Federer Task to be the GOAT

[veroniquem]

You should read up more on Borg. You're looking at age, but missing the big picture.

Borg has more years of elite tennis on his resume than Federer.

The difference is that Borg entered the elite ranks at 17 and stayed there. Federer didn't make the top-3 until he was about 22.

Mileage was a factor to Borg's early retirement. Young in years, somewhat old in actual playing years and matches.

Yeah Federer started his career on the pro tour in 1998 but he played crap for 5 years after that. Very different from Borg who took the tour by storm as a teenager!

 

[CyBorg]

Yeah Federer started his career on the pro tour in 1998 but he played crap for 5 years after that. Very different from Borg who took the tour by storm as a teenager!

Yeah, I don't give Roger any credit for the early years. He played in them, but made no real impact to speak of. 2002 was really the first year of his to care about and even that one is only okay. He made a very sudden rise to prominence in 2003, even after a somewhat uncertain and disappointing spring.

Really, the only thing that matters to me are good and great years. Everything else is filler.

 

[GameSampras]

The fact that the likes of Andre, Connors, Sampras etc were winning slams throughout a 10 year period or even more isnt that important? I dont think roger will do that. Personally i think thats more a feat than dominating a 4 year period of time. Especially in tennis when most only have that small couple years window of opportunity to win a slam or at least have the best chance in their primes. I think what makes a player GREAT in helping solidify their legacy in what they can do outside their primes and how they perservere when the cards are stacked against them or when people thinking they are washed up. These next few years, will prove ultimately what kind of legacy Fed will really make.. How he can do it when they are cards are stacked against him and he slowly leaves his prime

 

[veroniquem]

Yeah, I don't give Roger any credit for the early years. He played in them, but made no real impact to speak of. 2002 was really the first year of his to care about and even that one is only okay. He made a very sudden rise to prominence in 2003, even after a somewhat uncertain and disappointing spring.

Really, the only thing that matters to me are good and great years. Everything else is filler.

Even 2002 was nothing special (apart from winning Hamburg). He was completely dominated by Hewitt and Nalby at the time, even Santoro beat him. I agree that his rise was very sudden and totally unexpected (for me at least)

 

[CyBorg]

The fact that the likes of Andre, Connors, Sampras etc were winning slams throughout a 10 year period or even more isnt that important? I dont think roger will do that. Personally i think thats more a feat than dominating a 4 year period of time. Especially in tennis when most only have that small couple years window of opportunity to win a slam or at least have the best chance in their primes. I think what makes a player GREAT in helping solidify their legacy in what they can do outside their primes and how they perservere when the cards are stacked against them or when people thinking they are washed up. These next few years, will prove ultimately what kind of legacy Fed will really make.. How he can do it when they are cards are stacked against him and he slowly leaves his prime

Longevity is worth noting as well. Whether it's more important than peak dominance is debatable. I don't think so, great players are 'great' players, not just 'good' players for a really long time.

Sampras was a great player for a handful of years. Good player in some surrounding years.

 

[380pistol]

So Nadal wasn't there before 2008? Wasn't Djokovic playing in th 2007 AO? Wasn't Murray there too? Sure, other than Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were not reaching their best form at the time, but you somehow forgot to mention guys like Hewitt (who gave Fed a lot of trouble in past years) and Nalbandian (who is IMO just as talented as the trio perhaps even more), not to mention Agassi in a very good form. The argument of Federer having no real trouble is pathetic. The field was very strong, but people have a short term memory. It seems so weak because Fed destroyed everybody.

This is what is strange about Federer fans. They are so blinded by their love for him they don't see arguments like this do more to damage Roger's brilliant career rather than help.

NADAL - zero slam SF on hardcourts (50% of slams), while Roger won his 1st 12 slams, but was the longest #2 in history, when he became a force outside of clay took Fed to 5 sets on grass, then took his title

DJOKOVIC - had accomplished what by the time Roger won his 11 th slam?? One master, and one slam SF. Then choked leads in the final as Federer took his 12th.

