Sampras can only blame himself for not being a GOAT contender!

[NadalAgassi]

I dont think Borg can be on the list if Nadal isnt. Nadal has only 1 less slam than Borg and has won all 4, while Borg never won the U.S or Australian (and tried hard to win the U.S across different surfaces and still failed). Nadal has surpassed Borg as the clay court GOAT and is better on hard courts too. I actually agree with Tennis Channel ranking Nadal above Borg now.

 

[Towser83]

I dont think Borg can be on the list if Nadal isnt. Nadal has only 1 less slam than Borg and has won all 4, while Borg never won the U.S or Australian (and tried hard to win the U.S across different surfaces and still failed). Nadal has surpassed Borg as the clay court GOAT and is better on hard courts too. I actually agree with Tennis Channel ranking Nadal above Borg now.

good point actually. I was thinking that Borg retired early so factoring this in, but really that's just too bad he left the game at a young age. Maybe he could have been GOAT material if he stuck around but we'll never know.

 

[Mustard]

There isn't really a GOAT, but I'd consider Laver, Federer, then maybe Gonzales and Sampras

My list is bigger. Tennis has had a lot of different eras and players who've dominated their eras and/or had amazing longevity. Rosewall has the most major titles with 23 if we count the professional majors (which we should), yet was only the best player in the world from 1961-1963.

 

[Towser83]

My list is bigger. Tennis has had a lot of different eras and players who've dominated their eras and/or had amazing longevity.

fair enough, mine may be a bit short but I think your list is way too long - no offence. People like Fred Perry were good players but not GOAT contenders. Also I don't get why Connors and Nadal are there when Agassi isn't. There's probably others who deserve to be there if guys like Hoad are, McEnroe, Vilas etc

 

[Mustard]

fair enough, mine may be a bit short but I think your list is way too long - no offence. People like Fred Perry were good players but not GOAT contenders. Also I don't get why Connors and Nadal are there when Agassi isn't. There's probably others who deserve to be there if guys like Hoad are, McEnroe, Vilas etc

Agassi is in my list. McEnroe and Vilas just miss out, as do many other players. Hoad is there because even Gonzales said that Hoad's peak game was better than his.


Here it is again:

Laurie Doherty
Anthony Wilding
Bill Tilden
Ellsworth Vines
Fred Perry
Don Budge
Jack Kramer
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Lew Hoad
Rod Laver
Jimmy Connors
Bjorn Borg
Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal

 

[NadalAgassi]

good point actually. I was thinking that Borg retired early so factoring this in, but really that's just too bad he left the game at a young age. Maybe he could have been GOAT material if he stuck around but we'll never know.

It really doesnt matter. He chose to quit. Just like Henin chose to quit, but we dont crown her as on par with Serena assigning both a fantasy estimate of 11-12 slams. She instead is down on par with Venus (at best) with only 7 slams, and that is all people will remember her for.

 

[pmerk34]

It really doesnt matter. He chose to quit. Just like Henin chose to quit, but we dont crown her as on par with Serena assigning both a fantasy estimate of 11-12 slams. She instead is down on par with Venus (at best) with only 7 slams, and that is all people will remember her for.

And whose to say if kept playing his last 4 years wouldn't have been like Wilander or McEnroe's or Courier's? The speculation could be endless

 

[Towser83]

Agassi is in my list. McEnroe and Vilas just miss out, as do many other players. Hoad is there because even Gonzales said that Hoad's peak game was better than his.


Here it is again:

Laurie Doherty
Anthony Wilding
Bill Tilden
Ellsworth Vines
Fred Perry
Don Budge
Jack Kramer
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Lew Hoad
Rod Laver
Jimmy Connors
Bjorn Borg
Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal

You missed Agassi the first time (not that I think he is a GOAT contender)

For the record, I believe Sampras is a GOAT contender. My candidates are Laurie Doherty, Anthony Wilding, Bill Tilden, Henri Cochet, Ellsworth Vines, Fred Perry, Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.

