Does Federer have to break Sampras record? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Does Federer have to break Sampras record?

2003
04-23-2009, 08:57 AM
I think those who think he is the GOAT already think that for everything he has already achieved and his dominant play over 3 key seasons 04-07, and his impressive streaks namely 19 consecutive slam semis and 10 consecutive slam finals.

And those who don't cite his poor h2h against his younger rivals Nadal and Murray, his lack of sucess at f/o as well as a host of other things.

I don't think peoples opinions are likely to change if Fed wins a slam here or a slam there in the next few years, the only way I could see him changing peoples minds is if he got himself out of his slump and returned to his prior dominance for a season or 2 before bowing out.

So what does a player have to do to be GOAT? Is he or isn't ge GOAT now, and if he isn't, what does he have to do in your eyes to change this?

What sparked this is this idea that he need to break Samprases record. I think this is a little bunk as Sampras has the most slams of all time yet hes not talked as the GOAT by many outside America, so clearly other factors are involved.

I think we may need to wait until rafas inevitable decline to see how he handles his. I think what this battle will come down to is who handles their decline better. And, whether Roger will retire before Rafa or not.

To be honest I think Rafa will retire ala borg the first sign of a decline. I dont see him sticking around as long as Fed will, assuming his body lets him. I hope Nadal does stick around after Federer though.

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 09:33 AM
And those who don't cite his poor h2h against his younger rivals Nadal and Murray, his lack of sucess at f/o as well as a host of other things.

I don't think peoples opinions are likely to change if Fed wins a slam here or a slam there in the next few years, the only way I could see him changing peoples minds is if he got himself out of his slump and returned to his prior dominance for a season or 2 before bowing out.



Well, keyword "younger" could be used for his favour. How much does it change if Murray or Nadal dominate a Federer past his prime? Lets look at his head to head with Rafa before his decline (2008):


Overall: 6:8
Non-clay: 5:2

Nadal always was a bad matchup for Federer but I wouldn't say that per se he had a poor head to head with him. Nadal owned him on Clay but Federer clearly was the better player on Non-clay. Would Fed have been a weaker Clay player then he wouldn't have reached so many Clay Finals, thus he would probably not have played Nadal so many times on clay resulting in a postive head to head while in his prime. I don't think that Nadals clay dominance over Federer should decide whether he is the GOAT or not. It is clear that Sampras would have been dominated by Nadal on that surface as well....


Anyway, I think Fed should at least add one Slam to his record. The GOAT debate won't be settled anyway but If Federer breaks the Sampras record, one has good arguments to argue for Federer as the GOAT. If he stays at 13, then Federer belongs to the best players ever group but is not the GOAT.

christallh24
04-23-2009, 10:06 AM
I see another two slams, at the least, for Roger. But, does he have to? For me, yes, because I want him to have done better than Sampras. I was not a fan.

2003
04-23-2009, 11:26 AM
Nadal always was a bad matchup for Federer but I wouldn't say that per se he had a poor head to head with him. Nadal owned him on Clay but Federer clearly was the better player on Non-clay. Would Fed have been a weaker Clay player then he wouldn't have reached so many Clay Finals, thus he would probably not have played Nadal so many times on clay resulting in a postive head to head while in his prime. I don't think that Nadals clay dominance over Federer should decide whether he is the GOAT or not. It is clear that Sampras would have been dominated by Nadal on that surface as well....

Thanks.

A very interesting debate would be, if Federer was shite on clay, and had never reached a RG final, expressly 2008 final, would he have been better off?

For those who believe he has a mental block against Nadal, certainly. How different would things have been had he not copped that hiding at RG 08? Would he have won that second set at Wimbledon being 4-1 up? Would he have won the Aus open 09?

I'm not saying I believe his headcase against Nadal is the reason for his decline but a lot of people feel it was.

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Federer having a short prime doesn't help his cause, niether does the lack of a Career and Calender Year Grand Slam that Nadal is about to get.

If Nadal wins the calender grand slam he is a GOAT contender. But there are still lots of Matches to be won. History will be writen anyway in the coming years. Lets see what happens....

vamosinator
04-23-2009, 11:39 AM
Obviously its impossible to be GOAT if you don't have the total slams record and also don't have the Career grand slam. Those 2 achievements would get you in contention for GOAT, and Federer has neither. He'd need both to stay ahead of Nadal in history.

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 11:42 AM
Thanks.

A very interesting debate would be, if Federer was shite on clay, and had never reached a RG final, expressly 2008 final, would he have been better off?

For those who believe he has a mental block against Nadal, certainly. How different would things have been had he not copped that hiding at RG 08? Would he have won that second set at Wimbledon being 4-1 up? Would he have won the Aus open 09?

I'm not saying I believe his headcase against Nadal is the reason for his decline but a lot of people feel it was.

ironically, i think Fed would have been better off had he been a weaker clay player. He would have had a nice head to head for his prime against virtually all opponents and still the chance to beat Sampras now. In that case he would have looked superiour to Sampras. Now, he has the "Nadal-problem"....

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 11:46 AM
Obviously its impossible to be GOAT if you don't have the total slams record andalso don't have the Career grand slam. Those 2 achievements would get you in contention for GOAT, and Federer has neither. He'd need both to stay ahead of Nadal in history.

Obviously this is nonsense! Since no player has both (Sampras has not won the Calender GS, no other players owns the total Slam record, following, your logic, there is no GOAT. That doesn't make sense.

Ackms421
04-23-2009, 11:54 AM
Well, keyword "younger" could be used for his favour. How much does it change if Murray or Nadal dominate a Federer past his prime? Lets look at his head to head with Rafa before his decline (2008):


Overall: 6:8
Non-clay: 5:2

Nadal always was a bad matchup for Federer but I wouldn't say that per se he had a poor head to head with him. Nadal owned him on Clay but Federer clearly was the better player on Non-clay. Would Fed have been a weaker Clay player then he wouldn't have reached so many Clay Finals, thus he would probably not have played Nadal so many times on clay resulting in a postive head to head while in his prime. I don't think that Nadals clay dominance over Federer should decide whether he is the GOAT or not. It is clear that Sampras would have been dominated by Nadal on that surface as well....


Anyway, I think Fed should at least add one Slam to his record. The GOAT debate won't be settled anyway but If Federer breaks the Sampras record, one has good arguments to argue for Federer as the GOAT. If he stays at 13, then Federer belongs to the best players ever group but is not the GOAT.

Nonsense. 6-8 is as good as his h2h with Nadal ever was, and that's why you picked that particular "snapshot" in their rivalry and classified it as "before his decline." There was also a period when the h2h was 6-1 for Nadal, and 1-1 off of clay. That period was also "before Federer's decline," and began with a 17 year old Nadal straight-setting Federer on hard courts. It should also be mentioned that the single victory Federer has over Nadal during this period involved him coming back from two sets to love down. So don't skew the facts to try to excuse away the 13-6 h2h. It's a big problem for his GOAT hopes and it can't be explained away.

2006
Roland Garros
France
Clay
F
Nadal
1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
Stats
2006
ATP Masters Series Rome
Italy
Clay
F
Nadal
6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5)
Stats
2006
ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo
Monaco
Clay
F
Nadal
6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)
Stats
2006
Dubai
U.A.E.
Hard
F
Nadal
2-6 6-4 6-4
Stats
2005
Roland Garros
France
Clay
S
Nadal
6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3
Stats
2005
ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A.
Hard
F
Federer
2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1
Stats
2004
ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A.
Hard
R32
Nadal
6-3 6-3
Stats

vamosinator
04-23-2009, 12:08 PM
"Obviously its impossible to be GOAT if you don't have the total slams record and also don't have the Career grand slam." is a reference to the fact that Federer has neither, so he can't be GOAT because a GOAT would obviously not be lacking BOTH. And as I go on to say Federer will need BOTH if he plans to surpass Nadal who is comfortably on track to obtain both.

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 12:11 PM
Nonsense. 6-8 is as good as his h2h with Nadal ever was, and that's why you picked that particular "snapshot" in their rivalry and classified it as "before his decline."

Thats not the reason I picked that time. It is beyond dispute that Federers game declined after AO 2008. Its is the truth. And it is a fact, that their non-clay head to head before Fed's decline is 5:2 whether you like it or not. It is beyond dispute that Federer was the better player off clay player then Nadal before 2008. Sorry mate.

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 12:13 PM
"Obviously its impossible to be GOAT if you don't have the total slams record and also don't have the Career grand slam." is a reference to the fact that Federer has neither, so he can't be GOAT because a GOAT would obviously not be lacking BOTH. And as I go on to say Federer will need BOTH if he plans to surpass Nadal who is comfortably on track to obtain both.

Okay. My bad, I misread you post. I don't necesseraly disagree with you there.

2003
04-23-2009, 12:15 PM
2006
Roland Garros
France
Clay
F
Nadal
1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)


Wow. I didn't watch tennis back then, how well did Federer play in that first set? Was it a close match overall?

Why has Federer gone backwards vs Nadal on clay since then? If he won the first set 6-1 in a GS final at that time I would have thought he would have gone on to finish the job..strange.

2003
04-23-2009, 12:19 PM
"Obviously its impossible to be GOAT if you don't have the total slams record and also don't have the Career grand slam." is a reference to the fact that Federer has neither, so he can't be GOAT because a GOAT would obviously not be lacking BOTH. And as I go on to say Federer will need BOTH if he plans to surpass Nadal who is comfortably on track to obtain both.

Well Roger Federer was also well on track for both in September 2004 and yet almost 5 years later is still short on both fronts.

Don't count your chickens just yet. Or well have to bring Aggassi into the eqation for his career slam (notice no one around these parts name him as GOAT candidate).

Ackms421
04-23-2009, 12:19 PM
Thats not the reason I picked that time. It is beyond dispute that Federers game declined after AO 2008. Its is the truth. And it is a fact, that their non-clay head to head before Fed's decline is 5:2 whether you like it or not. It is beyond dispute that Federer was the better player off clay player then Nadal before 2008. Sorry mate.

LOL, you didn't address the period when it was 6-1 and 1-1 off of clay. That is a miserable record, especially when your opponent is in diapers and your only win comes when you were 2 sets to love down. That miserable record lets you know you will have problems with this opponent for years to come.

But, it doesn't matter. If all you're asking for is for Federer to be proclaimed "a better player than Nadal off clay prior to 2008," if you qualify it that much, you can have it. Not that it means much now...
He can never be GOAT with a miserable record like that against his younger contemporary, especially without any of the other records you mentioned. He doesn't have the most slams, he doesn't have the most year-end number 1's, and he has piss-poor records against 2 opponents... That's not GOAT stuff...

McAlistar
04-23-2009, 12:21 PM
Definetely, otherwise people will just highlight how often he was beaten by his biggest rival as to why he isnt the greatest.

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 12:24 PM
Wow. I didn't watch tennis back then, how well did Federer play in that first set? Was it a close match overall?

Why has Federer gone backwards vs Nadal on clay since then? If he won the first set 6-1 in a GS final at that time I would have thought he would have gone on to finish the job..strange.

Federer-Nadal matches always had a strange taste. There are lots of matches were Federer dominated for a set or more and then collapsed. You should watch some of those matches for yourself and judge.


The reason why Fed has gone backwards since 2006 is threefold:


1. He mentally collapsed
2. His game declined
3. Nadal improved

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 12:30 PM
LOL, you didn't address the period when it was 6-1 and 1-1 off of clay. That is a miserable record, especially when your opponent is in diapers and your only win comes when you were 2 sets to love down. That miserable record lets you know you will have problems with this opponent for years to come.

But, it doesn't matter. If all you're asking for is for Federer to be proclaimed "a better player than Nadal off clay prior to 2008," if you qualify it that much, you can have it. Not that it means much now...
He can never be GOAT with a miserable record like that against his younger contemporary, especially without any of the other records you mentioned. He doesn't have the most slams, he doesn't have the most year-end number 1's, and he has piss-poor records against 2 opponents... That's not GOAT stuff...

