Holmes
Hall of Fame
An amazing number of people on the forum seem to have difficulty grasping this incredibly simple concept. Even more amazingly, they tend to come from a single fanbase.
At what point did Federer enter a higher tier than Sampras for you, if he indeed did?
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
Breakpointerer
Legend
I'm pretty sure this is why the thread was created...Some Fed fans should be mindful of their answers here.
Wouldn't want to say anything that implies Djokovic is a tier above Fed.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
OOOoooohh.
Ok.
I gotta learn the rules.
So Federer is in Novak’s era. But not Pete’s. Even though they played and Peter left early.
Agassi is not in Rogers era. Even tho they played. Even tho Agassi stayed late.
And Federer is in Novak’s generation. Because of 6 years and not 10. But Thiem is not in Novak’s generation. Even tho they have the same age difference as Fed and Novak.
And Novak is the GOAT of his era, but not of Peter’s era cause they are different eras.
So Novak is the GOHA. The Greatest of His Era.
Cause numbers only count in eras.
And also we’re in the Great Age Shift. Because of all these awesome 30 somethings tearing it up.
It’s all clear now.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Federer played in a weak clay era.
Peter would have crushed Nadal if only he’d played in this era.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
10 Years age difference is always a different generation in Tennis, not 5 or 6.
When you are 20 then you are beginning your career
When you are 30 then your are past your prime and the next 20 year old that comes on tour is your next gen since he is beginning and you are ending
This is how a generation gap works @Federev. This is what Chris Evert says, not just me, she is a freakin 18 slam winner, right? You wont listen to her?
I had even opened a post on this, evert calls Court/King as gen 1, herself/navratilova/mandilkova/evonne as gen 2 and steffi/seles as gen 3 .... UNDERSTAND THIS PLEASE
Chris Evert clearly implies that a Generation in Tennis is at least 10+ years
At the timestamp 9:00 onward Legend Chris Evert clearly says she played Tennis for 30 years and she has played 3 generations of players She says she started off facing previous generation of Margaret Court, Billie Jean King , then middle of her career her own generation of Navratilova...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Plus you also need to know that a 10-11 years difference between Pete/Andre with Federer was a BIG DEAL while 5-6 years which Roger has with Nadal/Nole is not a big deal since not only is this within same gen, the modern day longevity nullifies any significant difference until the older guy is into his mid 30s.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
10 Years age difference is always a different generation in Tennis, not 5 or 6.
When you are 20 then you are beginning your career
When you are 30 then your are past your prime and the next 20 year old that comes on tour is your next gen since he is beginning and you are ending
This is how a generation gap works @Federev. This is what Chris Evert says, not just me, she is a freakin 18 slam winner, right? You wont listen to her?
I had even opened a post on this, evert calls Court/King as gen 1, herself/navratilova/mandilkova/evonne as gen 2 and steffi/seles as gen 3 .... UNDERSTAND THIS PLEASE
Chris Evert clearly implies that a Generation in Tennis is at least 10+ years
At the timestamp 9:00 onward Legend Chris Evert clearly says she played Tennis for 30 years and she has played 3 generations of players She says she started off facing previous generation of Margaret Court, Billie Jean King , then middle of her career her own generation of Navratilova...
Plus you also need to know that a 10-11 years difference between Pete/Andre with Federer was a BIG DEAL while 5-6 years which Roger has with Nadal/Nole is not a big deal since not only is this within same gen, the modern day longevity nullifies any significant difference until the older guy is into his mid 30s.
Good night dude.
And goodnight GOHA!
So glad we can stop having GOAT debates and now move on to GOHA debates. (As long as it suits the narrative.)
BillKid
Hall of Fame
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Eras do have overlaps, Novak is now in Alcaraz/Sinner/Rune era, he will be gone in 2 years time but these 3 guys will forge rivalries over the next 14-15 years till they are in their mid 30s.... Federer/Serena left in 2022, Alcaraz-Nadal shared top 10 for first and last time in 2022, the era ended there. Novak remaining on tour only means a small overlap....
Sameway Agassi playing in 05-06 meant nothing since Pete retired, Andre won his last slam in 03, Andre and Nadal were in top 10 ranking together in 2005 and then in 2022 Alcaraz and Nadal shared top 10 ranking spots. Similar to how Connors and Agassi shared top 10 spots in 1988. These things happen
Good Night.
and you are right, it is GOHA, I have never put Novak ahead of Sampras purely based on numbers or vice versa, plus this is what Djoker says as well, he does not like saying he is better than Pete/Borg/Laver, that makes no sense.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer has more natural feel and talent and in that regard he reached a higher tier than everyone as early as 03/04, you could watch his best matches even then and tell that tennis came more naturally to him than anyone else. The "flow state" if you will, which is not something anyone usually associates with tennis.
But given Sampras' serve is the great equalizer, not sure if Federer was ever in a completely separate tier in terms of actually winning tennis matches at their best (at least the ones that mattered most). I think Federer's probably a bit better, but not a separate tier. But everyone else is a tier below. Federer's biggest advantage over Sampras (and his big advantage over just about everyone) is that he had more of his "best". He had 3 no doubt tier A+ levels at each of the three majors, and 4 at Wimbledon, I'm not sure if anyone else can even say that about even 2 majors.
But given Sampras' serve is the great equalizer, not sure if Federer was ever in a completely separate tier in terms of actually winning tennis matches at their best (at least the ones that mattered most). I think Federer's probably a bit better, but not a separate tier. But everyone else is a tier below. Federer's biggest advantage over Sampras (and his big advantage over just about everyone) is that he had more of his "best". He had 3 no doubt tier A+ levels at each of the three majors, and 4 at Wimbledon, I'm not sure if anyone else can even say that about even 2 majors.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
I've always felt this sentiment is extremely overrated. Federer is one of the most enjoyable players to watch no doubt, but McEnroe did things that made you question your perception of reality, and with a tiny wooden racket with synthetic gut.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
At this point it's honestly more common to say stuff like this than the usual "Federer plays beautiful tennis". McEnroe is not that aesthetically pleasing in terms of strokes, not to mention the fake grunting and his general appearance/demeanor on court. His shotmaking is aesthetic but if you were to watch a side view of Mac vs Federer it's just no comparison, or just a zoomed view of their feet (this is why Graf is gorgeous to watch despite her more or less ugly strokes). Complete joke to compare McEnroe to even tier 1 aesthetic players, much less Federer. Borg, apart from when he volleyed, was far more aesthetic than McEnroe was.
Sampras/Edberg/Stich/Rafter are the most aesthetically pleasing serve and volleyers but none of them flow or quite move like Federer did. It's a movement quality in addition to the strokes, really only Borg can compare to Federer in that movement aesthetic, and in terms of court demeaner he's up there as well, but obviously in just strokes and feel/flow he falls short of Federer, granted he was at a big technological disadvantage. Not to mention the point construction. Point construction is naturally limited of course when you play serve and volley.
I'd rather watch Federer hit practice forehands and groundstrokes in this video than just about any other player doing anything else, besides maybe Sampras hitting serves because that was a true thing of biomechanical beauty. And Federer's aesthetic best wasn't even in 2006
Last edited:
daggerman
Hall of Fame
You must be right. It's the only reason this thread isn't in the Former Pro section.
Debraj
New User
Never,not just Federer,i don't believe, Djokovic is a tier above Sampras (quite surely ,he himself will not believe that). Please don't make thread like this,i mean do we have to rank greatness and feel superior by choosing a tennis player(who doesn't even know about our existence)all the time and everytime,i think this forum is better than that.i can understand technical analysis is boring sometimes.but in gppd, there are too much thread for particularly this type of fun
Wander
Hall of Fame
It's unclear whether Pete surpassed all the players listed.
