[Effopsytupt]

Pete Sampras took time out of his busy schedule to meet with members of the tennis media today. The Conference Call was related to his upcoming exhibition match at the LA Tennis Open, where he is scheduled to play Marat Safin, a man he considers a friend and whom he has kept in touch with over the years.

In addition to many questions, Pete was asked about the GOAT situation in men's tennis today. He responded that Federer must "figure Nadal out" and that, in order to be considered the Greatest, you have to beat the best of your generation. He also said that Federer's career isn't over yet.

Pete also spoke about the improvements in Andy Roddick's game and how he thinks Andy will do after his loss in the Wimbledon Final.

Once the complete transcript is available, TAT will publish it in its entirety.

[wrenjmerg]

Pete was asked about the GOAT situation in men's tennis today. He responded that Federer must "figure Nadal out" and that, in order to be considered the Greatest, you have to beat the best of your generation. He also said that Federer's career isn't over yet.

Not to derail the conversation right out of the gate (and excuse the mixed metaphor), but do you have to dominate the best of your generation to be considered the GOAT? Or have the edge/winning record? Or be able to beat the best on any given day? Because Federer has beaten Nadal (on all surfaces, I believe).

[berdyanskdotsu]

Pete Sampras took time out of his busy schedule to meet with members of the tennis media today. The Conference Call was related to his upcoming exhibition match at the LA Tennis Open, where he is scheduled to play Marat Safin, a man he considers a friend and whom he has kept in touch with over the years.

In addition to many questions, Pete was asked about the GOAT situation in men's tennis today. He responded that Federer must "figure Nadal out" and that, in order to be considered the Greatest, you have to beat the best of your generation. He also said that Federer's career isn't over yet.

Pete also spoke about the improvements in Andy Roddick's game and how he thinks Andy will do after his loss in the Wimbledon Final.

Once the complete transcript is available, TAT will publish it in its entirety.

Can't wait to see the full bitchy transcript.

[Laqswrnm]

Not to derail the conversation right out of the gate (and excuse the mixed metaphor), but do you have to dominate the best of your generation to be considered the GOAT? Or have the edge/winning record? Or be able to beat the best on any given day? Because Federer has beaten Nadal (on all surfaces, I believe).

I'll add to this: I've never understood the argument that (a 4 year older) Fed needs to beat Nadal to be considered the greatest.

What exactly does that mean? In any one match? Overall head to head, on what surfaces? As has been stated countless times, Fed has kept losing to Rafa on clay because he gets to the finals, Rafa hasn't gotten to the slam hard court finals (until now) and has a losing record to Roger on grass.

Tennis is about match ups. Is Panatta considered greater than Borg because he beat him (twice, no?) at the FO?

To me, overall consistency over the field, and final career slams and results is infinitely more important than results over any *one* player.

Sounds like sour grapes from Pete.

[enactolaelant]

Why does this press conference require a brand new thread, whereas there have been several recent statements from other greats, like Laver and Borg, that were ignored? Seems a bit of editorializing...

[Effopsytupt]

Excerpts from the Sampras Conference Call

Q. I listened to your comments after the Wimbledon final. I don't know if you were asked this, how much Federer's record against Nadal affects your opinion? You were widely called the greatest ever by so many different people, had a positive record against your main rival, Andre.

PETE SAMPRAS: Very good question and tough question to answer. I do understand the argument as far as being the best ever. You have to be the man of your generation. He has come up short against Nadal. I can see the point.

It's hard to answer that. I don't know how to answer it. You know, it's not done yet. Roger's career isn't done yet. He's going to play Nadal a number of times over the next number of years, and he has to beat him. He has to beat him in the finals of majors. To be considered the greatest ever, he certainly in my book is. But he has to figure this kid out. He has to beat him. He's lost to him a number of times. You know, you got to be the man of your generation. He certainly is the man of his generation; he just has to figure out Nadal.

Q. Personalize it a little bit. When you retired, if you had that type of record against Andre, had a negative record against him in the majors, would you have been satisfied, been able say I'm going away from this, I have my 14, Andre got the better of me in a lot of my great matches, but no big deal because I won the most titles anyway?

PETE SAMPRAS: Well, God, you're giving it some thought, huh (laughter)?

Q. Yes.

PETE SAMPRAS: It would have bothered me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors. It wouldn't have sat well with me. Did it mean I was the greatest or not the greatest? I don't know. It's the debate of greatest of all time. We so badly want to pin it on someone. With the numbers you have to give it to Roger. His record against Nadal, okay, you might not give it to him.

I mean, if I was 7 15 against Andre and I was done, it's hard to say I was the player of my generation just because he got the best of me. Like I said, the story's not over yet. We have another probably three, four years of these two guys competing against each other. If anything, I think Nadal is going to be hungrier now seeing Roger getting back to No. 1.

It's hard to give you a definitive answer when it's not done yet. I think Roger knows he's got to figure out this kid. It's a tough, tough matchup. Nadal is one of the few guys that believes in himself that he's better than Roger.


The complete transcript will be available tomorrow.

[PyncGyncliacy]

Why does this press conference require a brand new thread, whereas there have been several recent statements from other greats, like Laver and Borg, that were ignored? Seems a bit of editorializing...

Because TAT participated in this conference call

[enactolaelant]

Because TAT participated in this conference call

Oh, I see. Thanks!

[FallJimerks]

This is a bit odd to me and I am not anti-Fed. I am pretty much of the opinion that Sampras at his prime would almost 'own' Federer in his prime on a 2-1 basis on grass and even hard courts because of his service prowess (second serve), tiebreak record, forehand and self belief.....much like he bested Andre. That said if Fed played in Sampras' generation I still think he'd have a an equal or superior slam record because he probably would have won many French Opens and other slams had Pete been knocked out of the tournament already. I believe despite all the inadequate issues with comparing GOATS of different time periods that Fed is the GOAT....even if he ends up with a career losing record to Nadal and even if I believe that Pete would have bested him if they were the same age. It's an odd question for Pete to answer in a press conference and not appear kind of like a bitch like someone else alluded to. The slam semifinal or better record is simply too big to ignore for consistensy and dominance...even with a nemesis.

[GogaMegaPiska]

As has been pointed out by others, it's very difficult to compare across generations.

Who's to say that Andy Roddick is not better than Andre Agassi was but had the misfortune to play in the time of Federer? On the other hand, maybe many players in the older generation were better than Fed.

You can only judge by dominance over your own generation and very subjectively hypothesize about the rest.

And really .... 15 slams to 14 is not exactly incontrovertible evidence. That 21 straight SF is fairly hard to argue against though.

Back on topic, I think Pete was fine. He basically said Fed is GOAT but there are some arguments to the contrary as lack of Roland Garros was an argument against Pete. Based on the transcript, I thought Pete was fair.

[MatueHarton]

OH, dull little Pete. Go away again, Pete. Thanks.

LOL.