Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim

[TonyB]

Pro Year........ GS Running totals
.................Federer....... Nadal

4th.........0 [2002]...... 1 [2005]
5th.........1 [2003]...... 2 [2006]
6th.........4 [2004]...... 3 [2007]
7th.........6 [2005]...... 5 [2008]
8th.........9 [2006]...... 6 [2009] (USO?)
9th........12 [2007]...... ?
10th.......13 [2008]...... ?
11th.......15 [2009]...... ?
.............(USO?)

Absolutely awesome summary.

Notice that Federer had {edit} THREE separate years where he had *3* Slams per year, while Nadal's SINGLE BEST year was only 2 slams.

I suppose it's always POSSIBLE that Nadal will win 3 slams in one year, but it's highly doubtful. Murray has already shown that he can handle Nadal's game and win. Nadal has also had trouble with other players in recent Slams, in fact losing to Soderling on his favorite surface.

Will Nadal win another *9* Slams in the next 3 years (to match pace with Federer)? That's 3 slams PER YEAR for 3 years straight. Absolutely no friggin' way.

Federer's GOAT status is safe and secure. Nadal is a good player, a fierce competitor, and Federer's "kryptonite", but that doesn't make him the GOAT.

 

[Cross Court]

Of course it does. Of course all the *******s will vote no because of denial, but inside we all know Nadal is the better man.

 

[TonyB]

Of course it does. Of course all the *******s will vote no because of denial, but inside we all know Nadal is the better man.

Gee whiz, what a convincing argument. You certainly sold me.

 

[boojay]

Absolutely awesome summary.

Notice that Federer had TWO separate years where he had *3* Slams per year, while Nadal's SINGLE BEST year was only 2 slams.

I suppose it's always POSSIBLE that Nadal will win 3 slams in one year, but it's highly doubtful. Murray has already shown that he can handle Nadal's game and win. Nadal has also had trouble with other players in recent Slams, in fact losing to Soderling on his favorite surface.

Will Nadal win another *9* Slams in the next 3 years (to match pace with Federer)? That's 3 slams PER YEAR for 3 years straight. Absolutely no friggin' way.

Federer's GOAT status is safe and secure. Nadal is a good player, a fierce competitor, and Federer's "kryptonite", but that doesn't make him the GOAT.

If you think that's good, you're in for surprise because Fed's actually done it THREE separate times (two years in a row even); soon to add a fourth time.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Had Agassi and Sampras played 55% of their matches on clay (as Fed and Nadal have), would Pete still lead the Head to Head?

Draw your own conclusions, but that often gets overlooked . . .

 

[FiveO]

oops! Petetards will now come in full force claiming that Agassi favors fed out of spite for Pete

Can some one pls answer my question:

If Nadal is the clay court GOAT (or one of the contenders),and more than 50% of the Fedal matches were on clay, how is Fed expected to maintain a positive h2h over Nadal? Fed will become overall GOAT only if he betters the clay court GOAT, and in turn become CC GOAT himself??

Frankly while I don't think it tarnishes Fed's GOAT credentials, it's no longer quite that simple when speaking of the Fed/Nadal h2h.

3-3 on hardcourts with the last at the only Major hardcourt meeting.
2-1 on grass at Wimbledon,

Fed is clearcut better vs. the field on those surfaces but he is not convincingly better than Nadal on his best surfaces.

Those matches on hards and grass now account for one short of exactly half of their total h2h meetings.

9 of 20 off clay.


Were Fed leading those, say 5-1 on hards and 3-0 on grass IMO would render this issue moot.

No it doesn't prevent labelling Fed a GOAT, but it is unprecedented for a GOAT calibre player.

And it is on some people's minds and in particular the mind of the reporter framing the questions for the subject article.

All Sampras suggested in his answer to that question, if you read the article and understood it, is that Fed would render this anomalous factor in his stellar career a non-issue by asserting himself v. Nadal on those surfaces.

5

 

[TonyB]

If you think that's good, you're in for surprise because Fed's actually done it THREE separate times (two years in a row even); soon to add a fourth time.

You're absolutely right. I misread the stats.


And you're also right about him doing it a fourth time. I don't see any reason to believe he can't make it happen at the USO this year.


The worst part is that after 5 straight years of absolute dominance, people start to say "He's not that great." just because he's getting older and can't crush people like he did 3-4 years ago.

Ya know, SOME DAY Federer just won't be able to beat the younger players any more. It happens. It's a fact of life. But it doesn't take away from his greatness in his prime.

Bottom line: Look at the titles. Look at the dominance. Look at the slam record. GOAT is a no-brainer.

 

[CyBorg]

11 pages and counting... let's make it at least 30.

I mean, this is so important and changes everything.

 

[mental midget]

roger goes on to win four or five more majors. never meets nadal in another final. the h2h goes fundamentally unchanged. what then?

i agree that his record v. nadal adds some tarnish to his resume. but it's a faint smudge, and if you look closely, you can still make out a few words:

th gre test of a l time.

 

[plum]

I think it is time to simply face the fact that there truly is no such thing as GOAT. It is like trying to find GOD. Or trying to bring information back from the other side. There is know way to know. It is simple, everyone can speculate oh this and tht person at this or that time would have beated so and so. Records, head to heads, so on and so forth. There just isn't such a thing as Greatest of all time in Tennis. Maybe there is a record fast serve, a shot put distance, or even a fastest mile. You get the idea: There is no such thing-- especially in Tennis-- as the greatest of all time. So everyone, shut up, and go play tennis and have fun; get a good workout. And stretch out your lower back and shoulders. Goodnight.

 

[hoodjem]

Poor Sampy just can't handle the fact that he's not #1 in the GOAT race anymore... Very sad to see such bitterness!

He never was.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Last I checked Nadal hwas up 3-1 on Federer on outdoor hardcourts, his only loss at 18 blowing a 6-2,7-6,4-1 lead, and has beaten Fed in the finals of every slam.

If Sampras got to the final of every slam and played Nadal he's up 4-3, not down 2-5.

