veroniquem
Bionic Poster
That's the problem with those discussions. There aren't any absolute criteria that would enable a total consensus, so the debate will probably be ongoing.
Does having poor h2h's against his rivals Hurt Fed's resume as GOAT?
- Thread starter GameSampras
- Start date
The guys that have a winning record against Pete have 2 more wins than Pete (a difference of 2). Fed is 6-12 against Rafa and 2-5 against Murray. That is different. And Murray beats Fed on hard courts.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Well that might be your way of looking at the things, but I consider quite a few more factors as significant too like consistency(dominance)/ability to play well on all surfaces etc and I wouldn't keep them 'rigid'.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Once again to me results (hard facts) have to prevail because the rest is either not significant enough or too subjective (head to heads, beauty of the play, style, etc)
S
srinrajesh
Guest
Federer certainly has a poor record agaisnt lot of players like Nadal, Murray, Simon. A few other players too have winning records.
However we should look at this at the end of his career - if his H2H remains on the losing end - IMO he cant be called the GOAT even if he breaks sampras' record.. He can be called one of the greatest of his era.
who knows nadal could well challenge the record if he remains fit and improves like he is doing. How can th best player in any sport lose consistently to others - he is still only 27 while agassi won grand slams at 33.
However we should look at this at the end of his career - if his H2H remains on the losing end - IMO he cant be called the GOAT even if he breaks sampras' record.. He can be called one of the greatest of his era.
who knows nadal could well challenge the record if he remains fit and improves like he is doing. How can th best player in any sport lose consistently to others - he is still only 27 while agassi won grand slams at 33.
P_Agony
Banned
Yes, and many of these wins came in 2008, when Fed also lost to guys like Blake, Karlovic, Roddick and Fish, players he usually owns. Federer, as much as I hate to admit it, is no longer in his prime and is near the end of his career. In 2008, he played some matches so bad, I thought maybe if I'd play against him I could win. OK, not really, but still it was a horrid play for most of the year. The fact that he still gave a lot of trouble to the top guys despite playing so bad is amazing.
But leave the H2H for a while.
Take prime Murray, prime Nadal and prime Fed. Make some matches between the three on hard courts. I'm confident Federer will win most of the matches, with Murray being second, and Nadal third. On grass, it'll Fed first, Nadal second, and Murray third. On clay it'll be Nadal of course, and then Fed, with Murray not doing much to either.
The H2Hs are worthless. Federer has a losing streak against Nadal, but he has a winning streak against Nalbandian and Blake, and Nadal has a losing streak on HC against Blake and Nalbandian. What does it say about the best of the bunch? Nothing. All it says is that a player is a bad matchup for another player who is a bad matchup for the first player.
The best player is the player who can be very consistent (despite some losing records) and win slams. And that's Roger.
GameSampras
Banned
But his HC game left much to be desired and his Grass game isnt what it was last year. I dont feel it is all just Federer "slumping". I mean he did reach the semis of the Australian.. Didnt lose one set before the Wimbeldon Final. Reached the finals of the RG and won the US OPEN. Nadal was just more improved player last year on all surfaces as opposed to before
S
srinrajesh
Guest
some H2H
sampras losing records are very close
only 2 players lead by at least 2 matches
players having lead are
Richard Krajicek 6-4(lead by 2)
Paul Haarhuis 3-1(lead by 2)
Sergi Bruguera 3-2
Lleyton Hewitt 5-4
Marat Safin 4-3
Michael Stich 5-4
Federer 1-0
A lot of Federer's losing record is by big margins
6-12 nadal (-6)
2-5 murray(-3)
0-3 rafter (-3)
0-2 simon (-2)
1-2 kuerten
1-2 Hrbaty
0-1 bruguera
also close records with
canas 3-3 (canas led 3-1)
Nalbandian 10-8
wonder how many others have winning records agaisnt sampras and federer
sampras losing records are very close
only 2 players lead by at least 2 matches
players having lead are
Richard Krajicek 6-4(lead by 2)
Paul Haarhuis 3-1(lead by 2)
Sergi Bruguera 3-2
Lleyton Hewitt 5-4
Marat Safin 4-3
Michael Stich 5-4
Federer 1-0
A lot of Federer's losing record is by big margins
6-12 nadal (-6)
2-5 murray(-3)
0-3 rafter (-3)
0-2 simon (-2)
1-2 kuerten
1-2 Hrbaty
0-1 bruguera
also close records with
canas 3-3 (canas led 3-1)
Nalbandian 10-8
wonder how many others have winning records agaisnt sampras and federer
edberg505
Legend
Those are in fact the only 3 that have winning records against him (of active players) + Hrbaty of course.
edberg505
Legend
3 and 2 are big margins? Damn, I though I was good at math.