For the record I personally think he probably did except for Rosewall but this kind of thing is to some degree splitting hairs since they're all great players.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
I don't think so.
Quite easy for me: Summer of 2009. Tying Sampras with winning RG (which of course Sampras never did) and then overtaking him at Wimbledon.
That he WOULD beat him was a foregone conclusion for me much earlier though. These two were my favourite players of all time, but I would say in late 2004 or early 2005 it was obvious that Federer was on a whole new level (and he never looked back for years to come, day in, day out). Only the first half of 1994 might be slightly comparable for Sampras.
That he WOULD beat him was a foregone conclusion for me much earlier though. These two were my favourite players of all time, but I would say in late 2004 or early 2005 it was obvious that Federer was on a whole new level (and he never looked back for years to come, day in, day out). Only the first half of 1994 might be slightly comparable for Sampras.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
By AO 2010 it was clear to me.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
they're the cogoats
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
I don't know what people are blabbering about. Becker and now Nole said the same. You can be the best of your era. Pete was the best of his era.
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
ndal was the best of era?
NonP
Legend
As a fellow ecumenist I liked your thinking, but do you consider Wilander to be the cutoff, then? As you know those three AOs weren't quite full-fledged Slams, and with all due respect to Mats (and Stefan) I say he didn't have the top-end potential of his rival Boris whose Big 3/Sampras/Lendl-esque record vs. the top 10 reinforces my impression.
TBH I'm not convinced by this rationale. A may be a 20-time champ against a lackluster field while B has won only half of that vs. comparable rivals, but that doesn't necessarily mean A is the better player between the two.
Of course we know such a caveat is unnecessary here because only complete ignoramuses (who are admittedly legion) would say Sampras' peak wasn't all that, but the same is true for Fed as well which makes this comparison rather tricky.
Fraud is lacking in "entrepreneurial spirit"? He'll be fleecing Uniqlo for years on end!
In all seriousness I'm actually not sure Fed is costing Uniqlo much, if at all. He still seems to draw big crowds everywhere he goes so I'm sure its RF Collection continues to sell pretty well.
And yeah, a (former) Nike insider has made the inevitable MJ-RF brand comparison:
Letting Roger Federer leave Nike for Uniqlo was an 'atrocity,' says former Nike tennis director | CNN
When Roger Federer made the decision to hang up his tennis racket last year at the age of 41, he did so as one of the most influential figures to have played the game.
www.cnn.com
May well be one of the great what-ifs in the history of sports marketing. Future study material for MBAs, for sure.
It's true that Novak grew up idolizing Pistol but I'm sure Djoker does believe he's better than everyone else, LOL. Or at least that he could beat anyone who ever played the game. You don't get to where he is without a big ego.
But I dig your overall sentiment.
Winners or Errors
Legend
@NonP, I see your point, but also think that both Wilander and Edberg were, at their best easily a match for any other ATG, and the proved it by beating the ATG's in their period to win several of their slams. I don't see asterisks. I still think it's a coin flip between Mats, Stefan and any of those other guys at or near the peak of their abilities.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
PETE
1) never won the French
2) never made a French final
3) never won more than two Slams in a season
4) has far less time at #1 and far fewer Slams
All while Pete's only real competition was PEDassi and he was beating up on mugs like Pioline
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Pete had alot more depth of competition than Federer due to the conditions across all surfaces. (Agassi, Goran, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Hewitt and Safin and Roddick later on, Bruguera, Muster etc).
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
What's your point?
Pete also got Pioline in two finals, and Pioline was unseeded at Wimbledon 1997 when PETE beat him in straights.
He never beat Edberg or Hewitt or Safin in a Slam final. And Ivanesevic was never a threat until PETE was out of the way and he won as a wildcard vs Rafter
PETE never even faced one player as good as Djokovic or Nadal, let alone two of them every single week. Even Murray's probably better than anyone PETE played regularly, aside from Agassi.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Goran not a threat?? He lost two Wimbledon finals in five hard fought sets and another semi in five, on top of his title and an additional final against goating Pete. He beat guys like Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Henman, Edberg, Krajicek. Goran at Wimblie was very mich a threat, way more than Hewitt or Safin at the USO.
