Federer's record of weeks at number 1 is far from being a certainty

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody cares about the record because its irrelevant, the ranking system in the past was different so guys like Laver, Rosewall, Borg etc don't get a true reflection of how long they were no.1 for. but I suppose you'll have wet dreams the day Roger breaks it.


So now you want to say Pete’s 6 years and 286 weeks are irrelevant. I suppose you mean his 14 GS record was irrelevant too.

Keep your opinion to yourself. Bitter.
 

newmark401

Professional
I think the person who created this thread meant, "It is not a given that Federer will break the record for most weeks spent at no. 1". After all, Federer can't already have broken a record he doesn't hold!
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I'm not sure there is room for this word in sports. A sportsman should always have aspirations and motivation. If he/she does not have any of those anymore, it's pointless to keep going. Wanting to break yet another record is not greedy IMO, it's have a stong aspiration, hunger, and will. When Federer doesn't have that anymore, he'll retire. It's like saying Nadal should have let Ferrer win that Rome final since he already won a bunch of those, but really, a sportsman can't do that.

I agree with this, very well said!

You are there to compete, and be the best you can possibly be.
 

davey25

Banned
This is getting hilarious, these posts certainly reveal the troll in you. Let me remind you of some of Sampras' early exits to players outside the top 10 in 1998/1999. I didn't even include losses on clay, since we all know Sampras was mediocre on that surface at best. Same for all the ugly losses in 2000 and later, because he was clearly past his prime then.

1998: Indian Wells R16: l. to Muster, Miami R32: l. to Ferreira, Queens R16: l. to Woodforde, Basel R32: Ferreira, Stockholm R32: Stoltenberg.

1999: Scottsdale R16: Gambill, Indian Wells R32: Mantilla, Indianapolis QF: Spadea.

On top of that, Pete never had less than 11 losses in one season, and those losses sure as hell weren't all to his 'superior competition''. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Pete, but you're just bitter because Federer has surpassed him in almost every category possible. If he wins Wimbledon this year (or at least once in the coming years), Sampras' last significant claim in the GOAT debate against Federer will be gone as well.

Deal with it.

More achieved doesnt automaticaly make you a better player. If it did Roy Emerson would be regarded as a greater player than Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, and John McEnroe.

Anyway Pete has many things over Roger at this point:

-More Wimbledons
-Same # of U.S Opens, but many more finals
-Davis Cup title
-6 straight year end #1s (something Roger never has a hope of coming close to now even in a much weaker field)
-9 years ranked in ATP year end top 3
-Grand Slam titles 12 years apart
-Winning head to head over all major rivals
-more TMF titles and more finals there as well
-For this moment more weeks ranked #1 too

Roger's edges:

-a French Open
-more Australian Opens
-2 more overall slams

Pete's prime was also 1993-1997, so he was past his prime in 1998 and 1999 too.
 
Last edited:

davey25

Banned
Sampras tanks on a yearly basis all the time, so I'm still not getting your point here.

People act like Roger for his career puts much more effort into regular tour events than Sampras. If that were the case how come Roger even now with 2 more slams than Pete still has 2 less overall tournament titles at this exact moment. Even though he will probably end up with more tournament titles he passed the slam mark well before he passed the overall tournaments mark of Pete. If anything that suggests the reverse.
 

niff

Legend
Roger's edges:
*
23 consecutive GS Semis.
3 GSs a year, 3 times.
80.7% career singles winning percentage.
237 consecutive weeks at no.1
65 consecutive wins on grass.
5 more ATP 1000s.

BLAH BLAH.

You can cite records for both of them for days.
 

Augustus

Hall of Fame
More achieved doesnt automaticaly make you a better player. If it did Roy Emerson would be regarded as a greater player than Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, and John McEnroe.

Anyway Pete has many things over Roger at this point:

-More Wimbledons
-Same # of U.S Opens, but many more finals
-Davis Cup title
-6 straight year end #1s (something Roger never has a hope of coming close to now even in a much weaker field)
-9 years ranked in ATP year end top 3
-Grand Slam titles 12 years apart
-Winning head to head over all major rivals
-more TMF titles and more finals there as well
-For this moment more weeks ranked #1 too

Roger's edges:

-a French Open
-more Australian Opens
-2 more overall slams

Pete's prime was also 1993-1997, so he was past his prime in 1998 and 1999 too.

That's exactly why those years compare best to Federer since 2008. While he's still winning slams, his best years were 2004-2007. Again you didn't reply to my point; was Pete also doing 'disgraceful tankjobs' during these years, or was he just an inferior player?

You also overlook the fact that in his prime Roger dominated the sport like no one ever has. He lost only 15 matches in 2004-2006, Pete lost at least 10-15 matches a year in his prime. On top of that, Federer is great on all surfaces, while Sampras was never a contender on clay. The things you mention Pete has over Roger don't mean a lot in my opinion. Why is a year end #1 such a great achievement if you weren't ranked number 1 all year? Total weeks at number 1 means more to me, and Roger will probably break that record in the future. Most other points are pretty random as well. I'm not going to list all Roger's records here (look them up yourself), but it's obvious that his dominance at slams is crazy.
 

Olorin

Rookie
Although Pete's 7 Wimbledon titles are impressive and worthy of recognition, something that no one has ever achieved is winning Wimbledon and the US Open five times consecutively, back-to-back. Oh wait, Federer achieved that. It's significantly more impressive overall compared to just about any other feat in tennis, besides the 23 consecutive Slam semi-final run.

Regards,
 
Last edited:

davey25

Banned
That's exactly why those years compare best to Federer since 2008. While he's still winning slams, his best years were 2004-2007. Again you didn't reply to my point; was Pete also doing 'disgraceful tankjobs' during these years, or was he just an inferior player?