380pistol
Banned
Even as a Sampras fan this is not entirely accurate. Throw out Hewitt, when Pete beat him in 2000 US Open he led 4-1, Lleyton racked up his wins after that. Bruguuera beat Fed when Roger was 20. Rafter got Federer before he blossomed. Different stages, playing levels etc. of players career.
The only telling ones are Nadal and Murray, mainly due to the margins and they've have done it in Roger's prime. But then again it's also matchup issue, not neccessarily a slight vs Federer. But it is interesting I must say.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
You forgot Enqvist, Fed is 1-3 vs him. And Kafelnikov 2-4 for the Russian. +0-2 vs Squillari
(just kidding guys!)
Last edited:
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
At tournaments Fed considers practice for the majors...
To the OP: No. You Sampras fans can try, try, try - ain't changing the hard fact. Fed is already past Sampras in the GOAT debate based on his clay court skills and non-dependence on one shot (Sampras' serve). The real question is: has Fed done enough to pass Laver?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Fed is not past Sampras, objectively he's not (he may be soon though). Sampras has more slams than Fed, more weeks at #1, more titles and most dominance in 1 slam (7 W). There is no clear cut case that the RG finals are enough at this point to override the other records held by Sampras.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
not objectively as you may say, because you're still basing it on your own criteria, with which i can come up with mine. consecutive weeks at number 1 which is a tad more difficult than compiling an overall record, consecutive slam finals, consecutive slam semis, winning streak on hardcourt and grass court, two different slams won 5 consecutive times, highest ranking point margin achieved at year end by the number 1 as against the number 2, largest winning streak against top 10 players, etc. and the fact that fed reached RG finals 3 times shows "consistency on all surfaces", which is more GOAT-defining as against "consistency in a single slam (wimbledon)". so the point is, you're GOAT opinion is still subjective, as is mine.
Fed? Fed is Rafa's goat, soon to be Murray's goat. Just kidding.
Let's enjoy the tennis guys - whoever your favorite player is.
This kind of discussion my GOAT vs your GOAT is a bit subjective - don't you think so?
Again, they're all fine players - let's enjoy tennis.
ESP#1
Professional
Ok let me make myself clear since you seem to be confused, first im from spain, and being patriotic as i am makes me a huge nadal fan! So if you consider the nadal and fed rivalry there have been many times where ive despised federer, so that rules out me being biased in favor of Fed
Ok now on why he is the best, Borg has 5 wimblys, Fed has 5 wimblys and 5 us opens in a row, not to mention 3 finals of Roland Garros in a row where he lost to no one other than the greatest clay courter to ever play the game, Pete never even made a French Open final! He also has something to the tune of about 18 semifinals in Grand slams in a row! And 10 finals in a row!
And you dare to say he has not achieved anything unique? And I am the biased one?
Talking about consistency:
How many weeks has Fed been #1 (compared to Pete)?
How many GS has he won (compared to Pete)?
???
All that plus being Nadal's %*&% can't make Fed that great. If Fed doesn't retire in time he might become Murray's ^(*(*& too on hard courts.
Now of course it is all subjective - whatever floats your boat.
For me Fed stopped being great when Rafa came around. He is simply tentative when runs into Rafa - not that great.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Well said. The Sampras jock sniffers are legendary for their ability to believe that the ATP tour ceases to exist after Key Biscayne and before Halle! To them, the European spring clay season is in the same category as UFO's and Sasquatch.
