Johnny Mac states that if Fed wins RG, he's the best ever: wrong!!! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Johnny Mac states that if Fed wins RG, he's the best ever: wrong!!!

sawan66278
06-09-2006, 10:14 PM
I just read that Johnny Mac stated that if Fed wins RG, he will pass Sampras and Laver as the best player ever. I think this comment is truly short-sighted, bordering on insane. No doubt, Roger's accomplishment would be incredible. But to place Roger ahead of so many greats without the accomplishments necessary is utterly deplorable and disrespectful of the legacies of these players.

In my mind, while Roger might very well END UP being the best player ever, there are many reasons he should not be considered as such. If he wins RG, I would put him at the level of Andre Agassi...the only other man since Laver to win all four majors in his career...

R.Federer
06-09-2006, 10:15 PM
Now whose opinion shall we lean towards? One of the tennis greats, or posters on MTF?.... Just kidding. To each their own opinion. In fact, there is a poll running right now on MTF for you to place your vote and say this is insane

oneandonlyhsn
06-09-2006, 10:19 PM
I am a huge Fed fan and I think JMac is full of :bs: One cant be called the best ever until at the end of his/her career

MisterQ
06-09-2006, 10:23 PM
It's interesting that McEnroe holds the RG trophy in such esteem. In effect, he's arguing against his own credentials, being someone who lacks it himself (though he came so agonizingly close :sad: ). It's rather admirable, actually... many great players choose to prioritize the things that they themselves did well when talking about matters of historical greatness. Makes them look better. :lol:

DrJules
06-09-2006, 10:37 PM
It's interesting that McEnroe holds the RG trophy in such esteem. In effect, he's arguing against his own credentials, being someone who lacks it himself (though he came so agonizingly close :sad: ). It's rather admirable, actually... many great players choose to prioritize the things that they themselves did well when talking about matters of historical greatness. Makes them look better. :lol:


FO 1984 final still hits John hard. For the first 2 sets against Lendl he played outstanding tennis and looked exceptional on a clay court, BUT then the bubble burst and the Lendl won in 5 sets.

Raul-Lopez
06-09-2006, 10:40 PM
I agree with John . If Federer win will be the best in the history.. but the problem is he never won RG if nadal is alive. (i think)

Chloe le Bopper
06-09-2006, 10:40 PM
It's interesting that McEnroe holds the RG trophy in such esteem. In effect, he's arguing against his own credentials, being someone who lacks it himself (though he came so agonizingly close :sad: ). It's rather admirable, actually... many great players choose to prioritize the things that they themselves did well when talking about matters of historical greatness. Makes them look better. :lol:
Like Nav and Sampras, you mean? :angel:

nsidhan
06-09-2006, 10:45 PM
There is nothing like best player ever. You cannot compare across eras. He could end up being the best player of his time.

NYCtennisfan
06-09-2006, 10:56 PM
It's interesting that McEnroe holds the RG trophy in such esteem. In effect, he's arguing against his own credentials, being someone who lacks it himself (though he came so agonizingly close ). It's rather admirable, actually... many great players choose to prioritize the things that they themselves did well when talking about matters of historical greatness. Makes them look better.

It's really interesting to see how easily JMAC acknowledges the greatness of other players being an all-time great himself. I never thought he would be like this when I was watching him when I was young.

JMAC also has talked numerous times about how much that loss to Lendl in the 84 RG final hurt and that he gets a little sick to his stomach when he first looks at the courts of RG because it reminds him of that loss.

maskedmuffin
06-09-2006, 10:57 PM
opinions are opinions, but i believe hes right.

Hell i think the evidence lies in the facts that the greats from the past era, almost all in unison are stating that federer is one of those "special few" who "Transcends generations"

If you want to make this about sampras and federer, I would be happy to do so, but mac has been privileged enough to watch federer and sampras in their respective primes, rack up titles and GS, and honestly he is just awe struck at his shotmaking, much like all of us are, when hes playing on the absolute pinnacle of his game.

Guys, be serious here, please take down your rose colored glasse and just ask yourself this, When sampras was in big big trouble in points, what could you almost ALWAYS guarantee he would come up with? The answer would be, if serving
a) greatly placed 1st serve

followed by cat like quickness to net for either
a-1) insanely incredible half volley

or a-2) Overhead smash with authority

When he was on the receiving side and sensed the opportunity, you would probably see one of his

b-1) Incredible running forehand cross court, probably one of the best in the game

or

b-2) *gasp*, an actual occasional clutch backhand, that would so shock the opponent (circa 1995) that it would usually lull you out of your state of half-drooling sleep to go "OMG HOW DID HE DO THAT!"


Thats not a knock on sampras, but that was basically the nuts and bolts of his "specialness", the ability to come up with those kindsa magical shots


Fedex on the other hand comes up with everything sampras ever came up with, EXCEPT the deft half volley and "overhead slam WITH AUTHORITY"

But here is where hes got sampras beat. He does the other things, the quickness, the beautiful backhands, the incredible forehand, from almost ALL the tennis positions possible, and usually while in the middle of a HEATED tennis exchange with another player involving balls that have greater spin and pace than 5 years ago (thats simply due to changes in technology and court surfaces).

