slams and dominance over Fed. But they often overlook that he is dominant only in streches.

- In 7 years as a top player, he finished as No.1 in only two years (2008,2010). In remaining 5 (assuming 2011), he finished as No. 2. In contrast, Federer finished as No. 1 for 5 years and No.2 for 3 years in his 8 dominant years.
Sampas finished 6 years as No.1 . Lendl finished 4 times as No. 1

- In terms of weeks spent as No. 1, he has spent 102 weeks as No.1 and definitely more than 200 weeks as No. 2. Way behind Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Connors.

- His non-clay achievments while good is nothing exceptional. He's not consistent there.

How can a player be considered GOAT when he has spent double time as No. 2 (behind someone) than as No. 1

Note: Of course he can have dominant years in future and change all that.
 
"Argements against Nadal to be GOAT"

1st off, correct your spelling of your head title.

2nd " Of course he can have dominant years in future ",
.......discuss this when he has retired.

3rd, Rafa is one of the greatest who has played the game but he is not yet a GOAT top 3. He might be in the furture but not yet.

4th, stop trolling. There are already tons of threads like this in this board. I know you hate Rafa, but geeez louise, be more creative.
 
Last edited:

Caesar

Banned
Crap thread. Nadal barely cracks the top 10 of alltime greats. Even Rafatards acknowledge that he's nowhere near GOAT.

Why start a thread arguing against a position nobody holds?
 
Crap thread. Nadal barely cracks the top 10 of alltime greats. Even Rafatards acknowledge that he's nowhere near GOAT.

Why start a thread arguing against a position nobody holds?


You should know by now that this board is full of Rafa haters who wants to troll around and stir things up. This is no exception.
 

msc886

Professional
Nadal is an all-time great for sure. As for the GOAT, different people have different definitions and standards and every GOAT candidate has their fors and againsts so there is no GOAT. All the all-time greats are among the best who have picked up a racquet.
 
"Argements against Nadal to be GOAT"

1st off, correct your spelling of your head title.

2nd " Of course he can have dominant years in future ",
.......discuss this when he has retired.

3rd, Rafa is one of the greatest who has played the game but he is not yet a GOAT top 3. He might be in the furture but not yet.

4th, stop trolling. There are already tons of threads like this in this board. I know you hate Rafa, but geeez louise, be more creative.

Lol someones sensitive. Fact is these are the points that most heavily will take the curve balling pusher out of the GOAT debate whatever he does at this point. He's not close and will never be.
 
Nadal is an all-time great for sure. As for the GOAT, different people have different definitions and standards and every GOAT candidate has their fors and againsts so there is no GOAT. All the all-time greats are among the best who have picked up a racquet.

What??? Sounds like a middlle aged female ******* to me:)
 

Caesar

Banned
Lol someones sensitive. Fact is these are the points that most heavily will take the curve balling pusher out of the GOAT debate whatever he does at this point. He's not close and will never be.
Who said he was in GOAT contention at all?

It's a crap thread based on a crap strawman.
 
Time to chime in with the ********* credo: "But Nadal has 5 more years to catch up to Federer...." LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. The stupidity never ceases.

Djoker: "Nadal, you is over!" :)
 
"Argements against Nadal to be GOAT"

1st off, correct your spelling of your head title.

2nd " Of course he can have dominant years in future ",
.......discuss this when he has retired.

3rd, Rafa is one of the greatest who has played the game but he is not yet a GOAT top 3. He might be in the furture but not yet.

4th, stop trolling. There are already tons of threads like this in this board. I know you hate Rafa, but geeez louise, be more creative.

**** hypocrisy as per usual.
 

DM07

Rookie
If he retired tomorrow, I think anyone would find it tough to argue that he's had a greater career than Federer, Laver, Sampras or Borg. Maybe even Lendl, given his dominance over a strong field in the 80s.

Not convinced there is a definitive GOAT - but I don't think you could put Nadal in the same category as those big four just yet.
 

Caesar

Banned
If he retired tomorrow, I think anyone would find it tough to argue that he's had a greater career than Federer, Laver, Sampras or Borg. Maybe even Lendl, given his dominance over a strong field in the 80s.
Or Budge. Or Gonzales. Or Rosewall. Or Tilden.

Would probably have him at number 10, just behind Lendl.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Another solid year and Nadal surpasses a few guys by the numbers probably.. And Lendl with dominance over a strong field? If I remember right Nadal has taken out Fed at 7-8 slams there abouts on all surfaces ( hardcourt, grass, clay) to get his 10 slams and Fed is a GOAT contender. Hes taken out djokovic, murray, del potro etc.


