Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim

T

Tennissaurus Rex

Banned
Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim By Raymond Lee Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Sampras: Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure, I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass.

" I do understand the argument as being the best ever you have to be the best of your generation and Roger has come up short against Nadal," Sampras said. "I can see the point and it's hard to answer it. It's not done yet. Roger's careeer isn't done yet and he has to beat (Nadal) and he's got to beat him in the final of majors. In my book he is (the greatest of all time), but he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. You've gotta be the man of your generation. Roger certainly is the man of his generation, but he's got to figure out how to beat Nadal."


"It would bother me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors," Sampras said."Does it mean I was the greatest or not the greatest? The greatest of all time is (a label) we want to pin it on someone. With the numbers you have to give it to Roger; with (Federer's) record against Nadal you might not give it to him. If I was 7-13 against Andre it would be hard to say I was the best of my generation. 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."

"A true serve and volleyer that's willing to come in and put the pressure on him (would be a threat)," Sampras said. "As big as Andy serves I don't think anyone really scares him. I think my game would make him a little bit more uncomfortable. I would obviously come in on both serves and put the pressure on his backhand. Would I beat him? I felt at my best on grass I was unbeatable there. It's a flattering comment (Laver made). Do I think I could have beaten Roger in my prime? Sure, I don't think anyone could beat me in my prime on grass. Roger probably feels unbeatable now. He'd be a tough guy to break, especially if he was hitting 50 aces. It would be a great match up."

full article: www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6636251
 
0714_mid.jpg

2009_08_11_septcoverbig.jpg

104848_17.jpg
 
I agree Rog can never claim the title of goat unless he defeats Brian Dabul at least 3 times in the major tournaments. ;)
...wait a moment, who is Brian Dabul?
EDIT: Ahhh, I know it.
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
OMG here we go again!!! Can this man NEVER stfu?!?! Why does he think his opinion is worth more than anyone else`s?? Go play your old-man tour with Johnny Mac and let Fed create history without your ****ing stupid remarks twice a week!
Click to expand...

Actually the author echoed his opinion but I just printed Sampras' words so it was "pure". Here are some of the things the author says:

In a conference call with the media today to promote his exhibition match against Marat Safin on July 27 at UCLA on opening night of the L.A. Tennis Open, Sampras conceded the quandary Federer faces is that while many champions have named the Swiss stylist the Greatest Of All Time, you can make a clear the case he is not even the best of this time.

Skeptics point to Nadal's mastery of Federer in their head-to-head series and the fact Nadal has won six of their eight meetings in major finals — including victories on three different surfaces in the Australian Open final, Roland Garros final and Wimbledon final — as a sign the strong-willed Spaniard has the World No. 1's number.

Federer can play shots that only a tennis genius can produce. While Federer's brilliance is undeniable, his losing streak to Nadal makes me wonder: was his genius magnified by the fact he was playing people like Hewitt and Roddick in major finals who could not take advantage of his vulnerabilities the way Rafael Nadal can?

That's one of the challenges of rating players beyond their generation as I did in statistically examining the greatest players of all time: Federer is unquestionably a great champion, but was his dominance due in part to the fact that there was no one to push him except Nadal?

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.

It seems to me that the competition was a lot stronger than the competition Federer has played over the years. Now I think it's changing with Nadal pursuing his own career Grand Slam and Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Roddick all improving. Federer's foes in the top four are all quick and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all have better backhands.

Sampras and Andre Agassi are two of the greatest Grand Slam champions of all time and over the years their riveting rivalry has produced some timeless tennis — and tireless debate among fans over which will own the more prominent place in history.

The archrivals began the 2002 U.S. Open as the two oldest seeded players in the draw and concluded it with a climactic clash that saw Sampras capture his 14th and final career Grand Slam crown with a 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 victory over archrival Agassi. It was the 34th and final professional meeting between the old rivals with Sampras holding a 20-14 career edge.

