PDA

View Full Version : Why Roger Federer owned Pete Sampras, even before he won the FO


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 05:39 PM
Game Sampras..... you have a lot of fun calling Fed a cakewalk draw player, but let me show you Pete's cakewalk draws:

Here is an analysis of Fed's slam wins:
Wimby 03 - yes he did only beat 1 top 10 player, but he lost only 1 set
AO 2004 - beat 2 top 10 players, as well as an in form Lleyton Hewitt, and on fire Marat Safin (who would be back in the top 10 by years end)
Wimby 04 - took out 2 top 10 players both former world no 1's. Andy Roddick played the match of his life and still lost in 4
USO 04 - took out 3 top 10 players, including 2 former world no 1's, and bageled Hewitt twice in the final
Wimby 05 - lost only 1 set, and handled Hewitt and Roddick easily
USO 05 - killed his daddy Nalbandian in straights, then beat 2 former world no 1's
AO 06 - His easiest draw in a major, but did have to face an on fire Bhagdhatis, as well as an inform Tommy Haas. Also took out top 10 player Davydenko, who never beats himself
Wimby 06 - lost only 1 set in the final, had a bagel set against Nadal, and did have to play tough matches early on
USO 06 - took out 3 top 10 players including an out of his mind Blake, and a rejuvinated Roddick
AO 07 - lost no sets, embaressed Roddick who beat him the week before, and he did play 3 top 10 players, incluidng an on fire Gonzo
Wimby 07 - had to beat young gun Del Potro, former world no 1 Ferrero, and Safin, had a week of then came back an killed Gasquet, before fighting so hard to take out an on fire Nadal
USO 07 - took out the no 3, 4, 5 ranked players without loosing a set. Roddick and Djokovic were both playing great tennis
USO 08 - he had to fight to win this.... playing crap tennis for 4 rounds, killed in form Djokovic, and realled outplayed on fire Murray, whose nerves werent a big factor early on
FO 09 - statistically the easiest draw hes had, but he did take out an in form and on fire Del Potro, Nadal's killer Soderling, Gael "pong" Monfils, and really showed fight by beating Haas and Acusso

Now His losses in GS's in his prime (04 - 07):
- Guga Keurton FO 04 - no shame in loosing to a 3 time champ
- Safin AO 05 -- when on Safin can beat anyone
- Nadal FO 05 - no explanation needed
- Nadal FO 06 - ditto above
- Nadal FO 07 - ditto above
- Djoko AO 08 - had mono, and lost the the in form world no 3
- Nadal FO 08 - ditto 2 above
- Nadal Wimby 08 - lost to the very soon to be world no 1
-- his only loss outside the top 4 was Keurton, and of course he was no stranger on clay, or on the big scene

Now: here is Sampras::::

the 93 USO he beat 1 top 10 player... the overrated clay courter Chang....

AO 94 he beat only 1 top 10er Courier, yet he still lost 5 sets

USO 95 he beat only 1 top 10 player again,
same for AO 97,
Wimby 97 his best win was over 18 ranked old man becker,
Wimby 98 his highest ranked win was in the 3rd round,
Wimby 00 his highest ranked win was over 20's ranked Rafter,
USO 02, he beat overrated Haas at 3, and his only good win was over Agassi

Now let me get to the losses in his prime:
-Sergei Brugera (rank 11) 93 FO
- Jamie Yzaga (23) 94 USO
- Gilbert Schaller (24) 95 FO
- Mark Philopusis (40) 96 AO
- Krajick (13) 96 Wimby
- Petr Korda (16) 97 USO
- Karol Kucera (20) 98 AO....... wow so many i am too tired to continue

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 05:43 PM
Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to by most everyone? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!

Even though Laver is highly regarded as the GOAT, (and still is by most) why is it Fed is always being compared to Pete?



Btw.. Are u taking Pete's injury into account against Yzaga? Yea thought not. Another federphile trying to **** me off

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 05:46 PM
Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to by most everyone? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!

Even though Laver is highly regarded as the GOAT, (and still is by most) why is it Fed is always being compared to Pete?



Btw.. Are u taken Pete's injury into account against Yzaga? Yea thought not

Laver >>>>> Roger>>Borg == Pancho == Rosewall >>>>Sampras

I just put that becuase u have a thing for Federer's cakewalk draws

I actually hate Federer too..... dont believe me... look at my thread created called:

Fed Haters: Are you really stuck figuring out who you want to win

where is say:
I am a Federer hater..... ive hated him ever since he stole Wimbledon 04 from Andy Roddick, and i hate his subtle arrogance

I support Federer's stats becuase i am unbias

zagor
06-07-2009, 05:46 PM
Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!

