Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim
- Thread starter Tennissaurus Rex
- Start date
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
It doesnt?
Nope. How can the top 5 all have a winning record against each other?
What would Pete's H2H against Andre look like if they played a few more matches on clay?
Someone said that Fed's problem is thathe is very good on clay and so he consistently meets Nadal in finals. Sampras sucked on clay so he almost never got to play Agassi there.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
different eras. In other words all the other GOAT candidates had winning records over their main rivals of their except for Federer.
Sampras led Agassi
Laver led whoever his rival was
But Federer is the only one of the GOAT candidates that trails hos main rival
McEnroe leads Borg 3-1 in slam finals, tied at 7 all before Borg retired. Good try though.
And yes, Borg was / is in contention for the title of the GOAT (arguably, depending on who you talk to).
Last edited:
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
McEnroe never reached the French Open final when Borg was playing. Borg would have smoked him there and their h2h would look different.
So how come Federer can't use this explanation than?
What if Nadal was good enough to meet Federer in finals of HC tournaments during Federer's prime? Don't you think the H2H wouldn't be so skewed?
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Nadal has a 3-1 h2h against Federer on outdoor hardcourt and the one he lost he blew a 2 set lead. So there is evidence to suggest that Nadal would beat Federer at the USO if they met. There is zero evidence to suggest McEnroe would beat Borg at the French.
Nadal's wins all came on slow HCs with the exception of 1 match in Dubai (which Federer totally blew). However, considering Nadal historically has struggled on fast HCs (losing to guys like Blake, Youhzny, Ferrer) I don't think it's out of the question that Federer during his best years would have beaten Nadal at the USO.
But yes, continue to use your logical fallacies to shore up your legendary Pete Sampras' career.
In fact, Nadal was actually a favorite to get to the final in 2005 once Roddick got taken out early. He was coming in hot off a victory in Montreal, and had a favorable draw to get there. Unfortunately he loses to the inconsistent James Blake of all people.
Last edited:
FlamEnemY
Hall of Fame
'Nadal never reached the USO final when Federer was playing. Federer would have smoked him there and their h2h would look different.'
checkmilu
Semi-Pro
Nadal is not Fed's main rival
Nadal is much younger than Fed and so he is not Fed's main rival in his era, Fed's main rivals in his era are players around his age e.g. Safin, Roddick, Hewit.
Roger last too long from beating Sampras in 2001 Wimby to beating Murray 2008 USO and still counting. In my opinion, the total number of slams is the most important factor that decides who is the best, relatively, not absolutely.
Nadal is much younger than Fed and so he is not Fed's main rival in his era, Fed's main rivals in his era are players around his age e.g. Safin, Roddick, Hewit.
Roger last too long from beating Sampras in 2001 Wimby to beating Murray 2008 USO and still counting. In my opinion, the total number of slams is the most important factor that decides who is the best, relatively, not absolutely.
Just wondering...Nadal leads in his H2H with Federer...but what about the times where he failed to meet him and lost to someone else? Granted, the same could be asked for Federer. But if Nadal already lost to someone else before he could meet Federer than wouldn't there be times that Federer COULD'VE beaten Nadal, but was never given the chance?
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
most definitely. it's unfortunate that by the time nadal was good enough to reach the finals of a slam, federer had the willies and let them affect him. i doubt we'll see a healthy nadal beat a healthy federer in a HC final again, at least in the near future.
nadal also did not reach many HC masters finals, which is where other such meetings would have taken place. by the time he did, federer was still recovering from mono, and additionally from lack of confidence. It's hard to imagine nadal having a serious chance against Fed if Fed plays similar to how he did in Cincinatti.
pame
Hall of Fame
I take it you know that in 1963 alone, Laver was beaten badly by both Rosewall and Hoad. Hoad won the first 8 matches against Laver, and Rosewall won 11 out of 13. Laver in later years turned it around, but had there been a TW then, I can well imagine the scorn that would have been poured on Laver from on high!
Nadal can take Federer at Indian Wells and Miami, but I think Federer has a 6:4 edge there. However, at Cincinnati and the USO, Federer clearly has a 7:3 edge if not an 8:2 edge.
Which is why even Laver himself admitted that he might not have won many more slams if he was allowed to play in them. Hoad and Rosewall, as well as many other quality players (Pancho Gonzalez, and other floaters) would have been there as well.
Talker
Hall of Fame
This is true of course.
It turns out that Fed's main rival is the best claycourter of all time IMO.
And Fed was good enough to meet Rafa on his best surface, clay.
In this case it is OK for Fed to be behind in the H2H as many of the losses were on clay. Everyone one knows Rafa is the king of clay and the H2H just points that out more clearly.
You have to ask the question, would Sampras, Laver do better meeting Nadal 20 times on the surfaces Fed played him?
No, Fed is one of the top claycourters of all time IMO, better than Laver and certainly better than Sampras.
pame
Hall of Fame
And suppose Rosewall had stopped playing at that point, that would have been the lasting H2H - but that would not mean surely that Laver's overall career, including the GS, would leave him less worthy of being a GOAT contender.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
Many Skeptics point out that Federer has been in extremely lucky in winning his 15 slams. Just take a look at this years FO & Wimbledon:
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:
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:
grafselesfan
Banned
God that excuse is getting old. The fact is the reason Rafa owns Federer is because while Rafa completely owns Federer on his surface of clay, Federer isnt able to own Rafa any surface the way Rafa owns Federer on clay. Federer has never beaten Rafa in any of the 3 biggest clay court events in the Worlds in 7 tries, and only came close once, while Rafa has beaten Federer in the greatest grass court tournament in the World on the third try, and nearly on the second, and beat him in 1 of the 2 biggest hard court events in the World on his first try. Rafa is 3-1 vs Federer on outdoor hard courts, and Federer's only win he was down 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd. Baby pre-prime Rafa aged 17-19 played Federer 3 times on hard courts- 17 year old Rafa thrashed new #1 Federer the first time, 18 year old Rafa was on the verge of a straight sets win before dominant #1 Federer rallied to win 5 sets the second time, and 19 year old Rafa himself rallied from a 6-1 first set drubbing to win the third time. This is Federer's surface and Rafa's worst and compare that to how Rafa does on Federer's worst and Rafa's best surface. That is the definition of ownage no matter how the *******s spin it.
