PDA

View Full Version : the most asked question of all time.....


samprasvsfederer123
05-22-2009, 05:52 PM
sampras vs federer who sins in these courts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_c9LfnDKBQ&feature=channel_page

playing like that i think sampras bets federer in hardcourt and carpet 7-6 6-7 6-7 7-6 7-6

and federer would wipe him in clay and sampras would win in grass.

federer is the all in all more complete player because he can do good in clay, but in a 3 out of 4 grand slamm winner takes all pete wins.

samprasvsfederer123
05-22-2009, 05:53 PM
i meant wins not sins:cry::oops:

Docalex007
05-22-2009, 05:55 PM
This video was just posted in another thread....WTF? Are you the same guy?

Also... it's: He would win "on" clay/grass/hardcourt... not "in"

Dilettante
05-22-2009, 06:39 PM
and sampras would win in grass.

They played on grass once and Federer won. Federer.

That's the only actual proof of what would happen if they met in competition.

I have no words to describe how some of you people just don't give a damn about the real thing and give more credit to your delusional stuff.

drakulie
05-22-2009, 07:03 PM
Here is an interesting acrticle I'm sure the OP will appreciate:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2001/wimbledon/news/2001/07/02/wimbledon_monday_ap/

GameSampras
05-22-2009, 07:11 PM
Grass- Sampras 7 out of 10 over. Roger
Hards- Sampras 6 out of 10 over Roger
Carpet- Sampras 8 out of 10 over Roger
Clay- Roger 9-1 over Pete


Overrall IMO.

Though they prolly wouldnt have many clay court matchups. Pete wins the overrall h2h IMO.

<3tennis!!!
05-22-2009, 07:15 PM
Grass- Sampras 7 out of 10 over. Roger
Hards- Sampras 6 out of 10 over Roger
Carpet- Sampras 8 out of 10 over Roger
Clay- Roger 9-1 over Pete


Overrall IMO.

Though they prolly wouldnt have many clay court matchups. Pete wins the overrall h2h IMO.incorrect 10c

vtmike
05-22-2009, 07:24 PM
Grass- Sampras 7 out of 10 over. Roger
Hards- Sampras 6 out of 10 over Roger
Carpet- Sampras 8 out of 10 over Roger
Clay- Roger 9-1 over Pete


Overrall IMO.

Though they prolly wouldnt have many clay court matchups. Pete wins the overrall h2h IMO.

Only in your dreams buddy!

GameSampras
05-22-2009, 08:06 PM
Only in your dreams buddy!

Its very reasonable. What are u talking about?

Joseph L. Barrow
05-22-2009, 08:08 PM
They played on grass once and Federer won. Federer.

That's the only actual proof of what would happen if they met in competition.

I have no words to describe how some of you people just don't give a damn about the real thing and give more credit to your delusional stuff.
Why does this work you up so much? Surely you're aware that their Wimbledon encounter took place at the tail end of Sampras' career, the very last Wimbledon he ever played. Granted, it was also before Federer's prime, but obviously this does not constitute "proof" of the outcome of a hypothetical grass-court matchup in both players' primes. Moreover, it isn't as though Federer crushed him- it was 7-5 in the fifth. This hardly invalidates speculation that Sampras might have the edge in both players' respective primes.

Conquistador
05-22-2009, 08:11 PM
Federer is superior to Sampras on all surfaces. Roger is better in cross court volleys than Sampras and Federer is perhaps one of the top 5 greatest defensive players of all time. Game Set Match: Roger Federer

vtmike
05-22-2009, 08:23 PM
Its very reasonable. What are u talking about?

.........................

OTMPut
05-22-2009, 08:27 PM
I have a DVD of this match and have watched it a hundred times. It was such a "touch and go" match. Either could have won.

To base arguments on this is like forecasting GDP 10y ahead with a single data point. May be the scale of absurdity sinks in now?

Marcel Granoller Bar
05-22-2009, 09:47 PM
Note: The Fed who beat Sampras at Wimbledon, was not the Fed the champ.

He was the "Serve and Volley" Fed, who was just experimenting with S&V for the fortnight.

Dilettante
05-22-2009, 11:21 PM
I have a DVD of this match and have watched it a hundred times. It was such a "touch and go" match. Either could have won.

To base arguments on this is like forecasting GDP 10y ahead with a single data point. May be the scale of absurdity sinks in now?

For you to understand, let's put it this way:

It's more accurate to base arguments on a single true fact, than to base arguments on thousands of imaginary assumptions.

When you have one single data, you have to stick to that and you just can't give more importance to things that never happened than to one thing that actually DID happen.

OTMPut
05-23-2009, 12:43 AM
It's more accurate to base arguments on a single true fact, than to base arguments on thousands of imaginary assumptions.

No it is not.