Federer doesnt just "come up with the goods" for short bursts, and then depend on his serve to basically finish off the rest of the game, half lulling the audience to sleep. He CONSTANTLY is coming up with SHOTS, ANGLES, TOUCH, DEPTH, SPINS, SLICES....

This is simply what has caught the eye of one Johnny Mac...simply why you hear him sometimes in mid sentence simply let out a laugh, as if showing, from one hall of famer to another "that was just...that was..how do you DO THAT! (in a macenroe esque tone)

Very very rarely did you see Johnny doing that in the mid 90's when commentating on a sampras final, be it at wimbledon or US open. He would usually say that again, on those clutch serves, when he would pretty much guess "yep ace up the tee" before the serve occured on triple breaker, and proceed to watch him follow through on the prognostications made just a second earlier. OR you would see him and mary C (carillo) marvel at the air he got on the overhead smash, or the deftness in his "sofft" little half volley "Dropper"

But not nearly as consistantly as he does watching federer.

Frankly folks, if you dont get my post, ill summarize it succintly by a simple quote:

"greatness knows when greatness is being created"....and this is whats happening in the case not only of Mcenroe, but others like the Beckers, Lendls, Borgs, etc.

Federer makes you go "wow" in way more manners than a sampras ever did...and i remember watching sampras in his "all court" prime in 1993-1996

MisterQ
06-09-2006, 11:00 PM
It's really interesting to see how easily JMAC acknowledges the greatness of other players being an all-time great himself. I never thought he would be like this when I was watching him when I was young.

JMAC also has talked numerous times about how much that loss to Lendl in the 84 RG final hurt and that he gets a little sick to his stomach when he first looks at the courts of RG because it reminds him of that loss.

Yeah, 84RG kills him. :(

I remember John saying at one point (I believe it was a few years ago, when he and Agassi both had 7 slams) that Agassi was a greater player than he was, because Andre had won all four. It surprised me at the time, because I would personally have ranked them about equally.

R.Federer
06-09-2006, 11:09 PM
It's interesting that McEnroe holds the RG trophy in such esteem. In effect, he's arguing against his own credentials, being someone who lacks it himself (though he came so agonizingly close :sad: ). It's rather admirable, actually... many great players choose to prioritize the things that they themselves did well when talking about matters of historical greatness. Makes them look better. :lol:
That's the hallmark of a great player who is not worried about his spot in history-- he is secure enough in his achievements & where he stands that he doesn'tneed to pull others down to make himself look better.
I like JMac a lot - he is not shy to give credit where credit is due.

Allez
06-09-2006, 11:09 PM
IF Roger were to win RG somehow, he would have only won 8 slams. Same number as Agassi. 6 less than Sampras. He has a long way to go yet before being mentioned alongside those players in terms of greatness. Is he the most talented player ever. In my mind YES. However talent and greatness are NOT the same thing.

NYCtennisfan
06-09-2006, 11:26 PM
Yeah, 84RG kills him. :(

I remember John saying at one point (I believe it was a few years ago, when he and Agassi both had 7 slams) that Agassi was a greater player than he was, because Andre had won all four. It surprised me at the time, because I would personally have ranked them about equally.


JMAC also acknowledges that Borg's 11 slams consisting of all French Opens and Wimbledons including 4 years with the back-to-back in the same year is the greatest of all lifetime achievements in the sport. He also said that if he had won RG, he could be thrown in the mix of the very top echelon of the greatest players of all time i.e. Laver, Borg, and Sampras.

IF Federer wins Sunday, he still does not have the all-tme credentials, but no men's player has ever dominated the tour the way Federer has in the past 2.5 years.

Deboogle!.
06-09-2006, 11:34 PM
Opinions cannot be "wrong" - if Johnny Mac thinks that, it's his right, but he's not "wrong." where's Brian (and his sig) when we need him.

sawan66278
06-10-2006, 02:27 AM
Believe me, Federer amazes me as a player, but what I truly hate in our society is the tendency to go with "what have you done for me lately" mentality. Rather than savor the past, one is always searching for the next best thing. Federer, in my estimation, may be the most complete player of all time. However, the objective of the sport is to win matches, by winning points in any form or fashion (be it dull or exciting). For example, Goran won Wimbledon with basically the greatest first serve ever, and Andre Agassi won Wimbledon with the best return game ever...Andre could not serve like Goran, and Goran could never return like Andre...However, both achieved their objective: to win Wimbledon.

Why do I believe Johnny Mac is mistaken (and I must note that other greats have not annoited Federer the potential greatest of all time...Connors, Wilander,Borg, and Lendl being a few of those not yet ready to give him the "crown".

To begin, Roger is playing in error with the least amount of great competition. How many players are headed for the Hall of Fame in the current crop. Look at the top ten players from the early 80's and 90's. Lendl, Mac, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Borg, Agassi....these are legends. Though no fault of his own, Fed's "challenging peers" include Gaudio, Lub, Blake, Roddick, and Davydenko...incredible players, but NOT close to being legends. Nadal is the only one I can see possibly in the above category. As Jimmy Connors recently states, he would have loved to play in the present era...an era where guys are happy to make it to the semis or finals...or even just being in the top 50 because the paychecks are so great. For an interesting look, take a look at Connors career earnings vs. Sampras', particularly in relation to the numbers of titles...it will amaze you. Connors and Wilander both stated that their peers went out on the court, regardless of the surface, with the idea that could win their matches...Edberg believed he could win the French, and Wilander believed he could win Wimbledon...

