End of a Debate

First topic message reminder :

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.

Sampras W/L by Year

1988 - 10-10
1989 - 18-19
1990 - 51-17
1991 - 52-19
1992 - 72-19
1993 - 85-16
1994 - 77-12
1995 - 72-16
1996 - 65-11
1997 - 55-12
1998 - 61-17
1999 - 40-8
2000 - 42-13
2001 - 35-16
2002 - 27-17

The only season in single-digit loses is 1999, when he played a total of 48 matches, compared to 78 the previous year (1998). (Data from ATP Website Playing activity using years as a parameter in this link - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Sa/P/Pete-Sampras.aspx?t=pa&y=2003&m=s&e=0#)

Sampras is a wonderful player. Slam counts should not be the only yardstick for the measure of greatness.

Here's some year end no 1 stats

Sampras - 6
Federer - 5
Connors - 5
Lendl - 4
Mcenroe - 4

No-one with 3.

Open era only.

I see Borg only has 2. Didn't even manage it in 1978 with his first FO - Wimbledon double. Connors took it that year. Borg only did 1979 and 1980.

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.

Is the fact that a 41 year old was competitive back then not indicative of a lower level of requirements to be near the top?

What I'm generally meaning is that in those days the number 100 player, say, would generally have no chance against someone like Laver whereas now (notice the ranking I've conveniently chosen ) they can challenge the top guys if they play well. I think people have a tendency for too much nostalgia sometimes - I'm sure I will in 20 years.

In those days you could get by with talent alone, like Laver obviously had, whereas now strength and athleticism play a massive part. There were also fewer tennis players across the world meaning that the ones at the top of the pyramid now have a more difficult job getting/being there. If you're the best of 1,000,000 people, that's on average not as good as being the best of 10,000,000.

If you took the Brazil football team from 1970 (widely stated as one of the best teams ever) and pitted them against Brazil of 2012 (not thought of as anything particularly special) the score would probably be 7-0 to the 2012 team. Sport moves on in that way due to athleticism and participation levels (for tennis at least). Maybe not a great comparison, but only one I can think of.

In fact, another one that is more clear cut is in athletics where times can be compared across the decades. The average performance generally moves upwards.

It could be the case that Rod Laver is as talented as, say, Federer but I'd have no doubt that the overall combination of talent, athleticism, strength, stamina etc means there is quite a gulf. If Laver was born 45 years later I'd go so far as to say he'd never have made it in tennis these days (e.g. height alone probably say that), but if Federer was born 45 years earlier he would have had a good chance. All speculative I know, and nothing that can ever be proved, but interesting to think about?

Sampras - 762-222 (W/L) 984 career matches, 64 titles.
Federer - 846-192 (W/L) 1038 career matches, 74 titles.

Federer is number 1 after playing a 1000+ matches. Sampras was ATP #34 at retirement.

I think the beauty of the Federer-Sampras comparisons are that they are relatively straightforward. For instance, comparing Federer with someone such as Laver is a lot trickier, I'd say. The two of them reached their respective peaks some thirty-five to forty years apart, Laver's career fell between the amateur and open eras, and there is a lot less film available of Rod in his prime. We could be here all day arguing the merits of the two.

On the other hand, comparisons with Sampras are a lot more straightforward. Born only ten years apart, peaking roughly ten years apart too, and both in the ultra-modern, well covered era of tennis, even sharing some mutual rivals to a degree (Hewitt, Safin etc, although these two admittedly didn't emerge until Sampras' star had begun to wane).

Because it's so much easier to draw comparisons, I must admit that even though I've always been a huge admirer of Sampras, it's getting almost impossible to find an angle on which to rate him above Federer.

Yes, Sampras has that winning record against Agassi. He also has those six consecutive year-end number one rankings. Fantastic stuff and a testament to his greatness. But I'd still question whether Sampras did actually rule his 'era' any more conclusively than Federer has done his own.

Federer's harshest critics can deny it all they like, but it's true that many of the matches played between Nadal and Federer have favoured the Spaniard, insofar as they've played a large amount of them on clay. I believe that, even discounting that, any head to head record between the pair of them would be incredibly close, but I'd also contend that Nadal is simply a greater player than Agassi in any case, so the respective head to head records of both Sampras and Federer against their main career rivals does need a touch of context.

Also, during his absolute peak years (for argument's sake, let's say 1993 to 1997) Sampras lost the number one ranking to the likes of Muster and Courier. In latter years, men such as Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov and Rafter were able to usurp him, even if it was only for a short while. Now admittedly, those last ones came in 1998 / 1999, when Sampras was still a monster but, perhaps, a little past his glorious best. However, the 2008 / 2009 version of Federer fits that very same bill, and even then I just can't see him losing top spot to those men, much less losing it to the likes of Muster and Courier when he was at his absolute best between 2004 and 2007.

