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

[NatF]

I bet the places for nadal and federer will be lower than that in 10-20 years.

Tennis community promotes current generation of players. After test of times,
top GOAT list usually consist of players who truely dominate a generation,
who reigned a decade or so, likes of Laver, Gonzalez. In open era, Sampras
will still stand test of time with his 6-7 year dominations.

Only near immortal status acquired in this generation, IMHO, is Nadal's
undisputed clay record. That will last indefinitely.

Federer will always rank higher than Sampras. He was more dominant and a factor for longer.

 

[illusions30]

I agree Sampras will always be below Federer in all time ranking. Any remaining small doubts of that were cast away when Federer tied his Wimbledon record and broke his weeks at #1 mark last year. While it is probably too early for Nadal to be over Federer, even he would have a better case to possibly be than Sampras as his career has some things over Federer's already, while Sampras has nothing other than the 6 year end #1s in a row at this point.

Which would win in a prime to prime series of matches between Sampras and Federer though would be another and interesting debate altogether, and not neccessarily a slam dunk in Federer's favor.

 

[NatF]

I agree Sampras will always be below Federer in all time ranking. Any remaining small doubts of that were cast away when Federer tied his Wimbledon record and broke his weeks at #1 mark last year. While it is probably too early for Nadal to be over Federer, even he would have a better case to possibly be than Sampras as his career has some things over Federer's already, while Sampras has nothing other than the 6 year end #1s in a row at this point. Which would win in a prime to prime series of matches between Sampras and Federer though would be another and interesting debate altogether, and not neccessarily a slam dunk in Federer's favor.

I would never say any player would be favored 'slam dunk' over Pete in a series of matches over all surfaces. He's too good on fast surfaces. I think they'd be close Roger and him. But yes we are in agreement that Federer trumps him completely in terms of accomplishments. Federer trumps Nadal too it's only the h2h which elevates Nadal into the conversation at the moment (rightly or wrongly). But yes that is more than what Sampras has.

I still think Nadal needs another 2 slams to be definately over Sampras, I put alot of stock in time at #1 I think it's important to be the best player for extended periods of time. I expect Nadal to get atleast 150+ weeks though in total. What we might have is a case of several players all with certain pluses grouped together but no definate GOAT.

 

[ultradr]

Federer will always rank higher than Sampras. He was more dominant and a factor for longer.

We'll see in a decade or so.

See how conversations continue on whether he dominated his generations or not.

And I think current tour environment (if unchanged), truely dominant player of next
generations will win ~20 slams in their career and will be compared with past generations.

There is a possibility that both Federer and Nadal are out of equations in this post-2004 eras.

 

[NatF]

We'll see in a decade or so.

See how conversations continue on whether he dominated his generations or not.

And I think current tour environment (if unchanged), truely dominant player of next
generations will win ~20 slams in their career and will be compared with past generations.

Federer is expected to be dominant 10 years after his first slam? Was Sampras dominant in the early 00's despite facing what I'm told was terrible competition? Sampras didn't even dominate some of the years he was #1, like 96 and 98.

 

[illusions30]

I would never say any player would be favored 'slam dunk' over Pete in a series of matches over all surfaces. He's too good on fast surfaces. I think they'd be close Roger and him. But yes we are in agreement that Federer trumps him completely in terms of accomplishments. Federer trumps Nadal too it's only the h2h which elevates Nadal into the conversation at the moment (rightly or wrongly). But yes that is more than what Sampras has.

I still think Nadal needs another 2 slams to be definately over Sampras, I put alot of stock in time at #1 I think it's important to be the best player for extended periods of time. I expect Nadal to get atleast 150+ weeks though in total. What we might have is a case of several players all with certain pluses grouped together but no definate GOAT.

I agree Nadal isnt yet definitely over Sampras. Just probably over him. I do think even today most would now rank Nadal above Pete, but it is still within debate for now all the same. I agree he would need 2 slams to be beyond any doubt over him.

