If Fed wins AO, and ties Sampras?

[hoodjem]

If Fed wins the AO, and ties Sampras, then I will place Fed higher on my all-time GOAT list.

IMO, Fed is a much better clay-court player. He has made it to several FO finals. Once Fed and Sampras are tied in overall GS majors, that will indicate that Fed is the better player.

Move him on up. Do you agree?

 

[Mungo73]

hmmm how many slam finals did Sampras lose? i know Fed lost 4.
if Sampras lost more finals he would be ahead of Fed but hey don't be so pessimistic, Fed hasn't won yet!!!

 

[FiveO]

He's already on my GOAT line. There is no one GOAT IMO. All a player can do is dominate his own era, his own competition in the environment and prevailing conditions of his/her day.

They can't play each other in their respective primes and no one can say with any certainty who was or would be "better" than who, and every career has been and will be different in its length, scope and individual achievements.

Too many differences as it stands and just because the next guy comes along, as there will inevitably be another, it doesn't diminish the legacy of the earlier GOATs.

So no, IMO, Fed doesn't rise to THE GOAT. He already is one of them.

5

 

[Woods09]

i jus hope he breaks the record at Wimbledon or the US Open so sampras will give him the trophy

 

[tennis_hand]

it doesn't matter where. 14 the number doesn't lie. what's more, Fed can win one or 2 more to beat that record this year.

 

[dwhiteside]

I'm not sure it's logical to judge "GOAT" solely by the number of the slams they won. By one metric, I might personally consider the greatest player of all time, based on talent alone (as opposed to professional longevity or sustained winnership of numerous tournaments, i.e. Grand Slam victories) a player who's only won 3 slams total in the entire career vs. someone who's won 13. We could get into a semantic discussion about what constitutes "greatest".

 

[R_Federer]

Slams is the BIGGEST indicator of GREATNESS. No doubt. Fed getting 14 and 15 eventually will officially stamp his name ahead of Sampras. The only person that might be ahead of Federer is Laver. So its either Federer as best all time or 2nd. If he gets 1 French then he'll be better than Laver too in my opinion.

 

[GameSampras]

Just going by slams shouldnt count.. For one simple reason.. Laver didnt get to play the slams in his prime or else he would be sitting on close to 20 if not MORE.

 

[World Beater]

Just going by slams shouldnt count.. For one simple reason.. Laver didnt get to play the slams in his prime or else he would be sitting on close to 20 if not MORE.

you are not answering the question.

it is in reference to sampras..not laver

:lol:

 

[zagor]

Why do people like to jump the gun so much in this forum? When/If Fed wins 14 slams(maybe even here at AO)then bring up this question,all of this is premature.

 

[World Beater]

Why do people like to jump the gun so much in this forum? When/If Fed wins 14 slams(maybe even here at AO)then bring up this question,all of this is premature.

i agree.

he still has two big hurdles in front of him

inspired roddick and hungry nadal/ nemesis simon/ dangerous tsonga&verdasco

 

[BallzofSkill]

then he wins the ao and ties with sampras...

 

[veroniquem]

You become a GOAT by breaking records, not tying them.

 

[fed]

Why do people like to jump the gun so much in this forum? When/If Fed wins 14 slams(maybe even here at AO)then bring up this question,all of this is premature.

Exactly! Roger is my favorite but we need to cool it and let him get past Roddick first.

 

[R_Federer]

You become a GOAT by breaking records, not tying them.

He's 27..."it's a matter of when not if".

 

[Rhino]

he's already the goat to me. Thats just from watching him and the other contenders actually playing.

 

[380pistol]

It's tough' It's not what you do, but also how you do it. Tennis being a one on one sport your advessaries have a lot to do with it. But #'s alone put Larry Holmes ahead of Muhammed Ali. At their respective peaks Ray Mercer would be ahead of Ali.