MURRAY -worse than the above two. When he started to blossom Roger already had 12 slams, 237 weeks at the top and was on wis down to... #2

AGASSI - a Sampras era holdover, who Roger didn't defeat 'til after Dre's 33rd b-day

So according to you, during Roger's peak, along with Nadal (mainly on clay for a period of time), Nalbandian and Hewitt. And this is what you want to compare to what other kings of their respective eras had to deal with. We don't have short term memory, you're just remebering it the way you want it to be, not as it actually was.

Some people say that Hewitt, Safin and Roddick (and occasionaly Nalbandian) are somewhat easy competition for a "GOAT" contender(not that there is a proof of who really this is, but whatever, I'll just play along), but why not turn it the other way around? Safin is extremely talented. Nalby too. Hewitt in his prime was a great player and would probably hold his own quite well versus those other legendary players. Roddick is not a "no-talented server".
Actually, Federer utterly dominating Hewitt and double bageling him in a final of a slam is a proof of Fed's calibre. Not many players could do that, I belive. Let's not underestimate Federer, let's give credit where credit is due.

More proof to this. Safin talente, but as Roger sits wih 13 slams, can he claim to beat a top 20 Marat Safin in a slam once??? No. He beat Safin when he was ranked 86,24 and 75. Yes Safin is incredibly talented, but he's a headcase, unfocused, and when he wants to play has unfortunately been injured.

Look at Marcelo Rios and Micheal Stich, are they not talented??? Rios is a head case, and Stich incositent. Call a spade a spade. Marat Safin has an immense ammount of talent, but he's put more of it to use chasing ass rather than hitting balls. Pat Cash is another one. But he was always injured or fighting some physical ailment.

Go back to 1998 Ryan Leaf was the more talented(physically/skill set) QB out of him and Peyton Manning, yet who's going to the hall of fame?? He did nothing with all his abilty, yett who considers him great.

Nalbandian, who I think is overblown, all this talk amout his skill level, and I've never really seen the depths of it, but he's inconsitent. I don't think Roddick is just a server or talentless, but he's neve taken in context from what I see. Either he's made out to better than he really is, or a whole lot worse, when he really is what he is.

Like I said earlier I can't blame Roger as he can only play who's in front off him, and he handles his business, but at some point you gotta call a spade a spade. It hurts Roger more than it helps.

 

[paulorenzo]

The fact that the likes of Andre, Connors, Sampras etc were winning slams throughout a 10 year period or even more isnt that important? I dont think roger will do that. Personally i think thats more a feat than dominating a 4 year period of time. Especially in tennis when most only have that small couple years window of opportunity to win a slam or at least have the best chance in their primes. I think what makes a player GREAT in helping solidify their legacy in what they can do outside their primes and how they perservere when the cards are stacked against them or when people thinking they are washed up. These next few years, will prove ultimately what kind of legacy Fed will really make.. How he can do it when they are cards are stacked against him and he slowly leaves his prime

indeed, it's all about legacy. that's why majors tend to be the major factors in determining greatness. i can still see roger winning a slam a few years from now, it just will not be as often.
like some have stated in the forum: he'll have to focus more on slams, not rankings, just as pete did in the latter half of his career. fed is just going to have to adapt to the circumstances if he's going to win slams throughout a 10 year span.

 

[380pistol]

1) Yes and No. If he never wins the French does it make him any less of a player?? Not really. He's an excellent player overall, but on that singular surface he's good but not elite.

I mean Laver's great but at his best vs Nadal at the French I go with Nadal. Then again no Lendl for Wimbledon, but remove Becker, Edberg and Cash and give him Roddick, Hewitt etc. he maybe gets one. So this is as much Nadals' greatness on the dirt as well as Roger not winning it.

2) Again yes and no. Then Emmerson would be 3rd, Pancho Gonzalez only has 2, etc. Federer has forever enshrined himself in the GOAT debate. Being #1 on the list would definitely help his case though.

3) Yeah somewhat. It isn't his fault he can only play who's in front of him, but there's an old addage "You're only as good as what you come up against".

Still I feel if Federer had to walk in Sampras', Borg's, Laver's shoes etc. he'd still be #1 in their positions (like them) and winning slams. Would there 3 slas a year 3 times and 5 in row at SW19 and Flushing??? I'm not sure, not likely. But he would hold his own. But people will question what if Safin was focused (and healthy) and if Nadal, Djokovic and Murray had peaked alongside Federer, not a few years after??

