PDA

View Full Version : Roger Federer vs. Pete Sampras


antgun007
03-02-2009, 02:09 AM
I watched Pete Sampras as a young kid playing his butt off and beating Agassi a lot. He played with class. With Roger, I notice a cocky swagger in his step. I love Roger and hoped he had won the aussi open. Anyways, I wanted to know what you guys thought if Pete and Roger switched era's. What if Pete played now in his prime versus roger playing back then in his prime? also, who would win if they played against each other in their prime?

TheRealTruth
03-02-2009, 02:24 AM
Rafael Nadal is better than both of them!

Rafa would own Pete had Pete played in Rafa's era./thread

luckyboy1300
03-02-2009, 02:44 AM
I watched Pete Sampras as a young kid playing his butt off and beating Agassi a lot. He played with class. With Roger, I notice a cocky swagger in his step. I love Roger and hoped he had won the aussi open. Anyways, I wanted to know what you guys thought if Pete and Roger switched era's. What if Pete played now in his prime versus roger playing back then in his prime? also, who would win if they played against each other in their prime?

federer would have 2 or 3 calendar year grand slams and sampras might still reach his 14, dominating wimbledon and perhaps us open.

roysid
03-02-2009, 02:52 AM
One thing is certain. Roger would have been a serve and volley player.
Roger in his initial years used to come a lot more but changed tactics after he realized that it won't work in new string generation. He himself said it.

Similarly I think Pete would have adjusted to slower courts and powerful rackets accordingly.

Both would have won slams but how many, don't know

egn
03-02-2009, 08:46 AM
How many threads on this one topic do we need

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 11:20 AM
Rafa OWN Pete? LOL!!!!.

No one owned a prime Pete at the slams on a consistent basis like Nadal has owned Roger. Nadal would be no exception. Pete stepped up in the clutch and was far more mentally tough than Roger. Outside of clay there would be no "owning" by Rafa except getting "owned."

Im biased sure. But Pete's greater than Roger IMO. Roger cant even defeat his chief rival. Pete defeated his main opposition when it mattered most, most of the time. Whereas Nadal owns the h2h against Roger and has leveled him the last 3 slam finals.

Roger dominated in a weak era. Many will dispute that t but IMO it is pretty much undisputable. Nadal had not yet primed. That leaves Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, among others. Not the toughest era. Pete rise to dominance was over an opposition for superior to Roger's ever was. Thats undisputable. And again.. No one consistently got the best of Pete at the slams as Rafa has Roger.

Roger may break the slam record. But if he cant beat Rafa. I will NO WAY ever put him ahead of Pete. Even if he gets 20 slams. You need to defeat your rival IMO to secure your place in history.

Pure speculation of course but Nadals game plays right into Pete's hands. That style of game could not defeat a prime Sampras on any surface outside of clay. No way no how. You play that defensive style, stand back behind the baseline 10 feets and u will get crushed by Pete's attack.

Petes a player whos clutch performances and mental toughness match Rafa's. Even moreso IMO. Federer cant match Nadal's mental toughness.

Nadal's wins over Pete would most likely come at the smaller tournaments. Not in the slam finals. Pete played for the slams. Thats the type of player he was. You could beat Pete at Cincinatti, he was going to demolish you at Flushing or Wimbeldon.

I have a feeling Pete would relish playing Nadal in the slam finals moreso than Federer who probably at this point would like to avoid Nadal at all costs in the slam finals.

tahiti
03-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Would have been a fantastic rivalry with I don't think Federer dominating at least more than a year. But I do prefer Fed's style just because I don't appreciate too much serving and acing.

I agree Fed has to equal or improve his H2H with Rafa though.

veroniquem
03-02-2009, 11:32 AM
Sampras: more slams
more weeks at #1
more titles overall
better head to heads with main rivals.

Federer: 3 RG finals
3 years with 3 slams
more master shields

but don't forget Sampras's career is over, Federer is not!

Rickson
03-02-2009, 11:33 AM
From 2004-2007, Pete would have done pretty well, but would have had fewer slams than Roger up to that point. Roger would have dominated the late 90s with ease and would have had around 20 slams at the end of his career.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 11:34 AM
Sampras: more slams
more weeks at #1
more titles overall
better head to heads with main rivals.

Federer: 3 RG finals
3 years with 3 slams
more master shields

but don't forget Sampras's career is over, Federer is not!


At this point, Roger's resume looks more impressive looking at the stats and results, week in week out consistency . But it goes deeper than that. Which I mentioned, Fed has a blemish which is only getting larger and that is getting defeated by Rafa consistently. If he cant turn that around, then who knows

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 11:38 AM
Im not so sure if Pete would not have had around the same number of slams as Roger 04-07. If you look outside of clay, there really wasnt anyone to stop Pete. (Hewitt? Ehh. He gave more trouble to Pete more at the end of his career. When his game became less all around and less effective from the baseline. Roddick? Nalbandian? No.) In fact, Pete may have even gotten himself a RG title in 2004 if you look at his 94 RG form

iamke55
03-02-2009, 12:39 PM
You can't compare the guys of the past with the improved level of competition today. It's ridiculous. If a guy cannot beat Sam Warburg, he's not gonna have a career much better than that of Sam Warburg, period.

saram
03-02-2009, 12:44 PM
Roger would have won the FO a few times--that is for sure considering he has lost to two Kings of Clay at the FO.

edberg505
03-02-2009, 12:51 PM
Im not so sure if Pete would not have had around the same number of slams as Roger 04-07. If you look outside of clay, there really wasnt anyone to stop Pete. (Hewitt? Ehh. He gave more trouble to Pete more at the end of his career. When his game became less all around and less effective from the baseline. Roddick? Nalbandian? No.) In fact, Pete may have even gotten himself a RG title in 2004 if you look at his 94 RG form

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 12:56 PM
Rafa is 5 years younger than Roger, and most of his wins came from his favorite surface. Rafa is peaking now while Roger is declining.

Roger's H2H with Rafa doesn't diminish his greatness. It's not Roger's fault that Rafa couldn't make the finals on HCs 2004-2007, when he reigned supreme. Too bad these 2 guys couldn't play each other at their respective primes.

Federer would dominate Sampras' era, even more. I don't know if Sampras would win any slam today. Sampras sucks on clay, and everything today plays like clay (according to his fanboys). Thus Sampras is lucky to be playing his era and not today's.

veroniquem
03-02-2009, 01:04 PM
Roger would have won the FO a few times--that is for sure considering he has lost to two Kings of Clay at the FO.
What kind of an argument is that? Sampras also lost (in his prime) to guys like Courier and Bruguera who were clay kings in their own right, and also Agassi who was a 3 time finalist and eventual winner at RG. Anyway Kuerten was not a king of anything in 2004. 2004 was almost Kuerten's last year on the tour (he played in 2005 with dismal results all around), he didn't even make it past the quarters at RG that year, his last RG win dated back to 2001.

VivalaVida
03-02-2009, 01:19 PM
What kind of an argument is that? Sampras also lost (in his prime) to guys like Courier and Bruguera who were clay kings in their own right, and also Agassi who was a 3 time finalist and eventual winner at RG. Anyway Kuerten was not a king of anything in 2004. 2004 was almost Kuerten's last year on the tour (he played in 2005 with dismal results all around), he didn't even make it past the quarters at RG that year, his last RG win dated back to 2001.
yeah sure, and sampras made 3 straight FO final appearances. :rolleyes: Sampras only made 1 SF at the French. Federer is a great clay court player and challenged nadal pretty well for 2 finals (06 and 07). 2008, I dont know what happened in the final but regardless the meeting federer and nadal had on clay before the french open were competitive.

ksbh
03-02-2009, 01:33 PM
Great post. Couldn't agree more!

Rafa OWN Pete? LOL!!!!.

No one owned a prime Pete at the slams on a consistent basis like Nadal has owned Roger. Nadal would be no exception. Pete stepped up in the clutch and was far more mentally tough than Roger. Outside of clay there would be no "owning" by Rafa except getting "owned."

Im biased sure. But Pete's greater than Roger IMO. Roger cant even defeat his chief rival. Pete defeated his main opposition when it mattered most, most of the time. Whereas Nadal owns the h2h against Roger and has leveled him the last 3 slam finals.

Roger dominated in a weak era. Many will dispute that t but IMO it is pretty much undisputable. Nadal had not yet primed. That leaves Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, among others. Not the toughest era. Pete rise to dominance was over an opposition for superior to Roger's ever was. Thats undisputable. And again.. No one consistently got the best of Pete at the slams as Rafa has Roger.

Roger may break the slam record. But if he cant beat Rafa. I will NO WAY ever put him ahead of Pete. Even if he gets 20 slams. You need to defeat your rival IMO to secure your place in history.

Pure speculation of course but Nadals game plays right into Pete's hands. That style of game could not defeat a prime Sampras on any surface outside of clay. No way no how. You play that defensive style, stand back behind the baseline 10 feets and u will get crushed by Pete's attack.

Petes a player whos clutch performances and mental toughness match Rafa's. Even moreso IMO. Federer cant match Nadal's mental toughness.

Nadal's wins over Pete would most likely come at the smaller tournaments. Not in the slam finals. Pete played for the slams. Thats the type of player he was. You could beat Pete at Cincinatti, he was going to demolish you at Flushing or Wimbeldon.

I have a feeling Pete would relish playing Nadal in the slam finals moreso than Federer who probably at this point would like to avoid Nadal at all costs in the slam finals.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Rafa is 5 years younger than Roger, and most of his wins came from his favorite surface. Rafa is peaking now while Roger is declining.

Roger's H2H with Rafa doesn't diminish his greatness. It's not Roger's fault that Rafa couldn't make the finals on HCs 2004-2007, when he reigned supreme. Too bad these 2 guys couldn't play each other at their respective primes.

Federer would dominate Sampras' era, even more. I don't know if Sampras would win any slam today. Sampras sucks on clay, and everything today plays like clay (according to his fanboys). Thus Sampras is lucky to be playing his era and not today's.


Sampras lucky to play in his era? Sampras would get no slams today? See now youre just being a hater. Thats ridiculous.

More like Rafa should be lucky he is playing on today's homogenized surfaces against baseliners, and slow grass and a crappy clay field, no serve-volleyers, no attackers and no carpet.

Lets see how many wimbeldons, USO's and AO's Nadal gets in the 90s. Lets face it. He would only be a French Open winner many times over . Look at Bruguera and picture a few more RG slams next to his name. Thats Nadal in the 90s

Nadal_Freak
03-02-2009, 02:26 PM
Fed was considered mentally tough until Nadal came in the picture. He was even more mentally tough then Federer and his game gave Fed problems as well. I think Sampras was lucky never to deal with a clutch player like Nadal with a game that would give Pete fits.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 02:32 PM
Fed was considered mentally tough until Nadal came in the picture. He was even more mentally tough then Federer and his game gave Fed problems as well. I think Sampras was lucky never to deal with a clutch player like Nadal with a game that would give Pete fits.

How exactly would Nadal's game give Pete fits on the old surfaces outside of clay? Enlighten me? What does Nadal have in his game that would beat Sampras on the wimbeldon, USO, Carpet, even AO ?

I dont remember Fed ever being considered mentally tough. He destroyed the competition of 04-07 mostly based on pure talent from the baseline and overral . He wasnt in many clutch situations during his prime. There was a never player in that era that had enough talent and mental toughness to push Roger to the edge 04-07 consistently at the slams.(outside of Nadal on clay) Sometimes Nalbandian but never in the slams since he was non existent there.

The only match I remember where Fed needed to rely on mental toughness and clutchness in the finals where it went right down to the wire was his match with Safin at the AO 05 which he lost

Nadal_Freak
03-02-2009, 02:41 PM
How exactly would Nadal's game give Pete fits on the old surfaces outside of clay? Enlighten me? What does Nadal have in his game that would beat Sampras on the wimbeldon, USO, Carpet, even AO ?

I dont remember Fed ever being considered mentally tough. He destroyed the competition of 04-07 mostly based on pure talent from the baseline. He wasnt in many clutch situations during his prime. There was a never player in that era that had enough talent and mental toughness to push Roger to the edge 04-07. Sometime Nalbandian but never in the slams since he was non existent there.

The only match I remember where Fed needed to rely on mental toughness and clutchness was his match with Safin at the AO 05 which he lost
Pretty obvious. Nadal would stay away from Pete's forehand and make Pete beat him with his weakest shot. Don't tell me Sampras's backhand is better then Federer's. It might break down more then Fed's. The longer the rallys, the more fatigue Sampras would have to deal with and we know that Sampras doesn't like long matches. I think Nadal takes Sampras out at the Australian Open. It is close at the US Open and Wimbledon. Sampras wins on carpet as Fed would to.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Pretty obvious. Nadal would stay away from Pete's forehand and make Pete beat him with his weakest shot. Don't tell me Sampras's backhand is better then Federer's. It might break down more then Fed's. The longer the rallys, the more fatigue Sampras would have to deal with and we know that Sampras doesn't like long matches. I think Nadal takes Sampras out at the Australian Open. It is close at the US Open and Wimbledon. Sampras wins on carpet as Fed would to.

ANd u think Pete would let Nadal attack his BH and would engage in long drawn out ralleys like Fed does with Nadal? No chance of that happening. Did u forget Pete was a serve-volleyer as well? How about Pete's serve? How would Nadal handle that? PEte had his serve and net game he can rely on. Fed doesnt have much of a net game these days. His serve goes to crap against Nadal usually. Pete's wouldnt and Nadal is not that great return of serve. Decent but not great

Skanavis
03-02-2009, 03:17 PM
Yea i definitely agree with GameSampras on this one. Theres no way Pete would bother baselining it with Nadal. He would serve and volley and theres no way he would get broken. Also Nadal's huge topspin shots wouldn't make the best passing shots either.

And when I was watching the versasco Nadal AO semifinal, the commentators said how Verdasco was doing a great job, pounding Nadals second serves. They said how Pete used to do that, so thats another positive for Sampras against Nadal.

Tennis_Monk
03-02-2009, 03:36 PM
In my opinion, Federer is more rounded player than Sampras. Sampras has better serve and volleys but less of a baseline game.

I expect Nadal to struggle handling Peter Sampras's serve while Sampras would struggle to hit volleys off Nadal's passing shots.

Mentally i would say even as both are tough.

I would give slight edge to Nadal.

Nadal_Freak
03-02-2009, 03:47 PM
ANd u think Pete would let Nadal attack his BH and would engage in long drawn out ralleys like Fed does with Nadal? No chance of that happening. Did u forget Pete was a serve-volleyer as well? How about Pete's serve? How would Nadal handle that? PEte had his serve and net game he can rely on. Fed doesnt have much of a net game these days. His serve goes to crap against Nadal usually. Pete's wouldnt and Nadal is not that great return of serve. Decent but not great
What can Pete do? Nadal's serve and forehand naturally go to Pete's backhand. How is he going to get to the net without ripping a backhand at shoulder height? I don't think that's his strength and he never had to be tested so vigorously on his backhand up high similar to Fed. Fed demolished everyone on clay until he met Nadal. You really need a two-handed backhand to give Nadal fits.

Skanavis
03-02-2009, 03:48 PM
What can Pete do? Nadal's serve and forehand naturally go to Pete's backhand. How is he going to get to the net without ripping a backhand at shoulder height? I don't think that's his strength and he never had to be tested so vigorously on his backhand up high similar to Fed. Fed demolished everyone on clay until he met Nadal. You really need a two-handed backhand to give Nadal fits.

Chip and Charge

Parabolica
03-02-2009, 03:49 PM
There's no doubt that a Prime 09 Samprass would play Nadal tought but i highly doubt that he would beat Nadal. A S&V game simply doesn't work anymore and there's no better passer than Nadal. Actually, i'm almost certain that Fed would beat Samprass in todays game. Samprass/Fed on grass would be incredibly close though.

I strongly believe that Fed would have a good 20 slams if he played in Petes era. Pete was nowhere near as consistant(slam after slam) as Fed and the only real competition was Agassi and he's no match for Nadal.