1. when do wins over another player suddenly begin to count? as i recall, nadal won 10 titles that year, including a slam and four masters shields, including two on HC's. ok then, let's have it both ways. nadal in his best year could barely beat federer in his 5th/6th best year.


2. nice to know the tour has abolished indoor hardcourts. darn, those two times fed obliterated nadal must've been hallucinations on my part.

3. a) as if we needed more proof that some sampras fans simply stopped watching tennis when pete retired. no, fed and nadal have not faced off at all four slams. you repeated the fallacy twice (saying sampras would have a winning recor against nadal had they played against each other on all slams, implying that fed and nadal have), so it's futile to deny it.

b) lets take it slam by slam, AO, i'd say it's a toss-up. again, we're judging fed based on how he's performed at his 5th/6th best, so we have to judge pete accordingly. sampras's four best years are all significantly better than his 5th, so IMO it's pretty close

FO, if they meet three times, it's nadal 3-0 and sampras may not even take a set. fed and nadal met at the SF's one time as well, so overall it's 4-0 Nadal.

Wimby, on today's grass, i'd say Pete 2-1. to each his own, but that's just the way I see it. the old grass, I think it's Pete 3-0, then again I'd say the same for Fed versus Nadal (3-0 for Fed on the old grass), so really no edge either way.

US Open, Pete probably wins most of the time, but so does Fed.

had sampras and nadal faced off in the same fashion as fed and nadal, i think nadal has the head-to-head slams edge, pretty much entirely due to roland garros. sorry, but that's only fair. if you're going to hold it against fed for being good enough to make it to the finals of CC slams, you'll have to apply the same standards to sampras.

3. had agassi and sampras played 55% of their matches on clay, sampras probably would not lead the Head-to-Head.

 

[FedFan_2009]

TheFifthSet - Roger should not get a free pass on his dismal clay record! By 2015 clay will be the dominant surface in tennis!

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Roger is the greatest of all time. Sampras was never in the race after Federer won his 12/13 grandslams.

If people accepted Sampras with a poor H-H record against Krajicek and still deemed he is greatest (albeit for a short period of time), why cant Roger be the greatest regardless of his H-H against Rafael Nadal.

It is hard to swallow for Sampras and some of his fans but the fact is that Roger is a better skiled player than Sampras and ofcourse Roger won more slams, more of this , more of that.

Sampras can say whatever the hell he wants as far as his peak game is concerned. One cant be a multiple Slam holder with out that belief. However this is a subjective argument and the only objective data point is the match they played, which Sampras Lost.

While i agree that it is an interesting match between so called Peak sampras and Peak Federer, i dont see how Sampras can win it deterministically. As i indicated above, Fed does everything equal or little better than Sampras . yes..Sampras serve is the best but Federer is no slouch.

Between Federer and Nadal, i just like Nadal. I can relate to his game.

 

[GameSampras]

It's hard to give a definitive answer when he's not done yet. Roger knows he has to figure out this kid, but it's a tough match up. Nadal is one of the few guys who believes he is better than him.[/QUOTE]


That pretty much sums it up there about Fed's generation of contemporaries.

 

[TheFifthSet]

as for myself, I don't think either of them is goat.

but at this point, i think roger is the more plausible option of the two.

laver however I think has them both beat, the guy was stripped of his prime at the majors yet still compiled a pretty good record (11 singles slam titles, half dozen doubles slams, almost 200 singles titles overall.)

but to each his own, and there's still time for roger, not saying the goat is etched in stone, fed could still win a lot more, he's getting there for sure, but he STILL to me has ground to cover against laver.

 

[GameSampras]

You want to go by pure by the book numbers than yes.. Fed would be the GOAT or Laver. its hard to dispute when you look at his ridiculous consistency at slams, the grand slam and slam record... But if there is one thing we can take away from what Pete is saying.. Its imperative Fed finds someway to get some revenge on Nadal at the slams, just to PROVE he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage..

See this is where numbers dont tell the whole story. You got Fed with ridiculous stats and results, and yet at the end of the day, Fed is 7-14 or whatever it is against Nadal, 2-5 against Nadal at the slams, and has now lost to Nadal on every surface in slam finals.

If Pete was taken out by Agassi on every surface in slam finals and a poor h2h, Mac to his 80s rival or rivals, Laver to his 60 rival/rivals, Pancho to his, they would be on the end of criticism as well. So its only natural.

 

[World Beater]

Couple things about the article...

I have to question the people that would blindly take Pete over Roger at Wimbledon...Pete had 4 straight titles and a 31 match winning streak at SW19 and lost to a 19 year old Federer. I know Pete was older and past his prime, but he lost a close match to a Federer that hadn't realized much of his potential yet. It makes it hard for me to just assume that Sampras would beat Federer on the regular at Wimbledon or anywhere else. As I've stated before I think it would be pretty even on fast surfaces and Federer would have the edge on slow surfaces.

Maybe I'm the only one that thinks that 13-7 isn't the worst possible h2h ever. After the French Open 2006, Nadal was 6-1 against Federer, and since that point, it's been 7-6 in favor of Nadal...Not exactly a massive crushing record. With that said, I agree that Federer needs to beat Nadal in a couple Slams to help his legacy. Beating Nadal in a hard court slam and maybe once again at Wimbledon would go a long, long way to helping his place in history.

Lastly, I don't agree that this is an incredibly weak era. It took Sampras 12 years to win 14 majors, and Agassi had ups and downs throughout that period of dominance, so there were never two guys that have dominated the tour the way Federer and Nadal have. They simply haven't allowed anyone else to win Slams. Since Wimbledon 04, TWO GUYS not named Roger or Rafael have won slams, Djokovic (1) and Safin (1). If Sampras and Agassi had split 20 of 22 Slams in a 6.5 year span, their competition would look a lot worse too.

