Tennis Planet

Official Freaking Site Of Tennis Freaking Fans Worldwide.

«
»

Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer’s GOAT Claim. From Sarah. Thanks.

Posted by tennisplanet on July 14, 2009

SARAH

Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer’s GOAT Claim
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Click here.

This entry was posted on July 14, 2009 at 2:31 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

33 Responses to “Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer’s GOAT Claim. From Sarah. Thanks.”

  1. YMD said

    July 14, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    will not happen

    Reply

  2. Somebody Else said

    July 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    “Sampras Says Nadal Challenges Federer’s GOAT Claim”

    Federer never claimed to be the GOAT.
    Almost everyone else has happily made the claim for him.
    What I’m interested in finding out is if Nadal can challenge Federer’s level of consistency.

    Reply

    • Somebody Else said

      July 14, 2009 at 3:48 pm

      Pete, you got passed. It’s done, move on.

      Reply

    • Jenny said

      July 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm

      Very true, Somebody Else. I have no interest in GOAT status, more simply put and in terms of slams, Rafa has to win another 8 slams to equal Pete, and 9 to equal Federer, bearing in mind he’s prone to tendinitis. However, I do think Rafa’s 5 French Open titles is going to be extremely hard to equal and surpass.

      Reply

  3. MIKE__ said

    July 14, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    Ay caramba. It sounds like Pete’s still in denial :( . Fed’s losing H2H record against Nadal is mitigated by the fact that nine of those losses were on clay AND because Rafa’s the clay-court CO-GOAT with Borg. Pete was pretty much a joke on clay and never truly prepared or gave 100% with the exceptions of the ‘94 Italian and ‘96 FO. If Pete were playing today, most likely he’d have a winning or even record against Nadal because he’d never go deep enough to meet him on the dirt!

    Fed is the GOAT. Period. End of story.

    Reply

    • pommesdesuisse said

      July 15, 2009 at 3:25 am

      thank you MIKE_…
      well said.
      so pete was in his prime when he lost to Krajicek at Wimby ‘96 in, what was it, R16??!!!!

      Reply

    • Leachim said

      July 16, 2009 at 1:30 am

      “If Pete were playing today, most likely he’d have a winning or even record against Nadal because he’d never go deep enough to meet him on the dirt!”

      Well said, Mike!

      It shows, how non-significant H2H can be.

      Reply

  4. Danny said

    July 14, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    I disagree with Pete. His ego is still probably a bit wounded from losing his slam record to Fed.

    Here is why Pete is wrong:

    1.) Roger’s H2H with Nadal is largely because more than half of their matches have been on clay. Roger has a slightly superior record on hards and grass.

    2.) Agassi never dominated ANY surface the way Nadal dominates clay. So Pete’s record against Agassi isnt as relevant to this discussion.

    3.) Rafa is 5 years younger than Roger while Agassi is actually a year older than Pete. This is critical from a competitive standpoint. Rafa was always hungrier than Roger because Roger had started to make his mark before anyone even heard of Rafa. Also, Roger has more mileage than Rafa yet is MUCH more consistent. Andre was older than Pete and so this isnt an apples-to-apples comparison. As Pete got older, he lost (consistently) to younger players like Hewitt and Safin. He ended up with losing records against young and hungry players like Hewitt, Krajicek and Safin. Did this make the argument for him as the GOAT (at the time) less compelling? Not in my book.

    Reply

    • Somebody Else said

      July 14, 2009 at 4:18 pm

      Krajicek, Stich, Bruguera, …and Safin, Hewitt.

      Reply

    • Bettyjane said

      July 14, 2009 at 4:26 pm

      These are great points Danny, along with Somebody Else’s remark on consistency. That’s so ignored by Nadalophiles. This article Sarah so kindly posted also regurgitates the point that the Sampras era had better players. Agassi was just interviewed in a local paper while appearing in Rockland County, N.Y. this week. He said it was clear how much better today’s players are than in his era.

      “Every sport that you can measure accomplishments, whether it’s how much weight you can lift or how fast you can run or how high you can jump, we’ve seen athletes get stronger, get better,” Agassi said. “I watch these guys play from my living room, and I thank God I don’t play anymore.”

