Fed does not need the overvalued GrandSlam to be GOAT

[FedSampras]

In many people's mind, Roger is already GOAT. Sampras is still considered by some as "current" GOAT but never won the Grand Slam. Navs, who also never won the calendar slam but won 6 consecutive slams, is considered by many as the GOAT for the women.

Even, if Fed will never win the French and Calendar Slam, I still think history will still name him GOAT once he retires from tennis just like the other past great champions in the past.

 

[urban]

If it is so easy, that it is overvalued, then Federer should do it easily.

 

[Warriorroger]

In many people's mind, Roger is already GOAT. Sampras is still considered by some as "current" GOAT but never won the Grand Slam. Navs, who also never won the calendar slam but won 6 consecutive slams, is considered by many as the GOAT for the women.

Even, if Fed will never win the French and Calendar Slam, I still think history will still name him GOAT once he retires from tennis just like the other past great champions in the past.

You even had to edit a dumb post like this. ''I still think...', think? all you ever do here is come up with stupid remarks and copy and paste jobs, leave, please and take all your other names with you.

 

[sureshs]

No he has to win the FO.

 

[psamp14]

In many people's mind, Roger is already GOAT. Sampras is still considered by some as "current" GOAT but never won the Grand Slam. Navs, who also never won the calendar slam but won 6 consecutive slams, is considered by many as the GOAT for the women.

Even, if Fed will never win the French and Calendar Slam, I still think history will still name him GOAT once he retires from tennis just like the other past great champions in the past.

he may not need it to be the GOAT, as he has awed so many of the tennis fans of the world and made them forget how great pete sampras was...but the french open is much closer in the grasp of federer than it was to sampras

of course winning that eluded slam wouldnt hurt would it?

 

[chaognosis]

The Grand Slam separates the GOAT (Laver) from the pretenders (Borg, Sampras). In my mind Federer has already distinguished himself as a better all-around player than either Borg or Sampras, but he has yet to reach the Laver's level. A French Open win will widen the gap between Federer and Borg/Sampras, and perhaps move him on par with Laver, but not greater. The only way for Federer to stake his claim as the undisputed GOAT will be to win the true Grand Slam. 2006 was, I think, his best chance to do it, though if he defends his Australian title next year, you never know. Next year's clay-court season will be especially interesting, as we still have yet to see if Federer can beat Nadal on the kid's own turf.

 

[avmoghe]

I disagree, with a slight qualification.

If Federer can win four-in-a-row, to my mind, that's pretty much as good as a proper Calendar Year Grand Slam. Laver is unquestionably the GOAT currently. Federer will need either a four-in-a-row or a proper GrandSlam to surpass him. Obviously, to surpass Sampras, all Federer needs to do is win the French with about 12 slams total.

 

[AJK1]

You can't compare different generations of player. Period.

 

[DarkSephiroth]

He has to surpass Pete's Grand Slam Record to become the GOAT... imo.

 

[tonysk83]

Federer right now is dominating the game of tennis like no other player in history, look at his record, his losses, his titles, you can't dispute that. It is his overall achievements that will determine if he is the GOAT. If Fed can keep up this kind of dominance for another 2 years, even without a FO title, I believe he is the GOAT

 

[DarkSephiroth]

Yeah, if he can continue to dominate, he will be. 2 more years like this, he'll have 15 GS's. That would rank him as the GOAT

 

[krprunitennis2]

^_^ Federer CAN do it! Just like Nadal can do it! =) *cheers for themmurs

 

[jukka1970]

I disagreed in terms of what it would mean if he had the slam. I don't think Federer is the GOAT yet, there are still things he needs to do. I'm a big fan, and I do believe he will be able to surpass the overall total. And in many ways to me he's already demonstated just how dominating he can be.