I didn't adress that period because I wanted to adress the whole period before his decline not a snapshot. Is that a crime? Are you seriously argueing that Fed's Game has not declined after 2007?!

besides, it is obvious that Nadals domiance over Fed comes from his clay dominance...

And: Murray is really irrelevant in the GOAT debate......


BTW: I agree Federer is not the GOAT as it looks right now. He needs the Sampras record at least. My sig is just to annoy Fedhaters ;)

Ackms421
04-23-2009, 12:30 PM
Federer-Nadal matches always had a strange taste. There are lots of matches were Federer dominated for a set or more and then collapsed. You should watch some of those matches for yourself and judge.


The reason why Fed has gone backwards since 2006 is threefold:


1. He mentally collapsed
2. His game declined
3. Nadal improved

Sure, but really it was all a natural progression. 2006 was Federer's peak and it's when he played his closest matches against Nadal on clay. But, from a broad spectrum, you can see the trend that resulted from #'s 2 and 3 above.

FO 2005 SF- 4 sets, 4th set tiebreak, to Nadal
FO 2006 F - 4 sets, 4th set tiebreak, to Nadal
FO 2007 F - 4 sets, to Nadal
FO 2008 F - 3 sets, to Nadal

W 2006 F - 4 sets, to Federer
W 2007 F - 5 sets, to Federer
W 2008 F - 5 sets, to Nadal

Nadal was inching his way up. I don't buy into much of the Federer decline bs. If Nadal hadn't been in the Wimbledon and Aussie Finals it would be business as usual for Federer. He'd still be losing at the small tournies and winning 3 slams a year. More of the difference than Federer's decline, is Nadal's ascendancy to major finals off of clay. He can beat Federer there while no one else can.

Commander Data
04-23-2009, 12:35 PM
I don't buy into much of the Federer decline bs. If Nadal hadn't been in the Wimbledon and Aussie Finals it would be business as usual for Federer. He'd still be losing at the small tournies and winning 3 slams a year. More of the difference than Federer's decline, is Nadal's ascendancy to major finals off of clay. He can beat Federer there while no one else can.

It is both. I agree so far, that Nadal is the main reason for his decline. without Nadal he would still be No.1 and collecting 3-4 Slams a year.

Pedigree
04-23-2009, 01:01 PM
Wow. I didn't watch tennis back then, how well did Federer play in that first set? Was it a close match overall?

Why has Federer gone backwards vs Nadal on clay since then? If he won the first set 6-1 in a GS final at that time I would have thought he would have gone on to finish the job..strange.

Federer had a 6-0 set over Nadal on clay a year later. When he gets hot, he's unbeatable. It's just that it never really happens any more :sad:

miura
04-23-2009, 01:09 PM
2003, to try to angle Federer as the GOAT here is like gathering 12 rabid monkeys in a ring and carefully trying to explain to them that they should sit still for the next 5 minutes. It's useless.

Johnny Groove
04-23-2009, 01:11 PM
If he doesn't break it, he might be remembered more for his steep decline from the top as opposed to his 4 years of utter dominance.

miura
04-23-2009, 01:13 PM
If he doesn't break it, he might be remembered more for his steep decline from the top as opposed to his 4 years of utter dominance.
No reasonable sport fanatic will think "Ah, Federer, the guy that suddenly declined from the top" when they are reminded of him. He will go down in the history books as one of the all time greats of tennis.

Johnny Groove
04-23-2009, 01:17 PM
No reasonable sport fanatic will think "Ah, Federer, the guy that suddenly declined from the top" when they are reminded of him. He will go down in the history books as one of the all time greats of tennis.

Without a doubt. He's already in the top 5 tennis players of all time, he is already an all-time great. :shrug:

I'm just saying that if Federer continues to play for a few more years, and never wins another slam, it'll be a bit difficult to ignore it :shrug:

I just hope the guy gets to 15 so he can have his slam record and call it a day, preferably Sampras style, coming back to win Wimbledon or the USO in the twilight of his career.

Quadruple Tree
04-23-2009, 01:20 PM
No reasonable sport fanatic will think "Ah, Federer, the guy that suddenly declined from the top" when they are reminded of him. He will go down in the history books as one of the all time greats of tennis.

Surely you jest. After all, everyone remembers Sampras as that guy who lost to Bastl at Wimbledon.

miura
04-23-2009, 01:22 PM
Without a doubt. He's already in the top 5 tennis players of all time, he is already an all-time great. :shrug:

I'm just saying that if Federer continues to play for a few more years, and never wins another slam, it'll be a bit difficult to ignore it :shrug:

I just hope the guy gets to 15 so he can have his slam record and call it a day, preferably Sampras style, coming back to win Wimbledon or the USO in the twilight of his career.
His current decline is certainly worrying, but even if he shouldn't be able to get that last 1 or 2 slams, I don't think it will shadow his carrer at all. Maybe the first 2-3 years but not in the long run.

miura
04-23-2009, 01:23 PM
Surely you jest. After all, everyone remembers Sampras as that guy who lost to Bastl at Wimbledon.
:haha:

Fed Express
04-23-2009, 01:31 PM
He already is the greatest of all time to have played the game. He is by far the best player.

But he is not the best player when it comes to achievements..

thrust
04-23-2009, 02:22 PM
Sampras has one more slam, more weeks at #1, more years ending at #1, more tournament wins. As of today the overall Sampras record is superior to Roger's. The GOAT is still Laver. Sampras is still the greatest of the Open era.

tennizen
04-23-2009, 02:39 PM
I think this thread could benefit from a nice definition for "biggest rival"

heartbroken
04-23-2009, 04:51 PM
So what does a player have to do to be GOAT? Is he or isn't ge GOAT now, and if he isn't, what does he have to do in your eyes to change this?

I posted something very similar to what I'm about to say in another thread where the immediate topic was "dominance".

Being a "GOAT" is not an accomplishment. It is an interpretation of an accomplishment(s), and nothing more than that. Winning the USO five straight times is an accomplishment. Winning Wimbledon seven times is an accomplishment. Nobody is ever going to receive a trophy because someone thinks they're the GOAT. I strongly believe that most players would rather have accomplishments over accolades, especially if it's an accolade from someone they've never even heard of, like me. :)

Do you think there is ever likely to be agreement on a single GOAT, barring someone who thrashes every record in the book? A better question is why does it even matter? I like discussion about this topic just for the sake of discussion, but even if we came to a consensus on this, it doesn't change a player's accomplishments, or their failures.

Check out my signature sometime, if you'd like. I don't believe in a single GOAT, and I don't think numbers tell the whole story. At the same time, numbers are usually pretty darn good at reflecting accomplishments in sports, and wouldn't accomplishments be the single biggest factor in determining a GOAT? If you think player X is the best ever, I would think there would be some combination of numbers to back up that opinion? Can you quantify your opinion in some way, or is it just based on a feeling? Getting people to agree on what the numbers should like is hard enough. Imagine the difficulty of trying to get consensus on a GOAT if we're just going to go by everyone's feelings! :D

Anyway, my signature, and post, is just some food for thought. As always, YMMV. :wavey:

Cheers,
Dave

heartbroken
04-23-2009, 04:54 PM
I think this thread could benefit from a nice definition for "biggest rival"

I think, clearly, we have to go by some combination of height and weight. :D

morningglory
04-23-2009, 04:54 PM
Breaking it would do the trick.
Tying it with an RG title would also do.

Otherwise, Sampras is still the GOAT.

tennizen
04-23-2009, 05:05 PM
I think, clearly, we have to go by some combination of height and weight. :D

or length and thickness:aplot:

Breaking it would do the trick.
Tying it with an RG title would also do.

Otherwise, Sampras is still the GOAT.

I envy you. Life is rather simple for you.

heartbroken
04-23-2009, 05:41 PM
or length and thickness:aplot:



:lol: :lol:

Roddickominator
04-23-2009, 05:47 PM
Sampras is the GOAT....an in-form Fed could barely handle the geriatric Sampras last year, and even lost to him once. Fed dominated a mug era....and now that he has a little competition that tests his heart....he can't hang and loses and cries about it. That is not GOAT behavior.

moon language
04-23-2009, 06:00 PM
The whole GOAT thing is silly. The only reason to throw around that expression would be if a player left absolutely no question about the matter. Fed's the greatest of the mid 2000s and that's it.

fred perry
04-23-2009, 06:07 PM
fed is not in a slump. he is just playing younger fitter better players these days. :wavey:

MalwareDie
04-23-2009, 06:10 PM
fed is not in a slump.

You have to be delusional to believe this.

heya
04-23-2009, 07:21 PM
A quick GOAT, naturally, because the McEnroe brothers jumped on the Fed Express. The fantasy lasted as long as the fast successions of failure and tears; especially when Federer realized that Roddick's demise made him look great. Even nice Roddick fans couldn't face this reality.

No Safin and Hewitt. No Coria and Ferrero to fight Federer since 2005.

Don't choo choo too soon.

vamosinator
04-24-2009, 05:35 AM
There is no definitive GOAT until Nadal wins the Calandar Year Grand Slam.

nastoff
04-24-2009, 05:55 AM
If, hypothetically speaking, tennis stopped in 2007 he would have probably be considered the GOAT, even though he wouldn't have broken the slam record or get the year slam. Because he was the most dominant and his game was considered the most aesthetically pleasing. It would probably be a bit of an illusion in hindsight. Now, unless he miraculously recovers from his current slump in an emphatic fashion he will never attain that accolade but only be considered as one of the best who played the game; yet certainly not the best. Such was Nadal's impact.
But the history book would say that Federer despite his dominance could never tame the "one-surface wonder" of Rafa Nadal on clay and achieve the uttermost greatness. Now the history book is rewritten and the shadow of Nadal is hanging ominously over Federer's legacy.

Bazooka
04-24-2009, 06:45 AM
If it was only Nadal, it would not be a problem. You could call it a bad matchup, too many clay matches, whatever.

Then you have Murray and to some exent Djokovic. Those two players are the only ones in the current game that have the all-year consistence and %win to become Greats at some point. Murray was spanking him while he was still on diapers, and with Djokovic while he managed to control him for a while, he has never really been safe.

So there will always be a "weak era" echo around him unless he somehow gets some important wins over his contemporary greatests. Roddick is the only one that he has dominated that was consistent enough to be a multi-slam winner, and sorry, Roddick doesn't have the game to be a legend.

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 06:50 AM
Sampras is the GOAT....an in-form Fed could barely handle the geriatric Sampras last year, and even lost to him once. Fed dominated a mug era....and now that he has a little competition that tests his heart....he can't hang and loses and cries about it. That is not GOAT behavior.

Suprise surprise, you are American!

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 06:53 AM
Breaking it would do the trick.
Tying it with an RG title would also do.

Otherwise, Sampras is still the GOAT.

Fait enough assesment. Its obvious already that Fed is a way better clay courter the Pete. So just equalling Pete's slam record without a FO title should also be enough.

ossie
04-24-2009, 07:57 AM
federer is a better player than samprass simply because he can play good tennis on clay too, this makes him much more complete as a tennis player and this is the standard that should be used to judge players: how good you are overall

Bazooka
04-24-2009, 08:43 AM
federer is a better player than samprass simply because he can play good tennis on clay too, this makes him much more complete as a tennis player and this is the standard that should be used to judge players: how good you are overall

Yet being dominant for six years should be considered too, plus the fact that he was (except in clay) the favourite against any player, while Roger always had trouble with Murray and Rafa.

I know Federer is a better player, more complete and balanced than Sampras. But in achievements, they're tied or maybe Pete has a slight edge.

duong
04-24-2009, 09:47 AM
Breaking or not breaking this crazy "record" will not change anything imo :

Federer will never be the GOAT (at least Laver, Gonzales and Borg are better), but he's better in tennis history than Sampras.