Agree with all your points. But all I was trying to say is that those are the 3 most commonly cited reasons why Fed isn't the GOAT. If he is able to win for a couple more years and turn each of those 3 points in his favor, then it will be VERY hard for ppl to argue that he is not the GOAT. Or at least, they'd have to come up with new arguments.

The only one I can see changing his fate is the 1st winning the French. He would be only the 3rd man in the open era (and 6th overall) to claim all four, which would tremendously help his case.

Slam count, unless he gets to 20 or something, I don't how much a difference it makes. It would certainly be nice (in his case) if he retired with the #1 spot there as well. But like I said if we proclaim the slam leader this, that and the 5th, where does it leave Pancho??? What does it mean for Emerson?? It's one of those things respective to era, and time frame etc.

And the 3rd one... impossible. Unless he's somehow gonna go back in time, he can't change that. Not his fault though.

 

[P_Agony]

This is what is strange about Federer fans. They are so blinded by their love for him they don't see arguments like this do more to damage Roger's brilliant career rather than help.

NADAL - zero slam SF on hardcourts (50% of slams), while Roger won his 1st 12 slams, but was the longest #2 in history, when he became a force outside of clay took Fed to 5 sets on grass, then took his title

DJOKOVIC - had accomplished what by the time Roger won his 11 th slam?? One master, and one slam SF. Then choked leads in the final as Federer took his 12th.

MURRAY -worse than the above two. When he started to blossom Roger already had 12 slams, 237 weeks at the top and was on wis down to... #2

AGASSI - a Sampras era holdover, who Roger didn't defeat 'til after Dre's 33rd b-day

So according to you, during Roger's peak, along with Nadal (mainly on clay for a period of time), Nalbandian and Hewitt. And this is what you want to compare to what other kings of their respective eras had to deal with. We don't have short term memory, you're just remebering it the way you want it to be, not as it actually was.

Of course Murray, Djokovic and in some ways Nadal weren't in their primes then. But they weren't in their primes then just as Fed isn't today. People say his H2Hs with Nadal and Murray are affecting his GOAT status, and I say many of these losses came in 2008, when Fed's level of play was very low compared to his former years. So this goes both ways. This is just like saying Nadal won the 2008 Wimbeldon because the field was weak and Fed wasn't at his best form - this takes away from Nadal's much deserved credit, and it's clearly a stupid thing to say. Federer's field was strong - Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Blake, Roddick, Haas, very talented guys, and I'd argue some of them are just as talented as the trio of Murray and Djokovic, and this is just a small list. Federer deserves credit over every major he ever won, and it's pathetic to say otherwise.

 

[aphex]

Of course Murray, Djokovic and in some ways Nadal weren't in their primes then. But they weren't in their primes then just as Fed isn't today. People say his H2Hs with Nadal and Murray are affecting his GOAT status, and I say many of these losses came in 2008, when Fed's level of play was very low compared to his former years. So this goes both ways. This is just like saying Nadal won the 2008 Wimbeldon because the field was weak and Fed wasn't at his best form - this takes away from Nadal's much deserved credit, and it's clearly a stupid thing to say. Federer's field was strong - Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Blake, Roddick, Haas, very talented guys, and I'd argue some of them are just as talented as the trio of Murray and Djokovic, and this is just a small list. Federer deserves credit over every major he ever won, and it's pathetic to say otherwise.

what people dont understand is that the result in the grand slams roger won from '04 to '07 would have been exactly the same whatever the field_he was truly untouchable...in fact i believe he is unlucky that he stumbled on nadal_the worst matchup he could ever have--in fact, had it been any other field, he would have 3 calendar slams.

 

[West Coast Ace]

what people dont understand is that the result in the grand slams roger won from '04 to '07 would have been exactly the same whatever the field_he was truly untouchable...in fact i believe he is unlucky that he stumbled on nadal_the worst matchup he could ever have--in fact, had it been any other field, he would have 3 calendar slams.