Nadal may well be the GOAT and he's only at 6 slams. He simply never makes mistakes.

saram
03-02-2009, 03:49 PM
You really need a two-handed backhand to give Nadal fits.

Not so fast--I'd like to see Guga and Rafa play in their prime and see how it plays out.

Parabolica
03-02-2009, 03:51 PM
Backhand? Samprass never really had an impressive backhand or forehand. He was lucky to be in his era of S&V'ers.

Nadal_Freak
03-02-2009, 03:55 PM
Not so fast--I'd like to see Guga and Rafa play in their prime and see how it plays out.
Guga had a better grip to handle high shots. He was a pretty tall player as well. I would say that would be a very interesting match. I still think Nadal would give him some problems. Not as much for him as most one-handers though.

veroniquem
03-02-2009, 04:15 PM
yeah sure, and sampras made 3 straight FO final appearances. :rolleyes: Sampras only made 1 SF at the French. Federer is a great clay court player and challenged nadal pretty well for 2 finals (06 and 07). 2008, I dont know what happened in the final but regardless the meeting federer and nadal had on clay before the french open were competitive.
I never said he did, my answer was about who they beat at RG. There is no doubt Federer has a better record at RG than Sampras.

zagor
03-02-2009, 04:17 PM
This topic has been beaten to death before but the fact remains hat no one can tell for sure.IMO Fed would have been more of an all-courter if he played in 90s conditions(instead of being a great baseliner who occasionally goes to the net)while Sampras would improve his baseline game and rely more on it if he played under modern conditions.Tough to say who would have adapted better.

Sampras lucky to play in his era? Sampras would get no slams today? See now youre just being a hater. Thats ridiculous.

You can't tell that he's being sarcastic and using you own logic against you?

dtrain
03-02-2009, 04:55 PM
Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon. I don't know why people still have threads like this one. As far as Sampras v. Nadal, I'd have to go with Sampras and I'm a Nadal fan. I think what Sampras brings to the table would give Nadal a lot of problems, that's not to say that Nadal doesn't stand a chance. I just remember seeing what Tsonga did to Nadal at the 2008 AO and I can't help but think Pete would do the same. I think Nadal has improved a lot since the 2008 AO so I still give him a chance, but as far as matchups go Sampras has the advantage from a tactical stand point. Then again Nadal has come up with some great tennis. It would have been great to see, but we have something right now in Nadal v. Federer even though lately it's been lopsided.

Mansewerz
03-02-2009, 05:12 PM
Federer's game suits the current surfaces and whatnot while Sampras' game fit the surfaces and playing styles then.

JeMar
03-02-2009, 05:13 PM
How many threads on this one topic do we need

Infinity plus one.

JoshDragon
03-02-2009, 05:32 PM
I watched Pete Sampras as a young kid playing his butt off and beating Agassi a lot. He played with class. With Roger, I notice a cocky swagger in his step. I love Roger and hoped he had won the aussi open. Anyways, I wanted to know what you guys thought if Pete and Roger switched era's. What if Pete played now in his prime versus roger playing back then in his prime? also, who would win if they played against each other in their prime?

If Pete switched eras with Roger I think he would do ok, although he would have to develop a better baseline game to compete with Nadal. I think Federer would also do well if he went back to the 90s and early 2000s. If they played in their primes I would probably favor Federer, just because Federer was nearly immune to losing during his prime (except for Nadal.)

I also think Nadal would have a winning h2h over Sampras if they had played during this era.

Tennis_Monk
03-02-2009, 05:43 PM
If we are to believe some people here, then Sampras probably hasnt lost a tennis match.

He is far from that. He didnt play any better tennis than Roger. He played the tennis that was right at the time he was playing and won slams. Roger played a style that is good for his time.

We can speculate all we want but the only tangible data we have is their solitary head to head match which Pete lost. That match ,though not fair to either players gave a good glimpse of what each player is capable of it came down to couple of points here and there.

Saying that one player would have dominated other, makes a good (and boring) discussion and really gets no where. Its all matter of opinion.

egn
03-02-2009, 05:44 PM
Im not so sure if Pete would not have had around the same number of slams as Roger 04-07. If you look outside of clay, there really wasnt anyone to stop Pete. (Hewitt? Ehh. He gave more trouble to Pete more at the end of his career. When his game became less all around and less effective from the baseline. Roddick? Nalbandian? No.) In fact, Pete may have even gotten himself a RG title in 2004 if you look at his 94 RG form

Severe underestimation of the field in 2004. Coria and Gaudio would have both beat Sampras he could have got to the semi no doubt but Gaudio was playing great clay court tennis and Coria was just as good as any of those 90s guys he choked it away. Coria>Sampras on clay Coria vs. Sampras in the finals Coria wins that, Gaudio vs. Sampras Gaudio wins that too. Sorry But from 04-07 I think Pete wins all the Wimbys and US Opens, he loses out on the slow Australian Open but probably gets one. Not as many as Roger but he wins Wimby 03 and US 03 probably and even on "slow grass" I think he can stop Nadal though it might be tough.

Sampras lucky to play in his era? Sampras would get no slams today? See now youre just being a hater. Thats ridiculous.

More like Rafa should be lucky he is playing on today's homogenized surfaces against baseliners, and slow grass and a crappy clay field, no serve-volleyers, no attackers and no carpet.

Lets see how many wimbeldons, USO's and AO's Nadal gets in the 90s. Lets face it. He would only be a French Open winner many times over . Look at Bruguera and picture a few more RG slams next to his name. Thats Nadal in the 90s

Thank you. Best post in this whole thread. Nadal plays against power baseliners and defensive baseliners. With Roger Federer, Fabrice Santoro, Mario Ancic, Ivo Karlovic and Jo-Wilfred Tsogna occasionally mixing it up as they occasionally serve and volley. (Marin Cilic seems to be doing it more lately too) However as Federer learned in 2002 when he switched to his varied style of a mix of baseliner/puncher/volleyer you can not win S+V anymore. Roger up until 2002 was S+V. They slowed all the surfaces down and made the game all at the baseline. Sure you get the occasional volley, but that comes from the same few guys. Honestly after Nadal wins all these slams they will realize they need to go back to making surfaces difference or frankly nobody will watch tennis soon enough. When clay, hardcourt and grass matches all seem exactly the same what is the point. Thomas Muster could have won a hard court slam in this era and made deep runs at Wimbledon. And yes Nadal is lucky to be playing now cause in the 90s his only shots would have been AO and FO and he might make a deep run at the US but never get close to Wimby.

There's no doubt that a Prime 09 Samprass would play Nadal tough but i highly doubt that he would beat Nadal. A S&V game simply doesn't work anymore and there's no better passer than Nadal. Actually, i'm almost certain that Fed would beat Samprass in todays game. Samprass/Fed on grass would be incredibly close though.

I strongly believe that Fed would have a good 20 slams if he played in Petes era. Pete was nowhere near as consistant(slam after slam) as Fed and the only real competition was Agassi and he's no match for Nadal.

Nadal may well be the GOAT and he's only at 6 slams. He simply never makes mistakes.

I took the liberty of bolding some ridiculous statements. I think Sampras could beat Nadal on a fast surface as his caliber of Serve and Volley is not existent in todays game.

Two how can you call Nadal the best passer ever if everyone he plays basically stands back at the baseline and can't do **** at the net. Anyone can hit a passing shot against Andy Roddick..not a huge accomplishment. Lets see Nadal hit passing shots consistently against Sampras, Edberg, Ivansevic, Becker, Rafter etc.

20 slams. Okay thats a huge number. Sampras had a decent field too, you know probably a bit tougher than Feds. Some old seasoned vets like Fed and some young guns. Sure Fed would have dominated more and might have picked up a RG in 96-98 period. But Grass would have not been as easy. Ivansevic and Krajicek were great on the surface. Fed definitely still owns the hard courts though. But I see him finishing around 14-16, but it would look a little better though as he wins them all but not nearly as extreme as you are saying. And no I do not see a calender slam.

Call Nadal GOAT when he deserves it not when he simply has 6 slams.

ubermeyer
03-02-2009, 06:37 PM
I think Roger Federer would still beat Sampras.

DMan
03-02-2009, 06:56 PM
No one owned a prime Pete at the slams on a consistent basis like Nadal has owned Roger. Nadal would be no exception. Pete stepped up in the clutch and was far more mentally tough than Roger. Outside of clay there would be no "owning" by Rafa except getting "owned."

Im biased sure. But Pete's greater than Roger IMO. Roger cant even defeat his chief rival. Pete defeated his main opposition when it mattered most, most of the time. Whereas Nadal owns the h2h against Roger and has leveled him the last 3 slam finals.

Roger dominated in a weak era. Many will dispute that t but IMO it is pretty much undisputable. Nadal had not yet primed. That leaves Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, among others. Not the toughest era. Pete rise to dominance was over an opposition for superior to Roger's ever was. Thats undisputable. And again.. No one consistently got the best of Pete at the slams as Rafa has Roger.

Roger may break the slam record. But if he cant beat Rafa. I will NO WAY ever put him ahead of Pete. Even if he gets 20 slams. You need to defeat your rival IMO to secure your place in history.

Pure speculation of course but Nadals game plays right into Pete's hands. That style of game could not defeat a prime Sampras on any surface outside of clay. No way no how. You play that defensive style, stand back behind the baseline 10 feets and u will get crushed by Pete's attack.

Petes a player whos clutch performances and mental toughness match Rafa's. Even moreso IMO. Federer cant match Nadal's mental toughness.

Nadal's wins over Pete would most likely come at the smaller tournaments. Not in the slam finals. Pete played for the slams. Thats the type of player he was. You could beat Pete at Cincinatti, he was going to demolish you at Flushing or Wimbeldon.

I have a feeling Pete would relish playing Nadal in the slam finals moreso than Federer who probably at this point would like to avoid Nadal at all costs in the slam finals.

Roger has defeated his chief rival on 6 occasions, including 2 Wimbledon finals. (I guess that secures his place in history!) He has lost in 5 major finals - 3 French 1 Australian and 1 Wimbledon. Their careers are not over yet. Pete Sampras' career is over.

Naturally Federer dominated in a "weak era". But amazing how dominant he was! Winning more than 90% of his matches for 3 straight years, and racking up 50+ tournaments in a 5 year spread, winning 3 majors in 3 seasons, 2 majors in one season. Sampras at his best won 2 majors in one year, in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997. Do a comparison of Sampras record from 1993-1998 and Federer's from 2003-2008, and tell me who had the better record?

If Pete played for the Slams, then what is Federer playing for?

Federer has reached 19 consecutive semis in the majors. In his entire career, Sampras reached 23. Federer has been to the semis a total of 21 times. Both have appeared in 18 finals. If Federer reaches 2 more major semis for the rest of his career and wins 1 more major for the rest of his career he will have equalled Sampras' record.

The most # of consecutive SF appearances Sampras ever had was 3. That's right 3. Federer has been in the semis or better 19 times (6 times the number for Pete!).

Federer successfully defended all the majors he won. Pete never successfully defended his Aussie titles. Federer won 5 straight titles at Wimbledon AND the US Open. Pete did not.

Federer and Sampras are almost exactly 10 years apart. So if you want to compare the two, think of Federer's record now vs Pete's as of March 1999. At that stage, Sampras had 11 majors: 2 Australian, 4 US Open, 5 Wimbledons. He won 2 more at Wimbledon and 1 at the US Open.

Of course we don't even want to get into a comparison of Sampras and Federer's record at the French. Last year Federer already surpassed Pete's total # of career victories at the French. Pete's best result at the French was 1 semifinal finish. Roger has been in the semis or better 4 straight years. Roger's losses at the French were against Nadal and Kuerten (7 career titles between them). Pete's losses were against the likes of Galo Blanco, Andrei Medvedev, Ramon Delgado, Mark Phillipoussis.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 07:35 PM
Roger has defeated his chief rival on 6 occasions, including 2 Wimbledon finals. (I guess that secures his place in history!) He has lost in 5 major finals - 3 French 1 Australian and 1 Wimbledon. Their careers are not over yet. Pete Sampras' career is over.

Naturally Federer dominated in a "weak era". But amazing how dominant he was! Winning more than 90% of his matches for 3 straight years, and racking up 50+ tournaments in a 5 year spread, winning 3 majors in 3 seasons, 2 majors in one season. Sampras at his best won 2 majors in one year, in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997. Do a comparison of Sampras record from 1993-1998 and Federer's from 2003-2008, and tell me who had the better record?

If Pete played for the Slams, then what is Federer playing for?

Federer has reached 19 consecutive semis in the majors. In his entire career, Sampras reached 23. Federer has been to the semis a total of 21 times. Both have appeared in 18 finals. If Federer reaches 2 more major semis for the rest of his career and wins 1 more major for the rest of his career he will have equalled Sampras' record.

The most # of consecutive SF appearances Sampras ever had was 3. That's right 3. Federer has been in the semis or better 19 times (6 times the number for Pete!).

Federer successfully defended all the majors he won. Pete never successfully defended his Aussie titles. Federer won 5 straight titles at Wimbledon AND the US Open. Pete did not.

Federer and Sampras are almost exactly 10 years apart. So if you want to compare the two, think of Federer's record now vs Pete's as of March 1999. At that stage, Sampras had 11 majors: 2 Australian, 4 US Open, 5 Wimbledons. He won 2 more at Wimbledon and 1 at the US Open.

Of course we don't even want to get into a comparison of Sampras and Federer's record at the French. Last year Federer already surpassed Pete's total # of career victories at the French. Pete's best result at the French was 1 semifinal finish. Roger has been in the semis or better 4 straight years. Roger's losses at the French were against Nadal and Kuerten (7 career titles between them). Pete's losses were against the likes of Galo Blanco, Andrei Medvedev, Ramon Delgado, Mark Phillipoussis.

But the problem between Fed and Nadal is the 5 years differential. Yes Fed defeated Nadal prior to 08 on the majority outside of clay. But Nadal prior to 08 was not the same Nadal he was last year or now. You cant really dispute that . Now is Fed the same now as he was? I dunno.. He can defeat everyone but Nadal at the slams. He may have slipped a little but I have my doubts even if Fed 04-07 could defeat Nadal in his current form. Nadal has improved while Fed has not. Nadal has bested Fed on every surface outside of the USO since last year. The problem is Fed has not changed his gameplan against Nadal.

And I already mentioned how "statistically" Fed's resume is more impressive than Pete's didnt I? But it does go deeper than that when your comparing different eras, different competition, different surfaces (far different surfaces), diversity in play and players etc.
Fed's rise to dominance came over a much less weaker field than Petes. Fed's dominance came in a transition era where the field was very limited with talent. Hewitt slowly declining through injuries etc. Roddick... Well being Roddick. Nalbandian? Blake? Safin who bring his A game once every 4-5 years. While Pete had the likes (early 90s) of Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi (Clay field), Becker, Goran, Edberg, and down the line.

Do the math.. Now imagine if Pete had Fed's field and Fed had Pete's. Who Pete get more slams in a shorter time frame during their rise to dominance? If Pete only had to deal with Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Safin, Old Man Agassi, etc?

DMan
03-02-2009, 07:50 PM
But the problem between Fed and Nadal is the 5 years differential. Yes Fed defeated Nadal prior to 08 on the majority outside of clay. But Nadal prior to 08 was not the same Nadal he was last year or now. You cant really dispute that . Now is Fed the same now as he was? I dunno.. He can defeat everyone but Nadal at the slams. He may have slipped a little but I have my doubts even if Fed 04-07 could defeat Nadal in his current form. Nadal has improved while Fed has not. Nadal has bested Fed on every surface outside of the USO since last year. The problem is Fed has not changed his gameplan against Nadal.

And I already mentioned how "statistically" Fed's resume is more impressive than Pete's didnt I? But it does go deeper than that when your comparing different eras, different competition, different surfaces (far different surfaces), diversity in play and players etc.
Fed's rise to dominance came over a much less weaker field than Petes. Fed's dominance came in a transition era where the field was very limited with talent. Hewitt slowly declining through injuries etc. Roddick... Well being Roddick. Nalbandian? Blake? Safin who bring his A game once every 4-5 years. While Pete had the likes (early 90s) of Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi (Clay field), Becker, Goran, Edberg, and down the line.

