Will Federer become the greatest player of all time? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will Federer become the greatest player of all time?

Luke
11-30-2005, 10:58 PM
Below you can read article written by Andre Jones, please let me know what you think about this art, thank you in advence!

http://inside-tennis.net/index.php?action=article&id=232

“His greatest opponent will be the record books” was how the retired Pete Sampras, winner of 14 Grand Slam titles once diplomatically dealt with the whole question of Roger Federer’s place amongst the all-time greats. Of course, Sampras knows that with his outstanding Grand Slam record many consider him to be the greatest player of all time, but he’s no Mohammed Ali. He’d never shout egotistically “I am the greatest!” He prefers to leave that to others.

Others such as friend and long-term rival Andre Agassi who when asked back in 1998 who he considered to be the five best players of all time, retorted unequivocally; “Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras.” The veteran American’s opinions have shifted a little since then. After suffering an eighth consecutive defeat at the hands of Federer in the US Open final this year, he elevated the Swiss maestro to position of “best ever” with gushing statements like; “He plays the game in a special way. I haven’t seen it before”; “Pete was great, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There’s no place like that with Roger. He’s the best I’ve played against.” Having faced-off against Sampras and Federer in their prime, Agassi should know what he’s talking about. But so does Sampras when he talks about the record books. Agassi concurs when he considered Federer’s task of catching Sampras’ Grand Slam record; “I think the accomplishment of winning that many Slams requires a number of things, including a little bit of luck to make sure you are healthy, and that nothing goes wrong.” Assuming that injury does not blight his career however, there is no doubt in most people’s minds that the young Swiss is equal to the task. He’s already won three consecutive Wimbledon’s, two consecutive US Open’s and an Australian Open title. He’s on a roll. If the next two years are anything like the last two, he will be well on the way to the Grand Slam record. There has not been a more dominant world number one since John McEnroe in 1984, when the tempestuous American recorded an 82-3 win-loss record. Federer had to settle for an 81-4 record this year when he fell at the final hurdle to an inspired and fully fit David Nalbandian in the final of the Masters Cup in Shanghai. Ironically, it is Mcenroe’s career which spells a clear warning to anyone who assumes that Federer’s record will continue unabated. If someone had approached McEnroe after he had taken the US Open title in 1984 and said “that’s your lot” no doubt he would have replied with a few expletives thrown in “You cannot be serious!” At the time many distinguished commentators were describing him as “the best they had ever seen”, “the greatest of all time” etc. Yet his Grand Slam total stalled at 7. Four short of his arch rival Bjorn Borg and Australian legend Rod Laver. Most of those same commentators would not now rate him above those superior Grand Slam winners even if they still think he was a better player simply because his record does not support his claim to “best ever”. McEnroe’s underachievement at Grand Slam level must be one of his greatest disappointments. But it was not entirely his fault. The early retirement of his friend and arch rival Borg after 1981 had a profound detrimental effect on his career. He lost focus and motivation in the months following the Swede’s disappearance and did not win a Slam thereafter until Wimbledon 1983. He did not have the same appetite for the game playing Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl, neither of whom he liked or respected as he did Borg, and duly relinquished his authority at the top of the game until he recaptured the “magic” in 1984.

There is no sign that Federer could succumb to a similar fate. Whether his main rivals are injured, retired or even playing, his appetite for titles, especially the majors will remain undiminished. Going into 2006, he will be the clear favourite for virtually every tournament he enters. The French Open remains the jewel missing in his crown. He said before 2005 started that he was not making it a priority, but I get the feeling it will be in 2006.

All being said, there is no doubt that Federer possesses probably the most complete game the tennis world has ever seen. Like all the other all-time greats his mind sets him apart at the highest level. He has that all important “X” factor, an intangible prerequisite of a champion. When he is fully fit, there are very few that can live with him on a tennis court. Pete Sampras must be quite concerned about the security of his 14 Grand Slam record, and so he should be. Federer is catching up on it fast. Unlike the American, the young Swiss is a threat at all the majors. He is intent on sweeping all before him, including his ultimate foe – the record books.

