Laver didn't even play a HC slam (3 slams played on grass in his day)
Borg didn't win a USO or AO
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?)
etc..
Most 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, 5 Year end titles, No one in his era even came CLOSE to his accomplishments, Thats GOAT material
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.
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. 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 over the other guy
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.
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.
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 tournament 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).
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
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
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.
Nadal has 11 slams and counting, 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
This guy didn't win a single French Open.
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....
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?)
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.
If these are the criteria then Sampras has many.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
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
Anomaly wins matter nothing in the bigger picture. That is half the point.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.. ..
It is a knock to flacks but means nothing in the truer picture of how great a player is/was.When your main rival is the FAVORITE against you 85-90 percent of the time, how is that not a knock on someone?
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
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)
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.
This guy didn't win a single French Open.
Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.
You can make some cases for Pete over 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.Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.
Originally Posted by tennisMVP
Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.
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.
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.
Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open 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.
Correct... a point which gets demonstrated over and over in some weird mass lapse of IQ occurrence once a month.The point is certain people on this board hold that "dominating all your main rivals" is the #1 GOAT criterium.
In 5 years time, Sampras will drop down to Tier 3. Nadal and Laver will be Tier 2 (possibly Djoker, but maybe not).
Laver tier 2? ROFL.. STOP!!
Laver tier 2? ROFL.. STOP!!