Also, can we please be honest about some of Sampras and Agassi's competition? Chang won one Grand Slam, in 1989, which was before Sampras even won. Courier was on the downhill portion of his career when Sampras started really dominating, winning just one Slam in 93 and losing in two finals. After 1993, Courier wasn't really playing at the same level he was before that. Rios? Please. Lendl was on the way out when Sampras was really getting going. Hell, we might as well call Sampras a contemporary of Federer's if Lendl is for Sampras. He had a losing record against Krajicek, so that's not the best example...Goran was great, but not so incredible that he needs to be considered an all time great and Guga and Muster were both great clay courters, so I don't really know about them as "rivals" of Sampras. Others I don't have a problem with as much, but I have a hard time with guys like Chang and Rios being considered way better than guys from this era.

Anyway, I agree that Sampras is right about Nadal tarnishing Fed's claim at GOAT, and I think that he needs wins over Nadal at big events as a cherry on top of his legacy cake.

nicely said.

federer has only one strike against him - his h-h against nadal. federer cannot win everything all the time else he would be a G7d.

people have ridiculous expectations. they say fed has no competition but that having a losing h-h against nadal tarnishes his legacy. so which is it? damned if u do, damned if u dont.

it is almost as if it is permissable to have bad h-hs against lesser players than one great player. that makes no sense. lol.

 

[FedFan_2009]

nicely said.

federer has only one strike against him - his h-h against nadal. federer cannot win everything all the time else he would be a G7d.

people have ridiculous expectations. they say fed has no competition but that having a losing h-h against nadal tarnishes his legacy. so which is it? damned if u do, damned if u dont.

it is almost as if it is permissable to have bad h-hs against lesser players than one great player. that makes no sense. lol.

Why expect sense from Nad-****s and Sampras-****s?

 

[GameSampras]

This is where I dont even believe Pete BELEIVES what he is saying... At least when a reporter is shoving a microphone in his face


Check this out.. Pete wasnt echoing the same sentiments here.

This was from last year.. Pete was asked if Fed needed the French to be the GOAT, and here his response.. 11:50

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205



So my question is.. Why the change in heart? Yes Fed grabbed the last two slams, but also in the absence of Nadal. Not exactly someone Fed has had success against at the slams.


First Pete said Fed is the GOAT.. Then he says he needs to beat Nadal.. So which is it? How can you be the hands down GOAT, yet still have to prove yourself against your rival at the slams? Does that sound logical? If Fed is the GOAT, he shouldnt need to prove he can beat Nadal at the slams should he? That goes back to the numbers dont tell the whole story thing.


To me.. Its just pete being diplomatic and a good friend and supporter of Roger. Pete could really of been a jerk and say, "Hey I could beat my rival in slam finals and I had a h2h advantage over mine and never lost on every slam surface to him."

 

[JeMar]

Are you really telling Pete what Pete thinks? It's not like he has to be diplomatic or anything. There will be no wars waged over something this trivial.

 

[GameSampras]

Are you really telling Pete what Pete thinks? It's not like he has to be diplomatic or anything. There will be no wars waged over something this trivial.

He just contradicted himself is all. I would really like to see what Pete thinks behind closed doors and not on national tv when someone isnt stuffing a mic in his face


http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205

What he says at 11:50 on.. And what he says now about Fed breaking the record... Care to explain this?


Pete there says there is no GOAT, and now Fed is the GOAT? Like I asked.. Why the change in heart of all sudden? The only explanation is.. Pete doesnt want to come off looking as bitter or retalitory in front of the tennis community so he is going to be a little more diplomatic. Not to mention he and roger are friends.

 

[Mick]

federer is like archilles, they have their weak spots but both are the best.

 

[koopa_troopa]

I don't get why people try to bring the H2H into the matter. Federer just matches up badly with Nadal. In any sport, sometimes the best teams have trouble with the bottom feeders.

Nadal in his best year, 2008, won 2 GS and made it to 2 semifinals. In 2008, one of Federer's worst years, he won 1 GS and made it to finals in the other three. I don't get why people try to bring up Nadal in the argument. Nadal is a talented player. He may go down as the greatest clay courter. But he certainly does not come close to the consistency and achievements of Federer.

 

[krosero]

Frankly while I don't think it tarnishes Fed's GOAT credentials, it's no longer quite that simple when speaking of the Fed/Nadal h2h.

3-3 on hardcourts with the last at the only Major hardcourt meeting.
2-1 on grass at Wimbledon,

Fed is clearcut better vs. the field on those surfaces but he is not convincingly better than Nadal on his best surfaces.

Those matches on hards and grass now account for one short of exactly half of their total h2h meetings.

9 of 20 off clay.


Were Fed leading those, say 5-1 on hards and 3-0 on grass IMO would render this issue moot.

No it doesn't prevent labelling Fed a GOAT, but it is as unprecedented for a GOAT calibre player.

If you're talking about the overall H2H, a large difference like 7-13 is unique as far as I know.

If you mean just the fastcourt H2H, I'm not sure it's unprecedented.

McEnroe and Borg ended up 7-7 apart from clay. It was 3-3 in majors, if we count the year-end Masters as the true 4th major in those days (when the Australian was not).

And McEnroe won the last two of those meetings in the (fastcourt) majors, same as Nadal has won over Federer.

McEnroe won a close one over Borg at Wimbledon, and a few months later he did it more convincingly at the USO. Nadal won a close one over Federer at Wimbledon, and then in more convincing fashion at the Australian.

Yet no one places McEnroe higher than Borg on their GOAT lists, because his overall accomplishments were not greater than Borg's, not by a long shot. For now, that's true of Nadal and Federer too.

 

[krosero]

The one big difference with McEnroe and Borg is that those two never met on clay, in majors or otherwise. Nadal and Federer have met on clay 11 times. That accounts for the lopsided H2h (7-13), but it's not that simple.

Federer may be second-best on clay to the claycourt GOAT, but his record against him could be better than 2-9. He blew a match point in Rome, and has blown more than a few leads elsewhere.

And he could have done better in those four meetings in Paris, perhaps winning one of the early ones.

I mention it because if Federer's recent victory in Paris is part of his case as GOAT -- one of his great accomplishments -- then his poor record against Nadal on clay is part of the story, too.