And then there are those almost scary statistics that Federer has reeled off. The previous record of most successive ATP finals won was 12; Federer doubled it to 24. The most successive weeks as world number 1 was 160; Federer took it to 237. The most Grand Slam finals made in a career was 19; Federer is currently at 24, with that number almost certain to creep up further still in the coming years. In many cases, Federer hasn't just broken records, he's demolished them.

If people want to claim that Sampras had to fend of better competition for his Slams than Federer has (I disagree, by the way, as I feel there isn't a great deal in it either way) then fair enough. But surely, the career set for Federer, and general consistency across all surfaces - which Sampras never really had on clay - must be a major consideration here? Had Sampras' 14 contained a French Open somewhere, then maybe the argument of better opposition may take extra prominence. But I can't look past Federer's complete set and the fact that he has 17 of them now.

And to top it all, he'll now surpass Sampras' total number of weeks as world number one.

In summary, I do accept that there'll never be a universally-acclaimed 'GOAT', as comparisons between wildly different eras make it such a difficult exercise. To an extent, I agree that comparing Federer and Laver side by side is, in some ways, pointless and unfair. However, I believe the circumstances of timing of Sampras' career mean that this can't be an excuse and, quite frankly, I struggle to see how Pete can be ranked higher.

I don't think I'm doing Sampras a disservice by saying that, I just feel that Federer clearly occupies a level just that little bit beyond what Pete was capable of. I don't think Sampras can be number one by any single stretch now, but 2nd, 3rd or 4th is entirely reasonable, and I don't think that's a slight against him.

yellowgoatboy wrote:
It could be the case that Rod Laver is as talented as, say, Federer but I'd have no doubt that the overall combination of talent, athleticism, strength, stamina etc means there is quite a gulf. If Laver was born 45 years later I'd go so far as to say he'd never have made it in tennis these days (e.g. height alone probably say that), but if Federer was born 45 years earlier he would have had a good chance. All speculative I know, and nothing that can ever be proved, but interesting to think about?

I am not trying to 'defend' Laver's GOATness, by any means, YBG. I understand the evolution of the sport and how technology supports it.

Let me give you an example. Pancho could server at 120+ mph consistently with a wooden 7-inch round with natural gut. There was a rule change made in Tennis for him because he was considered 'too' fast.

Regarding the height of Laver, you do realize Ferrer is 5 ft 9, an inch taller than Laver. There is a clip that LKv2 had posted which shows Neale Fraser vs Rod Laver. If you can find it, it would be worth watching.

Rochus is another example of the height being irrelevant, just ask Djokovic.

Pancho was 6 ft 3 inch-ish, never had a formal coach.

Apologies though. let us go back to the OP that HB wanted. I can recite a lot of history, which will do no good for our current discussion. Please do not take it as an offense.

On the GOAT debate. There are three ways in my opinion a champion can be produced.

The first is a category I like to call 'who would be the dominant player'. This category just considers who would win the most if all the candidates were at their peak with their equipment/training of the era. This would obviously be won by Federer, Nadal or Djokovic depending on your personal opinion of whose ultimate best is the best. (For my 10 pence worth it is Djokovic).

The second is who is the most successful, based on what tournaments and records were important during their playing period. On this score you would be hard pressed to argue against Laver.

The third is the more elusive category of 'what ifs'. What if all bar one of the slams were still played on grass. What if Nadal didn't have bad knees. What if isotonic drinks had been invented in Pancho Gozales' day. What if Bill Tilden had worn shorts. What if Bjorn Borg had learned to fly etc etc. This is the category based somewhere in between skulduggery and conjecture and entirely based on opinion.

Really only the first two and be used to objectively produce a GOAT.

88chris05...

This is something worth looking at - http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

spdocoffee... Very nicely summarised.

Yes, the graph in there of relative ranking points is worth a look everyone. Basically Sampras did marginally better in his early career, and Federer somewhat better both in the peak and end phase of the career.

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

What about this argument?

let alone main rival Sampras could not dominate even some Ordinary GS champs like

R Krajicek
M Safin
L Hewitt
A Roddick

I can keep this list growing,

Sampras even have a negative h2h against Leander Paes, so if h2h against main rival have to be seen, h2h against some ordinary players have to be taken into account as well , and hence Sampras would never qualify for the GOAT race, for that face nobody would, coz now Nadal have a negative h2h against Rosol

So speak about his achievements that can qualify Sampras atleast as 2nd best.