However, here is why I think he needs the grand slam. And I agree that it doesn't need to be in the calendar year. Right now just on this board alone there is a huge debate of who is GOAT. Along with Federer, the other 3 names that are usually mentioned are Laver, Borg and Sampras. Laver has the grand slam, Sampras has the overall total of slams, and Borg has the number of Wimbledons in row, plus being able to win the French in the same year. If Federer gets the slam this year, that will take care of what Laver has over him. In winning the French Open this will basically take care of Borg as he will surpass Borg number of slams, he will also tie Borg with 5 Wimbledons and have a French the same year. To me this will pretty much take Borg out. So this leaves Sampras. Federer will now have something Sampras doesn't have which is the french open, and it will bring his total to 13 slams. He will only need 2 more slams and that will take care of Sampras.

Without the grandslam, it will still come down to how much does the French Open count and should it just be total. With the grandslam all of the questions go away.

Jukka

 

[AndrewD]

Yep, he needs to win the Grand Slam at least once.

I'm certain that, even if he doesn't, a lot of people will still say he's the best of all time. That's fine but Federer himself will know that isn't true just as Sampras knows it isn't true of himself. Sampras's idol was Laver and deep down he knows that his accomplishments, as wonderful as they were, don't measure up. Federer, who has an appreciation of the game's history, knows that, to this point, neither do his.

 

[DashaandSafin]

The Grand Slam separates the GOAT (Laver) from the pretenders (Borg, Sampras). In my mind Federer has already distinguished himself as a better all-around player than either Borg or Sampras, but he has yet to reach the Laver's level. A French Open win will widen the gap between Federer and Borg/Sampras, and perhaps move him on par with Laver, but not greater. The only way for Federer to stake his claim as the undisputed GOAT will be to win the true Grand Slam. 2006 was, I think, his best chance to do it, though if he defends his Australian title next year, you never know. Next year's clay-court season will be especially interesting, as we still have yet to see if Federer can beat Nadal on the kid's own turf.

Federer has not reached Laver in terms of accomplishments. But I'd bet anything that he would wipe the floor with Laver.

And yes, you can compare generations. Not the current one to the 90's. But do you really belive that Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Agassi would lose to Rosewall, Laver, Pancho, and Perry? Please people, have you seen the videos of these men in pants play?

 

[avmoghe]

Federer has not reached Laver in terms of accomplishments. But I'd bet anything that he would wipe the floor with Laver.

This is completely irrelevant regardless of whether its true. Fifty years from now there will be players who can "wipe the floor" with Federer. The sport changes constantly due to advances in racket technology and fitness, and the only ranking with any meaning is one that looks solely at accomplishments.

There is no such thing as "Best of all time"... only "Greatest of all time".

 

[DashaandSafin]

No. Fiftey years from now, there will NOT be players who can wipe the floor with Federer.


Athletes today have evolved so much, its not really plausable that they can physically push themselves any harder. For example, in the sport of swimming or running, the times have leveled off in the past years. Sure records are being broken, but by only fractions of seconds.

 

[avmoghe]

No. Fiftey years from now, there will NOT be players who can wipe the floor with Federer.


Athletes today have evolved so much, its not really plausable that they can physically push themselves any harder. For example, in the sport of swimming or running, the times have leveled off in the past years. Sure records are being broken, but by only fractions of seconds.

So? Even if the physical records have evened off, does that mean racket technology will never change? Training equipment for physical fitness will never change? Why do you think serve speeds keep going up? Compare the groundstroke speeds even to the Sampras era, and I guarantee they will be greater now.

Its guaranteed that a fifty or hundred years from now, we'll see players with abilities far superior to Federer.

 

[BigServer1]

I don't think he has to win a calender slam, but a career slam would be nice. I think that if he wins all four majors on all four surfaces and has more than 14 slams, he will be the best ever without a doubt. A calender slam next year would pretty much wrap it up, as he would have 13 slams at 26 years of age...crazy.

 

[Rafa's best friend]

He will never win the French, so he will always have something missing although he may still be seen as the greatest player ever, now that i think of it if Roger played Pete and they are playing their best, i say Roger will probably win.........

 

[LowProfile]

He will never win the French, so he will always have something missing although he may still be seen as the greatest player ever, now that i think of it if Roger played Pete and they are playing their best, i say Roger will probably win.........

Why do you say that he will never win the French?

 

[Rafa's best friend]

Why do you say that he will never win the French?