Like the OP said Federer's French Open finals, give him the nod if they are tied at 14. OK but consider this, their 4 best runs in Paris....
-Sampras (3 QF, 1 SF), Federer (1 SF, 3 F)

...on the surface Roger's looks better. But look at who the played when the y reached the QF, Sampras (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez), while Federer (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez).

Now if we were to interchange hem it's plausible that Roger may not see a French Open F, while I'm sure Sampras would rather go up against Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez rather than Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez. Now I would give Roger the nod over Pete on clay, but if interchanged, Pete could have a couple of French Open finals, while Roger would have his hands full. Based on that would Pete get a nod based on the fact he made the French Open F???

Also why is clay made the decided factor. Personally I would take Pete on grass and carpet. Roger on clay, and if you call hardcourts even, you can do the math there. So it's not that easy.

But I do love the fact that even at 14 people would find any reson they could not to give Sampras the thrown, but now the Fed is approaching, it has now become the stamp of approval for the GOAT title.

 

[Eviscerator]

If Fed wins the AO, and ties Sampras, then I will place Fed higher on my all-time GOAT list.

IMO, Fed is a much better clay-court player. He has made it to several FO finals. Once Fed and Sampras are tied in overall GS majors, that will indicate that Fed is the better player.

Move him on up. Do you agree?

You mean up to 2nd, behind Laver?

 

[TheMusicLover]

^^ Mr. Pete NEVER ever got to a RG final. Fed did so three times in a row, the 'weak opponents'-argument be damned. Says enough.

 

[380pistol]

^^ Mr. Pete NEVER ever got to a RG final. Fed did so three times in a row, the 'weak opponents'-argument be damned. Says enough.

If you're talking to me care to equate Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez with Agassi, Brugera and Courier??? I really would love to hear this.

 

[Rhino]

^^ Mr. Pete NEVER ever got to a RG final. Fed did so three times in a row, the 'weak opponents'-argument be damned. Says enough.

Yeah Pete's awesome best streak of 3 consecutive grand slam semi-finals says something about how he compares to Roger in slams... whose (still active) streak just hit 19 consecutive grand slam semi-finals!

 

[abmk]

Like the OP said Federer's French Open finals, give him the nod if they are tied at 14. OK but consider this, their 4 best runs in Paris....
-Sampras (3 QF, 1 SF), Federer (1 SF, 3 F)

...on the surface Roger's looks better. But look at who the played when the y reached the QF, Sampras (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez), while Federer (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez).

Now if we were to interchange hem it's plausible that Roger may not see a French Open F, while I'm sure Sampras would rather go up against Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez rather than Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez. Now I would give Roger the nod over Pete on clay, but if interchanged, Pete could have a couple of French Open finals, while Roger would have his hands full. Based on that would Pete get a nod based on the fact he made the French Open F???

lol @ bold part, If Medvedev,Stitch,Norman etc could make it to a FO final in the 90s , I don't see any reason why its 'plausible' that federer couldn't have . In fact I think he would have had a decent chance of winning a couple of RGs in the 90s .

Also why is clay made the decided factor.

The difference in their clay-court abilities and results is VAST, that's why ! Unlike the difference b/w them on the other surfaces.

 

[VGP]

He's already on my GOAT line. There is no one GOAT IMO. All a player can do is dominate his own era, his own competition in the environment and prevailing conditions of his/her day.

They can't play each other in their respective primes and no one can say with any certainty who was or would be "better" than who, and every career has been and will be different in its length, scope and individual achievements.

Too many differences as it stands and just because the next guy comes along, as there will inevitably be another, it doesn't diminish the legacy of the earlier GOATs.

So no, IMO, Fed doesn't rise to THE GOAT. He already is one of them.

5

.......QFT!

 

[autumn_leaf]

Fed's already GOAT atm for me. Clay does matter since neither Sampras nor Federer has won it, but i think Fed is superior vs Samp. in this field.

The game is getting really interesting now with all these up and comers. I give props to Nadal for tweaking his game so much. and if he can win some hardcourts with his new swings he will be talked of being GOAT in a few years too. pretty sure he's the GOAT of clay already.