I would say Nadal has done enough in terms of conquering good competition.. To take a count candidate out on all surfaces over a 3-4 year stretch is pretty solid in my book. And it IS more difficult to continue to reign ss under today's grueling tennis as opposed to the "county club era" where guys could dominate in their 80s or 90s or the old relic eras where guys could drink cokes and smoke cigarettes on changeovers.


That said.. he doesn't match Pete, Laver, Fed, Rosewall, etc. yet.. But he very well could in another two season or so.
 
Last edited:

CMM

Legend
If he wins another Slam he'll be right up there with those players. Another French Open and he surpasses Borg's RG record and equals his number of overall Slam wins. He also has the career Grand Slam, which Borg doesn't have and the Masters 1000 record, which is not very important but it still means something.
 

Caesar

Banned
I'm actually being generous rating Nadal at 10. Slam numbers are hugely devalued these days because of surface homogenisation. A top player will be in with a chance at every slam, rather than 2 or (if he's very good) 3 in the days when players had to specialise.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the future people start to discount this era's slam counts by 25% or more when they compare to previous greats.
 

Netzroller

Semi-Pro
I'm actually being generous rating Nadal at 10. Slam numbers are hugely devalued these days because of surface homogenisation. A top player will be in with a chance at every slam, rather than 2 or (if he's very good) 3 in the days when players had to specialise.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the future people start to discount this era's slam counts by 25% or more when they compare to previous greats.
Blablabla, there just speaks a lot of hatred...:lol:

By the same logic I could turn this argument around: Given there are fewer specialists, it is now much harder to win any slam because every oppoent is a threat. Back in the old days, there were a few guys in the later rounds you had to worry about, the rest of the guys was just waiting for 'their' season.

Not to mention that not too long ago there was no HC and therefore just 2 surfaces. And the fact that many guys didn't even show up at the AO.

Apart from that, this homogenisation argument is overhyped anyways. 1) it's not all the surfaces, rackets and strings play a huge role as well 2) players still have better and worse surfaces as players like Nadal, Roddick etc. clearly show...

So yeah, you're wrong:)
 

Netzroller

Semi-Pro
As for the question, Rafa is obviously not the GOAT and he obviously is an all time great and belongs on the Top 10 list...
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Youre definitely going to be seeing a hell of a lot more players winning career slams in the next 10-20 years for sure. It can devalue slams.. I would like to see how alot of these guys do in an era of polarization and distinct contrast of surfaces without the racket technology. That would be a sight to behold.

Nadal has a career slam.. You could have kissed that out the window if he was in a prior era. Can't see Novak getting a wimbledon either.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't know if anyone said this, but Nadal isn't born on August 08, 1981, in Basel Switzerland. An absolutely critical requirement to be considered GOAT material.
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 16
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
4. Rafael Nadal 10
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
5. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
7. Rafael Nadal 13
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8

3. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
5. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3

GS semi-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 31
2. Roger Federer 29
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
10. Rafael Nadal 15

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Ivan Lendl 6
= Novak Djokovic 6
5. Novak Djokovic

= Boris Becker 5
= Nadal 5
8. Rod Laver 4
9. Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4


All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007

Rafael Nadal 2010


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009

Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009

Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40

4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Roger Federer 48
3. Feliciano Lopez 39
4. David Ferrer 37
5. Fernando Verdasco 34
6. Tomas Berdych 33
7. Albert Montanes 21
8. Philipp Kohlschreiber 29
9. Nicolas Almagro 28
10. Novak Djokovic 28

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 5
= Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Roger Federer 285
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
 

Caesar

Banned
By the same logic I could turn this argument around: Given there are fewer specialists, it is now much harder to win any slam because every oppoent is a threat. Back in the old days, there were a few guys in the later rounds you had to worry about, the rest of the guys was just waiting for 'their' season.
Logic not your strong suit, I see.

Every era has a few top players who are comfortably above the rest. In past eras though, surface differentiation helped even the playing field by bringing those top players back within reach of lesser players on their less favoured surfaces. Nowadays, the top players are not handicapped by any surface so the difference in class consistently comes through. Thus the best players have more chances to accumulate greater numbers of titles.

Not to mention that not too long ago there was no HC and therefore just 2 surfaces. And the fact that many guys didn't even show up at the AO.
Even when it was just grass and clay, the grass at the AO and Wimbledon played vastly different. Likewise, the clay at the USO played vastly different from RG. And the gulf between the two was far greater.

