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

[anointedone]

I normally stay out of these tiresome GOAT discussions, but Federer/Rosewall and Evert/Nav/Court in tier 2? You're kidding, right? They're firmly in tier 1. If your argument against Rosewall is that most of his big titles came before '68 then you should simply take him and Laver out of the list.

P.S. Not a bad list otherwise. Newcombe is debatable.

Well Laver still had his greatest Calender Slam of all in 1969. Plus he was arguably the best player in the World in 1970 and 1971 and remained one of the best through 1974 even if his offical Grand Slam results werent indicative of it.

Rosewall had some very strong achievements in the Open Era, but most of his greatness was before the Open Era, apart from the stretching of his longevity to an incredible extent.

I really think Graf is in a league of her own but that is just my opinion. To those that disagree of course Navratilova, Evert, and Court call all be tier 1 too.

 

[fed_rulz]

Actually, Federer gets into more rallies than Sampras because Sampras serve-and-volleyed; the points were over quickly. Federer uses his serve to start the point off in his favor, and then uses his superior (over his opponents) ground game to move them around before finishing them off. Winning % on first serve still takes into account other factors than just serves- for Sampras, his volleys, and for Federer, his ground game.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

I do not have stats to back me up, but my hunch is that when Fed gets a 1st serve in, he usually finishes the point with the next shot (FH from the mid-court). IMO, both elicit weak or no replies from their opponents on their 1st serves with comparable frequency, and hence my contention that they have comparable 1st serves.

Of course, the quality of the returner will make a difference too, but IMO, we have better returners today (on average) than the 90s. Murray, Djoker, Nadal, Fed, Ferrer, Hewitt, Davy all have great returns when compared to the top 10 in the 90s (barring Agassi).

btw, how do you contend that Pete's 1st serve is "light years" better than Fed? I already conceded that for the 2nd serve, and also that the 1st serve is marginally better... Just curious, that's all.

 

[Rippy]

Well Laver still had his greatest Calender Slam of all in 1969. Plus he was arguably the best player in the World in 1970 and 1971 and remained one of the best through 1974 even if his offical Grand Slam results werent indicative of it.

Rosewall had some very strong achievements in the Open Era, but most of his greatness was before the Open Era, apart from the stretching of his longevity to an incredible extent.

I really think Graf is in a league of her own but that is just my opinion. To those that disagree of course Navratilova, Evert, and Court call all be tier 1 too.

Why is Federer in tier2?

 

[Greek Goliath]

I do not have stats to back me up, but my hunch is that when Fed gets a 1st serve in, he usually finishes the point with the next shot (FH from the mid-court). IMO, both elicit weak or no replies from their opponents on their 1st serves with comparable frequency, and hence my contention that they have comparable 1st serves.

Of course, the quality of the returner will make a difference too, but IMO, we have better returners today (on average) than the 90s. Murray, Djoker, Nadal, Fed, Ferrer, Hewitt, Davy all have great returns when compared to the top 10 in the 90s (barring Agassi).

btw, how do you contend that Pete's 1st serve is "light years" better than Fed? I already conceded that for the 2nd serve, and also that the 1st serve is marginally better... Just curious, that's all.

Federer has a good serve, but I don't think it can compare to Sampras. He could serve his way out of nearly anything. Talking about the quality of the serve here, just look at the type of returns Sampras elicited. Federer gets a midcourt attackable ball, while Sampras gets a short, high sitter or floater.

Just my opinion. We're all entitled to disagree

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

 

[NonP]

Well it isnt just about achievements for me. It is about the ability to actually play tennis. When I break down Sampras and Federer I dont see how Federer is the superior overall player. Sampras has a light years better first and second serve, much better forehand volley, much better backhand volleys, better overhead, better leaping ability, more raw speed. His forehand is more explosive than Federer although less consistent. His backhand is atleast a good as Federers which is Federers weakness. His return game is more agressive than is Federer and arguably overall as good or better. Other than a more consistent (though less potent) forehand, better footwork and anticipation, I can see hardly anything Federer does better, while Sampras is better at almost everything.

Came across this post after the previous one of yours. Point taken. One beef: Fed's backhand is better than Sampras'. Pete's passing shots off his backhand were top-notch, as were the down-the-line winners on good days, but it was rather wristy. A slightly bigger racquet with poly could probably allow him to hit with more power, and perhaps he would've stuck with his two-handed BH had he born a few years later, but that's a what-if scenario.