This record doesn't mean much for people who have seen players in the 80s and before.

For people who have seen them, nobody remembers their records but only what they have seen.

Btw, I would be interested in making a poll to get people's opinion to compare Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl because they are a great illustration of this issue : on a statistical point of view, Lendl is far above the two others, but in people's memories, McEnroe is unbeatable ; for longevity (very important for Agassi and Sampras's fans) and for "being unbeaten in grand slams in a year" Connors is the one.

But anyway McEnroe will be the one who is part of most people's dreams and memories :cool:

As for Federer, whether or not he breaks this stupid "record" wil not change anything in my memories and dreams of his game and achievements.

Who remembers that when losing to Canas in 2007, Federer lost the record for "most matches without losing in a row" ?

Everybody remembers something else about that match and the rest : this record is really meaningless (except for Vilas of course, who was happy to keep his record).

duong
04-24-2009, 09:49 AM
plus the fact that he was (except in clay) the favourite against any player

except on clay, yes (35% of the tour), and against Ferreira ... it makes a lot ! :lol:

vamosinator
04-24-2009, 10:11 AM
Clearly when you read this thread through you see so many differing points of view that it shows how there is no clear GOAT. A GOAT must win the Calendar Year Grand Slam, there is no 2 ways about it, complete and utter dominance is required to leave the case without doubt or conjecture.

Commander Data
04-24-2009, 10:25 AM
Clearly when you read this thread through you see so many differing points of view that it shows how there is no clear GOAT. A GOAT must win the Calendar Year Grand Slam, there is no 2 ways about it, complete and utter dominance is required to leave the case without doubt or conjecture.

I agree, Federer will never be the undisputed GOAT unless he wins the FO breaks the Sampras record and recaptures no.1 by reversing his head-to-head with Nadal. He should also throw in some clutch wins at Finals were he shows great mental strenght. Calender Slam wouldn't hurt as well and maybe even 2-3 FO. I'm not joking, that is what it is needed to make him the undisputed GOAT. It is rather unlikely to happen, I reckon.


For some that admire the best peak performances, Fed is already the GOAT cause he has played the Game a way nobody has ever done. For the others he will need to achieve the above or always "just" be one of the greats but not the best. For the Fedfans, he should beat the Sampras record to make us satisfied, a FO (no matter how) would be the icying on the cake. I think he should survive anyway.

Nadal still needs to win quite a bit to be a serious GOAT contender....

duong
04-24-2009, 10:48 AM
For some that admire the best peak performances, Fed is already the GOAT cause he has played the Game a way nobody has ever done.

Yes, and McEnroe has played the game a way nobody has done :rolleyes:

But the topic of this thread is the "record" (and also Federer), not the Goat ... even if I know that some who have not watched tennis before the 90s still believe that Sampras may be a goat :lol:

vamosinator
04-24-2009, 12:05 PM
I agree, Federer will never be the undisputed GOAT unless he wins the FO breaks the Sampras record and recaptures no.1 by reversing his head-to-head with Nadal. He should also throw in some clutch wins at Finals were he shows great mental strenght. Calender Slam wouldn't hurt as well and maybe even 2-3 FO. I'm not joking, that is what it is needed to make him the undisputed GOAT. It is rather unlikely to happen, I reckon.


For some that admire the best peak performances, Fed is already the GOAT cause he has played the Game a way nobody has ever done. For the others he will need to achieve the above or always "just" be one of the greats but not the best. For the Fedfans, he should beat the Sampras record to make us satisfied, a FO (no matter how) would be the icying on the cake. I think he should survive anyway.

Nadal still needs to win quite a bit to be a serious GOAT contender....

Nadal is the GOAT if he wins the Calendar Year Grand Slam this year. It won't matter that he has only 9 slams, because we know Nadal won't be going away anytime soon and will reach the 13 slams with 4 more French Opens, and then win more slams as he continues to improve his grass and hard games, and there are no mental flaws to suddenly erase his confidence the way Federer's confidence was erased. But the Calendar Year Slam alone will raise his standing above Federer, so this year is the changing of the guard historically speaking.

tennizen
04-24-2009, 01:07 PM
If it was only Nadal, it would not be a problem. You could call it a bad matchup, too many clay matches, whatever.

Then you have Murray and to some exent Djokovic. Those two players are the only ones in the current game that have the all-year consistence and %win to become Greats at some point. Murray was spanking him while he was still on diapers, and with Djokovic while he managed to control him for a while, he has never really been safe.

So there will always be a "weak era" echo around him unless he somehow gets some important wins over his contemporary greatests. Roddick is the only one that he has dominated that was consistent enough to be a multi-slam winner, and sorry, Roddick doesn't have the game to be a legend.

:lol: Take a players decline period and analyze his losses against upcoming competition, no player ever will be the GOAT. In case of Nadal, you could say Federer did not do well against Nadal in their particular match-up. But you could also say there were around 2-3 years when Nadal was the clear # 2 but despite his best efforts could not replace Fed as the #1 which in fact could be a plus for Fed because Nadal is no ordinary player either and maybe in contention for mini-GOATEDness in the coming years.

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 01:26 PM
Nadal cant dominate like Fed did, that is the main thing. You cant be the GOAT by letting other players beat themselves. You must go out there and get it.

thrust
04-24-2009, 01:35 PM
A quick GOAT, naturally, because the McEnroe brothers jumped on the Fed Express. The fantasy lasted as long as the fast successions of failure and tears; especially when Federer realized that Roddick's demise made him look great. Even nice Roddick fans couldn't face this reality.

No Safin and Hewitt. No Coria and Ferrero to fight Federer since 2005.

Don't choo choo too soon.

Good point about the McEnroe brothers declaring Roger the GOAT so soon. If you include the Pro Slams, which had the better players, with the regular Slams then Rosewall has 24 Slams,Laver-22,Sampras-14,Gonzales-14,Federer-13,Borg-11. In that Laver won the Grand Slam twice, he is the GOAT, closely followed by Rosewall then Gonzalez, Sampras, Roger and Borg.

vamosinator
04-24-2009, 01:44 PM
Nadal cant dominate like Fed did, that is the main thing. You cant be the GOAT by letting other players beat themselves. You must go out there and get it.

Nadal has the most penetrating groundstrokes in tennis, so much so that a ball directed right at the opponent's forehand hitting zone can be very tricky as the ball kicks up at them suddenly despite a regular initial trajectory and doesn't allow them a regular flat forehand reply. That kind of threat is something unique that makes no ball easy to hit. This is why Nadal always troubled Federer, even in the early days long before Nadal had adapted to grass and hardcourt.

I also should note that a freakishly regular occurrence in the Aust Open Final was Nadal hitting dropshots on deuce and breakpoints, so he truly is taking the risks to beat these guys. Player just don't take those kind of risks these days on such big points, Nadal is on a different level.

Commander Data
04-24-2009, 02:31 PM
Nadal is the GOAT if he wins the Calendar Year Grand Slam this year.

lets see..Nadal needs to win his 5th straight RG then move on to win Wimbledon again which he barely managed last year and then win the US were he has not even shown up in the final up to this year. :rolleyes:

His chances to do all the above this year are slim. I don't see that happening. Not even Federer could do it so Nadal won't succeed ;)

Dougie
04-24-2009, 03:02 PM
Yes, and McEnroe has played the game a way nobody has done :rolleyes:

But the topic of this thread is the "record" (and also Federer), not the Goat ... even if I know that some who have not watched tennis before the 90s still believe that Sampras may be a goat :lol:

You have obviously watched tennis longer than most. But your opinions of greatness are obviously biased. Yeah, McEnroe was great, but if we look at the results, he just can´t be compared to Sampras. Sure, McEnroe will be in a lot of peoples hearts, so will Agassi, but that´s more to do with the fact that they had long careers, and people watched them growing from rebellious youngsters to men. But greatness can´t be measured with something like that.

Commander Data
04-24-2009, 03:22 PM
maybe we should change the viewpoint. Everybody finds something slightly different great. Greatness is subjective, there will always be a gruop of greatest players. Why not focus on most successful? Thats easier to debate.

Bernard Black
04-24-2009, 03:24 PM
I've probably said this many times already but if Federer can somehow find a way to win that elusive French Open either this year or next, or whenever, he can retire at that point. Yes, he'll have an equal number of slams as Sampras but of course in most people's eyes he'll be seen as the best player to ever lift a racquet because of having slams on each surface. Tall order of course. Either that, or win another two to break the record altogether.

In answer to the thread question, if he doesn't win anymore slams then no he will not be seen as the greatest but will be in a tier at the top with several other plays. It's really not surprising the guy is succumbing the pressure over the past couple of years, so much rests on him eeking out these last few victories before he can retire happily.

Henry Kaspar
04-24-2009, 03:31 PM
I already rank Federer above Sampras because of his greater versatility across surfaces. I do not rank him above Laver though, and I can't see how I would unless Federer wins the French Open or wins close to 20 slams -- both of which seems unlikely. Hence he is not the GOAT.

As for Rafa, wait and see is the only thing to be said. He clearly isn't in the Laver/Federer/Borg/Sampras group as of now, but he may or may not be in a couple of years.

Henry Kaspar
04-24-2009, 03:33 PM
Nadal is the GOAT if he wins the Calendar Year Grand Slam this year. It won't matter that he has only 9 slams,

How would this put him ahead of Laver?

jonathancrane
04-24-2009, 03:51 PM
Federer (right now): 13 GS and 237 weeks at #1
Sampras: 14 GS and 286 weeks at #1

Obviously right now Sampras > Federer

vamosinator
04-24-2009, 04:56 PM
lets see..Nadal needs to win his 5th straight RG then move on to win Wimbledon again which he barely managed last year and then win the US were he has not even shown up in the final up to this year. :rolleyes:

His chances to do all the above this year are slim. I don't see that happening. Not even Federer could do it so Nadal won't succeed ;)

Federer is an inferior athlete and mind, he never reached the athletic ability of Nadal and never had the attitude Nadal has, there is no comparison between the 2 players.

When I said Nadal would reach 9 slams by winning the Calandar Year Grand Slam this year and then would reach Federer's 13 by winning 4 more RG's I was indicating that he could outdo Federer's career with mostly French Opens (as in he wouldn't even need Aust Open, Wimbledon, US Open after this year). Of course he will keep playing and winning them, but I'm indicating how big the gap is becoming record-wise.

Like I said, Nadal is suited to winning the Calendar Year Grand Slam, while Federer was lacking both mentally and physically. They are basically polar opposite players in all areas.

Henry Kaspar
04-24-2009, 07:57 PM
Federer (right now): 13 GS and 237 weeks at #1
Sampras: 14 GS and 286 weeks at #1

Obviously right now Sampras > Federer

If these are your only criteria, yes. If versatility across surfaces also plays a part, no. If peak dominance does, neither.

jonathancrane
04-24-2009, 08:09 PM
If these are your only criteria, yes. If versatility across surfaces also plays a part, no. If peak dominance does, neither.

But if you use that versatility criteria you can say that Agassi > Sampras, and that's absolutely wrong IMO.
The peak dominance it's not above the other measures. You can have an amazing year (McEnroe 1984) and then stop winnings slams. Do you think McEnroe > Lendl?

As i see it, the two basic things to compare big players are the GS and the weeks at #1.

heya
04-24-2009, 08:30 PM
Dominating a deranged, physically-stiff pig like Roddick. Federer must be proud.

Henry Kaspar
04-24-2009, 09:47 PM
But if you use that versatility criteria you can say that Agassi > Sampras, and that's absolutely wrong IMO.
The peak dominance it's not above the other measures. You can have an amazing year (McEnroe 1984) and then stop winnings slams. Do you think McEnroe > Lendl?