Hardcourts by definition aid surface homogenisation because they are a middle ground.

Apart from that, this homogenisation argument is overhyped anyways. 1) it's not all the surfaces, rackets and strings play a huge role as well
Thanks for providing added weight for my argument. Yes, racquets and strings are also contributing to this all-surface blandness.

2) players still have better and worse surfaces as players like Nadal, Roddick etc. clearly show...
You must be 12, since you would see how laughable this is relative to previous eras if you were any older.
 

jokinla

Hall of Fame
Experts often argue Nadal to be GOAT due to his winning all slams and dominance over Fed. But they often overlook that he is dominant only in streches.

- In 7 years as a top player, he finished as No.1 in only two years (2008,2010). In remaining 5 (assuming 2011), he finished as No. 2. In contrast, Federer finished as No. 1 for 5 years and No.2 for 3 years in his 8 dominant years.
Sampas finished 6 years as No.1 . Lendl finished 4 times as No. 1

- In terms of weeks spent as No. 1, he has spent 102 weeks as No.1 and definitely more than 200 weeks as No. 2. Way behind Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Connors.

- His non-clay achievments while good is nothing exceptional. He's not consistent there.

How can a player be considered GOAT when he has spent double time as No. 2 (behind someone) than as No. 1

Note: Of course he can have dominant years in future and change all that.

What experts? He is in that second group of candidates for sure, but unless he wins more slams, he will stay in that second group. I watch tennis all day every day and haven't heard any talk of him being the GOAT at all, ever.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 16
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
4. Rafael Nadal 10
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
5. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
7. Rafael Nadal 13
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8

3. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
5. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3

GS semi-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 31
2. Roger Federer 29
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
10. Rafael Nadal 15

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Ivan Lendl 6
= Novak Djokovic 6
5. Novak Djokovic

= Boris Becker 5
= Nadal 5
8. Rod Laver 4
9. Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4


All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007

Rafael Nadal 2010


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009

Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009

Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40

4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Roger Federer 48
3. Feliciano Lopez 39
4. David Ferrer 37
5. Fernando Verdasco 34
6. Tomas Berdych 33
7. Albert Montanes 21
8. Philipp Kohlschreiber 29
9. Nicolas Almagro 28
10. Novak Djokovic 28

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 5
= Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Roger Federer 285
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6

Just a classic post! Everytime I read this, I get amazed at what Roger has done, and I was there cheering him on since day one. :)
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Nadal can't be GOAT because he is losing to the same player all the time.:p
And also because Nadal only has 1 AO and 1 USO and 2 Wimbys. Other players like Federer and Sampras have won MANY MANY more of the same titles. Nadal needs lots more of those other titles besides RG to be accepted into discussions of GOAT. He's still a clay courter naturally with a whacky moonballing grinding style of play. And he is losing to Djokovic far too much.
 
Nadal can't be GOAT because he is losing to the same player all the time.:p
And also because Nadal only has 1 AO and 1 USO and 2 Wimbys. Other players like Federer and Sampras have won MANY MANY more of the same titles. Nadal needs lots more of those other titles besides RG to be accepted into discussions of GOAT. He's still a clay courter naturally with a whacky moonballing grinding style of play. And he is losing to Djokovic far too much.

"Let's play 13 times on Clay, no? Also, I don't show up after July, no?"
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 16
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
4. Rafael Nadal 10
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
Boris Becker 6

Laver has 11 slams, bit harsh to exclude his amateur slams. He deserves a mention on that list.
 
If all the slams were suddenly played on clay and Nadal wins 2 CYGS, would that truly merit accolades? Same reason Laver can never be GOAT. He would never win so consistently in today's tennis.
 

Netzroller

Semi-Pro
Logic not your strong suit, I see.

Every era has a few top players who are comfortably above the rest. In past eras though, surface differentiation helped even the playing field by bringing those top players back within reach of lesser players on their less favoured surfaces. Nowadays, the top players are not handicapped by any surface so the difference in class consistently comes through. Thus the best players have more chances to accumulate greater numbers of titles.
Typical TW **** behaviour, insulting others because you're not mature enough for a decent conversation.