Because the GREATNESS of RAFA the GREATEST FRENCH OPEN CLAY COURT PLAYER EVER will win the French for next 4 years and break the Borg's record and prove that he is the best clay courter ever. It is justice in some sense cause Fed is winning all these slams that noone else is having any chance to win the slams, like Roddick deserves another slam for sure, Lubicic deserves a slam, I think Blake deserves a slam and fulfill his dreams of following Ashe's footsteps as well......

 

[FedSampras]

You even had to edit a dumb post like this. ''I still think...', think? all you ever do here is come up with stupid remarks and copy and paste jobs, leave, please and take all your other names with you.

The ******(tm) just made a statement of record-breaking retardedness. He's improving.

 

[k1dz]

disagree he need to win the FO

 

[chaognosis]

Federer has not reached Laver in terms of accomplishments. But I'd bet anything that he would wipe the floor with Laver.

And yes, you can compare generations. Not the current one to the 90's. But do you really belive that Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Agassi would lose to Rosewall, Laver, Pancho, and Perry? Please people, have you seen the videos of these men in pants play?

Two comments:

A) I strongly disagree about Federer "wiping the floor" with Laver; in fact, it's one of the dream historical match-ups I'd most like to see. Laver was, after all, a left-handed player known especially for his aggressive topspin. Doesn't it sound like he just might pose a problem for Roger?

B) Perry is the only one of the players you named who would have played wearing pants. Learn your history. Rosewall, Laver, and especially Gonzalez were athletes to rival any Pro today. The major difference between then and now relates to equipment--give Agassi and Nadal the wooden racquets of old and I don't like their chances against Pancho or the Rocket.

 

[dpfrazier]

You can't compare different generations of player. Period.

Well said. It's all relative.

But if forced to compare, then I'm not that impressed with today's overall talent compared to the Laver/Rosewall/Newcombe era or the Borg/Connors/McEnroe era...

 

[dysonlu]

IMHO, Federer is the best, most talented, most dominant player in the last 25 years. If he wins the FO, he'd distance himself further from other tennis greats (Sampras, Borg, McEnroe) that appeared in the last 30-35 years. I really don't care whether he'll achieve a calendar year slam or not. If he wins the FO, in my book, he'd be the player that had won it all, who would have NOTHING MORE to prove. IMO, winning every slam at least once is much more meaningful and important than surpassing Sampras' number of slams record.

 

[dpfrazier]

So? Even if the physical records have evened off, does that mean racket technology will never change? Training equipment for physical fitness will never change? Why do you think serve speeds keep going up? Compare the groundstroke speeds even to the Sampras era, and I guarantee they will be greater now.

Its guaranteed that a fifty or hundred years from now, we'll see players with abilities far superior to Federer.

The argument that athletes can't possibly get much better than they are now reminds me of the U.S. Patent Office Commissioner who wanted to close the Patent Office in 1899 because "everything that can be invented has been invented"...

 

[superman1]

Overvalued? How so?

No...if he wants to be the CLEAR GOAT, he will have to win the French. Otherwise, he'll be the GOAT in many people's eyes, but he will have that major blemish on his record. And he knows this. There are 5 guys that won the career Grand Slam. If Federer breaks all the records but that one, we can call him the best of all time, but how can we call him the greatest?

 

[capriatifanatic]

It depends who you think is the GOAT now. If your current GOAT is Sampras then no. Sampras has never won more then 2 slams in a single year, and has never won the French so of course Federer does not have to win the calender grand slam to be the GOAT assuming he breaks Petes other records.

If you think the current GOAT is Laver or somebody else it might be different.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Well said. It's all relative.

But if forced to compare, then I'm not that impressed with today's overall talent compared to the Laver/Rosewall/Newcombe era or the Borg/Connors/McEnroe era...

The competition in the Sampras era also is nothing compared to the Laver/Rosewall/Newcome era or the Borg/Connors/McEnroe era so no change there.

 

[equinox]

He must win the french open and win a gold medal in singles.

 

[Gut Reaction]

He will never win the French, so he will always have something missing although he may still be seen as the greatest player ever, now that i think of it if Roger played Pete and they are playing their best, i say Roger will probably win.........