Well Laver still had his greatest Calender Slam of all in 1969. Plus he was arguably the best player in the World in 1970 and 1971 and remained one of the best through 1974 even if his offical Grand Slam results werent indicative of it.

I don't see Laver belonging in tier 1 purely based on his post-'68 records, even with his calendar-year Grand Slam. I personally don't put too much stock in CYGS's anyway. What matters to me is whether the player's won all the four majors. But I digress.

Rosewall had some very strong achievements in the Open Era, but most of his greatness was before the Open Era, apart from the stretching of his longevity to an incredible extent.

Fair enough. But, again, I don't see Laver and Rosewall in tier 1 or 2 if we're talking only about their Open-era records.

I really think Graf is in a league of her own but that is just my opinion. To those that disagree of course Navratilova, Evert, and Court call all be tier 1 too.

Graf does have the Open-era Slam record, but it comes with perhaps the only irrefutable asterisk in tennis history: Seles' stabbing and subsequent downfall.

For the record I don't believe in the GOAT, or even a stable of GOATs. I object to the very notion that a player can be the greatest of all time. But I don't mind grouping these all-time greats into tiers, and IMO these tiers should be as inclusive and objective as possible. By those standards Fed and Nav/Evert belong in tier 1. Court is debatable (but, of course, she belongs in tier 1 based on her career accomplishments).

 

[caulcano]

The 50 aces was against Roddick, no? Not exactly the greatest returner to ever play. Sampras has hit 30+ aces against Agassi and countless unreturned serves, and Agassi had x-ray vision. It seemed like he could dodge bullets with his reflexes.

As for forehand, I think Sampras had a different type of forehand. He was about attacking on the wing, while Federer is content to rally with his ridiculous topspin until he gets an opening.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

Well this is what Agassi said of Federer:

Following the match, Agassi had the highest of praise for Federer, calling him best player he ever faced. “Pete (Sampras) was great, no question,” Agassi said. “But there was a place to get to with Pete. It could be on your terms. There’s no such place with Roger. I think he’s the best I’ve played against.” Said Federer of Agassi’s comments, “It’s fantastic to be compared to all the players he’s played throughout his career. We’re talking about the best-some are the best of all time. And I still have chances to improve.”

 

[TMF]

People are getting off topic b/c they seem to ignore the title of this thread. This isn't about Roger anymore since he's already seperated himself from the pack, but the argument is between Laver, Borg and Pete, where's it's very debatable. Stay on topic!

 

[anointedone]

Came across this post after the previous one of yours. Point taken. One beef: Fed's backhand is better than Sampras'. Pete's passing shots off his backhand were top-notch, as were the down-the-line winners on good days, but it was rather wristy. A slightly bigger racquet with poly could probably allow him to hit with more power, and perhaps he would've stuck with his two-handed BH had he born a few years later, but that's a what-if scenario.

This all makes alot of sense.

I don't see Laver belonging in tier 1 purely based on his post-'68 records, even with his calendar-year Grand Slam. I personally don't put too much stock in CYGS's anyway. What matters to me is whether the player's won all the four majors. But I digress.

I do put alot of stock in CYGS, since so very few in history have achieved it. That being said winning 5 or especialy 6 in a row, even if not resulting in a CYGS I consider just as impressive.

Fair enough. But, again, I don't see Laver and Rosewall in tier 1 or 2 if we're talking only about their Open-era records.

Fair enough but as I said I hugely value the CYGS.

Graf does have the Open-era Slam record, but it comes with perhaps the only irrefutable asterisk in tennis history: Seles' stabbing and subsequent downfall.

Opinions vary greatly on the whole Graf-Seles issue. I personally dont think the stabbing made nearly as much difference as some. Seles has never beaten Graf on a medium to faster surface and couldnt even do it pre stabbing. She was humiliated their lone meeting on a fast surface in the Wimbledon final, and even beaten up pretty badly on their only meeting on a medium surface in the U.S hardcourts final. So I dont see the likelihood of her beating Graf in a Wimbledon or U.S Open final much at all (Wimbledon virtually nothing). Graf only played and won 1 Australian Open after the stabbing and most other years missed with injury or played injured, so Seles potentially continuing general dominance there is virtually irrelevant to Graf.
That leaves the French Open. Graf did win 4 after the stabbing and Seles was dominating there. However I doubt very much Seles was going to win all 10 French Opens in the 90s, and considering Majoli and Sanchez (great player but owned badly by Seles) were the only other winners, Graf was probably going to have to win atleast a couple of those at some point anyway. Seles never IMO owned Graf whatsoever, she benefited in the early 90s from Graf being in a slump of form and very rarely even reaching the finals. They only played in 3 slam finals in the 2 and a half years before the stabbing.