If you had thought this through a bit more, you might have seen why my point makes sense: If it is easier for all top players to win slams on different surfaces now, than it is obviously harder to win any particular of those slams. Otherwise you contradict yourself.
I'll make it more clear for you: Let's assume two eras have the same numbers of strong players. If now they're all specialists, the respective specialists have better chances on their favorite surfaces and worse chances on the other surfaces. If they all play similar, you have better chances on your bad surfaces but worse chances on you strong surfaces because even non-specialists can be a threat. I mean, it's the same numbers of titles they hand out over a certain time span.
The point that surface deviation brought them in the reach of lesser players doesn't really make sense. If this is true for the non-specialists then obviously the spiecialists must have an even greater advantage.
In conclusion, surface homogenization makes it easier to win slams on different surfaces, but it's not easier to win a certain number of titles. This, your 25% discount makes no sense.

Even when it was just grass and clay, the grass at the AO and Wimbledon played vastly different. Likewise, the clay at the USO played vastly different from RG. And the gulf between the two was far greater.

Hardcourts by definition aid surface homogenisation because they are a middle ground.
Have you ever played on these surfaces yourself (do you actually play tennis youself)? HC is certainly not just a middle ground, it is more complex than that. It's not just the speed of the court, it's the way you can move/slide on it etc. And saying HC and clay play more alike than two different types of clay a far strech...

Thanks for providing added weight for my argument. Yes, racquets and strings are also contributing to this all-surface blandness.
I don't see how that was your arguemnt, you didn't mention equipent in you post at all but solely surfaces. Again, this homogized the game but didn't make it easier to win titles.

You must be 12, since you would see how laughable this is relative to previous eras if you were any older.
:lol:
 
T

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest
Lmao!!!!

Nadal isnt even top 5 greatest of all time

He is a clay phenomenom who after many years learned how to play on other surfaces as well (although all the surfaces are pretty much the same these days)
 

Set Sampras

Banned
You know you could make a convincing argument for Nadal as the best of the modern era anyways if he just reaches the 14 or 15 slam count. He has the h2h over Federer, still has the h2h over Djokovic. masters record, olympics, has the career slam. Its a pretty dang solid resume. The only thing missing is the time at #1, and a few more slams.
 

Tammo

Banned
You know you could make a convincing argument for Nadal as the best of the modern era anyways if he just reaches the 14 or 15 slam count. He has the h2h over Federer, still has the h2h over Djokovic. masters record, olympics, has the career slam. Its a pretty dang solid resume. The only thing missing is the time at #1, and a few more slams.

I agree. Nadal IMO only needs to get another USO and AO, then get at least 14 slams. I think the no. 1 ranking plays a huge role in how high Nadal's confidence is. The MS1000 record will probably be broken by Djokovic, who does really well in those tourneys.
 

OddJack

G.O.A.T.
Experts often argue Nadal to be GOAT due to his winning all slams and dominance over Fed. But they often overlook that he is dominant only in streches.

- In 7 years as a top player, he finished as No.1 in only two years (2008,2010). In remaining 5 (assuming 2011), he finished as No. 2. In contrast, Federer finished as No. 1 for 5 years and No.2 for 3 years in his 8 dominant years.
Sampas finished 6 years as No.1 . Lendl finished 4 times as No. 1

- In terms of weeks spent as No. 1, he has spent 102 weeks as No.1 and definitely more than 200 weeks as No. 2. Way behind Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Connors.

- His non-clay achievments while good is nothing exceptional. He's not consistent there.

How can a player be considered GOAT when he has spent double time as No. 2 (behind someone) than as No. 1

Note: Of course he can have dominant years in future and change all that.

Those who argue that Nadal is GOAT should not be taken seriously.
Just wait couple more years and everybody will know for sure.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Well injuries occurred in 09 sadly which cut his peak short or he have had a good 3 years anyways as a solid #1. No one was going to overtake him at the time until the injuries did what no player could do. Fed didn't directly take back the #1 from Nadal. How can you be the GOAT if you #2 behind someone more then #1? Well How can you be the GOAT if your rival has roughed you up just about your entire career and has beaten you on all surfaces at the slams (clay, grass, and hard)? I dunno but with 4 slams or better, and the h2h over Fed that should catapult him heavily.
 
Last edited:

TopFH

Hall of Fame
Youre definitely going to be seeing a hell of a lot more players winning career slams in the next 10-20 years for sure. It can devalue slams.. I would like to see how alot of these guys do in an era of polarization and distinct contrast of surfaces without the racket technology. That would be a sight to behold.

Nadal has a career slam.. You could have kissed that out the window if he was in a prior era. Can't see Novak getting a wimbledon either.