Second, the grand slams are not the only marks of greatness...Sampras ended as the year-end number one SIX years in a row...This year will be Roger's third...

Third, Davis Cup is also a true indication of greatness...Look at Borg and Mac's record (or Becker's and Edberg's) and history in the Cup...Roger has not achieved anything of significance in the Cup...

In my opinion, in no particular order, the time six players of all time are: Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, Mac, and Agassi...will Roger enter this elite group...very possible...but lets not conclude our tale without reading the final chapter... ;)

BlackSilver
06-10-2006, 02:41 AM
No news here

McEnroe vomits much more shit than speech helpful things

mdhallu
06-10-2006, 02:44 AM
the only reason johnny mac is so quick to overlook sampras and place Fed above him is because he never liked Sampras. The thing people need to understand is that winning a Grand Slam title also entails a bit of luck in terms of players on your side of the draw...Sampras came close by making it to the SemiFinal...that means he was good enough to potentially win the title...in my opinion this Grand Slam has been very easy for Federer to get to the Finals...by winning it bascially his only challenge will be Nadal...Federer is a very good player, but SAMPRAS SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED..

sawan66278
06-10-2006, 02:50 AM
Mdhallu...I agree with you completely...

LLeytonRules
06-10-2006, 02:52 AM
Winning RG will secure his place, he knows its just the beginning of things to come barring injury.

LLeytonRules
06-10-2006, 02:53 AM
Nobody will forget Sampras's accomplishments but Roger is no doubt a better player on slow surfaces then Pete ever was.

PamV
06-10-2006, 02:56 AM
In my opinion, in no particular order, the time six players of all time are: Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, Mac, and Agassi...will Roger enter this elite group...very possible...but lets not conclude our tale without reading the final chapter... ;)

Most of the great players put Roger in that group you mention. In fact Borg said so recently.

I don't buy your theory that the current competition is weak. That's just sour grapes. For example.....compare who Agassi faced in his RG final to who Roger is facing. Agassi faced a #100 ranked Medvedev.....hardly as strong a clay player as Nadal. If Roger wins one more Major he will tie Agassi with winning 8 majors, but Roger has won more Wimby's which carries more prestige than Agassi's 4 AO titles. Basically give Roger enough time and he's probably going to reach at least 10 - 14 majors spread over all surfaces.

McEnroe said that Roger's game appears like the greatest in history but he still has to back it up with results. That's true.

Actually though I don't think it makes sense to keep speaking in terms of history when Roger still might play another 6 or 7 years. I think it holds Roger back and makes him too nervous to keep talking about history of this or that victory.

mangoes
06-10-2006, 02:58 AM
In my opinion, in no particular order, the time six players of all time are: Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, Mac, and Agassi...will Roger enter this elite group...very possible...but lets not conclude our tale without reading the final chapter... ;)


So the start of this thread is motivated by a desire to not see Sampras overlooked??? Well, I think Sampras' place in the history books is branded so no need to get worried..........

Furthermore, Roger has entered that "elite" group of players. What is being decided now is the "pecking order" and a win at RG will play a determining factor in that decision..........

Pigpen Stinks
06-10-2006, 03:02 AM
the only reason johnny mac is so quick to overlook sampras and place Fed above him is because he never liked Sampras. The thing people need to understand is that winning a Grand Slam title also entails a bit of luck in terms of players on your side of the draw...Sampras came close by making it to the SemiFinal...that means he was good enough to potentially win the title...in my opinion this Grand Slam has been very easy for Federer to get to the Finals...by winning it bascially his only challenge will be Nadal...Federer is a very good player, but SAMPRAS SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED..

Disagree. Mac was a huge Sampras fan and supporter. He just thinks Roger is better.

PamV
06-10-2006, 03:04 AM
the only reason johnny mac is so quick to overlook sampras and place Fed above him is because he never liked Sampras. The thing people need to understand is that winning a Grand Slam title also entails a bit of luck in terms of players on your side of the draw...Sampras came close by making it to the SemiFinal...that means he was good enough to potentially win the title...in my opinion this Grand Slam has been very easy for Federer to get to the Finals...by winning it bascially his only challenge will be Nadal...Federer is a very good player, but SAMPRAS SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED..

I agree that Sampras shouldn't be overlooked. But remember that Roger made it to the RG SF last year also......if that's what you are counting.

Of course luck of the draw makes a big difference. I don't see that Roger's path to the final was any easier than Nadal's path. It seemed to me that all of Nadal's opponents were not adept on clay. Djockovic retired. How was Roger's draw easier than Nadal's?

Sampras has had easy draws in the past too. Remember his Wimbeldon final against Pioline....what a joke that was.

PamV
06-10-2006, 03:09 AM
Disagree. Mac was a huge Sampras fan and supporter. He just thinks Roger is better.

