Started By
Message

re: Face it Federer is the GOAT

Posted on 7/17/17 at 8:04 am to
Posted by Geauxgurt
Member since Sep 2013
10444 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 8:04 am to
So fed plays less skilled players but because they are more athletically "talented", he faced better competition?

Do some of you actualy buy this shite?

Didn't Fed have those same advantages I new technologies and training? Didn't he have he advantage that they slowed down grass play from the 90s.

Fact is that outside of Nadal and Djokovic, Federer hasn't faced a person near as skilled for their time as Sampras, McEnroe, Laver faced in their times.

You can't make the argument that athletes are faster and stronger now since your supposed GOATs also have those advantages.
Posted by Sandtrap
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2006
2369 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 9:06 am to
Who were these juggernauts that Sampras faced?? Agassi was arguably the best player he played against consistently. Rafter was good too. Chang and Courrier were good players, but no better than top-5 players of today. Phillipossis? Kraciek? Muster? Henman?

Federer has had to play against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Agassi, Hewitt, etc...

Sorry, but I think Fed has played better completion than Sampras.
Posted by MidnightVibe
Member since Feb 2015
7885 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 11:38 am to
quote:

Who were these juggernauts that Sampras faced?? Agassi was arguably the best player he played against consistently. Rafter was good too. Chang and Courrier were good players, but no better than top-5 players of today. Phillipossis? Kraciek? Muster? Henman?

Federer has had to play against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Agassi, Hewitt, etc...

Sorry, but I think Fed has played better completion than Sampras


Sampras also played Becker and Edberg. And of course the great Marcelo Rios.

Though I agree with you.
This post was edited on 7/17/17 at 11:46 am
Posted by ElroyJetSon
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2011
4018 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 12:51 pm to
quote:

Except he's behind Laver in Majors (if you count Laver's Pro Majors)


Yeah I don't count those and neither should anyone else
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
51354 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 2:55 pm to
Sampras sucked on clay.

I consider Borg to be better than him or Federer. He won six French's on clay and then five Wimbledon's on grass when it was fast as hell. You don't appreciate how awesome a feat that is. Its like a race car driver winning Daytona or Bristol in the same year he wins a top Formula 1 race. There is a reason Foyt and Andretti are considered to be above everyone else.

Sampras had a booming serve, part of it thanks to the racquets but guess what? Borg beat Roscoe Tanner in Wimbledon final and he was serving 150 mph.

and Laver has to be considered to be right up there with Federer. Go watch some Youtube videos. He is sitting there in his 40's holding his own with a young prime Jimmy Connors. You guys don't appreciate how good Laver really was.
Posted by MidnightVibe
Member since Feb 2015
7885 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 8:57 pm to
quote:

Borg beat Roscoe Tanner in Wimbledon final and he was serving 150 mph


O rly?
Posted by MidnightVibe
Member since Feb 2015
7885 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 8:58 pm to
quote:

I consider Borg to be better than him or Federer. He won six French's on clay and then five Wimbledon's on grass when it was fast as hell.


Never won the U.S. Open
Posted by MidnightVibe
Member since Feb 2015
7885 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 9:03 pm to
quote:

He is sitting there in his 40's holding his own with a young prime Jimmy Connors


Do you mean 37?

You've lost a ton of credibility here.
Posted by MidnightVibe
Member since Feb 2015
7885 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 9:20 pm to
quote:

Yeah I don't count those and neither should anyone else


They should be considered. How else do you make the comparison before the open era?

Part of the idea is figuring out how long he was the best player. He was not the best player in the world when he won his first grand slam, and this should be noted. He was the best player in the world. Laver was clearly the best player in the world at least between 1965-1970.
Posted by sms151t
Polos, Porsches, Ponies..PROBATION
Member since Aug 2009
139838 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 9:21 pm to
quote:

Roscoe Tanner in Wimbledon final and he was serving 150 mph


I thought the supposed 150 was in Paris?
Posted by MidnightVibe
Member since Feb 2015
7885 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 9:38 pm to
quote:

I thought the supposed 150 was in Paris?


I doubt it happened.

But even if it did, an argument that "Bog was better than Sampras because he played against Roscoe Tanner" is beyond absurd.
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
51354 posts
Posted on 7/17/17 at 10:17 pm to
Thought he was 40 at the time. My mistake. Still pretty impressive when you think about it considering Jimbo was destroying his peers such as Rosewall. Laver was past his prime at that point.

As for Roscoe Tanner, he had a huge serve. Its also a little relative. He was making those big serves with wood racquets and Borg had to return them with a wood racquet. I'm not going to compare him to Sampras, but only mention him to point out Borg could handle a guy with a huge serve.


quote:

Never won the U.S. Open


And how many French's did Pete win? At least Borg made the open finals four times. Lost to Connors twice and then McEnroe twice. That is what it took to beat Borg. No losing in first few rounds because it wasn't your favorite surface.

Take away those improved racquets and I doubt Sampras fares as well. He did have a very good one-handed backhand that allowed him to place shots. Tanner was a one tricker as was Goran.
This post was edited on 7/17/17 at 10:22 pm
Jump to page
Page First 11 12 13
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 13 of 13Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram