how good is the great serbian slayer

[El Dude]

I think Novak will be remembered as a second tier great, along with Sampras, Nadal, and Borg - below Federer, Laver, and Rosewall, but ahead of Connors, Agassi, Lendl, etc.

As for how many Slams he'll end up with, a few factors to consider:

1) Most players take a step down at around age 26-27; Novak turns 26 this year.
2) Other than Nadal, Murray, and Federer - all of whom are either in late prime or nearing the end - there are no clear next great players coming up.
3) Novak's style of play, as someone mentioned, may not hold up well long-term. It is hard to imagine him chasing down baseline shots, doing the splits at age 30 and beyond.

Combining those factors, Novak's primary window of opportunity is 2013 to 2016, when he turns 29. He could win another Slam or two after, but in terms of getting a solid chunk of Slams the next three or four years is when he's going to do it.

My range is 10-15, with 12-13 being most likely. He has a very distant shot of catching Federer's 17 (assuming Roger is done), but I think the more likely challenge will be catching Sampras and/or surpassing Nadal.

 

[Kieran]

Sampras is a second tier great? I think we switched boards too quick, my eyes are spinning, surely I read that wrong, somebody hand me a tonic... :s

 

[Ricardo]

Sampras is a second tier great? I think we switched boards too quick, my eyes are spinning, surely I read that wrong, somebody hand me a tonic... :s

but he is, if you think about it without so much 'love'. He was right up there on grass and hard court, but was too weak on clay to be included.

 

[Kieran]

Of course, silly me, he was GOAT until 4 years ago and now he's just one of the guys. Navratilova said that when she won her sixth Wimbo, everyone said she was best ever, and after her ninth one, she was 'one of the best ever.' Martina found it funny and it still is funny...

 

[Ricardo]

Of course, silly me, he was GOAT until 4 years ago and now he's just one of the guys. Navratilova said that when she won her sixth Wimbo, everyone said she was best ever, and after her ninth one, she was 'one of the best ever.' Martina found it funny and it still is funny...

what really ironic is that, until 4 years ago you actually talked about GOAT then claimed there is no such thing as soon as Fed got into the conversation.

now all of a sudden GOAT is in existence again, discussed by so many who previously denied its existence......... if it's valid for female players, it's not for male players.... hmmm what a bunch obsessed with agendas

BTW who said Sampras was the GOAT? people have been talking about his lack of clay credentials for years, it's really no news.....

 

[Kieran]

No, what's actually hilarious is that you always put words in my mouth and pretend I said them. That makes me laugh so hard I break out in hives.

And you won't believe this either but it's good to see ya here too!

 

[britbox]

Me too... how did Rosewall jump Sampras to tier 1 status? Not to get off topic, but first tier is: Federer, Sampras, Laver.

Have you seen the way Rosewall has been playing lately?

He's just won the Sydney Over 75's 4 man round robin. Give him his dues - it's a fluid ladder of greatness.

 

[Ricardo]

Sampras is a second tier great? I think we switched boards too quick, my eyes are spinning, surely I read that wrong, somebody hand me a tonic... :s

Me too... how did Rosewall jump Sampras to tier 1 status? Not to get off topic, but first tier is: Federer, Sampras, Laver.

We are speculating on how good Nole can be, what his potential is.

Questions for me are: How much does he want it? How driven is he to stay at the top? How long will Rafa remain viable? Will Murray ever get it together upstairs to consistently win slams? And then there's always the - How long will he stay healthy?

These are all variables that affect the equation for every player... just the names of the peers change.

I remember back at tennis, Nole winning 10 slams was considered quite a stretch, but now that looks as though it will happen. I think he can tie Pete's record, but maybe not catch Roger's. If he remains healthy, I think 12 is a relatively easy reach for him.

Nobody belongs to tier 1 without being competent on all of the most important surfaces - clay, grass and hard court. That's the reason why Toni Nadal put Borg above Sampras, as Borg was obviously magical on clay and grass, and made USO finals against some legends. While Slam count is a fashionable thing, it's really not much when looked in historical perspective. If it was, i am sure Borg, Connors, Mac&co would've found more time to travel down-under......

---

No, what's actually hilarious is that you always put words in my mouth and pretend I said them. That makes me laugh so hard I break out in hives.

And you won't believe this either but it's good to see ya here too!

you think i forgot everything after switching forum, or not? but i remember:

Sampras is GOAT.

then later, "there is no such thing as GOAT".

Later, "Steffi is the female GOAT".

Later...... i never said the above

Remember, love is blind

 

[Kieran]

I was always a Martina man. I knew you were mixing me up with somebody else. I'm horrified and hurted! :blush:

 

[Ricardo]

I was always a Martina man. I knew you were mixing me up with somebody else. I'm horrified and hurted! :blush:

oh sorry, is Martina really the GOAT in your opinion?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I cannot see how Pete would be considered anything but top tier, but that's just me.

