Leelord337
Hall of Fame
He had the most titles; lets call him the player who tried the hardest of all time
GOAT article (Laver = 1, Federer = 4, Sampras = 10th)
- Thread starter sureshs
- Start date
Wuornos
Professional
Regarding the career list of finalist appearances in Slam tournaments the list looks like this for the open era.
1. Ivan Lendl 8 wins and 11 losses = 19 appearences
2. Pete Sampras 14 wins and 4 losses = 18 appearences
3. Björn Borg 11wins and 5 losses = 16 appearences
4= Andre Agassi 8 wins and 7 losses = 15 appearences
4= Jimmy Connors 8 wins and 7 losses = 15 appearences
6. Roger Federer 12 wins and 2 losses = 14 appearences
7= Mats Wilander 7 wins and 4 losses = 11 appearences
7= John McEnroe 7 wins and 4 losses = 11 appearences
7= Stefan Edberg 6 wins and 5 losses = 11 appearances
10. Boris Becker 6 wins and 4 losses = 10 appearances.
Regards
Tim
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
You mean Connors to be considered GAAT? yep... for sure with strong competition from Jmac and Serena...
noeledmonds
Professional
Connors did not win the most tournaments, Laver won 181 tournaments and Rosewall won 121 tournaments. Others may have also won more than Connors.
Connors won the USO on the green clay with the home crowd support. This is very different from the slower red clay of the FO and the Europeans crowd.
Connors is joint 6th on the list of grand slam finals with 15 slam finals behind Rosewall, Borg, Laver, Sampras and Lendl.
All in all not a particularly impressive CV for a GOAT candidate.
Raistlin
Rookie
Many did not think Sampras' feat could ever become close to being surpassed and next year we might just see history being rewritten. Every era has its dominant player.....as for Conners being the GOAT, he was definately one of my favorites, a superb player in his own rights. A grinder. But no I don't think he should be considered the GOAT
NadalandFedererfan
Banned
Although I am a big Federer fan definitely Laver at this point. What he accomplished winning 2 calander slams was incredible and his competition was far harder overall then either Federer or Sampras.
Wuornos
Professional
I think the problem with deciding on a goat is we haven't even decided what we mean by goat or to be more specific what we mean by 'greatest'.
I we define it as total career achievement, then we could at least start some analysis. Or how about most dominant against top 50 players etc for a period of three years.
Personally I look at domination, who was around at the same time and their levels of domination and an objective evalutaion of the status of events won. Total career achievement means diddly squat to me if a player sits and waits 10 years for a lean period of player quality to come along to clock their big successes. Neither do I think much of the idea of only looking as far as majors won and ignoring everything else. That's just silly and blinkered.
I agree with Cyborg who wouldn't put Sampras in the top 3. Personally on my criteria for greatness only two players have exceeded 2800 DOT and they are Roger Federer and Rod Laver. Even if we extend this down to the next two we would include Ivan Lendl and Björn Borg. but not Sampras. But before you disagree with me think about whether you are defining greatness and therefore goat in the same way, as this at the moment is the main stumbling block to this argument being more constructive and not that statistics can't help. It's just that statistics can't prove anyting as no one has actually defined what they want investigated.
Regards
Tim
PS My vote goes for Federer
I we define it as total career achievement, then we could at least start some analysis. Or how about most dominant against top 50 players etc for a period of three years.
Personally I look at domination, who was around at the same time and their levels of domination and an objective evalutaion of the status of events won. Total career achievement means diddly squat to me if a player sits and waits 10 years for a lean period of player quality to come along to clock their big successes. Neither do I think much of the idea of only looking as far as majors won and ignoring everything else. That's just silly and blinkered.
I agree with Cyborg who wouldn't put Sampras in the top 3. Personally on my criteria for greatness only two players have exceeded 2800 DOT and they are Roger Federer and Rod Laver. Even if we extend this down to the next two we would include Ivan Lendl and Björn Borg. but not Sampras. But before you disagree with me think about whether you are defining greatness and therefore goat in the same way, as this at the moment is the main stumbling block to this argument being more constructive and not that statistics can't help. It's just that statistics can't prove anyting as no one has actually defined what they want investigated.
Regards
Tim
PS My vote goes for Federer
So in effect, if there were more greats in todays game then Federer greatness would be elivated even higher. The only way you become great is by winning grand slams, which means beating Federer & Nadal, which means Federer & Nadal need to lose more.
Ok..right, figured out what GOAT means at last.
Um, well I mean Federer hasn't retired yet so you really can't make that kind of judgement. Like, if, by the time he retires, he has 14+ Grand Slams, has achieved a Career Grand Slam or managed to get all four in a single year, and you know, throw in a Olympic gold medal and another Masters Cup title here and there, as well as a few more year ending world no. 1s, he could be given the title as the Greatest Player of All Time, because he's just about exceeded everyone else and broken or at least equalled the major records. But, until then, you can't really judge.
Um, well I mean Federer hasn't retired yet so you really can't make that kind of judgement. Like, if, by the time he retires, he has 14+ Grand Slams, has achieved a Career Grand Slam or managed to get all four in a single year, and you know, throw in a Olympic gold medal and another Masters Cup title here and there, as well as a few more year ending world no. 1s, he could be given the title as the Greatest Player of All Time, because he's just about exceeded everyone else and broken or at least equalled the major records. But, until then, you can't really judge.
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
I voted for "other", because I consider myself to be the greatest of all time. Well in my mind at least.. :-?
AM28143
Semi-Pro
Never saw Laver play so its down to Sampras vs Federer.
Sampras played in a more competitive era, but was less dominant. He never could snatch majors as easily as Fed does now. However, it is quite amazing he won 14 with Agassi, Rafter, Goran and others so hungry for throphies. Yes, Federer does have some strong oppnents( in particular, Rafeal). But, in my opinion, fewer are "ready" to win a major. As impressive as Djokovic has been, he is not "ready" to win a major, as evident from his mental mistakes during the US Open Final. The same goes with Nalbandian, Baggy, Davydenko and even Roddick(in his case a second major) . At times they show flashes of brillance, but never prove to me they have the mental or in some cases physical attributes to carry them through an entire major.
So, I think the best way to compare the two is to break them down, surface by surface.
Hard Courts- Federer by a slight edge. His superior variety helps him fight off every type of opponent on hard courts. Even on slower hard courts, such as AO, Federer is as dominant. That could not be said about Pete.
Clay Courts- Sampras was a better clay court tennis player than some think. He made it the SF in Paris and won a Masters event in Rome. Still, Federer has made the French Open Final twice now, and lose to the best. So, by a considerable margin---Federer.
Grass- Sampras, in my opinion, holds the advantage. As stated before, his competition was better, and his competition was particularly better on grass. More S&Vers along with great baselines like Andre Agassi. Federer has been magnificant on grass, but Pete's accomplishments were more impressive because of the era he played in.
Overall- Federer, by a very, very slight margin.
Sampras played in a more competitive era, but was less dominant. He never could snatch majors as easily as Fed does now. However, it is quite amazing he won 14 with Agassi, Rafter, Goran and others so hungry for throphies. Yes, Federer does have some strong oppnents( in particular, Rafeal). But, in my opinion, fewer are "ready" to win a major. As impressive as Djokovic has been, he is not "ready" to win a major, as evident from his mental mistakes during the US Open Final. The same goes with Nalbandian, Baggy, Davydenko and even Roddick(in his case a second major) . At times they show flashes of brillance, but never prove to me they have the mental or in some cases physical attributes to carry them through an entire major.
So, I think the best way to compare the two is to break them down, surface by surface.
