Rod Laver claims Roger Federer is the best player of his generation

[ultradr]

Do tell!

Generation = Group of individuals born about the same time.

Or compete at similar time frame?

Nadal won his 1st slam at 19 (maybe 18? correct me if I'm wrong) and
Federer won his 1st at 22 (again correct me if I'm wrong).

This make their career time frame shift only about 2 year.

 

[ultradr]

So, I guess Sampras' prime lasted "6-7" "patchy" years because there was no other "great" player to challenge him.

... and Federer attining the #1 rank at age 31 waaaaaaaaaaaaay past even the periphery of his prime is a testament to just how strong his prime really was.

in 90's, tennis was polarized on each surface. So it fluctuated more during
each surface season.

comparably, in post-2003 baseline era, the ranking fluctuate a lot less.

 

[NatF]

I meant ferrero. He was the #1 at the time ...him and Roddick.

He still wasn't one of Federer's main rivals. Injuries ruined his career.

 

[10is]

Or compete at similar time frame?

Where did you get that definition from?

I guess Connors/Lendl, Federer/Agassi, Borg/Lendl were the same generation.

Nadal won his 1st slam at 19 (maybe 18? correct me if I'm wrong) and
Federer won his 1st at 22 (again correct me if I'm wrong).

What does the age at which they won their first slam have anything to do with the "generation" gap?

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Do tell!

Generation = Group of individuals born about the same time.

I would say Nadal is part of Federer's generation. He became number 2 in 2005 and then competed hard against Federer throughout his prime. Federer feels the same way. A few years ago he called Djokovic and Murray the young guns and said Nadal was "tour veteran". There was an age difference and that certainly had an effect, but it is not something that hasn't happened before. Moya and Kuerten were 5-6 years younger than Agassi and Sampras but I consider them players from Sampras' generation. The played their best tennis in similar time frames.

 

[10is]

I would say Nadal is part of Federer's generation. He became number 2 in 2005 and then competed hard against Federer throughout his prime. Federer feels the same way. A few years ago he called Djokovic and Murray the young guns and said Nadal was "tour veteran". There was an age difference and that certainly had an effect, but it is not something that hasn't happened before. Moya and Kuerten were 5-6 years younger than Agassi and Sampras but I consider them players from Sampras' generation. The played their best tennis in similar time frames.

The problem with that sort categorization is that you're disregarding age-related differences and arbitrarily lumping players together around a central dominating influence within a particular time frame. Hence, the Sampras era, the Federer era... and this era, whatever it may be, it certainly can't be classified as the Nadal era since he has only has short-periodic patches of domination.

The other issue with this, in the context of athletics is that the age-related "competitive/performance" disparity only increases with time, relative to the age-difference between competitors. Therefore leading to the absurd comparisions in terms of a certain player's stature using the H-H argument and disregarding differences in age. To my knowledge no top player has ever had to contend with a "main rival" who was 5 chronological years his junior.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

The problem with that sort categorization is that you're disregarding age-related differences and arbitrarily lumping players together around a central dominating influence within a particular time frame. Hence, the Sampras era, the Federer era... and this era, whatever it may be, it certainly can't be classified as the Nadal era since he has only has short-periodic patches of domination.

The other issue with this, in the context of athletics is that the age-related "competitive/performance" disparity only increases with time relative to the age-difference between competitors. Therefore leading to the absurd comparisions in terms of a players' stature using the H-H argument irrespective of the age differences between players.

That's true. I already dispute the statement that "Federer is not even the best player of his generation". That is nonsense. Federer bagged almost all the grand slams from 2004-2007 and some fanatics seem to think that losing matches to your rival means you are not the best player of your generation even if you won half a dozen more slams than your rival in the time frame. I just think that Nadal is a unique case like Boris Becker. He established himself in the previous generation ..if that makes any sense.

 

[10is]

That's true. I already dispute the statement that "Federer is not even the best player of his generation". That is nonsense. Federer bagged almost all the grand slams from 2004-2007 and some fanatics seem to think that losing matches to your rival means you are not the best player of your generation even if you won half a dozen more slams than your rival in the time frame. I just think that Nadal is a unique case like Boris Becker. He established himself in the previous generation ..if that makes any sense.