As i see it, the two basic things to compare big players are the GS and the weeks at #1.

Well in my view none of these criteria is the one and only, but they all matter. Sampras vs. Agassi is 14 slams to 8, I therefore agree with you that there is no way Agassi could be above Sampras.

By contrast, 14 vs. 13 is only a trifle, and in my view it matters then that the "13" player reached the FO final three years in a row (always to be beaten by the same player), while the "13" player made it once to the semis at RG and otherwise was a no-show there. And it matters that the 13-player had two years with 3W-1F at the slams, while the 14-player's best year was 2W-1SF-1QF.

As for McEnroe vs. Lendl, no I don't rank McEnroe higher than Lendl because Lendl was similarly dominant in 1986/87 as McEnroe was in 1984, and he was arguably better on grass than McEnroe on clay. But McEnroe over Connors or Agassi? This can be argued, imo, even though Agassi and Connors won 8 slams to McEnroe's 7.

But then this is no rocket science, and I can live with someone reversing my order between Federer and Sampras. In any case, neither is GOAT, as they can't be ranked ahead of Laver.

duong
04-24-2009, 10:16 PM
Yeah, McEnroe was great, but if we look at the results, he just can´t be compared to Sampras.

I never said opposite : Sampras's results are better for sure.

My opinions are not so biased : I just say that there are multiple ways to look at things,

but you should only be concerned about figures and not about game to consider Sampras as a Goat (of course he's better than McEnroe but several other ones are better than him)


Sure, McEnroe will be in a lot of peoples hearts, so will Agassi, but that´s more to do with the fact that they had long careers, and people watched them growing from rebellious youngsters to men. But greatness can´t be measured with something like that.

McEnroe didn't have a longer carreer than Sampras.

And actually Sampras's biggest weapon comparing to the other greats of the open era is his longevity (and also the fact that he faced poor competition when he was old)

At 25, Sampras was clearly behind what Borg and even McEnroe had achieved.
At 27 clearly behind Federer.

duong
04-24-2009, 10:22 PM
Nadal is the GOAT if he wins the Calendar Year Grand Slam this year. It won't matter that he has only 9 slams, because 1. we know Nadal won't be going away anytime soon and will reach the 13 slams with 4 more French Opens, and then win more slams as he continues to improve his grass and hard games, and 2. there are no mental flaws to suddenly erase his confidence the way Federer's confidence was erased. But the Calendar Year Slam alone will raise his standing above Federer, so this year is the changing of the guard historically speaking.

1. I don't know what "soon" means to you, but nobody knows how long Nadal will last

2. as for mental flaws, Nadal's mental might collapse one day.

At the same age, Borg's mental was also considered as impossible to destroy (and also Borg's results in grand slams were at least as good as Nadal's by the way).

For this kind of player who relies so much on his mental, a small breach in it can make things change very quickly.

duong
04-24-2009, 10:28 PM
As for McEnroe vs. Lendl, no I don't rank McEnroe higher than Lendl because Lendl was similarly dominant in 1986/87 as McEnroe was in 1984, and he was arguably better on grass than McEnroe on clay. But McEnroe over Connors or Agassi? This can be argued, imo, even though Agassi and Connors won 8 slams to McEnroe's 7.

I don't make any ranking between McEnroe, Connors and Lendl : it really depends on the point of view, and as I said, that would make an interesting poll to let people express about that.

But Agassi imo is not in the same category ... he's between them and Edberg-Becker-Wilander.

Ah I see the reason why you say that : still the fetish of the number Agassi 8 like Sampras 14 :rolleyes: ... for me this is bullshit, it's giving a lot of importance to longevity and the Australian open.

nastoff
04-24-2009, 10:41 PM
The concept of the GOAT is illusive anyway but if Nadal wins the USO at some point in his career and dominates the field long enough to break the open era slam record he'll have a strong case for the title. The grand slam of slams is not required, it's something extremely difficult to pull anyway but all the better if he achieves it. It's not the same doing something as incredible nowadays as it was for Laver in the 1960s. His competition is much stiffer now than what it was for Federer in 2003-2006 ( with the obvious exception of Nadal again ), and he holds a very commanding lead over his fiercest rival that he can only better.
Sampras holds a 20-14 over Agassi but then Agassi won all 4 slams and Sampras didn't. Nadal is in a position to eclipse all 3. ( Sampras, Agassi, Federer ) and he's much closer than people think.
.

heya
04-24-2009, 10:44 PM
If player A was lucky in Slams but failed miserably elsewhere at the near-death age of 26, how is he grouped together with Borg and Laver? He was outwitted in a weak era 2000-2009.

Pfloyd
04-24-2009, 10:47 PM
It's looking less and less likely every moment, but he can have another good slam moment like last years US Open.

But 2 slams? I dunno. . . .

duong
04-24-2009, 10:50 PM
His competition is much stiffer now than what it was for Federer in 2003-2006 ( with the obvious exception of Nadal again

that is true ... but that's also why nothing is done as people think.

His fans being so confident after only two finals won in 5 sets outside of clay (and a semi-final in Australia where he was very near from going out ... and owed a lot to his opponents in that tournament), and great players like Murray (I know many people still underrate him) and Djokovic being so young and improving,

it surprises me.

Fortunately Nadal himself is more sensible about that.

We will see. If he wins the calendar slam against Murray, Djokovic and Federer, he will be able to be considered very very high, higher than Federer for sure.

So far, he has only won one of the 4 ones :lol:

duong
04-24-2009, 10:53 PM
Sampras holds a 20-14 over Agassi but then Agassi won all 4 slams and Sampras didn't.

yes, and if Sampras and Agassi had played as much on clay as Fed and Nadal did, Agassi would be at least equal with Sampras in their H2H

(but I don't say that Agassi is as high as Sampras : only that focusing on a H2H is a very narrow-minded way, especially when the surfaces are not adequately represented)

nastoff
04-24-2009, 11:10 PM
No, nothing is done of course and I'm sure that Murray and Djokovic will improve too and will get a few off him over the years. But Federer's future right now is a big questionmark. And Nadal's fans have a reason for optimism looking at Federer's steady decline. Outside the USO Murray and Djokovic do not pose as the same threat as Federer used to - or at least that's what people think - and they will be the ones who try to dethrone Nadal, rather than vice versa. I personally don't think that the calendar slam will be possible this season. Moving away from the French, the Wimbledon might prove the catalyst for the USO it will at least give him a chance to go for it. But it's highly unlikely that he will win the USO and even Wimbledon itself might prove a tougher proposition that people think.

yes, and if Sampras and Agassi had played as much on clay as Fed and Nadal did, Agassi would be at least equal with Sampras in their H2H

(but I don't say that Agassi is as high as Sampras : only that focusing on a H2H is a very narrow-minded way, especially when the surfaces are not adequately represented)

That's a good point, so Nadal needs a few more wins over Federer on other surfaces rather from clay. He's still trailing on hardcourts and grass. However the 7-2 over Murray and 12-4 over Djokovicc is not a coincedence either. Nadal is dominating these guys at the moment too in the H2H though this can of course change.

Joao
04-25-2009, 02:30 AM
Why do people say that there was no competition during 2003-2007? :confused: Of course there was. If somehow Roddick had won those 2 Wimbledon finals or that USO final, or if Safin had won that AO final in 2004, would you still say that there was no competition? Probably not. And how come in 2005 the same non-competition managed to win the AO and FO?

It may seem that there was no competition but that's because Federer was winning a lot. You make it sound like Federer was the luckiest player in history. His level was just way above everyone else's. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the top10 was sh*t.

Give a little credit where credit is due. :rolleyes:

Right now it looks like there's more competition but that's because Nadal (outside clay) is not as dominant as Federer was (well not yet at least). Nadal wins a lot but his wins on grass and hardcourts don't come as easily as Federer's during that time period.

Oh and by the way, Nadal has won 4 RG in a row, during that same era of non-competition. I don't see anybody discrediting Nadal for a lack of competition ... double standard anyone?

christallh24
04-25-2009, 02:37 AM
Well, I don't think that Roddick was much competition for Roger, but other than that, I agree with you .

I hope that Rafa can start to win as easily on hc and grass as Roger did. And who knows, maybe he still will. It's going to be an interesting grass season, for surea.

vamosinator
04-25-2009, 03:17 AM
that is true ... but that's also why nothing is done as people think.

His fans being so confident after only two finals won in 5 sets outside of clay (and a semi-final in Australia where he was very near from going out ... and owed a lot to his opponents in that tournament), and great players like Murray (I know many people still underrate him) and Djokovic being so young and improving,

it surprises me.

Fortunately Nadal himself is more sensible about that.

We will see. If he wins the calendar slam against Murray, Djokovic and Federer, he will be able to be considered very very high, higher than Federer for sure.

So far, he has only won one of the 4 ones :lol:

Surely you realise the difference between losing in 5 and winning in 5. It isn't about the score, its about the fact that one player can't handle the pressure while the other player can. Federer losing the 5th set Down Under 6-2 was a complete collapse of mentality and nobody would ever say Nadal would suffer the same mental collapse in a slam final, its unheard of.

So while the match went 5 sets it was much like the recent Nadal v Djokovic match whereby Djokovic had nothing left mentally or physically and lost the deciding set 6-1. You see how some players can't handle the heat? So Nadal wants to go 5 sets everytime because he knows his opponents wilt.

It's the same as Michael Jordan, he never swept an NBA Finals he went to 6 games on 5 occasions and each time he appeared in complete control of the outcome, dominated 4th quarters and in the 6th championship he made a steal (from Karl Malone a known choker who missed crucial freethrows at the end of Finals games) and a score in the final seconds to win the championship. This is the same as Nadal who mirrors a lot of Jordan's strengths both physically and mentally.

Winning in 5 is more convincing than winning in 4 to an extent, it shows you were more clutch, rather than just showing the oppoonent had an off game with his timing or the wind or something.

heya
04-25-2009, 03:48 AM
Ewing wasn't talented enough just like Federer, but Ewing didn't sob non-stop either. Federer cried (after wins and losses) as soon as he realized that his Slams had more to do with scheduling, Roddick's emotional/physical failures and lack of talent from Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, etc. It's no coincidence that no one ranked #1-5 from 2002 is in the top 10. Murray and Djokovic won't be out of the top 10 in 2014.
... Roddick quit Rome, and gave up ranking points to be a used-up media and Davis Cup puppet. It proves how weak the competition is; he's still in the top 30.

heartbroken
04-25-2009, 05:23 AM
Breaking or not breaking this crazy "record" will not change anything imo :

Federer will never be the GOAT (at least Laver, Gonzales and Borg are better), but he's better in tennis history than Sampras.

This record doesn't mean much for people who have seen players in the 80s and before.

For people who have seen them, nobody remembers their records but only what they have seen.

Btw, I would be interested in making a poll to get people's opinion to compare Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl because they are a great illustration of this issue : on a statistical point of view, Lendl is far above the two others, but in people's memories, McEnroe is unbeatable ; for longevity (very important for Agassi and Sampras's fans) and for "being unbeaten in grand slams in a year" Connors is the one.

But anyway McEnroe will be the one who is part of most people's dreams and memories :cool:

As for Federer, whether or not he breaks this stupid "record" wil not change anything in my memories and dreams of his game and achievements.

Who remembers that when losing to Canas in 2007, Federer lost the record for "most matches without losing in a row" ?

Everybody remembers something else about that match and the rest : this record is really meaningless (except for Vilas of course, who was happy to keep his record).

Your post is a series of opinions, but it reads like you are giving us a list of facts. (In fairness, you do use the word 'opinion' or IMO a time or two.) You even suggest that you know what other folk's memories are for various players. :eek: McEnroe was my favorite player when I was a kid, and my memories of him don't match what you say they should be.

