End of a Debate

After all the Sampras vs Federer arguments, WUM or otherwise, that raged on forums until 2009: I just thought we should mark the end of that debate.

When FO 2009 was won, that probably put Federer clearly ahead, and confirmed by winning one slam more at Wimbledon 2009, but you still could find the occassional Sampras defender, resting their arguments on 2 key facts: Sampras had more Wimbledons and more weeks at #1. Federer has now equalled the first record and I believe is now certain or near certain to beat the second (assuming Djokovic doesn't do something very unlikely, like show up unexpectedly at Newport!).

Federer has achieved more than Sampras in his career. There is no debate any more. You'd be mad to take that argument on. The only argument left is whether Federer conclusively won that debate at FO 2009, Wimbledon 2009 or today.

This also means that the argument for Sampras as GOAT is an impossibility. 2nd is the highest anyone can argue for.

Not tried to denigrate Sampras' achievements, by the way. Magnificent player. Still the equal greatest Wimbledon legend with Fed as well.

In fact, maybe greatest Wimbledon legend or greatest grass court legend could be a topic for debate. But greatest ever? Sorry Sampras, you're no longer even in the debate.

I largely agree, and this is coming from someone who saw Sampras as their tennis idol as a young lad growing up. As far as I'm concerned, the 2009 French Open blew out any remaining candles on this particular debate.

I find it disrespectful to say someone is no longer a valid argument. It is about opinions non?

Some tennis fans regard Laver as the GOAT for 2 calendar Slams, something that no-one has done since.

Sampras won a Slam in his teens, 20's and 30's. Something that many players haven't done.

I am not one to rank Sampras higher than Federer in any GOAT debate, but if fans want to bring names like Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Nadal or Sampras to argument, don't be so dismissive of others opinions.

Agree HB.

I think Laver etc have to go into another category because we simply don't know what would have happened in an Open environment (remember that many of early titles came when better players were professionals - when he first went onto the pro circuit he got beat).

Federer is the GOAT, there can't really be any serious argument.

I can't see Rafa catching him now; incredibly, since USO 2010 he's only caught Roger by 1. That's not going to close the gap. Djokovic started winning far too late to be a credible threat to 17.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I find it disrespectful to say someone is no longer a valid argument. It is about opinions non?

Some tennis fans regard Laver as the GOAT for 2 calendar Slams, something that no-one has done since.

Sampras won a Slam in his teens, 20's and 30's. Something that many players haven't done.

I am not one to rank Sampras higher than Federer in any GOAT debate, but if fans want to bring names like Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Nadal or Sampras to argument, don't be so dismissive of others opinions.

What a buzzkill OP was only stating the obvious, that the WUMs on the old 606 were wrong to diss TMF in the way they did.

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I find it disrespectful to say someone is no longer a valid argument. It is about opinions non?

Some tennis fans regard Laver as the GOAT for 2 calendar Slams, something that no-one has done since.

Sampras won a Slam in his teens, 20's and 30's. Something that many players haven't done.

I am not one to rank Sampras higher than Federer in any GOAT debate, but if fans want to bring names like Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Nadal or Sampras to argument, don't be so dismissive of others opinions.

What a buzzkill OP was only stating the obvious, that the WUMs on the old 606 were wrong to diss TMF in the way they did.

So stating no-one has grounds to debate is being a buzzkill? And anyone who rates Sampras as a GOAT is a Wum?

Heard it all now.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I find it disrespectful to say someone is no longer a valid argument. It is about opinions non?

Some tennis fans regard Laver as the GOAT for 2 calendar Slams, something that no-one has done since.

Sampras won a Slam in his teens, 20's and 30's. Something that many players haven't done.

I am not one to rank Sampras higher than Federer in any GOAT debate, but if fans want to bring names like Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Nadal or Sampras to argument, don't be so dismissive of others opinions.

What a buzzkill OP was only stating the obvious, that the WUMs on the old 606 were wrong to diss TMF in the way they did.

So stating no-one has grounds to debate is being a buzzkill? And anyone who rates Sampras as a GOAT is a Wum?

Heard it all now.

Not what I said, but hey whatever...

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I find it disrespectful to say someone is no longer a valid argument. It is about opinions non?