Well what Federer's prime was changes daily depending which ******* you speak to. When one reminds of his smackdown to a hip busted way past his prime Kuerten at the 2004 French, and his losses to Henman in late 2003 and early 2004, his prime didnt start until 2005 (and I can find quotes in conversations with past *******s that prove this line of reasoning on their behalf). When one reminds of the trouble he was having with Djokovic on hard courts and Nadal at Wimbledon as early as 2007 his prime was suddenly over after 2006. So I will let you decide when you think he his prime was as every ******* has a distinct definition of that. To some it is only 2005-2006, to some it is 2005-today, to some it is 2004-2007, or some other timeframe. What I do know is Sampras's prime was definitely 1993-1997. 1998 was the first year there was a distinct dropoff in his overall level of play.

Pete didnt start tanking regular tour events until he was no longer #1 regularly, and was no longer the face of the tour with the younger guys like Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt, and a late blooming Agassi taking over on top. A #1 player is most times the face of the tour, and has a certain responsability to uphold the tour and not do things like that. Granted Federer's time at #1 had basically ended, and he is essentialy #1 by accident again only through Nadal's miseason injuries last year, and probably even he realizes this. Still inspite of that he should be upholding his role as a long standing #1 player by atleast giving a good honest effort in most of the non slam tournaments, which no matter what you say most of even your fellow *******s seem to agree he is NOT doing.

You also overlook the fact that in his prime Roger dominated the sport like no one ever has. He lost only 15 matches in 2004-2006, Pete lost at least 10-15 matches a year in his prime. On top of that, Federer is great on all surfaces, while Sampras was never a contender on clay.

Dominated like nobody else ever has? Is that why he did win a Calender Slam vs a killer field like Laver? Is that why he did ever match McEnroe's 82-3 record of 1984?

Sampras never a contender on clay? So you make the quarters or semis of the French Open 4 out of 5 years, beat 2 time French Open winners Courier and Bruguera at the French while they were still major contenders, also post a win over Muster at the French, you win the 2nd biggest clay court event in Rome, you single handedly win the Davis Cup crown by killing next years French Open winner Kafelnikov on clay in Russia, and you are not even a "contender" on clay. :rolleyes: For what it is worth put Federer in the 92-96 clay court field which was stocked full of clay court specialists rather than todays field of Nadal and the 7 dwarves on clay and see how many finals he is still making. Yes Federer was better than Sampras on clay but lets not exagerrate and make Roger some all time clay court great or Sampras some clueless dummy on clay his whole career, neither of which is true.

The things you mention Pete has over Roger don't mean a lot in my opinion.

That is your opinion.

Why is a year end #1 such a great achievement if you weren't ranked number 1 all year?

Year end #1s reflect that you were the best player for that overall year. Pete was that 6 times in a row, an incredible achievement particularly when Agassi, Becker, and Courier, were your main rivals.

Total weeks at number 1 means more to me, and Roger will probably break that record in the future.

As this thread indicates no foregone conclusion he does that. Anyway his time at #1 was over for good without Nadal's major midseason injury at the worst time last year. Even if Federer had somehow still won both the French Open and Wimbledon he never would have collected the points to take back the #1 ranking, not with his pitiful performances in Masters (outside the odd exception) and all the points Nadal was collecting. That is why stats like those are often misleading to true greatness or ability. Federer is no better a player now than he would be with no chance at the weeks at #1 record, possibly 1 or even 2 less slam titles, which is what he would have been without Nadal's major spring/ summer knee injury of last year.

Most other points are pretty random as well. I'm not going to list all Roger's records here (look them up yourself), but it's obvious that his dominance at slams is crazy.

Pete is even more dominant at Wimbledon, and while his dominance at the U.S Open is less his total achievements at the U.S Open overall are still more. The 2 biggest events on the planet.
 
Last edited:

Augustus

Hall of Fame
Well what Federer's prime was changes daily depending which ******* you speak to. When one reminds of his smackdown to a hip busted way past his prime Kuerten at the 2004 French, and his losses to Henman in late 2003 and early 2004, his prime didnt start until 2005 (and I can find quotes in conversations with past *******s that prove this line of reasoning on their behalf). When one reminds of the trouble he was having with Djokovic on hard courts and Nadal at Wimbledon as early as 2007 his prime was suddenly over after 2006. So I will let you decide when you think he his prime was as every ******* has a distinct definition of that. To some it is only 2005-2006, to some it is 2005-today, to some it is 2004-2007, or some other timeframe. What I do know is Sampras's prime was definitely 1993-1997. 1998 was the first year there was a distinct dropoff in his overall level of play.

Pete didnt start tanking regular tour events until he was no longer #1 regularly, and was no longer the face of the tour with the younger guys like Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt, and a late blooming Agassi taking over on top. A #1 player is most times the face of the tour, and has a certain responsability to uphold the tour and not do things like that. Granted Federer's time at #1 had basically ended, and he is essentialy #1 by accident again only through Nadal's miseason injuries last year, and probably even he realizes this. Still inspite of that he should be upholding his role as a long standing #1 player by atleast giving a good honest effort in most of the non slam tournaments, which no matter what you say most of even your fellow *******s seem to agree he is NOT doing.

Dominated like nobody else ever has? Is that why he did win a Calender Slam vs a killer field like Laver? Is that why he did ever match McEnroe's 82-3 record of 1984?

Sampras never a contender on clay? So you make the quarters or semis of the French Open 4 out of 5 years, beat 2 time French Open winners Courier and Bruguera at the French while they were still major contenders, also post a win over Muster at the French, you win the 2nd biggest clay court event in Rome, you single handedly win the Davis Cup crown by killing next years French Open winner Kafelnikov on clay in Russia, and you are not even a "contender" on clay. :rolleyes: For what it is worth put Federer in the 92-96 clay court field which was stocked full of clay court specialists rather than todays field of Nadal and the 7 dwarves on clay and see how many finals he is still making. Yes Federer was better than Sampras on clay but lets not exagerrate and make Roger some all time clay court great or Sampras some clueless dummy on clay his whole career, neither of which is true.