No one is saying, of course, that he should beat Nadal in the H2H on clay. But, though he can be proud of his two victories in Hamburg and Madrid, he could have more; and he could have done better in his defeats.

If Federer is a GOAT candidate largely because he has the overall game on all surfaces (and everyone uses this argument against Sampras), then his record against Nadal on clay can't just be subtracted from the overall H2H and set aside. Clay skews the H2H, of course, but you can't just set it aside and look only at the fast surfaces.

That said, I think something is getting overlooked with Sampras, too. Federer's chief rival is a bad matchup for him. Sampras never had a bad matchup to face in his chief rival (Agassi). Those who were bad matchups for him were inconsistent: big servers like Philippoussis and Krajicek, who could take him out of his comfort zone. By serving as big as him, he felt, for once, pressured on his own serve (it's something he describes in his book when he talks about losing to Krajicek at Wimbledon). And for Sampras, everything flowed from his serve; that's the biggest weapon in his game and the centerpiece of his confidence; the thing that made (most) of his opponents feel the pressure on their own serves.

Sampras has said many times, he had so much confidence that he would hold serve, he could be practically relaxed (read: confident) about breaking serve.

But the guys who could do the same to him -- who could take him out of his particular comfort zone and defeat him in straights at the fastcourt Slams, in his prime, as both Philippoussis and Krajicek did in 1996 -- were never consistent. This was due to various reasons: lack of commitment, or injury, or mental frailty in tight spots (Ivanisevic was similar). The one guy who was consistent -- who showed up the most and became his main rival -- didn't have the game to take him out of his comfort zone, and had to fight for his victories the hard way.

That's one thing I rarely see mentioned, when people compare Sampras/Agassi against Federer/Nadal.

 

[dh003i]

He's 5 years younger and is much further ahead of where Federer was at the same age. Continue the denial...

Nadal's best year ever was last year: 2 slams. Federer had 3 3-slam years. Enough said.

This age thing is a bunch of non-sense, as is demonstrated time and again, year after year, when Nadal's knees give out on him. He may be younger than Federer. But Federer has more tennis left in his career.

Matched for age, Borg also accomplished more than Federer at 22 or 23. So what.

Nadal's prime is now; he may have even already peaked at the AO '09 this year. Or maybe he can continue for a while longer. But if you think Nadal will ever go 4 consecutive years at #1 without interruption, and get 13, 14, or 15 slams, I think you're nuts.

Nadal has, I think, at most 11-12 slams. And that is very optimistic.

But, sure, if Nadal ends up with more slams than Federer, he's the greatest (assuming he also wins at all of the slams). If he ends up with the same number, then maybe the H2H tips it toward him. If he ends up a slam or two behind Federer, then maybe the H2H equalizes things. But that requires him to get to at least 13 slams, possibly more, depending on what Federer does.

I'm sorry, but I just think that's a long-shot.

 

[dh003i]

The one big difference with McEnroe and Borg is that those two never met on clay, in majors or otherwise. Nadal and Federer have met on clay 11 times. That accounts for the lopsided H2h (7-13), but it's not that simple.

Federer may be second-best on clay to the claycourt GOAT, but his record against him could be better than 2-9. He blew a match point in Rome, and has blown more than a few leads elsewhere.

And he could have done better in those four meetings in Paris, perhaps winning one of the early ones.

I mention it because if Federer's recent victory in Paris is part of his case as GOAT -- one of his great accomplishments -- then his poor record against Nadal on clay is part of the story, too.

No one is saying, of course, that he should beat Nadal in the H2H on clay. But, though he can be proud of his two victories in Hamburg and Madrid, he could have more; and he could have done better in his defeats.

If Federer is a GOAT candidate largely because he has the overall game on all surfaces (and everyone uses this argument against Sampras), then his record against Nadal on clay can't just be subtracted from the overall H2H and set aside. Clay skews the H2H, of course, but you can't just set it aside and look only at the fast surfaces.

That said, I think something is getting overlooked with Sampras, too. Federer's chief rival is a bad matchup for him. Sampras never had a bad matchup to face in his chief rival (Agassi). Those who were bad matchups for him were inconsistent: big servers like Philippoussis and Krajicek, who could take him out of his comfort zone. By serving as big as him, he felt, for once, pressured on his own serve (it's something he describes in his book when he talks about losing to Krajicek at Wimbledon). And for Sampras, everything flowed from his serve; that's the biggest weapon in his game and the centerpiece of his confidence; the thing that made (most) of his opponents feel the pressure on their own serves.

Sampras has said many times, he had so much confidence that he would hold serve, he could be practically relaxed (read: confident) about breaking serve.

But the guys who could do the same to him -- who could take him out of his particular comfort zone and defeat him in straights at the fastcourt Slams, in his prime, as both Philippoussis and Krajicek did in 1996 -- were never consistent. This was due to various reasons: lack of commitment, or injury, or mental frailty in tight spots (Ivanisevic was similar). The one guy who was consistent -- who showed up the most and became his main rival -- didn't have the game to take him out of his comfort zone, and had to fight for his victories the hard way.

That's one thing I rarely see mentioned, when people compare Sampras/Agassi against Federer/Nadal.

Finally a little bit of rationality.

 

[dh003i]

Yes,one big advantage Fed has over Sampras is that his FO record is way better,that's true.

But why should Sampras STFU? The guy has 14 slams,he's certainly earned the right to say what he thinks.I'm interested to hear his honest opinion and besides he did say Fed is GOAT in his book but that he can see the other side of the argument as well(H2H against main rival),I agree with a lot of what he says in his interview.

As for saying Sampras saying he felt unbeatable on grass and think he would beat Fed,I'm sure Fed would say that he would beat Pete in his prime if they'd ask him.It's normal for top players,especially ones as dominant as Fed and Sampras to think that way.Yes Fed would have been torn to shreds in this forum if he said the same because will rip Fed here for anything he says or does but that still doesn't mean what Sampras said is wrong or unusual for a top athlete to say(quite the opposite actually).



