kingbroadfooot 68 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 No games today. I've just got out of hospital and can't go out and do anything, so have been watching Wimbledon basically constantly.Need to find something to do with myself today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulRFC1 115 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 I wondered this, but I think he means the 3 best players at the same time, which is arguable. Sampras is not the greatest ! Borg, Laver or Federer for me, then Pete. I certainly wouldn't say it's a poor era though !Oh.I didnt mean a poor era actually, just not as great as other eras.If you compare it to the 80's then its pretty weak, in terms of top 3 accomplishments then its probably the greatest era but outside the top 5 there isnt much going on.If you look at the era Sampras played in it had players like Becker, Lendle, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Chang, Rafter, Edberg, Stich and more.Federers most dominant run was 2004-2007 were players like James Blake and Nalbandian were top 10.No comparison really.Its all about opinions tho and Borg and Laver may very well be better than him I just dont think Federer is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenose_72 198 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 It will be a tricky match for Murray tomorrow, Gasquet's one handed backhand ( ) will cause him bother. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clemdog 39,389 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Oh.I didnt mean a poor era actually, just not as great as other eras.If you compare it to the 80's then its pretty weak, in terms of top 3 accomplishments then its probably the greatest era but outside the top 5 there isnt much going on.If you look at the era Sampras played in it had players like Becker, Lendle, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Chang, Rafter, Edberg, Stich and more.Federers most dominant run was 2004-2007 were players like James Blake and Nalbandian were top 10.No comparison really.Its all about opinions tho and Borg and Laver may very well be better than him I just dont think Federer is.True, I still don't think you can undermine the likes of Del Potro, Tsgona, Murray etc. But this era, it's certainly more about the high quality of the top 3-4 than medium quality of the top 10. I just think Fed's precision takes him above the rest since the Noughties and I reckon it'd still be the same under the conditions that Laver, Borg etc. Had to play under.P.S James Blake Forgot about him ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broxi 11,536 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 just to clear up I meant the best 3 players to be playing at the one time Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broxi 11,536 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 its boring with no tennis on today Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,810 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Do you mean Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are the 3 greatest to have played tennis ? Nadal has the best chance of becoming the greatest but its a pretty poor era.People like Sampras(the greatest imo), Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Lavar and Agassi etc are the greats of Tennis.Obviously Federer is a truly great player and only he out of the 3 should be considered a great, even then he is probably only top 10 maybe 5.Nadal has the best chance to topple Sampras IMO but he would need to dominate the mens game for a good couple of years and even then with the lack of competition its hard to say if he would be considered the greatest.I wouldnt even consider Djokovic to be anywhere near it.I don't see how Sampras can be considered the best when he didn't win a French Open and won less grand slams than Federer who you say is only top 10? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieD 19,046 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 At the end of the day, all of the greats, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, they all consider Federer to be the greatest. Which is to say you can say that Federer's era wasn't as tough as previous ones but those guys all think Federer plays tennis of a class unmatched by anyone, including themselves. Federer can only play what was in front of him. The only people with true insight into whether or not he could have beaten the likes of Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl are themselves, and they say he's the greatest.Bearing all that in mind, plus the statistical records, plus the fact he plays the most amazing quality of tennis I have EVER seen, including many matches I've watched from even those legends before my time, I am perfectly happy to accept their views as just about definitive.Using the era to compare is silly anyway. Whether or not Federer is greater than those mentioned is one thing, but to say he hasn't had to play the likes of Courier, Rafter, Chang, Stich and Edberg is a strange one for me. Are you saying Federer in his prime wouldn't have beaten those guys? That the Nalbandians and Blakes of this world are his true level? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieD 19,046 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 PS why does no one ever mention Mats Wilander? Not as a candidate for GOAT but just in lists of top players? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,810 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 PS why does no one ever mention Mats Wilander? Not as a candidate for GOAT but just in lists of top players?Good shout. Won the same amount of slams as Borg and his 1988 was one of the best seasons of any player. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulRFC1 115 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 At the end of the day, all of the greats, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, they all consider Federer to be the greatest. Which is to say you can say that Federer's era wasn't as tough as previous ones but those guys all think Federer plays tennis of a class unmatched by anyone, including themselves. Federer can only play what was in front of him. The only people with true insight into whether or not he could have beaten the likes of Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl are themselves, and they say he's the greatest.Bearing all that in mind, plus the statistical records, plus the fact he plays the most amazing quality of tennis I have EVER seen, including many matches I've watched from even those legends before my time, I am perfectly happy to accept their views as just about definitive.Using the era to compare is silly anyway. Whether or not Federer is greater than those mentioned is one thing, but to say he hasn't had to play the likes of Courier, Rafter, Chang, Stich and Edberg is a strange one for me. Are you saying Federer in his prime wouldn't have beaten those guys? That the Nalbandians and Blakes of this world are his true level?Im just saying that in Federers prime the top guys he had to face were not as good as the players Sampras or Borg had to play.Thats why it plays a big role in the argument.Here was the top 10 seeds for the US OPEN in 2006 -1. Federer2. Nadal3. Ljubicic4. Nalbandian5. Blake6. Robredo7. Davydenko8. Baghdatis9. Roddick10. GonzalezThats what I mean, that competition is not great.No doubt Federer is one of the 5 best ever but I dont think he is the greatest.Again saying he has 16 Grand Slams compared to Sampras 14 and that makes him better is flawed because the competition was harder in Sampras's day and Federer won one French Open and he beat Soderling in the final. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulRFC1 115 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 And Federers record against Nadal, his main competitor and rival is not great.How can he be the greatest when his record against the best player he can face from his era is 17-8 Nadal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieD 19,046 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Im just saying that in Federers prime the top guys he had to face were not as good as the players Sampras or Borg had to play.Thats why it plays a big role in the argument.Here was the top 10 seeds for the US OPEN in 2006 -1. Federer2. Nadal3. Ljubicic4. Nalbandian5. Blake6. Robredo7. Davydenko8. Baghdatis9. Roddick10. GonzalezThats what I mean, that competition is not great.No doubt Federer is one of the 5 best ever but I dont think he is the greatest.Again saying he has 16 Grand Slams compared to Sampras 14 and that makes him better is flawed because the competition was harder in Sampras's day and Federer won one French Open and he beat Soderling in the final.Sure, but Federer has been the second best clay player in the world for years. He won one title and has reached five finals so far. On his worst surface. Sampras never even made a single final.Jimmy Connors has said - "In an era of specialists, you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist, or a hard court specialist...or you're Roger Federer." The same can't be said of Sampras. During an era when the French Open was won by the likes of Andres Gomes, Sergi Bruguera and Thomas Muster, not exactly the 90s equivalents of Rafael Nadal, Sampras made no in-roads whatsoever. Not even a challenger.Just out of curiosity, putting aside the question of effectiveness and winning ability, for which the era argument is relevant and it it hard to give a definitive edge to one player over another, do you think that Sampras played better tennis than Federer? I mean was he a more gifted player in your opinion? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieD 19,046 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 And Federers record against Nadal, his main competitor and rival is not great.How can he be the greatest when his record against the best player he can face from his era is 17-8 Nadal.Because almost all of his matches against Nadal have been on clay, on which Nadal is undoubtedly better.On two out of three surfaces Federer has a very credible record against Nadal. He leads it in fact. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,810 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Im just saying that in Federers prime the top guys he had to face were not as good as the players Sampras or Borg had to play.Thats why it plays a big role in the argument.Here was the top 10 seeds for the US OPEN in 2006 -1. Federer2. Nadal3. Ljubicic4. Nalbandian5. Blake6. Robredo7. Davydenko8. Baghdatis9. Roddick10. GonzalezThats what I mean, that competition is not great.No doubt Federer is one of the 5 best ever but I dont think he is the greatest.Again saying he has 16 Grand Slams compared to Sampras 14 and that makes him better is flawed because the competition was harder in Sampras's day and Federer won one French Open and he beat Soderling in the final.Well, the players listed above are all very good players but in an era where 2 or 3 are so dominant (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic), it is highly unlikely that any of them would win slams. And Sampras' era was overrated. Agassi was world class but Edberg and Becker were well past their prime, Chang was a 1 slam wonder, Stich and Courier were good but not world class either. And it is still 1 more French Open that Sampras won. In an era where there wasn't any All time great clay courters playing. Bruguera and Kuerten were very good but not on Nadal, Borg or Wilander's level. And the best result Sampras achieved there was a solitary Semi Final. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappa 24 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Federer is the best tennis player ever. Not only was he so dominant at his very best but his very best was absolutely beautiful to watch. Breathtaking at times. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulRFC1 115 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 He was poor on clay theres no doubting that.Grass - Sampras winClay - Federer winHard- Very closeFederer is technically better IMO Jamie.You can say Sampras's era was overrated but it was still far better than Federers.Federer's real competition has came from a clay court specialist. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,810 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 He was poor on clay theres no doubting that.Grass - Sampras winClay - Federer winHard- Very closeFederer is technically better IMO Jamie.You can say Sampras's era was overrated but it was still far better than Federers.Federer's real competition has came from a clay court specialist.A clay court specialist who has won Wimbledon, US Open and the Australian Open. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulRFC1 115 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 A clay court specialist who has won Wimbledon, US Open and the Australian Open.I dont see him winning them in Sampras's era. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieD 19,046 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 He was poor on clay theres no doubting that.Grass - Sampras winClay - Federer winHard- Very closeFederer is technically better IMO Jamie.You can say Sampras's era was overrated but it was still far better than Federers.Federer's real competition has came from a clay court specialist.This is the thing for me. The era difficulty argument is valid but ultimately useless because there's never a concensus. The grand slam titles argument is very useful because it's what the top players aim for and the extent to which they achieve it indicates their mentality and the extent of their dominance over their era. However, since Federer broke the record for slams, which is in itself not conclusive evidence of his all-time greatness, I've thought to myself that surely, given the combination of titles AND the fact that Federer plays tennis of a technical brilliance unmatched probably by anyone since at least McEnroe if not by nobody at all ever, the claim that he is the greatest has to be considered to have a significant weight of support behind it.Very few people in any sport have won so much so magnificently. And while Sampras is an all-time great, and may have had to beat better players overall over his career, and while playing style is a matter of taste and I'm sure there are those who preferred to watch Samparas over Federer for legitimate reasons, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that he not only won less than Federer, but he was less, I don't know, dazzling when he did win. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,810 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 I dont see him winning them in Sampras's era.That's purely hypothetical. No-one knows for sure whether Nadal could have had the same success 15 years ago. But to label him just a clay court specialist is a bit unfair. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingbroadfooot 68 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Anyone know if there's a way of finding out which matches are going to be aired by the BBC?Even though they offer a schedule of what is on each court, they don't say which matches will be shown.I guess it's probably decided at their discretion, due to the unpredictability of match timings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluegecko 306 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Anyone know if there's a way of finding out which matches are going to be aired by the BBC?Even though they offer a schedule of what is on each court, they don't say which matches will be shown.I guess it's probably decided at their discretion, due to the unpredictability of match timings.you can usually select the match you want via the red button if it's not no bbc1, or bbc2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingbroadfooot 68 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 you can usually select the match you want via the red button if it's not no bbc1, or bbc2I've only got freeview sadly and it only has one option on the red button (usually Glastonbury highlights ) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan 23 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Not liking the fact Murray v Gasquet is first up tomorrow. Working til 5pm! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.