Don't forget Fed has never lost a major final to anyone other than Rafa. Sampras lost to Hewitt and Safin - two young guys he should have schooled if he were a real GOAT, playing in his home country, with conditions the USTA ginned up to favor his S&V game! GOATs don't lose matches they should win - they 'find a way' - and spare me the 'blood iron level' and age stuff - if you show up, you're good to go. And didn't Fed make 10 major finals in a row? What was Sampras' best? Oh, 3! Cause he had to BUY A TICKET to the RG final! LOL!
veritech
Hall of Fame
agreed. make love, not war.
edberg505
Legend
Yup, that guy is garbage. Sampras is KING. Sampras could come out of retirement right now and destroy everyone. Oh, did I forget to mention that Sampras' poop smells like rose petals?
edberg505
Legend
LOL, ok that one made me laugh.
zagor
Bionic Poster
13 by the age of 27 compared to Pete's 11 by the age of 27.How many 3 slam years Sampras had? How many USOs in a row? How many FO finals? How many weeks at #1 consecutively? How many AOs? How many-reaching all 4 slam finals-year did he had? Did he win 5 consecutive times at 2 different slams like Fed did(actually nobody did that,ever)? etc. compared to Fed? Sampras has some records over Fed,certainly,but Fed has some over him as well and his career isn't finished yet(no matter how many people in this forum wish that).
LOL! You guys are hilarious
.Nice...
In the end GOAT is the one you like better. Fed is good, Rafa is better IMHO.
I like Pete even more. Nothing wrong with Fed - he is one of the greats. It is all subjective.
Can't wait for OZ Open
egn
Hall of Fame
Good point there. Really everyone has their own GOAT..hell my goat is Fabrice Santoro for the fact that he plays so sexily.. =] lol but seriously good point but you still continue to really underrated Fed, but hey whatever.
veroniquem said:
Now hold it you threw me off here, since when has 5 years been short term? I mean hell your average number 1 player holds it for 2 or 3 years..so since when has 5 in a row been short term. I think 5 in a row is better than 5 over a 12 year span, more condensed period of dominace. Though I agree about the semi finals things its nice to see it happen alot I don't like to take praise into coming up short. For example Ivan Lendl made 19 slam finals and won 8...seriously when you quickly glance that makes him seem very similar to his competition though Lendl was far superior, but Lendl couldn't always come up big. SO yes it would be nice if Fed goes to semis over and over, but until he wins slam 14 thats not going to help his fight via Sampras.
gamesampras said:
Now this is interesting...than in that case 08 Fed is not prime Fed. But I like to think of Fed is in his prime but at the end of his prime falling out, while no offense Nadal has well been in his prime for at least two maybe 3 years. Sorry he won 3 french opens in a row prior to this and had 2 wimby finals...sounds pretty prime to me..consistently number 2 rank...I don't know thats pretty prime to me. That was prime of most players who had years equal to Nadals year this year. I note Williander well in his prime before 88 and flamed out after 88, 88 wasn't the entering of his prime.
veroniquem said:
I like this point, but less than stellar Fed 1 HC GS prime Nadal 0.
danb said:
Now you are just really pushing small details. Fed and pete weeks at number 1 is actually close I think Fed is about 40 away..not sure if he gets there but it is really not much of noted, because Fed did his in a long streak Pete constantly was hoping around..dominace rules to Fed.
lol 14 to 13 OH MAN HUGE GAP THERE NOT EVEN CLOSE. Note Fed's career is not over.
westcoastace said:
As much as I hate super biased statements that me laugh my pants off.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
I have to wonder if this will start to come into consideration if Nadal is able to close the slam gap? Or if Federer will be forgotten about over time, his H2H with Nadal and Novak become worse and worse.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
In the case Federer loses his slam record to Nadal, and ends up trailing both Nadal and Djokovic in head to head, he will be less talked about than Sampras is today. In fact the consensus will be even Sampras is above him again. He would have held the slam record for longer, and he stared down the best of his era, unlike Federer.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Lol! Funny stuff...
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Not to mention over time people will realize Sampras's 7 Wimbledons and 6 straight year end #1s are better records than any Federer has. 16 slams is a very beatable record and wont last all that long, even if Nadal doesnt break it. Sampras nor Federer would have ever held the slam record if the pros werent barred from the slams previously.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Yeah funny how you left out his record of 237 consecutive weeks as the no.1 player while putting in 6 YE#1s for Sampras when in fact that isn't nearly as sustained and as consistent a dominance.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
That is an impressive record I admit, but it isnt one that people care about as much. They do now since Federer is still playing but when he retires they wont. Many of Federers records besides his slam count are consistency records, similar to Chris Everts. Slam semis, slam semis streak, rankings, etc...However those records of Chris are almost never talked about are given any regards today relative to the more glamorous records of Navratilova, Graf, and even Court today.