I agree. I never heard Mac criticize Sampras. What's up with that?

acharlesmobile
06-10-2006, 03:10 AM
so is JMAC saying Fed is the "best" ever? or the "greatest" ever? Cause he's not yet the greatest. Not for another 2, 3 yeaars where he can rack up 8 more GS wins.

But i was looking at some of Smpras's records in the ATPtennis.,comaand i see him losing before the quarterfinals in many tournaments, even in his "peak" years. Here he's not losing to the big names, but relatively small fries. So he wasn't exactly dominating the tour. Nontheless, are these Federer's peak years? Who knows? But i still don't see him losing before the quarterfinals, or semis for that matter, very often.

The only thing we can do to determine if Federer is better than than those legends were is to send him on a time machine to compete with them in the same era. But alas, we can't do that. So we can only look at results in determining greatness. But IMO, i think Federer is the best ever, just by the sheer fact that he can do anything you can imagine on court and win the match. And if he can beat Nadal in the final, it's proving that he has the rare ability to adapt and change his game to overcome even a phenomenon, as long as he consistently beats Nadal in the future.

PamV
06-10-2006, 03:11 AM
So the start of this thread is motivated by a desire to not see Sampras overlooked??? Well, I think Sampras' place in the history books is branded so no need to get worried..........

Furthermore, Roger has entered that "elite" group of players. What is being decided now is the "pecking order" and a win at RG will play a determining factor in that decision..........

Well said. Furthermore, it's not really like Mac was doing Roger a favor to expound on the importance of the final. It seems if anything it's only going to make Roger nervous and play worse.

PamV
06-10-2006, 03:15 AM
But IMO, i think Federer is the best ever, just by the sheer fact that he can do anything you can imagine on court and win the match. And if he can beat Nadal in the final, it's proving that he has the rare ability to adapt and change his game to overcome even a phenomenon, as long as he consistently beats Nadal in the future.

I agree. Actually to beat Nadal at all in a French Open final is extraordinary whether or not Roger would beat him consistently in the future, or not. Can you imagine Sampras beating Kuerten at the FO final?

LLeytonRules
06-10-2006, 03:16 AM
This is the biggest stage for Roger now.I would be dissapointed if he came out nervous.He needs to control that.I figured he would be more pump up.He should like challenges.

angiel
06-10-2006, 03:20 AM
Disagree. Mac was a huge Sampras fan and supporter. He just thinks Roger is better.


You have got to be kidding me Pigpen Stinks :confused: John McEnroe has never like Pete Sampras, never and that is the true, as for been a hugh fan and supporter of Pete, I would really say you are talking through your ass on that, supporter of Sampras my foot, not Mac, name us somebody else please. :sad: :sad:


With a name like yours i can see where you get your idea from, like him you say. :( :confused:

sawan66278
06-10-2006, 03:20 AM
I completely disagree with PamV; it is not sour grapes...

The reality of the situation is that, while Agassi did win his only RG against lowely ranked Medvedev, he was also in the RG final two other times...losing to Andres Gomez and Jim Courier...

However, it should be noted that grass should have been Andre's weakest surface...and yet, when he won his lone Wimbledon title, he beat (in consecutive matches)...Becker, Johnny Mac, and Goran (all Wimbledon CHAMPIONS) to win the title...not to criticize Fed...but you beat along the way, Ancic, Massu, and two qualifiers...among others...lots of Grand Slam history there...

Again, longevity and record in grand slams MUST be taken into consideration...Lendl was in the most grand slam finals in the open era, and Borg had the best winning percentage in the majors in history...

As far as Sampras being the greatest better, he may very well be, but I really feel Borg and Connors cannot be left out of the discussion...Remember, Connors won the U.S. Open on all three surfaces (clay, grass, and hard courts)...and made the U.S. Open semis at age 38!!!! And I believe Borg never even played the Australian...so there you go..

Besides, to me, the fairest evaluation of talent with respect to grand slams is the U.S. Open...a surface that favors no one style of play...and Sampras has five of these, Johnny Mac has four of these, Connors has three of these, as does Lendl...Andre has two...Roger has two...let's see where he ends up... ;)

LLeytonRules
06-10-2006, 03:24 AM
Give me a break, Goran is such a choker.Watch that wimbledon in 98 and it shows u how much this guy choked in a big spot.Everybody talks about Becker, this guy was on the decline in the 90s.Come up with something better.I can argue that Agassi got better when he got older.

angiel
06-10-2006, 03:26 AM
I agree. I never heard Mac criticize Sampras. What's up with that?


PamV take it from me Mac dont like Pete sampras, and how long have you been watching tennis anyway? He criticize Pete and bad mouth every chance he got, I can remember all those Davis Cup when Pete Say he is not playing, always on his case and if Andre refuse to play - mum was his lips, not a peep out of him, he dont like Pete, but let me ask you - what about Mac himself. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mdhallu
06-10-2006, 03:26 AM
But i was looking at some of Smpras's records in the ATPtennis.,comaand i see him losing before the quarterfinals in many tournaments, even in his "peak" years. Here he's not losing to the big names, but relatively small fries. So he wasn't exactly dominating the tour. Nontheless, are these Federer's peak years? Who knows? But i still don't see him losing before the quarterfinals, or semis for that matter, very often.


