Is Federer now the GOAT?
- Thread starter bank5
- Start date
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Well now you do
I've hoped for years Federer would win the French Open and I said years ago Federer would need to wait for a window of opportunity and when the chance came Federer like a champion raised his game getting better and better as he went through Hass, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Can't beat an 'injured' opponent? what 'clowns' they are.
Voltchkov was 256 in the world. That's right, 256!! In a slam semi. This is the draw Sampras needed to break the slam record. Next year, he faced some quality opposition. Federer. Guess what? He lost.
Rafter was seeded 12? At the time, he was ranked 21 (or so says the ATP website). Which would mean Sampras didn't play a single top 20 player.
Rafter was seeded 12? At the time, he was ranked 21 (or so says the ATP website). Which would mean Sampras didn't play a single top 20 player.
malakas
Banned
YUP.That's what I admire about him the most.After loss and loss and loss he never gave up.He never stop believing he had a chance and kept trying.
btw BBC did a poll if Fed is GOAT and the results were:85% yes and only 15% no with 18832 votes.
imalil2gangsta4u
Hall of Fame
Oh please, you got owned.
All-rounder
Legend
Sampras was injured?? that just shows what weaklings they were if they can barely get a set off a injured sampras
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Yes Sampras was injured he had a shin injury and could not pratice between matches.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
It's an effective BS antidote. I have a few copies as you never know when they might come in handy.
henryshli
Semi-Pro
because it was easier to defend a slam then. Plus. The competition isn't as strong. So jusging by your post you are measuring the goat simply by achievment? Isn't a very good way.
Here's the deal. This victory is a reward, not for an easy draw, but for a habit. He has made it to the semis or better in all of the last 20 slams regardless of surface, how he felt or the competition. THAT is what makes a champion. It gets him slams other champions don't get, because he is where he needs to be when opportunity strikes. All champions have lucky draws. Some would have capitalized more, had they the discipline to get through those scares in the early rounds when they weren't at their best.
this slam isn't about Nadal's failure, its about Federer being one of the most consistent of modern champions, and being able to come through in that final.
this slam isn't about Nadal's failure, its about Federer being one of the most consistent of modern champions, and being able to come through in that final.
CyBorg
Legend
Agreed 100%.
DoubleDeuce
Hall of Fame
Today I remembered that Forehand at Break point in Haas match. Haas would've served for the match.
What a difference.
What a difference.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Anyone who thinks that any player only won any Grand Slam because they had "an easy draw" are.......wait for it.......MORONS!!!!
Go look at any record book. It only states the name of the champion of that particular Grand Slam tournament. There is no notation nor asterisk that says - "won due to an easy draw".
Just three words - "GET OVER IT!!!!"
Oh, and who did Nadal beat in the final to win HIS first French Open? Mariano Puerta. So did Nadal not really win that FO? I rest my case.
:-?
Go look at any record book. It only states the name of the champion of that particular Grand Slam tournament. There is no notation nor asterisk that says - "won due to an easy draw".
Just three words - "GET OVER IT!!!!"
Oh, and who did Nadal beat in the final to win HIS first French Open? Mariano Puerta. So did Nadal not really win that FO? I rest my case.
:-?
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
So? Was Federer the defending champion? Nope.
Does anyone remember everyone Agassi had to beat to win his FO?
Does anyone remember everyone who Laver had to beat to win his two calendar Slams?
No! Because IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!
johnmcc516
Semi-Pro
Fortunately, Nadal and Djoker weren't good enough this year to make it that deep in the tournament. Call Fed whatever you want, most accomplished, greatest ever, one of the greatest.
IMO he is the greatest player of the modern era to ever play Tennis and will continue to win grand slams over the rest of his career (another 6-7 years).
TennisVeritas
New User
Clown draw like what...Umm let me see..Like in '99 when the N#2 seed was facing in his second round a guy which ranking was #100..Still the n#2 managed to move out from the event: Guess what the N#2 at that time was Pete who lost in 4 sets to A Medvedev..