Some tennis fans regard Laver as the GOAT for 2 calendar Slams, something that no-one has done since.

Sampras won a Slam in his teens, 20's and 30's. Something that many players haven't done.

I am not one to rank Sampras higher than Federer in any GOAT debate, but if fans want to bring names like Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Nadal or Sampras to argument, don't be so dismissive of others opinions.

What a buzzkill OP was only stating the obvious, that the WUMs on the old 606 were wrong to diss TMF in the way they did.

So stating no-one has grounds to debate is being a buzzkill? And anyone who rates Sampras as a GOAT is a Wum?

Heard it all now.

Not what I said, but hey whatever...

In the OP's opinion Sampras is not the GOAT and not a contender in his eyes. Which is fine. I saw the Sampras Wums yes, but I seen my fair share of Nadal Wums too. Respect is a 2 way thing. How about everyone stop ragging on their least favourite players and respect the players all round.

Trying to say it is no longer a 'debate' is a bit extreme.

Henman Bill wrote:
Not tried to denigrate Sampras' achievements, by the way. Magnificent player. Still the equal greatest Wimbledon legend with Fed as well.

Wow, so disrespectful.

lkv2 you just seem to be itching to start and argument with someone, anyone.

reckoner wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:
Not tried to denigrate Sampras' achievements, by the way. Magnificent player. Still the equal greatest Wimbledon legend with Fed as well.

Wow, so disrespectful.

lkv2 you just seem to be itching to start and argument with someone, anyone.

In fact, maybe greatest Wimbledon legend or greatest grass court legend could be a topic for debate. But greatest ever? Sorry Sampras, you're no longer even in the debate

I think you have the hump because I don't agree with you points on my other thread.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:
Not tried to denigrate Sampras' achievements, by the way. Magnificent player. Still the equal greatest Wimbledon legend with Fed as well.

Wow, so disrespectful.

lkv2 you just seem to be itching to start and argument with someone, anyone.

In fact, maybe greatest Wimbledon legend or greatest grass court legend could be a topic for debate. But greatest ever? Sorry Sampras, you're no longer even in the debate

I think you have the hump because I don't agree with you points on my other thread.

The hump? LOL I am ECSTATIC that Fed came good, what are you on about!

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:
Not tried to denigrate Sampras' achievements, by the way. Magnificent player. Still the equal greatest Wimbledon legend with Fed as well.

Wow, so disrespectful.

lkv2 you just seem to be itching to start and argument with someone, anyone.

In fact, maybe greatest Wimbledon legend or greatest grass court legend could be a topic for debate. But greatest ever? Sorry Sampras, you're no longer even in the debate

I think you have the hump because I don't agree with you points on my other thread.

The hump? LOL I am ECSTATIC that Fed came good, what are you on about!

Nice swerve

Agree, this debate is over and I'm glad someone brought it up because let's face it, most of the WUMS masquerading as Nadal fans were actually Sampras fans who couldn't stand the fact that Roger is a more complete and better player.

They were the ones peddling the weak era crap too. Now that one has also been put to bed. Fed, clearly not as good as he was 6-7 years ago, has once again reached the summit. And a married man with twins to boot.

Fed played well today but to be honest compared to the Fed of a few years ago, this was a standard performance, nothing special.

Of course the other Fed has gone forever, except every now and again he reminds us that no it wasn't just hype and weak competition, he really was that good.

emancipator wrote:Fed played well today but to be honest compared to the Fed of a few years ago, this was a standard performance, nothing special.

I agree with this - there were flashes of the old brilliance, but hey at least his decline is slower than that of our previous yardstick, Sampras.

For me there was never a debate. Roger has more strings to his bow, won a slam on clay (that Pete couldn't do) and has all the records to prove it. Sampras is a legend but his game was very strongly based on his serve.

CaledonianCraig wrote:For me there was never a debate. Roger has more strings to his bow, won a slam on clay (that Pete couldn't do) and has all the records to prove it. Sampras is a legend but his game was very strongly based on his serve.

Sorry your man lost CC - he played amazingly in parts.

