Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Razoredge, Dec 2, 2012.
This guy didn't win a single French Open.
FO is optional for goat contention. Nice to have, not compulsory.
Laver didn't even play a HC slam (3 slams played on grass in his day) which Sampras would have been licking his lips if he got to have in the 90s. And laver failed to win a big tournament or two in his career.
Borg didn't win a single USO or AO title
Fed's been owned by his main rival his entire career on the big stage (How can you be a GOAT if you can't even handle your rival at the slams?)
Rosewall-No wimbledon title
Most if not all GOAT candidates has some strikes against their name. Sampras is obviously a GOAT candidate. tied for most wimbledon titles, most year end #1s, 5 USO titles and most finals appearances, 286 Weeks as #1, 2 AO titles, h2h advantage over his main rival on the big stage, 5 Year end titles, The 2nd or 3rd best of his era didn't even come CLOSE to his accomplishments,(Whereas Rosewall and Pancho are close to Laver, Nadal is close to Federer) Thats GOAT material
I have Sampras in tier two but ahead of Laver.
Gonzalez said Sampras' ERA was much tougher than his, which matches the way I look at it.
Are the year end #1 and total weeks at #1 worth nothing?
also dominating all his main rivals. not all goat candidates can claim that.
Owned on clay like everyone else and marginally behind Nadal up until his mono year and decline. No doubt Federer's faultered against Nadal before (AO 09 and Wimbledon 08 spring to mind) but most of those meetings have been on Nadal's best and Federer's worst surface. Pre 2008 they were 8-6 with Federer winning 5 of the last 7 meetings they had. Hardly owning...
Having said that Sampras is underrated, he's overshadowed by Federer though. There's no way to put Pete ahead of Roger. He's in the top tier of greats but he can hardly be number one when someone else has broken nearly all his meaningful records.
Exactly.. The 2nd or 3rd best of Pete's era came up 6-8 slams shy of Pete's record, and nowheres even CLOSE to his overall accomplishments
GOAT Criteria has changed over the years. Sounds like you put a strong case towards having to win all of the important tournaments at least once. However, if you take that position almost all players in history who we term great wouldn't even be in the discussion of GOAT candidicy.
Borg - no US Open or Australian open
McEnroe - no French Open
Lendl - no Wimbledon
Connors - no French Open
Rosewall - no Wimbledon
I could go on and on.
One has to remember that winning all of the majors has become easier since 2002 with the homogenization of surfaces and the massive slowdown at Wimbledon.
The season end finals has historically been a very important tournament - Nadal has never won that.
Pretty much all the great players have a hole in their resume.
The only player who probably does have any hole in his resume is Agassi (though I would argue in the 90s the Grand Slam Cup was important and he only got to the final of that tournament), and very few commentators would argue for Agassi being the absolute GOAT
So being a GOAT candidate has to be decided on a range of other criteria.....eg dominance at the top, time at number 1 in the world, numbers of important titles won....etc etc
He was owned at the Australian Open by Nadal too.. And most would bet against Federer if he had to deal with Nadal on anything but an indoor surface. Nadal has been having the overall h2h advantage over Federer since he was 17. Thats not worthy of being a hands down GOAT in IMO. If you have to favor the other guy on most if not all outdoor surfaces.
You can make some cases for Pete over Federer.
A 5 set match is hardly owning is it? And a hard fought 4 setter with someone 5 years younger than you is hardly shameful. Nadal only has such a distinct edge since Federer left his prime and Nadal entered his. Stop cherry picking the facts to denigrate Federer. A better view of the head to head would be to see how many times Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Federer. Otherwise you end up with; Nadal > Federer > Fernando González > Nadal at the AO 07. Which obviously doesn't make much sense.
I never said Federer was the hands down GOAT, he's just above Sampras. More titles, more time at no.1, more complete resume etc...
Who in your opinion is the absolute GOAT
Curious as to who you would pick as the absolute GOAT. (Obviously not Federer given your comments, but then who...surely not Nadal who, out of the top 5 tournaments has dominated (say winning at least 4 times) only 1 of them, whereas Sampras has dominated 3 of them and Federer 4 out of 5).
Fed set most of his records while Nadal was playing against the same field.
Cases can be made for many but Pete over Fed will take some serious work.