In my view R Nadal would end up his career as the 2nd best above P Sampras very soon

Henman Bill wrote:Yes, the graph in there of relative ranking points is worth a look everyone. Basically Sampras did marginally better in his early career, and Federer somewhat better both in the peak and end phase of the career.

You think this is the end phase, HB?

no offence taken LF! I'm probably a bit biased because I've seen clips and it all looks soooo slow (not just the speed of the ball which obviously technology of strings/racquets has had a massive impact upon, but the speed of the players themselves - it looks like a different sport almost) - just like footie from the '60s.

The height comment was just based on "probability" - not that you can't make it if you're 5ft 8, but that you probably won't unless you have extraordinary talent. eg. if Ferrer was 6 ft 1 he'd be better (probably). Maybe i'm just making excuses for myself ... I'm 5'9 and if I'd been over 6ft then I'd undoubtedly have multiple slams

Back on topic, looking at individual h2h's can give skewed results. e.g. if a high ranked player is very erratic from tournament to tournament then they only play their rivals when they're playing well and not when they're playing poorly (since they're losing in earlier rounds and avoid main rivals). To make it fair you almost have to impute results. Ironically if Federer had been as poor as Sampras on clay he'd have a much better h2h with Nadal but still have 16 grand slams (instead of 17).

Ordinary Slam champions? Now that is biggest load of crap I have heard.

So because Federer couldn't beat Rafter and struggled with Kafelnikov and Kuerten means he struggled to dominate?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Ordinary Slam champions? Now that is biggest load of crap I have heard.

So because Federer couldn't beat Rafter and struggled with Kafelnikov and Kuerten means he struggled to dominate?

Thats says the story that nobody could dominate everybody and hence the best results have to be seen and compared and not the worst results , no idea how come even this simple things doesn't go into your mind.

Pete and Fed are spoken as GOATs coz of their achievements and not for their negative h2hs

I certainly didn't mention H2H's.

Like I stated you are only as good as the era you play in. For me Federer has had the greater depth in rivals, but it's not to say it makes for a greater champion.

Federer has his own brand of tennis like Sampras did before him and Borg and Laver.

It's like an endless piece of string. We will never get to the end of it with these debates.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I certainly didn't mention H2H's.

Like I stated you are only as good as the era you play in. For me Federer has had the greater depth in rivals, but it's not to say it makes for a greater champion.

Federer has his own brand of tennis like Sampras did before him and Borg and Laver.

It's like an endless piece of string. We will never get to the end of it with these debates.

Simon Reed once felt Murray is the True No.1 , yea everybody have their opinion but whats fact is Fed broke several records set by Legendry Sampras and rightly deserves the GOAT title, unless Rafa steps it in and takes the title I guess it will remain solely with Federer atleast for the time being.

Having watched Sampras' entire career, at Wimbledon and the rest of the Majors, and ATP Tour - what struck me as I watched today's final, was how much more complete and varied a player, Federer is.

He has so much more in his arsenal, so much more "legere a main," so much greater a repetoire.

What Sampras did at Wimbledon - his 7 titles, cannot be diminished - numbers are numbers however, he did it with a far lesser range of technical abilities, deftness of shot, and Federer reminded us today, just what it is to be a "grass court" player, to the highest level.

Martina was head and shoulders above anyone ever, in the ability to play grass court tennis too - McEnroe's/Evert comments - the former saying we watched the greatest player to ever play the game (referring to Serena) - I find just ludicrous. Martina had 12 singles finals, from which she won 9 titles; 20 Wimbledon titles in all - Serena has some way to go to match those numbers - and like Federer/Sampras - Martina won her greater numbers of titles with a far greater range of shots, and technical "grass court" tennis, than does Serena. I digress. Martina retired on 59 Major titles, Serena has 29 - that's 30 Major titles difference in Martina's favour.

Federer HAS the greatest number of Major singles titles; he has won ALL FOUR Majors in his career, has been clearly the World's Best player on all surfaces bar clay, where he was clearly the 2nd best player and that, to a phenomenon. Sampras' 14 Singles Majors are 3 less than Federer's; he never won Paris, didn't make a final, and routinely lost to journeymen players because he didn't BELIEVE within himself that he would win there. Doesn't take a thing away from what he DID achieve, in any way, but Federer at 17 has the greatest legacy of results in our game. There is nit-picking, in terms of Year End No 1, etc., but these are not sufficient to with-hold his ultimate "Greatness" in the sport of tennis.