I'm not saying Nadal is better than Fed,if he can't come close to Fed's achievements when all is said and done then Fed's the better player for me.IMO H2H comes into play to decide who's the better player when achievements are comparable but if Fed ends up with say 17-18 slams and Nadal with 10-12 then Fed's still greater for me.

However I do think that H2H against Nadal damages Fed's GOAT claim.He's still one of the best ever regardless but to be the undisputed best ever he needs to get Nadal at slams a couple of more times in the future IMO.

Sure, it would solidify his case. But his case is hardly hurt relative to other greats because of it. In what counts most in evaluating greatness -- slams and #1 ranking -- Federer's difficulties with Nadal are already accounted for in him losing the #1 ranking last year, and losing those 3 FO finals, as well as Wimbledon and the AO.

Why count it against him twice? I mean, if you're going to double-count, why not triple count, quadruple count. The only thing that matters is that Federer has a losing H2H vs. Nadal in slams. So what matters is that, in slam finals, Federer is 2-5 vs. Nadal.

Being serious, I think it is enough of a "tarnish" that Federer now has 15 grand slams against Nadal instead of 17 (as you can argue he really had chances at Wimbledon, and should've won AO), and that Nadal just made it impossible for him to have had 20 by now, because of his dominance on clay.

But, despite that, Federer's at 15 slams. 15, instead of a possible 20 (as he's been to 20 finals).

I mean, hardly no-one mentions that a 40+ year old Pancho Gonzales beat Rod Laver the year after laver won the Grand Slam, in a winner-take-all $10k match, which was a lot of money back then.

 

[FiveO]

If you're talking about the overall H2H, a large difference like 7-13 is unique as far as I know.

If you mean just the fastcourt H2H, I'm not sure it's unprecedented.

McEnroe and Borg ended up 7-7 apart from clay. It was 3-3 in majors, if we count the year-end Masters as the true 4th major in those days (when the Australian was not).

And McEnroe won the last two of those meetings in the (fastcourt) majors, same as Nadal has won over Federer.

McEnroe won a close one over Borg at Wimbledon, and a few months later he did it more convincingly at the USO. Nadal won a close one over Federer at Wimbledon, and then in more convincing fashion at the Australian.

Yet no one places McEnroe higher than Borg on their GOAT lists, because his overall accomplishments were not greater than Borg's, not by a long shot. For now, that's true of Nadal and Federer too.

Obviously it's the overall h2h which is unprecedented.

The fast court split is nearly a complete push. The point is that while the one sidedness is based largely on clay, there is no push back on Fed's turf.

The Borg/Mc is just enhances what some see as the blemish on his career. Borg was the clay court King and held an edge over the best fast courters including McEnroe and Connors through 1980 while he was winning RG and Wimbledon.

It's exactly why Borg and not Mac is considered the best of that era and a GOAT candidate himself.

Unfortunately while Fed has the Major mark, Nadal is viewed as one of the best ever clay courters and from beginning to end has played Fed to a veritable draw on Fed's turf.

I'm not trying to make that case. Borg played Mac to a push on fast courts and was actually ahead through 1980 AND he had the clay court crown AND Borg NOT McEnroe is the GOAT contender from that era.

Unintentionally, I think, you've the point of contention stronger not weaker, you just painted Nadal as Borg which was not my intent.

I'll say it again Federer is one of the Open era GOATs (for myriad reasons I feel there can never be a single one). Nadal certainly doesn't leapfrog Fed due to a h2h and the h2h doesn't preclude Fed from the GOAT club, which again for me, consists of the four guys in that great picture taken after the Wimbledon final now on the ATPTour.com splash screen.

But the h2h with Nadal is a blemish. Some emphasize it too much. Some like the author of the cited article are fixated on it. However, it does exist and it is notable as it is unprecedented overall and similar to that Borg/Mc match-up on faster surfaces. I'm not suggesting that Fed needs to do anything more than he's done. While it would be nice for Fed to beat Nadal at RG I don't think he needs to do that either. But should he meet him in the final of the next few hard a grass court Majors he would silence this issue, viewed as either a mountain or a molehill depending on one's POV, with a couple of wins on HIS surfaces.

5

 

[380pistol]

So you are saying that no matter what, prime Nadal would beat prime Federer on any surface? Just because Federer was able to consistently reach finals on all surfaces, doesn't mean that you can hold that against him.

And the fact that when a lot of their meetings took place Nadal wasn't in his prime while Federer was also should be considered.

 

[380pistol]

He just contradicted himself is all. I would really like to see what Pete thinks behind closed doors and not on national tv when someone isnt stuffing a mic in his face


http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205

What he says at 11:50 on.. And what he says now about Fed breaking the record... Care to explain this?


Pete there says there is no GOAT, and now Fed is the GOAT? Like I asked.. Why the change in heart of all sudden? The only explanation is.. Pete doesnt want to come off looking as bitter or retalitory in front of the tennis community so he is going to be a little more diplomatic. Not to mention he and roger are friends.

Don't listen to these buffoons. When Sampras says Fed's the GOAT he knows exactly what he's talking about, when he backtracks, all of a sudden he doesn't have a clue. You gotta love it.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Don't listen to these buffoons. When Sampras says Fed's the GOAT he knows exactly what he's talking about, when he backtracks, all of a sudden he doesn't have a clue. You gotta love it.

Isn't it embarrassing for Pete to be saying one thing on July 5th and another a week later? The guy can barely remember how many slams he's won or when he won them anymore. He looks like a gorilla and frankly doesn't sound very smart when he opens his mouth.

 

[380pistol]

1. when do wins over another player suddenly begin to count? as i recall, nadal won 10 titles that year, including a slam and four masters shields, including two on HC's. ok then, let's have it both ways. nadal in his best year could barely beat federer in his 5th/6th best year.

What do you consider Nadal's prime. When he wasn't even able to make a SF of hardcourt slam???

I love Federphiles who completely omit the fact that Nadal was not in his prime but Federer was, and then try to reason it withh 11 titles. Didn't half of those come on clay??

2. nice to know the tour has abolished indoor hardcourts. darn, those two times fed obliterated nadal must've been hallucinations on my part.