Even though Laver is highly regarded as the GOAT, (and still is by most) why is it Fed is always being compared to Pete?

Because most people here only watched Pete and Fed out of all GOAT candidates,the average age of TT poster is relatively young.

Conquistador
06-07-2009, 05:49 PM
Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to by most everyone? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!

Even though Laver is highly regarded as the GOAT, (and still is by most) why is it Fed is always being compared to Pete?



Btw.. Are u taking Pete's injury into account against Yzaga? Yea thought not. Another federphile trying to **** me off

You are right. I would list Pete somewhere on my list of best players of all time in the 4-7 range. Sampras played in a weak era, and therefore flourished..when he ran into clay court specialists, he didnt fare well.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 05:52 PM
Laver >>>>> Roger>>Borg == Pancho == Rosewall >>>>Sampras

I just put that becuase u have a thing for Federer's cakewalk draws

And I dont deny that Pete had some cakewalks in his later years.


This is how I look at it.



During Pete's rise to the top, he had much much tougher opposition particular at the top then Fed to his. Pete had Edberg, Becker, Chang, Goran, Courier, Andre, etc to overcome in his rise to the top. Where Fed had Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Old Brokeback Agassi, Davydenko etc. Pete had a tougher hill to climb during his rise say early-mid 90s. Whereas Fed didnt have it as tough I feel until about 2008 where Nadal finally primed, and you had Djoker and Murray come on the scene (though both are really impressing me slam wise but still feel they are a tougher rivals overrall during the course of the season then Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nabandian were). Late 90s, competition leveled off a bit for Pete and it definitely wasnt what it was early to mid 90s. I feel Sampras' clay court competition was far superior depth wise to Roger's


Yes both had some cakewalk draws at slams. But why cant I comment on a cakewalk draw Roger had without you bringing pete into the equation. What I said about Roger's cakewalk at RG, really cant be disputed. I mean its obvious thats what it was as soon as Djoker and Nadal went out (two players who would have given Fed fits and its very doubtul Fed would have got through both). Yes a win is a win. A slam is a slam. But a cakewalk is a cakewalk as well

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 05:53 PM
You are right. I would list Pete somewhere on my list of best players of all time in the 4-7 range. Sampras played in a weak era, and therefore flourished..when he ran into clay court specialists, he didnt fare well.



Roger has had to deal with Rafa. But outside of a Rafa, has Roger had to overcome anyone on Bruguera's, Muster's, Courier's, Andre's level on clay? No he hasnt.t Especially this year. He played guys at RG this year that couldnt whipe Sergi Bruguera's jockstrap on clay.

I dont believe the depth today on clay is anywhere near the depth today as it was in Pete's era. Not even remotely close.

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 05:54 PM
You are right. I would list Pete somewhere on my list of best players of all time in the 4-7 range. Sampras played in a weak era, and therefore flourished..when he ran into clay court specialists, he didnt fare well.

lol.... i just trashed Pete but now i am going to defend him...the weak era argument is weak in itself.... to many variables..... the only thing i can say is that Old man Agassi took sets from Nadal and prime Federer


And the reason why i only compared Federer to Sampras is becuase there is no GameBorg, GameLaver or GamePancho on this board who trolls around with all this bias and foolish comments, is more afraid of Sampras' records going away than the man himself is

Conquistador
06-07-2009, 05:55 PM
Roger has had to deal with Rafa. But outside of a Rafa, has Roger had to overcome anyone on Bruguera's, Muster's, Courier's, Andre's level on clay? NO!!

Right now, a healthy Nadal is the 1st, 2nd , and 3rd best clay court player in the world. Nadal was better than those you mendtioned combined.

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 05:56 PM
Roger has had to deal with Rafa. But outside of a Rafa, has Roger had to overcome anyone on Bruguera's, Muster's, Courier's, Andre's level on clay? NO!!

Sorry by how many good years did Courier have ---- he had like 3 years in the top 10..... same for Burgera.... and if Pete played Agassi once at RG on clay

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-07-2009, 05:56 PM
Now let me get to the losses in his prime:
-Sergei Brugera (rank 11) 93 FO
- Jamie Yzaga (23) 94 USO
- Gilbert Schaller (24) 95 FO
- Mark Philopusis (40) 96 AO
- Krajick (13) 96 Wimby
- Petr Korda (16) 97 USO
- Karol Kucera (20) 98 AO....... wow so many i am too tired to continue Gosh you don't get it do you? All these guys would win calender grand slams in todays era. Do you even bother listening to GameSampras and his buddies very sound logic? ;)

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 05:58 PM
Right now, a healthy Nadal is the 1st, 2nd , and 3rd best clay court player in the world. Nadal was better than those you mendtioned combined.