SLICK
11-30-2005, 11:35 PM
Yeah, great article. Great insight by the author particularly about why McEnroe's Grand Slam total did not reach double figures.
Sampras must be worried that Federer will go on and break his Grand Slam record in the next few years. Also, he knows that if Federer can get at least one French Open, even if he does not quite make 14 Slams, he will be described by most as the "best of the best" because he conquered on all surfaces. 2006 will be a very interesting year if injuries don't get in the way.
Nice article :cool:

DrJules
11-30-2005, 11:52 PM
Failure to win the French Open will always count against Pete Sampras being the greatest ever. He would probably agree himself. Similary, Borg's failure at the US Open and Lendl's failure at Wimbledon count against them. For McEnroe that defeat in the French Open final of 1984 will always be the defeat which hurt him most. If he had won there then he probably would have won in Australia, which was on a more friendly surface for him, at some time in his career and achieved the full set of grand slams.

Only the future will tell how Federer rates. With the number of quality players coming through, in particular Nadal and Gasquet, it will be very difficult. He can do it the easy way by winning in Paris or the difficult way by winning 9 more grand slams.

AgassiDomination
11-30-2005, 11:55 PM
I still say way too early to speculate

Lee
11-30-2005, 11:56 PM
In 2002, after Sampras winning USO, there were so many talks that he's the greatest player ever. Nobody was going to break his record. Blah Blah Blah

In 2005, people already saying Federer is the greatest player ever. He will break many records. Blah Blah Blah

It sounds really funny to me. That's it!

Disclaimer: I consider Federer a great player and he has the potential to break many tennis record.

Lee
11-30-2005, 11:58 PM
Sampras must be worried that Federer will go on and break his Grand Slam record in the next few years. Also, he knows that if Federer can get at least one French Open, even if he does not quite make 14 Slams, he will be described by most as the "best of the best" because he conquered on all surfaces. 2006 will be a very interesting year if injuries don't get in the way.


Wow :worship:

Do you live inside Sampras brain, or heart?

SLICK
12-01-2005, 12:01 AM
Failure to win the French Open will always count against Pete Sampras being the greatest ever. He would probably agree himself. Similary, Borg's failure at the US Open and Lendl's failure at Wimbledon count against them. For McEnroe that defeat in the French Open final of 1984 will always be the defeat which hurt him most. If he had won there then he probably would have won in Australia, which was on a more friendly surface for him, at some time in his career and achieved the full set of grand slams.

Only the future will tell how Federer rates. With the number of quality players coming through, in particular Nadal and Gasquet, it will be very difficult. He can do it the easy way by winning in Paris or the difficult way by winning 9 more grand slams.
Agassi has a career Grand Slam, but nobody would consider him to be the greatest ever, although most would rate him in the top 10 somewhere.
For Fedex to be widely considered to be the best i think he would have to win in Paris and accomplish a double digit Grand Slam total. ;)

SLICK
12-01-2005, 12:05 AM
Wow :worship:

Do you live inside Sampras brain, or heart?
:D I'm sure Pete does not have too many sleepless nights worrying about Federer, but he must be mildly irritated by all the accolades Federer is picking up that once belonged to him.

BlackSilver
12-01-2005, 12:07 AM
:zzz:

BArsonlyone
12-01-2005, 12:17 AM
I think that Roger is on his way to becoming the best player of all-time. If he keeps up his level as he has in the last couple of years, then there is no doubt. Just the look in his eyes tells a lot of what he wants to accomplish in his career. And the fact that Roger's game is not one-dimensional like most of the other greats, should show what kind of a great player he is. I mean Pete wasnt a baseliner, nor was McEnroe, Agassi is a baseliner, but could never play the net. Federer's game is the best that the game has ever seen. He can play from all over the court, and still win. Of course, he will have to win the French, perhaps a calendar grand slam, cause you can never forget another player called Laver, who achieved such things, but then again Laver played in a different era.

