NO question...Federer best ever
- Thread starter Coria
- Start date
dysonlu
Professional
I'm with you 100% on that.
It really depends on how you define GOAT. If it's simply by the number of slams, then currently Sampras is the GOAT. But IMHO, this is far from being the most appropriate way of defining the GOAT.
Anyway, Federer is arguably the most talented all-around player ever. And he is way more consistent in any surface and tournament than Sampras ever was. In this regard, he is better than Sampras.
Listening to commentator John Barrett, who was not born yesterday, he was just in absolute awe at Federer's magical performance. He said he felt honored and privileged to be witnessing such grandiose display of tennis perfection. He's not the only one that expressed this kind of admiration towards Federer's game. Now I don't remember any announcer giving such praises to Sampras' game.
dysonlu
Professional
Can you explain the "not by a long shot"? To you, what is the GOAT?
Robbie_1988
Semi-Pro
LOL you smart ***.
35ft6
Legend
Jimbo never won the French. He did win the US Open on clay, grass, and hard courts, though. One of Laver's Grand Slams was won when all the best players were playing the pros, before the days of Open tennis.
35ft6
Legend
In that spirit:
Shoot, I bet the ancient roman army could destroy the modern US military.
35ft6
Legend
Here's a video of the man who is possibly greater than Federer, the unbeatable Bill Tilden.
Well, what impresses me most about Federer is his talents in "non-atheletical"
dimensions: gifted hand, game intellegence, court vision, body awareness...
On top of all these, he is also gifted atheletically. This is probably
the most gifted game players I've ever seen.
BUT that does not mean he will turn out to be the greatest.
It's been 3-4 years. We'll see how game evolves in next 5-6 years.
He has a power baseline game perfect for now. When game evolves,
there will be a key factor. It was "power" in late 80's and 90's.
It has been "forehand" after 2000. Sometimes all the gifts in multi-dimension
are powerless when the evolution hinges on a key factor.
Sampras game was very simple but deadly efficient, designed to
withstand a decade. Let's see how Federer maintains his very resilient
but complex game for next few years or so....
bribeiro
Banned
Oh, I never said he did, I said he won grandslams on all the different surfaces.
You should also mention he made the finals of the us open 2months later and won the us open the following year.
Also worth noting is that pete was going for his 6th straight wimbledon title.
Hehe well put, some people just dont see the evolution of the game.
The guys playing today would wipe the floor with the guys from the 90's. Hell, baseliners are hitting 130+, while in the 90's that was all you needed. Ill bet karlovic would have been a top5 player if he was playing 10 years ago.
ksbh
Banned
Rafa's best friend
Banned
I rate Fed's backhand as 5.0 at best..
capriatifanatic
Banned
Then Sampras's would be a 2.0 and so would Nadal's as both have much weaker backhands then Fed does.
capriatifanatic
Banned
I always wonder why nobody mentions matches like the straight set schooling of Agassi in the 2005 Australian Open quarters on Agassi's favorite surface, or the 2003 year-end finals where Federer almost embarassed Agassi, but mention their 2 U.S Open matches which were so close as if they were their only matches during that period. Also if you want to further look at it these 2 matches were a much more neutral environment, as opposed to playing the final 2 sets of the 2004 U.S Open quarterfinal in crazy wind which made it a crapshoot, or the 2005 final in front of the most hostile environment a player could possably be in. Yet they are the only ones referenced by most Agassi fans/Federer detractors.
Like you said it seems people just pick the matches that suit how they want to it to be and dont look at the whole picture.
BigServer1
Legend
Yeah, Federer at his best at 2001 Wimbledon, when he was the no. 16 seed and beat the no. 1 seed who went on to win the 2002 US open, more than a year after Federer beat him in his backyard. Federer is mabye at his best now, but I think he can still improve (just look at the backhand). I think that if Pete had beaten Federer in that match that he easily could have won that tournament and had 15 slams under his belt. It is obvious that Pete was past his prime, but Federer wasn't even CLOSE to his prime in the match in question.
Watcher
Semi-Pro
By "not by a long shot" I mean that his career so far doesn't stack up to the likes of Laver, Sampras, Borg, etc. There isn't any "maybe" about it. It doesn't. He could retire tomorrow and he wouldn't have had a greater career than those three, and several others. He certainly has the potential to surpass them. He has not yet. At all. Which, I guess makes "not by a long shot" an invalid statement, since there IS no long shot. He has not surpassed them, pure and simple.
Just watch the old re-runs on ESPN classic and there is no comparison to the current game. Much as I love all those players that you mention, I find their pace of game, court coverage, shot making etc somehwat inferior to the current brand of players i.e., Nadal, Berdych, Gasquet, Roddick, Blake etc. Even Agassi in 2005 was much superior to what he was in the erea you are referring to. There is a good reason that Serve&Volley is dying. It is difficult to handle the kind of service returns from any of the top 50 pros.