In terms of resume and overall achievements and taken into account h2h's against main rivals etc.. Probably Laver or Pancho. Followed by Rosewall, Fed and Sampras
Well those 2 guys are definitely up there (Laver and Gonzales)
Sampras deserves to be placed up there with the GOATs, but he isn't the GOAT.
Sampras is top 5 all time.
Well, firstly, Nadal and Djokovic are the 2nd and 3rd best of Federers era, with Nadal being better than Agassi and Djokovic being far better than Courier. So maybe that has something to do with it?
Also, I don't see how at this point the margin between Sampras and Agassi is that much bigger than Federer and Nadal. If anything you could argue the opposite. Fed has 77 titles, Nadal 50. 17 majors to 11, 6 YE finals to Nadals 0.
With Sampras and Agassi its 14 to 8, 64 to 60, 5 to 1, and Agassi had 6 more masters titles.
The GOAT thing(Open Era only) is fascinating because each of them have a significant hole in their CV.
Fed - failed to dominate Nadal
Sampras - failed to win FO
Borg - failed to win US Open and went 1-3 against Mac in GS
Nadal - failed to win YEC and post significant weeks at #1
Nadal has 11 slams and counting (Agassi only 8 and he couldn't beat Pete at 2 of the 4 slams no matter how hard he tried and Nadal has taken Fed out at 3 of the 4 slams) , and he is much worse indoors (and on hard courts) then Agassi was. Agassi was better on more various surfaces overall then Nadal is where most of Nadal's success has came on clay.
Most of Nadal succes - including his h2h with Federer (and Djokovic for that matter)
Which goes to show
This goes to show that the GOAT discussion is multifactorial ie not just based on one criteria like head to head. No, time at number 1, number of important titles won, range of surfaces one has performed at the top level on etc etc...all have to be considered
yes but even if you consider 04-09 (which is highly unfair towards nadal who was probably as much pre prime as fed is now past prime most of that time) and non clay (again unfair towards nadal) then the record is 4-4. prime federer while not getting totally owned never dominated baby nadal.
If there were only prime vs prime matches equally distributed between all surfaces the reocord would have been more equal but still nadal would win about 60%. this is a serious dent in Feds resumee (he is still greater than nadal though) which pete never had.
I still argue that fed is the goat but I would strongly argue against that he is one of the most dominant athletes ever. there just happened to be noone better to date in tennis.
We're not talking about who the better player is, but of the seperation between the two, so who cares that Nadal has 3 more slams? Federer also has 3 more than Sampras.
Even if the seperation is bigger, it's not by a massive margin at this point. Federer is clearly the player of his era. Sampras was clearly the player of his. Federer also had a stronger number 2 and 3 players of the era to contend with, as Nadal + Djokovic > Agassi + Courier (maybe it was Becker, in which case it would be very close, but Becker wasn't the same force he was when Sampras started winning compared to his prime).
Do you, then, disagree that Nadal is a better player than Agassi? If not, I don't see what you're arguing about.
Also, how was he better on more surfaces? Nadal is much better on grass, and so so much better on clay. Agassi was much better on HC and indoors, but not by the same margin.
There has never been a comparable situation in tennis history where the player in consideration has, the majority of time he has played his main rival, played on his weakest surface and his opponents strongest surface. This has created a very strange anomoly. That is why head to head should never be spoken of except referencing surface. Imagine what the borg/mcenroe head to head would have been if they had played the majority of their matches on clay? (Note: Federer leads Nadal 8 to 6 non-clay)
That is his only weak spot.
However his strengths are above almost everyone else's, so yes he definitely deserves a place in the GOAT discussion.
Don't forget that almost every GOAT contender has a weakness in their resume somewhere.
Yeah and there's really talented players who haven't won an australian, a wimbledon, or a USO. Lendl never won a wimbledon, so does that take away from all of his accomplishments? Fed never won a calendar slam. And Rod Laver won just 11 slams compared to the others who have won more. Fed was considered the GOAT even before he won the french. And if he never won it, he would have just been in parallel territory with Pete. But pete has something that most guys don't which is the number 14. That is why he was in talks as the GOAT and obviously with all of fed's accomplishments, he's out. But he's still considered a "GOAT" as you would call it, but if you wanna be technical, you shouldn't be using GOAT is plural terms, just like how 110% does not exist but it used as an allusion.
Why do people here write threads like this? Rub your brain cells together before you want people to hear what you have to say.
For crying out loud - this is not a "strike against his name".. it has only become so by internet flacks and die-hard Nadal fans.
