New tournament: Who's the GOAT?
Eurosport-Yahoo! has set up a new tennis tournament to find who is the greatest men's tennis player of all time - and ultimately it will be up to you, the readers, to decide.
Who's the GOAT? (greatest of all time) is a 16-man knockout tournament that will pit the best of the best against each other every week.
There have been 16 men who have won four or more Grand Slam titles in the Open era and we have seeded our competitors based on those successes. Where players have won the same amount, the number of ATP titles they have won acts as a tie-break.
Each week we will present one match-up and get you the readers to vote on who would win if both players faced off against each other while playing at the absolute peak of their abilities.
To help stir debate, Eurosport tennis commentator and blogger Simon Reed will analyse each hypothetical match every Thursday and offer his opinion on how it might go.
Then the following Wednesday we will reveal the result of the match with a selection of your comments, before Simon presents the next match-up the following day.
When analysing each match, we'd urge you to consider the players playing one set on grass, one set on a clay court, and one set on a hard court before deciding who you think might win.
However, there are no hard and fast rules. Each match is its own unique event. You might think Roger Federer is the greatest, but also that an in-form John McEnroe would beat him every time. You might just be a big Boris Becker fan and want him to progress in the tournament. You might have never warmed to Pete Sampras and want him out straight away.
As we said, ultimately it is up to you. If you want to set up a Facebook page to drum up support for Bjorn Borg, or tweet all your friends to vote for Andre Agassi - go ahead.
It's all a bit of fun, and hopefully it will spark some great tennis debate.
Find the tournament draw below and log on to Eurosport-Yahoo! on Thursday when Simon Reed will run the rule over the first match - Roger Federer v Jim Courier - and you will be able to start voting.
WHO'S THE GOAT? - THE DRAW
Top half
1-Roger Federer
16-Jim Courier
-
8-Mats Wilander
9-Boris Becker
-
5-Ivan Lendl
12-Rod Laver
-
13-John Newcombe
4-Jimmy Connors
+++
Bottom half
3-Bjorn Borg
14-Ken Rosewall
-
6-Andre Agassi
11-Rafael Nadal
-
7-John McEnroe
10-Stefan Edberg
-
15-Guillermo Vilas
2-Pete Sampras
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/03022010/58/ … -goat.html
Niektóre kandydatury po prostu śmieszne. Jaki związek mają wyrobnicy Wilander i Courier z Fedem, Samprasem, McEnroe? Gdzie Emerson, który wygrał 12 WS?
Simon wyraźnie nabrał chęci do pisania analiz. :P Ale mu ciężko być musiało, gdy ustalając drabinkę musiał pominąć nazwisko Marego. :D
Niektóre kandydatury po prostu śmieszne. Jaki związek mają wyrobnicy Wilander i Courier z Fedem, Samprasem, McEnroe? Gdzie Emerson, który wygrał 12 WS?
Simon był jeszcze wtedy mały, nie widział ich w akcji. Tildena też nie ma, a 10 szlemów ugrał. ;)
Jestem święcie przekonany, że wygra Laver.
Wygra Federer. :]
Simon Reed: Federer [1] def. Courier [16] 2-1 (6-3 6-7 6-3)
Who's the GOAT? 1-Federer v 16-Courier
Our Who's the Goat? tournament kicks off with a match-up between top seed Roger Federer and rank outsider Jim Courier.
A straight-forward victory for the current world number one?
The contenders.
Roger Federer
Nationality: Swiss
Seeded: 1
Grand Slam titles: 16
Australian Open W (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open W (2009)
Wimbledon W (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
US Open W (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)
Jim Courier
Nationality: American
Seeded: 16
Grand Slam titles: 4
Australian Open W (1992, 1993)
French Open W (1991, 1992)
Wimbledon F (1993)
US Open F (1991)
Who would win if both players were playing at their absolute best? (One set hard court, one set clay, one set grass)
Simon Reed's verdict:
This match might look a banker to most, but if they are playing one set on each surface, I think Courier could just sneak the set against Federer on clay.
It's interesting, but I actually think Federer will play better on clay this year than he has has done before because the pressure is now off him since he won at Roland Garros last year.
I sense winning that tournament meant more to him than breaking Pete Sampras's Grand Slam record at Wimbledon.
I think he will play really well at the French Open again this year, and strangely, while we may have already seen the best of Federer in his career, I believe there is more to come from him on clay - he has a great chance of defending his title at Roland Garros.
Having said that, and despite Federer being the second best on clay in the world by some way over the last five years, Courier was an immense clay court player in his time and good enough to trouble the Swiss.
It's a very close call, but I'll give the clay court set to Courier in a tie-break.
At Wimbledon though, I'm afraid it's a gimmie for Federer. Courier might be able to hold serve three times, but he wouldn't be able to win anything else, so I'd have that 6-3 to Federer.
On hard courts, again, with Federer at his very best it is likely to be a similar story. Courier might get a few holds but little more.
Courier had a very good serve and a huge forehand. It was a different type of forehand to Federer's. The Swiss master has many different forehands he can use and that makes it very difficult to read.
Courier's was slightly easier to read, but it was so strong it meant he could go the distance with anyone. It was cruel forehand, especially when played in-to-out - it was a massive shot.
Courier I suppose was the Andy Roddick of his time, with a powerful serve and forehand that could really hurt - although he was better at implementing that style than Roddick.
However, his backhand, while I wouldn't say was a weakness, was not as strong as his other shots. Federer's backhand has varied in consistency at times, but in Australia it was working better than I have seen it for years, probably better than it has ever been.
So I think Federer's backhand helps him win this match as Courier only really used his backhand to keep the ball in play.
In a hypothetical meeting, I imagine Federer's tactic would be to get on that Courier backhand. Courier would probably try and do something similar but he wouldn't be as good at it.
Final Verdict
Federer wins 2-1
6-3 (hard court), 6-7 (clay court), 6-3 grass.
Taaaa, chciałbym zobaczyć analizę Pana Reeda meczu Sampras - Federer. :P
A Federer - Laver, a Nadal - Rosewall? :D Już nie mogę się doczekać błyskotliwych analiz szans na poszczególnych nawierzchniach. hahaha Rozumiem, że Simon sie nudzi, a napisać o dekonstrukcji tenisa TNO w finale Australii jakoś się nie pali, ale takimi dywagacjami po prostu się ośmiesza. :]
Mamy drugi wynik: Becker def. Wilander 2-6 6-2 7-6
Who's the GOAT? 8-Wilander v 9-Becker
Last week's Greatest Of All Time match-up might have been a bit of a one-sided tie - we were actually slightly surprised that Jim Courier polled as well as he did - but this week's match has all the makings of a classic: Swedish great Mats Wilander against Germany's Boris Becker.
Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the rundown on the two contenders.
Mats Wilander
Nationality: Swedish
Seeded: 8
Grand Slam titles: Seven
Australian Open: Winner (1983, 1984, 1988)
French Open: Winner (1982, 1985, 1988)
Wimbledon: Quarter-finalist (1987, 1988, 1989)
US Open: Winner (1988)
Boris Becker
Nationality: German
Seeded: 9
Grand Slam titles: Six
Australian Open: Winner (1991, 1996)
French Open: Semi-finalist (1987, 1989, 1991)
Wimbledon: Winner (1985, 1986, 1989)
US Open: Winner (1989)
Real-life head-to-head stats: Becker won 7-3 (Becker won five on carpet, two on hard court; Wilander two on clay, one on hard court). Wilander won all three of their Grand Slam meetings, while Becker made a clean sweep outside the Slams.
Who would win if both players were playing at their absolute best? (One set hard court, one set clay, one set grass)
Simon Reed's verdict:
I've got to be careful what I say on this one, because Mats is a personal friend of mine and I work with Boris at Wimbledon every year!
But I'm not hedging my bets when I say I think it would be an incredibly close, hard-fought affair.
Both players were, in mental terms, raging monsters. Each would fight to the end, never giving up a single easy point, doing their utmost throughout to win.
On clay, though, there's no doubt in my mind that Wilander would come through. He would drive Becker to distraction, wearing him down by getting everything back, being a constant thorn in his side.
Wilander was just so tough mentally and physically, with such street smarts, that he could get under his opponents' skin. He knew full well that people underestimated him and made the most of it, even pulling off the trick of somehow making the man across the net play badly against him.
So gritty was his approach, in fact, that he genuinely revelled in seeing his opponents fading, and openly admitted that he loved seeing physical pain on their faces as he wore them down!
I can't see Becker ever living comfortably with that, and though the German would probably hold a couple of his service games my call is that Wilander wins the clay set 6-2.
On grass, it's the exact opposite. Wilander's game was never really made for tennis's fastest surface and he was never a factor at Wimbledon - as his record shows.
Becker's big serve and more aggressive approach would have easily seen him dominate the Swede.
He had more tools than just those, however. Everyone remembers the way Boris used to dive all over the court, but as well as those spectacular moves he had huge ground strokes on both forehand and backhand. Becker would win the grass set 6-2.
In the hard court set, though, it really is all but impossible to call.
I'd see it as being an incredible battle, because Becker just as much as Wilander was a giant of the mental side of the game.
Becker's serve would mean he wouldn't be broken, Wilander's grit would ensure that the set goes to a tie-break - and I reckon it would be an epic one.
Who would win? Well, I'll probably regret coming down on one side of the fence or the other... but I'm going to go with Becker, 14-12, in the tie-break.
Final Verdict
Becker wins 2-1
2-6 (clay court), 6-2 (grass), 7-6(12) (hard court).
Laver [12] def. Lendl [5] 67 63 64
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/1885/
Connors [4] def. Newcombe [13] 4-6 6-3 6-3
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/1941/
Borg [3] def. Rosewall [14] 6-1 6-7 6-2
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/1982/
Agassi - Nadal
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/2059/
McEnroe - Edberg
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/2199/
Vilas - Sampras
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon … icle/2228/
Czas na 1/4 finału:
Federer def. Becker 64 76 76
Who's the GOAT? 1-Federer v 9-Becker
In the first of our Greatest Of All Time quarter-finals, top seed Roger Federer takes on ninth-seeded Boris Becker in an intriguing clash.
Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the rundown on the two contenders.
Roger Federer
Nationality: Swiss
Seeded: 1
Grand Slam titles: 16
Australian Open winner (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open winner (2009)
Wimbledon winner (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
US Open winner (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)
Boris Becker
Nationality: German
Seeded: 9
Grand Slam titles: Six
Australian Open winner (1991, 1996)
French Open semi-finalist (1987, 1989, 1991)
Wimbledon winner (1985, 1986, 1989)
US Open winner (1989)
Simon Reed's verdict
I would give Federer the edge on all surfaces. Boris would sevre and volley at Wimbledon for sure. It would have been great on all three surfaces. Boris wasn't as good on clay only reaching the semi-finals of the French Open.
Do we believe that Federer is the second best clay court player of his generation? I think we do based on his record. If we say Nadal is the best clay court player on his generation, which I think is fairly safe to say. Maybe Thomas Muster as the second best but Federer's clay court record is extraordinary so I think you'd have to say he is the second best of his time.
And he is definitely a better clay court player than Becker.
So I would give Federer the edge in each of the sets.
I think they would be very tight matches, I think Boris would give him a heck of a run for his money but I think Federer would be too good all round. Just the one service break would decide things at the most.
On the hard courts, Boris was a super shot maker on both wings but particularly on the backhand, he had a huge backhand. He also had an amazing will and was a good volleyer.
And he was an exciting, charismatic player, and an extraordinary fighter so he would test Federer all round.
But I think Roger would have too much class. We're talking Roger at his best, the Roger of three years ago. He's just too good.
Final verdict
6-4 (clay) 7-6 (grass) 7-6 (hard)
Drugi wynik ćwierćfinałowy:
Laver def. Connors 6-4 7-5 7-6
Who's the GOAT? 12-Laver v 4-Connors
Laver In the second of our Greatest of All Time quarter-finals, 12th seed Rod Laver takes on fourth seed Jimmy Connors in a clash that spans the ages.
Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the rundown on the two contenders.
Rod Laver
Nationality: Australian
Seeded: 12
Grand Slam titles: 11
Australian Open: Winner (1960*, 1962*, 1969)
French Open: Winner (1962*, 1969)
Wimbledon: Winner (1961*, 1962*, 1968, 1969)
US Open: Winner (1962*, 1969)
* denotes amateur titles, preceding the open era
Jimmy Connors
Nationality: American
Seeded: 4
Grand Slam titles: Eight
Australian Open winner (1974)
French Open semi-finalist (1979, 1980, 1984, 1985)
Wimbledon winner (1974, 1982)
US Open winner (1974, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1983)
Simon Reed's verdict
Since these two players are essentially from different eras, this is where judging the GOAT becomes tricky. So you have to go on their respective records, and considering Laver's record was better than anybody's, I can't see beyond the Australian winning through to the semi-finals.
That said, their careers did overlap by a few years, and when they played each other in a one-off $100,000 winner-takes-all Challenge Match at Ceasars Palace in 1975, Connors was victorious, winning 6-4 6-2 3-6 7-5.
But that match came as Laver's career was on the wane while Connors, 14 years his junior, had turned professional only three years earlier.