Murray is not better than Becker for starters nor is he better than Courier. On top of that: Pete played in an era of specialists, so while some players might not have been on Murray’s level overall, Goran at Wimbledon is every but as dangerous as Murray and grass is Murray’s best surface. Bruguera on clay is on par with Murray on grass, Stich and Krajicek, when on, can reach higher levels than Murray could ever dream of in individual matches/tourneys, they are just lacking consistency.
Of course Nadal and Djokovic are different animals, but again in terms of depth, Pete played the tougher era.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Ivanisevic was always a threat to Sampras. Sampras knew that.
Winners or Errors
Legend
Djoker could beat anyone who has ever played the game. He wouldn't do it all the time, but what player would consistently drub him? It'd be a 50-50 game against anyone someone here might bring up as likely to win against him. That's true for pretty much every ATG.As a fellow ecumenist I liked your thinking, but do you consider Wilander to be the cutoff, then? As you know those three AOs weren't quite full-fledged Slams, and with all due respect to Mats (and Stefan) I say he didn't have the top-end potential of his rival Boris whose Big 3/Sampras/Lendl-esque record vs. the top 10 reinforces my impression.
TBH I'm not convinced by this rationale. A may be a 20-time champ against a lackluster field while B has won only half of that vs. comparable rivals, but that doesn't necessarily mean A is the better player between the two.
Of course we know such a caveat is unnecessary here because only complete ignoramuses (who are admittedly legion) would say Sampras' peak wasn't all that, but the same is true for Fed as well which makes this comparison rather tricky.
Fraud is lacking in "entrepreneurial spirit"? He'll be fleecing Uniqlo for years on end!
In all seriousness I'm actually not sure Fed is costing Uniqlo much, if at all. He still seems to draw big crowds everywhere he goes so I'm sure its RF Collection continues to sell pretty well.
And yeah, a (former) Nike insider has made the inevitable MJ-RF brand comparison:
Letting Roger Federer leave Nike for Uniqlo was an 'atrocity,' says former Nike tennis director | CNN
When Roger Federer made the decision to hang up his tennis racket last year at the age of 41, he did so as one of the most influential figures to have played the game.
May well be one of the great what-ifs in the history of sports marketing. Future study material for MBAs, for sure.
It's true that Novak grew up idolizing Pistol but I'm sure Djoker does believe he's better than everyone else, LOL. Or at least that he could beat anyone who ever played the game. You don't get to where he is without a big ego.
But I dig your overall sentiment.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Goran was such a threat he never beat PETE
Stich and Krajicek get so much hype, but they each have one Slam in a far more multipolar era without four guys winning every single Slam for a decade-plus
Murray beat the greatest grass player of all time, no? And he has three Slams in the toughest era ever to win Slams.
Pioline making the Wimbledon final does not support the case that the 90s were this super deep era filled with guys just killing it on their preferred surfaces.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Factually wrong. Bad enough that you don’t know it, but i specifically mentioned Goran beating Pete in my very post you were responding to.
They lacked consistency but peak-wise they could reach levels Murray can only dream about.
Murray beat a very subpar Fed at the Olympics, at Wimbledon he is 0-2 against a post-prime Fed, he is also 0-3 against Nadal. He won his three slams yea, congrats to him but his overall record at slams against the big three is worse than Tsonga’s, Berdych’s or Stan’s so it is nothing to get much impressed by. Fact is Becker is definitely way better/greater than Murray and Pete played him 19 times.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Not in a Slam final though
BorgTheGOAT said:
Yeah, peak Davydenko has multiple Slams too. This is a silly argument; the results are simply not there.
BorgTheGOAT said:
When I said the Wimbledon GOAT I was referring to Djoko.