What a load of crap! Head-to-heads only mean so much. Federer will inevitably have worse H2Hs with Nadal and Djokovic than Sampras did with any of his rivals, but there are a few reasons for this. Sampras didn't have a single opponent anywhere near the level of Nadal and, depending on how things turn out, possibly not even Djokovic. He also was far less consistent than Federer, especially at 30+. It's hard to meet (and subsequently lose to) the top players of the time when you crap out in the first round of every other tournament. Furthermore, there were no dominant players in Sampras's old age for him to meet consistently the way Federer has Djokovic and Nadal. I would also like to point out that, if Federer retires at the same age as Sampras, 2012 will be his last year. This looks unlikely, meaning Federer (according to you) is being punished for sticking it out and continuing to play the game he loves even when he's far from the level he once played at.
Federer has a losing head-to-head against Nadal in slams, even in his prime, and that is one of the largest shortcomings of his extensive resume. His head-to-head with Djokovic means nothing. He handled Djokovic plenty of times when he (Federer) was younger and playing better. He's handled Murray even better, despite the still negative head-to-head. You're grasping at straws here.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Federer's appeal is great enough for those records to be talked about. Honestly, I think it's very unfair to Evert when people only judge her by her record against Navratilova even though when I watch their matches I definitely prefer Navratilova. But then again, imo perceptions in tennis change all the time and it's very likely that most will recognize Federer's records. I actually get tired of commentators drooling over his major semis record, something a lot of journos today seem to consider as one of the most extraordinary achievements in sport as a whole. Whatever anyone might say, tennis is so much about image-building as well. Federer's image is such that people will talk of him fondly no matter what. Atleast his fans will and he has quite a legion. Also, Nadal's records are so heavily biased in favour of clay that it's unlikely that Federer will be completely overshadowed.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
That's because these are the only 2 Sampras' records that stand out. Federer has 10 times as many of those. If the semi streak is not enough for you find me another player who won 2 majors 5 times in a row or reached 18 out of 19 slam finals in a 5 year span.
Also, some of Sampras' no 1 seasons were a complete joke, 1998 being a prime example. He had results similar to Juan Martin Del Potro in 2009, while the Argentine finished 5th, Sampras was 1st.
There was nobody consistent enough to threaten his ranking in 1993-1998 apart from Agassi for the biggest part of 1995. Federer has to constantly face Nadal since 2005 and Djokovic since 2007.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
If Nadal reaches 15 slams, Fed will stay greater.
If Nadal reaches 16 slams, they will be equalt.
If he reaches 17 or more, he will be the greatest.*
*But The Dark Night will argue that his 10 RG were acquired against the weakest field ever, so it is in reallity Djokovic the GOAT.
DolgoSantoro
Professional
Nadal has to win more slams and defend a non clay title(which he will have to wait until at least next year to do) to get any closer to being goat.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Bumping a 3 year old thread, pretty desperate move there LOLville.
You seem very knowledgeable about tennis history, so I'm curious why you think Sampras's seven Wimbledons is better than any record Federer has. It's impressive, sure, very impressive - but it's still only a single tournament. A guy could come and win 10 Wimbledons in a row, but if he didn't do anything anywhere else, he'd be nothing but a footnote in the tennis history books. Federer winning 6 of 8 slams in 2006-2007 is way more impressive - it's a similar number of slams in much less time and over more surfaces.
Additionally, Sampras's 6 year-end No. 1 finishes are also very impressive, but it becomes interesting when you look at the sorts of performances he put up in those years. In 1996 and 1998, for example, the types and amount of titles he won would be comparable to, say, Djokovic in 2008, who finished No. 3. Due to the weak field in the late 90s, Sampras could get away with this, but unfortunately for Federer, a much superior 2008 did not allow him to maintain the No. 1 ranking because he had much tougher competition.
I think you'll be surprised. It's possible Nadal breaks it, but his performance at the French does not always correlate with his performance elsewhere - and he'd need to win quite a bit more on other surfaces to overtake Federer.