That is your opinion.

Year end #1s reflect that you were the best player for that overall year. Pete was that 6 times in a row, an incredible achievement particularly when Agassi, Becker, and Courier, were your main rivals.

As this thread indicates no foregone conclusion he does that. Anyway his time at #1 was over for good without Nadal's major midseason injury at the worst time last year. Even if Federer had somehow still won both the French Open and Wimbledon he never would have collected the points to take back the #1 ranking, not with his pitiful performances in Masters (outside the odd exception) and all the points Nadal was collecting. That is why stats like those are often misleading to true greatness or ability. Federer is no better a player now than he would be with no chance at the weeks at #1 record, possibly 1 or even 2 less slam titles, which is what he would have been without Nadal's major spring/ summer knee injury of last year.

Pete is even more dominant at Wimbledon, and while his dominance at the U.S Open is less his total achievements at the U.S Open overall are still more. The 2 biggest events on the planet.

How many times do I have to say I'm no *******. I'm a tennis fan, and like Federer's style the most of the current players.

In 2004-2007 he won 3 slams a year, except for 2005, but that year he arguably played his best tennis. In 2008 there's a remarkable decrease in tournament victories and dominance. So say what you want, but 2004-2007 are obviously Federer's best years.

Nobody ever dominated tennis for four years like Federer has, winning 11 slams out of 16 and losing less than 25 matches in total. We all know the only reason Federer won no CYGS is that he faced arguably the greatest clay courter ever (on top of that a very bad match-up for him) in the FO final every time. In the 90s he probably would have won three FOs, as even players like Courier and Bruguera (most succesful in Paris in that decade) are inferior to Nadal on clay.

Sampras wasn't bad on clay, but he doesn't come close to even half of what Roger has achieved: 5 MS on clay, a French Open title and three more finals. Pete would probably struggle to even win a set off Nadal on clay in Paris or any other tournament.

However, you have every right to disagree with me, but please don't resort to calling me a ******* and ridiculing my opinions. It's clear you don't like Federer, and you can dislike him as much as you want, but you act like your the only one here that knows something about tennis, and I'm just some kind of short-sighted idiot. That's what's really rubbed me the wrong way.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Dominated like nobody else ever has? Is that why he did win a Calender Slam vs a killer field like Laver? Is that why he did ever match McEnroe's 82-3 record of 1984?

1. Federer played in a modern era with more athletes with greater depth in talent.
2. Laver won the Calendar Slam but it was only on two surfaces.
3. Mac won only 2 GS in 84, never made 4 GS final/per year

Pete is even more dominant at Wimbledon, and while his dominance at the U.S Open is less his total achievements at the U.S Open overall are still more. The 2 biggest events on the planet.

That's not true. Roger holds the record for most consecutive win on grass. Roger won more convincingly in straight sets, while Pete struggles by facing too many 5 setters. Roger also beat him in 2001.

No, his overall achievements at the USO are not better. By 2000(same age), he has only 4 USO but Roger now has 5.
 

edberg505

Legend
Well what Federer's prime was changes daily depending which ******* you speak to. When one reminds of his smackdown to a hip busted way past his prime Kuerten at the 2004 French, and his losses to Henman in late 2003 and early 2004, his prime didnt start until 2005 (and I can find quotes in conversations with past *******s that prove this line of reasoning on their behalf). When one reminds of the trouble he was having with Djokovic on hard courts and Nadal at Wimbledon as early as 2007 his prime was suddenly over after 2006. So I will let you decide when you think he his prime was as every ******* has a distinct definition of that. To some it is only 2005-2006, to some it is 2005-today, to some it is 2004-2007, or some other timeframe. What I do know is Sampras's prime was definitely 1993-1997. 1998 was the first year there was a distinct dropoff in his overall level of play.

Pete didnt start tanking regular tour events until he was no longer #1 regularly, and was no longer the face of the tour with the younger guys like Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt, and a late blooming Agassi taking over on top. A #1 player is most times the face of the tour, and has a certain responsability to uphold the tour and not do things like that. Granted Federer's time at #1 had basically ended, and he is essentialy #1 by accident again only through Nadal's miseason injuries last year, and probably even he realizes this. Still inspite of that he should be upholding his role as a long standing #1 player by atleast giving a good honest effort in most of the non slam tournaments, which no matter what you say most of even your fellow *******s seem to agree he is NOT doing.



Dominated like nobody else ever has? Is that why he did win a Calender Slam vs a killer field like Laver? Is that why he did ever match McEnroe's 82-3 record of 1984?

Sampras never a contender on clay? So you make the quarters or semis of the French Open 4 out of 5 years, beat 2 time French Open winners Courier and Bruguera at the French while they were still major contenders, also post a win over Muster at the French, you win the 2nd biggest clay court event in Rome, you single handedly win the Davis Cup crown by killing next years French Open winner Kafelnikov on clay in Russia, and you are not even a "contender" on clay. :rolleyes: For what it is worth put Federer in the 92-96 clay court field which was stocked full of clay court specialists rather than todays field of Nadal and the 7 dwarves on clay and see how many finals he is still making. Yes Federer was better than Sampras on clay but lets not exagerrate and make Roger some all time clay court great or Sampras some clueless dummy on clay his whole career, neither of which is true.



That is your opinion.



Year end #1s reflect that you were the best player for that overall year. Pete was that 6 times in a row, an incredible achievement particularly when Agassi, Becker, and Courier, were your main rivals.



As this thread indicates no foregone conclusion he does that. Anyway his time at #1 was over for good without Nadal's major midseason injury at the worst time last year. Even if Federer had somehow still won both the French Open and Wimbledon he never would have collected the points to take back the #1 ranking, not with his pitiful performances in Masters (outside the odd exception) and all the points Nadal was collecting. That is why stats like those are often misleading to true greatness or ability. Federer is no better a player now than he would be with no chance at the weeks at #1 record, possibly 1 or even 2 less slam titles, which is what he would have been without Nadal's major spring/ summer knee injury of last year.