Also just because Gonzales said (in his opinion and no more than opinion really) that Hoad's peak game was better than his, does that lead to the possibility that he was the greatest player of all time? I mean not saying he wasn't a great player, but we're talking greatest ever here. I think given the fact that he won only 4 slams and I think one pro slam, it has to be that his peak didn't last very long or wasn't very consistant, so I can't seriously put him in that bracket of players. Djokovic has won more slams and at his peak last year was arguably better than Federer and Nadal's peak... is he a GOAT contender already? I don't think even winning RG this year would make him a GOAT contender, he's have to bag a few more slams.

 

[Mustard]

You missed Agassi the first time (not that I think he is a GOAT contender)

I missed Hoad too.

Also just because Gonzales said (in his opinion and no more than opinion really) that Hoad's peak game was better than his, does that lead to the possibility that he was the greatest player of all time?

Gonzales wasn't the only one to say that Hoad's peak game was the greatest they've ever seen. Rosewall and Laver thought exactly the same. Hoad's best game was called "unbeatable" by his fellow players. The same was said about Ellsworth Vines.

I mean not saying he wasn't a great player, but we're talking greatest ever here.

Hoad isn't in my GOAT list because of his achievements per se, but because how highly valued his peak game was by his rivals.

I think given the fact that he won only 4 slams and I think one pro slam, it has to be that his peak didn't last very long or wasn't very consistant, so I can't seriously put him in that bracket of players.

Hoad had chronic back problems starting around 1960. He later had a big toe amputated in 1965. Both of these things hampered his mobility and reduced his consistency, but he carried on playing well into the 1970s.

Djokovic has won more slams and at his peak last year was arguably better than Federer and Nadal's peak... is he a GOAT contender already? I don't think even winning RG this year would make him a GOAT contender, he's have to bag a few more slams.

If Djokovic wins the French Open coming up, he'll be joining the list. He would be the first player since Laver won the CYGS in 1969 to hold all 4 majors at the same time. Djokovic has shown phenomenal consistency over all his rivals since the start of 2011.

 

[Towser83]

^ hmm well my criteria is stricter haha. Well just have to agree to differ.

 

[federerGOAT]

He's talking about a 40 yr old Sampras. Just because Pancho in his 40 was giving the top player's fit during the old days doesn't mean any 40 yr old today can do the same. The standard is a lot higher than in the past. A typical 40 yr old player only belongs on the senior tour.

40 yr old, 25 yr old, Prime, who cares? The fact is Sampras is a relic from the past.

You put Prime Sampras with his flat forehand, weak one handed backhand, and pathetic 120mph serve in the mix with this generation of players and he's barely top 50!

His serves are the most overrated shots in tennis. Even Fed could hit 50 aces in a match. IMO, Federer has a better first and second serve than Sampras, with better disguise and accuracy.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

40 yr old, 25 yr old, Prime, who cares? The fact is Sampras is a relic from the past.

You put Prime Sampras with his flat forehand, weak one handed backhand, and pathetic 120mph serve in the mix with this generation of players and he's barely top 50!

His serves are the most overrated shots in tennis. Even Fed could hit 50 aces in a match. IMO, Federer has a better first and second serve than Sampras, with better disguise and accuracy.

lolol.

Sampras to Federer (his doubles partner) at the start of the Hit for Haiti Exo '10: "Do you wanna start [serving]?"
Federer to Sampras,Nadal, and Agassi: "He has the best serve of all time! Why would I start?"

 

[Cup8489]

40 yr old, 25 yr old, Prime, who cares? The fact is Sampras is a relic from the past.

You put Prime Sampras with his flat forehand, weak one handed backhand, and pathetic 120mph serve in the mix with this generation of players and he's barely top 50!

His serves are the most overrated shots in tennis. Even Fed could hit 50 aces in a match. IMO, Federer has a better first and second serve than Sampras, with better disguise and accuracy.

I'm sorry, but you drastically underestimate Sampras' whole game. His serve wasn't overrated at all... it's every bit as good as it is claimed to be. And his forehand, while flat, was a great attacking shot to set up his volleys, which would stand up well against even the spinniest shots. And his backhand wasn't that weak, just somewhat inconsistent. but it was consistent when he needed it to be.

You can't call a guy with 14 majors and 6 YE No 1 Finishes anything less than what he is: One of the best players to play the game.