It does... and (in principle) I do agree! However not everyone is as intellectually honest as you are. The problem with shifting the semantic context of a term like "generation" is that it allows fanbases (whether unwittingly or by design) to then contextually apply terms like, "rivalry", "head-head", "competition", etc. to inflate the stature of their own favorite players. For instance, Sampras fans co-opting Becker simply to make Sampras' era seem more competitive, despite the fact that by the early 90s Becker was a spent force and nowhere near his prime.

There are also other varying aspects to the generational-age argument (in the context of athletics and professional sports). For instance, Nadal fans ridiculing Federer's era simply because Agassi was still competitive in his 30s during that time, without realizing the fact that because he had spent so much of his late 20s away from the tour, his physical attributes were still very much intact, having not been subject to the continuous stress and rigors of tour life i.e. the "mileage" argument. Suffice it to say, like you very nicely stated in another thread, comparing eras and players is not as simple and black and white as people (including myself on occassion) make it out to be.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Federer is 4 years and 11 months older than Nadal.



Autistically brilliant strawman. This is about Head to Head. Not "slams".

And Connors is 7 years older than Mcenroe!!!

 

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious
That's true. I already dispute the statement that "Federer is not even the best player of his generation". That is nonsense. Federer bagged almost all the grand slams from 2004-2007 and some fanatics seem to think that losing matches to your rival means you are not the best player of your generation even if you won half a dozen more slams than your rival in the time frame. I just think that Nadal is a unique case like Boris Becker. He established himself in the previous generation ..if that makes any sense.

Makes sense.

I also certainly see the logic of Fed being the goat despite him losing to Nadal.....

But to be fair the person who coined the phrase "not best in his generation"....I believe is a sportswriter .....I think it was wortheim??

And many others have echoed it......

Jim Courier has said it is impossible for Federer to be called the greatest because of his record with Nadal.

Sampras said if Fed wants to be the greatest he must beat Nadal

Agassi said there is an asterisk on Feds record.

I certainly see the arguments against those people but I wouldn't call wortheim , courier and Agassi Nadal fanatics.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

only took two pages for someone to bring it up, last two....just beat me to it...it will be a good fall back position for some fed fans though, they'll still be able to say he's the best of something if Nadal continues his wrecking ball act...

...further proving ex-pros--from the GOAT--to other ex-champions do not see Federer as the be-all, end-all to tennis (the very thing his most rabid fans try to sell). Now, he is isolated to a lone generation, because the mere idea of Federer being anything greater is not supported by history.

if not fed fans might end up naked on construction equipment and licking poles

Yikes. Thankfully, you did not provide a visual reference?

 

[RF20Lennon]

Makes sense.

I also certainly see the logic of Fed being the goat despite him losing to Nadal.....

But to be fair the person who coined the phrase "not best in his generation"....I believe is a sportswriter .....I think it was wortheim??

And many others have echoed it......

Jim Courier has said it is impossible for Federer to be called the greatest because of his record with Nadal.

Sampras said if Fed wants to be the greatest he must beat Nadal

Agassi said there is an asterisk on Feds record.

I certainly see the arguments against those people but I wouldn't call wortheim , courier and Agassi Nadal fanatics.

Sampras never actually said that. I googled your sig and I got the article. Sampras said Fed needs to figure Nadal out and that it would have bothered him if he had a losing record to Agassi. But in his (Sampras) book, Federer was the greatest of all time.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Sampras never actually said that. I googled your sig and I got the article. Sampras said Fed needs to figure Nadal out and that it would have bothered him if he had a losing record to Agassi. But in his (Sampras) book, Federer was the greatest of all time.

Yes he did . Hold on I'll get it for you.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Took a little but here's the whole article verbatim from tennistalk.com

Sampras says Federer needs to get on top of Nadal

7/15/09 1:35 PM | Johan Lindahl
Pete Sampras says that Roger Federer must ultimately earn a winning career record against rival Rafael Nadal to be considered the greatest player of all time.