Do the math.. Now imagine if Pete had Fed's field and Fed had Pete's. Who Pete get more slams in a shorter time frame during their rise to dominance? If Pete only had to deal with Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Safin, Old Man Agassi, etc?

Who was Pete's competition? A 'transitional' Lendl? An in and out of the game Agassi? Becker on occasion? Cedric Pioline? Todd Martin? Goran Ivanisevic? Also, Pete wasn't playing the likes of Muster and Brugera on grass or the US Open. He did beat Muster in 1991 at the French. And lost to Brugera at the French QF in 1993.

Federer's game wins in any era, against any players. As it's already been acknowledged, the courts are slower at Wimbledon, and more players are baseliners today. Does Sampras win the same amount of majors if he was Fed's age (and of course w/Fed not around?) Me thinks not, but it's a matter of pure speculation.

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 08:36 PM
Sampras lucky to play in his era? Sampras would get no slams today? See now youre just being a hater. Thats ridiculous.

More like Rafa should be lucky he is playing on today's homogenized surfaces against baseliners, and slow grass and a crappy clay field, no serve-volleyers, no attackers and no carpet.

Lets see how many wimbeldons, USO's and AO's Nadal gets in the 90s. Lets face it. He would only be a French Open winner many times over . Look at Bruguera and picture a few more RG slams next to his name. Thats Nadal in the 90s


yes, show us...we want to see that. Otherwise you're just being a hater. There is no way you can prove 'Nadal will not win Grass and HCs slams' in the 90s. Don't bore us with your silly speculations, it's not scientific. Let's put it to test.

What has been proven on the other hand, with empirical evidence to back it up is, that Sampras sucks on clay. Let me write that again in bold in case you forget: SAMPRAS sucks on clay. Unlike you, my assessment is not a speculation but a culmination of extensive and thorough observations over a 10-period. It has been proven without shadow of a doubt that Sampras sucked on clay. Yes, he will have no slams today. The courts may come in different colors but they are still clay. Still CLAY. Based on the evidence, how was Sampras on clay again?

You see, the problem here GameSampras is that your idol didn't win a clay major and 'epic failed' to make a final in even one. He sucked, and we have mountains of evidence (the height of mount everest) gathered over a 10- year period to prove that.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 09:11 PM
yes, show us...we want to see that. Otherwise you're just being a hater. There is no way you can prove 'Nadal will not win Grass and HCs slams' in the 90s. Don't bore us with your silly speculations, it's not scientific. Let's put it to test.

What has been proven on the other hand, with empirical evidence to back it up is, that Sampras sucks on clay. Let me write that again in bold in case you forget: SAMPRAS sucks on clay. Unlike you, my assessment is not a speculation but a culmination of extensive and thorough observations over a 10-period. It has been proven without shadow of a doubt that Sampras sucked on clay. Yes, he will have no slams today. The courts may come in different colors but they are still clay. Still CLAY. Based on the evidence, how was Sampras on clay again?

You see, the problem here GameSampras is that your idol didn't win a clay major and 'epic failed' to make a final in even one. He sucked, and we have mountains of evidence (the height of mount everest) gathered over a 10- year period to prove that.

I dunno if you are extremely biased or just friggin CLUELESS. Sampras didnt "suck" on clay. A player that "sucks" on clay does not defeat Bruguera, Muster, and Courier on clay. Im sorry but these are FACTS. He also won the 95 Davis Cup on clay defeating the russians . He didnt perform well at RG most years. But to say he "sucked" only proves you are the Hater. And you know whats funny. Sampras defeated better clay courters at the French than Roger ever did. BOTTOM LINE.


So take your Sampras hater biased, Federphiliac crap some place else. Sampras defeated some big names on clay in an era with a much steeper clay court field than today.... Wait... Im sure there is no basis to that too. In fact you are probably the only one who thinks today's clay court field is better today than in the 90s


So the FACT that Sampras defeated Muster, Bruguera, Courier on clay.. Is that speculation? NOPE ITS A FACT!! Live with it. Sampras didnt do as well as he should have or could have at the French.. But a player who "sucks" does not defeat Bruguera, Courier, or Muster at the French. Pete proved he could play and beat these guys on certain days.

You make it sound like Sampras never won on clay nor defeated any clay courters of merit, when the FACTS prove otherwise

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 09:24 PM
Safin who bring his A game once every 4-5 years. ?

Lucky for Sampras, Krajicek only brought his A-game at wimbledon once every 8-10 years.




While Pete had the likes (early 90s) of Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Agassi (Clay field)?

Doesn't matter if it was....Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco. Sampras sucked on clay. There are evidence to prove that.

What happened to that freakin' "Only slams matters" for sampras....or "his mental game alone can win him matches"




Do the math.. Now imagine if Pete had Fed's field and Fed had Pete's. Who Pete get more slams in a shorter time frame during their rise to dominance? If Pete only had to deal with Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Safin, Old Man Agassi, etc?

Please, don't write the word math and follow it up with the word "imagine". Math is about equations, calculations backed by numbers. Math is closer to the truth, while "imaginations" are well...in your case "la la la land".

Now regarding math and Gonzalez http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=G415&playernum2=S402

Neither was at their prime, and yes Sampras 'only cares about slams'. You don't have to repeat that. But the sound heard, everytime Gonzalez hit a fh in that match, sounded like "welcome to the new era, volley that biatch"!

Gonzalez didn't return well in the first set (standing too close at the baseline)....guess what he did in the second set? Now...you can use your famous "imagination" :)

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 09:27 PM
Lucky for Sampras, Krajicek only brought his A-game at wimbledon once every 8-10 years.





Doesn't matter if it was....Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco. Sampras sucked on clay. There are evidence to prove that.

What happened to that freakin' "Only slams matters" for sampras....or "his mental game alone can win him matches"




Please, don't write the word math and follow it up with the word "imagine". Math is about equations, calculations backed by numbers. Math is closer to the truth, while "imaginations" are well...in your case "la la la land".

Now regarding math and Gonzalez http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=G415&playernum2=S402

Neither was at their prime, and yes Sampras 'only cares about slams'. You don't have to repeat that. But the sound heard, everytime Gonzalez hit a fh in that match, sounded like "welcome to the new era, volley that biatch"!

Gonzalez didn't return well in the first set (standing too close at the baseline)....guess what he did in the second set? Now...you can use your famous "imagination" :)




Says the poster who says Sampras "sucked" on clay. LOL... When the facts say otherwise. LOL.... Why listen to someone who says Sampras sucks on clay yet has defeated players with more merit on clay than most of the guys today on tour?

OTMPut
03-02-2009, 09:36 PM
I want to see Nadal's 08 Queens match with Ivo Karlovic again. Nadal was really struggling against Karlovic's serve. He had no idea what was coming. You should look at Nadal's all intense pre return preparation and then boom ...he walks to the other side to receive the next.

That's what he will go through if he plays Pete most of the time. When Pete has an offday on serves, Nadal will destroy him. There will be a more respectable rivalry with decent head to head.
Pete's attitude - "I do not take prisoners" (think he mentions that in his book somewhere?) will help a lot. Federer lacks in this dept. He sometimes surrenders.

thalivest
03-02-2009, 09:38 PM
Fed was considered mentally tough until Nadal came in the picture. He was even more mentally tough then Federer and his game gave Fed problems as well. I think Sampras was lucky never to deal with a clutch player like Nadal with a game that would give Pete fits.

In other words a Goran Ivanisevic or Richard Krajicek (the type of players with games that are bad matchups for Pete ala Nadal for Federer) with Nadal's mental game (rather than their own powderpuff ones that cause them lose early rounds often or choke even when they do reach big matches often). I would totally agree with you in that case.

OTMPut
03-02-2009, 09:40 PM
Doesn't matter if it was....Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco, Galo Blanco. Sampras sucked on clay. There are evidence to prove that.


I know i am sounding pedantic. You can never prove with evidence. You can only disprove with evidence. Pete has disproved that he sucks at clay on many instances.

And if only he could have cheeseburgers at a certain time, he could have won FO ;)

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 09:44 PM
I dunno if you are extremely biased or just friggin CLUELESS. Sampras didnt "suck" on clay. A player that "sucks" on clay does not defeat Bruguera, Muster, and Courier on clay. Im sorry but these are FACTS. He also won the 95 Davis Cup on clay defeating the russians . He didnt perform well at RG most years. But to say he "sucked" only proves you are the Hater. And you know whats funny. Sampras defeated better clay courters at the French than Roger ever did. BOTTOM LINE.


So take your Sampras hater biased, Federphiliac crap some place else. Sampras defeated some big names on clay.


So the FACT that Sampras defeated Muster, Bruguera, Courier on clay.. Is that speculation? NOPE ITS A FACT!! Live with it. Sampras didnt do as well as he should have or could have at the French.. But a player who "sucks" does not defeat Bruguera, Courier, or Muster at the French. Pete proved he could play and beat these guys on certain days.

You make it sound like Sampras never won on clay nor defeated any clay courters of merit, when the FACTS prove otherwise


They were not in their primes when Sampras beat them, they sucked that day, that's a fact. They were in their primes when they won their clay slams!

I don't know if you're friggin clueless of just extremely biased but ONLY SLAMS MATTER. Sampras said that, and even you would say 'sampras only played when it matters..."that's the slam".

Nadal sucked on HC (hard clay) until this year's AO. I don't care how many HC (hard clay) masters he won prior to that or olympic gold...he still sucked. This year it's different though, he proved he could win on all types of clay. Sampras on the other hand sucked and we have empirical evidence, supported with numbers to back that:



SLAM COUNT

Sampras

Clay: 0

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 09:48 PM
They were not in their primes when Sampras beat them, they sucked that day, that's a fact. They were in their primes when they won their clay slams!

I don't know if you're friggin clueless of just extremely biased but ONLY SLAMS MATTER. Sampras said that, and even you would say 'sampras only played when it matters..."that's the slam".

Nadal sucked on HC (hard clay) until this year's AO. I don't care how many HC (hard clay) masters he won prior to that or olympic gold...he still sucked. This year it's different though, he proved he could win on all types of clay. Sampras on the other hand sucked and we have empirical evidence, supported with numbers to back that:

SLAM COUNT

Sampras

Clay: 0


Ohhh all 3 just happened to "suck" that day.. Thats why Sampras beat them at the French. Alright.. :shock:


Since you wanna play that game:

Federer: 0 French Open Titles as well

thalivest
03-02-2009, 09:54 PM
They were not in their primes when Sampras beat them, they sucked that day, that's a fact. They were in their primes when they won their clay slams!

I don't know if you're friggin clueless of just extremely biased but ONLY SLAMS MATTER. Sampras said that, and even you would say 'sampras only played when it matters..."that's the slam".


Muster in 1991 sucked around the time of the French Open. He was ranked outside the top 50 and I think had a 4-5 record or something on clay for the year. Anyone thinking that was prime Muster is on crack.

Courier by 1996 was way past his prime. Most would agree his prime ended in mid 1994 at the latest (more likely at the end of 1993) and the 1996 French Open was his last ever slam quarterfinal and one of his last weeks even in the top 10 (he had already dropped out of the top 10 before briefly getting back in one last time).

Bruguera's prime really ended in 1995 and when it comes to the 1996 French Open he was coming off an injury, was unseeded, and also had only something like a 5-4 record on clay going into the French that year.

Anyone who thinks Federer wouldnt have been able to beat all of those players those particular years at the French is crazy, and I doubt it would have been even close considering where those players were at the time.

Federer has beaten French Open or potential French Open winners too. He has beaten all of Kuerten, Moya (more than once in Moya's case), Ferrero, Coria (more than once) on clay. All of those players were higher ranked and playing better at the time of those wins than all of the aforementioned when Pete beat them.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 09:57 PM
Muster in 1991 sucked around the time of the French Open. He was ranked outside the top 50 and I think had a 4-5 record or something on clay for the year. Anyone thinking that was prime Muster is on crack.

Courier by 1996 was way past his prime. Most would agree his prime ended in mid 1994 at the latest (more likely at the end of 1993) and the 1996 French Open was his last ever slam quarterfinal and one of his last weeks even in the top 10 (he had already dropped out of the top 10 before briefly getting back in one last time).

Bruguera's prime really ended in 1995 and when it comes to the 1996 French Open he was coming off an injury, was unseeded, and also had only something like a 5-4 record on clay going into the French that year.

Anyone who thinks Federer wouldnt have been able to beat all of those players those particular years at the French is crazy, and I doubt it would have been even close considering where those players were at the time.


Well they were still good clay courters nonethless and all French Open Champs. I mean can Fed fans use the "not in his prime" excuse when he gets tallywhacked by Nadal on a consistent basis? Because they do. But the fact remains hes still "Fedesque"

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 09:57 PM
Says the poster who says Sampras "sucked" on clay. LOL... When the facts say otherwise. LOL.... Why listen to someone who says Sampras sucks on clay yet has defeated players with more merit on clay than most of the guys today on tour?



Where's Sampras' winner's slam trophy on clay?

Let me make it easier for you.....where is Sampras' second place slam trophy?


:)

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 10:00 PM
Where's Sampras' winner's slam trophy on clay?

Let me make it easier for you.....where is Sampras' second place slam trophy?


:)

Where is Fed's French Open trophy then? LOL.

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 10:00 PM
Ohhh all 3 just happened to "suck" that day.. Thats why Sampras beat them at the French. Alright.. :shock:


Since you wanna play that game:

Federer: 0 French Open Titles as well



But Roger has 3 trophies from that slam event! Second place that sucks! Sampras on the other hand friggin' sucks. That's were you see the distiction.

OTMPut
03-02-2009, 10:03 PM
Ok people. Let us get this over. Sampras was not good enough to win FO or get to its finals. But he did not suck (that's a bit too harsh).

Let's move on with our "thought experiment" of how Pete will play now and Roger will play then. No passionate trash talk please. Has anyone read Feynman's Lectures on Physics? He describes some beautiful thought experiments.

thalivest
03-02-2009, 10:08 PM
For an all time great Sampras did suck completely on clay. I dont think there is any top 20 player all time, or any player with 7 slams or more who wasnt better on his worst surface than Sampras on clay.

Laver- calender slam twice
Gonzales- much better on clay than Sampras
Rosewall- mcuh better on grass than Sampras on clay
Agassi- career slam
Wilander- won Australian Open on grass twice
Federer- much better on clay than Sampras
Lendl- much better on grass than Sampras on clay
Connors- had slightly better results at the French from age 26-30 than Sampras from 21-25 (Sampras from 26-30 was doing squat at Wimbledon), missing out on his own potential best years there from 21-25 because of the 74 incident.
Borg- so far better on hard courts than Sampras on clay
Perry- career slam
Budge- calender slam
Tilden- finals, finals, semis the only 3 years he played the French
Emerson- great on all surfaces
McEnroe- nearly won the French in 84, much results than Pete at the French in far less appearances during his prime
LaCoste- champion in clay and grass slams 3 or 4 times each
Cochet- champion in clay and grass slams 3 or 4 times each
Nadal- way better on hard courts than Sampras is on clay

Of the long list of all the major greats nobody is not better on their worst surface than Sampras on clay. That means relatively speaking yes he does suck on clay...big time!

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 10:10 PM
Well they were still good clay courters nonethless and all French Open Champs. I mean can Fed fans use the "not in his prime" excuse when he gets tallywhacked by Nadal on a consistent basis? Because they do. But the fact remains hes still "Fedesque"



Oh, so in Sampras' case that reasoning is valid. But Nadal's or Federer's wins over Agassi and in Fed's case beating your idol on a REAL match, are not to be counted because those two were past their primes?


Where's Sampras' french trophy? Where Sampras second place trophy at the french (the one Roger has 3 of)? That speaks volume of Fed's superiority over Pete don't you think?

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 10:17 PM
Oh, so in Sampras' case that reasoning is valid. But Nadal's or Federer's wins over Agassi and in Fed's case beating your idol on a REAL match, are not to be counted because those two were past their primes?


Where's Sampras' french trophy? Where Sampras second place trophy at the french (the one Roger has 3 of)? That speaks volume of Fed's superiority over Pete don't you think?