Put Connors at his peak back on to the wooden racquets or take Laver 10 years on from his best and give him a graphite racquet, you have to say that Laver would have beaten him on every surface, including the grass at Wimbledon.
Had it not been for the years between 1963 to 1968, when Laver was banned from competing in Grand Glams, he would have won many more, for sure. The year he turned pro, he won every single Slam and during his outcast years on the circuit it's not unfair to say he would have gone on and won another seven or eight.
Add them to the 11 he won, and you can see he would have eclipsed Connors, who won only eight.
Laver was a fantastic player at the back, he had a decent serve, a backhand to die for and a super volley. Those attributes helped him complete the Grand Slam twice - once in the pre-Open era and then again in Open era.
Against Connors, the US Open would be the closest set. No one knew how to work a crowd better than Connors, so at his home event it would be frighteningly close, but I think Laver would edge it, possibly on a tie-break.
Connors would have tried every trick in the book, and maybe even some not in the book, but Laver was unflappable and just got on with things.
Final verdict
Laver wins 6-4 (clay) 7-5 (grass) 7-6 (hard)
1/4 : Borg def. Agassi 6-2 3-6 6-4
Who's the GOAT? 3-Borg v 4-Agassi
In the third of our Greatest of All Time quarter-finals, third seed Bjorn Borg takes on sixth seed Andre Agassi in a clash that would be a real thriller.
Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the rundown on the two contenders.
Bjorn Borg
Nationality: Swedish
Seeded: 3
Grand Slam titles: 11
Australian Open: Third round (1974)
French Open: Winner (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)
Wimbledon: Winner (1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980)
US Open: Finalist (1976, 1978, 1980, 1981)
Andre Agassi
Nationality: American
Seeded: 6
Grand Slam titles: 8
Australian Open - Winner (1995, 2000, 2001, 2003)
French Open - Winner (1999)
Wimbledon - Winner (1992)
US Open - Winner (1994, 1999)
Simon Reed's verdict
The disparity between the two players' eras makes this another very tricky clash to assess, but you have to go on their respective records. When you compare Bjorn Borg's and Andre Agassi's statistics in the Grand Slams, it is pretty cut and dry.
Agassi would have won on the hard courts, but Borg's record on grass and clay cannot be disputed and puts the American in the shade. The Swede was the most sensational athlete - possibly the best the sport has ever seen - while Agassi was fearsome at his best.
In order to compare the two, you have to either bring Borg forward an era, or Agassi back one, but in either case I fancy the Swede would have prevailed. Borg was simply imperious at Roland Garros, and Agassi would not have been able to compete with him on clay - it would have been a convincing win.
Equally, the grass-court encounter would have gone his way too, thanks to his athleticism and speed around the court, although it would have been slightly closer than on clay.
Agassi would have thrived if the pair had met on a hard court, and the American loved the atmosphere generated at the Australian and US Opens.
Borg was certainly no slouch on hard courts, but there was something about the US and Australian Opens that did not agree with him, and Agassi would have outpowered him from the back of the court.
There is no doubt in my mind that Borg would have won this match, but it would have been a thrilling match up, with lots of running and long rallies.
Agassi would have set the pace and used his court craft, but Borg would have had too much class in a fiercely-contested, enthralling encounter.
Final verdict
Borg wins 6-2 (clay) 3-6 (hard) 6-4 (grass)
1/4; Sampras def. McEnroe 76 57 76
Who's the GOAT?: 7-McEnroe v 2-Sampras
In the fourth of our Greatest of All Time quarter-finals, seventh seed John McEnroe takes on second seed Pete Sampras in an intriguing clash.
Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the run down on the two contenders.
John McEnroe
Nationality: American
Seeded: 7
Grand Slam titles: 7
Australian Open: Semi-final (1983)
French Open: Finalist (1984)
Wimbledon: Winner (1981, 1983, 1984)
US Open: Winner (1979, 1980, 1981, 1984)
Pete Sampras
Nationality: American
Seeded: 2
Grand Slam titles: 14
Australian Open: Winner (1994, 1997)
French Open: Semi-finalist (1996)
Wimbledon: Winner (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000)
US Open: Winner (1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002)
Real life head-to-head: 0-3 Sampras
Simon Reed's verdict
What a fantastic match-up. This one is almost too close to call.
My initial thought is that on grass, you can't look past Sampras, even if it's McEnroe we're talking about.
Sampras won seven Wimbledon titles to McEnroe's three, so you'd have to expect him to win a one-off set. But it would be close and a tie-breaker would most likely be needed to settle it.
McEnroe's serve was an immensely powerful weapon and he would be incredibly tough for Pete to break so I see it going to serve before Sampras's extra winning experience on the grass proves decisive.
On clay, it's a tough one as neither player was that successful on the red stuff. Neither player managed a Roland Garros title, with a semi-final appearance the closest Sampras got.
I would give it McEnroe by a nose, if only because on the one occasion he reached the final in Paris - in 1984 - he played brilliantly against Ivan Lendl and seemed to have the title wrapped up only to let it slip in the end.
And on hard courts, like on the grass, the pair are virtually inseparable. But, again, given his stunning record - five US and two Australian - I'd have to back Sampras.
To watch them at their best against each other would be fantastic: Sampras's muscularity opposed to McEnroe's court craft and speed at the net.
McEnroe would have hustled Pete and put pressure on his backhand but, because of what he achieved, I'm sure Pete would have found a way to win the match.
Final verdict
Sampras wins: 7-6 (grass) 5-7 (clay) 7-6 (hard)
1/2: [1]Federer def. [12]Laver 6-3 7-5 6-3
Who's the GOAT? 1-Federer v 12-Laver
In the first of our Greatest Of All Time semi-finals the two men with arguably the strongest claim to the title go head-to-head.
Top seed Roger Federer takes on Australian legend Rod Laver for a place in the title match.
Roger Federer
Nationality: Swiss
Seeded: 1
Grand Slam titles: 16
Australian Open winner (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open winner (2009)
Wimbledon winner (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
US Open winner (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)
Rod Laver
Nationality: Australian
Seeded: 12
Grand Slam titles: 11
Australian Open winner (1960, 1962, 1969)
French Open winner (1962, 1969)
Wimbledon winner (1961, 1962, 1968, 1969)
US Open winner (1962, 1969)
Simon Reed's verdict
When Laver did his first Grand Slam most of the other big names had turned pro so he was comfortably the best player left around. You can never say a Grand Slam isn't impressive but it meant less than the second one.
Although by the time the second one came around, most of these guys had got older and were beginning to retire. So in many ways that gap worked for him either side.
But he was a heck of a player and a delight to watch. It was great watching him play, he did elevate men's tennis to a new level. But Federer has done that also.