Amen. Fed has the complete game and is able to win with a variety of shots. Sampras - GOAT of the serve: look at his major number: 7 wins on very fast Wimby courts where he could just serve people off the court; 5 wins on fast USO courts; 2 wins on fast (but slower than USO) courts; 0 wins, and not even a trip to the Final (without a ticket!) at RG. Fed makes it to 10 straight major finals and only loses to Rafa, who will probably go down as the greatest clay courter ever...

Still laughing at the people trying to prop up the Sampras 'era' like it was some lineup of Gods he had to beat week in, week out - too funny. I guess that's what Dogma is - tell yourself the same lie over and over and it becomes true.

 

[egn]

Borg was finished by 25. No longevity there at all.. Granted he was the dominant one of his era but when your career only lasts until your mid 20s, that should take something away from your legacy. Granted Laver has 11 but we know the circumstances involved and dominated the multi surfaces . Realistically, Laver could/should be sitting on close to 20. Borg shouldnt be mentioned with Fed/Sampras/Laver IMO

Borg retired. Borg had a ton of other issues that came into the way. Borg lost himself thats why he retired, his mental state was horrible he just lost it. How does that take away. Borg has 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons. 4 of his French were in a row and 5 of his wimbledon in a row. He had 3 consecutive 2 slam years, made 3 slam finals in multiple years. Simply because his career ended in his 20s? Borg and Sampras have almost the same exact ammount of ATP titles, and if you count Borgs non atp titles he blows Sampras out of the water. Borg won 41 percent of the grand slams he entered and made it to a slam final in 59 percent of them. Borg went down because his life went into a downward spiral, drugs, suicide, failing marriages and horrible mental state. His tennis domination however was insane. In his prime he won 11 titles in 77, 8 in 78, 13 in 79, 9 in 80. Borg dominated tennis, his grand slam count might only be 11, but than he used to play only 3 slams in a year so take it in retrospect. Its not saying oh he would have won the Australian Open's but you can't use what he didn't do against him. Like you can't hold the fact that Laver played no slams for 6 years against him. Borg definitly deserves to be in the conversation you greatly underrate borg.

 

[drakulie]

I've just read that Laver has won around 198 titles in his career :shock: How is that possible? He has also won more than 1 of each slam, either the guy was a beast or his competition wasn't that strong. Either way, scary numbers!

By beating a lot of club players in early rounds of **MANY** smaller tournaments.

It is very well known, that back when Laver played, many smaller venues had local recreational players in the draw of the events to "beef up the draws".

He is already the GOAT! Deal with it Sampras fans!

I agree. I could care less about the "Total Numbers" at this point>> he is clearly the best player to walk on the planet in the history of the game. Period. The "numbers" are just icing on the cake.

 

[Ari Gold]

I've seen them both play before and I think Federer is the better player. For someone to claim to hate Sampras you sure spend a lot of time praising him.

Show me where I've ever praised Sampras. I'm not sure I've even typed his name until now.

 

[Ari Gold]

is he top 50 at least? lol

Of course, he's top 5 - when I say nowhere near what I mean is that he isn't close to claiming to be the best, not that he's not one of the best.

 

[thejoe]

Of course, he's top 5 - when I say nowhere near what I mean is that he isn't close to claiming to be the best, not that he's not one of the best.

In your eyes, who is?

 

[shintan17]

Who cares....seriously.

It's impossible to compare players from different eras and decide who is greater or the greatest. You guys keep doing it. Unbelievable...

Fed is one of the greats without a doubt. That's all. Nothing less or more.

 

[hyogen]

After all discussion in this forum about if Federer is or is not the GOAT.

According to you what need to do Federer to be considered with out any doubt the GOAT?.

Regards.

with out any doubt - win the french open. without it, he's just one of the very best

 

[Ari Gold]

So, you think Sampras is the GOAT

No, I think its between Laver and Sampras

yet you post on this page of this thread:

"I think Federer is a better player than Sampras."

Greatest is completely different to better. Sampras has won more slams and did it against harder opposition but has had a whole career, that's something that Federer hasn't had yet.

