Now that the G.O.A.T argument is settled, who is the 2nd G.O.A.T behind Federer?

Who is the second greatest of all time behind Federer?

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
Laver,

Borg,

or Sampras?

IMO, it's Laver>Borg>Sampras.

Although Laver's grand slams were completed mainly on grass, weren't true grand slams on 3 different surfaces (as Federer and Agassi career slams) his ability to have won 2 separate grand slams years apart is truly remarkable, he deserves his place ahead of Borg and Sampras.
 
Ok, so Greek Goliath voted for Sampras, may I ask why do you think Sampras deserves his place above Laver? The same Sampras who sucked on clay and never reached a single French Open final?
 
GasquetGOAT said:
Actually it's NOT just an individuals opinion if the MAJORITY agrees on one candidate. The majority rules.
Click to expand...

Well no it's still opinion. Yes, most people on this forum think it's Federer now (there was a poll recently), but you still can't say definitively that Federer is definitely the GOAT.

That's why the thread title is so amusing. I don't mind, since I do think he's the GOAT, but I can't imagine the Sampras and Laver apologists will be too thrilled. :p
 
GasquetGOAT said:
Ok, so Greek Goliath voted for Sampras, may I ask why do you think Sampras deserves his place above Laver? The same Sampras who sucked on clay and never reached a single French Open final?
Click to expand...

Well, in my opinion it was very close. I went with Sampras, Laver just behind, and Borg in third. Sampras may not have reached a French Open final, but he did reach the semi's. He has the second most grand slams of all time, at 14. I wouldn't really say he sucked on clay, as I believe he did win Hamburg on clay. He had winning records against some of the greatest competition in the era, like Chang, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Ivanisevic, etc.

If Laver had been able to play Grand Slams in those years between his two calendar years, I think he would have been the unquestionably dominant GOAT.
 
Rippy said:
Well no it's still opinion. Yes, most people on this forum think it's Federer now (there was a poll recently), but you still can't say definitively that Federer is definitely the GOAT.

That's why the thread title is so amusing. I don't mind, since I do think he's the GOAT, but I can't imagine the Sampras and Laver apologists will be too thrilled. :p
Click to expand...

Well let the Sampras and Laver apologists present their cases and see if the majority approves.:twisted:
 
Greek Goliath said:
Well, in my opinion it was very close. I went with Sampras, Laver just behind, and Borg in third. Sampras may not have reached a French Open final, but he did reach the semi's. He has the second most grand slams of all time, at 14. I wouldn't really say he sucked on clay, as I believe he did win Hamburg on clay. He had winning records against some of the greatest competition in the era, like Chang, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Ivanisevic, etc.

If Laver had been able to play Grand Slams in those years between his two calendar years, I think he would have been the unquestionably dominant GOAT.
Click to expand...


Good post. But his winning records against those great players do not erase his inability to do well on clay, which is a big blemish on his legacy. IMO, he would rather win a French Open than having winning records against all of his competitions.
 
GasquetGOAT said:
Good post. But his winning records against those great players do not erase his inability to do well on clay, which is a big blemish on his legacy. IMO, he would rather win a French Open than having winning records against all of his competitions.
Click to expand...

That's very true. But in the same case, Borg had a weak surface as well- hard courts. He did not win the U.S. Open at all. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but in Laver's day, I believe three of the four slams were played on grass, while the French was played on clay. IMO, this made it easier for him to win the career slam because it eliminated entirely the hard court surface, which is another surface to adjust to. That makes each of the three players have two strong surfaces- Borg on grass and clay, Laver on grass and clay, and Sampras on grass and hardcourts. From here, I went with Sampras for the above mentioned reasons.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath
 
DRII said:
Kind of renders your avatar name redundant, even more redundant that is!
Click to expand...

I think you shouldn't be worrying about this thread, but rather address your nonsense from the epic fail thread that you created, where people have been constantly taking you to the woodshed!
 
Greek Goliath said:
That's very true. But in the same case, Borg had a weak surface as well- hard courts. He did not win the U.S. Open at all. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but in Laver's day, I believe three of the four slams were played on grass, while the French was played on clay. IMO, this made it easier for him to win the career slam because it eliminated entirely the hard court surface, which is another surface to adjust to. That makes each of the three players have two strong surfaces- Borg on grass and clay, Laver on grass and clay, and Sampras on grass and hardcourts. From here, I went with Sampras for the above mentioned reasons.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath
Click to expand...