Recalling his rivalry with Agassi, Sampras said if Agassi had led their head-to-head series, it would have caused the 14-time Grand Slam champion to question his own status as his generation's top player.


Raymond Lee is a tennis historian and Tennis Week contributing writer from New York. His recent features include Greatest Of All Time: A Statistical Analysis; Best Ever: A Statistical Case For McEnroe In 1984; The Rivalry To Remember and Flash Points: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History.
 
Fed's GOAT claim (if he truly was GOAT) shouldnt be challenged at all by a contemporary..much less rival.

This is why Fed isnt GOAT.. Why? Because its questionable and not certain due to Nadal's domination. too much shifting back and forth from even guys like Pete.


Fed better hope Nadal doesnt find his form and comes to the USO 100 percent. If Nadal beats Fed there, his GOAT claim is extinguished and will never return again. Losing on the biggest stage to his rival at every slam
 
Tennissaurus Rex said:
Actually the author echoed his opinion but I just printed Sampras' words so it was "pure". Here are some of the things the author says:

In a conference call with the media today to promote his exhibition match against Marat Safin on July 27 at UCLA on opening night of the L.A. Tennis Open, Sampras conceded the quandary Federer faces is that while many champions have named the Swiss stylist the Greatest Of All Time, you can make a clear the case he is not even the best of this time.

Skeptics point to Nadal's mastery of Federer in their head-to-head series and the fact Nadal has won six of their eight meetings in major finals — including victories on three different surfaces in the Australian Open final, Roland Garros final and Wimbledon final — as a sign the strong-willed Spaniard has the World No. 1's number.

Federer can play shots that only a tennis genius can produce. While Federer's brilliance is undeniable, his losing streak to Nadal makes me wonder: was his genius magnified by the fact he was playing people like Hewitt and Roddick in major finals who could not take advantage of his vulnerabilities the way Rafael Nadal can?

That's one of the challenges of rating players beyond their generation as I did in statistically examining the greatest players of all time: Federer is unquestionably a great champion, but was his dominance due in part to the fact that there was no one to push him except Nadal?

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.

It seems to me that the competition was a lot stronger than the competition Federer has played over the years. Now I think it's changing with Nadal pursuing his own career Grand Slam and Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Roddick all improving. Federer's foes in the top four are all quick and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all have better backhands.

Sampras and Andre Agassi are two of the greatest Grand Slam champions of all time and over the years their riveting rivalry has produced some timeless tennis — and tireless debate among fans over which will own the more prominent place in history.

The archrivals began the 2002 U.S. Open as the two oldest seeded players in the draw and concluded it with a climactic clash that saw Sampras capture his 14th and final career Grand Slam crown with a 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 victory over archrival Agassi. It was the 34th and final professional meeting between the old rivals with Sampras holding a 20-14 career edge.

Recalling his rivalry with Agassi, Sampras said if Agassi had led their head-to-head series, it would have caused the 14-time Grand Slam champion to question his own status as his generation's top player.


Raymond Lee is a tennis historian and Tennis Week contributing writer from New York. His recent features include Greatest Of All Time: A Statistical Analysis; Best Ever: A Statistical Case For McEnroe In 1984; The Rivalry To Remember and Flash Points: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History.
Click to expand...

There is a VERY EASY answer to all of this.
13-7 H2H, 9-2 on clay, lets remove the claycourt-meetings, what do we have then? We have 4-5 to Federer.
5-2 Nadal in GS-finals. 3 on CLAY, lets remove those,what do we have? Tied at 2 all. AND...another thing is that Nadal simply is a terrible match-up for Federer, Fed beats guys easily that Nadal loses to.
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
There is a VERY EASY answer to all of this.
13-7 H2H, 9-2 on clay, lets remove the claycourt-meetings, what do we have then? We have 4-5 to Federer.
5-2 Nadal in GS-finals. 3 on CLAY, lets remove those,what do we have? Tied at 2 all. AND...another thing is that Nadal simply is a terrible match-up for Federer, Fed beats guys easily that Nadal loses to.
Click to expand...

Add that Fed's % against the field is MUCH better than Nadal's.

Oh and, 15 > 6.
 
Remove clay? LOL.. Remove clay?


Yes lets just ignore the fact that clay isnt a surface in tennis. You Fed fans just LOVE to do that. Erase anything ( or try to) damaging to your hero.

If Sampras gets no leeway for not winning the French... Then Fed should get no leeway for being Nadal's whiping boy for years at the French.. Thank you
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
There is a VERY EASY answer to all of this.
13-7 H2H, 9-2 on clay, lets remove the claycourt-meetings, what do we have then? We have 4-5 to Federer.
5-2 Nadal in GS-finals. 3 on CLAY, lets remove those,what do we have? Tied at 2 all. AND...another thing is that Nadal simply is a terrible match-up for Federer, Fed beats guys easily that Nadal loses to.
Click to expand...

What Sampras and the Sport Historian were saying is that its not head to head per se....but its grand slam finals performance what counts and the only thing that is remembered.

They point out that Nadal has beaten in three grand slam finals in a row.

Tennissaurus Rex:
tennis_beast_postcard-p239497621162388064trah_210.jpg
 
GameSampras said:
Remove clay? LOL.. Remove clay?


Yes lets just ignore the fact that clay isnt a surface in tennis. You Fed fans just LOVE to do that.

If Sampras gets no leeway for not winning the French... Then Fed should get no leeway for being Nadal's whiping boy for years at the French.. Thank you
Click to expand...

I agree, clay should not be removed. It's the biggest weapon against Pete's GOAT claim.
 
1-2 punch said:
there is no need for sampras to but into the GOAT talk. He says he would trouble federer when really sampras wouldn't beat any of the top 5. Sampras - when still in grand slam mode still couldn't beat kid fed at wimbledon.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, good point. AND...if u once was a great champion, when you have been retired for a few years and a even greater champion comes along you always sitting at home on a cold Friday night thinking about what you could have done differently, and you start to create your own illusions that the new champions arent better than you, and really fool yourself, this imo is what Sampras does.
 
Hey why not delete this thread??


Anyone?


A thread directed for people to only start bashing Sampras for his opinions.. Yet my threads get deleted.
 
GameSampras, I know you love your idol, and I was a Pete fan too back in the day, but this is just getting sad. Federer > Pete in every single way one can imagine:

Better on clay, better on hard courts, better on today's grass, more grand slams, more prize money, more Masters, more titles, more consecutive weeks as #1, more and more and against a tougher HC competition as well, and with the COAT (Nadal) next to him in every clay event.

You have no case whatsoever.
 
TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
Totally agree, good point. AND...if u once was a great champion, when you have been retired for a few years and a even greater champion comes along you always sitting at home on a cold Friday night thinking about what you could have done differently, and you start to create your own illusions that the new champions arent better than you, and really fool yourself, this imo is what Sampras does.
Click to expand...

There is some truth to this, but I don't think there is a need to be hating on Sampras. He's probably remorseful that he didn't treat the media better during his career...Fed has always treated them with respect and he's now reaping the dividends -- they're rapidly pushing Sampras to Lendl territory of forgotten greats.

The numbers speak for themselves regarding whether Federer or Sampras is GOAT. Plus Fed's career isn't even over. The most fair comparison is Fed vs. Sampras at age 28 -- which is even more convincing for Fed.
 
P_Agony said:
GameSampras, I know you love your idol, and I was a Pete fan too back in the day, but this is just getting sad. Federer > Pete in every single way one can imagine:

Better on clay, better on hard courts, better on today's grass, more grand slams, more prize money, more Masters, more titles, more consecutive weeks as #1, more and more and against a tougher HC competition as well, and with the COAT (Nadal) next to him in every clay event.

You have no case whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to.. But I dont agree.. Nor do I agree Roger is better on hardcourts than Pete.