Pete is even more dominant at Wimbledon, and while his dominance at the U.S Open is less his total achievements at the U.S Open overall are still more. The 2 biggest events on the planet.

Right, that's why he was going 4 sets with guys like Richey Reneberg the dubs specialist, Karsten Braasch the chain smoker, and Karol Kucera. Yup, complete and utter domination!


Year end #1s reflect that you were the best player for that overall year. Pete was that 6 times in a row, an incredible achievement particularly when Agassi, Becker, and Courier, were your main rivals.

Please tell me you didn't type this with a straight face. LMAO. Pete would go all over the world trying to play Mickey Mouse events just to get enough points so he could get his coveted year end #1.
 

FlamEnemY

Hall of Fame
Well, Federer was number one in August for 6 consecutive years.

So what? Is December more important than August? I like the heat better ;)

Point is, this... "record" is irrelevant. You could be number one for 2 months in total but end two times as year-end number one. And no, this doesn't mean that you were the best player for the year.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
More achieved doesnt automaticaly make you a better player. If it did Roy Emerson would be regarded as a greater player than Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, and John McEnroe.

Anyway Pete has many things over Roger at this point:

-More Wimbledons
-Same # of U.S Opens, but many more finals
-Davis Cup title
-6 straight year end #1s (something Roger never has a hope of coming close to now even in a much weaker field)
-9 years ranked in ATP year end top 3
-Grand Slam titles 12 years apart
-Winning head to head over all major rivals
-more TMF titles and more finals there as well
-For this moment more weeks ranked #1 too

Roger's edges:

-a French Open
-more Australian Opens
-2 more overall slams

Pete's prime was also 1993-1997, so he was past his prime in 1998 and 1999 too.

Ridiculously biased post... You've included lots of things that Pete has over Fed but only the most major things Fed has over Pete.
 

davey25

Banned
Right, that's why he was going 4 sets with guys like Richey Reneberg the dubs specialist, Karsten Braasch the chain smoker, and Karol Kucera. Yup, complete and utter domination!

Let me put it bluntly- Federer was bullied around the court in 3 of the 6 finals he won. Roddick in 2004, Nadal in 2008, and Roddick in 2009. He only won through clutch serving, playing almost all the big points much better, and superior mental toughness (yes that is a rare match he was actually much mentally tougher than Nadal and won despite being outplayed). Sampras was clearly the better and more dominant player on court in every Wimbledon final he won vs overall tougher competition apart from maybe the 98 Wimbledon final vs Ivanisevic where Goran squandered some real chances. Federer has not walked onto court for a Wimbledon final and stamped his superiority with conviction vs his biggest rival- Nadal, in a final. That is other than possibly vs rookie grass courter with NO grass results before that Wimbledon Nadal (says something about the grass court field then that Nadal was even in the final that year) in the 2006 final, and even in that one Nadal would have gone up 2 sets to 1 if he didnt choke serving for it in the 2nd set. Sampras has gone out court for finals and layed the smack down on all his biggest Wimbledon rivals- Agassi (1999), Ivanisevic (1994), Becker (1995). Can you see Sampras struggling so hard vs Nadal in 3 straight Wimbledon finals, losing one and nearly losing two; or Sampras ever being bullied around the court in 2 of his finals vs Roddick and nearly losing atleast 1 of them. Sampras is superior to Roddick in every single facet of the game.

Please tell me you didn't type this with a straight face. LMAO. Pete would go all over the world trying to play Mickey Mouse events just to get enough points so he could get his coveted year end #1.

Was there any year Sampras was not considered the rightful year end #1 from 1993 to 1998? End of story.
 

davey25

Banned
1. Federer played in a modern era with more athletes with greater depth in talent.
2. Laver won the Calendar Slam but it was only on two surfaces.
3. Mac won only 2 GS in 84, never made 4 GS final/per year

Laver was incredibly good on hard courts, it suited his all around game perfectly. 2 of the slams being on hard courts not have hampered his dominance. Anyway how many players have hard courts as their worst surface, only very rare exceptions like Borg and Nadal. The 69 field was incredible, far tougher than the field Roger was dominant in. One just have to look at the field then and realize the likes of Roddick or Hewitt, Federer's main competition in 2004 and 2005, would be hard pressed to even be top 10 then, let alone top 5.

McEnroe didnt play the Australian Open in 1984, which was the still the case for some players at that point (the second half of the 80s players almost always played there and thankfully that is the way it remained). He was still more dominant when he did play than was Federer.

No, his overall achievements at the USO are not better. By 2000(same age), he has only 4 USO but Roger now has 5.

Oh so we are going by age now. In that case Nadal > Roger. More success at the age Roger currently is.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
......and this thread too has turned into yet another childish my guy vs your guy argument.....resulting in of course "this-era-sucks" argument..

Edit-It's one thing to sometimes get into these kind of arguments.It's only natural that one tries to make a case for the player one prefers . But don't the usual suspects find it tiring and dumb to come up with it ALL THE TIME in every possible thread?
 
Last edited:

edberg505

Legend
Let me put it bluntly- Federer was bullied around the court in 3 of the 6 finals he won. Roddick in 2004, Nadal in 2008, and Roddick in 2009. He only won through clutch serving, playing almost all the big points much better, and superior mental toughness (yes that is a rare match he was actually much mentally tougher than Nadal and won despite being outplayed). Sampras was clearly the better and more dominant player on court in every Wimbledon final he won vs overall tougher competition apart from maybe the 98 Wimbledon final vs Ivanisevic where Goran squandered some real chances. Federer has not walked onto court for a Wimbledon final and stamped his superiority with conviction vs his biggest rival- Nadal, in a final. That is other than possibly vs rookie grass courter with NO grass results before that Wimbledon Nadal (says something about the grass court field then that Nadal was even in the final that year) in the 2006 final, and even in that one Nadal would have gone up 2 sets to 1 if he didnt choke serving for it in the 2nd set. Sampras has gone out court for finals and layed the smack down on all his biggest Wimbledon rivals- Agassi (1999), Ivanisevic (1994), Becker (1995). Can you see Sampras struggling so hard vs Nadal in 3 straight Wimbledon finals, losing one and nearly losing two; or Sampras ever being bullied around the court in 2 of his finals vs Roddick and nearly losing atleast 1 of them. Sampras is superior to Roddick in every single facet of the game.



Was there any year Sampras was not considered the rightful year end #1 from 1993 to 1998? End of story.

Then that means he should have a winning record over Roddick, now let me just check to see if he does, oops, he doesn't. Oh lemme just save you the trouble of a witty retort. "But Sampras wasn't in his prime when he faced Roddick." So basically you have some excuse for ever single time someone brings up a Sampras loss. How convenient.
 

edberg505

Legend
......and this thread too has turned into yet another childish my guy vs your guy argument.....

Edit-It's one thing to sometimes get into these kind of arguments. But don't the usual suspects find it tiring and dumb to come up with it ALL THE TIME in every possible thread?

LOL, I just love coming in to challenge davey25 with his Pete goat arguments though. I kinda can't help it.
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
Let me put it bluntly- Federer was bullied around the court in 3 of the 6 finals he won. Roddick in 2004, Nadal in 2008, and Roddick in 2009. He only won through clutch serving, playing almost all the big points much better, and superior mental toughness (yes that is a rare match he was actually much mentally tougher than Nadal and won despite being outplayed). Sampras was clearly the better and more dominant player on court in every Wimbledon final he won vs overall tougher competition apart from maybe the 98 Wimbledon final vs Ivanisevic where Goran squandered some real chances. Federer has not walked onto court for a Wimbledon final and stamped his superiority with conviction vs his biggest rival- Nadal, in a final. That is other than possibly vs rookie grass courter with NO grass results before that Wimbledon Nadal (says something about the grass court field then that Nadal was even in the final that year) in the 2006 final, and even in that one Nadal would have gone up 2 sets to 1 if he didnt choke serving for it in the 2nd set. Sampras has gone out court for finals and layed the smack down on all his biggest Wimbledon rivals- Agassi (1999), Ivanisevic (1994), Becker (1995). Can you see Sampras struggling so hard vs Nadal in 3 straight Wimbledon finals, losing one and nearly losing two; or Sampras ever being bullied around the court in 2 of his finals vs Roddick and nearly losing atleast 1 of them. Sampras is superior to Roddick in every single facet of the game.



Was there any year Sampras was not considered the rightful year end #1 from 1993 to 1998? End of story.

Yes, I agree Sampras is far better than Roddick. But in Wimbledon 2009 Roddick was playing at his absolute best level and was serving incredibly well, Roger is usually able to just block Roddick's serve back to him but on that day he couldn't read it at all. I think Roddick probably would have given Pete trouble and Nadal definitely would have beaten him with his 2008 level.
 

zasr4325

Professional
Laver was incredibly good on hard courts, it suited his all around game perfectly. 2 of the slams being on hard courts not have hampered his dominance. Anyway how many players have hard courts as their worst surface, only very rare exceptions like Borg and Nadal. The 69 field was incredible, far tougher than the field Roger was dominant in. One just have to look at the field then and realize the likes of Roddick or Hewitt, Federer's main competition in 2004 and 2005, would be hard pressed to even be top 10 then, let alone top 5.

McEnroe didnt play the Australian Open in 1984, which was the still the case for some players at that point (the second half of the 80s players almost always played there and thankfully that is the way it remained). He was still more dominant when he did play than was Federer.



Oh so we are going by age now. In that case Nadal > Roger. More success at the age Roger currently is.

How is it possible that you can try your weak and feeble argument against everyone but the one post that made sense here? Augustus' was the only one you missed out; i wonder why? you simply cannot face that fact that nobody considers pete above roger in any real way apart from you and maybe a few other "****s". federer will go down in history as the greater player, end of story. is it so hard to admit that? you're obviously entitled to your own opinion, but you cannot deny that fed's achievements far outweigh pete's. and how can you make an assumption about whether anyone would succeed in laver's generation? its impossible to say outright that one generation is significantly stronger than another, especially as far back as the 1960's.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
People act like Roger for his career puts much more effort into regular tour events than Sampras. If that were the case how come Roger even now with 2 more slams than Pete still has 2 less overall tournament titles at this exact moment. Even though he will probably end up with more tournament titles he passed the slam mark well before he passed the overall tournaments mark of Pete. If anything that suggests the reverse.




Sampras played more smaller tournaments such as indoor carpet tournaments like Lyon, or smaller hardcourt events like Indy, Washington, etc. than Federer. Most of it was to maintain his status as year end #1.



Federer certainly put much more effort into Masters and every slam unlike Sampras, who would regularly give up in the middle of a match if he felt like things weren't going his way (unless it was a slam on HC/Grass). Notorious examples are some of Sampras' embarrassing losses in Cincinnati, Canada, Indian Wells, and Miami.



After getting pummeled by a 3rd tier claycourter in Kafelnikov (who really should have never won the FO), Sampras simply GAVE UP on clay. How's that for "Champion Mentality"?
 

davey25

Banned
Then that means he should have a winning record over Roddick, now let me just check to see if he does, oops, he doesn't. Oh lemme just save you the trouble of a witty retort. "But Sampras wasn't in his prime when he faced Roddick." So basically you have some excuse for ever single time someone brings up a Sampras loss. How convenient.

OK so what does Roddick do better than Sampras. Name me a single thing.