While this is true I think Laver won a ton of HC tournaments during his dominance too though. If his S&V game worked on clay I have no doubts in his mind it would have worked on HC too.
It's a shame that he didn't get to play those missing years, it really is.
 
lawrence said:
While this is true I think Laver won a ton of HC tournaments during his dominance too though. If his S&V game worked on clay I have no doubts in his mind it would have worked on HC too.
It's a shame that he didn't get to play those missing years, it really is.
Click to expand...

If he had played those missing years, I have no doubt that he would be the G.O.A.T. Would have loved to see that, too.

In any case, my point is that it is an easier adjustment to make to only have to worry about two surfaces for the four major tournaments. The grass court season would have been so extensive that he wouldn't have had to worry about going from hard court to grass to clay in another two weeks and back to hard court again.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath
 
GasquetGOAT said:
Laver,

Borg,

or Sampras?

IMO, it's Laver>Borg>Sampras.

Although Laver's grand slams were completed mainly on grass, weren't true grand slams on 3 different surfaces (as Federer and Agassi career slams) his ability to have won 2 separate grand slams years apart is truly remarkable, he deserves his place ahead of Borg and Sampras.
Click to expand...

You are going to make Lavertards angry, and Samprastards very angry.
 
hoodjem said:
Yep, the GOAT debate will never end.

Fed is the best of his era. Give it 10 years. We'll see who you're calling the GOAT then.
Click to expand...



you think someone in 10 years will better federer? its possibly but unlikely...

federer will still be a goat candidate 10 yrs from now.
 
Greek Goliath said:
Personally I think it's:

1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Federer
4. Borg

But that's my opinion. OP asked about Sampras, Laver, and Borg.
Click to expand...

IMO, Federer has surpassed sampras. Sampras has absolutely nothing over Federer. Laver & Borg might make some claims -- but the comparison becomes difficult because tennis was quite different than now.
 
TennisFan3 said:
IMHO

1. Laver
2. Sampras
3. Federer
4. Borg
Click to expand...

Here's what you said in another thread:

TennisFan3 said:
Rod Laver >> Federer. He has no asterix attached to his name. He is the GOAT, if there is such a thing anyway.

Of course if Fed wins 20+ slams and manages to improve his h2h with Nadal and come close to (or get) a calender slam, then maybe he equals or surpasses Laver. Until then - not.
Click to expand...

What should Fed do to surpass Sampras?:confused:
 
fed_rulz said:
Here's what you said in another thread:

What should Fed do to surpass Sampras?:confused:
Click to expand...

Well Federer and Sampras are interchangeable. I'll give you that. It's not as clearcut as Laver who is at another level.

I think Sampras > Federer. But I might be biased because I am a Sampras fan. You might think otherwise.

To me Sampras was the most authoritative player I've ever seen. And it's not all about numbers. There are factors such as competition ( of the late and early 90s vs that in 2003-2007), Seeding system ( 32 vs 16 which made upsets more likely), nature of the surfaces ( less variation now with grass becoming slower and clay faster, meaning that one style of play works on all surfaces).

A fair indication is a link between those two which is Agassi. Agassi who at age 34 recovered from a bad hip and nearly beat Federer in the UsOpen (took him to 5 sets) and aged 35 stretched Federer to 4 sets, even after being gassed himself playing a couple of 5 sets in the previous rounds. Agassi couldn't take more than a set off Sampras 10 years ago, and in all fairness, a 30+ Agassi would hardly have taken a set off Sampras. That tells me something.

It's not a science, and so results will be, of necessity, subjective. Do I think that Federer would have won so many Wimbledons if he'd played in the 90's, on fast grass? Would he have won 5 US Opens in a row, with Agassi at his peak, given how he struggled against a lame and ancient Agassi 2 years running. Who knows? What is clear is that Federer can't be the best of Sampras's era, because he never played then. Nor can we measure his career and then transpose it onto thoroughly different conditions of another era and say,he's the GOAT.

That would be only opinion. I think we can say "he's the best we have seen", or the best of his era, but I'd be skeptical of anyone who would look at this generation and then look at the last, and be comfortable saying that one player was better than such a great player as Sampras, given how different their careers were.
 
TennisFan3 said:
Well Federer and Sampras are interchangeable. I'll give you that. It's not as clearcut as Laver who is at another level.

I think Sampras > Federer. But I might be biased because I am a Sampras fan. You might think otherwise.

To me Sampras was the most authoritative player I've ever seen. And it's not all about numbers. There are factors such as competition ( of the late and early 90s vs that in 2003-2007), Seeding system ( 32 vs 16 which made upsets more likely), nature of the surfaces ( less variation now with grass becoming slower and clay faster, meaning that one style of play works on all surfaces).