DrJules
12-01-2005, 12:18 AM
Agassi has a career Grand Slam, but nobody would consider him to be the greatest ever, although most would rate him in the top 10 somewhere.
For Fedex to be widely considered to be the best i think he would have to win in Paris and accomplish a double digit Grand Slam total. ;)

The trouble with Agassi was that his dedication to tennis in the 90's did tend to be on and off, so although he kept winning majors he never was dominant for any significant period. He was the player who had the game to be the dominant player of the 90's with an ability to play at the highest level at all 4 grand slams and on all surfaces.

He reached the finals of all 4 grand slams at least twice and would have won more grand slams if he had played in Australia before 1995 which turned out to be the surface best suited to his game. On clay and rebound ace Agassi was better than Sampras while Sampras was better than Agassi on Grass and cement. How do you determine who is a better player.

angiel
12-01-2005, 12:19 AM
:D I'm sure Pete does not have too many sleepless nights worrying about Federer, but he must be mildly irritated by all the accolades Federer is picking up that once belonged to him.


Why should he feels irritated? if you say he does not have too many sleepless nights worrying about Federer, you make no sense at all. :mad: :devil:

AgassiDomination
12-01-2005, 12:20 AM
Why should he feels irritated? if you say he does not have too many sleepless nights worrying about Federer, you make no sense at all. :mad: :devil:


Calm down :tape:

Lee
12-01-2005, 12:24 AM
Why should he feels irritated? if you say he does not have too many sleepless nights worrying about Federer, you make no sense at all. :mad: :devil:

Don't worry angiel! I think Sampras actually have many sleepless night changing diapers and/or feeding Ryan. ;)

SLICK
12-01-2005, 12:29 AM
Why should he feels irritated? if you say he does not have too many sleepless nights worrying about Federer, you make no sense at all. :mad: :devil:
Sampras comes across as a pretty chilled kind of guy, but he cares very deeply about his place in history. After working so hard to break the Grand Slam record, it would be natural for him to be irritated by someone who has not yet accomplished half of what he has to be getting accolades as "the best" already. That said, i'm sure he's not obsessive about it :zzz: to the point of not sleeping thinking about it.

Galaxystorm
12-01-2005, 12:35 AM
Don't worry angiel! I think Sampras actually have many sleepless night changing diapers and/or feeding Ryan. ;)

I guess Pete has watched all his wife's movies, so watching them if i were him i would be shit-scared :scared: thinking in her characters as psychopath nanny and leaving her alone with Ryan at home :awww: .

Although i would like to have a wife like Bridgette :inlove:

SLICK
12-01-2005, 12:40 AM
Like the author said, Pete's quote of "Federer's greatest opponent will be the record books [my GS record]" says something about what he thinks about it all. He set the bar very high, and it's up to Federer to reach it.

wimbledonfan
12-01-2005, 03:15 AM
Even if Federer does win 15 slams , what makes you think he'll be able to sit on that record till the day he dies ? Records are always meant to be broken and one day , i'm certain someone will win 30 consecutive finals in a row .

fedpras
12-01-2005, 06:20 AM
[QUOTE=SLICK]Sampras must be worried that Federer will go on and break his Grand Slam record in the next few years. Also, he knows that if Federer can get at least one French Open, even if he does not quite make 14 Slams, he will be described by most as the "best of the best" because he conquered on all surfaces. QUOTE]

Well, Roger would have to win the French and a few more. If he won the French and nothing else for the rest of his career (obviously unlikely, I know), he would have all the career Grand Slame, but only seven Grand Slam titles total.

Supposing Roger wins the French at some point in his career, how many total Slams would he have to win to be considered the greatest? 12 or 13 maybe?

Gigan
12-01-2005, 08:13 AM
David thinks - not!
he plans to win GSs in 2006... ;)

http://www.masters-cup.com/en/players/photogallery/photos/2005-11-20/f_pic-11-20-05-n06-g.jpg

Gigan
12-01-2005, 05:06 PM
Go, David!