Serve- No
Return of serve- No, this is Roddick's weakest part of the game
Forehand- No, Sampras has one of the best forehands of the last 20 years.
Backhand- Probably not
Volleys- LOL
Movement- A huge No
Passing shots- No

and yes Sampras was well past his prime in 2001 and 2002. Why is that a mocked concept. Roddick wasnt in his prime either so I dont judge anything from their matches that time as it wouldnt be fair to Roddick either to judge a match like an old Sampras's smackdown of him in the 2002 U.S Open considering he too wasnt in his prime. I judge them just by looking at their games and in that respect it is pretty obvious.

So how would Roddick come within points of beating Sampras in a Wimbledon final as he did to Federer when Sampras is superior in every aspect of the game to Roddick (and again if he isnt then point out what that is exactly).
 

davey25

Banned
Sampras played more smaller tournaments such as indoor carpet tournaments like Lyon, or smaller hardcourt events like Indy, Washington, etc. than Federer. Most of it was to maintain his status as year end #1.

So if Sampras isnt the one who cares about the regular tour as much, why is he the one playing more smaller events? Anyway the only year Sampras needed to do that to get the year end #1 was 1998, but that shouldnt have been the case as slamless Rios deserved to be nowhere near #1 that year.

Federer certainly put much more effort into Masters and every slam unlike Sampras, who would regularly give up in the middle of a match if he felt like things weren't going his way (unless it was a slam on HC/Grass). Notorious examples are some of Sampras' embarrassing losses in Cincinnati, Canada, Indian Wells, and Miami.

Yeah that is why in Federer's last 4 Masters he loses to Benneteau, Baghdatis, Berdych, and Gulbis, only one of those 4 even a top 30 player, and plays horrible in every loss, and looks to be barely trying at times in every loss.

After getting pummeled by a 3rd tier claycourter in Kafelnikov (who really should have never won the FO), Sampras simply GAVE UP on clay. How's that for "Champion Mentality"?

Sampras beat Bruguera and Courier earlier in that French Open, both much greater clay courters than Kafelnikov (by your 3rd tier comment I doubt something you will argue). He was simply out of gas by the time he played Kafelnikov. Fitness was never Sampras's strongest point, though it wasnt as bad as some suggest as his 5 set record shows. Still it was too much to go 5 with murderous clay courters like 2 time Champions Bruguera and Courier, plus another 5 setter vs Martin, and still have enough in the tank for that semifinal. If Sampras were fresh for that match there is a good chance he would have gone right through Kafelnikov like he did in the Davis Cup final 7 months earlier. Marc Rosset said after that French that Sampras would have won the title without playing Bruguera in the 2nd round that year.

Yes he did give up on clay soon after that, you are right. Like Federer probably would have if he didnt win last year.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Did anyone expect it to be a cakewalk? Federer will most likely play well in Madrid and Roland Garros, simply because he has to to keep his #1 ranking comfortable. I don't think Federer should be underestimated on grass either because he has been sucessful on that surface. Federer has got points to pick up in Halle, where no doubt he will win this one comfortably. Nadal is still vulnerable to big, inconsistent players like Gulbis on clay let alone anything else.

Even if Federer breaks the record, many people will still debate that Laver is GOAT, Nadal was injured etc.
 

TheLoneWolf

Banned
Currently Fed is 3860 pts ahead of Nadal. If Fed wins estoril, makes the semis at Madrid and semis at RG, he will gain 250, lose 640, and lose 1280 pts respectively. Total loss is 1670 pts.

If Nadal wins in Madrid and RG he gains 400+1820 = 2220 pts. So total combined pts change is 1670+2220 = 3890.

Looks like Fed is going to regret sucking so much ass at the masters events earlier this year. Or, he's going to need to do better than these very reasonable predictions.
The question is, does Roger give a crap about that record? He already has 16 slams, don't you think the # of nonconsecutive weeks at #1 is a little irrelevant because of that? Maybe it's one of those things the fans care more about than him.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
So if Sampras isnt the one who cares about the regular tour as much, why is he the one playing more smaller events? Anyway the only year Sampras needed to do that to get the year end #1 was 1998, but that shouldnt have been the case as slamless Rios deserved to be nowhere near #1 that year.



Yeah that is why in Federer's last 4 Masters he loses to Benneteau, Baghdatis, Berdych, and Gulbis, only one of those 4 even a top 30 player, and plays horrible in every loss, and looks to be barely trying at times in every loss.



Sampras beat Bruguera and Courier earlier in that French Open, both much greater clay courters than Kafelnikov (by your 3rd tier comment I doubt something you will argue). He was simply out of gas by the time he played Kafelnikov. Fitness was never Sampras's strongest point, though it wasnt as bad as some suggest as his 5 set record shows. Still it was too much to go 5 with murderous clay courters like 2 time Champions Bruguera and Courier, plus another 5 setter vs Martin, and still have enough in the tank for that semifinal. If Sampras were fresh for that match there is a good chance he would have gone right through Kafelnikov like he did in the Davis Cup final 7 months earlier. Marc Rosset said after that French that Sampras would have won the title without playing Bruguera in the 2nd round that year.

Yes he did give up on clay soon after that, you are right. Like Federer probably would have if he didnt win last year.



Neither Bruguera nor Courier were playing well at all those years, I don't even think Bruguera was top 20 level at the time, and Courier certainly was burnt out by then. Kafelnikov clearly was a better claycourt player than either of those two that year.




So you're saying Sampras allowing himself to lose to the likes of Santoro, and other no name journeyman is better than losing to top 30 players who are playing great tennis? Despite Federer losing recently and playing poorly and not caring, it still took a phenomenal effort by every guy to win their match against him.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Yup... now it's the *******s versus Sampras. Quite an insecure bunch I'd say.



No, I just think it's funny that people give Federer crap for tanking when Sampras was notoriously known for not giving full effort in anything but slams. He had notably embarrassing losses to many no name players.
 

davey25

Banned
Neither Bruguera nor Courier were playing well at all those years, I don't even think Bruguera was top 20 level at the time, and Courier certainly was burnt out by then. Kafelnikov clearly was a better claycourt player than either of those two that year.