Fed is still only 27. Pete was 30 and Andre in his mid 30s losing to Fed . A little bit of a difference there.

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 10:30 PM
I know i am sounding pedantic. You can never prove with evidence. You can only disprove with evidence. Pete has disproved that he sucks at clay on many instances.

And if only he could have cheeseburgers at a certain time, he could have won FO ;)


Actually, you can use evidence to prove or disprove a theory.


Sampras not winning the FO proves, not disproves, that he sucks on clay. Only slam matters for Sampras. He can alway disprove that he sucks on clay by coming back "winning" it.


I agree with the cheeseburger though ;)

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 10:45 PM
Fed is still only 27. Pete was 30 and Andre in his mid 30s losing to Fed . A little bit of a difference there.


and andy murray has 89 chickens in his poultry. Excuses excuses excuses.

OTMPut
03-02-2009, 10:55 PM
Actually, you can use evidence to prove or disprove a theory.


Evidence never constitutes "proof". Heard of Sir Karl Popper?

The way science goes is to put forth a hypothesis and look for evidence that contradicts it. If you cannot find such evidence, you do not reject that hypothesis. But you never take the hypothesis as proven if you do not find the evidence against contrary.

All the newspaper & tv journalists cannot understand that though.

The-Champ
03-02-2009, 11:30 PM
Evidence never constitutes "proof". Heard of Sir Karl Popper?

The way science goes is to put forth a hypothesis and look for evidence that contradicts it. If you cannot find such evidence, you do not reject that hypothesis. But you never take the hypothesis as proven if you do not find the evidence against contrary.

All the newspaper & tv journalists cannot understand that though.


Yes karl Popper is correct from a deductivist point of view, but only if you already have an "x" to falsify. "X" being the FO title. Inductivism is the analytic method to be used on the sampras-clay issue because we have a precise time limit for our observation, we have to stick to that.


LOL on newspapers and journalist. The methodology of natural science are not always applicable on social events.

luckyboy1300
03-03-2009, 12:18 AM
Evidence never constitutes "proof". Heard of Sir Karl Popper?

The way science goes is to put forth a hypothesis and look for evidence that contradicts it. If you cannot find such evidence, you do not reject that hypothesis. But you never take the hypothesis as proven if you do not find the evidence against contrary.

All the newspaper & tv journalists cannot understand that though.

are you inventing your own system of logic?

380pistol
03-03-2009, 01:16 AM
This thread is good for a laugh. First the Sampras/Federer French comparisons. Pete lost to Medvedev (and his 4 clay masters and 6 of 8 years losing to eventual champ at RG, also beat Guga the same year he beat Pete), Blanco, Delgado and P'sis, then hide like snivelling cowards behind Nadal and even Bo Jackson hipped Guga for Fed.

If we're keeping it to best years, Sampras losses at RG came to Courier, Agassi, Kafelnikov and Bruguera, yet Fed losing to Arazi(who???), Horna(huh??), Bo Jackson hipped Guga (ahem!!!), Corretja (twice...oh my???) and trailing Nalbandian 6-3,3-0 (uh huh!!!) before David got hurt is overlooked. And P'sis (2000) and Blanco (2001). Well let's wait 2.5 years and tell me who Fed loses to in 2010 and 2011 and we'll add that to his resume.

And Nadal owning Sampras....please. Anyone with half a brain can see outside of clay Nadal will be fighting an uphill battle vs Pete. First when has Pete's backhand broken down as badly and consitently as Rogers during his peak, and beleve me it wasn't just Nadal who got Roger... don't make me post the #'s!!!!!!!

Secondly Sampras can just camp out to the backhand side as he maybe the best ever at moving to his forehand, which ironically is not one of the strengths of Federer's arsenal. And listen to Sampras!!!!!! Nadal stays so far back when he returns, Pete would impose his will, suffocate him. Roger does not do that and allows Nadal to get ino the point, where Rafa is a problem. Pete would try and take Nadal out of the point from his first swing.

Do yu think Nadal is going to play Sampras and direct 85%+ serves to Pete's backhand and get away with it. Sampras was notorious for standing in the doubles alley to get a forehand. He would damn near give Nadal the serve up the middle to take away the serve outwide to the backhand. Also Sampras would have no fear going after Rafa's 2nd serve aggressively, which Federer does not.

And Nadal will have a tough time passing Pete, as Sampras will make him pass from difficult positions. Nadal's retrn (stroke in isolation) is not great and Pete will exploit that, not letting Nadal to get comfortable and sink his teeth in the point. This is Pete at age 31, on a slower deco turf II that has been used 2003-present.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC99glR53wE&fmt=18

And even at 31 on slower Deco Turf II he wasn't too bad from the baseline....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zKCLaPPskI&feature=related&fmt=18

Since a lot don't know, this is more of Pete from the baseline......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA-MacvQuGM&feature=related&fmt=18
http://www.fandome.com/video/91753/Pete-On-Point/

Joseph L. Barrow
03-03-2009, 01:19 AM
Sampras: more slams
more weeks at #1
more titles overall
better head to heads with main rivals.

Federer: 3 RG finals
3 years with 3 slams
more master shields

but don't forget Sampras's career is over, Federer is not!
Don't forget to chalk up more consecutive and total year-end #1s on Sampras' ledger.

OTMPut
03-03-2009, 01:20 AM
are you inventing your own system of logic?

Well that is the current agreed way to do science. You have any other way?

luckyboy1300
03-03-2009, 01:25 AM
Well that is the current agreed way to do science. You have any other way?

yes. you have a hypothesis, and you "prove" it by providing evidence, aka, "proof" that supports the hypothesis, not "disproving" it, as what i understand from your point. ever heard of the fundamentals of logic: "the one making the claim bears the burden of proof"?

OTMPut
03-03-2009, 01:27 AM
Yes karl Popper is correct from a deductivist point of view, but only if you already have an "x" to falsify. "X" being the FO title. Inductivism is the analytic method to be used on the sampras-clay issue because we have a precise time limit for our observation, we have to stick to that.


LOL on newspapers and journalist. The methodology of natural science are not always applicable on social events.

Anything that is not from falsification is not worth calling "knowledge". And that's why "knowledge" from social events culled from "proof by example" method is not reliable.

This is a good example. The knowledge you derived i.e. "Sampras sucks on clay" using some "evidence" to prove your hypothesis is suspect.

OTMPut
03-03-2009, 01:28 AM
yes. you have a hypothesis, and you "prove" it by providing evidence, aka, "proof" that supports the hypothesis, not "disproving" it, as what i understand from your point.

Only if you can observe all possible future and past instances and have found that hypothesis true. This is not possible (limitation of the world as is). So you can only "falsify" hypotheses and not prove them by looking at "evidence".

luckyboy1300
03-03-2009, 05:08 AM
Only if you can observe all possible future and past instances and have found that hypothesis true. This is not possible (limitation of the world as is). So you can only "falsify" hypotheses and not prove them by looking at "evidence".

so if i therefore make a hypothesis "a space monkey exists", and no one can disprove its existence, then the hypothesis is true?

OTMPut
03-03-2009, 07:07 AM
so if i therefore make a hypothesis "a space monkey exists", and no one can disprove its existence, then the hypothesis is true?

That is not a valid scientific hypothesis. On the other hand "a space monkey does not exist", provided you have defined what one is, is a valid scientific hypothesis. That is refuted by exhibiting a space monkey. If you cannot, then you do not reject that hypothesis (there is a subtle difference between accepting and not rejecting).

You might want to google Karl Popper and read up on scientific methodology. If i go about the thread gets far off topic.

GameSampras
03-03-2009, 07:10 AM
How did Popper, Einstein, and scientific equations get dragged into this? LOL..

This is tennis for god sakes. Not a science fair:)

When comparing players of different eras, its usually just assumptions involved.

The-Champ
03-03-2009, 07:46 AM
Anything that is not from falsification is not worth calling "knowledge". And that's why "knowledge" from social events culled from "proof by example" method is not reliable.

This is a good example. The knowledge you derived i.e. "Sampras sucks on clay" using some "evidence" to prove your hypothesis is suspect.


Actually I started out with observation, not hypothesis. The result of the investigation became the conclusion i.e "sampras sucks on clay"

Sampras sucks on clay = "new knowledge"

Now, anyone can try to falsify that "new knowledge" but it will be in vain, because Sampras doesn't play anymore. His career is over and did not win any title at Roland G.

The-Champ
03-03-2009, 07:50 AM
How did Popper, Einstein, and scientific equations get dragged into this? LOL..

This is tennis for god sakes. Not a science fair:)

When comparing players of different eras, its usually just assumptions involved.



This is probably the most rational thing you've ever said during your whole posting career.

ksbh
03-03-2009, 09:15 AM
Pete Sampras was never beaten & dominated consistently on the biggest stages by one player as Federer is by Nadal.

Federer can't even hold his own mentally against ONE player in his era, how was he going to deal with a field comprised of mental giants in Pete's era? I have to conclude that some of the Fedfools here that claim Federer would've won 20 slams in Pete's era were probably in their huggies when Sampras played in his prime.

ksbh
03-03-2009, 09:19 AM
A 14-time slam champion without an impressive backhand or forehand!. Boy I wish I had played professional tennis in Pete's era, with a little luck I might have sneaked in a slam or 2 as well! How old are you, Parabolica?!

Backhand? Samprass never really had an impressive backhand or forehand. He was lucky to be in his era of S&V'ers.

GameSampras
03-03-2009, 09:27 AM
Pete Sampras was never beaten & dominated consistently on the biggest stages by one player as Federer is by Nadal.

Federer can't even hold his own mentally against ONE player in his era, how was he going to deal with a field comprised of mental giants in Pete's era? I have to conclude that some of the Fedfools here that claim Federer would've won 20 slams in Pete's era were probably in their huggies when Sampras played in his prime.

Fed winnng 20 slams is Pete's era is extremely far fetched. I would assume his dominance wouldnt begin in 93 as it did for Pete.He certainly wouldnt have picked up a slam at 19 such as Pete. There was a pretty darn good field in 93. Both began their primes at 22 so to speak but there was quite a few players that could have given Fed fits in the early 90s. I certainly dont see 3 slams a year for Fed as he did in the trash era of the 04-07 which consisted of Old Man Andre, Hewitt, Roddick (LOL), Baghaditis, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Blake, Pre Puberty Nadal.

Im not sure how Fed would do on the old grass surfaces against the serve-volleyers. Hes never won a wimbeldon on legit grass. They changed it in 2001. Fed's success would come on Hardcourts in the 90s I would assume. But even then, I think Agassi (When Agassi showed up) may have given him problems and a few others. Agassi was deadly at the Australian

anointedone
03-03-2009, 09:35 AM
Federer can't even hold his own mentally against ONE player in his era, how was he going to deal with a field comprised of mental giants in Pete's era?

A field of mental giants such as Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Andre "tank over half my career" Agassi, Marcelo "tank all my career" Rios, Todd Martin, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, et al. You are funny.

gsquicksilver
03-03-2009, 10:04 AM
Backhand? Samprass never really had an impressive backhand or forehand. He was lucky to be in his era of S&V'ers.

uh...where you around during pete's dominance? in his prime he wasn't always a serve and volleyer. he stayed back quite often and terrorized his opponents with his lethal forehand, especially that running forehand. his forehand was a trademark robert landsorp forehand technique.

ksbh
03-03-2009, 10:17 AM
Thank you A.one! I do have an excellent sense of humor ... but I was serious about Federer being mentally weak! LOL!

A field of mental giants such as Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Andre "tank over half my career" Agassi, Marcelo "tank all my career" Rios, Todd Martin, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, et al. You are funny.

anointedone
03-03-2009, 10:37 AM
Thank you A.one! I do have an excellent sense of humor ... but I was serious about Federer being mentally weak! LOL!

True, I wouldnt argue there. I have said many times in the past his many titles and dominance over Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, et al. is not because of mental strength but because his game is so much better than theirs, plus matchup wise he is a bad matchup for them. Now that there are players like Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic who are closer to him tennis ability wise, and who also arent easy matchups for him, he is shown to not be so tough at all.

Also Federer winning 20 majors in any era is funny. The guy even according to his own fan base has a short 4 year or so only prime. There are many eras there would be people (or atleast 1 person) bigger threats to his hard court/grass than anything was there from 2004-2007, and he would not dominate clay in any era (though he may have had a better shot of winning 1 or 2 Frenchs in many other eras, I will give him that much).

ksbh
03-03-2009, 10:48 AM
Agreed on all points, A1! :)

True, I wouldnt argue there. I have said many times in the past his many titles and dominance over Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, et al. is not because of mental strength but because his game is so much better than theirs, plus matchup wise he is a bad matchup for them. Now that there are players like Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic who are closer to him tennis ability wise, and who also arent easy matchups for him, he is shown to not be so tough at all.

Also Federer winning 20 majors in any era is funny. The guy even according to his own fan base has a short 4 year or so only prime. There are many eras there would be people (or atleast 1 person) bigger threats to his hard court/grass than anything was there from 2004-2007, and he would not dominate clay in any era (though he may have had a better shot of winning 1 or 2 Frenchs in many other eras, I will give him that much).

egn
03-03-2009, 02:50 PM
If we're keeping it to best years, Sampras losses at RG came to Courier, Agassi, Kafelnikov and Bruguera, yet Fed losing to Arazi(who???), Horna(huh??), Bo Jackson hipped Guga (ahem!!!), Corretja (twice...oh my???) and trailing Nalbandian 6-3,3-0 (uh huh!!!) before David got hurt is overlooked. And P'sis (2000) and Blanco (2001). Well let's wait 2.5 years and tell me who Fed loses to in 2010 and 2011 and we'll add that to his resume.


Okay so Fed best starts 2003

2003 Horna
2004 Guga
2005-2008 Nadal
2009?

Sampras
93 Brug (samp lost to better opponenet)
94 Courier (samp lost to better opponenet)
95 Schaller (fed lost to better opponent)
96 Kalfenikov (fed lost to better opponent)
97 Norman (fed lost to better opponent)
98 Delgado (fed lost to better opponenet)
99 Medvedev (depends on who fed loses to but if he goes finals again fed gets the edge again if not fed still leads 4-3)

Say what you want about Brug in 96 He was not a threat that year. Way outside of the top 20, hadn't been in a clay court title match for nearly two years. Samp lost to Kalfenikov who was half the clay courter that Nadal is. You trash FEd for losing to Guga who is out of shape so don't credit Brug he was not in form. Brug 97 was well in form but Brug 96 was not


What has been proven on the other hand, with empirical evidence to back it up is, that Sampras sucks on clay. Let me write that again in bold in case you forget: SAMPRAS sucks on clay. Unlike you, my assessment is not a speculation but a culmination of extensive and thorough observations over a 10-period. It has been proven without shadow of a doubt that Sampras sucked on clay. Yes, he will have no slams today. The courts may come in different colors but they are still clay. Still CLAY. Based on the evidence, how was Sampras on clay again?.

You don't win a master series and make the semi and suck on the surface. He was average but he did not suck. However Sampras also in his best clay court years had a deeper clay court field, Nadal might be able to beat them all but Sampras had to deal with more clay courters than Nadal and Fed as they are really the only two who have been clay court threats as if they are there nobody has done much exception of Djokovic. Sampras' best years on clay 93-96 Had more depth than Fed 05-07 Feds best clay court years the field lacked depth due to Coria's vanishing. Guga retiring and being injuried. Nalbandian underachieving, Ferrero disappearance and Gaudio being a failure. While Sampras had Muster, Courier, Brug, Kalfenikov and Medevedev all in their best years.