Sampras made it to Grand Slam Semi-finals and Finals 9 time without winning the title! The reason that I think Sampras is a better "tennis player" is not because he is more complete but because I think if you put him head-to-head against Federer in his prime...he would win more. The reason he would win more is because he has the greatest serve ever and in tennis the most important weapon is the serve. I agree that Federer is a better shot-maker and has more variety but as long as you can hold your serve then someone can have all the veriety in the world and it won't matter. Furthermore, Sampras was the type of player who always exerted just enough energy to beat his opponents so in cases where he has lost in Grand Slams such as to Federer (Wimbledon) or to Safin (US OPEN) I believe he underestimated his opponents. Some may ask why did tended to exert only enough energy and the reason, which makes him even greater, is the fact that he has thalassemia minor, an inherited disease that causes anemia. Since this is a disease which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of red blood cells—vital for athletic activity—this makes his achievements all the more astounding.

LLeytonRules
06-10-2006, 03:29 AM
Pete had a big serve but Roger can return with the best of them.Roger has a better return game and his forehand has more variety.

mangoes
06-10-2006, 03:29 AM
PamV take it from me Mac dont like Pete sampras, and how long have you been watching tennis anyway? He criticize every chance he got, I can remember all those Davis Cup when Pete Say he is not playing, always on his case and if Andre refuse to play - mum was his lips, not a peep out of him, he dont like Pete, but let me ask you - what about Mac himself. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I was wondering how long it would take you to crawl out of your little hole and beg Rafa to win as to protect Sampras. Part of life is moving on and appreciating the present. Sampras has made his history and will forever be a tennis legend...... If things were left to you, the history books of tennis would be closed with the ending of Sampras career :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mangoes
06-10-2006, 03:34 AM
Sampras made it to Grand Slam Semi-finals and Finals 9 time without winning the title! The reason that I think Sampras is a better "tennis player" is not because he is more complete but because I think if you put him head-to-head against Federer in his prime...he would win more. The reason he would win more is because he has the greatest serve ever and in tennis the most important weapon is the serve. I agree that Federer is a better shot-maker and has more variety but as long as you can hold your serve then someone can have all the veriety in the world and it won't matter. Furthermore, Sampras was the type of player who always exerted just enough energy to beat his opponents so in cases where he has lost in Grand Slams such as to Federer (Wimbledon) or to Safin (US OPEN) I believe he underestimated his opponents. Some may ask why did tended to exert only enough energy and the reason, which makes him even greater, is the fact that he has thalassemia minor, an inherited disease that causes anemia. Since this is a disease which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of red blood cells—vital for athletic activity—this makes his achievements all the more astounding.

Why is this even being debated now??? Everyone has an opinion on this. Personally, I think Federer in his prime would beat Sampras in his prime. But, we will never know so let's just respect these two guys and what one has accomplished and the other is accomplishing. These guys represent two different generations. I don't like the comparisons. Let's just respect the past, appreciate the present and look forward to the future.

McEnroe is entitled to his opinion. I've never heard him say negative things about Pete........but who knows with him. His hatred of Serena and Venus is so blatant that I am figuring he would have no problem expressing his dislike of Sampras.

nobama
06-10-2006, 03:38 AM
Could someone give some examples of Mac's hatred of Sampras? I've never heard him say bad things about Pete.

angiel
06-10-2006, 03:44 AM
I agree. Actually to beat Nadal at all in a French Open final is extraordinary whether or not Roger would beat him consistently in the future, or not. Can you imagine Sampras beating Kuerten at the FO final?


PamV why dont we wait until he does beat him, since he has not done so yet your point is invalid, and yea I can see Pete Beating Kuerten in A French Open final, since they never played in one - Pete record in grand slam finals is 14-4 my dear, remember that before you talk. :mad: :mad:

mdhallu
06-10-2006, 03:45 AM
Could someone give some examples of Mac's hatred of Sampras? I've never heard him say bad things about Pete.

He doesn't hate Sampras but from watching his commentary throughout the years he has always rooted against Sampras and throughout the years their personalities have clashed. I remember during the 2002 US Open Final all the commentators were in astonishment and praising Sampras except for Johnny Mac and everytime Agassi would beat him in a point McEnroe would get more excited than everyone else who knew that this would probably be the end of Sampras's career.

angiel
06-10-2006, 03:47 AM
Could someone give some examples of Mac's hatred of Sampras? I've never heard him say bad things about Pete.


Where have you been the last 15 years when Pete was playing mirkland?? :( :confused:

sammy2
06-10-2006, 03:49 AM
Rod Laver mustn't be overlooked as the greatest ever. Consider that because he turned professional and was unable to play in the Grand Slams for over 4-5 years until the ITF allowed pros to play, his record would be far greater. I think it will take many years for another player to surpass Laver - no of Grand Slam wins doesn't necessarily count here.

nobama
06-10-2006, 03:49 AM
Where have you been the last 15 years when Pete was playing mirkland?? :( :confused:Can I have an example please? I've seen plenty of Pete's matches and don't remember McEnroe being anti-Sampras. Ok maybe he liked Agassi better (and I don't know that, just guessing), but so what?

angiel
06-10-2006, 03:57 AM
I was wondering how long it would take you to crawl out of your little hole and beg Rafa to win as to protect Sampras. Part of life is moving on and appreciating the present. Sampras has made his history and will forever be a tennis legend...... If things were left to you, the history books of tennis would be closed with the ending of Sampras career :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



Do you appreciate the present mangoes by dismissng the past, well i have news for you, I dont, and guess what you a two face rat and i have crawl out of your hole, go read your own post after this one - and I quote you " His hatred of Serena and Venus is so blant that I am figuring he would have no problem expressing his dislike for Sampras" end quote, are those your words? :o :o :(

rofe
06-10-2006, 03:59 AM
Wow, three pages on a hypothetical scenario. Let Fed win first please. We will have plenty of time to discuss this after Sunday.

angiel
06-10-2006, 04:01 AM
Can I have an example please? I've seen plenty of Pete's matches and don't remember McEnroe being anti-Sampras. Ok maybe he liked Agassi better (and I don't know that, just guessing), but so what?



If so what, why do you need proof for then. :rolleyes: :confused:

sawan66278
06-10-2006, 04:01 AM
Mdhallu...your points are so well taken...And for those to say that Agassi's win was not impressive...please, have you looked at Becker's record at Wimbledon over his career...except for the one second round loss he experienced, his career there was INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!

I agree with many of the posts about comparing eras...but unlike many sports, there are clear links that can be used for comparison...For example, Lendl beat and lost to Connors and Johnny Mac...He also beat Sampras and Agassi...Agassi and Sampras beat players who beat Federer (Agassi actually beat Fed a couple times)...so the stretches are not that great...

Granted the men's game has changed with the technology...but I really believe the champs of the past would be able to compete and thrive today...Look, Johnny Mac won an ATP doubles title THIS YEAR!!!

If I were a Roger fan (I admire him, but am not a fanatic), I would hope that he would face stiffer challenges in the future...players with variety in their games...like serve and volleyers...I believe Edberg and Becker would give him fits...For Pete's sake (pardon the pun), look at Roger's head to head record with Patrick Rafter (0-3) and :eek: Tim Henman!!!

By the way, for those who think Sampras's serve would not be a problem...NO ONE in the history of the game (except maybe Connors) has returned serve like Agassi...and look at what Sampras did to him so many times...

doublebackhand
06-10-2006, 04:05 AM
i think Agassi has more credentials in saying who is better, Sampras or Fed, by actually playing both of them at their peak than any of the posters here on MTF (or even JMac). and i am sure everyone remembers what he said after USO 2005 final.

sawan66278
06-10-2006, 04:08 AM
But again, Agassi did not play Borg...or Connors in his prime...Talent and ability are not the only factors...No doubt, Roger might be the most complete player in history...but the object of the matches is to win points...and points are awarded of equal value for aces (deemed to be boring) as stylish forehands

Lee
06-10-2006, 04:19 AM
i think Agassi has more credentials in saying who is better, Sampras or Fed, by actually playing both of them at their peak than any of the posters here on MTF (or even JMac). and i am sure everyone remembers what he said after USO 2005 final.

But..... Was Agassi at his peak when he played Federer?

mangoes
06-10-2006, 04:28 AM
Do you appreciate the present mangoes by dismissng the past, well i have news for you, I dont, and guess what you a two face rat and i have crawl out of your hole, go read your own post after this one - and I quote you " His hatred of Serena and Venus is so blant that I am figuring he would have no problem expressing his dislike for Sampras" end quote, are those your words? :o :o :(

I never dismiss the past. I respect it, but I am enjoying the present. You're the one who can't get your head out of the past and appreciate the present.


By the way........your answer makes absolutely no sense...... I have never heard McEnroe say anything negative about Sampras.

mangoes
06-10-2006, 04:29 AM
But..... Was Agassi at his peak when he played Federer?

Why does Agassi need to be at his peak to form his opinion??

mdhallu
06-10-2006, 04:30 AM
But..... Was Agassi at his peak when he played Federer?
No...unfortunately he was not...the funny things is that I have heard Agassi say different things on different occasions...A year after Sampras retired he told Sampras at his Retirement Ceremony that he was the best player he ever played (even though he had played Federer several times up to this point in time)...then a couple years later he stated that Federer was better than Sampras ...people tend to remember the present better than the past

mangoes
06-10-2006, 04:33 AM
No...unfortunately he was not...the funny things is that I have heard Agassi say different things on different occasions...A year after Sampras retired he told Sampras at his Retirement Ceremony that he was the best player he ever played (even though he had played Federer several times up to this point in time)...then a couple years later he stated that Federer was better than Sampras ...people tend to remember the present better than the past


Could that be because Roger had not become "Roger Federer" when Agassi referred to Sampras as the best player?? When Sampras retired, he did retire as the best player in history...........

nobama
06-10-2006, 04:34 AM
If so what, why do you need proof for then. :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: What I meant by "so what" is IF Mac liked Agassi better that doesn't mean he was anti-Pete. Again, give me an example of Mac dissing Pete.

mdhallu
06-10-2006, 04:45 AM
Well we will never know for sure what would happen if Federer and Sampras both peaked during the same time period but one thing we do know is that the one time when Federer beat Sampras (at the end of his dominance) the score was 7-6(7), 5-7, 6-4, 6-7(2), 7-5.... take what you will from that score, basically it would be a very close rivalry. But the point i wanted to get across to everyone is that even though Federer has amazing shots and is no doubt in my mind the most complete player of all time...the most complete player doesnt equate to the player that wins the most points as Sawan backed me up on...I wish Roger the best of luck on Sunday, because he will need it against Rafael "Monkey-Boy" Nadal

Lee
06-10-2006, 04:51 AM
Why does Agassi need to be at his peak to form his opinion??