I was watching an old tape of Federer beating Sampras (when Sampras was close to his prime and the favourite to win the wimbledon). Even the, Federer's game was way inferior to his current level of game. But the fact remains that Federer beat Sampras in Wimbledon when Sampras was close to his prime.
tennisboygr
Rookie
Umm...I think Sampras made the U.S. Open Final that year, and had to beat I believe Safin, Rafter, and Agassi. So I don't think he was basically at his "worst". Nice try though. I also believe that Sampras won the U.S. Open the following year.
Rafa's best friend
Banned
I think you are wrong, RAFA has better backhand than FED does, it is a fact, that is why RAFA has a winning record...
capriatifanatic
Banned
I think you are wrong, RAFA has better backhand than FED does, it is a fact, that is why RAFA has a winning record...
No more like since Nadal is lefty his forehand goes to Fed's backhand and he is able to win matches that way. Federer's forehand is better then Nadal's forehand, and Federer's backhand is better then Nadal's backhand. Nadal's forehand is probably better then Federer's backhand though, since he is lefty he is lucky enough to be able to hit his better side to Federer's weaker side which is his only chance to win since Federer is better off both their stronger side and weaker side if they played from the same hand.
Anyway they are 2-2 on non clay/grass surfaces. If they played 4 times on grass and 1 time on clay it would be 6-3 Federer so there really is no head to head edge.
Rafa's best friend
Banned
No more like since Nadal is lefty his forehand goes to Fed's backhand and he is able to win matches that way. Federer's forehand is better then Nadal's forehand, and Federer's backhand is better then Nadal's backhand. Nadal's forehand is probably better then Federer's backhand though, since he is lefty he is lucky enough to be able to hit his better side to Federer's weaker side which is his only chance to win since Federer is better off both their stronger side and weaker side if they played from the same hand.
Anyway they are 2-2 on non clay/grass surfaces. If they played 4 times on grass and 1 time on clay it would be 6-3 Federer so there really is no head to head edge.
But my dear, RAFA kills Fed on Clay where Fed and RAFA are about even on hard fast courts, what does that tell you??
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
That Federer is # 1, and Nadal is still # 2.
That Fed won 3 slams this year and made the finals of all 4, and Nadal won 1 slam and made the final of 2.
That Fed won the year end championships, and Nadal did not make the finals.
tennistensai
Rookie
I dont get how Rafa "Kills" Fed on clay if Fed had match points in Rome? I also dont get how the they are even in hard courts if Rafa lost to Fed in straights in a hardcourt surface recently and how Rafa has been beaten by other players in hard court events constantly.
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
No disrespect towards Pete Sampras but Federer is clearly the most complete player of all time.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
True that!!
Watcher
Semi-Pro
Most Complete =/= Greatest.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Exactly, in a way it evens out. Maybe even slightly helps Sampras because he´s got the aura and reputation behind him, Fed was just an 18 year old future hopeful. He was considered talented, but prior to this match he had a reputation of not being a big match player. He had not made it past the 4th round of a slam before that, even after he beat Sampras I think he lost to Henman in the 4th round again after that. The US Open comes around and Fed lost to Agassi ONCE AGAIN in the 4th round and then Agassi lost that legendary 4 set tiebreak match to Sampras. Sampras made it to the US Open final a couple of months after that loss to Federer.
Sampras then lost to Safin in a wonderful 4 set match in the 2002 Aussie Open QF. Fed then lost to Haas again in the 4th round. Fed then lost in the 1st round to Luis Horna in Roland Garros and Ancic in the 1st or 2nd round of Wimby. The the US Open Sampras won it and retired. Fed still had not gone past the 4th round up to this point. I don´t exactly remember but I believe that Fed finally went past the 4th round when he won his first Wimby 2003.
So its obvious that Fed was nowhere near his peak during that 2001 Wimby against Sampras. The signs of the future were in that match against Sampras but Sampras also was defending champion. He won Wimby 2000 and lost to Safin in the US Open 2000 final so he obviously was playing great tennis. The thing is that the game had finally caught up to Pete and in some cases (like in that USO 2000 final against Safin and Wimby 2001 3rd round against Federer) it had surpassed him no matter what he gave on the court.
This was when I had realized that the new generation was edging closer. Sampras´ best was not enough anymore, the new talented generation had shown signs of having evolved past Sampras best. Remember people, this is all coming from a big time Nadal fan. I´m no fan of Federer and definitely not the Fedtrolls but I have to say here and now that Federer is the most talented player of all the time and if he keeps this up he´s the best ever. If not the best of the last 50 years.
superman1
Legend
Federer was having a better year in 2001 than Sampras. What some of you don't seem to realize is that just because Sampras won a Slam after that match, does NOT mean he was in the same kind of form during that match. The thing about Sampras when he got older was he just didn't have the same energy. He was battling himself in a way. He did play very well in that match, but so did Federer. Just because Federer wasn't in his prime does not mean he couldn't rip a forehand and hit a killer backhand passing shot. He was a huge talent then, he just hadn't pieced it all together. He was good enough for John McEnroe to say that he would win Wimbledon in '03.