Love the inability here to resist insulting other posters…oops, was that just an insult or an observation coated with love? I digress.
Fed better than Sampras when he took his lunch in his house, then clearly was a better clay court player. But it was that Wimbledon win that was the key for me. Played Pete’s game, but betterer.
Fed better than Sampras when he took his lunch in his house, then clearly was a better clay court player. But it was that Wimbledon win that was the key for me. Played Pete’s game, but betterer.
NonP
Legend
Guess my (pro-Boris) fanboy side got the better of moi cuz you actually took the very opposite of the point I was trying to make: there isn't this humongous difference between 6- and 7-time champs! Totally agree that any ATG would give another fits. The way these mugs talk up the Big 3 like they're 3-4 times better a Wilander/Becker/Edberg or even a Connors/McEnroe/Lendl is just comical. Shows the depth of cluelessness we're dealing with here.
'93-94 Sergi is a far tougher customer on clay than Muzz ever was on grass, LOL. You're talking about a guy who absolutely torched a stacked RG draw like no one else not named Borg or Nadal, and while he wasn't quite as transcendent in his title defense that's cuz he was back to his slacking ways and doing just enough to win (even so he won 64.3% of his games at '94 RG, which still would be a career highlight for anyone but the two dirt gods). Andy never came close to equaling that on any surface.
I've said this before but among all RG champs only Borg and Bull at their absolute peak would be a safe bet against '93 Bruguera.
He does say in his book that his 3-1 H2H vs. Goran at SW19 is one of the things that fill him with pride.
You'd have a point if either Andy ever beat Fed at Wimbledon. (I suppose you could include the '12 Olympics at the same venue, but that was over a gassed Fraud following the marathon SF vs. Delpo.) Hell, Murray even struggled to steal a SET from Nadal. I guarantee you that doesn't happen to '92/94/95/98 Ivanisevic.
Goran OTOH didn't give Pistol a single BP in '92 and pushed him to 5 in '95 and '98. Hell, even the '94 F was a tight one until the 3rd set where Goran did kinda throw in the towel. That (1st) serve is the single most unstoppable weapon I've ever seen and Pete himself has admitted as much on numerous occasions. As a pure shot it was indeed better than Pistol's, and by a comfortable margin at that. Now guess where big serves do the most damage.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
He does say in his book that his 3-1 H2H vs. Goran at SW19 is one of the things that fill him with pride.
You'd have a point if either Andy ever beat Fed at Wimbledon. (I suppose you could include the '12 Olympics at the same venue, but that was over a gassed Fraud following the marathon SF vs. Delpo.) Hell, Murray even struggled to steal a SET from Nadal. I guarantee you that doesn't happen to '92/94/95/98 Ivanisevic.
Goran OTOH didn't give Pistol a single BP in '92 and pushed him to 5 in '95 and '98. Hell, even the '94 F was a tight one until the 3rd set where Goran did kinda throw in the towel. That (1st) serve is the single most unstoppable weapon I've ever seen and Pete himself has admitted as much on numerous occasions. As a pure shot it was indeed better than Pistol's, and by a comfortable margin at that. Now guess where big serves do the most damage.
Not sure, I don't play tennis.
I was as happy for Goran's win as anyone, but we elevate it WAY beyond reality so we can sludge Federer.
Yeah Andy never beat Fed in a Slam Final, but isn't beating Djokovic in one more impressive at this point? He's got the moral Wimbledon record already and will probably end with 10 trophies there.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Federer wasn't ready to go all the way at 2001 Wimbledon. Ivanisevic was more ready than ever once he was playing well. Look at who Ivanisevic beat from the second round onwards. Moya, Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman and Rafter. Safin said after their quarter final that he'd be pissed at Goran if he didn't go on to win the tournament.