"Roger's career isn't done yet," said the seven-time Wimbledon champion who watched from the Royal Box as Federer defeated Andy Roddick ten days ago at the All-England Club to to win a record 15th Grand Slam singles crown.

"He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him (if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book."

LA-based Sampras will play Marat Safin next month at the Los Angeles ATP event in an exhibition which recalls the 2000 US Open final, when the young Russian thrashed the reigning king of the courts.

"You have to be the man of your generation and Roger has come up short against Nadal," the American said of Federer's 7-13 mark against the Spaniard, with Nadal winning six of their last seven through to a May final loss in Madrid.

"He has to figure this kid out, he has to beat him," Sampras said of the 27-year-old Federer, French Open and Wimbledon champion this season.

"He's lost to him a number of times, he just has to figure out Nadal."

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

So did Laver finally convinced you that having a CYGS is NOT the be-all and end-all debate? If we all can't convinced you then how about the rocket?

In the many times this must be repeated to you, there is no "we," and Laver is making a deliberate stand to forever keep the foolish notion of Federer as a GOAT where it belongs: the realm of fantasy.

It is far too late for the worst of Federer's fanbase to pretend their one and only argument was not that Federer was some sort of GOAT. They did not limit it to a generation, but of all time. This board is the evidence for that, but now the usual suspects hope to jump behind Laver (the man routinely disrespected on this board) to find some way of crowning Federer within a lone generation, as they now know numerous great ex-pros simply cannot support a hollow claim.

 

[The Dark Knight]

By the way RF20lennon I checked your sig....

__________________
"Intellectuals solve problems, Geniuses prevent them"

I guess that would make Nadal both an intellectual and a Genius?

Because I don't think Fed solved the Nadal problem or prevented it....

But Nadal solved and prevented Fed and joker . .

Just ribbing you brother....no offense.

Fed is truly great!!! Lets wait for their careers to play out . It's a great ride!

 

[Omega_7000]

In the many times this must be repeated to you, there is no "we," and Laver is making a deliberate stand to forever keep the foolish notion of Federer as a GOAT where it belongs: the realm of fantasy.

It is far too late for the worst of Federer's fanbase to pretend their one and only argument was not that Federer was some sort of GOAT. They did not limit it to a generation, but of all time. This board is the evidence for that, but now the usual suspects hope to jump behind Laver (the man routinely disrespected on this board) to find some way of crowning Federer within a lone generation, as they now know numerous great ex-pros simply cannot support a hollow claim.

Here is my thread from 04/11/2011 in which I'm trying to convince people that different era's cannot be compared.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=376001

Federer said different era's cannot be compared after he won Wimbledon and regained the # 1 ranking.

I'm a Fed fan and I've never said he is the GOAT. He is the best of his generation and that's all you can do as a player.

BTW..............I hope you're not claiming Nadal is the goat after all this?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Here is my thread from 04/11/2011 in which I'm trying to convince people that different era's cannot be compared.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=376001

Federer said different era's cannot be compared after he won Wimbledon and regained the # 1 ranking.

I'm a Fed fan and I've never said he is the GOAT. He is the best of his generation and that's all you can do as a player.

BTW..............I hope you're not claiming Nadal is the goat after all this?

Nadal has done as much at 27 as Fed has at 27 if not more. The race is still
On .....

I think it's to early to proclaim either as goat....

But in my personal opinion Nadal is in the lead .

 

[NatF]

Nadal has done as much at 27 as Fed has at 27 if not more. The race is still
On .....

I think it's to early to proclaim either as goat....

But in my personal opinion Nadal is in the lead .

Nadal hasn't, Federer had 15 slams by the time of his 28th birthday.

 

[TMF]

In the many times this must be repeated to you, there is no "we," and Laver is making a deliberate stand to forever keep the foolish notion of Federer as a GOAT where it belongs: the realm of fantasy.

You don't like "we"? How about I'll just say 99.9999% of the people disagree with you claim a GS is must to qualify for goat, or it's the be-all and end-all. We did try, and we try very hard to tell you that one achievement can't overtake a player's entire career achievement, but you wouldn't listen.

It is far too late for the worst of Federer's fanbase to pretend their one and only argument was not that Federer was some sort of GOAT. They did not limit it to a generation, but of all time. This board is the evidence for that, but now the usual suspects hope to jump behind Laver (the man routinely disrespected on this board) to find some way of crowning Federer within a lone generation, as they now know numerous great ex-pros simply cannot support a hollow claim.

You didn't answer my question. It was either a "yes" or "no".

Does the rocket finally convinced you that the GS is NOT above and beyond everything a player have achieved in his career?

If you're convinced, I suggest you change your avatar.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Nadal hasn't, Federer had 15 slams by the time of his 28th birthday.

Isn't Nadal 27? They both had 13 slams at that age.

Nadal also has beaten Fed directly on all surfaces and lead 8-2 and has Olympic singles gold and Davis cup 4 times I believe ?

Is say they are at least equal.

 

[TMF]

Here is my thread from 04/11/2011 in which I'm trying to convince people that different era's cannot be compared.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=376001

Federer said different era's cannot be compared after he won Wimbledon and regained the # 1 ranking.

I'm a Fed fan and I've never said he is the GOAT. He is the best of his generation and that's all you can do as a player.

BTW..............I hope you're not claiming Nadal is the goat after all this?

If he's not going to use that silly CYGS argument anymore(which I hope he will), he's going to find another way to discredit Federer. Maybe he will use H2H. Who knows.

 

[TMF]

Nadal hasn't, Federer had 15 slams by the time of his 28th birthday.

Federer is also 4 WTFs ahead, along with over ~100 weeks at #1, 2 years end #1. TDK completely ignore these major stats.

 

[10is]

Took a little but here's the whole article verbatim from tennistalk.com

"He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him (if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book."

You are so tranparent. Here's the ACTUAL "full" quote, with linky link no less.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2009/07/speak-warrior/42403/

"I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He (Roger) has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point. It's hard to answer that. I don't know how to answer it.You know, it's not done yet. Roger's career isn't done yet. He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is (already that). But he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. He's lost to him a number of times. You know, you got to be the man of your generation. He certainly is the man of his generation; he just has to figure out Nadal." -- Pete Sampras​

I think it's been proven multiple times that anyone who takes anything you say at face value is an outright buffoon.

 

[The Dark Knight]

If he's not going to use that silly CYGS argument anymore(which I hope he will), he's going to find another way to discredit Federer. Maybe he will use H2H. Who knows.

h2h is a valid argument ..... Certainly Sampras. , courier , Agassi , mcenroe and many others thought so

 

[NatF]

Isn't Nadal 27? They both had 13 slams at that age.

Nadal also has beaten Fed directly on all surfaces and lead 8-2 and has Olympic singles gold and Davis cup 4 times I believe ?

Is say they are at least equal.

At the end of 2008 Federer was 27 and had 13 slams. However he was still 27 for both his slam victories in 2009. So he ended up at 15 aged 27 + more time at #1 + YEC's. Nadal needs to win 2 next season to stay level.

 

[The Dark Knight]

You are so tranparent. Here's the ACTUAL "full" quote, with linky link no less.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2009/07/speak-warrior/42403/

"I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He (Roger) has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point. It's hard to answer that. I don't know how to answer it.You know, it's not done yet. Roger's career isn't done yet. He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is (already that). But he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. He's lost to him a number of times. You know, you got to be the man of your generation. He certainly is the man of his generation; he just has to figure out Nadal." -- Pete Sampras​

I think it's been proven multiple times that anyone who takes anything you say at face value is an outright buffoon.

Nice try but no..,. That's not it . Here is the site and the quote and he said actually a lot more than than so I'll bold that as well:

http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20090715/Sampras_says_Federer_needs_to_get_on_top_of_Nadal

Sampras says Federer needs to get on top of Nadal

7/15/09 1:35 PM | Johan Lindahl
Pete Sampras says that Roger Federer must ultimately earn a winning career record against rival Rafael Nadal to be considered the greatest player of all time.

"Roger's career isn't done yet," said the seven-time Wimbledon champion who watched from the Royal Box as Federer defeated Andy Roddick ten days ago at the All-England Club to to win a record 15th Grand Slam singles crown.

