Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer's GOAT Claim
- Thread starter Tennissaurus Rex
- Start date
RAFAwon09usopen
Banned
There is no doubt that when Nadal defeat's Federer in this year's US Open Final there will be no way for anyone to say Federer is the better player.
edmondsm
Legend
Your legacy is judged by the big events. Sure Nadal and Murray have beaten Federer alot. But Fed has 15 slams, which means they haven't beaten him when it counted.
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
I dont think that that would happen if they met in the USO finals. BUT if it did, Federer would still be the better player. He would just match up badly against Nadal.
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
No it's 3-3. And all of Nadal's wins have come on slow hard courts like the Australian Open, Dubai, and Miami.
RAFAwon09usopen
Banned
Well its about to be 4-3 hardcourt for Nadal.
So far Nadal's career has been better than Federer's at the same age and will continue to be. You can't fight the future.
So far Nadal's career has been better than Federer's at the same age and will continue to be. You can't fight the future.
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
Nah I disagree. Nadal will break down at an earlier age than Federer. I honestly don't see Nadal being #1, or a legitimate threat for #1, at age 28 like Federer is. And Federer will continue to be #1 or a threat for it for a while.
Anyways, if Nadal beats Federer at the US Open, I will be supremely impressed. So far, he has done nothing to show me that he would do that. He IS 13-7 against Federer, but they have only met twice on fast hard courts, and Federer won both in straight sets. The slow hard courts that Nadal has beaten Federer on 3 times are FAR different than the fast hard courts of the US Open.
RAFAwon09usopen
Banned
Nadal has no weakness on fast hardcourts though, the Olympics were played on a court faster than Cincy/NY, and he still beat Djokovic in the semi and Gonzo in the Gold Medal game (in 3 straight sets). If you think Nadal can't win on fast hardcourts then so be it, I sure don't mind.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
Did Federer beat Nadal to win his 15th title or was it that Nadal didnt play due to an injury?
pame
Hall of Fame
Maybe you need to do a little reading: Hoad beat Laver 8 times in a row, and Laver lost 11 of 13 matches in 1963 to Rosewall
Last edited:
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
I didn't mean he isnt a good fast hard court player. He is. But Federer is an absolute god of fast hard courts. Beating Djokovic and Gonzalez on fast hard courts is one thing; beating Federer on fast hard courts is another. Even with the matchup issues, I'm not sure Nadal could do it. Fast hard courts are Federer's best type of surface and Nadal's worst.
RAFAwon09usopen
Banned
Best and worst surfaces don't matter for Nadal, he just is a better tennis player. When Nadal defeats Federer at the US Open it will leave no room to argue for Federer being the better player. No mono, no 'slow grass', just pure domination.
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
Well as I said. If it happens, ill be impressed. It won't show Nadal to be a better tennis player though. He still matches up absurdly well with Federer. That is what allows him to win so much against Federer.
I don't suspect Nadal can beat Federer at the US Open though. Nadal is still a bad matchup there, but Federer is god at the US Open.
Nadal is no US Open god. Honestly, who has he beaten at the US Open. He made the semis last year, but it was honestly a cakewalk up until the match he lost.
Here's who Nadal has beaten at the US Open:
2008: Phau, DeHeart, Troicki, Querrey, Fish
2007: Jones, Tipsarevic, Tsonga (when he was ranked 43rd in the world)
2006: Philippoussis (OLD and a wild card at the time), Horna, Moodie, Novak
2005: Reynolds, Jenkins
Meanwhile, he has lost to Murray, Ferrer, Youzhny, and Blake, the only remotely tough opponents he has ever played at the US Open.
Nadal has not had ONE impressive win at the US Open in his entire career. He has lost at the first sign of a decent player EVERY year. I realize he has beaten Djokovic, Agassi, and Murray on fast hard courts elsewhere (Masters Series and Olympics), but those were 3 set matches in non-slams. That's really a whole different ball game. I really don't see how you can expect Nadal to win the US Open, let alone beat Federer to do it, when he has yet to make it past any decent opponent there.
Last edited:
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
The difference is that Laver came back to defeat Rosewall to win his second grand slam in a row. By contrast I believe Federer is 2-6 losing his last three grand slams to Nadal ....actually Nadal at grand slams is undefeated against Federer on every surface but grass.