 

[Riotbeard]

Not a believer in the GOAT system, but I could not see how Sampras is not top tier.

 

[El Dude]

I think another way to approach this is by looking at the question: How many slices does a cake have? Answer: As many as you want. And so it is with tiers. It all depends upon how many tiers you want, and what you mean by first, second, etc.

So the main reason to get offended by me calling Sampras a "second tier great" is if you think I'm using "second tier" in a way that I wasn't, and secondarily if you disagree with my definition (and then that's just semantics) - for I certainly am NOT saying that he isn't one of the greatest players ever. He is (or was). Sampras is "top tier" if you mean "among the half a dozen or so greatest players ever." That said, he's not, in my opinion, a candidate for the greatest player ever, and thus "second tier" (if "first tier" means candidates for greatest ever). For me only Federer, Laver, and Rosewall are in that category. Federer's resume is better than Sampras's, which knocks Sampras out of the running. But it is harder to compare to Laver and Rosewall, both of whom have an argument in their favor, and both of whom I consider candidates for GOAT.

So again, no need to get offended. Pete Sampras is one of the half dozen or so greatest players of all time, in my opinion. If by "first tier" we mean "handful of greatest players" then the Pistol is definitely first tier. But if we mean--as I meant--a legitimate possibility for greatest of all time, then I think he just misses the cut. And he's in good company, because Bjorn Borg and Rafael Nadal would be right there with him.

 

[Kieran]

No offense was taken, but whenever somebody formulates things this way, I see how difficult it will be when we get to heaven and ask to be taken to the GOAT.

Which one? We'll be asked. 1920's? 1930's? 1940's with a bit of cusp going into the 50's?? Or how about one of the Panchos? We have two of 'em going cheap...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Sampras is a first tier candidate for GOAT. He held the slam record until Federer broke it somewhat recently.

 

[El Dude]

No offense was taken, but whenever somebody formulates things this way, I see how difficult it will be when we get to heaven and ask to be taken to the GOAT.

That's funny.

Which one? We'll be asked. 1920's? 1930's? 1940's with a bit of cusp going into the 50's?? Or how about one of the Panchos? We have two of 'em going cheap...

I hear you. I tend to separate Open Era and pre-Open Era, but often include the 60s and late 50s because of overlap of some great players (e.g. Ken Rosewall, who was great in the late 50s and great in the early 70s).

Sampras is a first tier candidate for GOAT. He held the slam record until Federer broke it somewhat recently.

I get that he was great and was a candidate for GOAT...until Federer came along. The two are close enough in era that we can directly compare them, and Roger Federer just has the better resume. Sampras has one or two things going for him that might edge Federer, but for every one thing Pete has, Roger has three. So if Federer has a better resume, then Sampras can't be the GOAT...which is why I called him the next tier down.

Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall are far enough away from the 90s and 00s to make the comparison more difficult, and certainly not side-by-side. Laver seemed to have the edge in terms of peak level but Rosewall was just so good for so long that its hard to tout one over the other. But how to compare them to Sampras or Federer? It is very hard to do so. But the point is, we can't clearly say that Federer was better than Laver and Rosewall, but we can pretty clearly say that with regards to Federer and Sampras, which takes Pete out of the running for GOAT.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, that doesn't stack up, El Dude. Pete played in the 90's against different players than Roger faced, and on different surfaces, for the main part. Are you saying that they lived close enough that we can compare them technically?

 

[El Dude]

Kieran, we're totally hijacking this thread. My response to you is here. I would suggest that we move all general GOAT conversation there, and return the spotlight to Novak here.

 

[huntingyou]

Mentioning any pre OPen Era player in the same breath with Borg; let alone Sampras is blasphemy. Even the great Laver takes back seat.....I can elaborate outside this thread but I have done it so many times it's getting boring.

So, just for perspective how these players compare:

Sampras>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Laver


We can leave it there. Please proceed.

 

[tennisville]

Mentioning any pre OPen Era player in the same breath with Borg; let alone Sampras is blasphemy. Even the great Laver takes back seat.....I can elaborate outside this thread but I have done it so many times it's getting boring.

So, just for perspective how these players compare:

Sampras>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Laver


We can leave it there. Please proceed.

There is so much wrong in this post that I dont even know where to begin . Why is it that we always penalize the 60s or 70s players by bringing them forward to the 90s or 00s and compare them to those players . The conditions were so different then that its impossible to compare the 2 . I am positive that if we give Pete a wooden racquet and ask him to face peak laver , laver would win that match 9 times out of 10

Racquet technology has helped the modern players a huge deal and we just cant compare players before and after that Why cant we just admit that both were the best players of their times and leave it at that