If you imagine Laver playing Federer, Federer wins every time, that's the problem with this one; you can't get that out of your head.
On grass Federer would have been too good. I would see him winning that with at least one break of serve and possibly two, definitely comfortably.
The other two surfaces would be tougher. I think we underestimate Federer on clay because of Rafael Nadal. I think Nadal has been the best ever clay court player and if it hadn't been for Rafa I'm convinced Federer would have won three of four French Opens.
I think he's a very good clay court player and I have Federer winning on all three surfaces.
You have to imagine how Laver would play and there's no doubt he would be very difficult to knock over. He would be even fitter, even stronger and all the court craft he had, the wonderful game and fantastic backhand he had, he wouldn't have been easy.
But Federer's record is better than Laver's; he has won more Slams and he has elevated men's tennis in the way that Laver did. He is the better all round player.
Final verdict
Federer wins: 6-3 (grass) 7-5 (clay) 6-3 (hard)
1/2: Sampras def. Borg
Who's the GOAT? 2-Pete Sampras v 3-Bjorn Borg
In the second of our Greatest of All Time semi-finals, second seed Pete Sampras takes on third seed Bjorn Borg in a clash that would likely have been a real thriller.
Who will face top seed Roger Federer in the final?
Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's the rundown on the two contenders.
Pete Sampras
Nationality: American
Seeded: 2
Grand Slam titles: 14
Australian Open: Winner (1994, 1997)
French Open: Semi-finalist (1996)
Wimbledon: Winner (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000)
US Open: Winner (1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002)
Bjorn Borg
Nationality: Swedish
Seeded: 3
Grand Slam titles: 11
Australian Open: Third round (1974)
French Open: Winner (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)
Wimbledon: Winner (1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980)
US Open: Finalist (1976, 1978, 1980, 1981)
Simon Reed's verdict
This is a really difficult one to call; they played so far apart, two decades apart, and it's tricky to make a logical analysis of what would have happened.
By the time Sampras was playing the game had moved on and the technology had moved on; the standard rose considerably in that time.
But you have to imagine these two playing at their best, at their peak, when they were both as dominant as each other.
Two of the surfaces are really easy: Borg would've beaten Sampras on clay. He won six French Open titles, four in row.
No-one ruled clay like Borg until Rafael Nadal, so Borg would have won comprehensively on clay, although he would have struggled to break Sampras's serve.
And Sampras would have beaten Borg on hard courts.
Borg never won the Australian Open, and Sampras was a terrific hard court player. He won the Australian Open twice and the US Open five times, so you have to give the hard courts to Sampras.
Grass is so tricky.
As we're talking 'at their peak' I can't imagine anybody beating Sampras at Wimbledon.
At his peak Sampras was the greatest grass court player I've ever seen, and so the American just edges it.
Borg is close: he won Wimbledon five times in a row, so we're talking a tie-break here. But Sampras was such a good tie-break player.
It's a really tricky one, but Sampras edges it
Final verdict
Sampras wins 7-6 (grass) 3-6 (clay) 6-3 (hard)
Finał Federer def. Sampras 67 63 76
Who's the GOAT? 1-Roger Federer v 2-Pete Sampras
It's the final everyone has been expecting: top seed Roger Federer against Pete Sampras in a bid to be crowned the Greatest of All Time.
Federer has already beaten the man many tipped to be his main contender - Aussie legend Rod Laver - as well as taking out Boris Becker and Jim Courier.
Sampras, meanwhile, booked his spot in the final by beating Guillermo Vilas, Stefan Edberg and the ice-cool Bjorn Borg.
Under our GOAT rules each match is three sets, one on each surface. Here's how the players' records compare at each of the Grand Slams.
Roger Federer
Nationality: Swiss
Seeded: 1
Grand Slam titles:
Australian Open winner (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open winner (2009)
Wimbledon winner (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
US Open winner (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)
Pete Sampras
Nationality: American
Seeded: 2
Grand Slam titles: 14
Australian Open winner (1994, 1997)
French Open semi-finalist (1996)
Wimbledon winner (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 200)
US Open winner (1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002)
Real life head-to-head:
Federer 1-0 Sampras
Wimbledon 2001 - Federer won 7-6(7) 5-7 6-4 6-7(2) 7-5
Simon Reed's verdict
Let's start with the easy one - Federer wins at Roland Garros. He's a better clay court player than Sampras ever was. So that set can only go one way for me.
It becomes more tricky when you look at Wimbledon, but I think Sampras would just edge it. At his peak, Sampras was even more dominant at the All England Club than Federer has been.
But the win would be by the narrowest of margins - something like 22-20 in a tiebreak!
And I think Federer would win the hardcourt battle. Not by much and it may very well come down to a tie-break once again. But I think Federer just edges it.
It still seems odd to me that we're talking about the greatest player of all time who cant beat the second best player of his era often enough.
But I am happy to call Federer the greatest of all time. I do think that Sampras had more high quality opposition during his time. When Federer was at his most dominant only Nadal really emerged as a contender and since then he and the Spaniard have been head and shoulders above the rest.
But Federer is the more complete player when you compare him and Sampras. Sampras had undoubtedly the best serve of all time and he was totally unflappable. I think he was probably the better match player as well, as Federer sometimes seems to get by on sheer brilliance.
But Federer is the better player to watch and while I wouldn't go so far as to say Sampras's backhand was a weakness, it was definitely the weaker side of his game, whereas you don't want to go anywhere near Federer's backhand or forehand really!
Final verdict: Federer wins 6-7 (grass) 6-3 (clay) 7-6 (hard)
Who's the GOAT?: Federer the greatest
Roger Federer would overcome Pete Sampras if the two men met at the peak of their powers in a Greatest Of All Time final.
That is the overwhelming verdict of Eurosport-Yahoo! readers after our poll to decide the finest player to pick up a tennis racket.
Out of 25,482 votes cast since last Friday, a whopping 22,809 (90%) of you said that the Swiss master would emerge the victor. Sampras received just 2,673 votes, which equates to 10%. (results as of 8:00am on Thursday)
Federer and Sampras only played each other once on the ATP Tour. That came in the fourth round of the 2001 Wimbledon tournament when Federer outwitted the defending champion in five sets. It seemed to mark a watershed moment in the rich history of the game.
Sampras would never add to his seven Wimbledon titles after such a seismic loss. It would also prove a noteworthy moment on Federer's journey to realising the first of his six triumphs at the All England club.
Of the Majors which Sampras won, the French Open managed to elude him. Federer has looked vulnerable on clay, but he finally completed the career Grand Slam at Roland Garros a year ago. The best Sampras could muster at Roland Garros was a run to the semi-finals.