Actually, Nadal has more success at the age of 20 than fed had at the age of 20. If things keep going at this rate there is no telling what nadal will turn into. By 20 nadal has already broken Vilas' world record, broke some other record by winning the French and then immediately making it to the Wimbledon final and ....oh yeah....he already has two grand slams. Where was Fed at 20??

 

[Minimorty]

The Grand Slam separates the GOAT (Laver) from the pretenders (Borg, Sampras). In my mind Federer has already distinguished himself as a better all-around player than either Borg or Sampras, but he has yet to reach the Laver's level. A French Open win will widen the gap between Federer and Borg/Sampras, and perhaps move him on par with Laver, but not greater. The only way for Federer to stake his claim as the undisputed GOAT will be to win the true Grand Slam. 2006 was, I think, his best chance to do it, though if he defends his Australian title next year, you never know. Next year's clay-court season will be especially interesting, as we still have yet to see if Federer can beat Nadal on the kid's own turf.

To consider Pete Sampras a "pretender" not only insults Sampras but it insults the game of tennis as a whole. Pete left his heart and soul (and sometimes last nights dinner) out on the court. He had more desire and will power than any other player out there. Period. People ***** and complain about how they want to see more serve and volleyers out on tour, and they take for granted what Sampras brought to the game of tennis. Give him some respect, he racked up more grand slams than any other player, finished #1 six straight years, etc. The accolades go on and on. There is no possible way to consider Sampras a pretender. Sampras is widely considered to be the GOAT. Will Federer most likely overtake him for that title? Yes, barring injury, its probably going to happen. Even if he doesnt win the French. He got to the finals of the french and has won multiple masters series events on clay. Give the guy a little credit, he can play. And he will still have 3-5 more chances at picking up the french title still. If Federer can get to 13-15 slams, he will most likely overtake Sampras as the GOAT, regardless of whether or not he wins the French.

 

[crazylevity]

Actually, Nadal has more success at the age of 20 than fed had at the age of 20. If things keep going at this rate there is no telling what nadal will turn into. By 20 nadal has already broken Vilas' world record, broke some other record by winning the French and then immediately making it to the Wimbledon final and ....oh yeah....he already has two grand slams. Where was Fed at 20??

This has been debunked as flawed. The both of them have very different styles, and different players mature at different ages. By your argument, Hewitt won his 2 slams at 21. What has he done since??

 

[Zuras]

I don't think he needs it either, assuming he still makes the finals at the FO regularly.

 

[chaognosis]

To consider Pete Sampras a "pretender" not only insults Sampras but it insults the game of tennis as a whole. Pete left his heart and soul (and sometimes last nights dinner) out on the court. He had more desire and will power than any other player out there. Period. People ***** and complain about how they want to see more serve and volleyers out on tour, and they take for granted what Sampras brought to the game of tennis. Give him some respect, he racked up more grand slams than any other player, finished #1 six straight years, etc. The accolades go on and on. There is no possible way to consider Sampras a pretender. Sampras is widely considered to be the GOAT. Will Federer most likely overtake him for that title? Yes, barring injury, its probably going to happen. Even if he doesnt win the French. He got to the finals of the french and has won multiple masters series events on clay. Give the guy a little credit, he can play. And he will still have 3-5 more chances at picking up the french title still. If Federer can get to 13-15 slams, he will most likely overtake Sampras as the GOAT, regardless of whether or not he wins the French.

I consider Sampras one of the 4-5 greatest players of all time; I consider that "a little credit." But like most experts, journalists, commentators, etc., I find Laver's resume more complete and more convincing. Sampras's 14 major singles titles is not the most impressive record in tennis; several other players could conceivably have won more (perhaps far more) had they not been barred from amateur play in the 1950s and '60s--Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Laver foremost among them. Nor is Sampras's 6 years ranked No. 1 the most impressive record; both Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzalez were, by most accounts, the top player in the world for a longer period of time. The most impressive record in the sport, and the one future players will find the most difficult to duplicate BY FAR, is Laver's two Grand Slams.