Graf winning virtually every slam she played after the Seles stabbing means Seles would have to start truly dominating Graf head to head in a way she really hadnt to continue her pre stabbing streak, which IMO is unlikely. It is also not like she made such a strong extended return to the game even considering what she went through to merit alot of benefit of doubt if you are someone who is in doubt (which I as you can tell am to begin with). Keep in mind when she first returned to the tour people were predicting her to do alot more than she did. In the early 90s there were some very good players but few tough matchups for her, only Graf really who as I already illustrated she barely played, and to a lesser degree maybe Capriati on hard courts. Post stabbing years there was Graf more regularly in the finals of course, but also Davenport, Hingis, Serena, Venus. Maybe confronted with people who presented challenges to her game which an aging Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario, Capriati (a strictly B power hitter compared to Williams, Davenport, or Graf), or Sabatini could not, she just wasnt ever going to have the same degree of success.

For the record I don't believe in the GOAT, or even a stable of GOATs. I object to the very notion that a player can be the greatest of all time. But I don't mind grouping these all-time greats into tiers, and IMO these tiers should be as inclusive and objective as possible. By those standards Fed and Nav/Evert belong in tier 1. Court is debatable (but, of course, she belongs in tier 1 based on her career accomplishments).

I understand what you are saying here.

 

[NonP]

Well, what do you know, not a bad discussion this time around. Maybe there's some hope for this place after all.

Their forehands were comparable in different ways. Federer has a more consistent forehand and a better inside-out forehand; Sampras has pace and was far better on the run.

This sounds about right. Fed's FH is more consistent and efficient in extended rallies, Sampras' flatter and more penetrating. Pete's FH wasn't one that would out-rally his opponents' like Fed's (though it certainly wasn't bad in that respect), but it could put them immediately on the defensive or, especially while on the run, smack an unreachable winner usually cross-court. So while Fed's FH is better overall, Pete's own FH fit his attacking game to a tee, and probably is more efficient against players like Nadal who don't handle big flat groundstrokes as well as those hit with more topspin, like Fed's.

But I wouldn't say Sampras' FH is "far better" on the run. Fed has a great running FH of his own, just a notch below that of Sampras, Lendl or Nadal.

 

[Fedace]

Nadal, of course. He is actually better player than any of these guys, even Federer. just doesn't have the numbers that is all.....

 

[NonP]

I do put alot of stock in CYGS, since so very few in history have achieved it.

That's a valid POV. So we disagree. No biggie.

Opinions vary greatly on the whole Graf-Seles issue. I personally dont think the stabbing made nearly as much difference as some. Seles has never beaten Graf on a medium to faster surface and couldnt even do it pre stabbing. She was humiliated their lone meeting on a fast surface in the Wimbledon final, and even beaten up pretty badly on their only meeting on a medium surface in the U.S hardcourts final. So I dont see the likelihood of her beating Graf in a Wimbledon or U.S Open final much at all (Wimbledon virtually nothing). Graf only played and won 1 Australian Open after the stabbing and most other years missed with injury or played injured, so Seles potentially continuing general dominance there is virtually irrelevant to Graf.
That leaves the French Open. Graf did win 4 after the stabbing and Seles was dominating there. However I doubt very much Seles was going to win all 10 French Opens in the 90s, and considering Majoli and Sanchez (great player but owned badly by Seles) were the only other winners, Graf was probably going to have to win atleast a couple of those at some point anyway. Seles never IMO owned Graf whatsoever, she benefited in the early 90s from Graf being in a slump of form and very rarely even reaching the finals. They only played in 3 slam finals in the 2 and a half years before the stabbing.

Graf winning virtually every slam she played after the Seles stabbing means Seles would have to start truly dominating Graf head to head in a way she really hadnt to continue her pre stabbing streak, which IMO is unlikely. It is also not like she made such a strong extended return to the game even considering what she went through to merit alot of benefit of doubt if you are someone who is in doubt (which I as you can tell am to begin with). Keep in mind when she first returned to the tour people were predicting her to do alot more than she did. In the early 90s there were some very good players but few tough matchups for her, only Graf really who as I already illustrated she barely played, and to a lesser degree maybe Capriati on hard courts. Post stabbing years there was Graf more regularly in the finals of course, but also Davenport, Hingis, Serena, Venus. Maybe confronted with people who presented challenges to her game which an aging Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario, Capriati (a strictly B power hitter compared to Williams, Davenport, or Graf), or Sabatini could not, she just wasnt ever going to have the same degree of success.