That's one surface where Fed has clearly been superior. Indoors.

3. a) as if we needed more proof that some sampras fans simply stopped watching tennis when pete retired. no, fed and nadal have not faced off at all four slams. you repeated the fallacy twice (saying sampras would have a winning recor against nadal had they played against each other on all slams, implying that fed and nadal have), so it's futile to deny it.

I didn; t say Sampras would have a winning record if the played at all slams. I said Pete walking in Fed's shoes, in my eyes, is 4-3 vs Nadal in slam F, not 2-5.

b) lets take it slam by slam, AO, i'd say it's a toss-up. again, we're judging fed based on how he's performed at his 5th/6th best, so we have to judge pete accordingly. sampras's four best years are all significantly better than his 5th, so IMO it's pretty close

So now it's Fed in 5th/6th best year, but no such consideration for Nadal. 2008 was his best. 2009 was on it's way, until injuries. Haven't seen 2010, so what would that make 2005-07??

FO, if they meet three times, it's nadal 3-0 and sampras may not even take a set. fed and nadal met at the SF's one time as well, so overall it's 4-0 Nadal.

So now 20099 Nadal, beats 1999 Sampras in Aus Open F. Guy barely gets by Verdasco, but now he's beating Sampras. Got broken 6 times in the final, do that vs Pete and good night. 4 times and it's good night!!!!

Wimby, on today's grass, i'd say Pete 2-1. to each his own, but that's just the way I see it. the old grass, I think it's Pete 3-0, then again I'd say the same for Fed versus Nadal (3-0 for Fed on the old grass), so really no edge either way.

US Open, Pete probably wins most of the time, but so does Fed.

Sampras beats nadal on any grass. Nadal broke Fed 10 times in their 3 finals. Sampras was broken 4 times in 131 serve games in his 7 finals. His worst F was 1998, and he still struck 63 winners to 19 unforced errors.
And save me the fast grass nonsense as Sampras has the 2 longest consecutive games held streak at Wimbledon.... 118 and 97. 3rd is Nadal, on slower grass. So if Nadal can hold serve you don't think Pete can.

Pete 3-0 vs Nadal n Wimbledon finals.

had sampras and nadal faced off in the same fashion as fed and nadal, i think nadal has the head-to-head slams edge, pretty much entirely due to roland garros. sorry, but that's only fair. if you're going to hold it against fed for being good enough to make it to the finals of CC slams, you'll have to apply the same standards to sampras.

You may think Nadal has the edge head to head, I see Pete 4-3.

3. had agassi and sampras played 55% of their matches on clay, sampras probably would not lead the Head-to-Head.

Yeah but Sampras would still likely lead in slam finals.

 

[FedFan_2009]

I didn; t say Sampras would have a winning record if the played at all slams. I said Pete walking in Fed's shoes, in my eyes, is 4-3 vs Nadal in slam F, not 2-5.

Do you honestly think Pete would beat Nadal every time on fast surface?

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Another thread devolves into what ifs? Oh you gotta love that this is the ***********'s last line of defense, a bunch of what if crap. I guess it figures you'd have to live in dream world, when your guy just got passed in the real world.

 

[abmk]

The one big difference with McEnroe and Borg is that those two never met on clay, in majors or otherwise. Nadal and Federer have met on clay 11 times. That accounts for the lopsided H2h (7-13), but it's not that simple.

Federer may be second-best on clay to the claycourt GOAT, but his record against him could be better than 2-9. He blew a match point in Rome, and has blown more than a few leads elsewhere.

And he could have done better in those four meetings in Paris, perhaps winning one of the early ones.

I mention it because if Federer's recent victory in Paris is part of his case as GOAT -- one of his great accomplishments -- then his poor record against Nadal on clay is part of the story, too.

No one is saying, of course, that he should beat Nadal in the H2H on clay. But, though he can be proud of his two victories in Hamburg and Madrid, he could have more; and he could have done better in his defeats.

If Federer is a GOAT candidate largely because he has the overall game on all surfaces (and everyone uses this argument against Sampras), then his record against Nadal on clay can't just be subtracted from the overall H2H and set aside. Clay skews the H2H, of course, but you can't just set it aside and look only at the fast surfaces.

That said, I think something is getting overlooked with Sampras, too. Federer's chief rival is a bad matchup for him. Sampras never had a bad matchup to face in his chief rival (Agassi). Those who were bad matchups for him were inconsistent: big servers like Philippoussis and Krajicek, who could take him out of his comfort zone. By serving as big as him, he felt, for once, pressured on his own serve (it's something he describes in his book when he talks about losing to Krajicek at Wimbledon). And for Sampras, everything flowed from his serve; that's the biggest weapon in his game and the centerpiece of his confidence; the thing that made (most) of his opponents feel the pressure on their own serves.

Sampras has said many times, he had so much confidence that he would hold serve, he could be practically relaxed (read: confident) about breaking serve.

But the guys who could do the same to him -- who could take him out of his particular comfort zone and defeat him in straights at the fastcourt Slams, in his prime, as both Philippoussis and Krajicek did in 1996 -- were never consistent. This was due to various reasons: lack of commitment, or injury, or mental frailty in tight spots (Ivanisevic was similar). The one guy who was consistent -- who showed up the most and became his main rival -- didn't have the game to take him out of his comfort zone, and had to fight for his victories the hard way.

That's one thing I rarely see mentioned, when people compare Sampras/Agassi against Federer/Nadal.

Bingo ! That's what I've always felt

 

[urban]

I think, going by the Bodo article i read, Sampras isn't bashing Federer, but answers quite honestly a question, which was put on. If i see all the threads here, that a 2-6 hth in majors is meaningless, i must smile. The titles of the threads alone point to the other direction.