In fact, I only think there is one surface Roger is better than Pete on and thats clay and slow hardcourts (maybe).

Other than that. Pete owns grass, carpet, and fast hardcourt.. Ive seen both play, I think Pete was the tougher of the two due to his game.


More money? More prize money? To me that says Roger was more dominant on a consistent basis, but again if you actually watched Pete you would know he didnt approach the game same way Roger did. Pete was strictly focused more on the big ones. And.. Tougher Hardcourt competition? LOL... Thats arguable forever my friend. I would like to know what so superior about Fed's hardcourt competition..


And you even bring up guys like Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick or a Nadal.. Im going to destroy that just so you know.


IMO.

Pete-Tougher overrall competition throughout the whole 90s (when we factor in early to mid 90s) compared to any of the 00s

Polarized conditions in the 90s make it tougher as well than today's slow homogenized conditions where all the faster courts are just about obsolete.

Bigger game player- Pete's mental toughness superior to Rogers. A big reason why Pete has the advantage over his rival as opposed to Roger over his.


Pete had tougher grass and hardcourt competition when we factor it in overrall through all of Petes career opposed to Roger's career thus far. Pete was of a slam player prioritizing his career to achieve longevity at the slams.. Something Roger has now begun to do.


I could go on but I digress.


Fed loses to Nadal at the USO.. Then you have NO CASE whatsoever anymore
 
Last edited:
P_Agony said:
Add that Fed's % against the field is MUCH better than Nadal's.

Oh and, 15 > 6.
Click to expand...

28 > 23

If his knees don't turn out to be testicles and explode the next time he tries to fly on court, we'll see how many he gets at 28.

:)
 
GameSampras said:
Thats your opinion and you are entitled to.. But I dont agree.. Nor do I agree Roger is better on hardcourts than Pete.

In fact, I only think there is one surface Roger is better than Pete on and thats clay and slow hardcourts (maybe).

Other than that. Pete owns grass, carpet, and fast hardcourt.. Ive seen both play, I think Pete was the tougher of the two due to his game.


More money? More prize money? To me that says Roger was more dominant on a consistent basis, but again if you actually watched Pete Tougher Hardcourt competition? LOL... Thats arguably forever my friend. I would like to know what so superior about Fed's hardcourt competition..


And you even bring up guys like Safin, Nalbandian, or a Nadal.. Im going to destroy that just so you know.


IMO.

Pete-Tougher overrall competition throughout the whole 90s (when we factor in early to mid 90s) compared to any of the 00s

Polarized conditions in the 90s make it tougher as well than today's slow homogenized conditions where all the faster courts are just about obsolete.

Bigger game player- Pete's mental toughness superior to Rogers. A big reason why Pete has the advantage over his rival as opposed to Roger over his.


Pete had tougher grass and hardcourt competition when we factor it in overrall through all of Petes career opposed to Roger's career thus far. Pete was of a slam player prioritizing his career to achieve longevity at the slams.. Something Roger has now begun to do.


I could go on but I digress
Click to expand...

Fact: I posted a poll of the greater HC player of the two, and Federer won by a HUGE gap.

Fact: I posted a similar poll of the greater HC competition, and while the gap wasn't as huge, it was still pretty big in Roger's favor.

The people have spoken, and most think Fed is the better HC player (including myself, both on fast courts and slow courts) and had the better HC competition.

Pete was mentally stronger? Maybe. But Fed had the better game - forehand, backhand, backhand slice. Pete had the better serve and volley, but the gap is very small.

There is no point in further discussing it since we both disagree (which is fine), but keep in mind most people here agree with me, and contrary to what you think, they aren't biased *******s.
 
Tennis Mag says the same thing, and so are commentators. Federer is the GOAT, but ...... his H2H against Nadal is troubling.

If he loses to Murray or Nadal in Cincy, the questions will grow louder.
 