Im glad Murray had a set under his belt today, the humiliation of his last other 3 finals was not nice and he didnt deserve a hammering. The way he snuffed out Ferrer and Tsonga has to be congratulated, I would not be shocked to see him make another slam final in New York!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Im glad Murray had a set under his belt today, the humiliation of his last other 3 finals was not nice and he didnt deserve a hammering. The way he snuffed out Ferrer and Tsonga has to be congratulated, I would not be shocked to see him make another slam final in New York!

He needs to beat Nadal. USO would be the perfect place to do it.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Some tennis fans regard Laver as the GOAT for 2 calendar Slams, something that no-one has done since.

I would respectfully add the Pro years where he was beating some of the other Pros on a regular basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Professional_Slam_Finals

Also notice, he was playing on 'wood', the slickest, fastest surface (other than ice) to play Tennis on.

HB... it is very hard to make anyone THE GOAT. Remember Sampras won Rome 1994, but Federer never did (he did come close in 2006). We can have this debate ad infinitum ad nauseam.

Federer has some fantastic achievements. He will be 31 yo in a calendar month. He has tremendous motivation, thanks to Annacone and himself. BTW, first slam for Annacone + Federer.

Nadal fans would probably argue for Lukas Rosol being the GOAT grass court player!

Fed is GOAT of the modern era. previous eras cannot be considered simply because of the lack or reasonable perspective and statistics.

I think the fact that Sampras was so (relatively) poor on clay makes his case hard to argue and shows his over-reliance on serve. Yes he won Rome, but that was it on clay. His best ever at RG was the semi final, and he only did that once. Federer was clearly the 2nd best clay-court player for many years (until recently).

Ideally Federer should try to get a few more wins over Nadal ... perhaps throwing matches to avoid Nadal when he's likely to lose (Aus Open or clay) and just try to play him indoor! Yes, bit extreme, but he does seem to have a tendency to play him when conditions favour Nadal. Lets see how fast the US Open is this year and if he can improve his 8-2 GS record ...

I think it's hard to make a genuine case for folk like Rod Laver being GOAT just because the strength in depth those days was fairly non-existent

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Some tennis fans regard Laver as the GOAT for 2 calendar Slams, something that no-one has done since.

I would respectfully add the Pro years where he was beating some of the other Pros on a regular basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Professional_Slam_Finals

Also notice, he was playing on 'wood', the slickest, fastest surface (other than ice) to play Tennis on.

HB... it is very hard to make anyone THE GOAT. Remember Sampras won Rome 1994, but Federer never did (he did come close in 2006). We can have this debate ad infinitum ad nauseam.

Federer has some fantastic achievements. He will be 31 yo in a calendar month. He has tremendous motivation, thanks to Annacone and himself. BTW, first slam for Annacone + Federer.

Exactly.

But it's the stats which are important.

In this case which I call 'selective'

Rome? No-one will ever be GOAT if you claim that as significant. At the end of the day if you compare all the statistics between Fed and Sampras there is no comparison at all.

I will give you this though. 1999 Pete Sampras Wimbledon performance? Beats all Fed's finals. For that reason, I might argue for Pete still a fraction ahead as a Wimbledon champion. I'll give it to Fed if he gets the 8.

Sampras -

8 Grand Slam final victories in succession - Stands alone
Year End No.1 ranking 6 years in a row - Stands alone
Youngest ever US Open Champion - Stands alone

Correct you are. Some stats there are no comparison.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Sampras -

8 Grand Slam final victories in succession - Stands alone
Year End No.1 ranking 6 years in a row - Stands alone
Youngest ever US Open Champion - Stands alone

Correct you are. Some stats there are no comparison.

These are silly stats execpt for year end no.1, Becker and Chang don't become GOATS coz they won the respective title very early in the career.

The GOAT debate is long over when Fed won the FO , but some Sampras maniac couldnot get over it and in most aspect Fed has proved he is way better than Sampras.

% GS wins
%HC wins
% GC wins
% Clay wins [no comparison]
GS titles
Career GS
NO. of weeks at no.1 [expected to be broken]
No. of consecutive weeks as no.1

Semifinal streak
QF streak
No. of consecutive GS played.

Do we have a limit for Fed's record?