 

[aphex]

if federer were to play anyone not named nadal in the rg final, he'd have 3-4 calendar slams at the moment

 

[drakulie]

...on the surface Roger's looks better. But look at who the played when the y reached the QF, Sampras (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez), while Federer (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez).

Now if we were to interchange hem it's plausible that Roger may not see a French Open F, while I'm sure Sampras would rather go up against Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez rather than Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez. Now I would give Roger the nod over Pete on clay, but if interchanged, Pete could have a couple of French Open finals, while Roger would have his hands full.

hahahahahhaha. LMAO!

 

[TheTruth]

hmmm how many slam finals did Sampras lose? i know Fed lost 4.
if Sampras lost more finals he would be ahead of Fed but hey don't be so pessimistic, Fed hasn't won yet!!!

I think Sampras lost four in his whole career. Before he ran into Safin and Hewitt in the twilight of his career he was 13-2 in finals. He ended his career 14-4.

 

[TheTruth]

He's already on my GOAT line. There is no one GOAT IMO. All a player can do is dominate his own era, his own competition in the environment and prevailing conditions of his/her day.

They can't play each other in their respective primes and no one can say with any certainty who was or would be "better" than who, and every career has been and will be different in its length, scope and individual achievements.

Too many differences as it stands and just because the next guy comes along, as there will inevitably be another, it doesn't diminish the legacy of the earlier GOATs.

So no, IMO, Fed doesn't rise to THE GOAT. He already is one of them.

5

Agree..........

 

[World Beater]

You become a GOAT by breaking records, not tying them.

actually no.

you become goat by setting records, not just breaking them.

there is a difference.

 

[egn]

If you're talking to me care to equate Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez with Agassi, Brugera and Courier??? I really would love to hear this.

I love how you leave out big names like oh lets say Coria, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Moya, Ferrero, Davydenko and Guadio. You took 3 subpar and compared it with the 3 best? Second Courier was done with French Open winning in 92, he went deep in 93 and 94 but Sampras I believe beat him in 96? (could be wrong check on that) However the clay depth allowed guys like Kalfenikov to win a French Open. Kalfenikov was not an outstanding clay court player, hence the reason he was constantly beaten by guys like Guga and other ones with clay court talent. Agassi played awful at the French Open in Sampras's prime from 93-98 nothing higher than a QF? So really from 93-98 Agassi not so bad, and from 95 onward Courier Sampras had no problem with either. Brugera yes, Muster only in 95 the rest of the time he was a flake, Kalfenikov as I said Sampras should have beat in 96, Guga in 97 was nothing like Guga in 00 and 01. I mean really the depth was not huge, the only reason there appears to have been huge clay court depth is they lacked a dominating clay court force, which Federer has Nadal. Sampras would do no better on clay now than back in the 90s. He would do the same as he did in the 90s. Though I do maybe see him getting to one final tops, but I could see Fed from 95-98 winning a French Open. Especially in 1996. Place Fed from 04-08 in between the years 93-97 he gets one french open title. Sampras would never be able to handle Nadal.

 

[GameSampras]

I love how you leave out big names like oh lets say Coria, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Moya, Ferrero, Davydenko and Guadio. You took 3 subpar and compared it with the 3 best? Second Courier was done with French Open winning in 92, he went deep in 93 and 94 but Sampras I believe beat him in 96? (could be wrong check on that) However the clay depth allowed guys like Kalfenikov to win a French Open. Kalfenikov was not an outstanding clay court player, hence the reason he was constantly beaten by guys like Guga and other ones with clay court talent. Agassi played awful at the French Open in Sampras's prime from 93-98 nothing higher than a QF? So really from 93-98 Agassi not so bad, and from 95 onward Courier Sampras had no problem with either. Brugera yes, Muster only in 95 the rest of the time he was a flake, Kalfenikov as I said Sampras should have beat in 96, Guga in 97 was nothing like Guga in 00 and 01. I mean really the depth was not huge, the only reason there appears to have been huge clay court depth is they lacked a dominating clay court force, which Federer has Nadal. Sampras would do no better on clay now than back in the 90s. He would do the same as he did in the 90s. Though I do maybe see him getting to one final tops, but I could see Fed from 95-98 winning a French Open. Especially in 1996. Place Fed from 04-08 in between the years 93-97 he gets one french open title. Sampras would never be able to handle Nadal.