Look, you don't seem to like Sampras, and that's fine. I don't care. Sampras doesn't care either. You're perfectly entitled to every opinion you gave in your post. But can we let others have an opinion too, as well as have their own memories of various players?

bobbynorwich
04-25-2009, 06:30 AM
It's really too bad that Federer isn't absolutely perfect.

vamosinator
04-25-2009, 07:10 AM
^^ Not a question of perfect, just a question of 'is Federer as good as Sampras?'

2003
04-25-2009, 07:18 AM
Federer was quite right when he said after A/O 08 "ive created a monster where I have to win everytime".

He really has created a monster. Is the monster coming back to bite him in the butt?

2003
04-25-2009, 07:23 AM
It's looking less and less likely every moment, but he can have another good slam moment like last years US Open.

But 2 slams? I dunno. . . .

Yeah I sorta agree. I see one more slam for Fed express, probably Wimbledon 2009. Unless he gets over his issues then he can win as many as he wants.

Then to tie the record with Sampras at 14. Then its up to Nadull. Give the statisticians a headache haha.

duong
04-25-2009, 08:13 AM
Your post is a series of opinions, but it reads like you are giving us a list of facts. (In fairness, you do use the word 'opinion' or IMO a time or two.) You even suggest that you know what other folk's memories are for various players. :eek: McEnroe was my favorite player when I was a kid, and my memories of him don't match what you say they should be.

Look, you don't seem to like Sampras, and that's fine. I don't care. Sampras doesn't care either. You're perfectly entitled to every opinion you gave in your post. But can we let others have an opinion too, as well as have their own memories of various players?

Yes of course, but if you re-read calmly what I wrote don't tell me that many people dream about Lendl like for McEnroe :shrug:

(and I liked Lendl personally)

Anyway yes that's my opinion, but I know that Americans have another way of thinking and they are crazy about records (your signature just shows that ;) )

Actually I liked Sampras in his time, and I admired and enjoyed him especially in the first half of the 90s (the second half of the 90s was not a period I liked, that's true).
I enjoyed his game far more than Borg's.

But I never considered him as great as many people say with all the figures they want. The fact that Borg didn't play the Australian Open and stopped at 25, that McEnroe and Connors stopped him in the US Open, are clearly important on these figures.

Bazooka
04-25-2009, 10:44 AM
:lol: Take a players decline period and analyze his losses against upcoming competition, no player ever will be the GOAT. In case of Nadal, you could say Federer did not do well against Nadal in their particular match-up. But you could also say there were around 2-3 years when Nadal was the clear # 2 but despite his best efforts could not replace Fed as the #1 which in fact could be a plus for Fed because Nadal is no ordinary player either and maybe in contention for mini-GOATEDness in the coming years.

Go ahead and check Lendl record against almost anyone in four generations. You will be surprised.

And Federer's head to head against Nadal and Murray has been bad in his prime, and when these two were still kids.

ORGASMATRON
04-25-2009, 11:09 AM
^^ Not a question of perfect, just a question of 'is Federer as good as Sampras?'

No hes better, he just needs to pick up one more slam to prove the sceptics wrong. Still im wondering why you have Ali and Nadal next to each other. Very curious indeed.

heartbroken
04-25-2009, 01:46 PM
Yes of course, but if you re-read calmly what I wrote don't tell me that many people dream about Lendl like for McEnroe :shrug:

(and I liked Lendl personally)

Anyway yes that's my opinion, but I know that Americans have another way of thinking and they are crazy about records (your signature just shows that ;) )

Actually I liked Sampras in his time, and I admired and enjoyed him especially in the first half of the 90s (the second half of the 90s was not a period I liked, that's true).
I enjoyed his game far more than Borg's.

But I never considered him as great as many people say with all the figures they want. The fact that Borg didn't play the Australian Open and stopped at 25, that McEnroe and Connors stopped him in the US Open, are clearly important on these figures.

I have no idea what people dream about Lendl, McEnroe, or the tooth fairy. :D I am sure that different people have different dreams, and I'm not going to tell them what their dreams are, or should be. I guess I have to give you credit for trying to be more specific, because now you are telling me how Americans think, rather than just what "people" think. At least now you're lumping together 300 million instead of several billion. :p

Funny you should mention my signature. I don't believe in a GOAT, nor do I believe that a few records can tell the whole story of a player's career or place in history. I think I've been pretty clear about that in posts in other threads. I don't care that Sampras is on the top line, and I don't claim that he should be there. Actually, my signature is somewhat directed at posts along the lines of yours, or for anyone that strictly declares that someone is, or is not, the GOAT.

There are a lot of posts on this board declaring player A to be superior in history to player B, and those comments are sometimes made without the slightest attempt to offer any "proof" for those opinions. As heavily flawed as my signature is, it offers far more proof and reason than a post that says something like "Sampras is clearly better than Federer". I at least give the reader a sense of how I might define a GOAT, if I wanted to only look at some numbers. I don't attempt to bring older generations into the picture, as there are so many issues comparing guys like Laver to modern players. I generated a thread about defining a GOAT by numbers, but not many people wanted to participate. A few showed up to tell me what was wrong with my numbers, but when I asked them to tell me what the numbers should look like, I got a whole lot of silence.

You once said that as a statistician, you understood that looking at numbers alone has limitations, in your own words, of course. I absolutely agree. But however limiting numbers may be, I think they are a far better foundation for a GOAT discussion than "gut feelings". :wavey:

Cheers,
Dave

oz_boz
04-25-2009, 03:01 PM
Nadal is the GOAT if he wins the Calendar Year Grand Slam this year. It won't matter that he has only 9 slams (blabla)
Obviously the number of slams does matter, so clearly premature to call Rafa lone GOAT at only 9 slams. He'd need 2-3 more for that and a couple more weeks at #1.

The GOAT does not have to win a calendar or even career slam, the GOAT might not be just 1, atm I am counting to 4 Open Era: Laver, Borg, Sampras and Fed.

Fed's plus against Sampras is paradoxically also his minus: his being superior to Sampras on clay. Had he been Sampras-like on clay, his h2h vs Rafa atm would be equal - and remember he would still be able to stay #1 for roughly as many weeks since his superiority on the rest of the surfaces was so big.

The weak era argument falls short simply because Nadal played in the same era for 3 years and didn't even touch Fed's ranking. Of course he has become better since, but Fed has also lost some on his game - it is easy to see for anyone, it's not like Blake, Gonzalez, Karlovic have become much better lately. (One could also add a question: if this is a weak era hc-wise, then how about clay, Nadal's bread and butter for first 3 year at the top?)

For Nadal to become the 5th in the GOAT gang, he needs (IMO) at least a double-figure slam tally including a career slam. I can definitely see him achieve that, the biggest threat as of now is Murray but he does not seem to have the head to consistently beat Nadal even on hc, and it's pretty hard to see Djokovic consistently stay at early 2008 form.

Rafa = Fed Killa
04-25-2009, 04:43 PM
No hes better, he just needs to pick up one more slam to prove the sceptics wrong. Still im wondering why you have Ali and Nadal next to each other. Very curious indeed.

Fed can have his 14th, Nadal is supassing the robot and the cry baby anyways.

duong
04-26-2009, 12:23 PM
I generated a thread about defining a GOAT by numbers, but not many people wanted to participate. A few showed up to tell me what was wrong with my numbers, but when I asked them to tell me what the numbers should look like, I got a whole lot of silence.

Thanks for your nice explanation :smile:

The reason is simple : a Goat cannot be defined by any number

... or even if it was, the method you should define would be so extremely complicated that you couldn't expose it to anybody

... because the fact that people don't expose their reasons correctly here does not mean that it's only a matter of guts, often it's rather that it would be too difficult or too long to expose on MTF.
For instance, on my computer I made some summaries of many players'careers, many facts, events, memories but definitely this cannot be summarized or exposed here ... or I wouldn't feel like doing it as I don't have so much time to spend.


I recognize many statisticians' interrogations in what you say.

But statistics are not as relevant for everything.

They are very relevant for money or economy for instance, or to deal with large populations.

This is a very different topic.

By the way, why do I intervene on this kind of topics sometimes ?

1. I read many people talking about the "goat" as being either Sampras or Federer (and Nadal is coming ... :lol:) as if it was obvious that it's one of them. I don't like that people ignore what tennis was before. Some people just say "it was so different in that time", which mostly shows that they don't want to pay interest in that, or, worse, that they just despise "old times".

2. I don't like that that damn "number of grand slams" record means everything for many people, whereas it means so little for me.

3. I don't like that for many people here, the number of victories means everything ... and they don't consider just the pleasure and memories which all this is also all about.

4. especially about Federer, it seems that many people would like him either to win everything or retire : how much would they miss !! I can tell you the pleasure I had seeing McEnroe and Connors in their old times, when they were something like number 10 or 20 in the world ! :cool:

These are the only reasons why I intervene.

And when you talked about Sampras, I liked Sampras as a tennis player, I don't like what he represents for some people in these 4 dimensions I just talked about (when people say "Sampras stopped at the right moment when he was still glorious" I really don't like that !).

And I also didn't like when Federer started generating the same kind of reactions.

Mostly I understand what you mean, and especially your wonders about statistics ... but even if I perfectly understand that one can like statistics for being a way to reach "objectivity", even if I understand that people are usually so stupid or led by their subjectivity that one can think that what they say is more stupid than what an easy statistics can "say", statisticians still have to be modest.

Cheers, François :)

Burrow
04-26-2009, 01:39 PM
04-07 is four seasons :lol:

Burrow
04-26-2009, 01:42 PM
Go ahead and check Lendl record against almost anyone in four generations. You will be surprised.

And Federer's head to head against Nadal and Murray has been bad in his prime, and when these two were still kids.

Still children :lol:

heartbroken
04-26-2009, 05:59 PM
Thanks for your nice explanation :smile:

The reason is simple : a Goat cannot be defined by any number

... or even if it was, the method you should define would be so extremely complicated that you couldn't expose it to anybody

... because the fact that people don't expose their reasons correctly here does not mean that it's only a matter of guts, often it's rather that it would be too difficult or too long to expose on MTF.
For instance, on my computer I made some summaries of many players'careers, many facts, events, memories but definitely this cannot be summarized or exposed here ... or I wouldn't feel like doing it as I don't have so much time to spend.


I recognize many statisticians' interrogations in what you say.

But statistics are not as relevant for everything.

They are very relevant for money or economy for instance, or to deal with large populations.

This is a very different topic.

By the way, why do I intervene on this kind of topics sometimes ?

1. I read many people talking about the "goat" as being either Sampras or Federer (and Nadal is coming ... :lol:) as if it was obvious that it's one of them. I don't like that people ignore what tennis was before. Some people just say "it was so different in that time", which mostly shows that they don't want to pay interest in that, or, worse, that they just despise "old times".

2. I don't like that that damn "number of grand slams" record means everything for many people, whereas it means so little for me.

3. I don't like that for many people here, the number of victories means everything ... and they don't consider just the pleasure and memories which all this is also all about.

4. especially about Federer, it seems that many people would like him either to win everything or retire : how much would they miss !! I can tell you the pleasure I had seeing McEnroe and Connors in their old times, when they were something like number 10 or 20 in the world ! :cool:

These are the only reasons why I intervene.

And when you talked about Sampras, I liked Sampras as a tennis player, I don't like what he represents for some people in these 4 dimensions I just talked about (when people say "Sampras stopped at the right moment when he was still glorious" I really don't like that !).

And I also didn't like when Federer started generating the same kind of reactions.

Mostly I understand what you mean, and especially your wonders about statistics ... but even if I perfectly understand that one can like statistics for being a way to reach "objectivity", even if I understand that people are usually so stupid or led by their subjectivity that one can think that what they say is more stupid than what an easy statistics can "say", statisticians still have to be modest.

