Author Topic: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa  (Read 1515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2013, 08:12:20 PM »
Federer is the most successful player to date and that's all we can say for now, nothing more. He's not the greatest because we can't compare across eras.

I don't know if you are weak in math but I've taken the entire career of each player starting from turning pro to retirement (retirement in Sampras' case).

Sampras didn't care for clay; he cared more about grass and hard. Federer won only 1 RG so far and didn't beat Nadal to win it. Nadal won 12 Slams and 8 of them are on clay. That's his favourte surface without a doubt. 

Doesn't matter how many finals one has made, Sampras still rules in the finals and was unbeatable in his prime.

Anyway, adios amigo.
You are everything I am not.

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2013, 11:26:07 AM »
Anyone who's quick to say Federer is the greatest loses his or her credibility right away. How do you define 'greatest' when you can't even compare across eras? And how is anyone 'greatest' when when we have yet see the future? Is it a fixed future we are looking at where Federer still remains as the most successful player in tennis? Rest assured, players will come in the future and will shatter Federer records. All of them just like he smashed most of Sampras' records. Fortunately, you will not live that long to see it but I do wish it happens in your lifetime.

Now moving on to Sampras and Federer, Sampras saw equal amount of Slams in both half of his career. First half, he won 7 Majors, in his second half, he won another 7 Majors. He won a total of 36 titles in the first half and 28 in the 2nd half. Pretty consistent. I've already shown Federer's in my previous post.

Also, Samrpas career on tour was 14 years long. Federer has completed his 14 year in 2012. Nadal is still 2 years away from it. Here's their final results in Major finals:

Sampras: 17 finals - won 14 Slams; lost 3 - 17.65%

(these 3 losses all came at the US Open and all before and after prime, 1992, 2000, 2001. Paul Annacone stated in his interview on Sampras as to how Pete was no longer willing to compete in the small tournaments including Masters. He was only keen on playing Majors. His 6 straight years on top of tennis had done him numbers by 2000 and the fact that, he had to start his career against a very tough field didn't help his case much either.)

Federer:  24 finals - won 17 Slams; lost 7 - 29.16%

Nadal: 17 finals - won 12 Slams; lost 5 - 29.41%

One can see that Sampras has another amazing stats in the finals winning all of them while in prime and taking care of his main rivals including Agassi. Neither Federer nor Nadal will be able to touch his No. 1 ranking for six straight years or his Slam finals percentage.

Most people get that anyone talking about the greatest is referring to only history up to this point. Certainly things can change, records get beaten all the time, but up until now Federer is the greatest we've seen. That's the message. It's cumbersome to have to include the caveat about the future every time one discuss the topic. Noone knows how long records will stand, but Margaret Court has at least managed to keep hers for over 40 years and will certainly manage several more.

You forgot Sampras' 18th final, the one he lost to Agassi in AO 1995. Not that I think finals % won is a reliable sign of greatness. Gustavo Kuerten won 100% of his slam finals, after all, and noone thinks he's greater than Lendl, who won 42%. And do you honestly think Sampras' career would be worse if he'd reached - and lost - a few RG finals? Is it really a better sign of greatness to lose in the QF?

Sampras may have been thought of as the greatest as recently as five years ago, but he's really not in the running anymore, as Federer has eclipsed him on every significant stat except for the 6 YE#1s, which is negated by Federer's more weeks as #1. It's less clear when you compare with people who has something Federer has not, like Rod Laver with his two calendar year Grand Slams.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2013, 01:07:01 PM »
Many fans refer Federer as the "GOAT" - The Greatest Of All Time. It includes ALL time - past, present and the future. They don't say Federer is the greatest to date. Even that term is extremely wrong as we can't possibly compare eras. We have no way of knowing how Federer would have fared against Sampras on grass and hard. But we do know he wasn't able to beat Nadal from 2008 to 2013 in a Major and that's a fact.

So yes, I absolutely disagree with the term 'greatest' and I have already given my reasons not once but twice. For the similar reason, Sampras also wasn't the greatest. He was the most successful until Federer showed up.

I did forget the 1995 loss but the % still doesn't go as high up as either Federer or Nadal which is more than 29%. And neither Lendl (8 Majors) nor Guga (3 RGs) fall into the same category as Sampras, Federer and Nadal, so the point is not even valid. Even Nadal doesn't fall into the same category as Federer and Sampras, because Nadal not only doesn't have 14 or more Slams, but also, he doesn't have the No. 1 ranking for record period of time or even close to it.

Sampras' record of 14 Majors and 6 straight years at No. 1 was the target Federer was chasing, not the other way around. I don't know how much either would have achieved had the eras been switched. And while Federer does have the most weeks at No. 1 than Sampras, Sampras' 6 straight years at No. 1 is another matter. It's much harder to achieve and Federer was toppled by Nadal, who also had Federer's number. It's not like Federer was injured and couldn't compete.

And I can give you 5 great claycourters from the 90s and I ask you to give me 5 names from Federer's decade who had won RGs. Granted, Federer made the RG finals a number of times, but that's all the more reason why he should have won at least 1 RG off of Nadal, as the chances were much greater for him to win at least one. But the reality is, he didn't. He won it after Soderling took Nadal out. I seriously doubt if he would have made the final a few times at RG in the 90s, but feel free to disagree because I know you will.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 01:23:45 PM by Emma »
You are everything I am not.

Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12235
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2013, 02:19:31 PM »
Fed is the greatest. Emma knows sh!t. sorry to be so blunt but it is what it is :)~ . Piggy on PEDs does not define RG. The truth will come out.

Any woman who supports Murray needs to get a life  :innocent:
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 02:22:48 PM by Alex »

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2013, 04:36:01 PM »
Emma, you create mind boggling rules within imaginary guidance that applies only when you try to make a point in you favor.


There is no argument, Fed is the GOAT........of all time; means just that. If somebody surpass him in the future, then Federer no longer will be the GOAT and that person will be. Saying you can't compare across eras it''s intellectual bankruptcy, I told you I can and I have. As simple as matching Iphones vs 80s cellular mega giant phones; plain as the day.


how anyone can take your argument serious when you say Sampras didn't care for clay (just the official surface of ROW); this is similar to your take on Murray's failure to get the #1 ranking. Really?   You fault Rafa for winning 8 out 12 slams at RG (the most difficult to win), ignore he has 9 finals outside of clay but give a pass to Sampras for making ZERO finals at the second most important event in tennis? 


Just to show you how difficult is to follow your arguments; you said Verdasco was a ruthless opponent playing amazing tennis against Murray in the QF. You said he was blasting forehands and serves like a madman. Now, you said many times in the past that Nadal's 2009 AO was cheap because he didn't face good hardcourters. Didn't Rafa play Verdasco in a 5 setter in the SF before beating Roger? So he wasn't ruthless then, eh? If Verdasco wasn't a good HC player in that tournament, what makes him even a decent grasscourter this year? What's his ranking again?


Finally, the math is simple; Roger made 24 GS finals in ALL surfaces and won 17.....Sampras made 18 and won 14 and couldn't hack it on clay. Sampras is as incomplete of a champion as a three legged table.  24>18    17>14.     

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2013, 05:24:45 PM »
Many fans refer Federer as the "GOAT" - The Greatest Of All Time. It includes ALL time - past, present and the future. They don't say Federer is the greatest to date. Even that term is extremely wrong as we can't possibly compare eras. We have no way of knowing how Federer would have fared against Sampras on grass and hard. But we do know he wasn't able to beat Nadal from 2008 to 2013 in a Major and that's a fact.

So yes, I absolutely disagree with the term 'greatest' and I have already given my reasons not once but twice. For the similar reason, Sampras also wasn't the greatest. He was the most successful until Federer showed up.

I did forget the 1995 loss but the % still doesn't go as high up as either Federer or Nadal which is more than 29%. And neither Lendl (8 Majors) nor Guga (3 RGs) fall into the same category as Sampras, Federer and Nadal, so the point is not even valid. Even Nadal doesn't fall into the same category as Federer and Sampras, because Nadal not only doesn't have 14 or more Slams, but also, he doesn't have the No. 1 ranking for record period of time or even close to it.

Sampras' record of 14 Majors and 6 straight years at No. 1 was the target Federer was chasing, not the other way around. I don't know how much either would have achieved had the eras been switched. And while Federer does have the most weeks at No. 1 than Sampras, Sampras' 6 straight years at No. 1 is another matter. It's much harder to achieve and Federer was toppled by Nadal, who also had Federer's number. It's not like Federer was injured and couldn't compete.

And I can give you 5 great claycourters from the 90s and I ask you to give me 5 names from Federer's decade who had won RGs. Granted, Federer made the RG finals a number of times, but that's all the more reason why he should have won at least 1 RG off of Nadal, as the chances were much greater for him to win at least one. But the reality is, he didn't. He won it after Soderling took Nadal out. I seriously doubt if he would have made the final a few times at RG in the 90s, but feel free to disagree because I know you will.

No, GOAT does not include the future. At least, that is what everyone (with the sole exception of yourself) means when the talk about the subject. Now you know.

Sampras still has a better slam finals percentage, yes, that obviously does not compensate for missing titles. Look at the direct comparison, after removing what they have in common. What would you rather have, 3 slam wins and 3 lost finals, or none of either?

No, it is not more difficult to achieve a record in YE#1s than it is to achieve a record in weeks as #1. Both are of the same difficulty.

Five players from Federer's decade who had won slams? Under what circumstances? With Nadal dominating utterly and Federer being clearly 2nd best for a long time it's no surprise few men has won it recently. I really do not see how this is relevant in comparison to Sampras. On clay, Federer massacres Sampras, this much is clear. He's got very much better results while playing a better opponent on the surface than Sampras had to deal with. The fact that noone else reached finals does not mean they were poor, just that the two best players were impossible to deal with. For Sampras the problem on clay was never two players, or even five, he lost to many different ones.

Offline sid

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2013, 05:10:32 AM »
The 2 best ATM are Dkokovic & Murray the ranking say so.What Rogers won (Slams) no-one can take away from him.Come to think of it,What Nadal done on Clay no-one can take away from him either.Are you talking in a past tense on Roger & Nadal?

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2013, 01:23:43 PM »
The 2 best ATM are Dkokovic & Murray the ranking say so.What Rogers won (Slams) no-one can take away from him.Come to think of it,What Nadal done on Clay no-one can take away from him either.Are you talking in a past tense on Roger & Nadal?

This looked to me like a career-comparison thread, not one about who's best atm. Even as a Federer fan I concede he has currently no business being in a "Who's best atm" discussion. His career is quite good, though.

Offline Swish

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 10281
  • Gender: Male
  • How Many Times?
Re: Bring it on. Fed or Rafa
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2013, 02:21:44 PM »
Fed isn't the best at the moment.
That would be Murray, Nadal and Djokovic.
 
Something can be said for all three.
 
Fed has dropped off so I don't consider him in the mix at this time.