I didn't say he needs to be at his peak to form any opinion. I only question whether the opinion is fair when he faced an opponent at his peak and then another when he's not and tried to compare them.

When you're half a step slower than you used to be, the tennis court is more difficult to cover, the balls seem to come faster, etc. A forehand that used to be easy to return is a bit harder now. A drop shot that you could reach and made a great passing shot is no longer reachable. These make your opponent better.

nobama
06-10-2006, 04:53 AM
But..... Was Agassi at his peak when he played Federer?If you exclude their two early matches (1998 and 2001) the earliest they've played each other in a tournament is QF. They've played two QF (AO and US Open), three SF (Indian Wells, Dubai, Miami) and three finals (Miami, TMC Houston and US Open).

In 2003 Agassi won 4 tournaments (inlcuding AO), made the SF of three tournaments and the final of TMC. In 2004 he won Cincy TMS, made 1 final and 5 SF (including AO, IW and Madrid TMS) and made QF of US Open. In 2005 he only won 1 small tournament but made 2 finals (Canada TMS and US Open), three SF (including Miami and Rome TMS) and the QF of AO.

I think his results indicate that he was definately not past his prime when he and Roger played each other.

Bibberz
06-10-2006, 05:01 AM
But..... Was Agassi at his peak when he played Federer?
That hardly matters. Nearly 20 years on the tour gave Agassi enough experience with which to assess both players' talents.

Lee
06-10-2006, 05:06 AM
If you exclude their two early matches (1998 and 2001) the earliest they've played each other in a tournament is QF. They've played two QF (AO and US Open), three SF (Indian Wells, Dubai, Miami) and three finals (Miami, TMC Houston and US Open).

In 2003 Agassi won 4 tournaments (inlcuding AO), made the SF of three tournaments and the final of TMC. In 2004 he won Cincy TMS, made 1 final and 5 SF (including AO, IW and Madrid TMS) and made QF of US Open. In 2005 he only won 1 small tournament but made 2 finals (Canada TMS and US Open), three SF (including Miami and Rome TMS) and the QF of AO.

I think his results indicate that he was definately not past his prime when he and Roger played each other.

If Agassi was in his prime during all those QF, SF and final matches, he may win at least part of those matches instead of losing all to Federer? And win another Slam title or more AMS titles?

mangoes
06-10-2006, 05:08 AM
I didn't say he needs to be at his peak to form any opinion. I only question whether the opinion is fair when he faced an opponent at his peak and then another when he's not and tried to compare them.

When you're half a step slower than you used to be, the tennis court is more difficult to cover, the balls seem to come faster, etc. A forehand that used to be easy to return is a bit harder now. A drop shot that you could reach and made a great passing shot is no longer reachable. These make your opponent better.

I understand your point. I don't necessarily agree with you because I think Agassi's overall experience as a tennis player should be factored into this equation.

Lee
06-10-2006, 05:14 AM
That hardly matters. Nearly 20 years on the tour gave Agassi enough experience with which to assess both players' talents.

I understand your point. I don't necessarily agree with you because I think Agassi's overall experience as a tennis player should be factored into this equation.

That depends on whether Agassi can be objective on his evaluation. And that's one thing we'll never know.

That's not saying he doesn't want to be objective.

Let's agree we disagree :hatoff:

doublebackhand
06-10-2006, 05:24 AM
this 'discussion' will go on until Fed wins all 4 slams and has more slam titles than anyone else. then, doubters will still contest that his era is 'easier' than previous ones.

Merton
06-10-2006, 05:32 AM
There are two ways to address the issue of "best ever". The first is to compare career achievements. The second is to compare playing strength. In my mind, it is meaningless to directly compare players from different eras because one cannot account for the evolution of the game itself. For example, i think that peak Muster or Kuerten would win against Rafa on clay but it is meaningless to compare since we cannot bring here Muster 95 or Guga 2000/2001. However, a direct comparison is impossible.

Comparing career results, in my mind Borg stands tallest of all at the moment with his amazing RG+Wimbledon combination. Yes, he never won the US Open but he was also awesome in hard courts, not to mention the epic finals that he lost in the US Open. Since Roger is still playing, we cannot say much at this moment. We can only sit back and enjoy, at the moment it seems that he has a good shot to surpass Sampras, but it also depends on random factors beyond control, so it might happen or it might not. Winning here will not make him the greatest, but losing will also not mean that he will never be.

Merton
06-10-2006, 05:33 AM
But..... Was Agassi at his peak when he played Federer?