Start with AU 2006!
Beat Federer again... ;)

SLICK
12-01-2005, 07:41 PM
[QUOTE=SLICK]Sampras must be worried that Federer will go on and break his Grand Slam record in the next few years. Also, he knows that if Federer can get at least one French Open, even if he does not quite make 14 Slams, he will be described by most as the "best of the best" because he conquered on all surfaces. QUOTE]

Well, Roger would have to win the French and a few more. If he won the French and nothing else for the rest of his career (obviously unlikely, I know), he would have all the career Grand Slame, but only seven Grand Slam titles total.

Supposing Roger wins the French at some point in his career, how many total Slams would he have to win to be considered the greatest? 12 or 13 maybe?
I agree with the author in that Federer will have to conquer the record books to be rated above Sampras (Sampras' thoughts i'm sure). McEnroe was temporarily rated above Borg by many while he was playing until it became apparent that his Grand Slam record would be well short of the enigmatic Swede.

jacobhiggins
12-02-2005, 02:46 AM
I think he will be at the end of his career!

SLICK
12-02-2005, 07:55 PM
Some think he already is, but like Sampras said he will have to beat the record books first to confirm that.

jacobhiggins
12-02-2005, 10:36 PM
I think talent wise and peak playing he is the best we have ever seen, but who would win on a one on one match up and who is the greatest and most accomplished is different!!! I think he will be known as the Peak Best and Most Accomplished best by the end of his career!

almouchie
12-02-2005, 10:50 PM
i love it that many of u are giving PETE SAMPRAS his dues.
like on of u said Agassi has won all 4 GS but nobody will call him the best ever,
SAmpras did something in Tennis & sports in general which is fantastic & uncomprehendable. Tennis is such an individualistic comsuming sport
hbe had barely been retired a few years & ppl are starting to call other players the best ever

almouchie
12-02-2005, 10:51 PM
granted I am bias to Sampras & for me he will always be the best/greatest/talented tennis player & an admirable man
just Muhamad Ali, Miguel Indurian (spanish cyclist & 5 time tour de france champ)
so on

almouchie
12-02-2005, 10:53 PM
Federer is having an amazing run & might go on to break several more records
will he beat sampas 14GS, win RG ? nobody knows
i dont think either of them worries about it to much
Sampras has hos name in history
Federer is trying to make his
thats part of the charm of the game , a new player talent emerging to stir up the old age question

almouchie
12-02-2005, 10:54 PM
Who is the greatest

almouchie
12-02-2005, 10:56 PM
i think this year, the revelation has been the emergence of Nadal, potenetial of Gasquet.
which makes a great prospect for next year, new blood, talent, & hope of more competition.

Gigan
12-02-2005, 11:02 PM
i love it that many of u are giving PETE SAMPRAS his dues.
like on of u said Agassi has won all 4 GS but nobody will call him the best ever...

why not, poor sampras fan? ;)
at least - me, Gigan:
" Andre is best of the best forever already 20 Years long"
Can somebody else be at so high level 20 years?
stupid you... :p

job is done:
David has beaten federer ...
what do you think? will David do it again? ;)
of course yes!!! :)

________________________________
:wavey: Andre Agassi forever :wavey:

Gigan
12-02-2005, 11:48 PM
like on of u said Agassi has won all 4 GS ...

And Yes!
Andre won ALL 4 (FOUR!) GSs!
________________________________
:wavey: Andre Agassi forever :wavey:

sigmagirl91
12-02-2005, 11:59 PM
He certainly has the chance to be. Go, Roger.

SLICK
12-03-2005, 12:01 AM
Yeah, Agassi is a great player who was unfortunate to be in Sampras' era otherwise maybe his GS numbers would be in double figures. But then again without Pete would he have been motivated enough to go to work to improve the way he did after his slump.
My top 10 of the Open era so far would be;
1.Sampras
2.Laver
3.Borg
4.Federer
5.Agassi
6.McEnroe
7.Connors
8.Lendl
9.Becker
10.Edberg

Gigan
12-03-2005, 06:22 AM
My top 10 of the Open era so far would be;
1.Sampras
2.Laver
3.Borg
4.Federer
5.Agassi
6.McEnroe
7.Connors
8.Lendl
9.Becker
10.Edberg


Did you see all of them playing?
Me - only 3-4 of them...how you can speak on all of them? Are you > 60 years old?