 

[abmk]

I dont think Borg can be on the list if Nadal isnt. Nadal has only 1 less slam than Borg and has won all 4, while Borg never won the U.S or Australian (and tried hard to win the U.S across different surfaces and still failed). Nadal has surpassed Borg as the clay court GOAT and is better on hard courts too. I actually agree with Tennis Channel ranking Nadal above Borg now.

that would make sense if you evaluated without any knowledge of borg's era...

WCT/Masters were more important than the AO during Borg's time and he won both

borg = nadal on clay
borg > nadal on grass
borg >>>> nadal on carpet/indoors
nadal > borg on HC

borg has multiple years with winning % more than 90. nadal has zero , in other words borg was more dominant at his peak ...

borg > rafa by some distance IMO ....( the 'only' thing so far in rafa's favour is that he won the USO )

 

[monfed]

Can't include Sampras in Tier 1. He was just aweful on clay.

 

[kiki]

Agassi is in my list. McEnroe and Vilas just miss out, as do many other players. Hoad is there because even Gonzales said that Hoad's peak game was better than his.


Here it is again:

Laurie Doherty
Anthony Wilding
Bill Tilden
Ellsworth Vines
Fred Perry
Don Budge
Jack Kramer
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Lew Hoad
Rod Laver
Jimmy Connors
Bjorn Borg
Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal

Mac and Newcombe had dominating years which Agassi never did.Becker and Wilander also dominated, maybe 1-2 years.IMO, Newcombe,Mc Enroe,Becker and Wilander should be included if Agassi is.

 

[helloworld]

Agassi is in my list. McEnroe and Vilas just miss out, as do many other players. Hoad is there because even Gonzales said that Hoad's peak game was better than his.


Here it is again:

Laurie Doherty
Anthony Wilding
Bill Tilden
Ellsworth Vines
Fred Perry
Don Budge
Jack Kramer
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Lew Hoad
Rod Laver
Jimmy Connors
Bjorn Borg
Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi :lol:
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal

Agassi?? Seriously?? The guy never dominated the 90s and was a punching bag for Sampras for most of their major encounters. Agassi is at best a 3rd tier contender...

 

[helloworld]

If Djokovic wins the French Open coming up, he'll be joining the list. He would be the first player since Laver won the CYGS in 1969 to hold all 4 majors at the same time. Djokovic has shown phenomenal consistency over all his rivals since the start of 2011.

Djokovic winning the French would put him on par with Becker, which is no GOAT material...

 

[sonicare]

Nadal is already ahead of sampras. go watch my older posts and I despise nadal but it is what it is.

nadal is a more complete player than pete.

 

[helloworld]

Nadal is already ahead of sampras. go watch my older posts and I despise nadal but it is what it is.

nadal is a more complete player than pete.

Agassi also has all 4 majors on even more different surfaces than today. Does that make Agassi the Grand GOAT of the 90s??

 

[SLD76]

Nadal is already ahead of sampras. go watch my older posts and I despise nadal but it is what it is.

nadal is a more complete player than pete.

agree. nadal is better on HC than pete was on clay.

then again, the HC of today arent necc the hardcourts of Pete's day.

we all know what happens to nadal on really fast surface...

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Nadal is already ahead of sampras. go watch my older posts and I despise nadal but it is what it is.

nadal is a more complete player than pete.

Do you use flexcare plus?

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

agree. nadal is better on HC than pete was on clay.

then again, the HC of today arent necc the hardcourts of Pete's day.

we all know what happens to nadal on really fast surface...

But you have to look at it this way. Nadal and Pete could be seen as equal in terms of their abilities on grass(pete) and clay(Nadal). After that, Pete is much better on HC versus Nadal on grass and Nadal is better on HC than Pete is on clay.

 

[fed_rulz]

But you have to look at it this way. Nadal and Pete could be seen as equal in terms of their abilities on grass(pete) and clay(Nadal). After that, Pete is much better on HC versus Nadal on grass and Nadal is better on HC than Pete is on clay.

disagree. Nadal on clay > Pete on grass. You just have to look at their records on their respective surfaces... 81 consecutive wins on clay --- the nearest comparison on any surface is the 65 consecutive wins on grass by Federer. An argument can be made that Federer > Pete on grass, but that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[sonicare]

People keep confusing "most accomplished" vs "greatest of".