I much prefer watching Federer to Sampras, he has much more style than Sampras. Is he greater than Sampras - that's a different question.

 

[autumn_leaf]

i think to be undisputed GOAT he needs to beat nadal at french. since i agree with others that nadal is the best on clay.

i already think federer is up there with sampras, if not better with all his finals at RG, the french would just make it plain and clear to everyone who is not in complete denial.

 

[pepe01]

Ok, so if Federer pass trough Sampras........

Ok, ok, ok, so as i can see, if Federer wins his 15 th slam put down Sampras and final show down is between Federer and Laver?, due numbers are so close between them ( Pete and Roger) and Roger is must complete player than Sampras ( nobody can deny that), so sampras is almost out of this race.

Let me know your comments.

 

[pepe01]

Also....

Also....

1.- Roger needs to win RG ( against Rafa will be better).

2.- He needs win two slams ( four big ones), (eaaaaaasy!!!!!) Veroniquem thinks it is possible ( uffffff)

Then Roger will be the GOAT.

After this thread, i guess:

If Roger wins more than 14 big ones and win RG.....then is the GOAT.

Am I right?

 

[NamRanger]

Even if Federer won 20 more slams, 5 FOs, 5 Wimbledons, 5 USOS, 5 Australian Opens (meaning a Grand Slam 5 times in a row) he still wouldn't be considered the GOAT according to Ari Gold.

 

[David L]

These comments from some of the best who played the game, illustrate how silly these lack of competition arguments are.

23 December 2003

"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html


COVER STORY: SEPTEMBER 2006

IT: Few others have seen more changes in tennis. What adjustments did you have to make since the early days of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl?

ANDRE AGASSI: The fitness level has only increased over the years. Connors was 5-foot-9. Now you've got guys routinely that are 6-foot-3 and above. It's rare that you play somebody under that. The physicality has changed dramatically. Compare Nadal at 20 to me at 20. It's a sport that has started to figure out that the stronger and more physical you are, the more capable you are as an athlete. I was onto that earlier than most, building my strength and the base that was the foundation of my game. As a result, I served bigger and was able to handle pace better so as the game got faster, I could just shorten my swing. I got smarter with my shots. I've had to get more aggressive. It used to be where I could just run people around until they fell to the ground. But guys are just too strong now. It's a different game than in the past.

http://www.insidetennis.com/0906_agassi.html


By John McEnroe Jul 2005

Depth may put Sampras record beyond Federer

"This may not be the right time to say it, with Roger Federer on the verge of claiming his third Wimbledon title, but I think as time goes by we will see what a remarkable achievement it was by Pete Sampras to win here seven times. I don't think the Swiss, maybe even a better player than Sampras when compared on all surfaces, will surpass his record.

I'm not saying it's impossible and I do believe that he will win, maybe, as many as five Wimbledon titles, I just think that there is more depth in the game today than there was in Sampras's era, guys who could step up on the grass, like Rafael Nadal and Marat Safin. The big Russian threatened to do so this time, but in the end, as usual, left the Championships prematurely. When Federer gets to five then we can start talking about his chances of overhauling Pete, but not before."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...th-may-put-Sampras-record-beyond-Federer.html


AUSTRALIAN OPEN

January 14, 2001

Q. You had a career that went for something like 23 years. You were still playing at the top level at age 38. Now we have a fellow like Pat Rafter contemplating retirement at age 28. What has changed, do you think?

ROD LAVER: Well, I think certainly competition is stiffer now......

Q. Do you see any of the younger players like Safin dominating the game like Sampras has done over the last seven or eight years?

ROD LAVER: I really don't. There is so many good players out there and I look at Lleyton Hewitt who has just come on in the last two, three years. And he came on at age 17. He is all of 19 now. So there are many young kids coming along, Safin winning the US Open. It is incredible to think that, you know, three weeks, four weeks earlier he couldn't beat anybody. He was having a terrible time. But you hit a spirt and you play some great tennis. You get confident. That is -- that can happen with probably 60 or 70 players here in this tournament that if they catch fire and you are not talking about the steadies, the Samprases and Agassis and Todd Martin. Just so many young players out there that can rise up and play their best tennis. I have always thought a lot of times that now you improve overnight, sometimes you play a match the day before and you have a struggle with it and you finally win that match and you come out the next day and all of a sudden you are a different person and you are playing great. You are confident hitting the ball in the middle of the strings. That is what I think happens with all the upsets that you see.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=913

 

[urban]

To cite some recent dissenting voices. Federer just today in an interview with the Australian newspaper 'Melbourne Age (see The Age) has said, that to win the Grand Slam is easier now, because the surfaces are more similar today, than in times, when grass and clay played really differently. Look at court coverage by K. Tendon.