Uh, Novak won one this year.
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
Well injuries occurred in 09 sadly which cut his peak short or he have had a good 3 years anyways as a solid #1. No one was going to overtake him at the time until the injuries did what no player could do. Fed didn't directly take back the #1 from Nadal. How can you be the GOAT if you #2 behind someone more then #1? Well How can you be the GOAT if your rival has roughed you up just about your entire career and has beaten you on all surfaces at the slams (clay, grass, and hard)? I dunno but with 4 slams or better, and the h2h over Fed that should catapult him heavily.

Agassi has beaten Pete on clay, carpet, hard. They had only two matches on grass which Pete won.

Sadly Agassi didn't work too hard, as he did later in his career. I wonder what would have happened if he did.
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
^

Sampras never had to contend with 10 + slam winners which makes his case a bit moot, only 2-tier greats, so this begs the question why did he need so much time to win those slams?
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Agassi has beaten Pete on clay, carpet, hard. They had only two matches on grass which Pete won.

Sadly Agassi didn't work too hard, as he did later in his career. I wonder what would have happened if he did.

Well Pete beat Andre on all surfaces as well.. And he has the 20-14 h2h along with the majority of the big wins in slams to prove it. What would have happened? Nothing IMO. Pete was superior overrall and Andre only made Pete raise his game even more. And Andre worked his butt of from 99-on and still Pete had the advantage overrall.
 
Last edited:

billnepill

Hall of Fame
Well Pete beat Andre on all surfaces as well.. And he has the 20-14 h2h along with the majority of the big wins in slams to prove it.

Federer beat Nadal on all surfaces as well and their h2h is still respectable on surfaces different than clay.

Who leads the h2h on clay? Agassi or Sampras?
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Federer beat Nadal on all surfaces as well and their h2h is still respectable on surfaces different than clay.

Who leads the h2h on clay? Agassi or Sampras?

Who's got the majority of the major wins between these two? Whens the last time Fed has beat Nadal at a slam?
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
Im not denying Fed hasn't beat Nadal on all surface.. But there is only victor in this rivalry and it certainly isn't Fed is all.

I never said Federer is a victor, I was just responding to you.

If they didn't meet so much on clay, the rivalry would have different dynamics imo. The data indicate the Fed was superior during his prime 2004 - 2007 and even factoring in their unfavorable match up Federer still won their grass matches. If Nadal reached more hard court slam finals, I guess we know what would have happened. It is unfortunate, but not a biggie. Have in mind that Nadal is an all-time great as well.

Btw, who leads the h2h on clay? Agassi or Sampras?

And bear in mind Nadal >> Agassi
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Btw, who leads the h2h on clay? Agassi or Sampras?

Agassi leads 3-2 on clay. Agassi winning 1989 Rome, 1992 Atlanta and 1992 French Open. Sampras winning 1998 Monte Carlo and 2002 Houston.

Here's all their matches:

Pete Sampras 20-14 Andre Agassi
1989 Rome R32: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-1)
1990 Philadelphia R16: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 7-5 ret.)
1990 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
1990 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
1991 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 1-6, 6-3)
1992 Atlanta F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-4)
1992 French Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-2, 6-1)
1993 Wimbledon QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
1994 Miami F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 6-3, 6-3)
1994 Osaka SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-1)
1994 Paris Indoor QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5)
1994 World Championships SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (4-6, 7-6, 6-3)
1995 Australian Open F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
1995 Indian Wells F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-5, 6-3, 7-5)
1995 Miami F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 7-6)
1995 Montreal F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1995 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
1996 San Jose F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-3)
1996 Stuttgart Indoor QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-1)
1996 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-1)
1998 San Jose F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4)
1998 Monte Carlo R32: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 7-5)
1998 Toronto QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-1, 6-2)
1999 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
1999 Los Angeles F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 7-6)
1999 Cincinnati SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 6-4)
1999 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-2)
1999 World Championships F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
2000 Australian Open SF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
2001 Indian Wells F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 6-1)
2001 Los Angeles F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
2001 US Open QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6)
2002 Houston SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5)
2002 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)

Hardcourt: 11-9 to Sampras
Clay: 3-2 to Agassi
Grass: 2-0 to Sampras
Carpet: 5-2 to Sampras
In Slams: 6-3 to Sampras
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I never said Federer is a victor, I was just responding to you.

If they didn't meet so much on clay, the rivalry would have different dynamics imo. The data indicate the Fed was superior during his prime 2004 - 2007 and even factoring in their unfavorable match up Federer still won their grass matches. If Nadal reached more hard court slam finals, I guess we know what would have happened. It is unfortunate, but not a biggie. Have in mind that Nadal is an all-time great as well.

Nadal was beating Federer on hardcourt in 2004 and 2006.
 
Top