Courier had been in the semis of the 1995 U.S Open, beating both Muster and Chang in straight sets before losing to Sampras in a really tough 4 setter. He had lost to Agassi in 5 sets in the 1996 Australian Open quarters. He was a top 8 seed for the 1996 French. I would say he was pretty darn good. If he gets by Sampras his chances of winning the event would have been great IMO. He was the bookies favorite to win by the time of the quarters IIRC, and he was McEnroe's pick to win it all by the quarters too.

Bruguera made the French Open final the very next year remember. He also made the Olympic final later that year on hard courts. I realize he was coming back but he was still wasnt done as a top player as his successes to come would prove. If he doesnt draw a determined Sampras in the 2nd round he probably goes very deep that year.

So you're saying Sampras allowing himself to lose to the likes of Santoro, and other no name journeyman is better than losing to top 30 players who are playing great tennis? Despite Federer losing recently and playing poorly and not caring, it still took a phenomenal effort by every guy to win their match against him.

I didnt think Berdych or Bagdhatis were playing phenomenal. Both guys had more unforced errors than winners, as did Federer. Baghdatis went on to lose to Robredo next round which didnt surprise me. Benneteau yes did play completely out of his mind to beat Federer. Gulbis looked to play quite well, but when you see him play Nadal in the semis his performance vs Federer doesnt even come close. Most of those guys werent top 30 players when they lost to Federer. I believe only Berdych was.

Santoro can be a tricky opponent for anyone. As a Safin fan you should know this better than anyone. You cant even really evaluate him level wise, he is a completely unique player who plays like nobody else. Some players cant handle his style well, and some can.
 
Last edited:
No, I just think it's funny that people give Federer crap for tanking when Sampras was notoriously known for not giving full effort in anything but slams. He had notably embarrassing losses to many no name players.

Hey, I'm totally with you on that. Continue. :)
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Courier had been in the semis of the 1995 U.S Open, beating both Muster and Chang in straight sets before losing to Sampras in a really tough 4 setter. He had lost to Agassi in 5 sets in the 1996 Australian Open quarters. He was a top 8 seed for the 1996 French. I would say he was pretty darn good. If he gets by Sampras his chances of winning the event would have been great IMO. He was the bookies favorite to win by the time of the quarters IIRC, and he was McEnroe's pick to win it all by the quarters too.

Bruguera made the French Open final the very next year remember. He also made the Olympic final later that year on hard courts. I realize he was coming back but he was still wasnt done as a top player as his successes to come would prove. If he doesnt draw a determined Sampras in the 2nd round he probably goes very deep that year.



I didnt think Berdych or Bagdhatis were playing phenomenal. Both guys had more unforced errors than winners, as did Federer. Baghdatis went on to lose to Robredo next round which didnt surprise me. Benneteau yes did play completely out of his mind to beat Federer. Gulbis looked to play quite well, but when you see him play Nadal in the semis his performance vs Federer doesnt even come close. Most of those guys werent top 30 players when they lost to Federer. I believe only Berdych was.

Santoro can be a tricky opponent for anyone. As a Safin fan you should know this better than anyone. You cant even really evaluate him level wise, he is a completely unique player who plays like nobody else. Some players cant handle his style well, and some can.




Bruguera lost to Sampras on clay. That should speak volumes about Bruguera's level of play.



Courier was still a tough opponent, but that doesn't mean he was at his peak level. You think Sampras wins even a set off prime Courier on clay?
 

davey25

Banned
Bruguera lost to Sampras on clay. That should speak volumes about Bruguera's level of play.

Courier was still a tough opponent, but that doesn't mean he was at his peak level. You think Sampras wins even a set off prime Courier on clay?

My point was that Sampras could beat the best clay courters on his best day. He was a very good clay courter in his prime, just not a great one. He did not have the consistency or durability needed on clay to go through a tough field of clay courters and win an event like the French Open unfortunately. Still that he has beaten all of Bruguera, Courier, Muster, and Agassi on clay (even if they werent all at their best) shows he is clay court able. Along with his Davis Cup title where he smacked down next years FO winner Kafelnikov, along with outlasting another clay court specialist Chesnokov while cramping. Along with his Rome title on clay as well.

Who knows how Sampras fares vs peak Courier. Courier is obviously a better clay courter but Sampras is a very bad matchup for Courier, must worse than he is for Agassi. Courier doesnt really have the passing skills, or even quite the return skills (he was actually a great returner, but you need Agassi like return of serve vs Sampras) to cope with Sampras's serve and attacking style. His overall head to head with Courier is lopsided to such a degree, even a match on clay would be interesting despite Courier's obvious superiority on the surface.
 
No, I just think it's funny that people give Federer crap for tanking when Sampras was notoriously known for not giving full effort in anything but slams. He had notably embarrassing losses to many no name players.
Was it just Mother Marjorie, or does anyone else think Pete Sampras tanked the French Open for better Wimbledon results?

Sampras never went deep into the second week of the French Open. And while his clay court acumen was far from stellar, Mother Marjorie thinks he could have tried a little bit harder in Paris. I mean, even clay court Queen Chrissie Evert was able to eek out 3 Wimbledon titles on a fast surface which favored the serve-and-volleyers of her time.

In the end, it hurt him historically (when compared to Roger Federer) in the GOAT discussion.
 
Last edited:

Speranza

Hall of Fame
Holmes: I'd have to disagree with MotherMarjorie, albeit reluctantly. I don't think ANY tennis professional would pass on the chance of winning A GS on all surfaces, be it in the calendar year or not.

Watson: What's a GS? Which surfaces? What-

Holmes: Watson, you really need to catch up with the lingo here, do you not? I know we only arrived in our time machine a few days ago, but you ought to get up to speed, and pronto (as they say in Italy).
 