      Reply

    • saras said

      July 14, 2009 at 6:59 pm

      IMO we have to wait & see the level of Nadal’s fitness when he returns.At this point, everyone is only speculating about his fitness.With the depth in Men’s tennis,Nadal has to come back “super fit”right from the get go.I am a little skeptical about that.Specially the hard courts, coming back from injury, is not a good idea.He will have the excuse of lack match practice if Nadal’s performance is not upto the mark.
      By the way,Roger was never annonced his name for GOAT…”Have a Heart’to accept it .At the moment Roger has that status.One has to understand that whatever players were around at Roger’s era,he beat them.Instead of arguing that the level of challenge was not there.Its like saying that Roger won FO & Wimby in absence of Nadal.Is Roger to be blamed for Rafa not making it to the Finals in FO? No matter how much Roger wins, is never enough !.

      Reply

      • Claire said

        July 14, 2009 at 7:13 pm

        Remember, Federer had to go through some tough matches to get to RG final!
        Talk about competition is getting better- what about (old) Haas beating Djokovic two times in a roll?
        I go with “on any given day, every and any player is beatable” Amazing thing is how few of those days Federer has had!

  5. banti said

    July 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Oh my god people this is not Pete talking. This is the crazy Raymond Lee. This guy is a nut case and probably took Pete’s words out of context. Raymond Lee is another Bud Collins, an obv. Fed hater. He’s written two articles for tennis week and both are full of #$%@%. He claimed a few years ago, if FEd wins 22 slams he still may not be the best ever!This is before Nadal even started winning a few. Gerard made a reference to him. Enough said?
    lol.

    Point is he interviewed Pete and got Pete to say “maybe this needs to happen” or “yes this is an arguement” and took this way out of context. I think Pete clearly thinks ROger is GOAT, but he does feel he could give Roger a hard time on Grass. I would have to agree. Would be a great match up, if both were playing well.

    Reply

    • boxingary said

      July 15, 2009 at 5:49 am

      “Gerard made a reference to him. Enough said?
      lol.”

      ——————————

      That really is the KISS OF DEATH, isn’t it?……. :->

      Reply

  6. Ash said

    July 15, 2009 at 6:19 am

    There is a true point in this. Those 4 FO finals Federer lost straight to Nadal are obviously attributed to Nadals supremacy on clay and Federer got further and further from beating him (not closer) over the years. Now, the most important losses from the Fed perspective were the Wimbledon 2008 and the AO 2009 finals. He should NOT have lost those matches but for some inexplicable reason he did. Call it whatever you want but Nadal definitely has his number. I actually agree that Federer needs to whip Nadal at a GS final (and soon) to put this one to bed once and for all. If neither of them make it to face each other in GS finals this issue will remain. That’s the fun of sporting rivarlies – Nadal is just not a good match-up for Fed (for many debatable reasons).

    Reply

  7. TChophel said

    July 15, 2009 at 6:19 am

    Sampras couldn’t even make 4 straight Semis in GS… Fed has made 21… That point alone makes Sampras’ opinion ‘not relevant’.

    Greatest of All Time
    01. Roger Federer – 15 GS, 21 Straight Semis, Career GS, 5 Straight Wimby + USO, Mutiple Records
    02. Rod Laver – 11 GS, 2 Calendar GS
    03. Pete Sampras – 14 GS, 7 Wimbys
    04. Bjorn Borg – 11 GS, 5 Straight Wimbys and 6 FOs
    05. Roy Emerson – 12 GS, Career GS
    06. Rafael Nadal – 6 GS, GOAT on Clay(IMO better than Borg), Winning H2H against GOAT
    07. Andre Agassi – 8 GS, Career GS, Most No. of Masters Series
    08. Jimmy Connors – 100+ Titles
    09. John McEnroe – 82-3 Win Loss Season Record
    10. Bill Tilden – Multiple GS Finals

    Unluckiest Player of All Time
    01. Andy Roddick – Could Have Been an 8-Time Grand Slam Champion if it weren’t for Federer

    Has Beens
    01. Lleyton Hewitt
    02. Marat Safin
    03. Novak Djokovic?

    Promising New Gen Players
    01. Juan Martin Del Potro
    02. Andy Murray
    03. Ernests Gulbis?