Pete was nearly as loved as Roger.. But Pete was more of inhibited personality. He wouldnt even stay in NYC as the USO was going on. But thats whats what Andre was for.. he was the paparazzi guy. But again its about tennis.. its not a popularity PR contest. And at the end of the day I would rather of had Pete's career than Andre's who was more loved by the media yet was always 2nd best
 
P_Agony said:
Fact: I posted a poll of the greater HC player of the two, and Federer won by a HUGE gap.

Fact: I posted a similar poll of the greater HC competition, and while the gap wasn't as huge, it was still pretty big in Roger's favor.

The people have spoken, and most think Fed is the better HC player (including myself, both on fast courts and slow courts) and had the better HC competition.

Pete was mentally stronger? Maybe. But Fed had the better game - forehand, backhand, backhand slice. Pete had the better serve and volley, but the gap is very small.

There is no point in further discussing it since we both disagree (which is fine), but keep in mind most people here agree with me, and contrary to what you think, they aren't biased *******s.
Click to expand...



You posted a poll here? Well wouldnt you know... This board is mainly Fed fans like yourself. So we know there is no biasness around here. Its the same guys who feel Roger's h2h with Nadal should have no bearing on his GOAT candidacy and you guys try to sweep it under the rug as if it never existed


People's opinions around here are no exactly gospel nor are they the most objective either just so you know.
 
GameSampras said:
Hey why not delete this thread??


Anyone?


A thread directed for people to only start bashing Sampras for his opinions.. Yet my threads get deleted.
Click to expand...

I like Sampras. I respect - if not always value or agree with - his opinions.

Seems like I'm the only one though. LOL
 
Well Sampras WOULD say that... always trying to divert attention away from the permanent blemish that is Krajicek on his resume... How could Sampras ever be considered the greatest of all time when he wasn't even the best of his own era?

:p
 
Terr said:
I like Sampras. I respect - if not always value or agree with - his opinions.

Seems like I'm the only one though. LOL
Click to expand...

Why Not bash Laver , Agassi and Roger Federer himself:

"I don't think you can compare eras. You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don't think anyone has the title of best ever." Rod Laver

"Roger's numbers are hard to disagree with,And then you have a guy who's beaten him almost twice as much. Sounds like an Achilles' heel." Andre Agassi

"I don't know if we'll ever know who was the greatest of all time, but I'm definitely happy to be right up there, that's for sure," Roger Federer
 
P_Agony said:
I wish him all the best. I truly do. If he breaks Fed's record, he deserved to.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly care if he breaks Fed's record or not. I just really hope his knees hold up so we can watch him play a long and healthy career.

Though if he does break Fed's record, I wouldn't complain. Someone's going to beat it sooner or later. (Nobody argue! It's inevitable!)
 
GameSampras said:
Pete was nearly as loved as Roger.. But Pete was more of inhibited personality. He wouldnt even stay in NYC as the USO was going on. But thats whats what Andre was for.. he was the paparazzi guy. But again its about tennis.. its not a popularity PR contest. And at the end of the day I would rather of had Pete's career than Andre's who was more loved by the media yet was always 2nd best
Click to expand...

Agassi was always second best at the US Open and Wimbledon...not at the other 2 majors.

Pete was never as loved as Roger in his prime...that's what started the whole "Sampras is boring" stories during Pete's primes.

Pete always said he didn't care about the attention, media, or even being #1 -- all that mattered to him was winning slams. He received his reward (14 slams). Unfortunately, he now realizes that slams alone aren't the only important thing in tennis.

Federer cares about the game of tennis just as much as his own legacy...that's a big difference between him and Pete. Pete was a gentleman on the court and viewed his legacy as showing you could act with class (instead of like McEnroe and Connors) and still be the greatest. Fed has even more class than Pete did, is a far better ambassador of the sport, and has now won more slams as well.
 
Ignore Gamesampras' comments. He has posted so many ignorant troll threads bashing Federer where he has been shut up. He then vanishes and runs away like a little girl. Next day he looks for more trash to post another troll thread. Youre threads get deleted becuase they are so ignorant.

