Top explanations/excuses:If people are to accept Fed as the GOAT, then one needs to explain them the drop in dominance from pre-2008 with no Andy, Novak and mature Rafa, to past-2008 where Andy, Nole and mature Rafa were present.
They need to explain Fed's obvious failure in the H2H vs Rafa.
If they can't, then the argument for GOAT cannot be made.
It doesn't mean automatically that Pete is GOAT, but that the GOAT issue remains very much a question mark.
2020 will bring a lot of answers.
Pinworthy post.Yeah a 6'1" guy who could hit howitzer serves up the ass of an insect sure was boring. One of the best pure athletes to ever play was boring. Extreme risk taking was boring. Yeah, sure. Just admit you love baseline tennis instead of taking digs at the guy who didn't have to resort to 15 stroke trench warfare to win.
In polarized conditions, Fed would have many more Berdych, Tsonga and Stahkovsky moments. Sure, when he plays on cushion covered courts that nullify the danger of a power player he's immune to upset but best you believe he's biting dust WAY more in the live n die conditions of Pete's heydayI like Becker as well, but let’s be honest, he was always beatable. And do you really think peak Federer would have lost to him even in RR matches or have a 40-15 situation? On the other hand Sampras never had to play against Djokovic of course. By the way, contrary to your suggestion Agassi has a slightly better H2H percentage wise against Becker (9-5) than Sampras (12-7).
To Sampras himself: He may have a winning H2H record against most of the important players of his era (not all, see Krajicek, Stich and later Hewitt, Safin etc. when he really wasn’t THAT old). But his problem was that just like Becker he literally could lose to anyone on any day when one aspect of his game wasn’t working. Okay, let’s say this was the case apart from Wimbledon. Look at the names he lost to at Slams from 1997-2002 and don’t say me Federer would have lost to anyone of them during the same age.
But by the way, that are only arguments why Sampras wasn’t GOAT. Other than that I was his fan and loved watching him play.
Is it really the case? I mean, today the percentage of service games won is higher than in the 90s, maybe apart from grass. I don’t think Federer would have had many losses just due to being outserved or overpowered.In polarized conditions, Fed would have many more Berdych, Tsonga and Stahkovsky moments. Sure, when he plays on cushion covered courts that nullify the danger of a power player he's immune to upset but best you believe he's biting dust WAY more in the live n die conditions of Pete's heyday
11. Bad Light (Wimbledon 2008 final)Top explanations/excuses:
2. Pretty backhand
5. 90 square inch
8. Conditions (lol)
9. Easy competition for Djokodal (lol)
Feel free to add any I missed
Was a PATHETIC attempt to pull Petros fans down onto the sinking ship that is Fedfandom. Pretty much every response points out how Fed won't even top his own time and therefore OP's attempt conpletely backfired. Don't know if he was around to see that tho, sadly"Now I know how Sampras fans feel"
Is there a premise here?
Haha. Are you still sore that your guy lost to a pony-tailed teenager at his own backyard and never won there again? And yes, the number 20 is 6 slams greater than 14. I am afraid you have to live with it. No amount of rationalization will help you get over basic facts.Watching their hero end as top of his time is something Fed fans will never know either.
He didn't say it, but Federer is better than Sampras, especially on clay and slow/medium hardcourts.In an interview with 3iguales, former Chilean player Fernando Gonzalez was asked who was the better player between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras. The Swiss holds six more Grand Slam titles than the American, 20 vs 14. Gonzalez said: "It's like comparing Pele to Maradona, Maradona to Messi."
In other words, Fernando doesn't think Federer is the better player
Agassi was a fantastic returner. His serve was effective, his forehand powerful. His game suited him to win more than one Wimbledon title. Agassi at Wimbledon 1999 was a solid rival, definetely not easier than Roddick. But Sampras was so dominant on fast grass that virtually no one could touch him.He didn't say it, but Federer is better than Sampras, especially on clay and slow/medium hardcourts.
Pete's competition on grass is not even close as tough as the one Fed had.Murray, 2004, 2009 Roddick, Nadal and especially Djokovic are greater competition than Sampras ever had.Krajicek 1996 might be better that Arod and Murray, but anyway Pete never beat him on grass.
I've seen you biased towards Sampras, that why I told you these things.
You have a point with 1999 Agassi, but the american was inconsitent.Fed's rivals reached consecutive Wimbledon finals.Agassi was a fantastic returner. His serve was effective, his forehand powerful. His game suited him to win more than one Wimbledon title. Agassi at Wimbledon 1999 was a solid rival, definetely not easier than Roddick. But Sampras was so dominant on fast grass that virtually no one could touch him.
I KNOW that the overwhelming majority of people have no capacity to distinguish the fine nuances that differ one achievement from the next within the same category and even those that do (extremely small number even within the tennis fans) are riddled with prejudices that will corrupt their opinion.So you believe that 2 or more players are exactly equal in greatness?