Eurosport's tennis commentator Simon Reed agreed with the vast majority of your comments. He felt that Federer would have defeated Sampras on clay and hard courts with the American perhaps holding the edge on grass.
If Federer claims Wimbledon this year, he will equal Sampras's seven tournament wins at the venue. Enough of you are already convinced that the Swiss artist already occupies that elevated position.
WHO'S THE GOAT - FINAL POLL RESULTS:
We asked: In the final in our Greatest of All Time series between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras, who would win?
Roger Federer: 89%, 22,839 votes
Pete Sampras: 11%, 2,682 votes
Odnośnie tematu. Ponoć Brad Gilbert na antenie ESPN powiedział, że jak Roger przegra finał USO z Nadalem to nie będzie mógł być rozważany jako potencjalny GOAT tj najlepszy tenisista wszechczasów.
A to z jakiej racji?
jaccol55 napisał:
A to z jakiej racji?
Tłumaczył to tym, że będzie miał wtedy nie tylko negatywny H2H z największym rywalem, ale także porażki w finałach każdego z WS. Jak wrócę z roboty to spokojnie usiądę w domu i napiszę co o tym myślę. :P
Cicho dzieci, poczekajmy do niedzieli. :P
Niedziela nic nie zmieni, tu trzeba czekać, aż ktoś pobije większość istotnych rekordów Federera. ;)
DUN I LOVE napisał:
Jak wrócę z roboty to spokojnie usiądę w domu i napiszę co o tym myślę. :P
Wena się skończyła? :P
jaccol55 napisał:
DUN I LOVE napisał:
Jak wrócę z roboty to spokojnie usiądę w domu i napiszę co o tym myślę. :P
Wena się skończyła? :P
Nie prowokuj go lepiej, bo trzepnie taki elaborat, że tydzień będziesz czytać. :P
Witam państwa.
Jeśli komuś nie starcza weny, to ja obiecuję, że mogę trzasnąć elaboracik niezgorszy, a ci którzy mnie znają, będą wiedzieć, że jestem do tego zdolny. Nie wiem tylko, czy dla wszystkich będzie to strawne :). Żeby nie być zupełnie gołosłownym powiem tylko, że moim skromnym zdaniem Federer jeszcze długo będzie GOAT. Ilość przegranych finałów i H2H nie mają tu nic do rzeczy, liczą się bezwzględne liczby - wygrane turnieje, szlemy oraz ilość tygodni na pierwszym miejscu, a nade wszystko styl, w jakim się to wszystko osiąga. Nadal musiałby się naprawdę mocno postarać, żeby zatrzeć pamięć o latach 2006, 2007, gdy Roger poza porażkami z nim rujnował na korcie wszystko co się ruszało i to w stylu iście blitzkriegowym.
Cześć Juan. :) Elaboraty i akty strzeliste zawsze mile widziane. :) Co do tematu, to myślę, że zasadnicze pytania są trzy(jeśli idzie o szanse Rafy na bycie uznanym za najlepszego). Czy jego zdrowie wytrzyma jeszcze kilka ładnych lat gry, czy forma czołówki nadal( :] ) będzie równie pewna i godna zaufania jak rozkład PKP i czy Federer jest już ostatecznie przebity kołkiem osikowym, z motywacji wypatroszony i nic do skarbczyka nie dorzuci. Jeśli przyszłość twierdząco odpowie na wszystkie trzy pytania, przed Rafą otwiera się wielka szansa.
A tak naprawdę, to jakie ma znaczenie, że jakaś komisja ogłosi kogoś "najlepszym"? Taki fan Roddicka, który nie cierpi Feda i tak będzie miał go daleko w poważaniu. To samo fan Feda, niecierpiący Rafy. Jakiś tytuł niczego tu nie zmieni, a argument do oplucia GOAT zawsze się znajdzie. Najważniejsze jest, kto dla mnie jest najlepszy, a nie to, czy komisja potwierdziła to czy nie.
PS Elaboraty widziane bardzo chętnie. Dawno już ich nie mieliśmy. :)
jaccol55 napisał:
A tak naprawdę, to jakie ma znaczenie, że jakaś komisja ogłosi kogoś "najlepszym"? Taki fan Roddicka, który nie cierpi Feda i tak będzie miał go daleko w poważaniu. To samo fan Feda, niecierpiący Rafy. Jakiś tytuł niczego tu nie zmieni, a argument do oplucia GOAT zawsze się znajdzie. Najważniejsze jest, kto dla mnie jest najlepszy, a nie to, czy komisja potwierdziła to czy nie.
PS Elaboraty widziane bardzo chętnie. Dawno już ich nie mieliśmy. :)
Dokładnie!!!
jaccol55 napisał:
A tak naprawdę, to jakie ma znaczenie, że jakaś komisja ogłosi kogoś "najlepszym"? Taki fan Roddicka, który nie cierpi Feda i tak będzie miał go daleko w poważaniu. To samo fan Feda, niecierpiący Rafy. Jakiś tytuł niczego tu nie zmieni, a argument do oplucia GOAT zawsze się znajdzie. Najważniejsze jest, kto dla mnie jest najlepszy, a nie to, czy komisja potwierdziła to czy nie.
PS Elaboraty widziane bardzo chętnie. Dawno już ich nie mieliśmy. :)
Niektórzy nie mogą przeżyć dnia, żeby nie ogłaszać światu wyższości X -a nad resztą. Tak już mają.:P
Ja czasem czuje, że na wielu forach nie tylko tenisowych ale ogólnie sportowych panuje niepisana zasada: im lepszemu zawodnikowi kibicujesz, tym lepszym fanem/człowiekiem jesteś. Już nie wspominając o zasadzie: im lepszemu zawodnikowi kibicujesz, tym bardziej znasz się na dyscyplinie - ona jest często używana jako ,,argument'' w dyskusji. Stąd te ciągłe przepychanki i dyskusje na temat GOAT. Każdy chce udowodnić tak naprawdę wyższość nie swojego idola, ale własną. Są tacy którzy kibicują Federerowi, Barcelonie i Justine Henin (co za wiele nie kosztuje ich ani nerwów ani poświęcenia) i są tacy, którzy z całego serca wspierają Mathieu, Dokić i Polonię. Dla tych drugich zazwyczaj niestety nie ma miejsca w dyskusji bo są po prostu zakrzykiwani.
jaccol55 napisał:
A tak naprawdę, to jakie ma znaczenie, że jakaś komisja ogłosi kogoś "najlepszym"? Taki fan Roddicka, który nie cierpi Feda i tak będzie miał go daleko w poważaniu. To samo fan Feda, niecierpiący Rafy. Jakiś tytuł niczego tu nie zmieni, a argument do oplucia GOAT zawsze się znajdzie. Najważniejsze jest, kto dla mnie jest najlepszy, a nie to, czy komisja potwierdziła to czy nie.