Yes.. Sampras defeated Courier and Bruguera in 96

 

[Cup8489]

lol, federer is 13-4 in slam finals, pete is 14-4. if you look on fed's wiki page, the only person other than nadal to face him in multiple finals is roddick, with 3 (two wimbledon finals, 1 USO final)

Nadal is the only man to beat him in the finals, so i guess you can say that even though his record at slams isnt great, it's completely a result of Nadal. nobody else can step up to the plate against federer.

 

[JankovicFan]

If Fed wins AO, and ties Sampras?

Tie or eventually surpass, Samprastards will try even harder to discredit Federer's competition and general circumstances. They'll be in there sticking pins in people's balloons, everytime someone is singing Federer's praises. So, even if the stats are the same or indeed in Federer's favor, somehow Sampras will always be represented as superior.

 

[Steve132]

It's tough' It's not what you do, but also how you do it. Tennis being a one on one sport your advessaries have a lot to do with it. But #'s alone put Larry Holmes ahead of Muhammed Ali. At their respective peaks Ray Mercer would be ahead of Ali.

Like the OP said Federer's French Open finals, give him the nod if they are tied at 14. OK but consider this, their 4 best runs in Paris....
-Sampras (3 QF, 1 SF), Federer (1 SF, 3 F)

...on the surface Roger's looks better. But look at who the played when the y reached the QF, Sampras (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez), while Federer (Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez).

Now if we were to interchange hem it's plausible that Roger may not see a French Open F, while I'm sure Sampras would rather go up against Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez rather than Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez. Now I would give Roger the nod over Pete on clay, but if interchanged, Pete could have a couple of French Open finals, while Roger would have his hands full. Based on that would Pete get a nod based on the fact he made the French Open F???

Also why is clay made the decided factor. Personally I would take Pete on grass and carpet. Roger on clay, and if you call hardcourts even, you can do the math there. So it's not that easy.

But I do love the fact that even at 14 people would find any reson they could not to give Sampras the thrown, but now the Fed is approaching, it has now become the stamp of approval for the GOAT title.

If you want to make a serious comparison between Sampras' and Federer's performances at Roland Garros you need to consider the players who ACTUALLY beat them when they were in their prime. It's not enough to recite a List of Great Names who played in that era.

Sampras:

1994 - Courier (QF)
1995 - Schaller (1st round)
1996 - Kafelnikov (SF)
1997 - Norman (3rd round)
1998 - Delgado (2nd round)

Federer:

2004 - Kuerten (3rd round)
2005 - Nadal (SF)
2006 - Nadal (F)
2007 - Nadal (F)
2008 - Nadal (F)

By any plausible criterion the players who beat Federer were far superior on clay to those who beat Sampras. To date Kuerten and Nadal have won 7 French Opens between them, although Nadal is probably less than halfway through his career. This compares with three for Courier and Kafelnikov combined.

I know Sampras fans love to go on and on about how Kuerten was hobbled by injuries in 2004. Maybe he was, but I can guarantee that any ATP player would prefer to meet the Kuerten of 2004 rather than Schaller or Delgado. Federer simply does not lose to players of that quality in Slams, which is the main reason that he has reached the semi-finals of the last 19 majors. Sampras never reached more than three major semi-finals in a row, primarily because he made the semis of the French Open only once in thirteen trips to Roland Garros.