"He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him (if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book."

LA-based Sampras will play Marat Safin next month at the Los Angeles ATP event in an exhibition which recalls the 2000 US Open final, when the young Russian thrashed the reigning king of the courts.

"You have to be the man of your generation and Roger has come up short against Nadal," the American said of Federer's 7-13 mark against the Spaniard, with Nadal winning six of their last seven through to a May final loss in Madrid.

"He has to figure this kid out, he has to beat him," Sampras said of the 27-year-old Federer, French Open and Wimbledon champion this season.

"He's lost to him a number of times, he just has to figure out Nadal."

 

[TMF]

But I thought you said, Rafa and Fed are not from the same generation because the former is 5 years younger and thus the H2H is meaningless

H2H against a single player IS meaningless if he's less achieved. Federer and Nadal joined the pro in 1998 and 2001 respectively. That's 15 years for Federer and 12 years for Nadal. So who cares if Nadal has a better H2H, Roger is a greater champions because dominated the tour like no one else. Nadal is playing for second place.

Davydenko has H2H advantage over Nadal from 2000-2009. You think Davy is a greater champion than Nadal in that decade? Be serious.

The H2H is useless, meaningless, waste of space on this board. You guys should stop wasting time and effort on this topic

 

[ultradr]

That's true. I already dispute the statement that "Federer is not even the best player of his generation". That is nonsense. Federer bagged almost all the grand slams from 2004-2007 and some fanatics seem to think that losing matches to your rival means you are not the best player of your generation even if you won half a dozen more slams than your rival in the time frame. I just think that Nadal is a unique case like Boris Becker. He established himself in the previous generation ..if that makes any sense.

Yes, but Nadal is indispensible element of Federer's legacy.

And all of truely dominating players in history, Laver, Gonzalez, Sampras etc,
dominated 5 year younger generations. They were dethroned by decade+
younger generation.

But Federer has been dethroned by 5 year younger generations.

 

[The Dark Knight]

H2H against a single player IS meaningless if he's less achieved. Federer and Nadal joined the pro in 1998 and 2001 respectively. That's 15 years for Federer and 12 years for Nadal. So who cares if Nadal has a better H2H, Roger is a greater champions because dominated the tour like no one else. Nadal is playing for second place.

Davydenko has H2H advantage over Nadal from 2000-2009. You think Davy is a greater champion than Nadal in that decade? Be serious.

The H2H is useless, meaningless, waste of space on this board. You guys should stop wasting time and effort on this topic

H2h against your main rival in slam finals is meaningless ????

Are you kidding ???????

How about winning the greatest match of all time ?? Meaningless ???

I'm sorry but I think nothing has actually more meaning than slam finals against your main rival .....nothing !

Ever hear the old adage "may the best am win"?

 

[TMF]

If you put Nadal in Federer's generation (and certainly we can),
Federer's being greatest in the era is still debatable IMHO.

What era? You mean era like 2004-2007? If he's not the greatest then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[10is]

You are so tranparent. Here's the ACTUAL "full" quote, with linky link no less.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2009/07/speak-warrior/42403/

"I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He (Roger) has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point. It's hard to answer that. I don't know how to answer it.You know, it's not done yet. Roger's career isn't done yet. He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is (already that). But he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. He's lost to him a number of times. You know, you got to be the man of your generation. He certainly is the man of his generation; he just has to figure out Nadal." -- Pete Sampras​

I think it's been proven multiple times that anyone who takes anything you say at face value is an outright buffoon.

Nice try but no..,. That's not it . Here is the site and the quote and he said actually a lot more than than so I'll bold that as well:

http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20090715/Sampras_says_Federer_needs_to_get_on_top_of_Nadal

Sampras says Federer needs to get on top of Nadal

7/15/09 1:35 PM | Johan Lindahl
Pete Sampras says that Roger Federer must ultimately earn a winning career record against rival Rafael Nadal to be considered the greatest player of all time.