Now, the second round of FED was against José Acasuso who had definitely a better ranking than 100..
Guess what: I definitely believe if the '09 FED's draw was full of clowns the Pete's '99 was a lot worst still he was out in the second rounfd your GOAT LOL...
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
Says Sampras: "Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jRgKD28VMw8FWfbPwI1xgQ13Iq7AD98LURL81
Somebody who cares about these silly GOAT arguments should put this in their Sig. (The Admins should put it in GameSampras' Sig.)
- KK
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jRgKD28VMw8FWfbPwI1xgQ13Iq7AD98LURL81
Somebody who cares about these silly GOAT arguments should put this in their Sig. (The Admins should put it in GameSampras' Sig.)
- KK
GameSampras
Banned
You know what.. At least I will ADMIT, that Pete did have some cakewalks over the years during the slams. Most noteably probably the late 90s. But I again I will call a spade a spade.
christos_liaskos
Professional
If anything the fact that he didnt have to beat Rafa in the final is what separates him from everyone else, makes him the GOAT, puts him at the top of the pile and everyone else still scrambling to decide exactly what order they should be remembered in.
This is why I say that... all the other contenders for GOAT, which may eventually include rafa, all suffer some shock defeats in an early round somewhere. This french open was rafa's turn. Federer on the other hand has never suffered such a defeat. Since winning his first Wimbledon title in 03 he has been to atleast the semis of every major except for 2 occasions (03 US losing to Nalbandian and 04 French losing to Kuerten). Apart from those two defeats which came early on in his dominance, when it was nowhere near clear he would turn into the player he has, he has atleast reached the final on 19 occasions. The rest of his grand slam record since Wimby 03 is made up of 3 semis appearances.
When rafa lost in the French this year he said that the loses give more meaning to the victories. They show just how hard it is to achieve the 4 RG's in a row that he did. Those loses suffered by Rafa, Djok and Murray should also give more meaning to Federer's victory. Like all other great players, those 3 suffered shock defeats. All apart from one. Federer stands alone as the only one who just keeps ploughing through regardless of what else is going on.
If roger had beaten Rafa in the final what would that mean? That he is better than Rafa on clay? Dont be ridiculous! Nadal is the GOAT of clay. Doesnt matter if he loses to Federer or Soderling or whoever. Just means he had an exceptionally bad day and his opponent played one of the matches of their lives.
In the same way Nadal's victory at Wimby last year is made no greater in my opinion by the fact that he beat Federer. Ofcourse it was an amazing match, I should know, I was there. But we wouldnt say that if Rafa beat someone else in the final then he had won it by default and that it was meaningless because he didnt play Federer in the final. One match, one win, doesnt mean anything. A career should not be and is not made by one match. And that fact alone is again, what separates Federer from the rest of the pack. A whole career from the age of 21 where he has been nothing short of sensational. Every loss he has suffered since his first Wimby has been to the eventual champion, not a journeyman. The other two loses (US 03 french 04) where to one of the best players to never win a slam and to a player who is one of the best clay courters ever.
This is why I say that... all the other contenders for GOAT, which may eventually include rafa, all suffer some shock defeats in an early round somewhere. This french open was rafa's turn. Federer on the other hand has never suffered such a defeat. Since winning his first Wimbledon title in 03 he has been to atleast the semis of every major except for 2 occasions (03 US losing to Nalbandian and 04 French losing to Kuerten). Apart from those two defeats which came early on in his dominance, when it was nowhere near clear he would turn into the player he has, he has atleast reached the final on 19 occasions. The rest of his grand slam record since Wimby 03 is made up of 3 semis appearances.
When rafa lost in the French this year he said that the loses give more meaning to the victories. They show just how hard it is to achieve the 4 RG's in a row that he did. Those loses suffered by Rafa, Djok and Murray should also give more meaning to Federer's victory. Like all other great players, those 3 suffered shock defeats. All apart from one. Federer stands alone as the only one who just keeps ploughing through regardless of what else is going on.