AGAIN, beating someone in itself means nothing in tennis. There is no trophy for beating any particular person, no award for it, no bonus points and there is certainly no head to head system factored into rankings, seedings, points etc.
The only thing other than performances at tournaments that matters in tennis is the ranking race. Neither depend one bit on any particular head to head. They never will.
Nadal plainly was a crap player outside of his favourite surface for years - a cunning detail which helped him face Federer again and again on his favourite surface. Off his favourite surface he regularly lost to chumps who usually couldn't even muster a set off Federer.
This is no not knock against Fed's career? So if Nadal was a "crap player" for years off his favorite surface, what does that say about Nadal beating Fed way back in 2004 on his favorite surface (hard courts?) Its a MAJOR knock against Federer's career.. Bottom line. Nadal has been the primary favorite vs. Federer (especially once he honed his craft outside of clay) for the good majority of his career.
When your main rival is the FAVORITE against you 85-90 percent of the time, how is that not a knock on someone?
If these are the criteria then Sampras has many.
He failed to dominate Fabrice Santoro, Leander Paes, Max Mirnyi, George Bastl, Christian Saceanu.....
Throw him off the GOAT bridge already. What a chump that he couldn't dominate these guys.
2 words. WEAK ERA :lol:
When Federer was dominating everyone and no-one was close to him, that proved a weak era. Now Nadal is closer to him than Sampras's rivals, the argument is changed.
In answer to the OP question, of course he is a GOAT candidate. He was one of the best players of all time on 2 out of 3 surfaces, that alone make him a candidate. Though I don't beleive anyone can claim to be the GOAT. so it's all moot :lol: but Sampras is one of the greatest of all time.
Anomaly wins matter nothing in the bigger picture. That is half the point.
It is a knock to flacks but means nothing in the truer picture of how great a player is/was.
The only head to head that matters in a player's career or tournament is: you vs everyone else. Federer smokes Nadal in that respect. It's not even a close contest.
The point is certain people on this board hold that "dominating all your main rivals" is the #1 GOAT criterium.
I could be wrong, but aren't Nadal's weeks at number 1 similar to Borg's?.
Which isn't dominance. Nadal's numbers against Fed on clay though, and overall, are.
Yes Nadal has 100+ weeks at #1. His only real hole is not winning a single YEC.
Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.
He is one of the GOAT by virtue of results. However, I never thought he was fantastically skilled, almost entirely relying on the best serve in the game and great speed.
No he isn't. No one is "by far" and he can't be the best in both if you use the same criterion for both. Not very inventive trolling at all.
Federer is ahead and the gap is even wider now. Wide enough to separate them from one tier.
You can argue the gap between Nadal and Sampras is closer than the gap between Sampras and Federer.
It dosnt make up for not winning one of the majors..sampras was too rubbish to win the french or even be in the final.
anyhow federer is the greatest wimbledon player ever, by far.
You are both incorrect. Neither player is the best W or USO player BY FAR. It is a very close race between both, hardly a BY FAR situation.
Arguably the best fast court player all time, and overall definitely top 5.
In 5 years time, Sampras will drop down to Tier 3. Nadal and Laver will be Tier 2 (possibly Djoker, but maybe not).
Well he also has a weaker Masters 1000 resume compared to other greats. His numbers there are just not very impressive compared to other legends. He's got 11. People with more than him include Djokovic, Becker, Borg, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal and Lendl. And Fed and Nadal and Lendl almost have twice as much.
Fed's got better winning % than Sampras at both majors (not to mention across the surfaces as a whole). He's got more grass and hard court titles. Plus he beat Sampras the one time they met in 2001 at Wimbledon (with Sampras as defending champ). 5 consecutive Wimbledons + greatest match ever. 5 consecutive U.S. opens. 4 consecutive Atlantic slams (Wimbledon and U.S. Open back to back). Yeah f*** my logic.
do try and keep up old bean..i was taking the mickey out of him when i said 'by far'.
Correct... a point which gets demonstrated over and over in some weird mass lapse of IQ occurrence once a month.
Laver tier 2? ROFL.. STOP!!
Laver's competition was probably weaker even more than Sampras'. How else do you think Sampras was able to dominate the 2nd and 3rd best players so well? Because his era was weak. Fed will have the 2nd best player of all time (Nadal) and possibly the 3rd of 4th best in Djoker.
For winning a CYGS in 1969?
Separate names with a comma.