Comparable to Tennis Superstars

[Mr.White]

Re:

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

I actually still think Rod Laver is the GOAT. Federer is no.2 though

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Depends a lot on who's who. Normally i'd say Canc is federer, but if you go with Contador as Federer, Purito has to be Roddick (one trick pony who lost the chance on this biggest victory to the best of his generation) and the Vuelta 2012 is Wimby 2009

To even call a rider like Purito a one trick pony is beyond stupid .

And i don't know why you call Roddick a one trick pony? Because of his style of play? Or because he only won a US open?

Right, nvm one trick pony, both have/had really obvious strenghts, both had huge holes in their game that prevented the from winning a lot more. both are good at interviews and press conferences

Roddick won only one slam very early in his career, after that it's no secret it was Wimbledon he wanted to win.

 

[Arredondo]

Re: Re:

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

You're right. Although Nadal is the GOAT, not because his h2h against Fed is 23-10, but because he beated Federer in his prime at his tournament/kingdom (Wimbledon 2008). Federer never beated Nadal on his kingdom, Rolland Garros, during his career. He won RG 2009 because Soderling knocked Nadal out.

That is because Nadal is the best clay specialist ever. Nadal may be better on clay than Federer ever was on grass or hard court, but Federer was all around a better tennis player in his prime. He's also that male tennis player who holds the most records. Federer is arguably the GOAT, from an objective point of view.

But Federer is known as a Grass specialist. He holds the record at Wimbledon with Sampras with 7 titles. Nadal didn't won 20 GS's because of all his injuries. But Nadal in his prime was a better player then Fed. He beated Roger on grass (Wimbledon) and hardcourt (AO), in a time when Federer was still at the top of his game. I still think you can't someone name the GOAT if his big rival has a h2h of 23-10 (also on hardcourt Nadal has a better record). And Nadal is 4 years younger, so he can easily get 17 GS's too.

I don't think Federer will win another GS. The only chance he's got imo is Wimbledon this year.

Federer had his greatest years from 2004-2009, when he was 23-28 yrs old (the normal age for male tennis players to have their prime). He was beaten by Nadal at Rolland Garros four times in a row and twice in other Grand Slam finals, admittedly.
However, Nadal didn't reach a lot of GS finals outside of Rolland Garros, when Federer was at his best (04-09). That explains why the h2h stats are so much in Nadal's favour. Nadal rarely met federer when Federer was in his prime, because he was not a very versatile player who could reach the SF or Final in all 4 grand slams in one year. That ofcourse changed later, when Federer lost some of his top shape and then both 2 met more often.
I don't think Nadal will ever reach 17 grand slams, to be honest. Maybe one more win in Rolland Garros.

Eventually the conclusion is that you can't compare rivals. When Federer was in his prime, Nadal was getting better and better. And when Nadal was in his prime, Federer was on the downfall.

So it's impossible to name who's the GOAT. I guess the guy with the most GS's will be the most likely candidate. And i think Nadal still can win RG, AO and maybe US Open. In 2014 he still reached the final of AO, and he just had bad luck he got a back injury just before the final against Stan.

 

[Arredondo]

Re: Re:

Depends a lot on who's who. Normally i'd say Canc is federer, but if you go with Contador as Federer, Purito has to be Roddick (one trick pony who lost the chance on this biggest victory to the best of his generation) and the Vuelta 2012 is Wimby 2009

To even call a rider like Purito a one trick pony is beyond stupid .

And i don't know why you call Roddick a one trick pony? Because of his style of play? Or because he only won a US open?

Right, nvm one trick pony, both have/had really obvious strenghts, both had huge holes in their game that prevented the from winning a lot more. both are good at interviews and press conferences

Roddick won only one slam very early in his career, after that it's no secret it was Wimbledon he wanted to win.

Sure, but he lost most of the time against Fed. I don't think you can put it down on the fact Roddick had some holes in his game, but just because Federer was the better tennis player in every aspect.

Still makes me sad he lost the final back in 2009. I think both men deserved the win that day. But that's not possible in sport i guess

 

[Echoes]

I don't think Federer has reached Laver and Lendl in either level of play or figures.

Sampras, well that was due to his disease because he had everything talent wise.

 

[Brullnux]

Cav as Agassi. Unbelievable talent but pretty unstable mentally, but still wins quite a lot.
Any supremely unstable and very talented rider as Monfils.

 

[Jacques (7 ch)]

Re:

Cav as Agassi. Unbelievable talent but pretty unstable mentally, but still wins quite a lot.
s.