The Henman semi final, everyone remembers Henman dominating the third set and the early part of the fourth set until the rain saved Ivanisevic. What fewer people remember is that Ivanisevic was the better player until around 4-2 in the second set tiebreak (Goran leading 7-5, 6-6) and his level fell off a cliff once he lost the tiebreak. I'd say up to that second set tiebreak, Ivanisevic was bossing Henman in a Wimbledon semi better than Sampras had in 1998 and 1999.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I'm just saying that ppl elevate Goran bc he's literally Sampras' toughest Wimbledon opponent
Meanwhile Fed's toughest opponents at Wimbledon have 47 Slams between them and are sure to add more. Comparing the two eras is a joke
NonP
Legend
You (partly) misunderstood me, I was talking about Goran's W over Pete in '92 rather than his '01 run. Neither A-Rod nor Muzz ever beat Fed at Wimbledon proper.
And even this Djoker stan thought he was dreadful at the net in the '13 F. Becker really helped turn his Wimby fortunes around and no, I don't see Murray beating him from '14 on (except in '16, but Novak was dealing with his tennis elbow by then).
As for "sludg[ing]" your boy I readily acknowledge that Fed (and Pete) is a better/more natural grass-courter than Djoker, so you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Plus Timmy himself was arguably saved by a rain break of his own vs. Martin in 4R. Too many people dunno (or choose to ignore) that.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yea I know. Actually I had first written it like that but then changed it to ‘on par’ before hitting the sent button (shame on me) as I thought about overall success (consistency included). This doesn’t really fit though as the rest of the examples I gave I was also talking about peak. You are right of course at their respective very best Sergi on clay is of course way better than Murray on grass or everywhere else. As Pete played Sergi in FO 93, this is relevant.
Last edited:
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
We have to distinguish between PETE and old fat Pete. These were two different players.
Roger never got quite to the level of PETE, but old Rog was definitely better than old Pete.
Roger never got quite to the level of PETE, but old Rog was definitely better than old Pete.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Disagree. Federer faced:
HC: Djokovic, Agassi, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick
Grass: Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, Murray, Nadal
Clay: Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrero, Coria, Soderling, Wawrinka, Thiem, Kuerten
I agree that on grass in particular Sampras had it tougher first with Becker then with Rafter and with Ivanisevic always around, but overall across surfaces Federer did.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
20th grand slam title sealed it for me personally...before that they were in the same tier! Basically my logic is that anyone in the "teens" slam range is in the tier above over those with single digit slam wins ranging from 6 to 8 titles, but tier lower compared to those who breached 20+ slam range! This is how i operate...so big-3 are in their own tier, Sampras and Borg are tier below, then come all the "mid-range" slam ATGs with 6-8 slams and then everyone else with 4 slams or less...That's how i see it!
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I was specifically talking about grass, but as you mentioned other surfaces:
Pete had:
On HC: McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Courier, Agassi, Chang, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin.
Definitely not weaker than Fed’s. Now we can of course say that he did face Mac on his last leg and only once at a slam but Pete himself was 19 at that time and since you listed Kuerten for Fed I think it is fair game.
Clay: Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Agassi.
Not quite as strong as Federer’s competition but this is mostly due to Nadal. In terms of depth the 90s clay field was stronger.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
The age difference between Kuerten and Federer was much smaller than between Mac and Sampras.
And clay if you take out Nadal is close between both, you include Nadal and it's just a no-brainer. There was a period when Federer didn't have anyone on clay aside from Nadal on clay after Ferrero, Coria and Kuerten declined and before Djokovic and Soderling peaked but you had a peak Nadal on that period so it didn't help him much.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
That might be true but Kuerten due to his hip surgery was basically close to done when he faced peak Fed at FO 04 and while the same can be said for Mac, Pete himself was also only 19 when he faced him and Mac was still good enough to reach a slam semi. Their respective level compared to their peak favoured Pete way less than it did for Fed against Kuerten so I wouldn’t focus too much on age difference.
d-quik
Hall of Fame
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Federer only beat Djokovic one out of four times. He was not the boss in this dynamic at all.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
And that wasn't my argument
Similar threads