My list is shorter ;) :
Andre Agassi is the best of the best!
They say that already 20 years long!
Go, Andre!
You are the man

SLICK
12-03-2005, 07:52 AM
I was a school kid when Borg, McEnroe and Connors were in their prime during the golden era of tennis when those rivalries really caught everyone's imagination. I put Laver second because he won the Grand Slam twice - before the Open era in 1962 and again in 1968. Some put him ahead of Sampras because he won all the Slams more than once.

silverwhite
12-03-2005, 08:35 AM
You mean he's not already the greatest EVA????? :eek:

almouchie
12-03-2005, 08:35 AM
[QUOTE=Gigan]why not, poor sampras fan? ;)
at least - me, Gigan:
" Andre is best of the best forever already 20 Years long"
Can somebody else be at so high level 20 years?
stupid you... :p
QUOTE]

its poor u, AA has not been at the top for 20 years, he had sevral years in 90's when he was out of the radar & that has helped him now being a little fresher than others who burned more fuel

if winning all 4 GS was the criteria for being better than others then Laver twice GS completed would be the best ever no question. but the times, games, tech, everything is changing.

almouchie
12-03-2005, 08:36 AM
the old era & the amateur championship make a different issue
Roy Emerson who played amateur for most of his years winning all these titles when the like of Pacho Gonzalez was playing pro & couldnt play in GS, then after the open era Gonzalez who is an underrated tennis champ beat Emerson no fewer tan 16 times & NEVER lost to Emerson. Few know that
Rivarly is everything in most sports, & especially in tennis

Gigan
12-03-2005, 08:39 AM
I was a school kid when Borg, McEnroe and Connors were in their prime during the golden era of tennis when those rivalries really caught everyone's imagination. I put Laver second because he won the Grand Slam twice - before the Open era in 1962 and again in 1968. Some put him ahead of Sampras because he won all the Slams more than once.

if so, why sampras?
by this logical way you may easely put somebody else on the top,
f.e. ALEXANDER THE GREAT, he "really caught everyone's imagination",
or you yourself ... ;)

Gigan
12-03-2005, 08:47 AM
if winning all 4 GS was the criteria for being better than others....

if you read carefully your posts again in this thread,
you will find that it is your's own criteria...poor-sampras-fan ;)
just shut up!

SLICK
12-03-2005, 09:18 PM
if so, why sampras?
by this logical way you may easely put somebody else on the top,
f.e. ALEXANDER THE GREAT, he "really caught everyone's imagination",
or you yourself ... ;)
I put Sampras ahead of Laver because of his overall record of 14 Slams and finshing end of year world no.1 for 6 years running. Wouldn't be surprised if Federer beat all of Pete's records if he stays healthy.

DrJules
12-03-2005, 09:38 PM
I put Sampras ahead of Laver because of his overall record of 14 Slams and finshing end of year world no.1 for 6 years running. Wouldn't be surprised if Federer beat all of Pete's records if he stays healthy.

Laver would have won more than 14 grand slams and been the player of the year for more than 6 years if he was not excluded from the tennis circuit for being a professional in the middle of his career from 1963 to 1967 inclusive when he was probably at his peak. In reality from 1962 to 1969 inclusive he won 9 of the 12 grand slams he was allowed to enter.

Yes Sampras was possibly the best player since Rod Laver although Borg actually won 11 grand slams out of 21 entered from French Open 1974 to French Open 1981 by the age of 25 when he effectively retired and he only played in the Australian Open once in 1974.

In reality because each generation of athletes tend to be fitter and stronger than the previous generation the tennis player of today would beat the players of yesterday and the players of the future will beat those of today. It is noticable in any sport where time comparisons are possible e.g. swimming, athletics & cycling each new generation beats the times of those of the previous generation. I do not believe tennis to be any different.

AgassiDomination
12-03-2005, 09:45 PM
IF

Bilbo
12-03-2005, 10:15 PM
Agassi has won it all. All 4 GS, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, Masters Cup, he was the oldest #1.