Sampras might have not been great on clay but he was not crap and Roger Federer is still not great on clay either as Nadal was not great on HC or Grass tilll he won their slams and Fed is not great on clay till he wins one.

thalivest
03-03-2009, 02:55 PM
Federer's best started in 2004, not 2003. In 2003 Federer lost before the quarters of every major except Wimbledon, still was losing all his matches to Nalbandian (who only can beat him on indoors now) and Hewitt, didnt even win a Masters title, and didnt spend even one week of 2003 ranked #1 while someone like Andy Roddick was the one to be the year end #1 over him. Sampras was closer to starting his best in 1992 than Federer was in 2003 despite that Federer won a major and ended #2 (the overall 1992 mens field was alot stronger than 2003 of course, and stronger than pretty much all of Pete's future #1 years too).

luckyboy1300
03-03-2009, 03:05 PM
That is not a valid scientific hypothesis. On the other hand "a space monkey does not exist", provided you have defined what one is, is a valid scientific hypothesis. That is refuted by exhibiting a space monkey. If you cannot, then you do not reject that hypothesis (there is a subtle difference between accepting and not rejecting).

You might want to google Karl Popper and read up on scientific methodology. If i go about the thread gets far off topic.

why would it not be valid? according to you, i can make that claim, sit back on my chair waiting for someone to provide evidence against it. if no one does then i already made another scientific discovery. popper is just another side of the coin and i think his ideas are ridiculous. there you are.

OTMPut
03-03-2009, 04:51 PM
why would it not be valid? according to you, i can make that claim, sit back on my chair waiting for someone to provide evidence against it. if no one does then i already made another scientific discovery. popper is just another side of the coin and i think his ideas are ridiculous. there you are.

A valid scientific hypothesis is one that can be falsified. Anything else is pure bunkum.

"Truth" obtained by the "proof by example" way is not knowledge and at best is an anecdote.

And what you claim is not what i said. I know it is difficult to get it. Take time off TT and read and think.

A few social "scientists" even committed suicide when Popper came up with the now universally accepted way of doing science, since they realised what they have been doing all along was bunkum.

NandoMania
03-03-2009, 05:00 PM
So far this year, Pete Sampras has lost to Tommy Haas and Lleyton Hewitt, so why not Roger Federer too?

luckyboy1300
03-03-2009, 06:44 PM
A valid scientific hypothesis is one that can be falsified. Anything else is pure bunkum.

"Truth" obtained by the "proof by example" way is not knowledge and at best is an anecdote.

And what you claim is not what i said. I know it is difficult to get it. Take time off TT and read and think.

A few social "scientists" even committed suicide when Popper came up with the now universally accepted way of doing science, since they realised what they have been doing all along was bunkum.

whatever man. this topic is straying way off beyond this thread so i'll stop here. but i'm not a follower of popper's ***. i find his methodology ridiculous and other scientists as well. i'll stick to logic which is the universally accepted method of debates and its fundamental rule is "the one making the claim bears the burden of proof".

ndtennis
03-03-2009, 06:50 PM
I watched Pete Sampras as a young kid playing his butt off and beating Agassi a lot. He played with class. With Roger, I notice a cocky swagger in his step. I love Roger and hoped he had won the aussi open. Anyways, I wanted to know what you guys thought if Pete and Roger switched era's. What if Pete played now in his prime versus roger playing back then in his prime? also, who would win if they played against each other in their prime?

I dont think he has that cocky swagger about him. he is obviously confident, which needs to be had at the top. But he always, to me, sounds like really down to earth guy and not the I'm better than you attitude. But I have heard people accuse Pete of being cocky. Bottom line, everyone will accuse the top players.
That being said.
Federer would still win.

380pistol
03-03-2009, 11:57 PM
Okay so Fed best starts 2003

2003 Horna
2004 Guga
2005-2008 Nadal
2009?

Sampras
93 Brug (samp lost to better opponenet)
94 Courier (samp lost to better opponenet)
95 Schaller (fed lost to better opponent)
96 Kalfenikov (fed lost to better opponent)
97 Norman (fed lost to better opponent)
98 Delgado (fed lost to better opponenet)
99 Medvedev (depends on who fed loses to but if he goes finals again fed gets the edge again if not fed still leads 4-3)


Are you serious??? Hiding behind Nadal is what y'all do best?? Who did he beat to reach Nadal. Lete's take the 4 best performances of each in Paris and see who they got when they reached the QF......

Sampras
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Bruguera
1994 - Courier
1995 - Courier

Federer
2005 - Hanescu
2006 - Ancic
2007 - Robredo
2008 - Gonzalez

Nadal is a beast no question. But he used to absolve the road to get to him. Ever heard the theories on the journey and the destination??? Federer's journey to Nala the last 4 years isn't been the most impressive of paths.

And as far as Bruguera in 1996 let's see......

1993 - Champion
1994 - Champion
1995 - SF
1997 - F

I mean if not for Sampras you really think Bruguera wouldn't have made noise in 1996??? But yet he was in the final the following year.

ksbh
03-04-2009, 09:07 AM
Without even taking into account Roger Federer's accomplishments at Roland Garros, he's still a greater player than Pete Sampras.

Federer has set records that Sampras didn't come anywhere close to sniffing! Roger's performance at RG is just icing on the cake. When Federer calls it a day, he'll be ahead of Sampras on the GOAT list without a question.

egn
03-04-2009, 04:36 PM
Are you serious??? Hiding behind Nadal is what y'all do best?? Who did he beat to reach Nadal. Lete's take the 4 best performances of each in Paris and see who they got when they reached the QF......

Sampras
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Bruguera
1994 - Courier
1995 - Courier

Federer
2005 - Hanescu
2006 - Ancic
2007 - Robredo
2008 - Gonzalez

Nadal is a beast no question. But he used to absolve the road to get to him. Ever heard the theories on the journey and the destination??? Federer's journey to Nala the last 4 years isn't been the most impressive of paths.

And as far as Bruguera in 1996 let's see......

1993 - Champion
1994 - Champion
1995 - SF
1997 - F

I mean if not for Sampras you really think Bruguera wouldn't have made noise in 1996??? But yet he was in the final the following year.

Okay umm I don't Brug would have made any noise because the fact that he lost to Sampras shows how bad he was in form. Brug 95 or 97 would have easily destroyed Sampras 96. You base your ratings based on the fact that they all won French Opens not at current point in time. Just for you Brug's clay court season results for 1996...let me guess though these will be irrelevant as he faced Sampras and once wrecked a surface so he has to be dominate at all time.

Barcelona, Spain
April 15, 1996
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
Round of 64 Bye
Round of 32 Filip Dewulf (BEL) W 6-4 6-3
Round of 16 Magnus Larsson (SWE) L 1-6 7-5 3-6

So right now he is 1-1

Monte Carlo, Monaco
April 22, 1996
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
Round of 64 Andrea Gaudenzi (ITA) W 6-2 7-6(3)
Round of 32 Felix Mantilla (ESP) L 5-7 2-6

2-2

Hamburg, Germany
May 06, 1996
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
Round of 64 Bye
Round of 32 Francisco Roig (ESP) W 6-2 7-5
Round of 16 Jordi Burillo (ESP) W 6-2 7-6(5)
Quarterfinals Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) L 2-6 6-7(5)

Oh no he is 4-3 real dominance

Rome, Italy
May 13, 1996
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
Round of 64 Richard Krajicek (NED) L 4-6 4-6

4-4

World Team Cup, Germany
May 20, 1996
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
Round-Robin David Prinosil (GER) W 3-6 6-4 6-3
Round-Robin Marc Rosset (SUI) L 6-3 4-6 3-6
Round-Robin Thomas Enqvist (SWE) W 1-6 6-4 6-4

6-5

Roland Garros at Paris, France
May 27, 1996
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
Round of 128 Javier Sanchez (ESP) W 6-1 7-5 6-4
Round of 64 Pete Sampras (USA) L 3-6 4-6 7-6(2) 6-2 3-6

7-6

So from the start of the spring clay court season to the end he posted up a 7-6 record. Yet you are telling me he was in top form. He was obviously far out of top form and Sampras still took 5 sets to beat him. 1996 was his worst year for clay court tennis he posted a 10-8 record. Won no titles and did not even make a clay court final forget it he did not even make a clay court semifinal. Yet you are going to tell me he was in top form becuase he had a semi in 95 and a final in 97? Maybe that final in 97 just proves how out of form everyone else was. Courier was at least 8-4 though nothign near his prime where he was 15-2, 12-1 and 15-5. But then again we base their threat on things they did in full not at the moment when the match was played. Of course COurier and Brug were nothing near their top clay court and were losing to tons of other people on clay, but yes according to your logic they are still the biggest threats on clay court. Continue to argue Brug 96 with me go ahead, you post tons of stats there are mine that records above. If that really doesn't convince you of anything oh well. Oh to answer the question no I say Brug makes absolutely no noise, he loses to Courier in the QF if he gets there, Sampras had to take Todd Martin to five sets if Brug could not handle Sampras makes me wonder about his chances. I still don't know how Sampras beat Courier who was up two sets to none. A little luck was on Sampras' side that day, but hey luck is part of the game.


Now the problem is In Feds best years 05-08 only 1 guy was winning French Opens. The 2004 Winner was done by 2007 and the 2003 winner was a ghost of himself by 2004. Fed clearly accomplished more on clay than Sampras did. I agree the Sampras had more clay court threats, but Fed is a far better clay courter than Sampras is. The main reason the clay court field looks so depleted is for the following reasons

From 2004-2008
Monte Carlo- Coria, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal
Rome- Moya, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic
Hamburg- Federer, Federer, Robredo, Federer, Nadal

French Open Gaudio, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal

SO the tournaments you use to judge them have been dominated by one man, with another man constantly losing. Coria was gone by 2005 at least clay wise, Moya is far from prime now and Gaudio was gone by 2006 or 2007 but never made runs at the French.

You want to go back to 2003 as you went to 92 for Sampras

2003
Monte Carlo-Ferrero
Rome-Mantilla
Hamburg-Coria
French Open-J. Carlos Ferrero

Mantilla retired in 05. Coria vanished as we said and Ferrero declined due to injuries. Federer and Nadal however were able to crush the clay court field consisting of Coria, Gaudio, Robredo, Almargo etc. etc. You bash the field soley cause they dont have French Opens or masters but when one guy dominates it all and the ones he does not win the second guy basically won 2/3 of what do you expect. That would be like me trying to make claims that Sampras had no competition on grass exception of Krajicek. I mean come on Ivansevic(sp?), he only has 2 grass titles and he won his wimby after Sampras was no longer a threat but saying that would be ******** as Ivansevic was clearly a great grass courter. Gonzo had good runs in clay court masters he might have won one or two if Fed and Nadal had not existed. Fed would have a French Open if only one man did not exist Nadal. Sampras would have to eliminate at least 5, Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi and Kalfenikov. Say what you want about Fed's field but it looks as bad as it is because Nadal and Fed dominate it so much on clay.

380pistol
03-04-2009, 11:55 PM
egn just stop.

Bruguera in 1995 lost to Chang and in 1997 and unkown Kuerten. So for 3 years he's great on clay, then falls off cuz he loses to Sampras then good again in the following year... please. If not for Sampras in 1996 Bruguera is very likely in the QF.

It's not about French Open titles, it's about what you've done, who you've beaten. Almagrao has done what on clay do be considered alongside Courier, Muster and Bruguera???

Robredo?? Gaudio??? You act like they are consistently making deep runs on clay only to get foiled by Nadal or Federer, which just isn't the case. What have they done that warrants so much credit on clay???

You post #'s for Courier and Bruguera regarding 1996. Post the claycourt careers of Almagro, Robredo and Gaudio and tell me what you get??

I maen Courier was ranked #7 in 1996, and if not for Sampras he likely takes his 3rd French Open title, but that's farfetched to you. Bruguera getting to the final in 1997 is maybe an indication of "how out of form" everyone else was. A feild that included Kuerten, Muster, Kafelnikov, Medvedev and Bruguera, and how many 5 set battles.... but they were out of form and Sergi snuck through.

If Nadal had not exhisted Fed would have 4 French Opens no question. And he would have done it by beating.....

Sela, Almagro, Gonzalez(twice), almost 30 yr old Moya, Hanescu, Hartfiled, Falla, Massu, Berdych, Ancic(twice), Nalbandian(was actually down 6-3,3-0 when David got hurt), Russell, Ascione, Starace, Youzhny, Robredo, Davydenko, Querry, Montanes, Benneteau and Monfils.

Impressive I must say. Do you want the list of players who have no French Open titles on their resume,who can go through those aforementioned titles and get a French title??? Say what you want, but outside of Nadal, there;s not that much on clay the last 4 years or so.

coloskier
03-05-2009, 08:58 AM
Rafael Nadal is better than both of them!

Rafa would own Pete had Pete played in Rafa's era./thread

Yes, but if Rafa played in middle of Pete's era, not at the end of it, Rafa wouldn't even be in the top 10, because he would have no poly strings, no high bouncing balls, and no slow grass.

JediMindTrick
03-05-2009, 09:09 AM
Backhand? Samprass never really had an impressive backhand or forehand. He was lucky to be in his era of S&V'ers.

This is funny! Sampras had the best forehand on the tour!

egn
03-05-2009, 01:57 PM
egn just stop.

Bruguera in 1995 lost to Chang and in 1997 and unkown Kuerten. So for 3 years he's great on clay, then falls off cuz he loses to Sampras then good again in the following year... please. If not for Sampras in 1996 Bruguera is very likely in the QF.

It's not about French Open titles, it's about what you've done, who you've beaten. Almagrao has done what on clay do be considered alongside Courier, Muster and Bruguera???

Robredo?? Gaudio??? You act like they are consistently making deep runs on clay only to get foiled by Nadal or Federer, which just isn't the case. What have they done that warrants so much credit on clay???

You post #'s for Courier and Bruguera regarding 1996. Post the claycourt careers of Almagro, Robredo and Gaudio and tell me what you get??

I maen Courier was ranked #7 in 1996, and if not for Sampras he likely takes his 3rd French Open title, but that's farfetched to you. Bruguera getting to the final in 1997 is maybe an indication of "how out of form" everyone else was. A feild that included Kuerten, Muster, Kafelnikov, Medvedev and Bruguera, and how many 5 set battles.... but they were out of form and Sergi snuck through.

If Nadal had not exhisted Fed would have 4 French Opens no question. And he would have done it by beating.....

Sela, Almagro, Gonzalez(twice), almost 30 yr old Moya, Hanescu, Hartfiled, Falla, Massu, Berdych, Ancic(twice), Nalbandian(was actually down 6-3,3-0 when David got hurt), Russell, Ascione, Starace, Youzhny, Robredo, Davydenko, Querry, Montanes, Benneteau and Monfils.

Impressive I must say. Do you want the list of players who have no French Open titles on their resume,who can go through those aforementioned titles and get a French title??? Say what you want, but outside of Nadal, there;s not that much on clay the last 4 years or so.

Look at Brug's 97 final run. Outside of Chang he did not face a real clay court threat to the young Guga who was ranked 66 at the time. Brug got knocked out by him straight sets 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. He had an easy trip though. His first opponenet of note was Chang he than played Arazi who was not much at the time then Rafter? Who had been 1R bounced the two previous years never made a QF and never did after that. Your right in theory the field was not weak, but Brug got a path that was easy.

Gaudio won a french open and posted a 42-8 record on the surface in 2005. 2004 and 2005 he had great years on the surface winning 5 clay court titles. He just choked at France that year. Gaudio was a good clay courter I never said he was like Brug in his prime but don't say he does not deserve any credit on the surface.

None are as good as Brug in their prime or Courier but by 1995-1998 it is safe to say the three were going down. Muster never consistently went deep at the French Open and Kalfenikov was inconsistent. The clay court field had depth but not all of them showed up. They might boast better careers but Sampras ran into them earlier than Federer and no offense none of them were as good as Nadal. I don't regard those French Open finals Fed has to be so much superior to Sampras. Sampras lost to good clay clay court opponenets, the reasons Fed is better on clay is becuase of records and titles. Besides Fed actually beat Nadal in a clay court master series. Sampras could have made runs to the final. 95-99 I think Sampras could have cruised but he after 96 just never could seem to handle the surface. 97 Samp would have probably gone to the semis if he played like 96 because he would have run into Kureten. But he would have gotten him after a 5 set match with Kalfenikov and I think he might have been able to upset him. 96-98 I really felt Sampras could have won a French Open, maybe I overestimated his clay court abilites there. But Federer has a far better record on the surface and more titles to back it up. Sampras has 2 clay court titles, 1 MS. Fed has 4 MS and 3 smaller ones. It just helps back up those 3 finals. Sampras had a deeper field, but it is not like Fed had nobody. It was not just Nadal. There were other clay court players, Davydenko had good performances at France, there were other threats.