Hard Courts- Federer by a slight edge. His superior variety helps him fight off every type of opponent on hard courts. Even on slower hard courts, such as AO, Federer is as dominant. That could not be said about Pete.
Clay Courts- Sampras was a better clay court tennis player than some think. He made it the SF in Paris and won a Masters event in Rome. Still, Federer has made the French Open Final twice now, and lose to the best. So, by a considerable margin---Federer.
Grass- Sampras, in my opinion, holds the advantage. As stated before, his competition was better, and his competition was particularly better on grass. More S&Vers along with great baselines like Andre Agassi. Federer has been magnificant on grass, but Pete's accomplishments were more impressive because of the era he played in.
Overall- Federer, by a very, very slight margin.
Last edited:
Tennis-Chris
Rookie
Laver...
I am a huge fan of Roger Federer but he cannot be called the greatest of all time. As much as I doubt it he could crap out next year and never be heard from again. Realistically RF will end up with more GS titles than any other man and possibly any other player in the history of tennis (yes including Ms. Court).
But the question is not who will be but rather who is.
Mr. Laver twice won the Grand Slam. He played an incredible game regardless of the surface in an era of great competition.:mrgreen:
I am a huge fan of Roger Federer but he cannot be called the greatest of all time. As much as I doubt it he could crap out next year and never be heard from again. Realistically RF will end up with more GS titles than any other man and possibly any other player in the history of tennis (yes including Ms. Court).
But the question is not who will be but rather who is.
Mr. Laver twice won the Grand Slam. He played an incredible game regardless of the surface in an era of great competition.:mrgreen:
FedSampras
Semi-Pro
AA is a contender for GOAT because he won all 4 slams including FO...?
Agassi is a contender for GOAT because he won all 4 slams including FO...?:wink:
Agassi is a contender for GOAT because he won all 4 slams including FO...?:wink:
Aeropro master
Professional
he isn't the top but i would consider him top 5
CanadianChic
Hall of Fame
Another GOAT thread? Thank goodness, we've been through a whole 24 hours without a new one, I was becoming concerned. Sheesh!
helloworld
Hall of Fame
err....... nope, not even close.
lambielspins
Banned
Top 15 maybe.
iradical18
Professional
Definitely not the goat, he's my favorite player of all time so I certainly wish I could call him that but he's not. Solid top 10 contender though. All 4 slams, Davis Cup, and a Gold Medal, pretty good resume.
FedForGOAT
Professional
Federer would have already won the French had it not been for Nadal. I'm sure therer are other players who would have had career slams if they were a bit luckier.
krprunitennis2
Professional
Even though Agassi is probably one of my favorite players(if not, my favorite), I still think Federer has achieved more than him. Even though Federer hasn't gotten teh French yet(=P it can happen), he still has more victories in Wimbledon and USO.
=S But Sampras was there at that time... so he may have held back Agassi.
T_T
But I vote him inside top 5.
=S But Sampras was there at that time... so he may have held back Agassi.
T_T
But I vote him inside top 5.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
Without a doubt top 5 GOAT!
scineram
Professional
Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer > André
iradical18
Professional
Great List.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
Agassi isnt a GOAT candidate because
1) Anybody can win 4 grandslams on 4 different surfaces. whats the big deal
2) Even Gauston Gaudio won the french open. so who cares. All you have to do is loop topspin forehands with western grip into opponents backhand and FO is yours to take.
Anything else i missed out?.
I think the only way one can be a real GOAT is to play and win the TWforum Cup
1) Anybody can win 4 grandslams on 4 different surfaces. whats the big deal
2) Even Gauston Gaudio won the french open. so who cares
. All you have to do is loop topspin forehands with western grip into opponents backhand and FO is yours to take.Anything else i missed out?.
I think the only way one can be a real GOAT is to play and win the TWforum Cup
Nickognito
Rookie
No.
There's not a single reason to say that Agassi's career is better than Laver's. So, no Goat.
c.