As far as Hoad I believe Laver leads in the grand slam head to head department but Im not sure....maybe someone can check that out.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
But in the end Laver conquered them. This is precisely what Federer needs to do to be considered the "best".
There is a difference between the "greatest" and the "best". One can be the "greatest' by ones record but that does not mean that you are the "best".
as Laver points out:
You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don't think anyone has the title of best ever." Rod Laver
NEWSFLASH! If you don't beat Nadal to win a grandslam, it doesn't count!
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
That's unfair, that gives Nadal 0 slams
.RAFAwon09usopen
Banned
Nadal's career at the US Open is only at it's commencement, he only really proved to be a top hardcourt player last year. The improvement has only just begun. So of course he hasn't beaten many decent players at the US Open, he's seeded in the top 2 always and doesn't have to face many big opponents, and only has gone to the semis once, and that was after a very hectic year. The fact he made the semis on his "worst surface" despite a year like that is very impressive.
Federer matches up better with Nadal than almost everyone in the top 10. Federer's head-to-head with Nadal is better than Murray, Djokovic, Roddick, Del Potro, Simon, Verdasco.....I mean Nadal's head2head with the top 10 at one point this year was 67-23. Federer's 7-13 is excellent compared to other top players.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Did Sampras or Laver beat people with winning h2hs against them in slam/Major finals?
cknobman
Legend
Kinda funny how we are arguing Feds GOAT claim and using Nadal as the reason he shouldnt be GOAT.
Fed cant beat Nadal. Nadal owns Fed in h2h and GS finals. Nadal is GOAT on clay. Feds win at the FO dosnt mean much cause he didnt beat Nadal.
I feel really bad for Nadal though. Hes better than Fed and the supposed GOAT on clay but gets taken out by some nobody on his best surface at his home turf where hes undefeated?????? You cant be the best if you loose to nobodys in Grand Slam tournaments where your undefeated at. That is by far a more convincing argument for scratching Nadals name of the CGOAT list.
Fed cant beat Nadal. Nadal owns Fed in h2h and GS finals. Nadal is GOAT on clay. Feds win at the FO dosnt mean much cause he didnt beat Nadal.
I feel really bad for Nadal though. Hes better than Fed and the supposed GOAT on clay but gets taken out by some nobody on his best surface at his home turf where hes undefeated?????? You cant be the best if you loose to nobodys in Grand Slam tournaments where your undefeated at. That is by far a more convincing argument for scratching Nadals name of the CGOAT list.
That's unfair, that gives Nadal 0 slams
I know! So sad isn't it... such a talented player... but he'll never be GOAT. His net slam count will always be 0.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
Laver did,
In the first year of open tennis, 1968, Rod lost to Ken Rosewall in the final at Roland Garros but in 1969 he reversed that decision on the way to his second grand slam, seven years after his first, a unique achievement.
So the question is to be considered the greatest of his era does Roger have to reverse his defeat to Nadal the way Laver reversed his loss to Rosewall?
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
You can talk all you want about how he only proved to be a top hard court player last year, but I don't see that when it comes to fast hard courts. He went his furthest in the US Open, yeah, but he beat nobodies to get there, and lost at the first sign of a good player like he has every other year. He could have done that in prior years too. And he won Canada, but he did that in 2005 as well. You can say he is getting better on fast hard courts, and you are probably right, but to me, he hasn't actually shown any significant improvement on FAST hard courts. I like Nadal, and I won't be that surprised if you are right and he wins the US Open, but I think you are pretty foolish to act so sure of it given Nadal's past record at the US Open. Your argument rests on speculation about what he might do in the future.
Federer does NOT match up better with Nadal than the rest of the top 10. He has a better h2h against Nadal than them because he is a BETTER PLAYER, not a better matchup. In fact, Nadal's loopy, defensive style perfectly matches up against a player who likes to use player's pace against them like Federer does.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Rosewall is about 4 years older than Laver. Laver had the advantage of relative youth. Federer doesn't have that advantage because Nadal is younger than him.
So your question doesn't account for the age advantage Laver has. What is shows if anything is that Laver only gained his revenge in a slam when Rosewall was past it agewise.