I don't think Fed would have four french opens if Nadal did not exist. A lot would be different. 2005 would probably be won by Coria. He would have more confidence cause Nadal wouuld not have crushed him in 2 MS finals and I think that would have translated into a win there. Fed gets 2006-2007 but I think Djokovic would have stolen 2008. He was playing far better on clay than Federer in 2008 and I think that would have ultimately translated into a win for him.

On another note I think if we stick Sampras in 2004-2008 without Nadal or Fed he does not get a title. He makes a final or two but 2004 gaudio or coria wins, 2005 as I said no Nadal I think Coria could win or Puerta would still beat him I feel...2006 well I stand corrected here is where I feel he can scrape it out but if Nalby does not retire and 2007 and 2008 all Djokovic.

Cesc Fabregas
03-05-2009, 01:59 PM
The general consenus among former players and current players is that Sampras is better than Federer and I agree.

flying24
03-05-2009, 02:13 PM
I maen Courier was ranked #7 in 1996, and if not for Sampras he likely takes his 3rd French Open title, but that's farfetched to you.

Yes Courier was going to win that French Open without Sampras when he would never again even be in the quarterfinals of a major again after that French Open. You are some lovesick Sampras nut, get help.

lambielspins
03-05-2009, 02:25 PM
I don't think Fed would have four french opens if Nadal did not exist. A lot would be different. 2005 would probably be won by Coria. He would have more confidence cause Nadal wouuld not have crushed him in 2 MS finals and I think that would have translated into a win there. Fed gets 2006-2007 but I think Djokovic would have stolen 2008. He was playing far better on clay than Federer in 2008 and I think that would have ultimately translated into a win for him.

I dont agree on Coria beating Federer in 2005. Federer is 2-0 vs Coria on clay, both matches in Coria's prime. The emotionally and physically fragile Coria is about 5x less likely to beat Federer in the best 3-out-of-5 of a slam final than in a smaller tournament in a best 2-out-of-3. Coria would definitely beat Sampras any year at the French, but not Federer.

Federer would have won the 2005, 2006, and 2007 French Opens without Nadal. The only question is 2008, would it have been Djokovic or a visibly off form Federer.

380pistol
03-05-2009, 11:41 PM
Look at Brug's 97 final run. Outside of Chang he did not face a real clay court threat to the young Guga who was ranked 66 at the time. Brug got knocked out by him straight sets 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. He had an easy trip though. His first opponenet of note was Chang he than played Arazi who was not much at the time then Rafter? Who had been 1R bounced the two previous years never made a QF and never did after that. Your right in theory the field was not weak, but Brug got a path that was easy.

Gaudio won a french open and posted a 42-8 record on the surface in 2005. 2004 and 2005 he had great years on the surface winning 5 clay court titles. He just choked at France that year. Gaudio was a good clay courter I never said he was like Brug in his prime but don't say he does not deserve any credit on the surface.

None are as good as Brug in their prime or Courier but by 1995-1998 it is safe to say the three were going down. Muster never consistently went deep at the French Open and Kalfenikov was inconsistent. The clay court field had depth but not all of them showed up. They might boast better careers but Sampras ran into them earlier than Federer and no offense none of them were as good as Nadal. I don't regard those French Open finals Fed has to be so much superior to Sampras. Sampras lost to good clay clay court opponenets, the reasons Fed is better on clay is becuase of records and titles. Besides Fed actually beat Nadal in a clay court master series. Sampras could have made runs to the final. 95-99 I think Sampras could have cruised but he after 96 just never could seem to handle the surface. 97 Samp would have probably gone to the semis if he played like 96 because he would have run into Kureten. But he would have gotten him after a 5 set match with Kalfenikov and I think he might have been able to upset him. 96-98 I really felt Sampras could have won a French Open, maybe I overestimated his clay court abilites there. But Federer has a far better record on the surface and more titles to back it up. Sampras has 2 clay court titles, 1 MS. Fed has 4 MS and 3 smaller ones. It just helps back up those 3 finals. Sampras had a deeper field, but it is not like Fed had nobody. It was not just Nadal. There were other clay court players, Davydenko had good performances at France, there were other threats.

I don't think Fed would have four french opens if Nadal did not exist. A lot would be different. 2005 would probably be won by Coria. He would have more confidence cause Nadal wouuld not have crushed him in 2 MS finals and I think that would have translated into a win there. Fed gets 2006-2007 but I think Djokovic would have stolen 2008. He was playing far better on clay than Federer in 2008 and I think that would have ultimately translated into a win for him.

On another note I think if we stick Sampras in 2004-2008 without Nadal or Fed he does not get a title. He makes a final or two but 2004 gaudio or coria wins, 2005 as I said no Nadal I think Coria could win or Puerta would still beat him I feel...2006 well I stand corrected here is where I feel he can scrape it out but if Nalby does not retire and 2007 and 2008 all Djokovic.

This is what I don't get. Bruguera "soft" 1997 French draw is chastised, yet I posted EVERYONE Federer has beaten en route to Nadal the last 4 years in Paris, and look, he's not held under the same light. Double standard.

So let me get this straight Gaudio can get hot one year, have #'s bolstered by beating who, and what did he do outside of that on clay. I can spin that and say Pete went what 11-2 on clay in 1994 a % that beats Gaudio's of 2004, how much weight does that hold??? Put Gaudio in 1994 and a I don't see a French final much less a title??With Courier and Bruguera floating around. Hell a out of form Muster has a damn good chance of picking him off. He was ranked #44 when he won it.

You talk 1995-1998. Well Muster 1995-96 will eat anyone on clay te last 4-5 years who's not named Rafael. Throw in Agassi, Kafelnikov, Kuerten and Moya. Courier was factor u to 1996 and Bruguera 1997. And that filed to me is deeper, than Gaudio, Coria, Davydenko, Robredo etc. no matter how you slice it. So outside of Nadal the claycourt field the last 4-5 years has been none to impressive. None of those clowns even see Ferrero at his peak.

Now I don't proclaim Sampras is the greatest claycourter, but I feel I'm far mor objective than a lot of idiotic Fed apologists. I llove how they'll take Pete's whole career at RG and put it up vs Roger's last 4 years, while excluding 1999-2004.

All I said was take their best 4 years at RG at look at who they ran into when they reached the QF.....
SAMPRAS - Agassi, Bruguera, Courier and Courier
FEDERER - Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez


Even if you take their respectve peaks and see their respective QF opp. how can one summize the 90's did not posses a stronger field. After 1997 (when Pete got sick) he did next to nothing at RG. But the way people talk about him, you'd think he was absolutely hopeless on clay. Let him walk in Roger's shoes, and he can a final or two hen how bad does he look. But many wanna look at it through their nice rose coloured glasse. Well if that helps them sleep at night.

380pistol
03-05-2009, 11:44 PM
egn just stop.
I maen Courier was ranked #7 in 1996, and if not for Sampras he likely takes his 3rd French Open title, but that's farfetched to you.


Yes Courier was going to win that French Open without Sampras when he would never again even be in the quarterfinals of a major again after that French Open. You are some lovesick Sampras nut, get help.

"Likely" do you know what that means??? Do you?? If not for Pete Courier has Kafelnikov and Stich in his way for 3rd RG title. But that's UNlikely according to you.

Well I'd rather be a "lovesick Sampras nut" than a clown who just proved his/her simple comprehension of the english language is lacking.

flying24
03-05-2009, 11:55 PM
"Likely" do you know what that means??? Do you?? If not for Pete Courier has Kafelnikov and Stich in his way for 3rd RG title. But that's UNlikely according to you.

Well I'd rather be a "lovesick Sampras nut" than a clown who just proved his/her simple comprehension of the english language is lacking.

If you actually knew didley squat about tennis in the 90s rather being just a sick and warped Sampras fanatic, then you would realize the clearly past his prime Courier went 0-5 vs Kafelnikov from mid 1994 while playing on every type of surface out there:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Kafelnikov%2C+Yevgeny&player2=courier

Now go back under your rock, and dont forget to take your meds.

380pistol
03-06-2009, 12:02 AM
If you actually knew didley squat about tennis in the 90s rather being just a sick and warped Sampras fanatic, then you would realize the clearly past his prime Courier went 0-5 vs Kafelnikov from mid 1994 while playing on every type of surface out there:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Kafelnikov%2C+Yevgeny&player2=courier

Now go back under your rock, and dont forget to take your meds.

Dumbass we're talking about 1996 French Open. At that point Courier was 1-2 vs Kafelnikov. So what Kafelnikov did to Courier in 1998 has exactly how much effect on what he would possibly do to Courier in 1996??? Enlighten me.

And being ranked #7 at age 26 is past ones prime... good to know.

And up until then they were 1-1 on clay. The only clay Kafelnikov beat Courier on was the slow watered down clay that the Russians were fined for in Davis Cup. But I'm being a Sampras fanatic. Kafelnikov beating a 1998 Courier in FIVE sets, and the other victory when he retired.

Thank you for making such an *** of yourself and saving me the hassle. I appreciate it.

And.....
PISTOL 4EVER.... SAMPRAS 4 LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!!

egn
03-06-2009, 02:43 PM
This is what I don't get. Bruguera "soft" 1997 French draw is chastised, yet I posted EVERYONE Federer has beaten en route to Nadal the last 4 years in Paris, and look, he's not held under the same light. Double standard.

So let me get this straight Gaudio can get hot one year, have #'s bolstered by beating who, and what did he do outside of that on clay. I can spin that and say Pete went what 11-2 on clay in 1994 a % that beats Gaudio's of 2004, how much weight does that hold??? Put Gaudio in 1994 and a I don't see a French final much less a title??With Courier and Bruguera floating around. Hell a out of form Muster has a damn good chance of picking him off. He was ranked #44 when he won it.

You talk 1995-1998. Well Muster 1995-96 will eat anyone on clay te last 4-5 years who's not named Rafael. Throw in Agassi, Kafelnikov, Kuerten and Moya. Courier was factor u to 1996 and Bruguera 1997. And that filed to me is deeper, than Gaudio, Coria, Davydenko, Robredo etc. no matter how you slice it. So outside of Nadal the claycourt field the last 4-5 years has been none to impressive. None of those clowns even see Ferrero at his peak.

Now I don't proclaim Sampras is the greatest claycourter, but I feel I'm far mor objective than a lot of idiotic Fed apologists. I llove how they'll take Pete's whole career at RG and put it up vs Roger's last 4 years, while excluding 1999-2004.

All I said was take their best 4 years at RG at look at who they ran into when they reached the QF.....
SAMPRAS - Agassi, Bruguera, Courier and Courier
FEDERER - Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo and Gonzalez


Even if you take their respectve peaks and see their respective QF opp. how can one summize the 90's did not posses a stronger field. After 1997 (when Pete got sick) he did next to nothing at RG. But the way people talk about him, you'd think he was absolutely hopeless on clay. Let him walk in Roger's shoes, and he can a final or two hen how bad does he look. But many wanna look at it through their nice rose coloured glasse. Well if that helps them sleep at night.

I never said Fed didn't cakewalk, I even said 2006 and 2007 were definitely cakewalks. I said the competition Sampras faced was tougher. That is why I simply compared who they lost to, becuase thats what really matters. Muster lost in 1996...therefore he failed to eat everybody. Muster actually outside of 1995 in Sampras's prime was no threat at France. Yet you still argue with me saying the field was deeper when I agreed with you I simply said Fed did not beat nobody there was actual clay court talent not inept fools.

You say Sampras will have finals if he plays in Fed's era okay say what you want but you can't prove that.

Take Pete's whole and line it up with Rogers whole clay court carrer and Roger wins hands down. Say what you want about the competition. Roger has more titles and more higher level titles. Federer did not do much at France from 1999-2004 but Sampras did not do much at France from 88-91 and 97-2002. He also failed in 95. But Fed made a QF in 2001..and it was against a "deep field" So it probably should count.

"Likely" do you know what that means??? Do you?? If not for Pete Courier has Kafelnikov and Stich in his way for 3rd RG title. But that's UNlikely according to you.

Well I'd rather be a "lovesick Sampras nut" than a clown who just proved his/her simple comprehension of the english language is lacking.

I would pick 96 Kafenikov over 96 Courier. 96 Kalfenikov made easy work of 96 Sampras who beat 96 Courier..no change I feel in the outcome.

Dumbass we're talking about 1996 French Open. At that point Courier was 1-2 vs Kafelnikov. So what Kafelnikov did to Courier in 1998 has exactly how much effect on what he would possibly do to Courier in 1996??? Enlighten me.

And being ranked #7 at age 26 is past ones prime... good to know.

And up until then they were 1-1 on clay. The only clay Kafelnikov beat Courier on was the slow watered down clay that the Russians were fined for in Davis Cup. But I'm being a Sampras fanatic. Kafelnikov beating a 1998 Courier in FIVE sets, and the other victory when he retired.

Thank you for making such an *** of yourself and saving me the hassle. I appreciate it.

And.....
PISTOL 4EVER.... SAMPRAS 4 LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!!

You insult him for lack of knowledge do you know what Courier's rank was at the end of 1996. It was 26. His ranking tanked in 1996 he was on the decline he fell so fast in 1996 and never regained his form. So please dont say he was in his prime cause he was rank 7. Remember tennis has a system of point defense, Courier was riding on his good summer run at the US Open and his good fall performances. His number 7 ranking fell fast and he would never make it back into the top 10....or is that still prime. So Courier 1996 was still prime like 1991-1994.

julianoz
03-06-2009, 04:03 PM
Thank You For Bringing This To Our Attention. This Topic Has Not Been Discussed Ad Nauseum 1000 Times On This Forum Already So It Is Refreshing To Get Some New Ideas From Posters Like Yourself

380pistol
03-06-2009, 06:38 PM
I never said Fed didn't cakewalk, I even said 2006 and 2007 were definitely cakewalks. I said the competition Sampras faced was tougher. That is why I simply compared who they lost to, becuase thats what really matters. Muster lost in 1996...therefore he failed to eat everybody. Muster actually outside of 1995 in Sampras's prime was no threat at France. Yet you still argue with me saying the field was deeper when I agreed with you I simply said Fed did not beat nobody there was actual clay court talent not inept fools.

You say Sampras will have finals if he plays in Fed's era okay say what you want but you can't prove that.

Take Pete's whole and line it up with Rogers whole clay court carrer and Roger wins hands down. Say what you want about the competition. Roger has more titles and more higher level titles. Federer did not do much at France from 1999-2004 but Sampras did not do much at France from 88-91 and 97-2002. He also failed in 95. But Fed made a QF in 2001..and it was against a "deep field" So it probably should count.

I love y'all I can't prove that, but y'all can certainly prove what y'all want. If I can't prove Sampras makes at least one final in this era, how do you summize what does vs the 90's clay field??? You can't which makes this debate mute.

As far as Muster how many eventual French Open champs did he lose to??? Gomez?? Courier (twice) and Kuerten??? But of course you can "prove" despite that he wouldn't have been a threat.

Fed lost twice to Corretja who did hwat at the French in the 90's?? One final??

And now we're comparing overall clay careers when I said Federer is better on clay, maybe you're the one who's not reading, yet arguing. And I willl say what I say about the competition level cuz I (and many) believe it to be truth.



I would pick 96 Kafenikov over 96 Courier. 96 Kalfenikov made easy work of 96 Sampras who beat 96 Courier..no change I feel in the outcome.

Kafelnikov made quick work of a "gassed" Sampras but we'll ovelook that, But now you're "proving" based on that Kafel beats JC. But I'm not allowed to prove anything, even though I said "likely".



You insult him for lack of knowledge do you know what Courier's rank was at the end of 1996. It was 26. His ranking tanked in 1996 he was on the decline he fell so fast in 1996 and never regained his form. So please dont say he was in his prime cause he was rank 7. Remember tennis has a system of point defense, Courier was riding on his good summer run at the US Open and his good fall performances. His number 7 ranking fell fast and he would never make it back into the top 10....or is that still prime. So Courier 1996 was still prime like 1991-1994.