 

[ksbh]

I can deny it. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses. Federer's weak backhand, for example. Neither is 'more complete' than the other, unless you're listening to one of their fanboys or are one yourself.

Ok, ok, ok, so as i can see, if Federer wins his 15 th slam put down Sampras and final show down is between Federer and Laver?, due numbers are so close between them ( Pete and Roger) and Roger is must complete player than Sampras ( nobody can deny that), so sampras is almost out of this race.

Let me know your comments.

 

[380pistol]

David L.....

I 'm a Sampras fan and I can give you....

-Pancho Gonzalez "I rate him potentially with anybody, including Lew Hoad." Pancho on Hoad "He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me. I think his game was the best game ever. Better than mine."
-Rod Laver "only player I'd put above myself"
-Roy Emmerson
-Billie Jean King "If Laver says Pete's the best, then Pete's the best"
-Mats Wilander "Can't fathom Roger being better than Pete at his best"
-Boris Becker "Pete will always be the best to me..... Pete would beat Roger in 5 on grass (see Mike about that)
-John McEroe "Arguably the greatest player that ever lived" (see Inside Tennis Magazine July 2007 and US Open 2007)
-Yevgeny Kafelnikov "Federer is good on all surfaces, very universal. Maybe his weakness is clay, but he can be successful there too. The best ever? For me, it is hard to think that anyone could be better than Sampras, not even Federer. (The Independant 2004 or 2005)
-Gustavo Kuerten "Sampras much better than Federer" (September 2006)
-Carlos Moya "Federer not in his league" (October 2006)
-Andre Medvedev "The greatest to ever pick up a racquet"
-Juan Carlos Ferrero "I prefer Sampras. He does everything so easily in the court. Roger does too, but I prefer to watch Sampras." (When asked who's better Pete or Roger in terms of sheer talent)
-Novak Djokovic "He's the greatest that ever played"
-Roger Federer "It all starts with Sampras" (when asked who's the GOAT during Asia ex series)
-Goran Ivanisevic "Some things he does better than Pete. I mean, on the court he's like magician. Pete was destroying. Pete was serving. Nobody talked ever about Pete's serve. They were only talking about my serve. But when you play Pete, you couldn't touch his serve, you know. Even when you returned, then he hits forehand winner and the point is finish. But Federer, the way he plays, he's back, he comes in. When you look him, you think tennis is very easy sport, but it's not.

Maybe toughest player I ever play is Pete, (interview after losing to Hewitt)

So the point of quotes means what exactly???

 

[drakulie]

-Boris Becker "Pete will always be the best to me..... Pete would beat Roger in 5 on grass

which explains why Federer beat him in 5, in there only meeting and at Wimbledon Center Court of all things.

 

[abmk]

I can deny it. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses. Federer's weak backhand, for example. Neither is 'more complete' than the other, unless you're listening to one of their fanboys or are one yourself.

LOL ! Federer does not have a weak BH. That's so utterly biased and you talk about others being 'fanboys' !

 

[veroniquem]

Also....

1.- Roger needs to win RG ( against Rafa will be better).

2.- He needs win two slams ( four big ones), (eaaaaaasy!!!!!) Veroniquem thinks it is possible ( uffffff)

Then Roger will be the GOAT.

After this thread, i guess:

If Roger wins more than 14 big ones and win RG.....then is the GOAT.

Am I right?

People will probably still argue Laver but other than that yes he will be the GOAT of open era if he does that (and yes I still think he can ) Winning FO is enough, against who is irrelevant.