"Roger's career isn't done yet," said the seven-time Wimbledon champion who watched from the Royal Box as Federer defeated Andy Roddick ten days ago at the All-England Club to to win a record 15th Grand Slam singles crown.

"He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him (if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book."

LA-based Sampras will play Marat Safin next month at the Los Angeles ATP event in an exhibition which recalls the 2000 US Open final, when the young Russian thrashed the reigning king of the courts.

"You have to be the man of your generation and Roger has come up short against Nadal," the American said of Federer's 7-13 mark against the Spaniard, with Nadal winning six of their last seven through to a May final loss in Madrid.

"He has to figure this kid out, he has to beat him," Sampras said of the 27-year-old Federer, French Open and Wimbledon champion this season.

"He's lost to him a number of times, he just has to figure out Nadal."

This is hilarious because the link I provided is the original article written by the individual (Pete Bodo) who actually conducted the interview.

Your "source" deliberately "misquotes" Sampras -- an egregious display of shoddy, underhanded pot-stirring "journalism", as the top comment on that page itself mentions:

hey johan....what a play on words in your article buddy...but i like it because it is going to promote a helluva lot of discussion...i have the interview in front of me (watched at end of wimby match...and this is NOT what sampras said).....but the rafa fans will love it......​

 

[The Dark Knight]

What era? You mean era like 2004-2007? If he's not the greatest then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think he is....and plenty of people don't think that he is.

Your certainly not going to prove it.....

The race is still on and it's arguable at this point. Lets wait till their careers are over to declare the greatest.

 

[The Dark Knight]

This is hilarious because the link I provided is the original article written by the individual (Pete Bodo) who actually conducted the interview.

Your "source" deliberately "misquotes" Sampras -- an egregious display of shoddy, underhanded pot-stirring "journalism", as the top comment on that page itself mentions:

hey johan....what a play on words in your article buddy...but i like it because it is going to promote a helluva lot of discussion...i have the interview in front of me (watched at end of wimby match...and this is NOT what sampras said).....but the rafa fans will love it......​

They were on different days . They are two seperate interviews .

Besides in both versions he says that Federer has come up short and is not the man of his generation.

The idea is the same in both articles whichever version you choose to believe

 

[ultradr]

What era? You mean era like 2004-2007? If he's not the greatest then I don't know what to tell you.

Nobody can dispute that.

Federer's domination period is relatively short compared to other dominant players
like Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras.

He won concentrated number of slams in "relatively short" dominant years.

 

[TMF]

A "decade" in a player's career doesn't have to start from 10's.

A great player generally last about a decade at near top. And generally ~7 years
prime. Sampras: 6-7 years. Laver and Gonzalez: 7-8 years.

Federer's prime was relatively shorter, about 4-5 years because it was interrupted
by another great player Nadal.

Federer was a better champion than Sampras and he lasted longer. Sampras fell out of the top 10 in 2001, but Roger claimed #1 in 2012(2 years older than Sampras). Plus, Roger had Nadal who's one of all time great while Sampras benefitted from Agassi taking meth and facing marital problems.

 

[10is]

They were on different days . They are two seperate interviews .

Besides in both versions he says that Federer has come up short and is not the man of his generation.

The idea is the same in both articles whichever version you choose to believe

"Two seperate interviews"? :lol: Calling you a troll would be too kind. You're an ORC!

Here's the FULL the "transcript" of the ACTUAL interview itself held at the LA Tennis Open on July 14, 2009:

http://www.samprasfanz.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?id=1248182612

Q. I listened to your comments after the Wimbledon final. I don't know if you were asked this, how much Federer's record against Nadal affects your opinion? You were widely called the greatest ever by so many different people, had a positive record against your main rival, Andre.

PETE SAMPRAS: Very good question and tough question to answer. I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point.

It's hard to answer that. I don't know how to answer it. You know, it's not done yet. Roger's career isn't done yet. He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is. But he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. He's lost to him a number of times. You know, you got to be the man of your generation. He certainly is the man of his generation; he just has to figure out Nadal.​

 

[The Dark Knight]

LOL! Calling you a troll would be too kind. You're an ORC!

I don't know which version is real but lets for arguments sake say your version is real.....I'll go with that .