A fair indication is a link between those two which is Agassi. Agassi who at age 34 recovered from a bad hip and nearly beat Federer in the UsOpen (took him to 5 sets) and aged 35 stretched Federer to 4 sets, even after being gassed himself playing a couple of 5 sets in the previous rounds. Agassi couldn't take more than a set off Sampras 10 years ago, and in all fairness, a 30+ Agassi would hardly have taken a set off Sampras. That tells me something.

It's not a science, and so results will be, of necessity, subjective. Do I think that Federer would have won so many Wimbledons if he'd played in the 90's, on fast grass? Would he have won 5 US Opens in a row, with Agassi at his peak, given how he struggled against a lame and ancient Agassi 2 years running. Who knows? What is clear is that Federer can't be the best of Sampras's era, because he never played then. Nor can we measure his career and then transpose it onto thoroughly different conditions of another era and say,he's the GOAT.

That would be only opinion. I think we can say "he's the best we have seen", or the best of his era, but I'd be skeptical of anyone who would look at this generation and then look at the last, and be comfortable saying that one player was better than such a great player as Sampras, given how different their careers were.
Click to expand...

So it comes down to 30+ yr Old Agassi pushing Federer into 5 sets and we use that to define Sampras as better than Federer.

By this definition, We are looking at the wrong player for Goat. Krajicek hammered sampras 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4 at Wimbledon. What is this telling you?

Even we ignore statistics and look at the game, Federer simply has more variety than Sampras. Sampras is a great Athlete and is one of the Great players but just not the "Greatest". Luckily (coz i cant consider one player as greatest if he hasnt won the ultimate test of winning a slam on every surface) Federer took care of it and relegated Sampras to Tier 2.
 
TMF said:
I think you shouldn't be worrying about this thread, but rather address your nonsense from the epic fail thread that you created, where people have been constantly taking you to the woodshed!
Click to expand...

My epic fail thread has surely gotten you and other unhinged Federer fans in a tizzy!

The only failure is your guy's lack of a compelling nature and mass appeal for someone with such a superlative record.

Deal with it!
 
DRII said:
My epic fail thread has surely gotten you and other unhinged Federer fans in a tizzy!

The only failure is your guy's lack of a compelling nature and mass appeal for someone with such a superlative record.

Deal with it!
Click to expand...

Like Sampras' appeal to non-americans? Oh wait...
 
DRII said:
My epic fail thread has surely gotten you and other unhinged Federer fans in a tizzy!

The only failure is your guy's lack of a compelling nature and mass appeal for someone with such a superlative record.

Deal with it!
Click to expand...

Why should I deal with it, you are the one with a problem that no one can help you even if they try. You lost every arguments to those posters, and it's quite sad that you think you are winning the battle.:oops:
 
After winning the AO, it's fair to say from now Roger is alone as a Tier1 great. Borg, Laver and Pete belong to Tier2 great.
 
Laver and Borg are imo, debatable for being equal at best with Roger. Sampras has no business for qualifying for GOAT status as compared to Roger for these reasons:

1) Even Pete himself said he never completely dominated the field the way Roger did from 04-07.

2) Pete was by and large ineffectual on clay which proves ...

3) Pete's ground game was not as good or as versatile as Roger's. When Pete's serve was rendered less effective on the slower courts he wasnt nearly the unbeatable force he was on HC/Grass. Roger's complete all court surface domination was stopped by a man who was seemingly tailor-made by the Tennis Gods to keep him from utter domination.

4) IMHO, Ive watched the prime of Pete's and Roger's careers. I had never seen a shotmaker like Roger til well...Roger. When Pete retired I though't Id never see his like again in 20-30 yrs. Roger blew that out of the water in less than 5.

5) Roger has the FO title, Pete doesnt.

6)Even tho it's been argued ad nauseum....the 'weak era' theory. Most by now concede that a) the great hangovers from the 80's(Edberg, Becker, etc) were on the decline when Pete started to dominate the field( '93-98 ). b) Yes there were more clay court specialists when Pete was around, but as he was not much of a factor on clay, it hardly matters c) Nadal > all those clay court specialists of Pete's day d) I do not believe Chang, Courier, , Kafelnikov Rios, etc were *light years* better than Hewitt, Safin, Haas, Roddick etc e) Since '04 in the GS, Roger either won them or lost to the eventual winner, if that isnt dominant consistency I dont know what is

7) 16 GS and counting...
 