The thing about the time at #1 is Sampras for much of his time at #1 had less points than Nadal collected in being #2 behind either Federer or Djokovic. There are different veins to talk about quality of competition, but in the aspect of a singular great rival who produced a consistently extremely high level year round, Sampras by far had it easiest. Replace Sampras with Nadal, Nadal of 2005-2013 put into 1993-2001 would probably have been year end #1 every year except maybe 2012 (2000) due to only playing about half the year. I guess Agassi in 1995 would be close with Nadal of 2007 too, but Agassi's whole year was based around hard courts, even more than a typical Nadal year is based around clay. Even if Nadal didnt fare well at Wimbledon under 90s conditions, his massive clay points totals and consistency the rest of the year would easily make him #1 over most of the #2s of those years- Stich (1993), Agassi (1994, which he got too despite being World #20 close to the U.S Open), Chang (1996 and 1997), Rios (1998 ), Kafelnikov (1999). I know these competition arguments are a fuzzy area, but this isnt really that as so much an issue of performance. Nadal's performance and production in most of his #2 years was not inferior to what Sampras was producing in his #1 years, in addition to what Nadal produced in his times at #1.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I bet the places for nadal and federer will be lower than that in 10-20 years.

Tennis community promotes current generation of players. After test of times,
top GOAT list usually consist of players who truely dominate a generation,
who reigned a decade or so, likes of Laver, Gonzalez. In open era, Sampras
will be there until a player come along and dominate more than 6-7 years.

Only near immortal status acquired in this generation, IMHO, is Nadal's
undisputed clay record. That will last indefinitely.

Interesting.

 

[Fiji]

This is pretty obvious.

 

[NatF]

I agree Nadal isnt yet definitely over Sampras. Just probably over him. I do think even today most would now rank Nadal above Pete, but it is still within debate for now all the same. I agree he would need 2 slams to be beyond any doubt over him.

The thing about the time at #1 is Sampras for much of his time at #1 had less points than Nadal collected in being #2 behind either Federer or Djokovic. There are different veins to talk about quality of competition, but in the aspect of a singular great rival who produced a consistently extremely high level year round, Sampras by far had it easiest. Replace Sampras with Nadal, Nadal of 2005-2013 put into 1993-2001 would probably have been year end #1 every year except maybe 2012 (2000) due to only playing about half the year. I guess Agassi in 1995 would be close with Nadal of 2007 too, but Agassi's whole year was based around hard courts, even more than a typical Nadal year is based around clay. Even if Nadal didnt fare well at Wimbledon under 90s conditions, his massive clay points totals and consistency the rest of the year would easily make him #1 over most of the #2s of those years- Stich (1993), Agassi (1994, which he got too despite being World #20 close to the U.S Open), Chang (1996 and 1997), Rios (1998 ), Kafelnikov (1999). I know these competition arguments are a fuzzy area, but this isnt really that as so much an issue of performance. Nadal's performance and production in most of his #2 years was not inferior to what Sampras was producing in his #1 years, in addition to what Nadal produced in his times at #1.

I agree. Sampras' era is the single most overrated era there is, he benefitted from not having a rival like Nadal. Agassi was only present for 95 during Sampras' peak years.

 

[TMF]

Interesting.

Lebron, Dwayne, Kobe and many current players are not being place ahead of Jordan because he's still the goat. Promoting doesn't get you anywhere if you don't have the numbers to back it up. Federer has the numbers to back it up.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Lebron, Dwayne, Kobe and many current players are not being place ahead of Jordan because he's still the goat. Promoting doesn't get you anywhere if you don't have the numbers to back it up. Federer has the numbers to back it up.

Arguably has the numbers.

He has more slams but also had more time .....Nadal is right on schedule .

And there's a lot of other factors whic have been pointed out as nauseum .

Bottom line is that it's to early to call Fed the goat......laver may end up having to eat his words.

In fact if Nadal wins the AO there will be a ton of noise that Rafa is the goat .....you heard it here first.

 

[Death Master]

and 99.9 percent of that noise will come from the nadal salesman.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Lebron, Dwayne, Kobe and many current players are not being place ahead of Jordan because he's still the goat. Promoting doesn't get you anywhere if you don't have the numbers to back it up. Federer has the numbers to back it up.

Federer is not in the GOAT conversation--only a conversation regarding his generation, so you did not make a point.

 

[bullfan]

Arguably has the numbers.

He has more slams but also had more time .....Nadal is right on schedule .

And there's a lot of other factors whic have been pointed out as nauseum .

Bottom line is that it's to early to call Fed the goat......laver may end up having to eat his words.