 

[avmoghe]

To consider Pete Sampras a "pretender" not only insults Sampras but it insults the game of tennis as a whole. Pete left his heart and soul (and sometimes last nights dinner) out on the court. He had more desire and will power than any other player out there. Period. People ***** and complain about how they want to see more serve and volleyers out on tour, and they take for granted what Sampras brought to the game of tennis. Give him some respect, he racked up more grand slams than any other player, finished #1 six straight years, etc. The accolades go on and on.

None of this has any relevance to whether Sampras is or is not the GOAT. How hard Sampras tried, and how much desire he had is meaningless. There is only one thing that matters.. and that is accomplishment.

And when it comes to accomplishments, I doubt many consider Sampras' 3 extra slams to trump Laver's 2 Grand Slams.

Sampras is widely considered to be the GOAT.

I'm not sure where you're pulling this from. Could you please provide a source?

 

[urban]

Tennis Week obviously has finished its imaginary tournament, with Federer finishing top (44 %)ahead of Laver (29%), Sampras (17%), McEnroe, Borg, Tilden, Nastase, Connors and others. Now, in the wake of Federer's recent successes, it seems to be no wonder. It would be interesting, to read a similar draw in 20-30 years time.

 

[dpfrazier]

I consider Sampras one of the 4-5 greatest players of all time; I consider that "a little credit." But like most experts, journalists, commentators, etc., I find Laver's resume more complete and more convincing. Sampras's 14 major singles titles is not the most impressive record in tennis; several other players could conceivably have won more (perhaps far more) had they not been barred from amateur play in the 1950s and '60s--Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Laver foremost among them. Nor is Sampras's 6 years ranked No. 1 the most impressive record; both Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzalez were, by most accounts, the top player in the world for a longer period of time. The most impressive record in the sport, and the one future players will find the most difficult to duplicate BY FAR, is Laver's two Grand Slams.

And like some other top players of the era, Laver couldn't play in the slams for about 5 years because he had turned pro...

 

[Robbie_1988]

Hey according to some/most people on these boards Pete is the greatest of all time with his 14 slam titles. And he didn't win a grand slam in a calendar year.

So I guess that would make Federer the GOAT if he surpasses Pete's 14 even if he doesn't fulfil a calendar slam right?

 

[Warriorroger]

Hey according to some/most people on these boards Pete is the greatest of all time with his 14 slam titles. And he didn't win a grand slam in a calendar year.

So I guess that would make Federer the GOAT if he surpasses Pete's 14 even if he doesn't fulfil a calendar slam right?

Sampras is called greatest by an American Magazine. Navratilova is called the greatest female palyer by an American Magazine.

IMO you belong to the greatest if you are part of the 5 tennisgods on Mount Grandslam and Steffi is waiting for Roger to join them.

 

[DashaandSafin]

Two comments:

A) I strongly disagree about Federer "wiping the floor" with Laver; in fact, it's one of the dream historical match-ups I'd most like to see. Laver was, after all, a left-handed player known especially for his aggressive topspin. Doesn't it sound like he just might pose a problem for Roger?

B) Perry is the only one of the players you named who would have played wearing pants. Learn your history. Rosewall, Laver, and especially Gonzalez were athletes to rival any Pro today. The major difference between then and now relates to equipment--give Agassi and Nadal the wooden racquets of old and I don't like their chances against Pancho or the Rocket.

A) Yea. Have you watched the videos? You call that agressive topspin? Nadal puts MUCH MUCH more RPMs on the ball than Laver does.

B) I'm sick of people whining about equipment. ITS NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENT. Agassi played with his Donnay PJ racquet until the day he retired. Phillipousis (sp) hit a 139 MPH serve with a wooden racquet. He hits the same serve with a graphite.

 

[InvisibleSoul]

Hey according to some/most people on these boards Pete is the greatest of all time with his 14 slam titles. And he didn't win a grand slam in a calendar year.

So I guess that would make Federer the GOAT if he surpasses Pete's 14 even if he doesn't fulfil a calendar slam right?

Sampras never achieved even a career Grand Slam, nevermind one in a calendar year.

Of course, neither has Federer at the moment... but he still has the opportunity to.

Basically, to sum it up...

To those that think Sampras is currently the GOAT, then as soon as Federer surpasses his 14 slams, then to those people, Federer will be the new GOAT.