It's actually even worse . The article is from 2009 and Sampras clearly says that if by the end of Feds career he does not dominate Nadal then Federer cannot be considered the greatest.

Well it's getting close to the end of his career and at 8-2 or 21-10 I think it's safe to assume that Federer is not going to dominate .

Therefore following Sampras' logic Federer cannot be goat.

Lets go through it:


So naturally, Pete was asked about the Federer-Nadal rivalry - specifically, if he felt that Roger could be considered the Greatest of All Time if he can't establish superiority over his career rival (as Sampras did in his rivaly with Andre Agassi). You'll see from Pete's answer that he was slightly flummoxed, but one of his outstanding qualities always was his determination to honest, even if it meant delivering his opinion or thoughts through clenched teeth.

"I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He (Roger) has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point. It's hard to answer that. I don't know how to answer it.You know, it's not done yet. Roger's career isn't done yet. He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is (already that). But he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. He's lost to him a number of times. You know, you got to be the man of your generation. He certainly is the man of his generation; he just has to figure out Nadal."[/b\

Pushed to elaborate vis a vis his own experience wih Agassi, Pete added:

"Well, God, you're giving it some thought, huh (laughter)? It would have bothered me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors. It wouldn't have sat well with me. Did it mean I was the greatest or not the greatest? I don't know. It's the debate of greatest of all time. We so badly want to pin it on someone. With the numbers you have to give it to Roger. His record against Nadal, okay, you might not give it to him.

"I mean, if I was 7-15 against Andre and I was done, it's hard to say I was the player of my generation - just because he got the best of me. Like I said, the story's not over yet. We have another probably three, four years of these two guys competing against each other. If anything, I think Nadal is going to be hungrier now, seeing Roger getting back to No. 1. It's hard to give you a definitive answer when it's not done yet. I think Roger knows he's got to figure out this kid. It's a tough, tough matchup. Nadal is one of the few guys that believes in himself that he's better than Roger."

 

[Bartelby]

Federer and Nadal are not really of the same generation. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are of the same generation.

Nadal matured early on clay and Federer has lasted longer than people like Hewitt and Nalbandian of his generation.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Federer and Nadal are not really of the same generation. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are of the same generation.

Nadal matured early on clay and Federer has lasted longer than people like Hewitt and Nalbandian of his generation.

Connors was 7 years older than Mcenroe.....they were the same generation.

Federer was something like 5 years younger than philopusis and Baghdatis and they were the same generation.

Agassi was way older than Fed.....do we take 3 slams away from Fed for the age difference?

 

[10is]

Federer and Nadal are not really of the same generation. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are of the same generation.

Nadal matured early on clay and Federer has lasted longer than people like Hewitt and Nalbandian of his generation.

Five to seven years is a lifetime in a game like tennis which is more physical tan ever.

Connors, like Rosewall, lasted a long time in a less physical era but even then these two were not common.

Careers always overlap generations as these are not hard and fast categories, but a tennis career lasts say fifteen years probably at a maximum with the number of years at the top much less.

So there is no way that Federer would outlast Nadal and he has not. He has been off Nadal's pace now for several years.

Exactly! You and I are in accord. Well Said!

 

[Bartelby]

Five to seven years is a lifetime in a game like tennis which is more physical tan ever.

Connors, like Rosewall, lasted a long time in a less physical era but even then these two were not common.

Careers always overlap generations as these are not hard and fast categories, but a tennis career lasts say fifteen years probably at a maximum with the number of years at the top much less.

So there is no way that Federer would outlast Nadal and he has not. He has been off Nadal's pace now for several years.

 

[MichaelNadal]

People get up in arms over some silly crap on here. :lol: Federer is the best player of his generation. I like Nadal better. How easy is that?

 

[Omega_7000]

The point of this thread was to show you guys that tennis eras cannot be compared and there is no GOAT.

 

[MichaelNadal]

The point of this thread was to show you guys that tennis eras cannot be compared and there is no GOAT.

I agree completely, but certain extreme fans on both sides seem to NEED a GOAT for whatever reason and will accept nothing less than it being proclaimed by everyone.