There's not a single reason to say that Agassi's career is better than Laver's. So, no Goat.
c.
lambielspins
Banned
IMO Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Budge, McEnroe, Kramer, Perry > Agassi
That is why I said top 15 perhaps, if he is there it is just barely.
superman1
Legend
GOAT is meaningless anyway, since the playing fields have changed so much. It was a lot easier for William Renshaw to win those Wimbledon titles than it was for Roger Federer, just as it was easier for Hewitt to win his 2002 Wimbledon title than Bjorn Borg winning his 1980 title. There are a lot of players that could have won more, but couldn't for various reasons. It's all very uneven.
Best of time is all that matters - after all, we're talking about who can play the sport of tennis the best. The only way to determine it would be to hold round robin tournaments on all surfaces with everyone in history in their primes, and somehow equalize the playing field by making the equipment all the same and having everyone used to playing with that equipment. And it would still be unequal because a guy like Roger Federer has had so many players to watch on TV and learn from and model his game after, as well as the highest quality of training, whereas a guy like Bill Tilden didn't.
So...we'll never know. We can only say based on what we have seen. From what I have seen, Agassi is somewhere in the top 10. I'm pretty certain that if you took 1995 Agassi throughout history, he'd whoop a lot of @$$, but that's just speculation. It's a nice thought, though. I wish they'd make a video game where you could try this out.
Best of time is all that matters - after all, we're talking about who can play the sport of tennis the best. The only way to determine it would be to hold round robin tournaments on all surfaces with everyone in history in their primes, and somehow equalize the playing field by making the equipment all the same and having everyone used to playing with that equipment. And it would still be unequal because a guy like Roger Federer has had so many players to watch on TV and learn from and model his game after, as well as the highest quality of training, whereas a guy like Bill Tilden didn't.
So...we'll never know. We can only say based on what we have seen. From what I have seen, Agassi is somewhere in the top 10. I'm pretty certain that if you took 1995 Agassi throughout history, he'd whoop a lot of @$$, but that's just speculation. It's a nice thought, though. I wish they'd make a video game where you could try this out.
I think Agassi is one of the most underrated players on this board. He played during a tough era (ie. Sampras) and still managed to win 8 GS titles. I do think winning the career GS is a pretty great accomplishment, and Federer does too since he so badly wants to win the French. I won't say that Agassi is the best, but I'd say definitely top 10, maybe top 5. I'd like to see Nadal or anyone else come close to winning 8 slams while Federer is still around.
RacquetGoesBoom
New User
You guys should also consider the environment that Agassi played in as well. I's sure he would be at least top 5 contender for GOAT simply because he was able to complete a career grand slam in a era where Sampras and the likes were still playing. Not to mention if Sampras had not been there every step of the way during Agassi's career, Agassi may have won more slams.
CyBorg
Legend
Or he could have won fewer majors if he was playing in the Lendl-McEnroe era.
He could have won more. Or he could have won less. But he sure as heck was not once the best player of his generation.
superman1
Legend
Unfortunately, that's true. He COULD have been the best of his generation, even with a losing record to Sampras, as he proved with his utter dominance on hard courts and deep runs on clay and grass in 1995, but he blew that opportunity. Well, at least he had Brooke Shields for a while.
Azzurri
Legend
Agassi is a contender for GOAT because he won all 4 slams including FO...?:wink:
He lost to Pete 20 times (won 14) and he has 6 less slams and he has (1-4 vs Pete in finals) and has 5 less tourney wins and played at least 5 more years...YEA, he deserves to be GOAT. :shock:
ayoPATRICIO
Rookie
Agassi isnt a GOAT candidate because
1) Anybody can win 4 grandslams on 4 different surfaces. whats the big deal
2) Even Gauston Gaudio won the french open. so who cares
Anything else i missed out?.
I think the only way one can be a real GOAT is to play and win the TWforum Cup
i think you should just not write anymore.