That's a good one.

Surprised no one has written Murray = Wiggins. Great in Olympic year and on home ground. Not much use in the wet LOL.

 

[ninjadriver]

Re:

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

We disagree, Sam. I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen. Sampras using today's technology would have beaten Federer and Nadal everywhere but on clay, UNLESS Federer played like Sampras, which Federer did from his junior days through 2003, meaning serving-and-volleying and attacking the net incessantly. Federer came up modeling his game after Sampras'.

Laver I never saw - I'm just going by numbers.

Borg won 6 French and 5 Wimbledons, two totally disparate surfaces, then left them game at age 26. For a similar reason, Monica Seles is my female GOAT - she left the game at age 19 due to a stabbing, but my eyes told me she clearly was the most dominant.

One certainly could argue Nadal, if one believes in Nadal. We apparently are not allowed to discuss such issues on this web site.

 

[SeriousSam]

You really overrate Samparas if you think he'd beat them today. I'm not even convinced he'd beat them in the 90s, Federer anyway. The baseliners of today would crush him. The reason serving and volleying disappeared isn't because they can't do it well anymore but because courts and tech changed. Also, the passing shots are so good these days.

I was in tears of laughter when Djokovic faced a breakpoint and decided to serve and volley off of a second serve, only for Stan to murder the ball with a backhand passing shot past Nole's helplessly flailing arms.

Nadal is an elite sportsmen in a sport that doesn't really do a lot of testing. That's pretty much all there is to it. Would have said he is GOAT if he won the AO ie winning every slam at least twice.

 

[del1962]

Re: Re:

Cav as Agassi. Unbelievable talent but pretty unstable mentally, but still wins quite a lot.
s.

That's a good one.

Surprised no one has written Murray = Wiggins. Great in Olympic year and on home ground. Not much use in the wet LOL.

Actually Murray copes with windy conditions better then most on the pro tour (they don't play in the wet )

 

[SafeBet]

I'll stick to the 90s, cause that's the period when I mostly followed tennis.

Contador = Edberg
Nibali = Agassi
Froome = Courier
Quintana = Sampras
Purito = Chang
Valverde = Becker

 

[Mr.White]

Here's my top 10 of all times:

1.Rod Laver
2.Roger Federer
3.Bill Tilden
4.Pete Sampras
5.Rafael Nadal
6.Pancho Gonzalez
7.Bjorn Borg
8.Ken Rosewall
9.Don Budge
10.Ivan Lendl

 

[ILovecycling]

Re: Re:

You still think Sampras, Borg or Laver are GOAT? Federer has surpassed them both in number of wins and in level of play. In terms of level of play, the top 15 today have surpassed them actually. I can understand a bit of nostalgia about the legends of the past if they have greater accomplishments, even if they weren't nearly as good at the sport as today's players are (cycling the notable exception here, the level today is lower than in the 90s and 00s ), but with Federer and Nadal having won so much, the oldies don't even have greater accomplishments.

Coupled with the fact they'd get crushed today, they just can't be the GOAT

You're right. Although Nadal is the GOAT, not because his h2h against Fed is 23-10, but because he beated Federer in his prime at his tournament/kingdom (Wimbledon 2008). Federer never beated Nadal on his kingdom, Rolland Garros, during his career. He won RG 2009 because Soderling knocked Nadal out.

That is because Nadal is the best clay specialist ever. Nadal may be better on clay than Federer ever was on grass or hard court, but Federer was all around a better tennis player in his prime. He's also that male tennis player who holds the most records. Federer is arguably the GOAT, from an objective point of view.

But Federer is known as a Grass specialist. He holds the record at Wimbledon with Sampras with 7 titles. Nadal didn't won 20 GS's because of all his injuries. But Nadal in his prime was a better player then Fed. He beated Roger on grass (Wimbledon) and hardcourt (AO), in a time when Federer was still at the top of his game. I still think you can't someone name the GOAT if his big rival has a h2h of 23-10 (also on hardcourt Nadal has a better record). And Nadal is 4 years younger, so he can easily get 17 GS's too.

I don't think Federer will win another GS. The only chance he's got imo is Wimbledon this year.