If roger had beaten Rafa in the final what would that mean? That he is better than Rafa on clay? Dont be ridiculous! Nadal is the GOAT of clay. Doesnt matter if he loses to Federer or Soderling or whoever. Just means he had an exceptionally bad day and his opponent played one of the matches of their lives.
In the same way Nadal's victory at Wimby last year is made no greater in my opinion by the fact that he beat Federer. Ofcourse it was an amazing match, I should know, I was there. But we wouldnt say that if Rafa beat someone else in the final then he had won it by default and that it was meaningless because he didnt play Federer in the final. One match, one win, doesnt mean anything. A career should not be and is not made by one match. And that fact alone is again, what separates Federer from the rest of the pack. A whole career from the age of 21 where he has been nothing short of sensational. Every loss he has suffered since his first Wimby has been to the eventual champion, not a journeyman. The other two loses (US 03 french 04) where to one of the best players to never win a slam and to a player who is one of the best clay courters ever.
Aykhan Mammadov
Hall of Fame
I don't know why so much words about was Rafa in the final or not. Yes Rafa defeated Fed more than Fed defeated him., but their H2H is not 13:0, it is 13:7, and he defeated Nadal recently in the eyes of the world on CLAY in Masters of Madrid, in 2007 on clay in Hamburg Masters. If u are talking about finals of slams, yes Nadal defeated him, but he also defeated Nadal in W in 2006 and 2007 in the finals.
So what ? Nothing. Today Fed is the greatest in the history of the humankind by his results.
So what ? Nothing. Today Fed is the greatest in the history of the humankind by his results.
Sampras did not face a top 15 player in the 1997, 1998 or 2000 Wimbledons. According to your logic he had "clown draws" with "no competition" in any of these tournaments.
GameSampras
Banned
I agree with you. Sampras didnt have much competition after the early to mid 90s at the slams. I mean Pioline was trash of course and a few others pete had to deal with. Rafter was a tough tough player though. Once he aged though by the early 00's it was still pretty impressive what Pete could do to the young guns though
Only thing that matters is the number of slams you have. Do you remember now who Sampras and Laver beat to get those 14 and 12(?) slams? Does anyone remember? Only the statistics freaks do. You play whoever you get on the other side of the net. If the other great players did not make the final, it's their problem, not Fed's problem.
good. that's a good start. now pls do the following:
1. list all GOAT candidates
2. For each candidate, exclude slams that had "cakewalk" draws
3. Rank the GOAT candidates based on their "remaining" slams
I bet the results would not be any different than it is now. Reason: every multi-slam winner gets an easy draw once in a while. Champions make maximum capital out of the opportunity; others dont. As one poster accurately mentioned earlier, this FO win is Fed's reward for his consistency (20 slam SFs in a row..).
And for the record, I do not consider Fed's FO 2009 draw as a "cakewalk" draw. PHM had earlier troubled nadal in the FO, Monfils almost took out Fed last year, and Soderling did take out Nadal this year. It would have been a cakewalk draw if he trashed every opponent in straights, serving bakery products along the way. Instead, he had to fight his heart out in almost each of the matches. So where do you get the "cakewalk" draw from?
World Beater
Hall of Fame
What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."
On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.
"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."
For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.
Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.
Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.
"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.
"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."
PETE SAMPRAS SAYS YES
On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.
"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."
For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.
Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.
Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.
"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.
"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."
PETE SAMPRAS SAYS YES
DoubleDeuce
Hall of Fame
Before Sampras, Emerson was considered the best ever, just because he had more majors.
Most ordinary people who dont over analyze stuff would look only at numbers, it is the easiest way to decide.
Once Roger gets #15 you wont see so much debates anymore. It would look obvious.
Most ordinary people who dont over analyze stuff would look only at numbers, it is the easiest way to decide.