So sorry no cigar.
Edit: Show with h2h stats that Rosewall owned Laver in the same way that Nadal does against Federer then you have point. Otherwise you are expecting Federer to overcome an obstacle of a magnitude greater than Laver ever-faced and overcame.
Last edited:
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
This was your question.
This is the answer:
Yes.
In the first year of open tennis, 1968, Rod lost to Ken Rosewall in the final at Roland Garros but in 1969 he reversed that decision on the way to his second grand slam, seven years after his first, a unique achievement.
I answered your question....can you answer mine?:
So the question is to be considered the greatest of his era does Roger have to reverse his defeat to Nadal the way Laver reversed his loss to Rosewall?
This is the answer:
Yes.
In the first year of open tennis, 1968, Rod lost to Ken Rosewall in the final at Roland Garros but in 1969 he reversed that decision on the way to his second grand slam, seven years after his first, a unique achievement.
I answered your question....can you answer mine?:
So the question is to be considered the greatest of his era does Roger have to reverse his defeat to Nadal the way Laver reversed his loss to Rosewall?
AAAA
Hall of Fame
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
So unless two players are the exact same age the older one will always have an excuse?
So the reason Federer is 2-6 against Nadal is because Roger is older than Nadal? Why did old man Rafter beat Federer 3-0 in head to head even on clay, grass and hardcourts..... Roger was younger than Rafter...no?
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Your first point - you don't accept in tennis terms 4 years is a big difference? Alright you don't.
Your second point - You said Laver was able to reverse the loss later on. Federer as the younger player never had the chance to against Rafter because Rafter retired.
If Federer was 4 years younger than Nadal then he would have a significant age advantage to swing the result his way against an aging and older Nadal. However Federer doesn't have the age advantage against Nadal like Laver had over Rosewall.
I
Isnt that your excuse as to why feds win over pete doesnt count?
Fed beat pete, has more grand slams, all surface titles and everything else, yet he isnt better?
Last edited:
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
I never said one way or the other. All I said was that if one adheres to your logic then unless two players are the exact same age then you will always have that excuse.
Furthermore Rafter was older than Federer by I think more than four years ....no?
You asked me whether Laver was able to reverse his loss to Rosewall. The answer was yes.
I did not give my opinion .
However I will say that old man Laver was also able to cross generation and beat the youngsters like Arthur Ashe.
Furthermore Laver miseed 5 years of his prime tennis because there was no open tennis and yet he was still able to win twoo grand slams....its only logical that he would have won even more if he were allowed to play....no?
But aging Rafter was able to beat young Federer on grass hard and clay. Why?
.
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
Rosewall dominated Laver in 1963. It was only in 1964 that Laver turned it around. At that point, Rosewall was 30, and Laver was 26. 26 is prime tennis age; 30 is not. There is a good chance that age had a great deal to do with the turning around of the h2h.
And shut up about Rafter. Federer was a teenager when Rafter beat him, and Rafter was 26-28, which is not old.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
But he did turn it around. Federer on the other hand has lost three grand slas in a row to Nadal.....no?
When Federer loses to Nadal he is too old and when Federer loses to Rafter he is too young. Which is it?
You sound like Goldilocks and the three bears.....you need to get the poridge "Just right"....lol. Just kiding . No offense.
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
He turned it around because Rosewall was older and got less good. Federer is the older one in this case, so if anything, the h2h should get worse soon if it goes the same way as Laver/Rosewall with the older player losing more as they get older.
He is not too old now. He is not at his absolute peak and Rafa is, but he is not too old for the losses to Nadal to be illegitimate. He WAS too young for the losses to Rafter to mean anything. You are acting like a moron.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
Laver lost to Rosewall and then beat Rosewall the very next year.....do you think Rosewall got "less good" in one year?
On what date did Roger reach his "absolute peak" ? Was Roger at his "sort of" peak when he lost to Nadal 13 times?
Michael Bluth
Semi-Pro
Oy. As I have explained in the Federer vs. Rafter thread, the H2H against Rafter means nothing. Before his breathrough(Wimbledon 03) Fed was 2-6 against Hewitt, 1-5 against Henman, 0-4 against Nalbandian and 0-3 against Agassi.