Ale to jest wątek dla tych, którzy chcą o tym rozmawiać i uważają, że taka dyskusja ma sens. A że fan kogoś tam nie jest zainteresowany, to trudno. Przecież nie ma obowiązku opowiadania się po którejkolwiek stronie, ani w ogóle oddawania się tego typu rozważaniom.
Ja osobiście nie wyrażam specjalnie swojej opinii, bo mam zdanie określone od TMC 2003 i nie wyobrażam sobie, że kiedykolwiek zobaczę na korcie tenisowym coś, co skłoniłoby mnie zmiany poglądów; ale chętnie poczytam co inni myślą na temat.
Miło mi Cię przywitać, Juanie. ;)
anula napisał:
Niektórzy nie mogą przeżyć dnia, żeby nie ogłaszać światu wyższości X -a nad resztą. Tak już mają.:P
To chyba do mnie. :P Nie Aniu, nie będę miał problemów, by któregoś dnia przyznać, że Nadal zasługuje jak nikt inny na miano GOAT. Stanowczo jednak oponuję, by nazywać Go już teraz w ten sposób. Składa się na to wiele czynników, wierzę, że kiedyś nadarzy się okazja to rozwinąć. Jak Federer w 2006 roku wygrywał US Open, sięgając po swój 9 tytuł nie nazywałem Go GOATem, co najwyżej "tenisistą, który kiedyś może nim zostać", pomimo, że gra tenis wyjątkowy, co przejawia się nie tylko osiąganymi wynikami i skalą dominacji, ale przede wszystkim stylem gry, którym to robi. A taka sztuka (przynajmniej w tej skali) nie udawała się nikomu przed nim.
A ja lubię Wawrinkę, ten stefanowy bekhend mmmm - miodzio... szkoda, że nie wygrał nic dużego ostatnio :(
Dyskusja na temat największego tenisisty jest (jak już wiemy) tak dalece oderwana od jakichkolwiek kwantyfikowalnych wartości, że dojście do porozumienia jest równie niemożliwe jak rozstrzygnięcie, czy Kevin Spacey jest lepszym aktorem od Laurence'a Olivier'a. Są sprawy oczywiste, jak to - kto jest najszybszy, choć i tu można poddawać w wątpliwość wartość niektórych wyników osiągniętych z pomocą nowoczesnej chemii i inżynierii genetycznej, a które każą stawiać wyżej np. Jesee Owensa nad Carlem Lewisem. Dyskusja rozpatrująca tak szerokie spektrum czasowe i rozpatrywanie czegokolwiek w tej materii, mając na względzie rozwój dyscypliny, sprzętu, nawierzchni, farmakologii etc. etc. jest bardzo trudna. Ale ponieważ niektórzy (ja np.) uwielbiam sofistyczne bajki odarte z realiów i zanurzone w świecie abstrakcji pozwolę sobie dokonać pewnej, skromnej analizy na temat.
Istnieje pewna zmienna, decydująca o czyjejś wielkości, lub jej braku. To takie dobre, nieuchwytne "coś", co decyduje o tym, czy ktoś jest zwyczajnym wyrobnikiem, któremu się raz czy drugi pofarciło, czy też ikoną stylu. To coś, to oczywiście iskra boża, naturalny talent, wrodzone predyspozycje do uprawiania jakiegokolwiek zawodu (niech będzie, że skupimy się na tenisie, bo zrobi się zupełnie abstrakcyjnie ;)). Jeśli miarą tych predyspozycji jest niewymuszona szczególnie intensywnymi treningami lekkość, siła, szybkość, sportowa inteligencja, wola zwycięstwa, dążenie do perfekcji to trudno jest znaleźć naszego Laurence'a Oliviera, ot tak. Dochodzą tu bowiem drobne detale, procentowe różnice w zachowaniu się, podejściu do rzeczy, a przede wszystkim umiejętność przełożenia tych cech na kort wtedy, kiedy jest to absolutnie potrzebne. Można się spierać, czy największy jest ten, który umie wydobyć z siebie to co najlepsze zawsze i wszędzie, czy ten, który nie musi tego robić (albo z braku ochoty, albo potrzeby), by i tak osiągać zamierzony cel. Przyznaję, że ten pierwszy wariant jest skuteczniejszy jako czynnik budujący czyjąś wielkość, bo ikona wszelkiego autoramentu lepiej zapada w pamięć, gdy dając z siebie maksimum, stwarza pewien miraż boskości, a co najmniej nadludzkości, nieosiągalnej dla zwykłego zjadacza chleba. To cecha frustrująca. Tu mam pewien problem, bo jako się rzekło - Federer powinien być największym z największych. To się jednak nijak nie ma do jego kortowych zachowań - on stanowczo jest człowiekiem reprezentującym drugi z przedstawionych "tenisowych genotypów" mistrza. Zastanawiam się jednak, czy dzięki temu, że często podchodził do mecz w sposób olewczy, a tylko od czasu do czasu pokazywał ile tak naprawdę możliwości drzemie w jego ciele, nie stawiamy go wyżej od innych. Możemy wszak powiedzieć: "grał na ćwierć gwizdka, a rywal i tak leżał na łopatkach". Ale czy ten kliniczny wręcz czasem pragmatyzm nie zabija jego legendy? Te przegrane mecze, gdy nic na to nie wskazywało. Przegrane bo mistrz przysnął, zaszył się gdzieś we własnym świecie i zapomniał, gdzie jest i co powinien robić. To oczywiście oznaka zwykłej, ludzkiej słabości i w zależności, czy ktoś woli robota od człowieka, tak skrajne są oceny na temat "największości" Federera. Moim zdaniem "ludzkość" Rogera zbliża go do fanów, jego walka z samym sobą powoduje, że publiczność lubi go bardziej od innych, nawet tych, których zawsze prał bez litości (a przecież zawsze niby jest się za słabszym) i wreszcie bardziej od Nadala, który raczej słabości nigdy na korcie nie okazuje. Nie ma przy tym znaczenia, że prywatnie Hiszpan jest szalenie sympatyczny, miły i skromny. Na korcie wzbudza empatię wyłącznie wtedy, gdy gra u siebie, albo gdy okazuje niemoc, co zdarza się rzadziej niż zaćmienie księżyca. Piszę to wszystko niejako obok wyników osiągniętych przez obydwu, bo obaj mają je niezaprzeczalnie wybitne i już teraz porównywanie ich sprowadza się w istocie do dupereli jak choćby ta powyżej opisana. Head to head ma o tyle mizerne znaczenie, że jest to tylko jedna z istotnych statystyk, a przecież nikt nie zaprzeczy, że statystycznie to Federer bije Nadala o 3 długości. Cóż z tego.