 

[vbranis]

If you want to make a serious comparison between Sampras' and Federer's performances at Roland Garros you need to consider the players who ACTUALLY beat them when they were in their prime. It's not enough to recite a List of Great Names who played in that era.

Sampras:

1994 - Courier (QF) ATP Rank: 7
1995 - Schaller (1st round) ATP Rank: 24
1996 - Kafelnikov (SF) ATP Rank: 7
1997 - Norman (3rd round) ATP Rank: 65
1998 - Delgado (2nd round) ATP Rank: 98

Federer:

2004 - Kuerten (3rd round) ATP Rank: 30
2005 - Nadal (SF) ATP Rank: 5
2006 - Nadal (F) ATP Rank: 2
2007 - Nadal (F) ATP Rank: 2
2008 - Nadal (F) ATP Rank: 2

By any plausible criterion the players who beat Federer were far superior on clay to those who beat Sampras. To date Kuerten and Nadal have won 7 French Opens between them, although Nadal is probably less than halfway through his career. This compares with three for Courier and Kafelnikov combined.

I know Sampras fans love to go on and on about how Kuerten was hobbled by injuries in 2004. Maybe he was, but I can guarantee that any ATP player would prefer to meet the Kuerten of 2004 rather than Schaller or Delgado. Federer simply does not lose to players of that quality in Slams, which is the main reason that he has reached the semi-finals of the last 19 majors. Sampras never reached more than three major semi-finals in a row, primarily because he made the semis of the French Open only once in thirteen trips to Roland Garros.

+1, terrific post! I added in your post the ATP ranking in bold. I'll add that Sampras lost:

1999 - Medvedev (2R) ATP Rank: 100
2000 - Philippoussis (1R) ATP Rank: 25
2001 - Blanco (2R) ATP Rank: 75
2002 - Gaudenzi (1R) ATP Rank: 54

Federer never lost to players of this caliber in Slams, and not in such early rounds.

 

[GameSampras]

But why must clay court be the determining factor? I will agree Fed's clay court Resume looks more impressive for sure btw.

 

[CyBorg]

I already have Fed higher.

Scissors beats rock.

Rock beats paper.

Cockroach beats nuclear bomb.

Peak beats longevity.

These are the rules to live by.

 

[GameSampras]

Why does Peak beat Longevity? Surely a a great players peak means dominance.. AS IT SHOULD.. How about when the cards are stacked against a player and he is a forgotten afterthought of ever winning a slam again .. And comes back on the scene and recaptures that spot.. Ala Andre Agassi.. Now thats impressive and there are only a handful that can attest to that

 

[CyBorg]

Why does Peak beat Longevity? Surely a a great players peak means dominance.. AS IT SHOULD.. How about when the cards are stacked against a player and he is a forgotten afterthought of ever winning a slam again .. And comes back on the scene and recaptures that spot.. Ala Andre Agassi.. Now thats impressive.

Interesting. And this gets us back to the whole Federer thing. He put together four great years in a row with a couple of good, but not great years before and after that. And already most folks want to crown him as the best of all time.

Clearly even they agree with me that peak trumps longevity.

After all, Andre has almost 20 years of longevity and he's never in the conversation.

 

[World Beater]

Interesting. And this gets us back to the whole Federer thing. He put together four great years in a row with a couple of good, but not great years before and after that. And already most folks want to crown him as the best of all time.

Clearly even they agree with me that peak trumps longevity.

After all, Andre has almost 20 years of longevity and he's never in the conversation.

andre had some not great, not good...but crap years in that span though. so i think that is generous.

so andre gets credit for having developed a game that stood the test of time and several generations of competition. but not 20 yrs of good tennis. he was AWOL for some of pete's prime, which was a pity.

 

[CyBorg]

andre had some not great, not good...but crap years in that span though. so i think that is generous.

so andre gets credit for having developed a game that stood the test of time and several generations of competition. but not 20 yrs of good tennis. he was AWOL for some of pete's prime, which was a pity.