 

[ksbh]

Was that the year they started installing green clay?

which explains why Federer beat him in 5, in there only meeting and at Wimbledon Center Court of all things.

 

[ksbh]

Sir, everybody is a fanboy on this forum from what I can tell.

Federer does not have a weak backhand? Maybe Rafa should stop hitting there, then!

LOL ! Federer does not have a weak BH. That's so utterly biased and you talk about others being 'fanboys' !

 

[veritech]

Was that the year they started installing green clay?

whatever year it was, it's a lot faster than 2008

 

[ksbh]

LOL, Veritech ... sure, I can agree with that. Green clay just got slower, that's all

whatever year it was, it's a lot faster than 2008

 

[aphex]

^^^why do you make fun of black people???

what??
i hope you're joking cause u seemed like one of the rational people on these boards

the joke has nothing to do with the colour of the guy--maybe you should ask yourself why you thought so...

 

[thejoe]

^He's joking. Thats what he does.

 

[David L]

So the point of quotes means what exactly???

The point is you have Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe and Laver saying the competition was getting better at the turn of the century, not worse. Are they all wrong? Do the people on here know more than those who were right in the midst of it? You even have McEnroe and Laver saying it's too competitive for anyone to dominate or accumulate double digit Slams. This was all before Federer started racking them up. Those were the facts then. They did not change because Federer started to dominate.

 

[drakulie]

what??
i hope you're joking cause u seemed like one of the rational people on these boards

the joke has nothing to do with the colour of the guy--maybe you should ask yourself why you thought so...

Yes, I was joking.

However, I like to think of myself as one of the crazier people (not rational).

 

[abmk]

Sir, everybody is a fanboy on this forum from what I can tell.

Federer does not have a weak backhand? Maybe Rafa should stop hitting there, then!

*yawn* . people can still be objective to a extent even though they are fans of certain players. You appearently are not one of them.

 

[aphex]

Yes, I was joking.

However, I like to think of myself as one of the crazier people (not rational).

sorry, my bad then

 

[drakulie]

sorry, my bad then

No problems. I just like making jokes every once in a while (especially in these type of threads).

 

[pepe01]

No problems. I just like making jokes every once in a while (especially in these type of threads).

Thats why this type of threads, you can be serius, you can just jocking, may be we never going to get a conclusion.

We need FEDACE here.........Just jocking .

 

[aphex]

David L.....

I 'm a Sampras fan and I can give you....

-Pancho Gonzalez "I rate him potentially with anybody, including Lew Hoad." Pancho on Hoad "He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me. I think his game was the best game ever. Better than mine."
-Rod Laver "only player I'd put above myself"
-Roy Emmerson
-Billie Jean King "If Laver says Pete's the best, then Pete's the best"
-Mats Wilander "Can't fathom Roger being better than Pete at his best"
-Boris Becker "Pete will always be the best to me..... Pete would beat Roger in 5 on grass (see Mike about that)
-John McEroe "Arguably the greatest player that ever lived" (see Inside Tennis Magazine July 2007 and US Open 2007)
-Yevgeny Kafelnikov "Federer is good on all surfaces, very universal. Maybe his weakness is clay, but he can be successful there too. The best ever? For me, it is hard to think that anyone could be better than Sampras, not even Federer. (The Independant 2004 or 2005)
-Gustavo Kuerten "Sampras much better than Federer" (September 2006)
-Carlos Moya "Federer not in his league" (October 2006)
-Andre Medvedev "The greatest to ever pick up a racquet"
-Juan Carlos Ferrero "I prefer Sampras. He does everything so easily in the court. Roger does too, but I prefer to watch Sampras." (When asked who's better Pete or Roger in terms of sheer talent)
-Novak Djokovic "He's the greatest that ever played"
-Roger Federer "It all starts with Sampras" (when asked who's the GOAT during Asia ex series)
-Goran Ivanisevic "Some things he does better than Pete. I mean, on the court he's like magician. Pete was destroying. Pete was serving. Nobody talked ever about Pete's serve. They were only talking about my serve. But when you play Pete, you couldn't touch his serve, you know. Even when you returned, then he hits forehand winner and the point is finish. But Federer, the way he plays, he's back, he comes in. When you look him, you think tennis is very easy sport, but it's not.