You're changing what the quote said.
He said "all top 5 have leading record against their peers" or something like that.
So, okay, you could be right in it means the other previous GOAT contenders. But as it doesn't mention MAIN RIVAL, it is wrong. Sampras didn't have a positive H2H against Krajicek. Overused example, but it proves my point.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
does Sampras have a negative grand slam record against Krajcek? I believe thier records are 1-1.... With Sampras reberseing his the loss the second time around. The same way Laver reversed his loss to Rosewell the se ond time around.
On the other hand Federer is 2-6 . So I think the krajcek analogy does not work.
.
Grand slams are nothing to do with this. Read the quote again. It is talking about overall record.
Borg was owned by McEnroe in slams, yet everyone puts Borg over McEnroe. The point? Even if Federer loses to Nadal alot, it doesn't matter. 20-30 years from now, I bet you anything that no one will care, and Nadal will be a footnote when it comes to Federer.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Borg is 7-7 with McEnroe, whilst Federer is 6-13 with Nadal. Theres a big difference.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
McEnroe had a 3-1 record against Borg in slams. (all finals)
Additionally, if Borg wouldn't have run off and retired, the h2h would start swinging in favor of Mcenroe, as he had won there last 3 meetings (all finals, 2 slams).
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
If McEnroe was better on clay then Borg would have a better h2h.
cknobman
Legend
Youve just conclusively proven Borg could never have any claim to a GOAT consideration. Not only did he have a losing record but once Borg realized what was happening HE RETIRED EARLY from the game. How pathetic is that???????
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Lets remember, Borg was a teen prodigy so his longevity is better than it looks.
Well if Fed had retired in 07, he'd still have had a respectable about of slams, and his H2H with Nadal wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad. Yet some people seem to be penalising him for staying around in the game; yes, he's won more slams, but for some people it seems that the H2H with Nadal and Murray erase these slams - so they'd think Federer was better if he'd retired early?
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Yet we can't use the same logic for Nadal on HCs?
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Nadal has a winning h2h with Federer on HC's.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Um no it's 3-3 on HCs, none of this indoor/outdoor stuff you try to push, HC is HC.
And if Nadal actually made a USO final or 2, who's to say Fed's record wouldn't be better.
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
Federer's usually playing his best tennis of the season in the american hardcourt season. He has won 3 of the last 5 Cincinatti titles and all 5 US Open titles in the last 5 years.
Imagine if Federer and Nadal met 5 times on those fast hardcourts, I bet Federer would've won at least 4 times. Now imagine they had met as often as they did on clay.
Fast hardcourt is to Nadal what clay is to Federer, the by far weakest surface.
It makes Nadal's weaknesses more attackable and enhances Federer's strength (serve, slice stays low, low bounce, ability to take the ball very early).
It's undeniable that Nadal avoided quite a few losses to Federer by not reaching those finals.
Federer reached clay finals almost all time time, even when he struggled to beat lesser players (like Monfils in RG2008).
Nadal reaches hardcourt finals only when playing his best, and NEVER on fast hardcourts except the olympics. But lets keep in mind that he only beat a struggling Djokovic (unable to put a easy smash away on MP) and a Gonzalez who should've lost to Blake.
That's why Federer > Nadal.
Last edited:
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
well, he sure as heck was better than Sampras, who I will remind you>> never made a French Open Final.
P
poplar
Guest
I know Sampres fans are trying desperately to discredit Federer's achievement. But as this thread drags on, Sampres is going to look more and more petty by the min. Something his fans are too dumb to realize.
I watched him play in the 90s and always found him too arrogant and remote to warm up to. I guessed I was right to never have liked him too much.
I watched him play in the 90s and always found him too arrogant and remote to warm up to. I guessed I was right to never have liked him too much.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
Rafa may be the best clay courter of all time but didnt Roger lose to him both on grass and hard courts?
As I said before I think there are three way to measure greatnes:
1- The best record (Federers 15 slams wins however Rafa is on schedule to win more).
2- How one hits the ball: Clearly Federer wins here. he has more ways to win a point than anyone in history.
3- Against the rest of their field: Here is where Fed objectively loses. Nadal clearly has his number. No one during Lavers day had his number.
You have confused "against the rest of their field" with "against Nadal".
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
Well Federer is 0-3 versus Rafter and I aso think that Roger has a losing record to Murray.....no?
Again... you have confused "the rest of the field" with 3 players. Fed's record against practically everyone in his generation is superb. Murray is actually not really Fed's generation as such; he's a fair bit younger.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
I believe Laver beat everyone....even as an old man.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
weak rivals.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
Federer had weak rivals?
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Federer has Nadal. Laver had an equivalent in Majors?
He had a winning record against every player he ever played? If so,that's impressive.
But... you're changing what you originally said. You said Federer's dominance of the field let him down. That is totally incorrect - one of Federer's strongest attributes was how well he dominated the field.
Similar threads
- Poll