LK I am not saying you as Sampras maniac, I know you are more than a respected poster here, Sampras maniac are the ones who raised so many anti-Fed articles, I hope you know whom I am talking about.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Sampras -

8 Grand Slam final victories in succession - Stands alone
Year End No.1 ranking 6 years in a row - Stands alone
Youngest ever US Open Champion - Stands alone

Correct you are. Some stats there are no comparison.

These are silly stats execpt for year end no.1, Becker and Chang don't become GOATS coz they won the respective title very early in the career.

The GOAT debate is long over when Fed won the FO , but some Sampras maniac couldnot get over it and in most aspect Fed has proved he is way better than Sampras.

% GS wins
%HC wins
% GC wins
% Clay wins [no comparison]
GS titles
Career GS
NO. of weeks at no.1 [expected to be broken]
No. of consecutive weeks as no.1

Semifinal streak
QF streak
No. of consecutive GS played.

Do we have a limit for Fed's record?

Silly stats?

How about achievements.

Like I said, people have different preferences to who they acknowledge as GOAT.

I mean jeez if we did go by stats Federer doesn't touch Navratilova with 344 career titles!

invisiblecoolers wrote:LK I am not saying you as Sampras maniac, I know you are more than a respected poster here, Sampras maniac are the ones who raised so many anti-Fed articles, I hope you know whom I am talking about.

I have bare witnessed to the anti Federer brigade who use the Sampras stats to be-little Federer's achievements and it has always been a weak argument, even for Nadal fans who really just have to say the H2H record, but there are some Sampras fans out there. I know some from my club and it can be identified as tennis periods to which they prefer. People will always throw in stats and these can either be quantative or qualitative. Some will always say well would have Federer won in the 70's or things like that. Your only as good as the era you play in.

I think it is harsh to single out Sampras because annoying WUMS use him as a tool in the argument.

Is Sampras not singled out because he was widely seen as the previous GOAT due to 14 slams?

yellowgoatboy wrote:Is Sampras not singled out because he was widely seen as the previous GOAT due to 14 slams?

Not really.

Borg was seen as GOAT and as was Laver.

Sampras never won the French Open and Borg never won US or Australian Open.

When Federer completed the Career Grand Slam, some critics if you can call them that still rated Sampras above Federer even when Federer surpassed his 14 Slam haul. It was mainly to annoy Federer fans.

Sampras dominated his main rival in a way Fed didn't.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Sampras dominated his main rival in a way Fed didn't.

Sampras never played the bulk of their h2h on his worst surface. He wasn't good enough to meet him there very often.

yellowgoatboy wrote:
I think it's hard to make a genuine case for folk like Rod Laver being GOAT just because the strength in depth those days was fairly non-existent

I would disagree there. For example, there was no ProAm divide in 62 when the first GS was won. 69 was Open Era, where everyone, theoretically was allowed to play.

I can understand that statement in the context of 1963-69, somewhat. But think about this. Pancho Gonzalez (who played Laver during the Pro years) at the age of 41 played a 24-yo Pasarell in 1969 (my favourite classic) @W over two days. Six years earlier, he was even tougher competition.

laverfan wrote:

yellowgoatboy wrote:
I think it's hard to make a genuine case for folk like Rod Laver being GOAT just because the strength in depth those days was fairly non-existent

I would disagree there. For example, there was no ProAm divide in 62 when the first GS was won. 69 was Open Era, where everyone, theoretically was allowed to play.

I can understand that statement in the context of 1963-69, somewhat. But think about this. Pancho Gonzalez (who played Laver during the Pro years) at the age of 41 played a 24-yo Pasarell in 1969 (my favourite classic) @W over two days. Six years earlier, he was even tougher competition.

I would be inclined to read LF's postings about Laver. She is only a handful of people I know of who saw this guy in his prime and can easily vouch for conditions back in those days and what are they are today and the skills required to be successful in these 'era's'

It requires an open mind. McEnroe today in an interview highlighted him as his idol and in his opinion his GOAT, though he openly recognises as Federer the GOAT based on achievements.

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Sampras dominated his main rival in a way Fed didn't.

Sampras never played the bulk of their h2h on his worst surface. He wasn't good enough to meet him there very often.