Dog, are you serious???? Why did his ranking fall so damn fast???

Do you realize Courier was #7 at the French, the same ranking he had in 1994 French Open (which you considered his prime), and his ranking dropped when he was injured and missed both Wimbledon and US Open and much of the season after the French Open.

And in 1997 he lost in 4th rd of Aus Open to a top 5 Muster, who lost in SF to eventual champ Sampras. And who beat Courier in the 2 slams he played in 1996??? #2 Agassi and #1 Sampras, and both times JC went up 2 sets.

Do the knowledge!!!!

egn
03-06-2009, 09:49 PM
I love y'all I can't prove that, but y'all can certainly prove what y'all want. If I can't prove Sampras makes at least one final in this era, how do you summize what does vs the 90's clay field??? You can't which makes this debate mute.

As far as Muster how many eventual French Open champs did he lose to??? Gomez?? Courier (twice) and Kuerten??? But of course you can "prove" despite that he wouldn't have been a threat.

Fed lost twice to Corretja who did hwat at the French in the 90's?? One final??

And now we're comparing overall clay careers when I said Federer is better on clay, maybe you're the one who's not reading, yet arguing. And I willl say what I say about the competition level cuz I (and many) believe it to be truth.




Kafelnikov made quick work of a "gassed" Sampras but we'll ovelook that, But now you're "proving" based on that Kafel beats JC. But I'm not allowed to prove anything, even though I said "likely".




Dog, are you serious???? Why did his ranking fall so damn fast???

Do you realize Courier was #7 at the French, the same ranking he had in 1994 French Open (which you considered his prime), and his ranking dropped when he was injured and missed both Wimbledon and US Open and much of the season after the French Open.

And in 1997 he lost in 4th rd of Aus Open to a top 5 Muster, who lost in SF to eventual champ Sampras. And who beat Courier in the 2 slams he played in 1996??? #2 Agassi and #1 Sampras, and both times JC went up 2 sets.

Do the knowledge!!!!


Who Muster lost to at France from 90-99

99- Lappenti
98- Mantilla
97- Kureten
96- Stitch
95- Won
94- Rafter
93- Courier
92- Courier
91- Sampras
90- Gomez

Valid point on the Muster thing I had not realized he lost to COurier back to back years. I had thought he lost to someone else in 93. I still feel Muster never really brought his best game to France. Losing to Stitch and Rafter is disappointing and I think he should have beat a young Kureten. But then again Kureten was playing on fire.

Corretja made 2 FO finals in total and from 98-02 was a threat on clay making consistent runs at France and gathering tons of clay court titles. Once again you said you don't judge them on French Opens but you said what did he do on clay only make a french open final in the 90s.
He won 6 titles on clay in the late 90s and was runner up in 8. Had 4 MS finals winning 1 losing to Rios, Costa, and Carretero. Sure he didn't win a French Open but he lost to Guga and Moya. Moya was on fire in 98 and Guga in his prime was as good as it gets.

Who he lost to at france from 98-02 his best clay court years
02- Costa
01- Kureten
00- Ferrero
99- Meligini
98- Moya

Outside of Meligini all of the others are credible clay court players. The other 4 won French Opens, master series and beat top players on the surface. So really losing to Corretja is not a huge deal. He was a really good clay courter, unfortunate, he definitely had the game to win a French Open.

On the whole us saying you can't prove it. You can speculate. I never said I can prove Fed would do anything against Sampras field, because frankly I can't. You make it sound like I am muting your debate? Debates are supposed to be factual I believe. Simply saying said field is weaker therefore said player would perform just as well as other play in weak field is impossible to prove.

I didn't say you could not feel how you felt I simply said I personally feel 96 Kalfenikov would beat COurier. Where did I say you can't back it up? That you can't prove it and my answer is right? You say I am not reading. I simply said Courier could not handle Sampras and Kalfenikov made quick work of him so I just gave my opinion. I did not say you could not say yours I just gave my counter opinion. The onyl thing I said you could not prove was Sampras making finals in Fed's era and that's it. Like I can't prove Fed making finals in Sampras' era. It's impossible to prove it. Its speculation.

Courier went to wimby and just straight up lost(Oh like he had so many points to defend he had a 2nd Round finish there last year, he never played good on the surface.) and he only missed the US Open (his biggest loss, but not like he played good first half of the year.). He played all his other tournaments, the US Open was the biggest hit but if he had played better overall yearwise he would have been better ranked. His record was 28-17 and he only managed one title, its not like he was injuried all season. He played the whole fall and just was out of form. He didn't do much better the following year so either his injury stayed forever or maybe it was really not the injury that was the whole cause and he was just going down. His carrer was basically in the books by mid 1996 injury or not. Him losing to both after being up 2 sets to none makes him look like a choker. Prime Courier would have destroyed Muster at the AO and you know it, Courier was far better on the surface than Muster. Muster was good on the AO but Courier at his best was far better. His loss in 97 further shows he was far from his best.

Ranking should not determine prime. Sampras held the number one ranking in 2000, I would definitely not consider him prime than. Courier 94 played a lot better than Courier 96. Courier was 43-19 vs. 28-17, Courier made 2 SFs in slams. Courier 94 vs. Courier 96 start of the year COurier 94 outplays 96 easily, it was obvious in 96 Courier was on the down before the injury. The injury did not even sideline him too long and he was back in playing form. He played most of the summer hardcourt season exception of the US Open. I do not know exact details on the injury, I know it was a knee injury. I must say it looks as if it was an issue throughout the US Open period, but either he played through it and blew his knees or it had healed as he played the full circuit in the fall. Though then it may have been the injury I am going to look for more details, but Courier 96 still pales to his top years and overall he was not making as many deep runs as he head been in the past. Yet thats my opinion, your injury theory seems to play a role actually. A non injuried COurier would have probably finished top 20, but I still don't see non injuried Courier finishing top 10 he could not beat the top players that year.

380pistol
03-07-2009, 12:33 AM
Who Muster lost to at France from 90-99

99- Lappenti
98- Mantilla
97- Kureten
96- Stitch
95- Won
94- Rafter
93- Courier
92- Courier
91- Sampras
90- Gomez

Valid point on the Muster thing I had not realized he lost to COurier back to back years. I had thought he lost to someone else in 93. I still feel Muster never really brought his best game to France. Losing to Stitch and Rafter is disappointing and I think he should have beat a young Kureten. But then again Kureten was playing on fire.

Corretja made 2 FO finals in total and from 98-02 was a threat on clay making consistent runs at France and gathering tons of clay court titles. Once again you said you don't judge them on French Opens but you said what did he do on clay only make a french open final in the 90s.
He won 6 titles on clay in the late 90s and was runner up in 8. Had 4 MS finals winning 1 losing to Rios, Costa, and Carretero. Sure he didn't win a French Open but he lost to Guga and Moya. Moya was on fire in 98 and Guga in his prime was as good as it gets.

Who he lost to at france from 98-02 his best clay court years
02- Costa
01- Kureten
00- Ferrero
99- Meligini
98- Moya

Outside of Meligini all of the others are credible clay court players. The other 4 won French Opens, master series and beat top players on the surface. So really losing to Corretja is not a huge deal. He was a really good clay courter, unfortunate, he definitely had the game to win a French Open.

On the whole us saying you can't prove it. You can speculate. I never said I can prove Fed would do anything against Sampras field, because frankly I can't. You make it sound like I am muting your debate? Debates are supposed to be factual I believe. Simply saying said field is weaker therefore said player would perform just as well as other play in weak field is impossible to prove.

I didn't say you could not feel how you felt I simply said I personally feel 96 Kalfenikov would beat COurier. Where did I say you can't back it up? That you can't prove it and my answer is right? You say I am not reading. I simply said Courier could not handle Sampras and Kalfenikov made quick work of him so I just gave my opinion. I did not say you could not say yours I just gave my counter opinion. The onyl thing I said you could not prove was Sampras making finals in Fed's era and that's it. Like I can't prove Fed making finals in Sampras' era. It's impossible to prove it. Its speculation.

Courier went to wimby and just straight up lost(Oh like he had so many points to defend he had a 2nd Round finish there last year, he never played good on the surface.) and he only missed the US Open (his biggest loss, but not like he played good first half of the year.). He played all his other tournaments, the US Open was the biggest hit but if he had played better overall yearwise he would have been better ranked. His record was 28-17 and he only managed one title, its not like he was injuried all season. He played the whole fall and just was out of form. He didn't do much better the following year so either his injury stayed forever or maybe it was really not the injury that was the whole cause and he was just going down. His carrer was basically in the books by mid 1996 injury or not. Him losing to both after being up 2 sets to none makes him look like a choker. Prime Courier would have destroyed Muster at the AO and you know it, Courier was far better on the surface than Muster. Muster was good on the AO but Courier at his best was far better. His loss in 97 further shows he was far from his best.

Ranking should not determine prime. Sampras held the number one ranking in 2000, I would definitely not consider him prime than. Courier 94 played a lot better than Courier 96. Courier was 43-19 vs. 28-17, Courier made 2 SFs in slams. Courier 94 vs. Courier 96 start of the year COurier 94 outplays 96 easily, it was obvious in 96 Courier was on the down before the injury. The injury did not even sideline him too long and he was back in playing form. He played most of the summer hardcourt season exception of the US Open. I do not know exact details on the injury, I know it was a knee injury. I must say it looks as if it was an issue throughout the US Open period, but either he played through it and blew his knees or it had healed as he played the full circuit in the fall. Though then it may have been the injury I am going to look for more details, but Courier 96 still pales to his top years and overall he was not making as many deep runs as he head been in the past. Yet thats my opinion, your injury theory seems to play a role actually. A non injuried COurier would have probably finished top 20, but I still don't see non injuried Courier finishing top 10 he could not beat the top players that year.

Muster had some tough losses in Paris and some he shouldn't have (Rafter and Stich as you mentioned). What I said was outside of Nadal there is noe one the last 5 or so years better on clay than Muster. Not Federer, Coria, Gaudio, Robredo, Ferrer, Davydenko. Frankly none of those can see a peak Ferrero on clay.

You're all but making my point for me. Your speech about Corretja further emphasizes, the strength of the claycourters in Pete's era. And Roger no one ranked higher that #59 before losing to Corretja in 2000 (4th) and 2001 (QF). I mean Sampras beat Muster in 1991 and Thomas was in SF the year prior and won Rome. It's great win for Pete, but it ain't ike he was going to win RG in 1991 or come close.

No I said if not for Sampras then Courier LIKELY takes the French Open in 1996. You and the flying idiot responded as if I handed im the title aand/or as if it was so far fetched. At that point Kafel lead JC 1-2 (1-1 on clay), so saying you feel Kafl would have beaten Pete, doesn't show how it's not likely that if not for Sampras Courier may very well walk away with his 3rd straight title.

As far as Courier in 1996 I don't recall saying 1996 was his peak, but he certainly wasn't as washed up as he's prtrayed. You chastise him for going out early in Wimbledon in 1996. But what did he do at SW19 in 1992 and 1994 in what you considered to be peak years for JC?? What if JC played in 1996 US Open seeded 7th?? He likely makes the QF (atleast) and his 1996 doesn't seem that bad. But you tell me not to just take in a players rank, but you talk about JC falling in 1996 without considering why?? He was likely starting to decline, but that injury sped it up, but you just overlooked that, and used his falling ranking to suit your purpose, then turned around and told me not to do it.

Ranking doesn't necessarily determine prime. 2000 certainly wasn't Sampras peak, but he still perfromed better than everyone else in slams. If not for tearing his hip flexor in Aus Open SF, and/or Safin playing the match of his lie, it's another multiple slam year for Sampras. I never once said Courier 1996 was better or on par with his play in 1994. It's many of you you who want to portray him as washed up in 1996, and when anything is said therwise, you claim 1996 wasn't his prime.

Well Courier was top most of 1996 until falling out with a right knee injury and pulling out of the US Open. Since you mentioned defening his "pathetic" 2nd rd pts from 1995 Wimbledon, how many did JC subsequently lose based on his 1995 SF in Flushing??? Then he missed two months. His 45 matches played in 1996 were his fewest since 1988!!! Oh how has simple "tendinitis" affected" Nadal the last few falls???

Courier not making deep runs.....
1996 Aus Open - QF (#2 Agassi, was up 2 sets)
1996 French Open - QF (#1 Sampras, was up 2 sets)
1996 Wimbledon - 2nd Rd (see 1992 and 1994)

What else do you want from him??

saram
03-07-2009, 12:37 AM
My lord--I thought the Rafa fans were bad....:)

thalivest
03-07-2009, 12:47 AM
My lord--I thought the Rafa fans were bad....:)

See we arent the craziest bunch out there. :)

antgun007
03-09-2009, 12:16 PM
Rafa fans are just enthusiastic.

abmk
03-09-2009, 02:15 PM
My lord--I thought the Rafa fans were bad....:)

:)

10 chars

The-Champ
03-09-2009, 06:38 PM
My lord--I thought the Rafa fans were bad....:)


Sampras' fans can easily make Rafa fans sound like choir boys!

tennis-hero
03-09-2009, 09:18 PM
i love these debates- lets put Pete 10 years ahead

05 onwards he has zero chance at the french (or does he????...:d)

00-04
90-94
directly goes with Sampras's early prime when he played more at the baseline and had a pretty good game for clay

00 keurten
01 keurten
02 Costa
03 Ferrerro
04 Gaudio

we can also say that Federer didn't start playing good at the french untill 2004- so if we go back 10 years

94 Brug (no way- fed cant handle topsin)
95 Muster (no way in hell could Fed beat the original Nadal)
96 Kafelnikov* (this year maybe)
97 Keurten (no way, he couldn't beat him in 04)
98 Moya* (Federer leads moya 7-0, this year is Fed's)
99 Agassi* (Federer would beat Andre here)
00 Keurten (loss again)

Basically the biggest difference i see is that Pete would go deeper at the french and Roger would have 3 FO slams

tennis-hero
03-09-2009, 09:21 PM
Also seeing how Tsonga destroyed Nadal, i have to say Prime peat would totally own him in the h2hs

They'd probably never meet on clay, and on everything else, Sampras would own him

veroniquem
03-09-2009, 09:23 PM
Rafa fans are just enthusiastic.
Passionate just like him :)

veroniquem
03-09-2009, 09:45 PM
There's no denying Federer is better on clay than Sampras but what good does it do him if he can't win there anyway because of Nadal?
Sampras's longevity was amazing- 6 year ends at #1, wow. Did you know that on top of winning 7 Wimbledons (a phenomenal streak only broken by one loss to Krajicek in 1996) Sampras was both the youngest winner of the USO (19, only teen winner of USO in open era) and its oldest winner since the creation of the ATP: 31? (just a few weeks older than Connors who also won it at 31 in 1983).
On the other hand, Sampras has NEVER dominated the tour the way Federer has from 2004 to 2007, 3 slams + TMC for 3 calendar years? That's crazy guys, no way something like that can be dismissed with vague complaints of "weak competition". Noone has done it ONCE before in open era, noone, can you imagine 3 times?! ( + 4 calendar slam finals 2 years in a row)
Those 2 players are tremendous, BOTH, how can you not stop fighting and see that much is beyond me!

julesb
03-10-2009, 07:05 AM
Also seeing how Tsonga destroyed Nadal, i have to say Prime peat would totally own him in the h2hs

They'd probably never meet on clay, and on everything else, Sampras would own him

Only a desperate idiot uses a single match example as the crux of their argument. By that demented logic we could see Sampras in his prime lost to Yzaga, Philipoussis, Korda, and Kucera in hard court slams, Nadal would obviously own him even on hard courts.

egn
03-10-2009, 03:04 PM
Only a desperate idiot uses a single match example as the crux of their argument. By that demented logic we could see Sampras in his prime lost to Yzaga, Philipoussis, Korda, and Kucera in hard court slams, Nadal would obviously own him even on hard courts.