For the record I'm not one of those who say Graf should be relegated to tier 2 below Court, Navratilova and Evert just because she didn't have a main rival to contend with for long. That's hyperbolic nonsense. Graf was still making major finals and also ranked no. 3 when she retired. Hadn't she surpassed Nav's record by then she probably would've stayed around longer. And you just listed the other reasons why Seles wasn't going to own Graf anyway, though I disagree with some of 'em. Let's just leave it at that. I'm sick of these GOAT discussions.

 

[dropshot winner]

Nadal, of course. He is actually better player than any of these guys, even Federer. just doesn't have the numbers that is all.....

Robredo is better than all of them, just doesn't have the numbers.

 

[kishnabe]

Laver is the 2nd Goat!, and closely tied with him is Borg.

 

[1Sampras]

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?

because Sampras could rise above his rivals unlike Federer who only has one rival and its a one sided affair with Nadal beating him. Nobody that ever played tennis could beat Pete at his best in the 90s up to 99

 

[fed_rulz]

because Sampras could rise above his rivals unlike Federer who only has one rival and its a one sided affair with Nadal beating him. Nobody that ever played tennis could beat Pete at his best in the 90s up to 99

didn't realize Sampras went unbeaten till '99. By rivals, whom are you referring to?
Richard Krajicek ? Or wayne Ferreira? Or perhaps you meant Michael Stich? A little clarity will go a long way in conveying the point. kthxbai.

 

[Rippy]

because Sampras could rise above his rivals unlike Federer who only has one rival and its a one sided affair with Nadal beating him. Nobody that ever played tennis could beat Pete at his best in the 90s up to 99

Federer has other rivals. Samprastards like yourself like to pretend Nadal is his only rival, since he is the only one with a significant H2H advantage over Federer.

Just like me saying "Krajicek was the one true rival of Sampras, and Sampras couldn't even handle him when at his prime at Wimbledon. Sampras can't rise above his rivals."

 

[Greek Goliath]

Hmm. I hope that no one considers me to be a "***********". I try to base my opinion on statistics, and I have argued before that Federer's H2H with Nadal goes to show his diversity.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

 

[Rippy]

Hmm. I hope that no one considers me to be a "***********". I try to base my opinion on statistics, and I have argued before that Federer's H2H with Nadal goes to show his diversity.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

I was perhaps a bit unfair calling him a ***********, but he did start a rather rambling thread earlier extolling the virtues of Pete Sampras.

 

[1Sampras]

didn't realize Sampras went unbeaten till '99. By rivals, whom are you referring to?
Richard Krajicek ? Or wayne Ferreira? Or perhaps you meant Michael Stich? A little clarity will go a long way in conveying the point. kthxbai.

Federer doesnt have a game that can attack. Nadal pushes him around the court and is the only mentally tough player of this era that doesnt blink under pressure. Federer plays a little better on defense and has more margin for error so he is for sure more dominant than Pete regardless of the competition. But if i had to put my money on a match playing a in form Safin or Nadal, i would put my money on Pete to beat them at their best

 

[SLD76]

Federer doesnt have a game that can attack?

:shock:

:shock:

You just negated anything you had to say after that statement. I mean, I understand everyone has players they prefer. But thats like me being a Fed fan and just to negate Nadal saying something crazy like "well Nadal has a weak FH, thats why he gets blasted off the court by players like Soderling"

Unreal.

 

[Greek Goliath]

Yeah, 1Sampras, that wasn't exactly the brightest post I've ever seen. Federer can't attack? He yanks players around with that huge forehand.

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

1. Fed 2. Laver 3. Sampras 4. Borg 5. Agassi

 

[Greek Goliath]

1. Fed 2. Laver 3. Sampras 4. Borg 5. Agassi

Explain why Agassi is 5th please?

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

 

[Anaconda]

Explain why Agassi is 5th please?

Cheers,

Greek Goliath

Probably because he's won the Grand Slam and the olympics + loads of MS titles.

 

[SLD76]

He yanks players around with that huge forehand.

That bhdtl is none too shabby either(if less consistent). Ask Murray about it.

 

[Polvorin]

In my opinion, he has the GOAT 1hbh motion. Gasquet that is, do you have a problem with that?

I thought so too but Youzhny out backhanded him at the AO...

 

[Chadwixx]

Probably because he's won the Grand Slam and the olympics + loads of MS titles.