Tak naprawdę każda epoka ma swoich wielkich i największych, każdy z nich wielkim jest nieco inaczej, ale każdemu z nich trudno wielkości odmówić. Trudno jej np. odmówić Królowej Elżbiecie Tudor i Carycy Katarzynie. Obie bezsprzecznie wpływowe i wielkie, obie macchavellicznie wręcz perfekcyjne w dążeniu do potęgi. Dla nas - z wiadomych względów - ta druga kojarzy się jak najgorzej, ale jak spytać Rosjanina, to on również wątpliwości mieć nie będzie. Tu dochodzi zatem czynnik obiektywny, czyli historia. Jak historia oceni każdego z wielkich, zależy nie tylko od nich samych, zależy od ich narodowości (bo ludzie zawsze będą choćby dyskretnie ksenofobiczni), koloru skóry (bo i rasistami też są). Krótko mówiąc każdy jest wielki na tyle, na ile widzi go ten, który go opisuje. I chyba tym optymistycznym stwierdzeniem warto by powyższy, nieco przydługi wywód zakończyć :).
Juan napisał:
A ja lubię Wawrinkę, ten stefanowy bekhend mmmm - miodzio... szkoda, że nie wygrał nic dużego ostatnio :(
Ostatnio? :D Te 2 wygrane turnieje (Umag, Casablanca) to przy Jego umiejętnościach jakiś niesmaczny żart. :(
Dyskusja na temat największego tenisisty jest (jak już wiemy) tak dalece oderwana od jakichkolwiek kwantyfikowalnych wartości, że dojście do porozumienia jest równie niemożliwe jak rozstrzygnięcie, czy Kevin Spacey jest lepszym aktorem od Laurence'a Olivier'a. Są sprawy oczywiste, jak to - kto jest najszybszy, choć i tu można poddawać w wątpliwość wartość niektórych wyników osiągniętych z pomocą nowoczesnej chemii i inżynierii genetycznej, a które każą stawiać wyżej np. Jesee Owensa nad Carlem Lewisem. Dyskusja rozpatrująca tak szerokie spektrum czasowe i rozpatrywanie czegokolwiek w tej materii, mając na względzie rozwój dyscypliny, sprzętu, nawierzchni, farmakologii etc. etc. jest bardzo trudna.
Trudna, ale i "nieśmiertelna". :P Choćbyśmy nie wiem jak racjonalizowali i tak ten temat będzie podnoszony. Ja nie wiem z czego to wynika, ale są dyscypliny, gdzie powszechnie wiadomo, kto JEST UZNAWANY za najlepszego specjalistę od danego sportu w całych jego dziejach, są też dyscypliny, gdzie ta dyskusja wciąż jest mocno otwarta - tenis jest taką dyscypliną.
Prawdą jest, że nie uda się znaleźć postaci, która podpasuje wszystkim, ale chyba też nie o to tu chodzi. Co mam dokładnie na myśli postaram się wyjaśnić na przykładzie piłki nożnej i koszykówki. Od małego słyszałem, że Pele to piłkarz wszechczasów, tak mówiono wszędzie. W gronie znajomych jednak każdy uważa inaczej - jeden najbardziej ceni Zidane'a, drugi Ronaldo, trzeci Messiego. Nie zmienia to jednak faktu, że np ja, zapytany o piłkarza wszechczasów odpowiem: "moim zdaniem jest to Ronaldo, ale powszechnie za takiego uznawany jest Pele". I nikt nie będzie się rozwodził, że Pele w porównaniu do dzisiejszych standardów piłki grał w tempie wręcz spacerowym, truchtając połowę boiska z piłką przy nodze.
I racją jest, że każdy będzie wiedział swoje, jeden będzie stał przy Samprasie, inny przy Nadalu, trzeci przy Laverze, czwarty przy Federerze. Niemniej ludzi i tak będą się starali dążyć do ustalenia "prawdy obiektywnej" i tego się nie zmieni.
Jak historia oceni każdego z wielkich, zależy nie tylko od nich samych, zależy od ich narodowości (bo ludzie zawsze będą choćby dyskretnie ksenofobiczni), koloru skóry (bo i rasistami też są). Krótko mówiąc każdy jest wielki na tyle, na ile widzi go ten, który go opisuje. I chyba tym optymistycznym stwierdzeniem warto by powyższy, nieco przydługi wywód zakończyć :).
Optymistycznie. :D
DUN I LOVE napisał:
Miło mi Cię przywitać, Juanie. ;)
anula napisał:
Niektórzy nie mogą przeżyć dnia, żeby nie ogłaszać światu wyższości X -a nad resztą. Tak już mają.:P
To chyba do mnie. :P Nie Aniu, nie będę miał problemów, by któregoś dnia przyznać, że Nadal zasługuje jak nikt inny na miano GOAT. Stanowczo jednak oponuję, by nazywać Go już teraz w ten sposób. Składa się na to wiele czynników, wierzę, że kiedyś nadarzy się okazja to rozwinąć. Jak Federer w 2006 roku wygrywał US Open, sięgając po swój 9 tytuł nie nazywałem Go GOATem, co najwyżej "tenisistą, który kiedyś może nim zostać", pomimo, że gra tenis wyjątkowy, co przejawia się nie tylko osiąganymi wynikami i skalą dominacji, ale przede wszystkim stylem gry, którym to robi. A taka sztuka (przynajmniej w tej skali) nie udawała się nikomu przed nim.
Ależ skąd Dawidzie, to nie do Ciebie.:Protfl :P
Jak mogłeś nawet tak pomyśleć.:) :P
Jeśli chodzi o Rafę, zupełnie zadowala mnie stwierdzenie, że jest jednym z najlepszych w historii tenisa.
Ups, intuicja chyba zawiodła. :P
Wśród wymienionych nazwisk brakuje mi jednego :D Coś mi się zdaje, że wreszcie największa tenisowa zagadka tego wieku została rozwiązana i wiemy kto jest najprawdziwszym tenisowym fenomenem :D
GOAT - gracz o antytalencie tenisowym :P
Odkopujemy wątek:
The Rally: Playing For Your Life
Another week, another Rally. This time Kamakshi and I talk about the controversial-to-laughable new computer GOAT survey, whether GOATs really do exist, and who we might want playing to save our lives. Here's my first post; she'll have her return tomorrow.