So how can you say Sampras was a better player? :shrug:

almouchie
12-03-2005, 11:05 PM
i guess if u cannt win the argument then u start dissing ppl.
get civilized will u. I thought all Nalbandian fans are mature mannered ppl , I guess i was wrong
u didnt read my post properly either,I was stating facts & didnt diss any1 (player)

SLICK
12-03-2005, 11:43 PM
If Federer continues to dominate the way he has in the last 2 years picking up at least 2-3 slams a year, he could conceivably catch Sampras' 14 slam record well before his 30th birthday. If that includes at least one French Open, Pete will have to concede to Roger.

Lee
12-04-2005, 05:04 AM
i guess if u cannt win the argument then u start dissing ppl.
get civilized will u. I thought all Nalbandian fans are mature mannered ppl , I guess i was wrong
u didnt read my post properly either,I was stating facts & didnt diss any1 (player)

Gigan is a die-hard Agassi fan, almouchie.

Gigan
12-04-2005, 06:35 AM
Agassi has won it all. All 4 GS, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, Masters Cup, he was the oldest #1.

So how can you say Sampras was a better player? :shrug:

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

"Agassi has won it all. All 4 GS, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, Masters Cup, he was the oldest #1."

there is no argument against your criteria!!!

i will add only "20 years of best tennis world can see"

SLICK
12-04-2005, 09:51 PM
Agassi's career was always somewhat dwarfed by Sampras' even though he finally managed to win the French in '99, the one major to elude Sampras. For him to say that Roger is better now than Pete ever was shows the kind of respect and high esteem he has for Federer's game.

Fedex
12-04-2005, 11:41 PM
In 2002, after Sampras winning USO, there were so many talks that he's the greatest player ever. Nobody was going to break his record. Blah Blah Blah

In 2005, people already saying Federer is the greatest player ever. He will break many records. Blah Blah Blah

It sounds really funny to me. That's it!

Disclaimer: I consider Federer a great player and he has the potential to break many tennis record.
Alot can change in 4 years, and so it has.

Fedex
12-04-2005, 11:43 PM
How do you determine who is a better player.
Head to head record, and grand slam totals. I think Agassi was the more complete player, with the ability to win on clay (which Sampras never achieved), but Sampras was the more dominate player by far.

Fedex
12-04-2005, 11:56 PM
Agassi has won it all. All 4 GS, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, Masters Cup, he was the oldest #1.

So how can you say Sampras was a better player? :shrug:
Because Sampras won 14 grand slams and Agassi has won 8.

SLICK
12-06-2005, 07:14 PM
Having just lost in the final of the Masters Cup i think Federer is going to be so focused during the off-season training that he will be extremely difficult to beat in the first few events. If he gets on a roll who would count him out of achieving the Grand Slam (winning all 4 majors in a year) next year. Anyone concur?

SLICK
01-27-2006, 04:11 PM
Grand Slam no:7 is imminent. Baghdatis will do well to take a set.

R.Federer
01-27-2006, 04:58 PM
This may not be answered until Roge retires.
Pete is a true great
But he must also be quite surprise that so little time after he goes, Roge comes along as a realistic challenger to pete's records. I remember Pete says before he retires, "it is difficult to imagine that my record will be broken. But maybe there is some 8 year old kid hitting around somewhere today who will do it". And it was not 8 year old kid, but 20 year old with 1-0 life time record over Pete who is it!

victory1
01-27-2006, 05:13 PM
I think he can win at least 2 of the 4 slams this year, that would take him to 8. My sister feels that this year will be even better then 2004, and he'll win all 4; but to be conservative, she has him winning at least 3, that would take him to 9. And if he does win all 4 like my sister thinks he could do this year, that would make it 10. I think if he wins 10 slams, as long as 1 of them is Rolland Garros, he will definitely be consider the best of all times.

zimzim
01-27-2006, 05:23 PM
Federer would not break Sampras's 14 GS record....I just know it, don't ask me how.

stebs
01-27-2006, 06:19 PM
It is all opinion. Different people use different criteria to judge the best in the world. I like to use a mixture of all. For me Roger would have to do the following to be considered the best ever:

Win Roland Garros
Win at least 10 grand slams
Finish as number one player at the end of '06 and at least two other years.

