LuckyR
Legend
If you are the GOAT, then how can someone be better then you? If you are truly the GOAT, NO ONE should be better then you.
So the illogic of this subject matter in general and this thread in particular is dawning on you, eh?
If you are the GOAT, then how can someone be better then you? If you are truly the GOAT, NO ONE should be better then you.
If you are the GOAT, then how can someone be better then you? If you are truly the GOAT, NO ONE should be better then you.
If you are the GOAT, then how can someone be better then you? If you are truly the GOAT, NO ONE should be better then you.
In one sense this is true. However, not withstanding any GOAT discussion, the one thing we can be sure of is that Federer > Sampras, based on achievements AND H2H. No ifs ands or buts!
In one sense this is true. However, not withstanding any GOAT discussion, the one thing we can be sure of is that Federer > Sampras, based on achievements AND H2H. No ifs ands or buts!
But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.
But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.
But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.
Here's another way to look at it. If you had to call some one GOAT, would you rather have a winning H2H against Nadal and 0 slams. Or 10 slams and have a badly losing H2H against Nadal. i.e. who would your pick for GOAT be out of Fed or Hrbarty?![]()
But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.
Its one thing to have some random losing h2h of a 0-3, or 1-3 over some random bottom feeder. its another thing to be owned by a rival overrall.
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.
Yeah, Federer was dumb to get to the final of 12 or 13 clay events. He should have lost in the 3rd round like smart Sampras, the GOAT who had winning record against his rival and too great to make it to the final of Roland Garros.
Its one thing to have some random losing h2h of a 0-3, or 1-3 over some random bottom feeder. its another thing to be owned by a rival overrall.
Au contraire. Isn't it actually worse to have a losing H2H against a random nobody rather than a multi-slam winner?
It looks much worse consistently losing to your rival on the biggest stage, over and over on all surfaces then it is losing to some random scrub at some small scrub event here and there.. Yes.. IMO. At least if we are talking "best ever" or "GOAT status". To me thats what hurt say Lendl or Borg. Borg couldnt figure out Mac later on, Lendl had a putrid finals record. And if Nadal doesn't turn this around on Nole and get some big wins back, his credibility hurts too IMO
Its also what you do on the big stage as well which is important IMO especially against your main rivals IMO
Yeah but Fed lost on clay consistently to the clay GOAT. That's why the H2H is so lopsided. Sampras lost on clay consistently to nobodies. You seem to have a definition of GOAT like the GOAT must have so and so records AND be over 8 ft tall. You're specifying impossible conditions. The GOAT is the not the perfect player. The GOAT is the one who comes closest to all criteria. You may say there is no GOAT, but that's irrelevant. The point is a GOAT will be discussed and will be chosen by the majority.
In one sense this is true. However, not withstanding any GOAT discussion, the one thing we can be sure of is that Federer > Sampras, based on achievements AND H2H. No ifs ands or buts!
Its one thing to have some random losing h2h of a 0-3, or 1-3 over some random bottom feeder. its another thing to be owned by a rival overrall.
Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.
Fed racked up the majority of his Grand Slams in the weakest era ever known to mankind! '-04-'07.
Pre-all-court Prime Nadal.
and Pre-Prime Djokovic.
Post Prime Safin, and Post Prime Hewitt, and Post Prime Agassi.
Roddick was in his prime tho.
Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.
How could he lose on every surface to Andre if he could never reach the final of the FO.
Right, so Fed's losses to Nadal in the RG finals shouldn't be counted against him, right?
Andre never got the win over Pete at wimbledon. Nadal of course got the W at wimbledon. Andre never could get the win over Pete at the USO. In fact, he struggled to just win a set vs. Pete. Nadal got the win over Roger at the AO of course.
So, let's recap:
Nadal beat Fed on three clay slams, and now he is beating Fed on every surface?
Who says that? Obviously the clay meetings make the rivalry somewhat lopsided but Nadal still has the victories on all surfaces at the slams. No could do that pete at the slams. At the time no one (other then Krajicek) could Pete beat in the 90s on grass. Andre certainly couldn't. And he could get it done at the USO.
Australian Open, Wimbeldon, and the French. Thats 3 different surfaces in my book.
Andre never got the win over Pete at wimbledon. Nadal of course got the W at wimbledon. Andre never could get the win over Pete at the USO. In fact, he struggled to just win a set vs. Pete. Nadal got the win over Roger at the AO of course.
Grass and clay and hard slams Fed fell to Nadal on.
Andre never got the win over Pete at wimbledon. Nadal of course got the W at wimbledon. Andre never could get the win over Pete at the USO. In fact, he struggled to just win a set vs. Pete. Nadal got the win over Roger at the AO of course.
Grass and clay and hard slams Fed fell to Nadal on.
Blue clay, green clay, and red clay respectively are three different surfaces?
Ok, whatever you say...
When Andre played Pete at the FO, he wiped Sampras off the court. When Sampras beat Andre, both matches were not as bad.
Fed racked up the majority of his Grand Slams in the weakest era ever known to mankind! '-04-'07.
Pre-all-court Nadal.
and Pre-Prime Djokovic.
Who says that? Obviously the clay meetings make the rivalry somewhat lopsided but Nadal still has the victories on all surfaces at the slams. No could do that pete at the slams. At the time no one (other then Krajicek) could Pete beat in the 90s on grass. Andre certainly couldn't. And he could get it done at the USO.
Hmmm.. Guess you didn't see the 90 USO, 99 Wimbledon then![]()
At wimbledon? When did these guys beat Pete?
Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.
this might refresh your memory:
in 95, right in the middle of his peak,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD6QUIp9KqI
I suppose Schallar is a world-beater on clay too :lol:
and of course straight set loss to delgado in 98 ( though not the height of sampras' powers, still a part of his prime years )
pete beat muster in 91, when muster came back from serious injury and then proceeded to lose to 'Champion'
he beat a returning from injury bruguera in 96 ( who had a losing record on clay that year before the FO )
courier was probably the most 'legit' though even that was a fading courier in 96
pete did not give up on the French after Gullickson - he just wasn't good enough
Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.
Sampras won his 1st slam in 1990. Since he was ready to win his 1st slam Sampras lost to Derrick Rostagno, Christo van Rensburg and Goran Ivansevic on your heralded 90s grass. How many nobodies did Roger lose to after winning his 1st slam?
Hey GameSampras, no reply to this? Didn't you say Krajiek was the only guy to beat Sampras on 90s grass?
Fed and Nadal have been together in the same draw in 26 non clay court slams. Fed has won 15 of them, Rafa has won 4. You seeing the picture now Troll?
Sorry I meant at wimbledon. Im Set Sampras actually.. Not gamesampras.
Yes I meant Wimbledon. Those guys beat Pete AT Wimbledon. Van Rensburg in straight sets. Goran beat Pete after he already won a slam. So did Rostagno. At Wimbledon, on 90s grass. So? How is it then possible for only Kraijiek to have beaten him?
Ahh.. Prior to 93. Before Pete his prime. Ahh well. Ill take the 7 wimbledons. No could touch him the rest of the 90s other then Rich.