If you look at the other surfaces combined then overall Fed is still at best only even with Nadal.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Sampras dominated his main rival in a way Fed didn't.

Sampras never played the bulk of their h2h on his worst surface. He wasn't good enough to meet him there very often.

If you look at the other surfaces combined then overall Fed is still at best only even with Nadal.

In fairness Federer has 'rivals'

Sampras saw off an ageing Becker. Courier's pomp was short lived and Agassi was the only player consistent enough to reach the business end of Slams.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Sampras dominated his main rival in a way Fed didn't.

Sampras never played the bulk of their h2h on his worst surface. He wasn't good enough to meet him there very often.

If you look at the other surfaces combined then overall Fed is still at best only even with Nadal.

True enough, but in the end so what?

He was ranked above him for eons and won loads of Slams.

Well I've called the end of this debate..and actually prompted it to start up again. Oops.

I guess it really is to his credit that he stuck around this long to have rivalries with today's players after his own contemporaries were done. Still though Sampras and Fed both have one stand out rivalry.

They do. Agassi fans and Federer fans would be more inclined to call Sampras and Nadal nemesis's than rivals

My mum still curses Sampras to this day.

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Sampras dominated his main rival in a way Fed didn't.

Sampras never played the bulk of their h2h on his worst surface. He wasn't good enough to meet him there very often.

If you look at the other surfaces combined then overall Fed is still at best only even with Nadal.

True enough, but in the end so what?

He was ranked above him for eons and won loads of Slams.

Yes he has been the better player vs the rest of the field but if you're going to compare him with Sampras then that's one fairly significant thing that some may rightly or wrongly hold against him if they were debating and therefore still favour Sampras. As far as wimbledon goes, aren't the conditions too different to compare both their respective prowesses anyway?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Sampras dominated his main rival in a way Fed didn't.

Sampras never played the bulk of their h2h on his worst surface. He wasn't good enough to meet him there very often.

If you look at the other surfaces combined then overall Fed is still at best only even with Nadal.

True enough, but in the end so what?

He was ranked above him for eons and won loads of Slams.

Yes he has been the better player vs the rest of the field but if you're going to compare him with Sampras then that's one fairly significant thing that some may rightly or wrongly hold against him if they were debating and therefore still favour Sampras. As far as wimbledon goes, aren't the conditions too different to compare both their respective prowesses anyway?

I get your direction, but in the end 17 > 14, Vastly superior RG record. Does it or me.

I was pretty young when Sampras was winning and I only used to watch wimbledon also I didn't analyse the matches like I do now. I get the impression though that Sampras was really immense and perhaps I've been swayed a bit by the eras arguments that would make it hard for me to put Fed above Sampras so easily.

If you were to make a case for Sampras, it would probably be mentality. I couldn't think of anything else in terms of skill set or achievements.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I was pretty young when Sampras was winning and I only used to watch wimbledon also I didn't analyse the matches like I do now. I get the impression though that Sampras was really immense and perhaps I've been swayed a bit by the eras arguments that would make it hard for me to put Fed above Sampras so easily.

If you only watched him at Wimledon you'd think he was God, not GOAT. Imagine only watching Nadal at RG?

All year round he never had a season to compare with a mega Fed year.

If you only watched Wimbledon Fed and Pete are on a par, and you can argue it both ways. But for the rest of the year....Fed was miles ahead.

Just look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras_career_statistics
and look at the singles performance chart a fair way down (2/3 or 3/4 down). Factor out the Wimbledon results.

Now compare Fed's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics

It's a world of difference in consistency across all 4 slams.

Fed hasn't failed to reach a slam quarter for over 8 years. His semi and quarter streaks are well ahead of Pete's equivalents.

Look at their best win/loss ratios for a single year.

Fed
1 - 95%
2 - 95%
3 - 93%
4 - 88%

87% W/L record in a year is Pete's best, and it's below Rog's 4th best.

Yes Pete was year end no 1 six times, which is one stat in his favour (vs 5 for Rog), but it's not enough to cancel out all the other stats overwhelmingly in Rog's favour. Anyway, Federer could still get another year end no 1.

I do think Roger needs the 6th year end no 1 for the GOAT debate, but that's to strengthen his case vs all others from earlier ages, not Pete.