Lets see. There are a ton of players who have achieved more than djokovic YET hes a better play than some of them.

Infact, Djokovic is already a tier two goat in my opinion, up there with guys 8-12 majors. most complete player we have ever had and has literally schooled 2 greats in the past 15 months.

that alone makes him better than a lot of guys who may have accomplished more.

also, to the people who say sampras has more weeks at 1 than nadal, you are automatically assuming that a no.2 from a certain era is automatically worse than a no.1 from any other era which is not necessarily true.

All in all, sampras would have a fili lopez type career if he were to play today. thats without fili's weapon, the left handed serve.

/ thread

For more of what i said, read this

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=306768

 

[sonicare]

disagree. Nadal on clay > Pete on grass. You just have to look at their records on their respective surfaces... 81 consecutive wins on clay --- the nearest comparison on any surface is the 65 consecutive wins on grass by Federer. An argument can be made that Federer > Pete on grass, but that's a topic for a different thread.

also, nadal is way better on grass than pete was on clay.

 

[Leto]

disagree. Nadal on clay > Pete on grass. You just have to look at their records on their respective surfaces... 81 consecutive wins on clay --- the nearest comparison on any surface is the 65 consecutive wins on grass by Federer. An argument can be made that Federer > Pete on grass, but that's a topic for a different thread.

+1...QFT!!

 

[helloworld]

disagree. Nadal on clay > Pete on grass. You just have to look at their records on their respective surfaces... 81 consecutive wins on clay --- the nearest comparison on any surface is the 65 consecutive wins on grass by Federer. An argument can be made that Federer > Pete on grass, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Clay is played much more often than Grass in a year. On grass you only have Wimbledon and one other tournament in a year. On clay, Nadal can play 40+ matches in 1 year, hence 81 consecutive wins is not that impressive at all for Nadal's calibre. I'd say 7 Wimbledon in 8 years is much more impressive than 6 Roland Garros in 7 years.

 

[10is]

disagree. Nadal on clay > Pete on grass.

HAHA! Good one!

 

[helloworld]

HAHA! Good one!

Yeah, Fed would have 200+ consecutive wins on grass if grass were played as often as clay. Fed was undefeated for 5 years during his reign on grass.

 

[celoft]

Clay is played much more often than Grass in a year. On grass you only have Wimbledon and one other tournament in a year. On clay, Nadal can play 40+ matches in 1 year, hence 81 consecutive wins is not that impressive at all for Nadal's calibre. I'd say 7 Wimbledon in 8 years is much more impressive than 6 Roland Garros in 7 years.

This............................

 

[fed_rulz]

Clay is played much more often than Grass in a year. On grass you only have Wimbledon and one other tournament in a year. On clay, Nadal can play 40+ matches in 1 year, hence 81 consecutive wins is not that impressive at all for Nadal's calibre. I'd say 7 Wimbledon in 8 years is much more impressive than 6 Roland Garros in 7 years.

so why doesn't pete hold the consecutive win record on grass? oh wait, that doesn't matter, because his fans will move goal posts around (only slams matter, blah blah blah...), and make excuses for him to keep him in the discussion.

btw, thanks for acknowledging that Federer is the king of grass (65 consecutive wins from 2003 wimbledon - 2008 wimbledon finals -- now THATs a record)

 

[Leto]

Clay is played much more often than Grass in a year. On grass you only have Wimbledon and one other tournament in a year. On clay, Nadal can play 40+ matches in 1 year, hence 81 consecutive wins is not that impressive at all for Nadal's calibre. I'd say 7 Wimbledon in 8 years is much more impressive than 6 Roland Garros in 7 years.

Both of those feats are incredible. I find it hard to say that one was "much more" impressive than the other, though the obvious edge goes to Pete and his 7 WO's in 8 years (at least at this point...let's see what Rafa does at RG this year .