    Reply

    • Jenny said

      July 15, 2009 at 7:11 am

      Apologies, TChophel, my reply is #7.

      Reply

    • pommesdesuisse said

      July 15, 2009 at 3:58 pm

      06. Rafael Nadal – 6 GS, GOAT on Clay(IMO better than Borg), Winning H2H against GOAT – BECAUSE OF CLAY AND ON CLAY ONLY!

      i’m sorry, but i had to complete your line… ;-)

      Reply

  8. Jenny said

    July 15, 2009 at 7:02 am

    Great stats, thank you. I’ll put Marin Cilic over Gulbis, I don’t find his game particularly exciting to watch, but he is rock steady with serious intent and committed, he also has a big game. Ernests might have the potential, flashy, but he hasn’t produced the goods thus far. I wouldn’t call Djkovic a ‘has been’ at this stage, he’s only 21/22?, he has the game, but he certainly needs to address some issues, maybe commitment is one of them. Fernando Verdasco might not be classified as promising New Gen, more like emerging from a self imposed chrysalis because he is acknowledged by the experts for his natural talent, I’m still expecting even better from him, especially on the hard courts, I’ve never considered him a clay man. I very much enjoy watching him play.

    Reply

  9. Gracie said

    July 15, 2009 at 7:22 am

    Got to agree with Danny and Mike_ on this. If Roger had never reached all those clay court and FO finals, their H2H would be less lopsided – and would that make Fed the ‘better’ of the two – NOT making the final rounds?

    I also feel the same about the 5 year age difference. When we hear all the talk about players over 27-28 being on the ‘down side’ of their careers, and with guys in their early 20s just coming up, the expectation is that the young guns will start winning matches against the older guys. To me, Nadal, Murray, et al, are the start of the next generation of players, and if none of these guys could ever win a match against Roger or any of the older guys, we’d be in for a sorry spell in tennis for the next bunch of years.

    I think Agassi and others have proved that a fit player can do well into his 30s, so time will tell. But I can more easily see Roger still playing at 35 than I can see Nadal still being fit enough to do so. And while Federer has made it look almost easy reaching those 21 SFs and winning 15 Majors in half the time it took Sampras (a fact that has to really be eating at Pete’s guts), 15 Major titles is NOT an easy feat to accomplish, and I wouldn’t be so quick to assume Nadal will get anywhere near that number.

    Reply

  10. Carolee said

    July 15, 2009 at 9:20 am

    Disappointing remarks from Pete… he conveniently FORGETS that Fed derailed him at Wimbledon in 2001 ( I think..) in the fourth round. I want to see Nadal play soon and see how the knees are holding up… I think Fed CAN beat him right now.

    Reply

  11. Tennis Freak said

    July 15, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Sorry, guys, this is a news from The Onion. I searched all over the internet and could not verify the Sampras interview, besides the one Sarah innocently cited.

    Reply

  12. GG said

    July 15, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    Has everyone (including Pete) forgotten that Roger did beat Pete in his ‘prime’ on grass at Wimbledon 7-5 in the 5th set. I believe it was in the round of 16 in 2001 or 2002. It was there only meeting and Roger won so I don’t know why Pete is saying he could have beaten Roger on grass. He had his chance back then and LOST!!!!

    Reply

    • Jenny said

      July 15, 2009 at 4:02 pm

      I was there CG, it was 4th round, 2001. He was then beaten by our own Tim Henman in the quarters.

      Reply

    • boxingary said

      July 15, 2009 at 7:09 pm

      “Has everyone (including Pete) forgotten that Roger did beat Pete in his ‘prime’ on grass at Wimbledon 7-5 in the 5th set”

      ————————-

      15 months away from retirement was still Pete’s ‘prime’???

      I think the fact that a relatively limited guy like
      Richard Krajicek was able to straight-set Pete in 1996
      is a better argument in favor of Roger…

      Reply

  13. Anonymous said

    July 16, 2009 at 3:35 am

    Federer’s best years were from 2004-07 and he never lost to Nadal on Non-clay surfaces except one or two unimportant tournaments and won on clay also once. The last two majors he lost after that period may be due to the fact that age is on Nadal side and his back problems.He dominated Nadal on Non-clay.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

«
»