Guess what?
After Wimbledon 03, Fed was 7-1 against Henman, 13-1 against Hewitt, 10-4 against Nalbandian and 8-0 against Agassi.
Guess what?
After Wimbledon 03, Fed was 7-1 against Henman, 13-1 against Hewitt, 10-4 against Nalbandian and 8-0 against Agassi.
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
Do you think Federer got less good from 2007 to 2008? I do.
And Roger was at his absolute peak from 2004-2007. During that period, he went 6-8 against Nadal. But even at Roger's peak, Nadal was still the better clay court player. So Federer went 1-6 against Rafa on clay. But he went 5-2 elsewhere.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
Isn't that what he just said?!?!
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
Federer lost to all kinds of opponents in 2008 that he basically never lost to before.
For instance, Blake, Fish, Roddick, Stepanek, and Karlovic beat Federer in 2008. Not to mention his losses to Simon.
From 2003 Wimbledon to the start of 2008, Federer had these h2hs against those players:
Blake: 7-0
Fish: 5-0
Roddick: 12-1
Stepanek: 4-0
Karlovic: 5-0
In 2007, Federer's only loss to a player he had previously dominated was a loss to Gonzalez in the Masters Cup round robin, a tournament he won anyways. Fact. To me that shows he took a dip down in quality from 2007 to 2008.
And yes Nadal beat Federer from 2004-2007, but solely on clay. Nadal was better than Federer on clay even during Federer's prime. But, importantly, Federer was 5-2 off of clay against Nadal during that period. That's pretty decisive.
Last edited:
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
So then by your logic Nadal is worse this year and thats Why Federer has won any grandslams this year?
then following that line of logic was reason Federer only won the FO & Wimbledon this is is because Nadal took a dip down?
Incorrect......Nadal beat Federer on hard court quite a few times from 2004-2007.
Furthermore was wet behind the ears Nadal at his so called "peak" when he barely lost to Federer on grass in five sets?
Last edited:
Just a question THH. Are you trying to use the H2H thing to prove Fed isn't the GOAT? Or are you just trying to say that Nadal > Fed? What is your ultimate point?
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
The same thing that Federer himself has been saying.
Its impossible to judge his career until its over.
I agree with Roger Federer.
(and you can just call me HH....
).lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
Nadal actually has virtually the same winning % as last year. This year, he has only been upset by one 2nd tier player who he used to dominate (Soderling, of course). The reasoning behind why I said Federer was worse in 2008 than 2007 does NOT show that Nadal has been worse in 2009 than 2008. Try again.
No, you are completely wrong. Nadal beat Federer at Dubai and Miami once each in that period. Otherwise Federer won all non-clay meetings between the two. Look it up. You will find that you were wrong.
And Nadal was of course in his prime years during 2007. You'd be an idiot to think he wasn't. And you are silly to call him wet behind the ears. He was 21 at Wimbledon that year, had made the finals there the year before, and was already a 3-time slam winner.
THE HEAD HUNTER
Banned
So Nadal plays just as well now as he has last year while on the other hand Federer is playing better this year than he did last year?
"was in his prime"?...That would be past tense? Which mean he is not as good now as he was in 2007?
So Nadal then did beat Federer in what you say was his prime?
lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
Federer is playing better this year. This has a lot to do with the mono last year as well as some back problems that he has finally gotten over. I'm sure 2007 Federer would still beat 2009 Federer though, just because Federer has lost a step at this point.
Oh my gosh, is english your first language? You asked:
"Furthermore was wet behind the ears Nadal at his so called "peak" when he barely lost to Federer on grass in five sets? "
I answered your question in the same tense you asked it in. The past tense. You know full well I wasn't saying he is worse than he was in 2007.
Okay? What's your point? Off of clay, in Federer's prime, Federer won 71.4% of the matches between the two players. Pretty dominant.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
I wonder what does Sampras think now that Nadal has been beaten on the biggest stage to his rival at every slam? How does that change the claim that one needs to have a positive H2H to all of his rivals (as opposed to slam count, weeks at No.1, etc) in order to be the best of generation?
as are all the Fed-haters after what Joker has done.Similar threads
- Poll