Cheers, François :)

I completely agree that a GOAT cannot be defined by any number. I also don't overestimate what statistics can do, so sorry if I was misleading in that regard. My only real point was that stats in sports do a relatively good job of reflecting actual accomplishments, and I think accomplishments are the best foundation for GOAT comparisons. I've said several times that being labeled a GOAT by someone is not an accomplishment, only an interpreation of a player's accomplishments. I have no doubt that most players play the game because they love the game, they love the competition, and because they want to win titles.

Slam count is signifigant, not because it can define a GOAT, but simply because it shows how often a player got to hold the championship trophy on the biggest stages. In my opinion, there is no single greater stat that could help define a GOAT, mainly because there is no single greater accomplishment in tennis than winning a grand slam. Would any player dispute that? I know there's Davis Cup, but that's a team effort, so I'm ignoring that for this point. Still, even if I believe slam wins should be the single biggest factor in determining a GOAT, I know that it can't possibly tell the whole story.

With regard to the "older times", I don't think it's a cop out to hold back a bit on the comparisons, as long as you don't dismiss the old days as inherently inferior. I often say that it's too hard to do the comparisons, because, well, it is! Take Laver, who is the "old timer" that I know the most about. I know the man would have had many more official slams if open tennis had been around longer. But there is also no guarantee that Laver would produce results as strong as he did, if he had to play in the modern game. What I think is that guys like Laver, Sampras and Federer could be great in any time period, but I have no ability to prove that. Even when the poplular opinion was that Sampras was the GOAT, I never believed that his resume was absolutely superior to Laver, or even Borg. I knew what all of those guys had accomplished, and more importantly, I knew the limitations of my ability to compare them!

I might be the only one who is interested, but if you ever get the notion, I would ilke to see how you would do a "numbers" GOAT, no matter how complicated the formula might be. :) My signature is only there for discussion purposes, and to provide some sense of relative accomplishments. But I'm also interested in how someone might bring, say, quality of competition into the picture. I'm neither a mathematician, nor a statistician, and I'm not qualified to take on something like that. Has Jeff Sagarin ever tackled tennis? :D

tennizen
04-26-2009, 07:45 PM
Go ahead and check Lendl record against almost anyone in four generations. You will be surprised.

And Federer's head to head against Nadal and Murray has been bad in his prime, and when these two were still kids.

Federer's decline started in early 2007. His head-head was bad only with Nadal at that time. Murray does not figure in that equation.

MacTheKnife
04-26-2009, 09:07 PM
Federer's decline started in early 2007. His head-head was bad only with Nadal at that time. Murray does not figure in that equation.

Fed actually hit one streak in the middle of the rivalry where he went 5-2 against Nadal, between 06-07. Nadal dominated early, and lately, but for some reason Fed took the middle.

duong
04-26-2009, 09:43 PM
I have no doubt that most players play the game because they love the game, they love the competition, and because they want to win titles.

they are 3 different things imo

I might be the only one who is interested, but if you ever get the notion, I would ilke to see how you would do a "numbers" GOAT, no matter how complicated the formula might be. :) My signature is only there for discussion purposes, and to provide some sense of relative accomplishments. But I'm also interested in how someone might bring, say, quality of competition into the picture. I'm neither a mathematician, nor a statistician, and I'm not qualified to take on something like that. Has Jeff Sagarin ever tackled tennis? :D

Unfortunately I'm unable of doing that.
Anyway, anything I could explain would be too simple.

For the quality of the competition, I think it's useful to take some players'level for comparison (for instance I don't believe Roddick was better in 2003 than now -different game but not better ; also Lendl was not really better in 1987 than in 1984).

And also I think it's useful to measure the results against the players who are not on the top because on a statistical point of view, I believe there can be big differences between the level of the top-5, even top-10 but not for the top-50 : the level of the top-50 has made nothing else than increasing, maybe slowly but increasing, because of the democratization and popularity of tennis.
And that's why I'm interested in the total number of ATP points of the top-players.
Unfortunately the ranking system has changed several times and it's only comparable on a period of time. If not, you have the % victories/defeats imo but for this one you have to take care that you don't take a player like Vilas for instance who played many small tournaments.

There are many other things to look at ... but a typical stupid argument imo is to measure the number of grand slam winners to say : you see in that perdio there were MANY slam winners playing. Imo this is rather an evidence of a poor period than anything else.

But anyway, personally I'm not only interested in what people won, but also the way they did.

Even if Lendl and McEnroe won the same, you have to give something specific to McEnroe for the genius of his tennis.

Tennis fans here are mostly interested in winning points.
But as a spectator it's also interesting the beauty and the memories, no ?

Oh Ok you don't want that ... I don't know if it's because you like mathematics and objectivity, or because you are American (because I know that for Americans being a "winner" is something more important than everything)

... but anyway it's also a factor which has to be considered I think.

And actually it is considered by most of the people who think about that in a, yes, subjective way.

There are so many factors ... and you have to deal with them in a clever way : A does not equal B, one slam does not equal another one, it's not true, Agassi 1995 does not equal Agassi 1997 ...

And also when people talk about competition, there is an apparent tough competition which is not a big problem considering the context and there is a less tough competition which may be a big problem.

For instance imagine two great number 1 who are both polyvalent players, as good on each surface.

The first one has opponents A1, B1, C1, D1 who are polyvalent like the number 1 .

The second one has opponents A2, B2, C2, D2 who are all "pure specialists" of one surface (imagine there are four surfaces).

All of them are worth 4500 ATP points : I mean same "global level".

You could say the two number 1 had the "same intensity of competition" because their four opponents had the same level.

Apparently yes ... but the first number 1 will beat all of his 4 opponents who are all polyvalent but all less good than him : he will win all 4 slams and make the grand slam.

The second number 1 will reach the final of all 4 slams ... and lose the final in all 4 slams against these "pure specialists".

For the first one : 4 slams, for the second one : no one.

You see how much it changes ?

I mean you always have to look closer, because if you want to compare players of different generations, you have to imagine how each of them would have done in another context, not only in the particular context he had to face.

Only some ideas ... but it's a complicated problem.

Anyway in the end for the "Goat assumption" you can rather make groups of players than reward only one of them.

And anyway I still say that imo it's a more interesting exercise to memorize each player and their story than to really rank them.

I still think the memories are the most important matter.

When I read people speaking about Sampras, I always read the same emotional moments against Corretja or Courier more than his titles ...

After that you will also have people who remember the fact that he won big points with a big serve ... but also on that mental issue I have my own opinions to say that according to your playing style it's more or less easy to win big points and deal with the mental issue.

And also even if the biggest champions of modern tennis imo are likely to be great servers-punchers or great defenders, I will always prefer players who create more their points. I'm not only interested in what is effective or not.

I'm a little bit like Coocoocachoo who prefers Cipolla or this kind of players, even if they lack the power which is crucial to become a top-player :D

As a spectator, tennis is only leisure for me, then why would I be so obsessed about winning ?
Winning is their obsession, not mine : I'm only there to have some entertainment :D

duong
04-26-2009, 09:44 PM
Fed actually hit one streak in the middle of the rivalry where he went 5-2 against Nadal, between 06-07. Nadal dominated early, and lately, but for some reason Fed took the middle.

the "some reason" is very simple : surface first (and Nadal still young, Fed in his prime) :shrug:

Imagine McEnroe playing ten times on clay against Borg :rolleyes:

nastoff
04-26-2009, 09:47 PM
If the GOAT cannot be defined by any numbers then there you have it, there's no consensus GOAT, end of argument. It's all in the eye of the beholder. And since my favourite players while growing up were Stefan Edberg and Ivan Lendl, these are my personal GOATS. :)

Bazooka
04-26-2009, 11:00 PM
Federer's decline started in early 2007. His head-head was bad only with Nadal at that time. Murray does not figure in that equation.

1 - 1 with a guy that is not old enough to drink beer legally is not a bad hth?

Not to mention that he lost the important match of the two, and in straights.

You could say it was just a bad day at the office, but see what happened in the next years.

Bazooka
04-26-2009, 11:04 PM
Fed actually hit one streak in the middle of the rivalry where he went 5-2 against Nadal, between 06-07. Nadal dominated early, and lately, but for some reason Fed took the middle.

I don't know where are you getting the info, but it's wrong. Fed has never been over Nadal in hth. Started with 0-1 when he lost to him in 2004 Miami, then next year in the final was 1-1, then Nadal won the next 5 matches including the Dubai final. So after 2006 RG final, in full Federer's peak, he was losing to Nadal 1-6.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean?

Har-Tru
04-26-2009, 11:13 PM
I don't know where are you getting the info, but it's wrong. Fed has never been over Nadal in hth. Started with 0-1 when he lost to him in 2004 Miami, then next year in the final was 1-1, then Nadal won the next 5 matches including the Dubai final. So after 2006 RG final, in full Federer's peak, he was losing to Nadal 1-6.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean?

he means he had a streak of 5-2 in the middle, after 2006 RG final (from 1-6 to 6-8).

Bazooka
04-26-2009, 11:36 PM
he means he had a streak of 5-2 in the middle, after 2006 RG final (from 1-6 to 6-8).

I get it, but well, not a very useful stat IMHO as the surfaces explain it. That's just a bunch of matches that didn't happen in clay or outdoor HC.

heartbroken
04-26-2009, 11:51 PM
Duong,

I don't get the feeling that you really understand where I'm coming from, even a little bit. I'm not that into numbers. And memories are great...use them as much as you like to find your own GOAT.

If you go back to your post that I first replied to, you were basically telling everyone that you had all the answers. Among other things, you informed the forum that Federer was better in history than Sampras, although not as good as Laver and some others. You have no way of knowing that.

You are telling me that numbers alone can't tell the story. I agree. You are telling me that even if they could tell the story, the "formula" would be ridiculously complex. Again, I agree. You are also telling me that other things matter besides wins and losses. Yet again, I agree. But if you think we can't do it with numbers, why would you possibly think that we can get people to agree about a GOAT based on memories and feelings? The answer is: we can't. As nastoff said, if we can't define a GOAT by numbers, then there is no hope to get agreement on a GOAT using anything other criteria.

In that case, the best thing to do is acknowledge that different people are allowed to have their own opinions, and for folks to be respectful of those varying opinions. I don't think anyone should be told (outright or implied) that they are stupid because they value the grand slam record, or any other record for that matter. I've taken people to task over inconsistencies in their arguments, or for attempting to pass off opinions as facts. But I don't tell people who they should believe is the best ever, or tell them what the pecking order should be. Even my signature is for discussion purposes only. It doesn't mean I believe that Sampras and Federer outrank the others on the list, or even people that are not on the list, like Laver, Rosewall, etc.

Can I get an AMEN from someone? :D

heartbroken
04-27-2009, 12:00 AM
If the GOAT cannot be defined by any numbers then there you have it, there's no consensus GOAT, end of argument. It's all in the eye of the beholder. And since my favourite players while growing up were Stefan Edberg and Ivan Lendl, these are my personal GOATS. :)

Yes, that is exactly the point I've been trying to make! There's just too much personal interpretation involved. Even when people try to put players into various tiers, we can't even get agreement on that half the time! :lol:

christallh24
04-27-2009, 12:07 AM
....outdoor HC.

Indoor hardcourt. Rafa's last frontier?

And yes, Roger must break Samprases' record. Only for my petty reasons alone.

finishingmove
04-27-2009, 12:11 AM
Duong,

I don't get the feeling that you really understand where I'm coming from, even a little bit. I'm not that into numbers. And memories are great...use them as much as you like to find your own GOAT.

If you go back to your post that I first replied to, you were basically telling everyone that you had all the answers. Among other things, you informed the forum that Federer was better in history than Sampras, although not as good as Laver and some others. You have no way of knowing that.