Surely he would be uncontested best ever if he does the following:

Wins RG
Does the grand slam one year
finishes year end number one for four more years
gets over 14 slams
gets two of every slam

This is super far fectehd and i dont believe it will happen. I think Roger will be lucky to keep playing without a major injury as he has the last couple of years.

SLICK
02-01-2006, 12:12 PM
Federer would not break Sampras's 14 GS record....I just know it, don't ask me how.
I think he will if he says healthy and motivated. Loved the way he said to Baghdatis shaking the trophy "i hope you know what this means to me!"
He's going after Sampras' record no question. He will need to improve on 1st serve firepower to get more cheap points. He does not yet possess "Pistol" Pete's ability to ace his way out of trouble, but has to rely on superior skill and mental strength.
I think he may well finish on 16 or 17 slams including 2/3 RG's.

Black Adam
02-01-2006, 02:03 PM
:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

"Agassi has won it all. All 4 GS, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, Masters Cup, he was the oldest #1."

there is no argument against your criteria!!!

i will add only "20 years of best tennis world can see"
:rocker2: These criterias are enough to say that the Ageless One is one of the greatest players of all time if not the best :yeah: If he had played more AO's in his prime he would have compansated the 14-8 grand slam difference between him and Pete, he might have ended up with 11-15 slams (USO 2006 being among them)

From the moment Roger get the Carreer slam, spends more weeks at number and an Olympoic gold then he will be the best ever imo.

PamV
02-01-2006, 02:19 PM
I read McEnroe's book and it appeared that he didn't have the intense interest in tennis and in setting records that Roger does. I don't think he even enjoyed playing. McEnroe was side tracked by the fact that he married Tatum O'Neil and got involved in drugs and the Hollywood jet-set party scene. Tennis wasn't his priority.

He said that Borg was treated like a rock star, but he felt when Borg lost to him a few times his ego made him stop playing. Back then....I am supposing that the media wasn't talking so much about if a player would reach the all time slam record or not. I think they simply labled someone as "The Best Ever" based on how dominate they were at the time.

PamV
02-01-2006, 02:25 PM
the old era & the amateur championship make a different issue
Roy Emerson who played amateur for most of his years winning all these titles when the like of Pacho Gonzalez was playing pro & couldnt play in GS, then after the open era Gonzalez who is an underrated tennis champ beat Emerson no fewer tan 16 times & NEVER lost to Emerson. Few know that
Rivarly is everything in most sports, & especially in tennis

I think it's like comparing applese to oranges to compare today with the era of Laver. Back in his day tennis was not promoted world wide the way it is now......so the quality of the top 100 was not as good. Because tennis players make more money now there are more people all over the world taking the sport up and they can afford to devote more time to practice and training etc. Plus the rackets make for harder shots and players have to be faster to get to those shots.

RogiFan88
02-01-2006, 06:00 PM
ask this in about 10 yrs or so after Rogi has retired... even then there will be others after him making tennis history

ExpectedWinner
02-01-2006, 06:46 PM
If he had played more AO's in his prime he would have compansated the 14-8 grand slam difference between him and Pete, he might have ended up with 11-15 slams (USO 2006 being among them)



What a load of bs, there's no place for ifs in sports. If he'd played all that, he'd have retired by now. Most probably, his 1999-2001 run wouldn't have happened either.

stebs
02-01-2006, 07:05 PM
If he had played more AO's in his prime he would have compansated the 14-8 grand slam difference between him and Pete, he might have ended up with 11-15 slams (USO 2006 being among them)


Maybe so but the obvious flaw in this is that he didn't. you might as well say if Federer had won all the grand slams in the past four years he would already have beaten Pete's record.

tangerine_dream
04-25-2007, 09:49 PM
Bumping an old thread but I found this:

Agassi Says Federer Needs French Open Win to Be All-Time Best

By Mason Levinson, Jerry Azar and Scott Soshnick

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Roger Federer must win the French Open to be considered the greatest tennis player in history, Grand Slam champion Andre Agassi said.