Holmes: I'd have to disagree with MotherMarjorie, albeit reluctantly. I don't think ANY tennis professional would pass on the chance of winning A GS on all surfaces, be it in the calendar year or not.

Watson: What's a GS? Which surfaces? What-

Holmes: Watson, you really need to catch up with the lingo here, do you not? I know we only arrived in our time machine a few days ago, but you ought to get up to speed, and pronto (as they say in Italy).
Mother Marjorie completely understands your reluctance in agreeing with her theory, but she begs your attention for a short moment.

Let's Look at Pete's career French Open Results, followed by corresponding Wimbledon results to better understand why Mother Marjorie feels that Pete Sampras tanked the French Open in favor of Wimbledon:

1988 A
1989 2R
1990 A
1991 2R
1992 QF (Wimb SF)
1993 QF (Wimb Win)
1994 QF (Wimb win)
1995 1R (Wimb win)
1996 SF (Wimb QF)
1997 3R (Wimb Win)
1998 2R (Wimb Win)
1999 2R (Wimb Win)
2000 1R (Wimb Win)
2001 2R (Wimb 4R)
2002 1R (Wimb 2r)

Mother Marjorie thinks Pete Sampras blamed his early exit from the 1996 Wimbledon Championships on his late tournament, Semifinals appearance at the 1996 French Open, thus deciding to sacrifice his future French Open aspirations for the glory of winning Wimbledon. As you can tell by his winning Wimbledon results the next 4 years, he never made it passed the 3rd round of the French Open.

Mother Marjorie feels Pete Sampras just gave-up winning in Paris, and decided that an early exit in Paris meant additional rest/preparation for Wimbledon.

Given that Sampras grew-up knowing that 30+ years of frustrated Americans not being able to win in Paris, would eventually affect his results as a serve-and-volleyer, I don't personally feel that Pete Sampras ever felt he could wiin there. A psychological block of sorts. He probably watched the undoing of John McEnroe in the 1984 French Open against Ivan Lendl (McEnroe was up 2 sets to love watch Lendl reel-off three straight sets) and was permanently spooked! Yes, Pete probably watched chronic baseliners Michael Chang (praise the lord) and Jim Courier win in Paris, but never felt that he had enough baseline game to win there.

Its why Roger's win in Paris is very remarkable because of the number of times Roger had been in the finals and lost, to finally overcome and make history. Roger Federer doesn't have the weakness on any one surface, like Pete Sampras had...which is why I think Sampras was never destined to be a GOAT. Where Roger never gave-up and always kept trying, Pete failed, historically, rhetorically and otherwise.

Mother Marjorie has spoken. That's all.
 
Last edited:

Speranza

Hall of Fame
Mother Marjorie completely understands your reluctance in agreeing with her theory, but she begs your attention for a short moment.

Let's Look at Pete's career French Open Results, followed by corresponding Wimbledon results to better understand why Mother Marjorie feels that Pete Sampras tanked the French Open in favor of Wimbledon:

1988 A
1989 2R
1990 A
1991 2R
1992 QF (Wimb SF)
1993 QF (Wimb Win)
1994 QF (Wimb win)
1995 1R (Wimb win)
1996 SF (Wimb QF)
1997 3R (Wimb Win)
1998 2R (Wimb Win)
1999 2R (Wimb Win)
2000 1R (Wimb Win)
2001 2R (Wimb 4R)
2002 1R (Wimb 2r)

Mother Marjorie thinks Pete Sampras blamed his early exit from the 1996 Wimbledon Championships on his late tournament, Semifinals appearance at the 1996 French Open, thus deciding to sacrifice his future French Open aspirations for the glory of winning Wimbledon. As you can tell by his winning Wimbledon results the next 4 years, he never made it passed the 3rd round of the French Open.

Mother Marjorie feels Pete Sampras just gave-up winning in Paris, and decided that an early exit in Paris meant additional rest/preparation for Wimbledon.

Given that Sampras grew-up knowing that 30+ years of frustrated Americans not being able to win in Paris, would eventually affect his results as a serve-and-volleyer, I don't personally feel that Pete Sampras ever felt he could wiin there. A psychological block of sorts. Yes, Pete probably watched chronic baseliners Michael Chang (praise the lord) and Jim Courier win in Paris, but never felt that he had the game to win there.

Its why Roger's win in Paris is very remarkable because of the number of times Roger had been in the finals and lost, to finally overcome and make history. Roger Federer doesn't have the weakness on any one surface, like Pete Sampras had...which is why I think Sampras was never destined to be a GOAT and why I think Federer IS a GOAT.

Mother Marjorie has spoken. That's all.

Holmes: Hello there Mother Marjorie. Am back now, pipe refilled. Now then, I would have to say that your theory is without doubt an interesting one! However, there's still something that doesn't sit right (so to speak). Let me explain:

If Mr Sampras did indeed blame his poor 96 Wimbledon performance on his late run in Paris, would he have not done so also for 93 and 94? There was only one less match played in each of those years. Surely, for someone of his calibre, that wouldn't be enough to make the difference between a full run at Wimbledon?

Also, Mr Sampras' game was (as we all know) a serve and volley one. Hence, the physical energy requirements needed, at least on his half of service games, could arguably be considerably less than a baseline specialist. Also, come Wimbledon, in his era there were other serve and volley specialists. Hence, even less energy requirements. This isn't to mention any other tournaments prior to Wimbledon. I can't remember which he played as a warm up to Wimbledon.

Granted, physical stamina and fatigue are only part preparation for larger tournaments, but I feel Mr Sampras would have carried on nonetheless at attempting to get that clay GS. I do, however, feel that the history of US players may well have played a little dance in his head, on this I would agree with you.

As for the GOAT arguments? Well, I think they both deserve to be there! Although, again, I think Mr Federer's accomplishments are superior to those of Mr Sampras.

Regards, Sherlock Holmes.
 
Top