You are telling me that numbers alone can't tell the story. I agree. You are telling me that even if they could tell the story, the "formula" would be ridiculously complex. Again, I agree. You are also telling me that other things matter besides wins and losses. Yet again, I agree. But if you think we can't do it with numbers, why would you possibly think that we can get people to agree about a GOAT based on memories and feelings? The answer is: we can't. As nastoff said, if we can't define a GOAT by numbers, then there is no hope to get agreement on a GOAT using anything other criteria.

In that case, the best thing to do is acknowledge that different people are allowed to have their own opinions, and for folks to be respectful of those varying opinions. I don't think anyone should be told (outright or implied) that they are stupid because they value the grand slam record, or any other record for that matter. I've taken people to task over inconsistencies in their arguments, or for attempting to pass off opinions as facts. But I don't tell people who they should believe is the best ever, or tell them what the pecking order should be. Even my signature is for discussion purposes only. It doesn't mean I believe that Sampras and Federer outrank the others on the list, or even people that are not on the list, like Laver, Rosewall, etc.

Can I get an AMEN from someone? :D

mods, STICKY!

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 09:14 AM
Fed actually hit one streak in the middle of the rivalry where he went 5-2 against Nadal, between 06-07. Nadal dominated early, and lately, but for some reason Fed took the middle.

The reasons are easy to understand: Fed did play at his normal level (no choking) and the surface was mainly not clay.

Everybody with a sain mind will agree that Federer (up to this point) is by far the greater champ then Nadal on HC and Grass. What logic do people apply to actually conclude that Nadal is the greater Player, when he is actually clearly the weaker on the majority of surfaces :confused:

Only haters can't think clearly.

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 09:25 AM
The reasons are easy to understand: Fed did play at his normal level (no choking) and the surface was mainly not clay.

Everybody with a sain mind will agree that Federer (up to this point) is by far the greater champ then Nadal on HC and Grass. What logic do people apply to actually conclude that Nadal is the greater Player, when he is actually clearly the weaker on the majority of surfaces :confused:

Only haters can't think clearly.

Its true, Nadal will never win the amount of hard court or grass court slams Fed did. And most of their h2h meetings was on clay. The haters conveniently oversee that of course.

MacTheKnife
04-27-2009, 12:24 PM
I don't know where are you getting the info, but it's wrong. Fed has never been over Nadal in hth. Started with 0-1 when he lost to him in 2004 Miami, then next year in the final was 1-1, then Nadal won the next 5 matches including the Dubai final. So after 2006 RG final, in full Federer's peak, he was losing to Nadal 1-6.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean?

From ATP web site. during a 7 match streak from Wimb 06 to Masters cup 07, Fed went 5-2. They played 2 HC, 2 Grass, and 3 clay. I stated that Nadal dominated early and lately, but Fed took the middle matches.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Nadal%2C+Rafael&player2=federer

MacTheKnife
04-27-2009, 12:27 PM
the "some reason" is very simple : surface first (and Nadal still young, Fed in his prime) :shrug:

Imagine McEnroe playing ten times on clay against Borg :rolleyes:

Actually those 7 matches that Fed went 5-2 was a pretty even split on surface with 3 clay, 2 grass, and 2 HC.
Fed was 1-2 on clay in that 7 match run.

As for the young bit, Nadal started out 6-1 against Fed when Nadal was young, and Fed was supposedly in his prime. Figure that one out. And those were 4 clay and 3 hard.

Matt01
04-27-2009, 12:34 PM
And most of their h2h meetings was on clay.


So what? Nadal even beats Federer on grass and hardcourt these days.

MacTheKnife
04-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Actually their match ups break down as follows; 10 clay, 5 HC, and 3 grass. Fed has 3 HC wins, 2 grass, and 1 clay.

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 12:41 PM
So what? Nadal even beats Federer on grass and hardcourt these days.

You know nothing.

Now go follow badminton.

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 12:43 PM
Actually their match ups break down as follows; 10 clay, 5 HC, and 3 grass. Fed has 3 HC wins, 2 grass, and 1 clay.

Exactly, Fed still pwns Blanka.

Matt01
04-27-2009, 12:45 PM
Ruanz, I don't follow badminton, and I certainly know much more about tennis than you. ;)


Actually their match ups break down as follows; 10 clay, 5 HC, and 3 grass. Fed has 3 HC wins, 2 grass, and 1 clay.


In other words, Nadal and the supposed GOAT are even on HC, Fed is slightly better on grass; and on clay, "GOAT" isn't able to hold a candle to Rafa.

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 12:49 PM
Actually their match ups break down as follows; 10 clay, 5 HC, and 3 grass. Fed has 3 HC wins, 2 grass, and 1 clay.

That tells everything. Fed's only weakness is that he can't beat the best clay court player ever on clay (which, as a bonus, also happens to be a bad matchup for him). Shame on you Fed!

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 12:50 PM
Ruanz, I don't follow badminton, and I certainly know much more about tennis than you. ;)





In other words, Nadal and the supposed GOAT are even on HC, Fed is slightly better on grass; and on clay, "GOAT" isn't able to hold a candle to Rafa.

3:2 is not even you genious.

Ciarán.
04-27-2009, 01:07 PM
no. if he does or he doesn't, he is still a legend of the game.

Matt01
04-27-2009, 01:08 PM
Doesn't matter anyway. Anybody with eyes knows that prime Federer is better then prime Nadal on HC.


Yeah, of course ;)

And probably we haven't even seen prime Nadal yet...

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 01:16 PM
Yeah, of course ;)
..

I'm sure that if we ask tennis experts around the globe 90 % agree with that statement. Of course Rafatards excluded...

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 01:17 PM
Actually their match ups break down as follows; 10 clay, 5 HC, and 3 grass. Fed has 3 HC wins, 2 grass, and 1 clay.

:smash:

duong
04-27-2009, 01:19 PM
If you go back to your post that I first replied to, you were basically telling everyone that you had all the answers.

Did you really read my post ? :confused:

But if you think we can't do it with numbers, why would you possibly think that we can get people to agree about a GOAT based on memories and feelings? The answer is: we can't. As nastoff said, if we can't define a GOAT by numbers, then there is no hope to get agreement on a GOAT using anything other criteria.

Did I say anything else ?

Really you don't understand anything but you're happy to think that you're the one who's right.

It's good for your ego, then I'm happy for you.

I just understand that I was a fool to spend 3 quarters of an hour answering you yesterday evening while my wife was waiting for me to sleep.

Thanks for helping me to realize more what this kind of forums is and how much they deserve spending time there. I will be more sensible in the future.

rafa_maniac
04-27-2009, 01:24 PM
Fed actually hit one streak in the middle of the rivalry where he went 5-2 against Nadal, between 06-07. Nadal dominated early, and lately, but for some reason Fed took the middle.

How fascinating. I don't see how isolating the most favourable stretch of any H2H tells us anything, considering at one point as you say during Federer's peak Nadal was 6-1 against him including 2-1 off of clay. :shrug:

MacTheKnife
04-28-2009, 02:53 AM
How fascinating. I don't see how isolating the most favourable stretch of any H2H tells us anything, considering at one point as you say during Federer's peak Nadal was 6-1 against him including 2-1 off of clay. :shrug:

It's just called analysis. A novel concept but doesn't always tell you anything other than discussion points. :confused: Isn't that what we do here.

heartbroken
04-28-2009, 03:33 AM
Duong,

While I wish you nothing but the best in your personal life, that is your responsiblity, not mine. Nobody forces you to to even read my posts, let alone reply to them. If you're going to post strong opinions to a forum, be prepared to get some feedback. It comes with the territory. I will tell you that I'm very much interested in what you have to say, at least when you're not typing stuff like this:



Oh Ok you don't want that ... I don't know if it's because you like mathematics and objectivity, or because you are American (because I know that for Americans being a "winner" is something more important than everything)


If you don't understand what's wrong with that comment, then I can only assume that you are far more sensitive to what other people say to you, than what you say to other people. While I'm not personally offended by comments like this, at best it's tactless. At worst, I think it's an attempt to be offensive. Citizenship alone does not define a human being, and I hope you know that.

Everything I've said in our discussion is fair game for a forum, whether you like it or not. I have not called you names, insulted your nationality, or told you that you are stupid for your opinions. What I did ask is if you could be more tolerant of other's opinions, and perhaps make less comments like the one above? I may argue a point forcefully, but I always try to be respectful of the person I'm talking to. Sure, if I think you bring a weak argument, I might try to smash that argument into bits. But I only go after the argument, not the person. There's a difference, sir. And with that, I bid you good day.

Cheers,
Dave (That silly American) :wavey:

the graduate
04-28-2009, 03:58 AM
yes he has to pass Pete to be considered the best of them all,I hope he passes Pete this year before the baby is born.

moon language
04-28-2009, 04:38 AM
3:2 is not even you genious.

The information in this thread is incorrect. They are 3-3 on hardcourts having played six times.

duong
04-28-2009, 08:13 AM
Duong,

While I wish you nothing but the best in your personal life, that is your responsiblity, not mine. Nobody forces you to to even read my posts, let alone reply to them. If you're going to post strong opinions to a forum, be prepared to get some feedback. It comes with the territory. I will tell you that I'm very much interested in what you have to say, at least when you're not typing stuff like this:



If you don't understand what's wrong with that comment, then I can only assume that you are far more sensitive to what other people say to you, than what you say to other people. While I'm not personally offended by comments like this, at best it's tactless. At worst, I think it's an attempt to be offensive. Citizenship alone does not define a human being, and I hope you know that.

Everything I've said in our discussion is fair game for a forum, whether you like it or not. I have not called you names, insulted your nationality, or told you that you are stupid for your opinions. What I did ask is if you could be more tolerant of other's opinions, and perhaps make less comments like the one above? I may argue a point forcefully, but I always try to be respectful of the person I'm talking to. Sure, if I think you bring a weak argument, I might try to smash that argument into bits. But I only go after the argument, not the person. There's a difference, sir. And with that, I bid you good day.

Cheers,
Dave (That silly American) :wavey:

Ok thanks for helping me to understand that I'd better not post on these forums.

I will only post the Race and about the rankings and that's all.

By the way, I'm 38 years old, and I know the difference between go after an argument and go after a person.

The fact is that you were only interested in the words of what I wrote and not about the content of what I wrote.

OK, people are often like that on these forums. You are not the first one, I've seen enough about that.

The funny thing about that is that tolerance is the value I cherish most in the world.

Personally I'm not sensitive to the form, but only to the content ; the content here is clear, you're not interested in what I write : only in the words I use.

In that case, I lost my time writing here. That's clear.

ORGASMATRON
04-28-2009, 08:20 AM
Ok thanks for helping me to understand that I'd better not post on these forums.

I will only post the Race and about the rankings and that's all.

By the way, I'm 38 years old, and I know the difference between go after an argument and go after a person.

The fact is that you were only interested in the words of what I wrote and not about the content of what I wrote.

OK, people are often like that on these forums. You are not the first one who tells me that.

Personally I'm not sensitive to the form, but only to the content ; the content here is clear, you're not interested in what I write : only in the words I use.

In that case, I lost my time writing here. That's clear.

Duong i think you may be a little over sensitive here. Heartbroken is one of the most honest posters around here but ive never seen him get personal.

Winners take all
04-28-2009, 09:15 AM
I'm sure that if we ask tennis experts around the globe 90 % agree with that statement. Of course Rafatards excluded...
Those "tennis experts", who are they? Stop using cheap fallacies, dude.

ORGASMATRON
04-28-2009, 09:31 AM
Those "tennis experts", who are they? Stop using cheap fallacies, dude.

Everyone knows Fed is better in his prime on hard then Nadal. NAdal cant even beat Del Mugro in his prime. Hes also better on grass in his prime. 5>1.

Commander Data
04-28-2009, 01:13 PM
Those "tennis experts", who are they? Stop using cheap fallacies, dude.


I had guys like Roche, Cahill, Bollettieri, Günthart, Cahill, Mac, Agassi..

in mind.