A title for Federer in Paris in June would make him the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to win four consecutive Grand Slam events and the first since Agassi in 1999 to claim each of them in his career.

Agassi completed his collection at the French, where the slowing effect of clay has been a disadvantage for Federer, the world's No. 1 player. Federer lost the last two finals to Rafael Nadal.

"There is no question that for him to be considered the best of all time, he needs to find a way to win on every surface,'' Agassi, 36, said in an interview today.

Agassi, whose career ended in 2006, also said he hopes that Federer's quest to become the game's greatest player will draw more interest in the sport. It also would boost tennis if Federer's dominance were challenged by Nadal, a Spaniard who holds a 5-0 edge on clay over the 25-year-old Swiss.

"If we could watch history and at the same time see him develop a rivalry, that would be the best of both worlds,'' said Agassi, who won eight Grand Slam events.

On surfaces other than clay, there has been little challenge to Federer. He is a 10-time Grand Slam champion, four behind the record set by Pete Sampras, who also failed to win at Roland Garros.

Federer has won 47 singles titles on the ATP Tour, capturing Wimbledon, a grass event, four times, and the U.S. and Australian Opens, on hard courts, three times apiece. He's been the world's top-ranked player since February 2004, a record for consecutive weeks atop the sport.

Winning Streak

Nadal, who is 14-0 at Roland Garros, has won 68 straight clay-court matches, topping Federer 6-4, 6-4 on April 22 to win the Monte Carlo Masters.

Federer, who is right-handed, shows little emotion on court. Nadal, a 20-year-old left-hander who is ranked No. 2, hops and pumps his fist on big points.

"They're two dynamic personalities that are completely opposite,'' Agassi said. "That's what existed when you looked at (John) McEnroe and (Bjorn) Borg, or Pete and myself.''

Federer and Nadal may meet on clay at the Rome Masters and Hamburg Masters next month before a possible French Open dual in Paris, which begins May 28. Federer is a 9-4 choice with U.K. bookmaker Ladbrokes to beat Nadal on clay this year.

Agassi said that if he were Federer's coach, he would recommend greater patience against Nadal on clay.

"It's a big task for Fed,'' he said. "Sixty-eight people have tried and 68 times in a row it hasn't happened.''

Gap closing?

Speaking before Roger Federer lost again to Rafael Nadal on clay, which was not a great shock, Andre Agassi professed tremendous surprise that the man he calls "Fed" would lose twice to Guillermo Cañas on hard courts.

"It was amazing to watch Cañas beat him twice," Agassi said. "When you look at it, it's hard not to conclude that Fed's not playing him as smart as he could be. But his game is still one that shines above everybody's. At the same time, (Cañas' victories) give a lot of hope to the field and starts to bridge a gap that people thought was impossible.

"But it's going to have to happen a lot of times for me to believe the field is getting closer."

Agassi believes Federer is the greatest player he ever faced, ranking him above his favorite nemesis, Pete Sampras.

guga2120
04-25-2007, 09:53 PM
"There is no question that for him to be considered the best of all time, he needs to find a way to win on every surface,'' Agassi, 36, said in an interview today.
totally agree, to be the GOAT he needs all of them.

SBruguera
04-26-2007, 02:36 AM
Who´s the GOAT? Childish matter.

I can understand some people here debating about this issue, searching stats...

What I can´t understand is why the former champions are spending their time talking about this. Do they have a life?

soraya
04-26-2007, 06:53 AM
totally agree, to be the GOAT he needs all of them.
Then we have a goat, why look further? AGASSI!!!!

Mimi
04-26-2007, 07:33 AM
he can and he will, even though i love pete, i am sure that roger will break all pete's records soon :sad: :wavey:

Kolya
04-26-2007, 07:49 AM
Lets see Federer break Roy Emerson's 28 GS titles :haha:

Byrd
04-26-2007, 08:34 AM
Its funny that if Nadal wasn't playing on the circuit, he would of been called the GOAT and most probably lost motivation in playing anymore, funny how life is.