***
Kamakshi,
Weren’t we just talking about bonus points the other day? They may not be used on the tours anymore, but they made a big comeback this week when we got the news that a computer had decided that Jimmy Connors was the greatest tennis player of the Open era. Programmed by someone named Boffin Filippo Radicchi, it awarded bonus points for wins over highly ranked opponents. Connors’ longevity obviously helped him beat a high number of those players, more than, say, Roger Federer, who came in at an absurd No. 7, has had a chance to play. The programmer even said that younger players will be punished for not having played as many matches as the legends. This is clearly the case when it comes to Rafael Nadal, who may be the top quality-win player ever—he has 14 of them over the guy I think is the best of all time, and who has been ranked No. 1 for as many weeks as anyone.
Jimmy Connors may have been the most successful, over the longest period, of any Open era player so far. Nobody took as many punches and got off the mat as many times as he did. But he’s not the best of the last 40 years. The flaw at the digital heart of this program is that it rewards players for beating certain opponents, while the players themselves care about winning certain tournaments much more than they do about beating highly ranked players—it is kind of fitting that Connors, who loved to make matches personal, should fare the best under this system. Otherwise, it makes for some pretty good laughs: Guillermo Vilas, Bjorn Borg’s whipping boy, ends up six places ahead of Borg himself; ditto for Andre Agassi, who clocks in three spots ahead of his nemesis, Pete Sampras. And poor Ivan Lendl, who is ranked second, might be wondering what he had to do to get ahead of Jimbo—Lendl only beat him the last 17 times they played.
That a computer could be so off-base shows again the logical impossibility of any GOAT debate. In 2005, for the 40th anniversary of Tennis magazine, the editors did a countdown of the 40 best players of those four decades. We looked, roughly, at Slam wins, time at No. 1, and total titles. There were some misunderstandings along the way—we judged Rod Laver only on his record within those 40 years, from 1965 on, so he ended up being No. 8, I think, one behind Connors, a fact that set a lot of people off. And to make it more fun, and more trouble, we mixed men and women. It was obviously tough to compare them. In the end, we had to choose between Navratilova, Graf, and Sampras for No. 1. Graf and Navratilova had the stats (I tried my best to keep the thought of Seles’ stabbing out of my mind, even though it almost certainly elevated Steffi’s totals), but we thought Sampras’ achievement relative to his competition was greater, so we went with him. More outrage. Someone wrote to tell me that I had done irreparable harm to the sport by choosing Sampras over Graf—I wrote the Sampras entry, so I guess that’s why I was blamed. And it’s true, Steffi’s at-least-four-wins-at-all-four-majors stat is hard to argue with.
Later that year, a statistician and tennis fan who was outraged by the seemingly arbitrary way we went about this came up with a purely statistical method for finding out who “the best male player never to win a Slam” was. Except that, as with Boffin’s computer, a human had to decide which stats counted most and which could be ignored. In other words, it wasn’t any more “pure” or logical than six editors sitting around a table batting names back and forth. His stats ended up being weighted in favor of shorter careers, so Miloslav Mecir, who had his cut short due to injury, was determined to be the best never. Stats don’t lie by themselves, but they also don’t exist by themselves. Someone has to choose them, and everything is subjective after that.
The bigger problem with the GOAT debate in tennis is that its stats, like its players, don’t cross all eras. The Slams, while they are more valued now than they were in, say, the 1970s, have always been the most important events; every tennis player has dreamed of winning Wimbledon. But the majors can’t tell the whole story because, to take one prime example, Pancho Gonzalez, by consensus the best player in the world throughout the 1950s, didn’t play in any of them for 20 years. And, as we know, Laver didn’t play in them during five prime years of his career. There are no what-ifs allowed in this debate—we can’t speculate that Laver would have won 20 majors and have that number mean anything—but it does mean that Slams can’t really be the be-all and end-all, because that would mean anointing a greatest tennis player ever while ignoring the existence of Pancho Gonzalez and downgrading Rod Laver.
Which is pretty much what I did a couple of years ago when I wrote another Tennis magazine article claiming that Federer, with his 15th Slam win, had earned the GOAT title. Logically, there can be no such person, but I've always justified having the debate in other ways. Namely, our minds make these comparisons anyway; everyone is entitled to an opinion; we all know it’s a parlor game and just for fun; and why should we deny ourselves that fun, while also realizing that any GOAT claims we make are going to be flawed. I do consider Federer the best ever, by the measures we can use. But watching Pete Sampras on Monday, I thought again that at his peak, when he was at his best (I think of his 1999 Wimbledon win over Agassi), no one in history, including Federer at his best, could have beaten him. He had the ultimate first-strike (with the serve), quick-strike (with the forehand) game. If Sampras locked you down, you weren’t going to escape.
That, of course, just brings up another question: Is it possible for two players to be “at their best” against each other? If they’re evenly matched to start, it doesn’t seem like it would work that way in the zero-sum system of tennis. If one guy is bringing his best stuff, chances are the other guy is going to be struggling; if Sampras is on, even the world’s best returner isn’t going to be able to do much about it. The “at his best” argument favors the big servers and erratic shot-makers too much to be mistaken for a GOAT argument. Have Federer and Nadal ever both played their best against each other? The finest I’ve seen Nadal play against Federer was the 2008 French final, which he won easily. The best I’ve seen Federer play against Nadal were their two matches at the Masters Cup in Shanghai, which he won in straight sets (though their were moments in one of those, the one that ended 4 and 3 for Federer, when they both giving all they had at the same time; an awesome sight).
As for Jimbo, he inspired our friend Tom Perrotta, who wrote about this study for the Wall St. Journal, to bring up one other side debate in the GOAT debate: Who would you have play a tennis match for your life? He thought Connors was a pretty good choice, and this computer program does measure ability in individual matches. I agree that Connors makes sense, but first I have to come to grips with the whole idea in the first place: Why would someone be playing a tennis match for my life? Where would I be watching from? How nervous would I be? Most important, who would my designated choice be playing?
To “play for your life” you want someone tough, a gutty competitor who knows how to win; someone, above all, whom you can count on. Connors himself chose Gonzalez when asked this question, then later added John McEnroe to his list (he put a lot more trust in his old rival Johnny Mac than I thought he would). I might say Sampras, but he would have to be “at his best”; often he wasn’t. Jimbo is a solid choice, as long as he’s not playing Ivan Lendl. Or Borg. Or McEnroe. From that era, I would go with Borg over Jimmy; the Angelic Assassin was a killer in his own right. Federer? He’s the best, he's the GOAT—but for my life? When the chips were truly down? I’ll take Nadal.
How about you, Kamakshi, which player would you count on the most?
Steve
Najlepszy zawodnik wg wyliczneń sytatystycznych (era Open): Jimmy Connros
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/ … urce=enews
Najlepszy zawodnik wg oceny punktowej (era Open): Ivan Lendl
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=173222