In fact if Nadal wins the AO there will be a ton of noise that Rafa is the goat .....you heard it here first.

It's not as much that Laver has to eat his words, as Nadal would have changed the equation.

Btw, as much as you'd like to toot your own horn, after USOpen, it was obvious to all that a AO would look damn good on the resume, something Fed hasn't done, 2 of each GS. Kinda simple and straight forward.

 

[tennisaddict]

It's not as much that Laver has to eat his words, as Nadal would have changed the equation.

Btw, as much as you'd like to toot your own horn, after USOpen, it was obvious to all that a AO would look damn good on the resume, something Fed hasn't done, 2 of each GS. Kinda simple and straight forward.

4,5 and 7 are on any day better than 8 and a bunch of 2's. Two or one - no big difference. It is the dominance that counts.

 

[TMF]

Federer is not in the GOAT conversation--only a conversation regarding his generation, so you did not make a point.

Federer is the greatest of all time !
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/top.ten.tennis/content.10.html

Federer is the greatest of all time !
http://www.ibtimes.com/top-10-tenni...rer-or-pete-sampras-greatest-mens-player-open

Federer is the greatest of all time !
http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx

Federer is the greatest of all time !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...-greatest-male-tennis-player-of-all-time.html

 

[mandy01]

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.

Who did Sampras even dominate? Agassi? Agassi was absent for a good part of Pete's career. And it's not like Sampras wasn't 'dethroned' so to speak. He got the YE #1s but he lost his ranking in-between. Federer lost it once when half the season was already over and got back within a year. He then lost it again in 2010 which had nothing to do with Nadal and everything to do with the fact that Roger was defending points everywhere and losing early rounds everywhere after AO 2010. Hell, Nadal didn't even win a tournament till MC. Nadal is also yet to defend a title off clay. So much for Nadal being the "new GOAT."

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Federer is the greatest of all time !
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/top.ten.tennis/content.10.html

Federer is the greatest of all time !
http://www.ibtimes.com/top-10-tenni...url]http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx

Federer is the greatest of all time !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...-greatest-male-tennis-player-of-all-time.html

Irrelvant; Laver has hammered the final nail in the limp delusion of Federer having anything to do with GOAT. It is over, so invest in cases of Kleenex, as the lie and fanboy propaganda is shattered. At best, Roger Federer is the "greatest" of his generation. That's all. He could not win the Grand Slam, and that kicks him out, hence Laver's sound conclusion.

...a conclusion rational, historically aware minds understood for the length of Federer's career.

 

[TMF]

Irrelvant; Laver has hammered the final nail in the limp delusion of Federer having anything to do with GOAT. It is over, so invest in cases of Kleenex, as the lie and fanboy propaganda is shattered. At best, Roger Federer is the "greatest" of his generation. That's all. He could not win the Grand Slam, and that kicks him out, hence Laver's sound conclusion.

...a conclusion rational, historically aware minds understood for the length of Federer's career.

You have been gone awhile. What did you do this time that prevented you from posting in the past 3 days?

Anyway, if Federer isn't a goat conversation then no one is, which you claimed in post #213. And Laver isn't a goat because he never said he is, which you claim he is because you believe the GS is the be-all and end-all.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Once again...

Irrelvant; Laver has hammered the final nail in the limp delusion of Federer having anything to do with GOAT. It is over, so invest in cases of Kleenex, as the lie and fanboy propaganda is shattered. At best, Roger Federer is the "greatest" of his generation. That's all. He could not win the Grand Slam, and that kicks him out, hence Laver's sound conclusion.

...a conclusion rational, historically aware minds understood for the length of Federer's career.

 

[Incognito]

You have been gone awhile. What did you do this time that prevented you from posting in the past 3 days?

Anyway, if Federer isn't a goat conversation then no one is, which you claimed in post #213. And Laver isn't a goat because he never said he is, which you claim he is because you believe the GS is the be-all and end-all.

Your conclusions render me speechless everytime....

 

[The Dark Knight]

You have been gone awhile. What did you do this time that prevented you from posting in the past 3 days?

Anyway, if Federer isn't a goat conversation then no one is, which you claimed in post #213. And Laver isn't a goat because he never said he is, which you claim he is because you believe the GS is the be-all and end-all.

Pure and utter genius I say!! Brilliant! A man ahead of his time!