Many other players are far ahead of agassi. Cant have two players from the 90's in the top 5 in a goat list, especially since neither are the goat.

Pete is 3 and dominated agassi in big events, 5 is way generous when you consider the previous talents tennis has seen.

 

[Buckethead]

i'll go with Borg,Laver,Sampras, if you consider versitality ,but if you check who won more,then we have to go with Pete.
As i only saw Sampra's career,more than the others and Sampras was my fav til Fed came and dethroned him,i am going to say Sampras the 2nd GOAT.
But Fed is clearly the GOAT,not even arguable anymore,it's already 2 slams on the 2nd on the list.
I'd put Rafa in front of Agassi.

 

[World Beater]

if you think some of the posters in this thread are looney, they will only become worse as Federer starts to rack up more slams.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

People Comparing Sampras game and federers and some how making Sampras's look better.

Dude, If Sampras had such all round game why is that he sucked on clay courts and lost to no namers. Sampras is an "also ran" on clay courts.

Contrast that to Federer's. He has a clay slam and ofcourse few more clay titles to go with it + consistently made it to finals of clay court tourneys.

Claycourts require a game that is not based on Serve alone.

Lastly, How could one put Sampras on a GOAT list. Claycourts make 40% of tennis season and this guy is a non factor for that much time in a season and yet he will be called GOAT?

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Robredo is better than all of them, just doesn't have the numbers.

Are you kidding me. Tennis_monk is better than any tennis player that has and will be playing the game of tennis. Just that he doesnt have the numbers.

 

[Fedace]

Robredo is better than all of them, just doesn't have the numbers.

Yes but does Robredo own Nadal like Nadal owns Federer ? Actually Nadal owns everyone in top 10 with the exception of Joker...

 

[RyanRF]

I think it's hard to call a certain player G.O.A.T. if they are weak on one surface.... so that rules out Sampras.

Borg never won Australia, while Laver won each of the majors at least twice.

Gotta give #2 GOAT to Rod

 

[TMF]

Yes but does Robredo own Nadal like Nadal owns Federer ? Actually Nadal owns everyone in top 10 with the exception of Joker...

You're forgetting too quickly. Ever heard of Davydenko?

 

[Baselineg]

MURRAY....chew on that haters.

 

[abmk]

Well it isnt just about achievements for me. It is about the ability to actually play tennis. When I break down Sampras and Federer I dont see how Federer is the superior overall player. Sampras has a light years better first and second serve, much better forehand volley, much better backhand volleys, better overhead, better leaping ability, more raw speed. His forehand is more explosive than Federer although less consistent. His backhand is atleast a good as Federers which is Federers weakness. His return game is more agressive than is Federer and arguably overall as good or better. Other than a more consistent (though less potent) forehand, better footwork and anticipation, I can see hardly anything Federer does better, while Sampras is better at almost everything.

fed's BH >> sampras's BH

and yeah his return *sucked* when compared to fed

 

[abmk]

Actually I'd want to check the stats on the return just to show the difference. Can someone point out how to get the stats for the previous years, year by year ???

 

[abmk]

Disagree, Sampras is a much better return of server against weak servers. Federer gets in big trouble against people with weak serves most of the time because he has never tried to attack them. This has cause him all sorts of problems against Nadal, Murray, and a boatload of players with weak second serves.

really, is that why he's pummeled murray the 2 times they met in a GS (and the last 3 times they met ? ),

even considering his last 4 losses to murray: he attacked his 2nd serve well at the TMC in 2008; at madrid, murray was serving like a beast, so attacking the 2nd serve wasn't too feasible ... doha and IW, it was let-downs in the final set that cost him, not inability to attack murray's 2nd serve

nadal's serve would IMO cause as much problem to sampras, if not more, as they do to fed ..though on a rare occasion, the surprise attack element might get to nadal

sampras was more agressive on the return sure, doesn't necessarily translate to him being better against the weaker servers

I don't really see much of a difference in how their return effectiveness against weak servers, however big servers, fed's much better

 

[dropshot winner]

Yes but does Robredo own Nadal like Nadal owns Federer ? Actually Nadal owns everyone in top 10 with the exception of Joker...

Robredo owns everyone, but he doesn't want to show it. No need for it, he knows he's the best.

If The Mighty Robredo played as good as he could Nadal would lose all the confidence in his game and would injure his knees within 1-3 sets trying to keep up.
To avoid this, Robredo decides to play bad, sometimes even with closed eyes, and gifts Nadal the victory. Isn't he gracious?