Definitely.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
With Federer is does not matter, since he cannot be the GOAT after failing to win the Grand Slam.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
The records people automatically know first are the total Slams record and the records at each individual Slam, along with the number 1 stats (which both Sampras and Federer have some of, but the 6 straight year end number 1s is the most recognized). Sampras has more Wimbledons than anyone since a guy early in the 1900s who played a Challenge Round system when you only had to play 1 match as the defending Champion so cant even be put in the same category. Federer does not hold the record on his own at any slam. Tilden has more U.S Opens, Emerson has more Australian Opens. Even in the Open Era, Connors and Sampras also have 5 U.S Opens and more finals, although Federer has 5 in a row, so all are similar. At the Australian Open, Agassi also has 4. Furthermore Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam even today. We see how much it aids Venus and her rating by people, despite the numerous holes of her overall career.
Lets face it, most Wimbledons is far more known by people than most slam semis or most slam semis in a row, or how many years you won 3 slams in a year. It isnt in the same ballpark.
This is true but the competition arguments could go on forever. It is just like how you could also say Federer would have never won 6 Wimbledons in the grass field of all previous decades, or won 16 slams had he peaked today instead of when he did, or in many past eras, but he still did it. Same with Sampras and his 6 year end number 1s. While the overall competition back then was extremely strong, I would agree the competition for number #1 itself wasnt neccessarily the hardest, but he still did it, just like Federer did win 16 slams no matter what.
Like I said even if Nadal doesnt break it I think someone else will within the next 15 years max. It will not be a long standing record, especialy with the homogenized playing conditions of today. 7 Wimbledons might be matched but I dont think it will be broken awhile, probably wont even be matched as there arent many grass specialists anymore with the best players more likely to dominate on hards and to a lesser degree clay, and the 6 straight year end number 1s I think will last a long time.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's true that many tennis writers and historians put more emphasis on Sampras's 7 Wimbledon titles and 6 consecutive years ended as world no. 1, than the grand slam title record when he held it for 9 years.
Roy Emerson had no idea he even held the grand slam title record for such a long time, and there was very little fuss made when Borg was closing in on that record. If breaking Emerson's record was such a big deal, Borg wouldn't have skipped the Australian Open every year after 1974, skipped the French Open in 1977 when he was entering his peak and, or retired so early when he was one shy of the record. He could quite easily have continued to dominate the French Open (a 17 year old Wilander and Noah won the titles at RG in 1982 and 1983) to surpass Emerson, but he didn't see the point if his Wimbledon dominance was over for good.
The calendar grand slam was the holy grail of tennis back, and the only way Borg would have played in Australia would have been if he had the opportunity to complete it there (and another serial AO absentee Connors said he would have gone to try to stop Borg in such circumstances).
Players main goals for long periods of tennis history were to complete the calendar grand slam, win as many Wimbledon titles as possible, make as much money as they could from lucrative exhibitions, win the Davis Cup for their country etc.
The grand slam title count only became big during Sampras's era. Chris Evert herself said that 'no-one was really counting' slam titles won during her time on the tour, otherwise she wouldn't have routinely skipped Australian and French Opens either.
It's a shame that this 'only slams matter' mentality became more common during Sampras's time (and possible when Lendl was approaching the end of his career).
Roy Emerson had no idea he even held the grand slam title record for such a long time, and there was very little fuss made when Borg was closing in on that record. If breaking Emerson's record was such a big deal, Borg wouldn't have skipped the Australian Open every year after 1974, skipped the French Open in 1977 when he was entering his peak and, or retired so early when he was one shy of the record. He could quite easily have continued to dominate the French Open (a 17 year old Wilander and Noah won the titles at RG in 1982 and 1983) to surpass Emerson, but he didn't see the point if his Wimbledon dominance was over for good.
The calendar grand slam was the holy grail of tennis back, and the only way Borg would have played in Australia would have been if he had the opportunity to complete it there (and another serial AO absentee Connors said he would have gone to try to stop Borg in such circumstances).
Players main goals for long periods of tennis history were to complete the calendar grand slam, win as many Wimbledon titles as possible, make as much money as they could from lucrative exhibitions, win the Davis Cup for their country etc.
The grand slam title count only became big during Sampras's era. Chris Evert herself said that 'no-one was really counting' slam titles won during her time on the tour, otherwise she wouldn't have routinely skipped Australian and French Opens either.
It's a shame that this 'only slams matter' mentality became more common during Sampras's time (and possible when Lendl was approaching the end of his career).
Similar threads