Last edited:
TennisFan3 said:
Well Federer and Sampras are interchangeable. I'll give you that. It's not as clearcut as Laver who is at another level.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. Federer is a far more consistent, dominant and versatile player than Sampras ever was. His consistency is shown by the fact that he reached 18 of 19 consecutive finals in majors and 23 consecutive semi finals. His dominance is illustrated by his record of winning 11 majors in 4 years, something which no other player - male or female, amateur or Open eras - has ever duplicated. His versatility is shown by his achievements on clay, which are far more substantial than Sampras's.

I think Sampras > Federer. But I might be biased because I am a Sampras fan. You might think otherwise.

To me Sampras was the most authoritative player I've ever seen. And it's not all about numbers. There are factors such as competition ( of the late and early 90s vs that in 2003-2007), Seeding system ( 32 vs 16 which made upsets more likely), nature of the surfaces ( less variation now with grass becoming slower and clay faster, meaning that one style of play works on all surfaces).
Click to expand...

What do the changes in the seeding system and the surfaces have to do with comparisons between Sampras and Federer? These changes affect all players, not just one.

A fair indication is a link between those two which is Agassi. Agassi who at age 34 recovered from a bad hip and nearly beat Federer in the UsOpen (took him to 5 sets) and aged 35 stretched Federer to 4 sets, even after being gassed himself playing a couple of 5 sets in the previous rounds. Agassi couldn't take more than a set off Sampras 10 years ago, and in all fairness, a 30+ Agassi would hardly have taken a set off Sampras. That tells me something.
Click to expand...

You're cherry picking results. From 2003 to 2005 Federer was 8-0 against Agassi, winning 20 out of 25 sets. Besides, Agassi has stated repeatedly that Federer is the greatest player he has ever seen. I think that he is a better judge of his own form, fitness and quality of play than you can possibly be.

It's not a science, and so results will be, of necessity, subjective. Do I think that Federer would have won so many Wimbledons if he'd played in the 90's, on fast grass? Would he have won 5 US Opens in a row, with Agassi at his peak, given how he struggled against a lame and ancient Agassi 2 years running. Who knows? What is clear is that Federer can't be the best of Sampras's era, because he never played then. Nor can we measure his career and then transpose it onto thoroughly different conditions of another era and say,he's the GOAT.
Click to expand...

We can't state definitively what Federer would have done if he had played in the 90's. By the same token, however, we can't state what Sampras would have done if he had played in the 2000's. We do know, however, that most of the players who faced both Sampras and Federer consider Federer to be the greater player. The list includes not only Agassi but also Bjorkman, Bruguera, Henman, Rusedski, Santoro, etc.

That would be only opinion. I think we can say "he's the best we have seen", or the best of his era, but I'd be skeptical of anyone who would look at this generation and then look at the last, and be comfortable saying that one player was better than such a great player as Sampras, given how different their careers were.
Click to expand...

If we can't make comparisons across generations how can you say that Sampras is superior to Federer?

Your argument is entirely subjective. Virtually all of the objective evidence indicates that Federer is the greater player. He has matched or at least approached everything that Sampras achieved, while Sampras never came close to achieving the records that Federer has set. As far as subjective assessments are concerned, most tennis analysts and most of the players who faced both men agree that Federer is the greater player. Your post is unlikely to persuade anyone who is not already a confirmed Sampras fan.
 
TennisFan3 said:
Well Federer and Sampras are interchangeable. I'll give you that. It's not as clearcut as Laver who is at another level.

I think Sampras > Federer. But I might be biased because I am a Sampras fan. You might think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Laver is not clear cut as his 1962 slam was when the top 3 players were pro, and he was not - he only had Emerson in those years and none other.

To me Sampras was the most authoritative player I've ever seen. And it's not all about numbers. There are factors such as competition ( of the late and early 90s vs that in 2003-2007), Seeding system ( 32 vs 16 which made upsets more likely),
Click to expand...
Sampras won 2 of his slams in 00-02 when the competition was not very good to say at least. Same goes for 96-99 when there were players like Berasategui,Korda,Kafelnikov, Washington winning or making finals at slams.
Not to mention Agassi being pretty much inconsistent in those years and not a regular #2 and biggest rival as Nadal is to Federer.
Agassi won 2 slams from 93 till 99 RG. He met Sampras the total of 3 times in those years. It's like Federer meeting Safin for the same time period.

nature of the surfaces ( less variation now with grass becoming slower and clay faster, meaning that one style of play works on all surfaces).
Click to expand...
Yet we don't see Karlovic,Roddick making the RG finals, like Stich did. Can't see Delpo,Murray,Djokovic playing the same way on grass as they do on clay. Can't see Davy playing the same on grass either.
Not to mention that Sampras was an average player on clay so that's not something you can use to make your point.