Though I was hoping for British Singles title to go along with the British Men's Doubles winner - Federer for me stands as the single greatest grass court player or all time, and the greatest of all time in the sport in general. The "game" is "measured" by the number of singles "Majors" won (these have always been, and remain the pillars of our sport) - and Federer now has 17 - 6 more than Borg, Laver, Nadal; 3 more than Sampras. He stands alone at the pinnacle of the sport - there is yet more tennis to played out in terms of the careers of both Nadal and Djokovic - but as things stand - Roger is "King!"

PS. I am a HUGE fan of Nadal, and was of Becker, Edberg, McEnroe but numbers/facts don't lie. Credit where credit is due, the accolade given to Martina by Jennifer Capriati, is now more than deserved by Roger, simply - The Legend.

Martina is a tennis giant. No-one will touch her stats. If your going to measure greatness in tennis, she is the yardstick.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Martina is a tennis giant. No-one will touch her stats. If your going to measure greatness in tennis, she is the yardstick.

Yes agreed , there are several other contenders for GOAT ahead of Federer including Steffi and Chris Evert , Fed is the GOAT only in men's tennis and not GOAT of Tennis.

yellowgoatboy wrote:no offence taken LF! I'm probably a bit biased because I've seen clips and it all looks soooo slow (not just the speed of the ball which obviously technology of strings/racquets has had a massive impact upon, but the speed of the players themselves - it looks like a different sport almost) - just like footie from the '60s.

Blame it on the evolution of video technology. 1080i/p @24 cannot be compared to 60s (8mm film -> 35mm film) video infrastructure. Charlie Chaplin movies are classics, as always.

yellowgoatboy wrote:The height comment was just based on "probability" - not that you can't make it if you're 5ft 8, but that you probably won't unless you have extraordinary talent. eg. if Ferrer was 6 ft 1 he'd be better (probably). Maybe i'm just making excuses for myself ... I'm 5'9 and if I'd been over 6ft then I'd undoubtedly have multiple slams

The ideal height seems to be 6 ft 1. Agassi (5ft11) , Connors (5ft10), McEnroe (5ft11) are good counter examples.

yellowgoatboy wrote:Back on topic, looking at individual h2h's can give skewed results. e.g. if a high ranked player is very erratic from tournament to tournament then they only play their rivals when they're playing well and not when they're playing poorly (since they're losing in earlier rounds and avoid main rivals). To make it fair you almost have to impute results. Ironically if Federer had been as poor as Sampras on clay he'd have a much better h2h with Nadal but still have 16 grand slams (instead of 17).

Agreed.

I would love to have played on wooden surfaces with the old White balls. Just the varnish alone would save menthe running I do nowadays on court

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would love to have played on wooden surfaces with the old White balls. Just the varnish alone would save menthe running I do nowadays on court

Does require tremendous footwork.

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would love to have played on wooden surfaces with the old White balls. Just the varnish alone would save menthe running I do nowadays on court

Does require tremendous footwork.

Squeak squeak squeak squeak. Wonder if we would see the Djokovic/Nadal slide if it were around today.

I know for sure though everyone would be wearing ankle supports.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Martina is a tennis giant. No-one will touch her stats. If your going to measure greatness in tennis, she is the yardstick.

Yes agreed , there are several other contenders for GOAT ahead of Federer including Steffi and Chris Evert , Fed is the GOAT only in men's tennis and not GOAT of Tennis.

Can i be blunt and observe that women's tennis is so far behind in standard as to be another game.

Anyway, if we want to be technical are you suggesting any of them could take a game off Roger? No? Then they are not greater than him are they? A wheelchair bound player who goes unbeaten over ther career isn't greater than the Men's Champion are they?

bogbrush wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Martina is a tennis giant. No-one will touch her stats. If your going to measure greatness in tennis, she is the yardstick.

Yes agreed , there are several other contenders for GOAT ahead of Federer including Steffi and Chris Evert , Fed is the GOAT only in men's tennis and not GOAT of Tennis.

Can i be blunt and observe that women's tennis is so far behind in standard as to be another game.

Anyway, if we want to be technical are you suggesting any of them could take a game off Roger? No? Then they are not greater than him are they? A wheelchair bound player who goes unbeaten over ther career isn't greater than the Men's Champion are they?

In what conds though? That old chestnut again.

I think also Womens game aside, are we diminishing the doubles game and slam as unworthy to that of a singles slam? You look at the names Navratilova faced King, Goolagong, Evert, Graf. I think that the womens game was on par with the mens in the 70s/80s/90s but is at the moment in a terminal decline. I think we sometimes underestimate the strength of the womens game based on what it is today.

No, it's always at a very low standard, that's why they play a separate tour. Serena wouldn't get a game off Roger, and it's the same for all her predecessors.

How then could they be greater players?

I think the debate was over long before 2009 as Fed won multiple clay events and made it to multiple FO finals.