Feds competition was already proven better in 04-07 compared to sampras' prime competition.

Not to mention fed has a slam on every surface against better opponents. Case closed
 
Tennissaurus Rex said:
Why Not bash Laver , Agassi and Roger Federer himself:

"I don't think you can compare eras. You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don't think anyone has the title of best ever." Rod Laver

"Roger's numbers are hard to disagree with,And then you have a guy who's beaten him almost twice as much. Sounds like an Achilles' heel." Andre Agassi

"I don't know if we'll ever know who was the greatest of all time, but I'm definitely happy to be right up there, that's for sure," Roger Federer
Click to expand...

Well alright. If you insist.

Andre, Rod, Roger. You guys need to take a shower. You're stinking up this thread.

:P

I think Rod has a good point. It's hard to compare eras. After all, there's different levels of competition at different eras.

There's nothing wrong with having an Achilles heal. Federer is still human. He's not a machine.

And Roger seems to have said that on one of his more humble days. ;)
 
GameSampras said:
You posted a poll here? Well wouldnt you know... This board is mainly Fed fans like yourself. So we know there is no biasness around here. Its the same guys who feel Roger's h2h with Nadal should have no bearing on his GOAT candidacy and you guys try to sweep it under the rug as if it never existed


People's opinions around here are no exactly gospel nor are they the most objective either just so you know.
Click to expand...

Actually I disagree. Fed's H2H with Nadal should include all their clay matches.

The thing is - H2Hs mean nothing at the end. Nadal wasn't able to claim the #1 spot in spite of his great H2H with Rog. That means something - Roger dominated the field more than Nadal did, and that's what counts.
 
Tennissaurus Rex said:
Why Not bash Laver , Agassi and Roger Federer himself:

"I don't think you can compare eras. You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don't think anyone has the title of best ever." Rod Laver

"Roger's numbers are hard to disagree with,And then you have a guy who's beaten him almost twice as much. Sounds like an Achilles' heel." Andre Agassi

"I don't know if we'll ever know who was the greatest of all time, but I'm definitely happy to be right up there, that's for sure," Roger Federer
Click to expand...

Completely accurate quotes -- hard for anyone objective to disagree with those. No one can objectively say that Fed is GOAT without any dispute, largely b/c of his record against Nadal. But even factoring his record against Nadal, and looking at his whole career vs. Sampras for example, the numbers clearly state that Fed is superior to Sampras. Any explaination for Sampras has to begin with excuses -- from explaining away Feds 1-0 record vs. Pete on grass, to explaining away the level of dominance Fed had from 2004-2007 that Pete never came close to, to explaining away why Pete never even made a French final.
 
coyfish said:
Ignore Gamesampras' comments. He has posted so many ignorant troll threads bashing Federer where he has been shut up. He then vanishes and runs away like a little girl. Next day he looks for more trash to post another troll thread. Youre threads get deleted becuase they are so ignorant.

Feds competition was already proven better in 04-07 compared to sampras' prime competition.

Not to mention fed has a slam on every surface against better opponents. Case closed
Click to expand...


Yea because just the though of questioning your all might great god Federer is just a little too much to handle.



Ignoring some of the things brought up by poster like myself, Cesc, and GrafSelesFan is ignorant too my friend..
 
Last edited:
Im still wondering why is thread isnt deleted yet since it was just a baiting thread to begin Sampras bashing.


See its crap like this that makes me even more happy standing up for Pete
 
Terr said:
Well alright. If you insist.

Andre, Rod, Roger. You guys need to take a shower. You're stinking up this thread.

:P

;)
Click to expand...

Dont stop there....You can also add Mary Carillo , Bud Collins, Matt Cronin:

"In the grand scheme of things, am I willing to anoint Roger as the all-time greatest? I honestly feel like we have to wait until Nadal's career is over. I really do. I just think Nadal's going to do everything he can to win majors as well." Mary Carillo

"It's tough to talk about legacies, because [Federer and Nadal] are both young men. You just don't know how long they're going to last. I think it helps, since Pete never won this, but if the other fellow [Nadal] keeps beating him up, well …. It's a good argument [for Federer], but I personally feel Pete had tougher competition -- Lendl, Agassi, Courier. There are more good players now, but those were great players." Bud Collins

"It's unexpected Roger got the final, but people lose in tennis, and his three main rivals all lost. All who had terrific records against him in the last year or so, all lost and he survived and won the matches he had to win. As Roger said, it would have been better if he beat Rafa in the final, but he can't control that.

"That means he's the best player of all time, with one major caveat -- his record against Nadal. All the top five guys have positive records against all their peers. Federer doesn't.

"If he turns it around somehow against Rafa in the next few years, then there's no question about it because his record on clay is so much better than Pete's."
Matt Cronin, Inside Tennis magazine:
 
Tennissaurus Rex said:
Dont stop there....You can also add Mary Carillo , Bud Collins, Matt Cronin:

"In the grand scheme of things, am I willing to anoint Roger as the all-time greatest? I honestly feel like we have to wait until Nadal's career is over. I really do. I just think Nadal's going to do everything he can to win majors as well." Mary Carillo

"It's tough to talk about legacies, because [Federer and Nadal] are both young men. You just don't know how long they're going to last. I think it helps, since Pete never won this, but if the other fellow [Nadal] keeps beating him up, well …. It's a good argument [for Federer], but I personally feel Pete had tougher competition -- Lendl, Agassi, Courier. There are more good players now, but those were great players." Bud Collins

"It's unexpected Roger got the final, but people lose in tennis, and his three main rivals all lost. All who had terrific records against him in the last year or so, all lost and he survived and won the matches he had to win. As Roger said, it would have been better if he beat Rafa in the final, but he can't control that.

"That means he's the best player of all time, with one major caveat -- his record against Nadal. All the top five guys have positive records against all their peers. Federer doesn't.

"If he turns it around somehow against Rafa in the next few years, then there's no question about it because his record on clay is so much better than Pete's."
Matt Cronin, Inside Tennis magazine:
Click to expand...

Then nobody can be the GOAT, since all players have a negative H2H against someone else. Fed is just being penalised since he has a negative H2H against a player who is very good, thereby setting up more meetings deep in tournaments.
 
Rippy said:
Then nobody can be the GOAT, since all players have a negative H2H against someone else. Fed is just being penalised since he has a negative H2H against a player who is very good, thereby setting up more meetings deep in tournaments.
Click to expand...

No.

All the top five guys have positive grnd slam records against all their peers. Federer doesn't.
 
Tennissaurus Rex said:
No.

All the top five guys have positive grnd slam records against all their peers. Federer doesn't.
Click to expand...

Do you mean top 5 players in rankings now? If so, you're wrong.

I take it you mean, top 5 GOAT candidates or something? But even then it's likely they don't all have positive H2Hs in slams against all their peers.
 
Rippy said:
Do you mean top 5 players in rankings now? If so, you're wrong.

I take it you mean, top 5 GOAT candidates or something? But even then it's likely they don't all have positive H2Hs in slams against all their peers.
Click to expand...

Ask matt Cronin of inside tennis magazine:

"That means he's the best player of all time, with one major caveat -- his record against Nadal. All the top five guys have positive records against all their peers. Federer doesn't."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
  • Poll Poll
Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim
4 5 6
Replies
272
Views
20K
World Beater
W
kimbahpnam
"Pete Sampras says he could have beaten Roger Federer"
Replies
3
Views
972
jukka1970
J
CyberShot
  • Poll Poll
Sampras: I could've beaten Federer on grass.
3 4 5
Replies
239
Views
18K
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
S
Senario about Federer's claim to GOAT & Nadal
4 5 6
Replies
289
Views
18K
cueboyzn
C
M
Sampras says Nadal remains biggest threat to Federer
2 3
Replies
115
Views
8K
rocket
R
Back
Top