A fair indication is a link between those two which is Agassi. Agassi who at age 34 recovered from a bad hip and nearly beat Federer in the UsOpen (took him to 5 sets) and aged 35 stretched Federer to 4 sets, even after being gassed himself playing a couple of 5 sets in the previous rounds. Agassi couldn't take more than a set off Sampras 10 years ago, and in all fairness, a 30+ Agassi would hardly have taken a set off Sampras. That tells me something.
Click to expand...
The same Agassi who took 2 sets of Sampras in 93 Wimbey, and was eliminated by Flach, Martin and Haas the following years.
Not to mention Agassi being wank in 93 winning the total of 2 minor titles, not playing in the other two slams, and taken out by Enqvist in the 1st round of the USO. Not to mention Sampras being taken to 5 sets by juiced Korda in 97 Wimbey.
Federer was taken to 5 sets only by Nadal, Roddick, Haas(twice), Delpo,aforementioned Andre and Andreev on the road of winning 16 slams.
Sampras was taken to 5 sets by Corretja,Novak, Rusedski, Martin, Forget, Lendl, just in the USO(5 wins and 92 final)

It's not a science, and so results will be, of necessity, subjective. Do I think that Federer would have won so many Wimbledons if he'd played in the 90's, on fast grass? Would he have won 5 US Opens in a row, with Agassi at his peak, given how he struggled against a lame and ancient Agassi 2 years running. Who knows? What is clear is that Federer can't be the best of Sampras's era, because he never played then. Nor can we measure his career and then transpose it onto thoroughly different conditions of another era and say,he's the GOAT.
Click to expand...
Um, lets see. Agassi during 94-98(04-08 was when Federer won his 5 USO) produced the following results at the USO:
94:Won(taken to 5 by Chang, beating Muster,Stich, Martin(not exactlly world beaters at the USO))
95:F - taken to 5 sets by clay courter Corretja.
96:SF-straight setted by Chang.
97:4th Round exit to Rafter
98:4th round exit to Kucera
So Agassi in those years was a non factor in 3 of them.. Not to mention being much more inconsistent than he was in his latter years - (between 99 and 05 he lost before the QF on only 1 occasion.). Not to mention that this lame and ancient Agassi had won 8 slams by that time and the time Sampras met him in 95 he had like 3?
Not to mention Agassi being non existent in 94 and 97 AO when Sampras won there. Not even in the draw.

That would be only opinion. I think we can say "he's the best we have seen", or the best of his era, but I'd be skeptical of anyone who would look at this generation and then look at the last, and be comfortable saying that one player was better than such a great player as Sampras, given how different their careers were.
Click to expand...

Um, lets see, the only multiple slam winners in the 90's were - Edberg, Agassi,Courier,Bruguera,Becker,Kafelnikov,Rafter

Edberg won his before Sampras's domination, same can be said for Becker and Courier, with the former winning 1 slam post 93.

For those in the 00's you have Kuerten, Agassi,Sampras.
For Kafelnikov and Rafter you have Hewitt and Safin who both I think are better and of course Nadal's 6>Agassi 5.

Granted the conditions were different and it would be hard to compare.

What we have for sure is the records. And soon Sampas would have no record left to his name.
 
GasquetGOAT said:
Ok, so Greek Goliath voted for Sampras, may I ask why do you think Sampras deserves his place above Laver? The same Sampras who sucked on clay and never reached a single French Open final?
Click to expand...

SO... any other thing you want to impose us besides Fed being goat and Sampras not being fit for that role? like what i should have for lunch to day or what icecream flavour we should have in those sunny afternoons..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

noeledmonds
Why Federer has to Win the FO to be a GOAT contender
Replies
37
Views
3K
jhhachamp
J
1
  • Poll Poll
Who is the 2nd greatest player of the open era?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
14K
timnz
T
T
Following 14th Grand Slam title, Is Federer the greatest or merely great?
4 5 6
Replies
299
Views
7K
NonP
NonP
Lozo1016
  • Poll Poll
If Novak wins RG, Is He The Only Player To Rank In Your (Open Era) Top 3 On Grass, Clay, and Hard?
Replies
27
Views
635
Lauren_Girl'
L
R
AP Article: Following 14th Grand Slam title,Is Federer the greatest or merely great?
Replies
8
Views
1K
samster
S
Back
Top