To those that think the GOAT must have accomplished a career Grand Slam, then if Federer manages to win the French Open and at least 12 slams, then to these people, he will be the new GOAT.

If he manages to win the French Open AND surpass 14 slams, then he will pretty much be the undisputed GOAT.

 

[joe sch]

The Grand Slam separates the GOAT (Laver) from the pretenders (Borg, Sampras). In my mind Federer has already distinguished himself as a better all-around player than either Borg or Sampras, but he has yet to reach the Laver's level. A French Open win will widen the gap between Federer and Borg/Sampras, and perhaps move him on par with Laver, but not greater. The only way for Federer to stake his claim as the undisputed GOAT will be to win the true Grand Slam. 2006 was, I think, his best chance to do it, though if he defends his Australian title next year, you never know. Next year's clay-court season will be especially interesting, as we still have yet to see if Federer can beat Nadal on the kid's own turf.

I agree with this post and would further that it would still just be the "GOAT for Open Era Tennis".

I believe that most of the modern posters do not understand how many slams and grand slams Pancho Gonzales would have had it he was not the best "professional" player in the era prior to Open tennis. There are many others that would have had many more slams including Laver, Rosewall, Hoad. Emerson would not be the current #2 nor Sampras #1.

 

[8PAQ]

Bernard Tomic is obviously the GOAT. I don't understand why people don't see that. I mean isn't 19 Slams enough. Oh, wait, never mind. It's still 2006.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Tennis Week obviously has finished its imaginary tournament, with Federer finishing top (44 %)ahead of Laver (29%), Sampras (17%), McEnroe, Borg, Tilden, Nastase, Connors and others. Now, in the wake of Federer's recent successes, it seems to be no wonder. It would be interesting, to read a similar draw in 20-30 years time.

urban, do know the results of the entire draw? I don't subscribe to tennisweek & the online article doesn't give that info.

 

[drakulie]

The Grand Slam separates the GOAT (Laver) from the pretenders (Borg, Sampras). In my mind Federer has already distinguished himself as a better all-around player than either Borg or Sampras, but he has yet to reach the Laver's level. A French Open win will widen the gap between Federer and Borg/Sampras, and perhaps move him on par with Laver, but not greater. The only way for Federer to stake his claim as the undisputed GOAT will be to win the true Grand Slam. 2006 was, I think, his best chance to do it, though if he defends his Australian title next year, you never know. Next year's clay-court season will be especially interesting, as we still have yet to see if Federer can beat Nadal on the kid's own turf.

Although I agree with this to a degree (Fed being better than Borg/Sampras), I disagree with Fed having to equals Laver's Calendar Grand Slam.

For starters, Fed would not be able to "equal" Laver's calendar slam because the surfaces are different in the 4 slams in today's era compared to Laver's era.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Laver won the calendar slam when 3 of the 4 majors were played on grass.

I believe winning the Calendar Slam now a days is monumentally more difficult than when Laver did it. Imagine if when Sampras was dominant, 3 of the 4 majors were played on grass, and one on hard court. He probably would have won 3-4 calendar slams.

In today's game with all the court "specialist" (clay, grass, etc), what Fed is doing blows away what Laver ever did, even if he only won 3 of the 4 majors last year.

I strongly believe Fed would kick Laver in the teeth if the two played. He is without a doubt the best player (by far) I have ever seen. And what he has been doing the last 3 years is just unbelievable.

 

[urban]

No, Moose. I know only the online-article. By the way, where and who are the grass court specialists, some here are referring to? And where are the clay courters besides Nadal? I don't see any.Clay and grass, RG and Wimbledon within 14 days, always were the core of the Grand Slam. I cannot remember that Sampras ever came near to win it. And to this day, the allmighty Federer simply wasn't good enough to do it.

 

[TGV]

Sampras doesn't have an excuse for not winning the CYGS but Federer has somewhat of an excuse: he has had to face a potential clay GOAT last 2 years (a guy who has never lost at RG, never even been taken to a 5th set and who has the largest clay court winning streak ever).

Out of curiosity, who was the top player on clay during Laver's time and how close was he to being the best ever on clay.