There is no doubt in my mind that Agassi peaked twice, in 1995 and 1999.

sawan66278
06-10-2006, 05:57 AM
Excellent points, Merton...Let's see where Fed is headed...sometimes I feel Johnny Mac says these things simply to drum up interest in the U.S. audience...and I agree, he was always critical of Sampras...a vendetta perhaps for the times he bailed in Davis Cup...

And don't get me started on the year-end championships (where only the top eight compete)...Lendl won the event a staggering five times!!! It always seems that Ivan is never given his due when the best player ever discussion plays out :sad:

DrJules
06-10-2006, 09:08 AM
John McEnroe has always consistently rated Rod Laver the greatest player. A fact which is probably supported by a number of reasons:

1) He was possibly the most complete player of all time. Both Pete and Roger had/have more apparent weaknesses.

2) He won the grand slam TWICE, including the VERY difficult Roland Garros/Wimbledon double.

3) He won 11 grand slam despite being ineligible from the tour for 5 years in the middle of his career for being a professional. It was mostly during this period of absence that Emerson won his 12 grand slams

4) During his professional period he dominated the professional players mostly on hard and indoor courts.

Rod Laver dominated a whole decade on all courts.

Roger will most likely follow Pete in their failure to win the French Open and, hence, disqualify themselves from being called the greatest of all time.

Boris Franz Ecker
06-10-2006, 09:17 AM
Yeah, 84RG kills him. :(

I remember John saying at one point (I believe it was a few years ago, when he and Agassi both had 7 slams) that Agassi was a greater player than he was, because Andre had won all four. It surprised me at the time, because I would personally have ranked them about equally.

McEnroe has to be higher ranked than Agassi and he knows it. He just wanted to hear this after making such statements.
McEnroe won 7 Grand Slam titles, but he usually played only 2 p.a. McEnroe 77 titles, 3 times Masters champion, x times WCT champion, 4 years no 1.
He has easily a better record than Agassi although a much shorter career.
Agassi 60 titles, 1* Olympia, 1* Masters, 8 Grand Slams, but 4 of the 8 GS titles at a tournament McEnroe didn't care about.
Forget doubles.

If Federer wins RG, he should be ranked higher than Agassi, a little bit behind McEnroe.

Boris Franz Ecker
06-10-2006, 09:22 AM
And don't get me started on the year-end championships (where only the top eight compete)...Lendl won the event a staggering five times!!! It always seems that Ivan is never given his due when the best player ever discussion plays out :sad:

Lendl never won Wimbledon, generally known as most prestigious tournament. That's his problem.
Lendl won extremely much, nearly 21 Mio US $ prize money in the 80ies - that would be 60-80 Mio $ today and more than any player in history, but... Wimbledon...

stebs
06-10-2006, 10:38 AM
I don't think it would place him as the best ever but I think if Roger were to win RG he would end up being the best of all time. I think if he wins RG he will almost definately create a record for GS matches in a row. He will also be likely to win Wimbledon creating a record for most Slams in a row and acheiving the RG - Wimby combo. He would then be just a slam away from a calendar slam and if he won the US Open as well he would have a very real claim to being the best of all time.

As of now, he's maybe the best player of all time but he certainly doesn't have the greatest accomplishments of all time.

stebs
06-10-2006, 10:42 AM
PamV why dont we wait until he does beat him, since he has not done so yet your point is invalid, and yea I can see Pete Beating Kuerten in A French Open final, since they never played in one - Pete record in grand slam finals is 14-4 my dear, remember that before you talk. :mad: :mad:
Remind me how many of those finals were at Rg again? Oh, yes I remember, a big, fat zero.

Guga and Pete never met on a clay court but if they had done I don't think Guga would have lost to Pete.

stebs
06-10-2006, 10:44 AM
Roger will most likely follow Pete in their failure to win the French Open and, hence, disqualify themselves from being called the greatest of all time.

I don't think that's true at all. Roger may well not win RG this year and he may not win it in his career but I think at the moment most people are split 50-50 as to wether he will win it in his career and I'm not just talking about fans.

Also, failure to win the French does not disqualify them from being called the greatest of all time.

Pigpen Stinks
06-10-2006, 04:13 PM
You have got to be kidding me Pigpen Stinks :confused: John McEnroe has never like Pete Sampras, never and that is the true, as for been a hugh fan and supporter of Pete, I would really say you are talking through your ass on that, supporter of Sampras my foot, not Mac, name us somebody else please. :sad: :sad:


With a name like yours i can see where you get your idea from, like him you say. :( :confused:

I'm speaking from what I've heard from Mac during most of Pete's career. He always seemed to revere him, ever since Pete spanked him in that US Open semi. I thought it was funny the way he always referred to him as "Pete Sampras" rather than just Pete or Sampras. Maybe there was some friction later in his career if Pete sat out a Davis Cup tie? I don't know.

I just get the feeling that if a commentator said "that was a splendid forehand by Sampras", you'd want the guy's head on a plate because he didn't say it was the greatest forehand ever, and nobody else has half the forehand Sampras does.

By the way, thanks for the compliment on my name.... :D

nobama
06-10-2006, 04:42 PM
If Agassi was in his prime during all those QF, SF and final matches, he may win at least part of those matches instead of losing all to Federer? And win another Slam title or more AMS titles?If he was playing someone besides Roger, maybe.