Once Roger gets #15 you wont see so much debates anymore. It would look obvious.
edmondsm
Legend
Yes, the Lavertards always leave that part out.
edmondsm
Legend
There is overanalysis, and then there is just plain common sense. Emerson won all those slams because he was the best AMATUER in the world. The best players were pros and they were banned from the slams during Emerson's slams winning years. Emerson was never, ever considered the greatest. He just had the record do to a dark period in tennis, and I think most people were very relieved when Sampras took it from him.
DoubleDeuce
Hall of Fame
Only one person out Five has answered no. This is conclusive results.
No such thing as GOAT...
Is Roger one of the best to ever play? Absolutely. Is Roger the best of the greatest that have ever played? From what I have seen (and I've watched them all, including Laver, Borg and Sampras) Yes he is, however, there is no such thing as GOAT unless today is the end of the world. To me, Federer is the greatest player I have ever seen, up till today.
Is Roger one of the best to ever play? Absolutely. Is Roger the best of the greatest that have ever played? From what I have seen (and I've watched them all, including Laver, Borg and Sampras) Yes he is, however, there is no such thing as GOAT unless today is the end of the world. To me, Federer is the greatest player I have ever seen, up till today.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Exactly! Well said.
Federer had to go five sets twice, once coming back from 2 sets down and once from 2 sets to 1 down. He also had to go 4 sets twice, coming back from a set down in one and almost losing in straight sets in the other.
If you want to talk about "cakewalk draws", how about Nadal's last year? Not only did Nadal not lose a single set in 7 matches, how many games did he lose? Not many. That's the definition of a "cakewalk draw".
And this year Nadal also had a "cakewalk draw", yet he lost to Soderling. A match that everyone thought should be a "cakewalk" before the match.
Apparently, there are some really bitter people with sour grapes on this board. Federer won and fully deserves his first French Open title. Deal with it.
"could have" being the operative words. And he has beaten Nadal twice at Wimbledon.
Lendl and Federer Fan
Hall of Fame
Federer is not the goat, but he is closer to be the greatest tennis player of all time after today's victory.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
The numbers would seem to put Fed in fifth or sixth place--
Combining Grand Slam titles with Pro majors, Rosewall won 23 "major" titles in his career, Laver won 19, Federer has captured 15, and Sampras and Gonzalez both won 14.
Considering all semifinal, final, and championship results in majors, we find Rosewall at unbelievable 52 (total semifinal, final and championship results in majors), followed by Tilden (35), Laver (32), Connors (31), Gonzalez (29), and Federer (22).
Laver won at least 199 tournaments, followed by Tilden (161), Jaroslav Drobny and Connors (each 148 ), Lendl (144), Rosewall (136), Roy Emerson (114), Tony Wilding (112), Borg (100), McEnroe (99), and Federer or Sampras (64).
Gonzalez seems to be the best at World No. 1 being that for at least 6 years, tied with Sampras. Federer owned the year-end top spot for 4 years (2004-2007). But if we include those years when a player has reached a co-No.1 position, we get a significantly different picture: Gonzalez and Rosewall, each 9 years on the top, Laver at 8 years, followed by Budge, Tilden, Vines, and Kramer each 7 years.
In terms of years spent in the top-10 in the world, remember that computer rankings were not used in the pre-Open Era. Tilden and Rosewall lead with 23 years in the top-10, Gonzalez spent 22 years (if we project 1962 and 1963 when Pancho did not play but probably would have been among top ten, even top three), Budge and Segura, each 19 years.
Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden are the outstanding players when it comes to their longevity. All three men were formidable players into their 40s. Rosewall won majors in a remarkable range that spanned from 1953-1972.
Concerning the longest streak of winning majors, this list is headed by Rosewall (9), Tilden (8 ) and Budge (6). Concerning a streak of top placings in majors, two players are outstanding: Rosewall (34) and Federer (21). It's fair to mention that in open era such streaks were more difficult to achieve than in Rosewall's time (1954-1968 ). Rod Laver has still the record regarding big finals reached in a row 1964 to 1968: 14.