Federer had his greatest years from 2004-2009, when he was 23-28 yrs old (the normal age for male tennis players to have their prime). He was beaten by Nadal at Rolland Garros four times in a row and twice in other Grand Slam finals, admittedly.
However, Nadal didn't reach a lot of GS finals outside of Rolland Garros, when Federer was at his best (04-09). That explains why the h2h stats are so much in Nadal's favour. Nadal rarely met federer when Federer was in his prime, because he was not a very versatile player who could reach the SF or Final in all 4 grand slams in one year. That ofcourse changed later, when Federer lost some of his top shape and then both 2 met more often.
I don't think Nadal will ever reach 17 grand slams, to be honest. Maybe one more win in Rolland Garros.

uhhh ..he reached 4 (other) GS finals in those years, when he actually started to play from spring 2005.His GS H2H record from those years is 6 - 2 against Federer.(including all surfaces)
I love both players, such a legends but IMO Federer is a better player historicaly only for his versatility and talent, but its only few per cent higher.This can change if any of those 2 will win a GS in coming years.


btw those comparison about cyclist and tennis players are hillarious

 

[damian13ster]

Rolland/Voeckler to Monfils?
Leaning toward the latter, but has much less talent.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Rolland seems like Gasquet. Fluid backhand equals marvelous climbing technique.
Valverde is best all rounder, just like Federer.

Froome seems like Nadal.

Uphill sprinters are like Richard Krajicek.

 

[Echoes]

Re:

You really overrate Samparas if you think he'd beat them today. I'm not even convinced he'd beat them in the 90s, Federer anyway. The baseliners of today would crush him. The reason serving and volleying disappeared isn't because they can't do it well anymore but because courts and tech changed.

Sampras' baseline game was technically superior to most present-day players. It simply was a copy of Lendl's: inside-out and inside-in forehand and the running forehand made him famous (which was also one of Lendl's weapons - at 3.19 on the clip). Journos always focused on the Sampras serve but it wasn't just that. Yes, tech (mainly strings) and courts (all slower, grasscourts & indoor; carpet disappeared) changed this game into a boring moonballfest. Tennis lost its magic. I haven't seen a single match since 2010 & don't even know who won RG (don't wanna know).

I repeat Sampras was handicapped by a genetic illness: Beta-thalassemia minor, very common for Mediterraneans (he's got Greek roots), which troubled him in long hot weather matches. The match against Corretja in the USO QF '96, was an example of this. He threw up on the court. Also I'm sure that the racquet evolution was in his disfavour in the late 90's. He used the Wilson ProStaff 85, his career long. Federer switched to the 90 one, I think.

Here's my top 10 of all times:

1.Rod Laver
2.Roger Federer
3.Bill Tilden
4.Pete Sampras
5.Rafael Nadal
6.Pancho Gonzalez
7.Bjorn Borg
8.Ken Rosewall
9.Don Budge
10.Ivan Lendl

These in different orders are up there, for sure.

Contador = Edberg

Quintana = Sampras

Uphill sprinters are like Richard Krajicek.

These posts almost got me a heart atack !!!

 

[del1962]

Bjorn Borg = Eddy Mercxx

 

[Jerkovin]

This thread is dumb. But all these discussions are even more pointless - Serena Williams is the real GOAT.

 

[sunnyIce]

This thread is dumb. But all these discussions are even more pointless - Serena Williams is the real GOAT.

Just prodding with this topic. A bit of lateral thinking never hurts. Glad to know it doesn't work in this forum.

 

[jalep]

Tennis and Cycling both favorite sports. Can't really compare champions very well - tennis and cycling. Based on GS/GT; present players/cyclists:

Contador = Federer. Style, panache, cool, both have ridiculous number of GS/ GT and GC wins. Federer holds all 4 GS titles French, Wimbledon, US Open, AO 3 of the GS many times over. Contador holds all GT's each one at least twice.
Nibali = Rafa. Rafa hold all GS's and so does Nibali. Both are great fighters in GT's/ GS's
Wawrinka and Murray have 2 GS each, murray a ton of masters 1000. No one like them in cycling
Hewitt (still playing) = Froome......on hit wonders in GT's, GS's so far.
Cilic = Quintana. Both have one GT/GS win each and both likely to get another GT/GS
Valverde/Peraud = Berdych, both have been runner - up/ top player/cyclist at GT/ GS
Purito = Ferrer. same as Valverde/Berdych
Aru/Pinot = Raonic. probably both future GT/GS winners
Bardet = Nishikori both have potential for GT/GS maybe less so than Aru/Pinot/Raonic

Formolo/ Bardet=Thanasi Kokkinakis or Andrey Rublev all too young to tell exactly but like their prospects as future GT/GS winners.