The problem with you Rafatrads is that you lack modesty. Nadal is good but he is not (yet) in Feds league. you guys are fighting for a lost cause

ossie
04-28-2009, 01:19 PM
Everyone knows Fed is better in his prime on hard then Nadal. NAdal cant even beat Del Mugro in his prime. Hes also better on grass in his prime. 5>1.
:haha:

Commander Data
04-28-2009, 02:26 PM
:haha::haha::haha:

Collective
04-28-2009, 02:53 PM
Of course he has to break it. Especially after getting destroyed by a talentless moonbaler in every surface. He needs to break it more than ever.

rofe
04-28-2009, 02:57 PM
Yes.

heya
04-28-2009, 06:18 PM
:haha:
Cahill, Bollettieri, Cahill, Mac, Agassi.:eek: LMAO Gilbert and Federer. :inlove:

heartbroken
04-30-2009, 07:36 PM
Hi Duong,

I wonder if our respective writing styles are just clashing a bit? I didn't think you were very nice to me, but then again, you didn't think I was very nice to you either. I don't get the feeling that either of us fully understand the other, but maybe we are both just writing in a manner that is irritating to the other? In that case, let's just call a truce. We can just agree to respect each other's opinions on the tennis matters, and chalk up the rest to conflicting writing styles. Neither of us are bad people, and we can just get back to giving everyone else our respective opinions on tennis!

As far as posting, I think you should keep posting here as much as you want to. Forums are a place for discussion, and sometimes those discussions can get a little passionate. If a forum only had a bunch of people always agreeing with each other, it would probably be the most boring place on the internet. :D Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and you can also bring a unique perspective to the forum with your statistics training. I read your posts in the rankings threads, and I've also read (with great interest) some of your posts to others where you discuss matters related to statistics. I also understand what you mean when you say that there is more to a player's career than just the numbers, and I completely agree. I think you bring some good qualities and perspective to the forum, so I hope you will keep posting, to the extent that you enjoy doing so, and time allows you to!

duong
05-01-2009, 08:22 AM
Hi Duong,

I wonder if our respective writing styles are just clashing a bit? I didn't think you were very nice to me, but then again, you didn't think I was very nice to you either. I don't get the feeling that either of us fully understand the other, but maybe we are both just writing in a manner that is irritating to the other? In that case, let's just call a truce. We can just agree to respect each other's opinions on the tennis matters, and chalk up the rest to conflicting writing styles. Neither of us are bad people, and we can just get back to giving everyone else our respective opinions on tennis!

As far as posting, I think you should keep posting here as much as you want to. Forums are a place for discussion, and sometimes those discussions can get a little passionate. If a forum only had a bunch of people always agreeing with each other, it would probably be the most boring place on the internet. :D Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and you can also bring a unique perspective to the forum with your statistics training. I read your posts in the rankings threads, and I've also read (with great interest) some of your posts to others where you discuss matters related to statistics. I also understand what you mean when you say that there is more to a player's career than just the numbers, and I completely agree. I think you bring some good qualities and perspective to the forum, so I hope you will keep posting, to the extent that you enjoy doing so, and time allows you to!

Hello Dave :).

Normally we should speak about that by PMs but well, I will finish for my part here as you did.

For people who are only interested in the first topic you don't need to read the rest :worship:

Well Dave yes you are right : our respective writing styles are clashing a bit. I had realized it a few days before.

However it's not only relative to you. The form of my writing sometimes irritates and gives the impression that I'm not respectful of the others.

You are not the first one who makes me understand that and this is not the first time it happens to me in a forum.

You said that "citizen alone doesn't define a human being" : I'm not sure if I totally understand that, but it's true that I quite behave on forums as a citizen and not as a "full human being".

First, I'm a dog in Chinese astrology, and if you read at the dogs' astrological meaning, you will maybe understand me more.

Secondly imo (by the way I think if you understand the first sentence of the first message you didn't like as "will not change anything about my opinion" when I wrote "imo", you will maybe be less shocked about that), forums are not a "full human place". For several reasons : the topics make opposite opinions of course, but most importantly when you write with people who don't know each other, there are many misunderstandings not easy to counter. All the more as people usually miss the necessary time to really make them understand each other, and even more especially for you, I and many other people have no time here to really pay attention to speak in a very correct and polite way in order not to shock the others.

I looked at your other messages to better understand you : I can see that you pay a lot of attention to be very polite not to shock other people (it seems that I'm the first person with whom you don't take so many cautions ... maybe it's good as I think it will be easier for you to write this way on forums).

And thirdly still another thing : I'm not only an astrological dog, but also I'm French and was raised in a leftist family. That's why I mainly consider that people and especially people's opinions are mainly the product of their environment and education more than "totally free". This is why sometimes I shock when I make some judgements about what "the Americans think" or "what the French think". I know that it may shock, many French and even more the Americans who consider that individuals are ... pure individuals. Of course I don't ignore at all that fact. I also have a personal life : I know that people are very different. But, especially as far as opinions are concerned, and when I speak with people who I don't know very well, I'm used to considering what they think in association with the environment in which they have lived. I've learnt that it's also a way to be more tolerant to people, I mean not be shocked to what they say ... at least understand it. Because "good people" raised in different environments ... just have different opinions which may be shocking for people from other edducation, but which explain from this environment.

That's why when I say that "Americans like winners" or some other sentences like that, some people may think that I'm intolerant because they consider it as a "bad opinion", but I rather consider it as a way to understand people.

There are huge differences between civilizations in the world. We don't live in a global world with common opinions and only individual differences, individuals who differ. I don't say that's what you think, but I know that's many western people think that, at least they underestimate cultural differences.

I consider that you cannot be effectively tolerant when you don't understand other cultures and how people are the product of their environment.

Well sorry for that long explanation ...

Then to say it briefly :
- my writing style hurts many people
- I think that you pay too much attention to the writing style of people : we speak here quickly and there may be a lot of misunderstandings
- as I'm a "dog" who doesn't care so much for the form and you care a lot at the form, there is a specific problem between us : I've already met people like you including in the real life, we don't fit each other.

To say it another way : on these forums you mainly have two kinds of people :
a - those who want to impose an opinion and/or often their ego
b - people who want to spend a pleasant moment with kinds of "friends", with a cup of tea and biscuits.

You have another (minor unfortunately) purpose of these forums which is to better understand things and share some information. This is less present on tennis forums than on forums about politics or other topics, niot because people are different but mostly because there is less content and information to share.

I think both of us are more concerned on that last purpose than most of the people on this forum.

But I'm also near to the style a, and you are near to the style b.

Well I speak too much ... what shocked me most in what you said is that you said that I was not tolerant and didn't respect the others' opinions : really that's something which hurts my opinions and also the way I want to talk with people. People who make me go away from these forums are never the incorrect people who insult and say bullshits. Because I don't care them.

But when I see that my style hurts people, I'm more affected because I don't want that. But that often happens because of my style : this is a reality.

Anyway, apart from that, there's another reason for me to take less part in forums, which is when I consider that I've taken enough information from it and will not get more. I think this moment has mostly happened and my questions will be more precise from now on.

You should not be bothered by people like me to prevent you from "spending a pleasant moment here", which I think is one of your main purposes here.

You are very nice, and there are many other nice people here. Just be less shocked by the stylme of the others and the misunderstandings. As "Stupid Dream" once told me, MTF (like most other forums) is a zoo and if you consider it like that, I think it's easier to spend some time here.

For my part, I have other reasons to post less, including the fact that I'm going on holiday in one week for one month.

That's OK for me, Dave, I'm sorry if I shocked you sometimes :o
François

ORGASMATRON
05-01-2009, 08:33 AM
:haha:

And you are laughing because? I dont think you have any case until Blanka wins at least 5
Wimbys. But im almost certain Fed will win another one along the line. So make that 6. Thats 5 more in case you loat count :cool:

heartbroken
05-02-2009, 01:34 AM
For several reasons : the topics make opposite opinions of course, but most importantly when you write with people who don't know each other, there are many misunderstandings not easy to counter. All the more as people usually miss the necessary time to really make them understand each other, and even more especially for you, I and many other people have no time here to really pay attention to speak in a very correct and polite way in order not to shock the others.

But, especially as far as opinions are concerned, and when I speak with people who I don't know very well, I'm used to considering what they think in association with the environment in which they have lived. I've learnt that it's also a way to be more tolerant to people, I mean not be shocked to what they say ... at least understand it. Because "good people" raised in different environments ... just have different opinions which may be shocking for people from other edducation, but which explain from this environment.

There are huge differences between civilizations in the world. We don't live in a global world with common opinions and only individual differences, individuals who differ. I don't say that's what you think, but I know that's many western people think that, at least they underestimate cultural differences.

I consider that you cannot be effectively tolerant when you don't understand other cultures and how people are the product of their environment.


Hey duong!

There are some really great points in your writing above, and the parts I've quoted here are especially worth repeating.

By the way, I made my post to you a regular (non-private) message, because I didn't want either of us to get painted as the "bad guy" in the thread. If anyone else did happen to be paying attention to the thread, I didn't want my last post to you to be something that casts you in a bad light. In fact, I understand now that you're one of the truly "good guys" on the forum. Once I realized that our writing styles were causing all of the grief, I wanted to acknowlege that "publicly". Who knows, maybe our discussion can serve as an example for other forum members about tolerance of writing styles and opinions? :)

After re-reading our whole conversation, it's easy for me to see how things went awry. When I read through it again, with a better understanding of your point of view, and your writing style, I see how I could have been better in my choice of words. You mentioned that others have criticized your writing in the past, but I think that probably applies to most of us at one point or another. It's hard to express opinions on a forum and never offend anyone, or never say anything that is irritating to somebody else. I think our conversation is a great example of how there needs to be tolerance on both ends of the conversation. I don't think you need to be any more critical of your writing than anyone else is of their writing.

I know that I tend to write in a style that can be very blunt at times. Sure, I always try to keep it targeted to the point I'm trying to make, but even still, someone could interpret that bluntness as being rude. And, like you, I don't want that, if I can avoid it by being just a little more thoughtful in my choice of words. So, I'm going to be a little less blunt in my own writing from here on out, and also be more careful about my interpretation of other's words.

No apology is needed from your side. Or, if you do owe me an apology, then I owe you one as well.

I'm also not sure how much I will be able to post here in the future, as I have a feeling that life is about to get extremely busy for me. I'm going to have to put my nose in some more textbooks for an extended period of time, and the abundant free time I've enjoyed lately will be a thing of the past. :sad: As a friend said to me the other day, "it sucks to be you". :lol: But, glad to hear that you will be enjoying a nice holiday, so have fun, and be safe, wherever you are headed!

Take care!
Dave

FedFan_2007
05-02-2009, 02:03 AM
Regarding mental ability, I think the answer here is very clear. Nadal was a mental giant from the very beginning of his career - never any fear. Whereas Federer was always having trouble controlling his temper, choking, etc... Nadal will never mentally decline, it will be strictly physical decline. But at the rate hie's winning he'll become undisputed GOAT in about 18 months or so...

finishingmove
05-02-2009, 02:15 AM
it is so refreshing to see a federer fan that has seen the light.

u are an asset to this forum, fedfan_2007.

Florida
05-02-2009, 02:46 AM
Federer does not have to break Sampras record, but he will. I know there is at least two more slams in Federer before he retires.

Rafa = Fed Killa
05-02-2009, 03:08 AM
it is so refreshing to see a federer fan that has seen the light.

u are an asset to this forum, fedfan_2007.

Took some time, but finally some of the fedtards have seen the light.

To the rest of you, there is still time, only the light can save your tennis souls.

Elena.
05-02-2009, 08:44 AM
To be considered the GOAT he should win Roland Garros,even if he wins more slams than Sampras without Roland Garros I will never consider him greatest ,however I already shared my opinions about Federer's luck and the weak competition he had so it's not about quantity here but about quality .