Maybe toughest player I ever play is Pete, (interview after losing to Hewitt)

So the point of quotes means what exactly???

you seem to have conveniently forgotten to date some of the quotes??

anyway the one that matters the most:

I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.

Jack Kramer

 

[drakulie]

We need FEDACE here.........Just jocking .

This is a Great IDEA!!! I LOve Fedace!

 

[GameSampras]

One thing for sure.. Sampras-Fed would have been one hell of a rivalry. Probably the greatest rivalry of all time. I dont think either would get the advantage over the other to be honest.

Id give Pete the decisive advantage over Roger on Grass and the slight edge at the US OPEN and indoors. While Roger get the advantage at the Australian and French for sure. I think Roger would would set the bar high of course and Pete would have to incorporate some things in his game to consistently compete. Much Like when pete said, "Andre being the greatest I ever played against, made me develop the big 2nd serve."

Its a shame they were 10 years apart. It really is. I dunno who the better player was to be honest. Both were great great player in their own way. Sampras had things Fed didnt have in his game and vice-versa. Sampras with the mental toughness, more big game mentality and clutchness in big match situations, while Fed is just great at everything and probably the most pure talented player that ever came along. Fed's resume certainly looks much better though. At least to this point

 

[drakulie]

One thing for sure.. Sampras-Fed would have been one hell of a rivalry. Probably the greatest rivalry of all time. I dont think either would get the advantage over the other to be honest.

Federer has a winning record against Sampras. In fact, he has never lost to him.

 

[GameSampras]

Federer has a winning record against Sampras. In fact, he has never lost to him.

Oh come on. A 30 year old Pete ending the near of his run in 2001 with a 35-16 record and 0 TITLES. Dont make me post the pitiful h2h records Roger had against players when he was not in his prime

 

[David L]

In his teens Federer never managed to get wins against Rafter or Bruguera, with whom he stands at 0-3 and 0-1 respectively in the h2h . However, he could clearly hang with Sampras' generation, even before his game really started to take off. Most of these wins were in his teens or at 20. Given Federer was a late developer and would get much better later on, you can get a good idea of how he would have faired in Sampras' era. Obviously, some of those who hung around longer, like Agassi, Santoro, Bjorkman and Henman, would have met Federer more often later, so the numbers are a bit larger for them, but looking at these figures it is clear Federer would not have had any trouble handling and dominating Sampras' generation by the time his game fully matured.

2-0 Federer v Krajicek
2-0 Federer v Ivanisevic
4-1 Federer v Chang
3-2 Federer v Albert Costa
2-0 Federer v Rios
2-4 Federer v Kafelnikov
8-3 Federer v Agassi
1-0 Federer v Sampras
4-1 Federer v Rusedski
1-0 Federer v Pioline
9-2 Federer v Santoro
1-1 Federer v Larsson
2-0 Federer v Arthurs
2-3 Federer v Corretja
1-2 Federer v Ferreira
1-3 Federer v Enqvist
3-1 Federer v Kucera
2-2 Federer v Rosset
5-0 Federer v Bjorkman
1-1 Federer v Mantilla
7-6 Federer v Henman

 

[GameSampras]

All 8 wins over Andre were after Andre's 33rd birthday I believe. and how about Rafter's dominance over Roger?

 

[David L]

Oh come on. A 30 year old Pete ending the near of his run in 2001 with a 35-16 record and 0 TITLES. Dont make me post the pitiful h2h records Roger had against players when he was not in his prime

Excuse me, Sampras was making Slam finals and winning them in his 30s. He also felt he played a good match against Federer in 2001. He could still play at a very high level in his 30s and was always motivated for the Slams. If Stepanek can beat up on Soderling, Gasquet and Verdasco at 30, even Federer last year at 29, Sampras would have been fine at the same age. At 29 you are still physically going to be at prime levels. Obviously the motivation is not the same, hence his No.6 ranking (which is still very good by the way), but Sampras would have been motivated as the defending champion at Wimbledon. To beat him on centre court at 19 is huge. Sampras was definitely up for that match, as was the underdeveloped Federer.