I certainly wasn't saying that Andre put together 20 good years. Just 20 years of tennis. But he did put together a lot of good years.

 

[Josherer]

once he reaches 14 then you can move him up.. shouldn't be long

 

[egn]

Why does Peak beat Longevity? Surely a a great players peak means dominance.. AS IT SHOULD.. How about when the cards are stacked against a player and he is a forgotten afterthought of ever winning a slam again .. And comes back on the scene and recaptures that spot.. Ala Andre Agassi.. Now thats impressive and there are only a handful that can attest to that

Federer is showing longevity though, his past 6 years have been very impressive. His 2008 Season which finished him second was just as good as that year Sampras finished first in 98. 2003 Roger Federer also had a very good season. Federer is going to have longevity but I think his dominance is clearly far better than Sampras and even if he only goes for 2 more years his 4 years of dominace are GOAT status. I do think if he wins the AO he and Sampras are really close. Fed I would give edge on hard courts cause he would have 9 HC Slams than, Sampras gets the edge on grass and then Fed gets the edge on clay. Then you take the other factors though. I think the two are very close though.

 

[GameSampras]

Federer is showing longevity though, his past 6 years have been very impressive. His 2008 Season which finished him second was just as good as that year Sampras finished first in 98. 2003 Roger Federer also had a very good season. Federer is going to have longevity but I think his dominance is clearly far better than Sampras and even if he only goes for 2 more years his 4 years of dominace are GOAT status. I do think if he wins the AO he and Sampras are really close. Fed I would give edge on hard courts cause he would have 9 HC Slams than, Sampras gets the edge on grass and then Fed gets the edge on clay. Then you take the other factors though. I think the two are very close though.

I really don't know to be honest.. Its an argument that will never really end when you start comparing acrossed era's. Plus tennis has been a game that has changed so much over the decades. Of course dominance is only as important as the era you are in. Competition NEEDS to be taken into account somewhere along the line. Anyways.. Its fun to debate.

Its too bad we cant build a time machine.. The only thing we can say without a shadow of a doubt is each era has it's player.

 

[Chopin]

Just going by slams shouldnt count.. For one simple reason.. Laver didnt get to play the slams in his prime or else he would be sitting on close to 20 if not MORE.

That's a ridiculous argument--even more ridiculous than arguing about the GOAT. Slams don't count because Laver didn't play in them? What? You can't just assume that he'd have 20 or more! You can only argue about what's happened in reality.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Hopefully when Fed wins the AO. I hope that he does win it, but let's let him win the thing first, no?

 

[GameSampras]

That's a ridiculous argument--even more ridiculous than arguing about the GOAT. Slams don't count because Laver didn't play in them? What? You can't just assume that he'd have 20 or more! You can only argue about what's happened in reality.

I dont remember slam counts becoming that important until Sampras started to make a run at Emerson's record. Why is GS count the most important thing when considering the GOAT. And Even Sampras himself said Laver would have gotten AT LEAST 20

 

[CyBorg]

I dont remember slam counts becoming that important until Sampras started to make a run at Emerson's record. Why is GS count the most important thing when considering the GOAT. And Even Sampras himself said Laver would have gotten AT LEAST 20

This is thinking outside of the box, right here. The major count is a mere media-manufactured commodity distraction.

 

[egn]

I don't remember slam counts becoming that important until Sampras started to make a run at Emerson's record. Why is GS count the most important thing when considering the GOAT. And Even Sampras himself said Laver would have gotten AT LEAST 20

Realistically Laver from 63-67 say he wins 2 a year on average. That puts him at 21, but thats pushing it. Notice in 68 Laver only won one...He could have bum years, there was a lot of competition during that era. There is more than GS, we are contributing dominance to it? Overall titles? We can't really judge Fed and Sampras until their careers are over.

 

[CyBorg]

Notice in 68 Laver only won one...He could have bum years, there was a lot of competition during that era.

1 out of 3. Then 4 for 4 in 1969.

You're right about there being a lot of competition.