But one observation, i discussed in another thread about s and v. Some years ago, the oldtimers were all full of praise for Federer, on behalf of his effortless style, his allcourt capability. Now, although they still have high regards for his great record, there are not that overwhelmed anymore about his playing style. Pat Cash wrote some weeks ago at the Telegraph, that there was common talk on the seniors tour, that the top pros should play more play aggressively. Sampras and Laver (i didn't see his Wim press conference) argue to the point, that on grass (even on the rye grass), people should more play a vertical game. They see, that Federer chips his return all the time. In his last two long Wim finals against Nadal (not that big a server) and Roddick (on quite fast grass due to the heat), Federer had just 2 or 3 service breaks alltogether. Sampras makes some valuable points: Even its given, that Federer is tough to break, a more versatile approach (also on the return game) would bring him out of his comfort zone. Against Roddick he always feels somewhat secure, although the going gets tough.

 

[P_Agony]

I don't think Pete is bitter. I think he just said his opinion and he seemed very unbiased. I disagree with him because I don't think the H2H is that important, but oh well.

 

[LoveFifteen]

Not really.
The H2H is so biased in favour of clay, it's basically useless. The fact that Fed would be considered better if he went out in the first round of every French Open except this year's is laughable.

Plus the age difference.
I mean, It's not like Sampras - Krajicek who are about the same age and have usually met at their favourite surfaces.
Yet, Krajicek won most of their H2H, so - talking out of my arse like some fellow Samprastards - Krajicek is better than Sampras.

 

[zagor]

The one big difference with McEnroe and Borg is that those two never met on clay, in majors or otherwise. Nadal and Federer have met on clay 11 times. That accounts for the lopsided H2h (7-13), but it's not that simple.

Federer may be second-best on clay to the claycourt GOAT, but his record against him could be better than 2-9. He blew a match point in Rome, and has blown more than a few leads elsewhere.

And he could have done better in those four meetings in Paris, perhaps winning one of the early ones.

True,Fed should have done better on clay even if Nadal is the best CC player since Borg because he had multiple oppurtinities(had 2 MPs in Rome,blew big leads against him in Monte Carlo and Hamburg in 2008,1/17 on BPs in FO 2007,won the first set 6-1 in 2006 FO etc.).I agree Fed should have gotten a few more wins against Nadal on clay and maybe beat him or atleast push him to five at the FO in their 2005,2006 and 2007 meetings there.

I mention it because if Federer's recent victory in Paris is part of his case as GOAT -- one of his great accomplishments -- then his poor record against Nadal on clay is part of the story, too.

No one is saying, of course, that he should beat Nadal in the H2H on clay. But, though he can be proud of his two victories in Hamburg and Madrid, he could have more; and he could have done better in his defeats.

If Federer is a GOAT candidate largely because he has the overall game on all surfaces (and everyone uses this argument against Sampras), then his record against Nadal on clay can't just be subtracted from the overall H2H and set aside. Clay skews the H2H, of course, but you can't just set it aside and look only at the fast surfaces.

That's true,you can't have your cake and it it too.For example people can't say Fed is better than Pete because of FO but when Nadal H2H issue comes up discount clay encounters with Nadal.

That said, I think something is getting overlooked with Sampras, too. Federer's chief rival is a bad matchup for him. Sampras never had a bad matchup to face in his chief rival (Agassi). Those who were bad matchups for him were inconsistent: big servers like Philippoussis and Krajicek, who could take him out of his comfort zone. By serving as big as him, he felt, for once, pressured on his own serve (it's something he describes in his book when he talks about losing to Krajicek at Wimbledon). And for Sampras, everything flowed from his serve; that's the biggest weapon in his game and the centerpiece of his confidence; the thing that made (most) of his opponents feel the pressure on their own serves.

Sampras has said many times, he had so much confidence that he would hold serve, he could be practically relaxed (read: confident) about breaking serve.

But the guys who could do the same to him -- who could take him out of his particular comfort zone and defeat him in straights at the fastcourt Slams, in his prime, as both Philippoussis and Krajicek did in 1996 -- were never consistent. This was due to various reasons: lack of commitment, or injury, or mental frailty in tight spots (Ivanisevic was similar). The one guy who was consistent -- who showed up the most and became his main rival -- didn't have the game to take him out of his comfort zone, and had to fight for his victories the hard way.

That's one thing I rarely see mentioned, when people compare Sampras/Agassi against Federer/Nadal.

Yes,this does get overlooked a lot.So many people here screamed bloody murder when Fed won FO+Wimbledon this year without facing Nadal yet Sampras never beat Krajicek at Wimbledon and Krajicek proved not only that he could hang with peak Sampras on grass but even beat him in straights(which was very surprising).Problem is Krajicek was horribly inconsistent,was mostly going out in early rounds in Wimbledon apart from winning the title in 1996,gigantic SF clash with Goran in 1998 and quarters in 2002.What if Krajicek had Nadal's consistency and mental strength? What if Sampras's bad match-up was there to face him in Wimbledon more often ? It is an interesting thought.

So yes Fed is unlucky that his main rival is a bad match-up for him but still even then part of the blame has to fall on Fed as well because even with match-up issues with Nadal he still had plenty of opportunities against him in in non clay slam finals like 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO but didn't capitalize.So it's not like Nadal was blowing Fed away,not at all,Fed still had his chances but he didn't use them(3d set in AO and 2nd set in Wimbledon come to mind especially).He also had plenty of chances against Nadal on clay as well as you said above.So the point is that despite match-up issues Fed created himself plenty of opportunities against Nadal but didn't rise to the occasion and take them.

However your point still stands,that the player that can take Fed out of his comfort zone is his main rival while guys who could do the same to Sampras were very inconsistent and plagued with injuries.

 

[krosero]

Yes,this does get overlooked a lot.So many people here screamed bloody murder when Fed won FO+Wimbledon this year without facing Nadal yet Sampras never beat Krajicek at Wimbledon and Krajicek proved not only that he could hang with peak Sampras on grass but even beat him in straights(which was very surprising).Problem is Krajicek was horribly inconsistent,was mostly going out in early rounds in Wimbledon apart from winning the title in 1996,gigantic SF clash with Goran in 1998 and quarters in 2002.What if Krajicek had Nadal's consistency and mental strength? What if Sampras's bad match-up was there to face him in Wimbledon more often ? It is an interesting thought.