 

[anantak2k]

Yup and it's straight from the mouth of none other than Rod Laver...Some "dark and dorky" Nadal fans keep citing McEnroe who is just a media puppet and changes his view based on which direction the wind is blowing.

I'd much rather listen to someone like Rod Laver who has nothing to gain from this and is consistent with his stance.

Pretty much THIS.

I stopped listening to McEnroe... he jumps every possible badwagon. One moment he has his head up Federer's ***, then he is up Nadal's ***, next year he is up Djokovic's ***, then back up Nadal's ***...
If Murray can string together a year when he wins 2 slams, I bet that he would next be up Murray's ***.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Yup and it's straight from the mouth of none other than Rod Laver...Some "dark and dorky" Nadal fans keep citing McEnroe who is just a media puppet and changes his view based on which direction the wind is blowing.

I'd much rather listen to someone like Rod Laver who has nothing to gain from this and is consistent with his stance.

Rod Laver is awesome. Unlike many of his fanboys who get emotional when anyone has the audacity to say he is not the undisputed Super GOAT. Laver has no problem talking about the extreme differences between the time when he played and now. Funny how Rod Laver mentioned that Roger only failed to win the grand slam because he had an extraordinary obstacle in his way at Roland Garros. When anyone argues this point, you can always expect to be labeled as part of the "Federer fringe". Well, looks like Rod Laver is a Fed fanboy who is making excuses for Federer. :lol:

Back about Laver.He is not like Wilander, Mcenroe, and the vast majority of tennis fans in that he will not start trashing a great player that is past his best. This does not just apply to Federer, in 2009 Rod Laver stated that as good as Roger was, he thought Sampras was still the greatest grass court player, while every tennis journalist and his dog was arguing for Federer over Sampras. Before the 2011 AO when Nadal had a chance to win 4 majors in a row, Laver said that if Nadal won it would be a tremendous achievement but not the same as calendar slam, he got a lot of heat from Nadal fans. The guy is honest and doesn't change his opinion every other week.

 

[Jam]

well I've got to agree with the Nadal fans here (despite the fact that in recent years I've wanted fed to beat Nadal when they've met) simply because the extreme Fed fans are distorting reality. You proclaimed your hero as the goat and it's not turning out like that. I actually hope that Murray (the one I'm the fan of or Djoko like him too a bit) can save you and stop Nadal but I suspect it won't happen. Nadal is going to take all the records and Fed will still remain the most popular tennis player of all time and a super one at that. But with stats increasingly going against him, there's a bit of David Beckham about him (admittedly a multilingual one that beckham duh! could never perform). Tennis has changed athletically and asthetic performance goat is the best I think fed can hope for.

 

[DRII]

i don't understand how era comparisons are off limits to some of you, but generational ones are not???

whats a generation? is it defined by players ages, or when they started playing, or when they started to be competitive and dominate?

the generational question is not an easy one, especially when it comes to Nadal and Federer. they may be five years or so apart in age, but they most certainly have been playing against each other in the same generation with Nadal being an early bloomer and Federer being a relatively late bloomer (both won their first grand slam less than 2 years apart).

so just as with the GOAT debate, there is still a question about Federer being the best in his generation when Nadal is apart of it...

 

[The Dark Knight]

Five to seven years is a lifetime in a game like tennis which is more physical tan ever.

Connors, like Rosewall, lasted a long time in a less physical era but even then these two were not common.

Careers always overlap generations as these are not hard and fast categories, but a tennis career lasts say fifteen years probably at a maximum with the number of years at the top much less.

So there is no way that Federer would outlast Nadal and he has not. He has been off Nadal's pace now for several years.

Ahhh ok so different rules for Connors 7 years senior to McEnroe.....different rules for Laver and rose wall as well...ok let's go by your rules:

Lendl. 1960 

Wilander 1964....Lendl 4 years older
Edberg 1966....Lendl 6 years older
Becker 1967.....Lendl 7 years older
Chang 1972....Lendl 12 years older!!!

Federer born 1981

Philopousis 1976....federer 5 years younger

Agassi 1970...federer 11 years younger