Is Federer the best of all time? Yes, I think so. But don't compare the new generation of Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, etc to Sampras. Sampras was in another league. So was Agassi. Yes, Federer schooled Agassi a few times. He killed him in the 2003 TMC final. But Agassi had a match point against Fed in the round robin. And how old was Agassi again, when they played? He has been dealing with back problems since 2002, he was just good at hiding it for a long time. If tennis in the 90's doesn't look as impressive as it does today, that's because of the racquet technology. I see guys on the senior tour playing and they can rip the ball as well as any ATP pro out there. They just can't run as fast.
Is Federer the best of all time? Yes, I think so. But don't compare the new generation of Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, etc to Sampras. Sampras was in another league. So was Agassi. Yes, Federer schooled Agassi a few times. He killed him in the 2003 TMC final. But Agassi had a match point against Fed in the round robin. And how old was Agassi again, when they played? He has been dealing with back problems since 2002, he was just good at hiding it for a long time. If tennis in the 90's doesn't look as impressive as it does today, that's because of the racquet technology. I see guys on the senior tour playing and they can rip the ball as well as any ATP pro out there. They just can't run as fast.
Robbie_1988
Semi-Pro
Oh I agree with you. Don't forget that Wimbledon has also been slowed down so significantly that even serve volleyers are hard to find there. If anything, they've given Nads a more competitive advantage by slowing the courts down for him.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Racquet technology hasn´t changed much in the last 10 years. I had bought my first Pure Drive back in 1996, it was as nice looking as now but still the same stick, the feel has changed a bit. Safin uses a Head Prestige with a Flexpoint painjob, Fed uses a different stick then the one being sold in stores. It´s still a Wilson PS 90 in. and thin headbeam. Nalbandian and Hewitt both use low power, control based Yonex racquets. The one area in which the racquets have helped certain players maybe guys like Ljubicic and Roddick. But how much really? Roddick and Ljubicic service techniques are really good so even with a different stick they´d serve effectively. Nadal could use Agassi Radical OS or Prince OS for his game just as well if he had started with it and stuck with it today. Racquet technology comparison can really be used when comparing now to 20-30 years ago when they were either wood or thin aluminum.
Prime or no prime, both Sampras and Federer played great in that match at Wimbledon 2001. Coming into this match, Federer was already showing signs of great talent and potential, what he lacked was consistency. However, knowing that he will be playing against his idol and the grass court king, Pete Sampras, it is not inconceivable that Federer's game could just clicked and perhaps, played one of his best matches on that day, just like what Safin did to Sampras at the 2000 USOpen final. Having said that, Sampras himself was playing one of his best matches as well. It just came down to a handful of points at the end. I thought it was a pretty fair and square match. The only nitpicked edge that Federer might have over Sampras would be Sampras was a tad slower than Federer in terms of foot speed coming to the net. But this is just mother nature, a 30 year old body against a 20 year old body, what can we expect?
If Federer can keep up this pace for a couple more years, he really can be the best ever, as far as achievement is concerned.
Anywhere, just for the fun of it, to me, he doesn't need The Grand Slam to be the best ever. If he could just win two French Open titles (repeat titles, preferably over Nadal, throwing out fluke argument) and improved to just 4-6 or 5-6 h2h against Nadal (meaning he has beaten Nadal 3 or 4 in a row, dominating him in their most recent matchups), and called it a day, he will be the best ever, for now.
If Federer can keep up this pace for a couple more years, he really can be the best ever, as far as achievement is concerned.
Anywhere, just for the fun of it, to me, he doesn't need The Grand Slam to be the best ever. If he could just win two French Open titles (repeat titles, preferably over Nadal, throwing out fluke argument) and improved to just 4-6 or 5-6 h2h against Nadal (meaning he has beaten Nadal 3 or 4 in a row, dominating him in their most recent matchups), and called it a day, he will be the best ever, for now.
capriatifanatic
Banned
Yes that is why Federer was only the 16th seed for that match. Because he was playing a better year, what a crock! Nobody before that match said they felt Federer was having a better year then Sampras, and they thought Federer would win because of it. It is easy to pull such BS out now though, long after the fact.
Federer did not even get to the quarters of another slam after that Wimbledon for another 2 freaking years. Sampras would be in the finals of the next 2 U.S Opens, and might have won the next years Australian Open if he did not lose a close match to Safin. Who was closer to their prime, Sampras of course.
bluegrasser
Hall of Fame
I'm getting close to thinking that, but still there's a guy named Rod and Pete in the way.