 

[sunny_cali]

Federer doesnt have a game that can attack. Nadal pushes him around the court and is the only mentally tough player of this era that doesnt blink under pressure. Federer plays a little better on defense and has more margin for error so he is for sure more dominant than Pete regardless of the competition. But if i had to put my money on a match playing a in form Safin or Nadal, i would put my money on Pete to beat them at their best

clueless ****s with low tennis IQ should be banned. :evil:

 

[dropshot winner]

LOL, how anyone wants to claim that Federer can't attack is beyond me. One might as well claim that Sampras couldn't serve.

And bringing Safin into the discussion doesn't make sense either. It was Sampras who got schooled very badly in that US Open final 10 years ago, Federer on the other hand has a good records against him. Only one of Safin's best ever performances was good enough to win a big match against Federer, and he still faced match-point.

 

[timnz]

Laver won on all surfaces

Pete Sampras. Laver shouldnt be number 2 because he only won on 2 surfaces and played most of his tennis pre-Open era

Sorry, you are wrong there. Laver won on all surfaces - hard, clay, grass, indoor, wood.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics

 

[Deleted member 21996]

when you consider the previous talents tennis has seen.

see.. i kinda like you posts and what not, but when it comes to bashing agassi you can drop the worlds biggest load of BS...

if that is how you put it... measure goatness via talent i have all the right to say Hicham Arazi is the GOAT... after all he is\was the greatest natural talent i have seen...

how about it? :twisted:

 

[myalterego]

Sampras. Best grass court player ever, massive serve, and he completely dominated his opponents. He made Agassi look like garbage in my opinion, took care of Ivanisevic, Rafter, and others on his way to 14 titles. He doesn't have a FO title to his name, but considering everything else he has done, he is the 2nd GOAT.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Sampras. Best grass court player ever, massive serve, and he completely dominated his opponents. He made Agassi look like garbage in my opinion, took care of Ivanisevic, Rafter, and others on his way to 14 titles. He doesn't have a FO title to his name, but considering everything else he has done, he is the 2nd GOAT.

Sorry my friend. Not so soon. Forgot Krajicek?. And when did Sampras win more than 2 slams in a year?. Domination---hardly.

I personally feel that Sampras is a strong candidate for Tier 2 of Great players (with Tier 1 exclusively belonging to Federer for now).

Making Agassi look like Garbage? Agassi won 7 slams (completing career slam) + olympic medal + whatever. if that is Garbage then your expectations are too high.

 

[myalterego]

Do you really consider Krajicek a blemish on Sampras' career? Yes, he beat Sampras, but he didn't destroy Sampras' career.

Also, about the 2 Slams a year thing: Sampras had amazing consistency over the years, completely dominating the USO and Wimbledon. Borg couldn't win at the USO or AO when they were grass, his best surface, and his career spiraled quickly downward after his prime. Laver, although a great champion, did not have as much success in the Open Era as is perceived. Yes, I know the Open Era began during his career, but still, he was dominant for one year.

I don't care how many Grand Slams Agassi won, Sampras made him look like a *****.

 

[SLD76]

When Pete Sampras called it quits after winning his 14th Grand Slam singles title, he was certain that record would stand for quite some time.

Enter, Roger Federer.

"I really thought that 14 would be a number that would be very tough to tie and break," Sampras said Friday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, "but Roger just came along and dominated the game much more than I ever did."


http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus09/news/story?id=3873552

 

[mandy01]

Why do people care so much about this whole GOAT thingy?

 

[Markov]

It won't settle, man.. not before Federer has been long retired and nostalgy has taken over.

Answering the question: I think that the 2nd GOAT behind Federer is either Nadal or Sampras. Nadal is a candidate since he's just a player who would beat almost anyone, and definitely anyone from the past. This is just my opinion of the meaning of the word "GOAT".
Sampras: well, he has achieved a lot. Never dominated even a single season like players before or after him, though.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

It won't settle, man.. not before Federer has been long retired and nostalgy has taken over.

Answering the question: I think that the 2nd GOAT behind Federer is either Nadal or Sampras. Nadal is a candidate since he's just a player who would beat almost anyone, and definitely anyone from the past. This is just my opinion of the meaning of the word "GOAT".
Sampras: well, he has achieved a lot. Never dominated even a single season like players before or after him, though.

cute.. so it's safe to assume neither Fed nor Nadal are the Goats as i'm pretty sure they will be replaced someone who will be better then them in every espect fo tennis...