 

[Limpinhitter]

Nadal is already ahead of sampras. go watch my older posts and I despise nadal but it is what it is.

nadal is a more complete player than pete.

^^^ This is your brain on crack!

 

[Limpinhitter]

Well generally he has become better, but on clay 2008 was his peak and he's actually got worse since then. 2009 he had problems, 2010 he was good but was never really tested and last year he was ropey and got taken to the cleaners by Djokovic.



True, Borg is another one. Though his failure to win the US Open is a slight sticking point - can you be GOAT with only 2 of the 4 slams? I would say the age he retired does leave you with the feeling he stopped well short of what he could have won though, so he probably does deserve to be in the question, also winning RG and Wimbledon back to back so many times when they played so differently.

Let's put it another way. Borg played in a total of 27 majors. He won 11 of them.

 

[monfed]

I think Sampras's game is better suited to fast grass than Federer's. It's a bit like how a surface is completely in sync with a player's game, similar to Ralph on clay. But that's what makes them one dimensional as well. Sampras on fast surfaces, Ralph on slow surfaces.
Can't say Federer's weak on any particular surface. Matchup problems? Yes. Weak surface? Nope.

 

[SaintPetros]

Yeah, Fed would have 200+ consecutive wins on grass if grass were played as often as clay. Fed was undefeated for 5 years during his reign on grass.

Against a bunch of mugs.

 

[SaintPetros]

I think Sampras's game is better suited to fast grass than Federer's. It's a bit like how a surface is completely in sync with a player's game, similar to Ralph on clay. But that's what makes them one dimensional as well. Sampras on fast surfaces, Ralph on slow surfaces.
Can't say Federer's weak on any particular surface. Matchup problems? Yes. Weak surface? Nope.

You would have thought differently had Fed played against a deeper field of claycourters instead of a tour of hardcourt baseliners with no particular specialization to the surface.
And Pete's game wasn't weak on clay until after '97. Before that he was above average.

 

[wangs78]

He now has to suffer through "hindsight is 20/20" mode because the GOAT debate will always be dominated by the statistics first, no matter how much of a healthy dose of subjective analysis is also included.

If Roger was still at 16-17 Slams then yes, I think Sampras would have some regrets that he didn't play longer, didn't focus on clay more, whatever. But Pete was done when he retired. He hadn't won a title in two years and while he had made the USO final 3 years running including his year of retirement when he beat Agassi in the final, his level day in and day out was not there and he could not muster the motivation to get back to the top. That was why he retired. So while I think he could have certainly won another 2-3 Slams had he kept playing or what not, I am highly doubtful he could have gotten 19-20. When he was 29-30 he looked damn old. Unlike Fed and Nole who look fit as a fiddle in their 30s.

 

[Shaolin]

Sampras still has the GOAT overhead.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Sampras isn't GOAT contender all of a sudden??! Thats a new! LOL He is/was and always will be along with Borg, Laver and Big-3! If we are being objective then the GOAT status between these 6 is interchangable, depending onto your POV! All 6 have their own arguments for the GOAT! Sampras isn't an exception...never was! What definetly is non-arguable is the fact that there is gigantic whole between Borg and Lendl GOAT-status wise...and Lendl has only himself to blame for that, cuz he choked away too many grand slam finals, that he should have won!...

 

[SaintPetros]

If Roger was still at 16-17 Slams then yes, I think Sampras would have some regrets that he didn't play longer, didn't focus on clay more, whatever. But Pete was done when he retired. He hadn't won a title in two years and while he had made the USO final 3 years running including his year of retirement when he beat Agassi in the final, his level day in and day out was not there and he could not muster the motivation to get back to the top. That was why he retired. So while I think he could have certainly won another 2-3 Slams had he kept playing or what not, I am highly doubtful he could have gotten 19-20. When he was 29-30 he looked damn old. Unlike Fed and Nole who look fit as a fiddle in their 30s.

Thing is, Pete could have won16-17 slams, EASILY if not for injury. Let's not forget this is the guy that was such a heavy favorite for the '99 Aussie Open that the eventual champion actually THANKED him for not playing. Ditto for 99 US Open, though Pete won a much prettier trophy as a result of missing that tourney.