Regarding a best 5-year span or career high, the most titles in a five-year period were won by Laver (82). The best percentage of titles in a five-year belongs to Tilden (approximately .815). The most majors won during a five-year period were won by Federer (12). The best percentage of majors in five-year period keep Tilden and Vines at the top (both .1000).
Finally, if one cares to consider doubles play (Federer is rightly proud of his Olympic gold medal in doubles), in the pre-Open Era virtually all players played in the doubles competition (often even the mixed doubles), while today most top players often refuse to play doubles. The players with the most major doubles titles (excluding mixed doubles) are: Rosewall (23), Hoad (21), Newcombe (17) and Emerson (16). Bob Hewitt has won 163 doubles titles which is all-time record.
Combining Grand Slam titles with Pro majors, Rosewall won 23 "major" titles in his career, Laver won 19, Federer has captured 15, and Sampras and Gonzalez both won 14.
Considering all semifinal, final, and championship results in majors, we find Rosewall at unbelievable 52 (total semifinal, final and championship results in majors), followed by Tilden (35), Laver (32), Connors (31), Gonzalez (29), and Federer (22).
Laver won at least 199 tournaments, followed by Tilden (161), Jaroslav Drobny and Connors (each 148 ), Lendl (144), Rosewall (136), Roy Emerson (114), Tony Wilding (112), Borg (100), McEnroe (99), and Federer or Sampras (64).
Gonzalez seems to be the best at World No. 1 being that for at least 6 years, tied with Sampras. Federer owned the year-end top spot for 4 years (2004-2007). But if we include those years when a player has reached a co-No.1 position, we get a significantly different picture: Gonzalez and Rosewall, each 9 years on the top, Laver at 8 years, followed by Budge, Tilden, Vines, and Kramer each 7 years.
In terms of years spent in the top-10 in the world, remember that computer rankings were not used in the pre-Open Era. Tilden and Rosewall lead with 23 years in the top-10, Gonzalez spent 22 years (if we project 1962 and 1963 when Pancho did not play but probably would have been among top ten, even top three), Budge and Segura, each 19 years.
Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden are the outstanding players when it comes to their longevity. All three men were formidable players into their 40s. Rosewall won majors in a remarkable range that spanned from 1953-1972.
Concerning the longest streak of winning majors, this list is headed by Rosewall (9), Tilden (8 ) and Budge (6). Concerning a streak of top placings in majors, two players are outstanding: Rosewall (34) and Federer (21). It's fair to mention that in open era such streaks were more difficult to achieve than in Rosewall's time (1954-1968 ). Rod Laver has still the record regarding big finals reached in a row 1964 to 1968: 14.
Regarding a best 5-year span or career high, the most titles in a five-year period were won by Laver (82). The best percentage of titles in a five-year belongs to Tilden (approximately .815). The most majors won during a five-year period were won by Federer (12). The best percentage of majors in five-year period keep Tilden and Vines at the top (both .1000).
Finally, if one cares to consider doubles play (Federer is rightly proud of his Olympic gold medal in doubles), in the pre-Open Era virtually all players played in the doubles competition (often even the mixed doubles), while today most top players often refuse to play doubles. The players with the most major doubles titles (excluding mixed doubles) are: Rosewall (23), Hoad (21), Newcombe (17) and Emerson (16). Bob Hewitt has won 163 doubles titles which is all-time record.
Last edited:
smack that
Semi-Pro
GameSampras
Banned
Career wise.. Sampras didnt have the best career out of guys like Laver, Pancho, Rosewall, and even Fed.. That doesnt make me believe that I dont think Pete is hands down the greatest and deadliest to ever pick up a racket though.
Laver and Pancho have the best careers thus far IMO
Similar threads
- Poll
- Deleted member 3771
- General Pro Player Discussion
- Poll