This is pretty accurate at this point. There was no better No. 1 in history.
McEnroe was the best no 1 for 1 year. Roger has been at the same
level of domination for 3 years. So he is the best No. 1 in history.
If he continues this level a few more years, he'll be regarded as GOAT.
Probably true. Especially considering the non-spacial dimensions of
this game. The other multi-dimensions like court vision, game intellegence,
ability to read opponents, anticipations, hand crafts(all those freak shots).
His ability in these "other" dimensions are freaky unreal..
But IMHO, in physical domain of tennis court, Sampras is more
complete with both ground game and net game. Federer has better
return game (in fact one of the best in history) but net game used to
be a huge part, you know.... Also note that Sampras intensionally
streamlined his game into very efficient one and used exotic shots
only if they are absolutley necessary...
Last edited:
Steve Huff
G.O.A.T.
I think Fed will probably become the best of all time, but not yet. That's like saying Seles was the best of all time before her tragic event. Fed could get hurt, decide to retire, anything. He's not the best of all time yet. No argument from me that he probably will be, just don't jump the gun. Plus, Sampras volleyed better than Fed.
Besides, given the equipment they used and the conditions under which they played, I'd still say that Laver was the best of all time--so far.
Besides, given the equipment they used and the conditions under which they played, I'd still say that Laver was the best of all time--so far.
There will never be an undisputed greatest of all time. One will ever find some arguments pro or against some candidates. Its impossible, to do justice in comparing players with a 30-40 years difference or 80 years difference (if we look at Tilden). The media frenzy is higher than ever. 30 years ago the experts were more traditional in their ratings: Allison Danzig always rated Tilden the best, like Nat Fleischer always rated Jack Johnson the best heavyweight ever. Now experts minds seem to change from day to day. Nobody thought, that 3-4 years after Sampras' retirement, another player would emerge, who could challenge his record and his status. Maybe in 10 years time another player has emerged, who has put Federer into the shadow. The litmus test for greatness is the test of time: So people like Tilden and Laver, Borg and Gonzales have reached a secure status in memory.
Would it be possible to do a rating of the best player in open era with something like this:
year grand slam : 250 pts
career grand slam : 100 pts
wimbledon : 50 pts
us open : 45 pts
french open : 35 pts
Australian open : 25 pts
year end championship : 15 pts
no of weeks #1 : 1 pt per week...
no of tournaments won career : 2 pts
no of match won career : 0.1 pts per win
Federer : 4 wimbldons = 200 + 3 uso = 135 + 2 australians = 50 + 3 YEC = 45 + 145 weeks #1 = 145 + 45 tournaments won = 90 + 490 matchs won = 49 ....
grand total : 714 pts....
Could be interesting to see how much total points the best players like Sampras, Borg, Laver etc. would have.
year grand slam : 250 pts
career grand slam : 100 pts
wimbledon : 50 pts
us open : 45 pts
french open : 35 pts
Australian open : 25 pts
year end championship : 15 pts
no of weeks #1 : 1 pt per week...
no of tournaments won career : 2 pts
no of match won career : 0.1 pts per win
Federer : 4 wimbldons = 200 + 3 uso = 135 + 2 australians = 50 + 3 YEC = 45 + 145 weeks #1 = 145 + 45 tournaments won = 90 + 490 matchs won = 49 ....
grand total : 714 pts....
Could be interesting to see how much total points the best players like Sampras, Borg, Laver etc. would have.
FedFan_2007
Banned
Actually Fed has dazzled us with 3.5 years of phenomonal results starting with Wimbledon 2003.
Now if Fed wins the NCYGS, does that make him GOAT? 4 different surfaces.
If Fed win CYGS, he is for sure GOAT. Winning on 4 different surfaces(Rebound Ace, clay, grass, hardcourt).
Now if Fed wins the NCYGS, does that make him GOAT? 4 different surfaces.
If Fed win CYGS, he is for sure GOAT. Winning on 4 different surfaces(Rebound Ace, clay, grass, hardcourt).
Eli_Ace
Rookie
nadal just needs to learn how to hit more flat shots
FedFan_2007
Banned
Prophet:
Please explain your point system.
Please explain your point system.
Well, it's not very scientific but it's just a way of comparing two players that played in a diffrent era based on achievements.. Giving a number of points for each achievement a player has made...
I'm tired of hearing arguments like Fed will never be better as Sampras until he gets more than 7 wimbledon titles and more than 6 year end's #1 and 14 grand slam like I' ve been seeing on other threads....
I'm tired of hearing arguments like Fed will never be better as Sampras until he gets more than 7 wimbledon titles and more than 6 year end's #1 and 14 grand slam like I' ve been seeing on other threads....
Similar threads