Nadal lost to Blake, Hewitt, Murray, Simon etc. Your point was? THey both lost to people who were inferior on hard courts? You lost me in that post. Nadal has won one 1 slow HC slam and made 1 HC slam final. Yet you think he would own Sampras who won 7 HC Slams and made 10 HC Slam finals? I think it is actually 11. Yes it is 11. Yet Nadal the defensive baseliner would destory him everytime. Yes Nadal would probably have a chance at a slow hardcourt. Once you get to medium speed Sampras would have destroyed him. Look at how Sampras dismantled the defensive baseliners of the day on hard courts. Even the power baseliners Sampras could defeat on fast hard courts. You have severely underestimated Sampras and backed it up with little. Though then I might have misread your post as I sense sarcasm I am just not sure where it is...so either you have severely estimated one of the greatest players ever or are being sarcastic and in which case I apologize for my comments.

julesb
03-10-2009, 05:33 PM
Nadal lost to Blake, Hewitt, Murray, Simon etc. Your point was? THey both lost to people who were inferior on hard courts? You lost me in that post. Nadal has won one 1 slow HC slam and made 1 HC slam final. Yet you think he would own Sampras who won 7 HC Slams and made 10 HC Slam finals? I think it is actually 11. Yes it is 11. Yet Nadal the defensive baseliner would destory him everytime. Yes Nadal would probably have a chance at a slow hardcourt. Once you get to medium speed Sampras would have destroyed him. Look at how Sampras dismantled the defensive baseliners of the day on hard courts. Even the power baseliners Sampras could defeat on fast hard courts. You have severely underestimated Sampras and backed it up with little. Though then I might have misread your post as I sense sarcasm I am just not sure where it is...so either you have severely estimated one of the greatest players ever or are being sarcastic and in which case I apologize for my comments.

Yes I was being purposely sarcastic with my reply, something that I am surprised would escape anyone . My intent was to purposely go out of my way to be extreme in one direction as a rebuttal to the previous poster, and using his same demented reasoning to do so (eg- picking out 1 or more random matches which paint either player in the worst light possible). My whole point, which while not getting my obvious sarcasm you atleast seem to somewhat get, is that it was stupid to bring up a sole loss of Nadal to Tsonga as the centre of ones argument for Sampras "owning" Nadal on any non clay surface. It is funny the same way for Federer his loss to a past his prime injured Kuerten one year at the French is the sole match used to belittle his abilities on clay by his haters. Things like an injured Nadal destroying Tsonga only months earlier at the U.S Open, or Federer beating Kuerten on clay a few years earlier than 2004 when Federer was the much lower ranked at the time (though Kuerten was already starting to down) are of course ignored, as well as any other examples.

Like you yourself said BOTH Sampras and Nadal had losses to much inferior players on multiple occasions on hard courts. Players play thousands of matches in their career in some cases, they are playing the best players in the world, of course it will happen at some point.

Sampras IMO would not destroy Nadal on hard courts though except on rare occasion. I dont doubt Nadal would even get some wins, although I concede it would be extremely hard if they played at say the U.S Open (which Nadal hasnt been able to yet final at even today anyway though). Nadal's ground game is clearly superior to Federer's, who in turn is cleary superior to Sampras's, so Sampras would not be breaking Nadal often even with his not so great serve. You say even the best defensive baseliners on hard courts in Sampras's day. Umm who exactly were those, Muster and Chang? Those guys are not even close to the same league as Nadal. It is not like Sampras was facing even say Wilander in his prime as an example (someone Nadal is almost certain to surpass anyway). You also cant categorize Nadal as strictly a defensive or offensive baseliner as he is both. Anyway while I disagree with you atleast you arent bringing up a single match example like one time Tsonga crushed Nadal as the whole crux of your argument. The best baseliner by far that Sampras faced during his gravy years was Agassi, who most experts agreed had the game to beat Sampras even a few more times than he did on hard courts but compared to a player like Sampras was mentally weak. You can argue back and forth the varying strengths of Agassi and Nadal, but Nadal is about 3x mentally stronger than Agassi ever was, and for that reason alone I would give him more of a shot. I bet a prime Lendl would have given Sampras far more trouble than either on hard courts mind you.

Lastly bringing up Nadal's achievements on hard courts vs Sampras's is pretty pointless when he is only 22. Granted Sampras had achieved more on hard courts even at 22, but the gap isnt anywhere near what it is at careers end vs Nadal now, and it should be clear Nadal is just starting to really take off in the last 8 months on hard courts. Also it should be pretty clear by now Nadal's prime started in 2008. I doubt you will ever see Blake, Berdych, Hewitt (granted past his peak now anyway) beat a prime Nadal on hard courts, maybe 1 of those once by fluke in a smaller event at most. If we bring up Nadal's losses to Blake and Berdych back in 2005 and 2006 (and the case of Hewitt 2004 and early 2005 which is even crazier) then we might as well speak of Sampras's losses in 1990 and 1991 as that would be about parallel. Heck by that standard we could even bring up Sampras's losses at Wimbledon in 1990 and 1991, so you get the idea of how bringing up Nadal's results on hard courts in even those early years he was already dominant on clay over a weak clay court field are pointless. I am not even a Nadal fan either, but I laugh at how people still assume he is a pushover for past greats even as he is downing Federer on all surfaces.

egn
03-10-2009, 05:52 PM
Yes I was being purposely sarcastic with my reply, something that I am surprised would escape anyone . My intent was to purposely go out of my way to be extreme in one direction as a rebuttal to the previous poster, and using his same demented reasoning to do so (eg- picking out 1 or more random matches which paint either player in the worst light possible). My whole point, which while not getting my obvious sarcasm you atleast seem to somewhat get, is that it was stupid to bring up a sole loss of Nadal to Tsonga as the centre of ones argument for Sampras "owning" Nadal on any non clay surface. It is funny the same way for Federer his loss to a past his prime injured Kuerten one year at the French is the sole match used to belittle his abilities on clay by his haters. Things like an injured Nadal destroying Tsonga only months earlier at the U.S Open, or Federer beating Kuerten on clay a few years earlier than 2004 when Federer was the much lower ranked at the time (though Kuerten was already starting to down) are of course ignored, as well as any other examples.

Like you yourself said BOTH Sampras and Nadal had losses to much inferior players on multiple occasions on hard courts. Players play thousands of matches in their career in some cases, they are playing the best players in the world, of course it will happen at some point.

Sampras IMO would not destroy Nadal on hard courts though except on rare occasion. I dont doubt Nadal would even get some wins, although I concede it would be extremely hard if they played at say the U.S Open (which Nadal hasnt been able to yet final at even today anyway though). Nadal's ground game is clearly superior to Federer's, who in turn is cleary superior to Sampras's, so Sampras would not be breaking Nadal often even with his not so great serve. You say even the best defensive baseliners on hard courts in Sampras's day. Umm who exactly were those, Muster and Chang? Those guys are not even close to the same league as Nadal. It is not like Sampras was facing even say Wilander in his prime as an example (someone Nadal is almost certain to surpass anyway). You also cant categorize Nadal as strictly a defensive or offensive baseliner as he is both. Anyway while I disagree with you atleast you arent bringing up a single match example like one time Tsonga crushed Nadal as the whole crux of your argument. The best baseliner by far that Sampras faced during his gravy years was Agassi, who most experts agreed had the game to beat Sampras even a few more times than he did on hard courts but compared to a player like Sampras was mentally weak. You can argue back and forth the varying strengths of Agassi and Nadal, but Nadal is about 3x mentally stronger than Agassi ever was, and for that reason alone I would give him more of a shot. I bet a prime Lendl would have given Sampras far more trouble than either on hard courts mind you.

Lastly bringing up Nadal's achievements on hard courts vs Sampras's is pretty pointless when he is only 22. Granted Sampras had achieved more on hard courts even at 22, but the gap isnt anywhere near what it is at careers end vs Nadal now, and it should be clear Nadal is just starting to really take off in the last 8 months on hard courts. Also it should be pretty clear by now Nadal's prime started in 2008. I doubt you will ever see Blake, Berdych, Hewitt (granted past his peak now anyway) beat a prime Nadal on hard courts, maybe 1 of those once by fluke in a smaller event at most. If we bring up Nadal's losses to Blake and Berdych back in 2005 and 2006 (and the case of Hewitt 2004 and early 2005 which is even crazier) then we might as well speak of Sampras's losses in 1990 and 1991 as that would be about parallel. Heck by that standard we could even bring up Sampras's losses at Wimbledon in 1990 and 1991, so you get the idea of how bringing up Nadal's results on hard courts in even those early years he was already dominant on clay over a weak clay court field are pointless. I am not even a Nadal fan either, but I laugh at how people still assume he is a pushover for past greats even as he is downing Federer on all surfaces.

Well Nadal is going to have it tough as Hard Courts are his worst surface and there are a lot of players developing with him that I feel will be better on hardcourts than Nadal. Guys like DJokovic, Murray, Tsogna, Cilic and the upcomers I feel can take a few of those hardcourt slams away from him. I don't see Nadal being nearly as successful on hardcourts as Fed or Sampras. The downing Fed on all surfaces though in all respect to Nadal his win against the AO took him 5 sets on a Fed who is not the same as his best years. Fed is still playing better than the rest of the tour, but not nearly as well as he was back in 2004-2006. Fed's semifinal match against Marat Safin he played far superior to his final match against Nadal and lost, you even see it watching match footage. Fed has this I can't beat Nadal syndrome. Nadal beat him but Fed is definitely not the dominant force. Also He is not downing Fed still got him twice on grass. He just has clay and HC in slams over him, but head to head on HC they are even. Lets see if they showdown again at Wimby and US Open..if Fed can turn it around. However Nadal has exceeded my expectations of him hardcourt wise, I really did not expect him to be able to do it. But I see Nadal getting 2-4 HC Slams tops. The surface is not good for his game and he himself hates the surface.

Agassi in his old age though had more mental toughness then most players. He was able to keep focus and even though being inferior tennis player wise compete with players that he was ten years older than. His prime however he was a flake. I think Nadal would have success equal to Agassi against Sampras, but not much more.

I think a Prime Nadal is prone to upset..sure it will come from higher ranked guys like Simon, Tsogna, Gasquet and Cilic but I think it is possible.

julesb
03-10-2009, 06:29 PM
So what if you are right and he ends up with only 2-4 hard court slams. For his worst of the 3 major surfaces, if that is what he ends up with, that is darn amazing. Sampras, Federer, Lendl, even Borg didnt win any majors on their worst surfaces. If you would expect Nadal to dominate on hard courts, his worst surface, then you are expecting Superman of some kind which has never existed in tennis before, not just a mere GOAT but some SuperGOAT.

Also a player who wins 2-4 hard court slams is good enough Sampras would not be destroying them on hard courts. Can you name the players who won 2-4 majors on hard courts that Sampras was destroying on the surface? He wasnt destroying Courier (2 hard court slams, never a U.S Open title) on hard courts despite their lopsided head to head, almost all their matches in slams on hard courts were 4 or 5 sets, and they played only a small # of matches in hard court slams during Courier's prime anyway. By the way someone like Chang (probably the best player you could name that Sampras sort of was destroying on hard courts) might not have won a hard court slam even without Sampras. After all he couldnt beat a fatigued Edberg from ahead at the 1992 U.S Open, a past his prime Becker at the 1996 Australian Open, Rafter in the 1997 U.S Open semis, etc....

As for Agassi yes he did have the mental toughness at one point (although even in his old age IMO not as tough as Nadal one of the toughest mental players ever), but as you said not until his physical skills had declined. Even in great younger years like 1990-1992, 1994, 1995, he was mentally fragile which was proven many times.

If you think Simon or the pathetically overhyped Gasquet will ever beat Nadal in a slam event on any surface I think you are sorely mistaken (I actually like Simon alot and would be happy if I was wrong in that case but I doubt very much). I laugh that you even mentioned Gasquet, who knows if that guy will ever get a win over Nadal in a best 2-out-of-3 let alone ever in a best 3-out-of-5. He doesnt have even close to the mental and physical reserves to pull it off, even if he had the game (which I dont even think he does). Also how is Gasquet a higher ranked guy even projecting to the future? As far as I can see he will only be back in the top 10 for cup of coffee type stints. Tsonga, maybe, but alot of it depends if he stays healthy and fulfills his potential to be a 2-time or more slam winner or not (which I think he has if he stays healthy). If he cant stay healthy and maximize his potential as a player then his AO semifinal win over Nadal might be a one off. Cilic? Way too early to say, again only if he becomes a multi-slam winner kind of player do I see that maybe happening. The days of the likes of Blake, Youzhny, or Berdych downing Nadal in big hard court matches, unless he is injured, are over IMO.

julesb
03-10-2009, 06:44 PM
egn, I would also add if Federer is really "past his prime" already than he pretty much had the shortest prime for any all time great ever, basically a Courier length prime which for someone with 13 slams is pretty much unthinkable if it is really so. I mean it is pretty much impossible to argue the guy being in his prime until 2004 or mid 2003 at the earliest (and even his staunchest fans dont ever argue this). So if his prime really ended even as early as 2007 than that speaks poorly to his longevity in a big way IMO.

egn
03-10-2009, 07:16 PM
egn, I would also add if Federer is really "past his prime" already than he pretty much had the shortest prime for any all time great ever, basically a Courier length prime which for someone with 13 slams is pretty much unthinkable if it is really so. I mean it is pretty much impossible to argue the guy being in his prime until 2004 or mid 2003 at the earliest (and even his staunchest fans dont ever argue this). So if his prime really ended even as early as 2007 than that speaks poorly to his longevity in a big way IMO.

Prime and peak are two different things. Prime is when you are at the top and peak is when you are at your best.

Feds Prime was 2003 and is still going on but his peak was from 04-07 and now he is on the end of his prime. By 09 or 10 He will be out of it probably completely..or at least thats how I feel.

Sampras was arguably in his prime from 92 to 00 But his peak was 93-97 as 98-00 he was still playing really well but not compared to his other years.

I think the term prime and peak are often thought to be interchangeable. Fed is still in his prime but he is not in his peak phase, he is no longer dominant or capable of that type of dominance due to his own performance is no longer the same. He is not capable of the movement or shotmaking which he was in 04-07. Fed's prime also I would imagine is going to be shorter because he bloomed so lately. So although this is still prime its not peak. Or at least that is how I like to break up careers.

Like Lendl

82-90 was his prime but 84-87 was his peak. 82-83...88-90 were prime years but he was not at his peak of his career. Just my opinion.

Yes I also agree maybe destory was not the best word but I do feel Sampras would have a very lopsided head to head even if Nadal fought hard with him and took him to 4 or 5 sets I see Sampras winning 75 percent of their hardcourt matches. Nadal can get downed at hardcourt slams by lower ranked players I see it very possible. I don't think for the next 4 years Nadal will make all the hardcourt semis which means sooner or later he has to lose. If he does I stand corrected, but I think this year and maybe next year is his best chance to get hardcourt slams and he should jump on it now because I feel by 2010 he won't be performing as well on the surface. Also I feel Nadal has been in his prime for a while and is in his peak right now nobody wins a slam and gets 4 MS titles and is out of prime. Or makes 2 slam finals 2 years in a row winning multiple MS titles and is rank 2 and is out of his prime. If Fed 08 and 03 are in prime then Nadal 05, 06, 07 are all in prime too. I feel Fed 08 is definitely in prime and for that same reason I feel Nadal 05-07 is in prime. You are not at the top of the sport and out of prime, but peak well that is a different story.

$$$$mony$$$$
03-10-2009, 07:36 PM
if federer grew up in the 90's his game would be unrecognizable. we dont know exactly what it would consist of, i bet it would be alot more sampras like. likewise nadals game would not have looked the same as his groundies and well overall playing style are a product of this generation. no one knew how to hit like nads or fed in the 90s. lol if federer played in the 90's with the same equipment and such that allows him to play like he does, he would completely kill everyone. at least i think it would be that way.

players are a product of there generation and thats why its hard to compare players of the past to the present. it would be awesome to have a time machine and see though. the first thing i would do is play my dad when he was 18, haha