Yes, Krajicek, or Michael Stich, I guy I forgot to mention entirely in my post who ended up 5-4 against Sampras. Pete said in his book he feared Stich's game the most out of anyone on tour and was glad to see him retire.

So yes Fed is unlucky that his main rival is a bad match-up for him but still even then part of the blame has to fall on Fed as well because even with match-up issues with Nadal he still had plenty of opportunities against him in in non clay slam finals like 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO but didn't capitalize.So it's not like Nadal was blowing Fed away,not at all,Fed still had his chances but he didn't use them(3d set in AO and 2nd set in Wimbledon come to mind especially).He also had plenty of chances against Nadal on clay as well as you said above.So the point is that despite match-up issues Fed created himself plenty of opportunities against Nadal but didn't rise to the occasion and take them.

Yes, agreed, and there's no doubt the H2H against Nadal is a blemish -- one that, as Five0 wrote, is both minimized by some and exaggerated by others. IMO it's a blemish not simply because Nadal is ahead in their meetings overall. Many GOAT candidates have losing records against somebody, or against a handful of guys. It's more that even with the bad matchup taken into account, I think most people feel that Federer's game matches up better against Nadal on fast courts than the current H2H shows -- or that it should match up better. People have been saying for years that there are ways Federer could impose his strengths better on Nadal, and when he does things like float his returns passively on break points, getting into the trap of playing Nadal's game, things are not going to go as well as they could, to put it mildly.

Part of facing a bad matchup is the challenge of adapting. Even Borg who never got revenge on McEnroe on a big stage, seemed to notice how badly he was hurt in his encounters with McEnroe by standing so far back to receive serve, and he helped himself get one last good win over McEnroe in '82 before retiring (at AKAI) by going against his own tendency and stepping in to receive serve from the baseline.

When Pete said that Federer's got to figure out Nadal, he's right. It's not necessary in order to be the best of his generation, because Nadal can't say he's the best of this generation unless and until his own record, overall, compares to Fed's. It's just that Nadal is one of the challenges placed in front of Federer. Like anything else, it's got to be figured out.

 

[bolo]

That said, I think something is getting overlooked with Sampras, too. Federer's chief rival is a bad matchup for him. Sampras never had a bad matchup to face in his chief rival (Agassi). Those who were bad matchups for him were inconsistent: big servers like Philippoussis and Krajicek, who could take him out of his comfort zone. By serving as big as him, he felt, for once, pressured on his own serve (it's something he describes in his book when he talks about losing to Krajicek at Wimbledon). And for Sampras, everything flowed from his serve; that's the biggest weapon in his game and the centerpiece of his confidence; the thing that made (most) of his opponents feel the pressure on their own serves.

Sampras has said many times, he had so much confidence that he would hold serve, he could be practically relaxed (read: confident) about breaking serve.

But the guys who could do the same to him -- who could take him out of his particular comfort zone and defeat him in straights at the fastcourt Slams, in his prime, as both Philippoussis and Krajicek did in 1996 -- were never consistent. This was due to various reasons: lack of commitment, or injury, or mental frailty in tight spots (Ivanisevic was similar). The one guy who was consistent -- who showed up the most and became his main rival -- didn't have the game to take him out of his comfort zone, and had to fight for his victories the hard way.

That's one thing I rarely see mentioned, when people compare Sampras/Agassi against Federer/Nadal.

I disagree with this part of the post. Agassi might or might not have matched up well with Sampras, but it's not right to say the big servers were worse matchups for sampras than agassi.

Sampras has an excellent record against philipoussis, he is not a bad matchup at all for sampras. Sampras has a so-so record against Krajicek. Overall, once you abstract from any single big server matchup because small samples are always problematic, sampras did very well against the whole set of big servers (krajicek, phillipoussis, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Becker). Sampras has a 44-22 record against this entire group.

In contrast, sampras has a 20-14 record against agassi. Even if you subset just to the GS, agassi does no worse than the big servers. This tells us that Agassi was the more dangerous opponent to sampras compared to the set of big servers. This is not only borne out in the overall w%, and the grandslam w% but also in the way that agassi played in some of his losses vs. sampras in grand slam matches. Agassi was certainly in the 1993 wimbledon and the 2001 and 2002 U.S. open matches, when sampras was playing at a good to high level. So even in 3 of out of his 6 losses versus sampras agassi put up a very good fight. In contrast, I can only think of 2 matches out of the 11 losses where the big servers put up a good fight (98 wimbledon for ivan. and the 2002 u.s. open for rusedski). The rest were generally straight forward affairs.

 

[dh003i]

I still think that people are double-counting Federer's H2H vs. Nadal.

Federer's H2H against Nadal is reflected in his slam total and nearly 1-year interruption as the #1 ranked player. So we can say that Federer had 15 slams, instead of a possible 19 by now (last year's FO he had no chance). And his #1 ranking ending after 4 straight years without interruption.

So that's how his H2H against Nadal is factored into his greatness. With a better H2H against Nadal -- with maybe last year's Wimbledon and this year's AO, along with maybe 1 of those other French Open's -- Federer would now have 17 or 18 slams.

 

[GameSampras]

What?? 380 pistol got banned? Why?

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

What?? 380 pistol got banned? Why?

Probably because he's a Sampras fan theres some Federer fans on here who are worst and don't ever get banned.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

It's because he's a namecalling idiot. Don't get his back. Just look at the way he treats people and you'll see why he got what he deserved.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

It's because he's a namecalling idiot. Don't get his back. Just look at the way he treats people and you'll see why he got what he deserved.

Is he banned for good now or another 2 week ban?

 

[grafselesfan]

380pistol being banned sucks. He was one of the best posters here. It seems this forum is being run by *******s. People want it to turn into Federer Palace. It is sickening.

 

[GameSampras]

Is he banned for good now or another 2 week ban?

Prolly for good.. He may have been outspoken against some posters. But the guy knows his tennis, he is very logical and intelligent , and he can back up anything he says with solid facts.


Ive seen worse here from Nadal and Fed fans