The way Nadal was playing this year at RG. Muster, Courier or Bruguera would have demolished Rafa no problem. Possibly even Agassi as well. Nadal did not look good at all. Obviously he is far from 100 percent. It showed too.

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 05:58 PM
Gosh you don't get it do you? All these guys would win calender grand slams in todays era. Do you even bother listening to GameSampras and his buddies very sound logic? ;)

lol i didnt even add most of his FO losses to:
Galo Blanco
Medvedev ranked 100
Ramon Delgado ranked 97
Magnus Norman ranked 67
Thierry Champion ranked 77.....so how can the era be strong if he was loosing to 3rd tier players

Conquistador
06-07-2009, 05:58 PM
lol.... i just trashed Pete but now i am going to defend him...the weak era argument is weak in itself.... to many variables..... the only thing i can say is that Old man Agassi took sets from Nadal and prime Federer


And the reason why i only compared Federer to Sampras is becuase there is no GameBorg, GameLaver or GamePancho on this board who trolls around with all this bias and foolish comments, is more afraid of Sampras' records going away than the man himself is

You got it wrong. Sampras has 14 majors. That speaks for itself. You are acting like Sampras never did anything on the court. Your arguments are very weak.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-07-2009, 06:00 PM
lol i didnt even add most of his FO losses to:
Galo Blanco
Medvedev ranked 100
Ramon Delgado ranked 97
Magnus Norman ranked 67
Thierry Champion ranked 77.....so how can the era be strong if he was loosing to 3rd tier players Yeah but these guys beat the clay king in Sampras and would easily triple bagel Roger and Rafa.

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:00 PM
The way Nadal was playing this year at RG. Muster, Courier or Bruguera would have demolished Rafa no problem. Possibly even Agassi as well. Nadal did not look good at all. Obviously he is far from 100 percent. It showed too.

So first u say Nadals the only good claycourter, then you call him crap.... then u make it seem like Muster Courier and Brugera are better players than Agaasi... wow troll you should be banned

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 06:00 PM
lol i didnt even add most of his FO losses to:
Galo Blanco
Medvedev ranked 100
Ramon Delgado ranked 97
Magnus Norman ranked 67
Thierry Champion ranked 77.....so how can the era be strong if he was loosing to 3rd tier players



I never said Pete was a clay court marvel did I? You also have to remember Roger grew up playing on clay.. That helps too.

At his best, I still think Pete was the greatest to ever play the game even though he didnt have the success on clay. Thats fine by me. i still have my opinions as do you

Conquistador
06-07-2009, 06:00 PM
The way Nadal was playing this year at RG. Muster, Courier or Bruguera would have demolished Rafa no problem. Possibly even Agassi as well. Nadal did not look good at all. Obviously he is far from 100 percent. It showed too.

That was one match. The matches that nadal played before soderling were impresssive. Nadal is a hawk, a lion, a bull and that can be said about his play before soderling. He played one bad match

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:01 PM
You got it wrong. Sampras has 14 majors. That speaks for itself. You are acting like Sampras never did anything on the court. Your arguments are very weak.

Sorry.... i am not trashing Sampras..... i am trashing game Sampras becuase ive seem him on at least 3 threads today with the words "Federer" and "cakewalk" within 1 sentence of eachother

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 06:01 PM
So first u say Nadals the only good claycourter, then you call him crap.... then u make it seem like Muster Courier and Brugera are better players than Agaasi... wow troll you should be banned


What the hell? Go to school and learn to read Federphile

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:02 PM
What the hell? Go to school and learn to read Federphile

I dont even like Federer

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 06:04 PM
That was one match. The matches that nadal played before soderling were impresssive. Nadal is a hawk, a lion, a bull and that can be said about his play before soderling. He played one bad match

Ehhh.. nadal has not been "Nadalesque" since the Australian Open I think. I still believe that slam took a bit of starch out of him. He narrowly escape Djoker a few weeks ago and was taken out by Soderling? A player he used to destroy? Thats not the Nadal on clay I know. Hes playing too much tennis and not focusing on smarter scheduling and its caught up with him obviously. Taken out before the quarterfinals? And what I saw of Soderling today, didnt impress me one bit. Horrible serving with crappy movement and terrible return of serve

Conquistador
06-07-2009, 06:04 PM
So first u say Nadals the only good claycourter, then you call him crap.... then u make it seem like Muster Courier and Brugera are better players than Agaasi... wow troll you should be banned

I think you are more of a troll. With bold statements like yours, theres no wonder why I laugh. You see, clay is the surface that is the most sketchy..Whenever clay is dry you have different players, whenver it is moist, you have different players. I know tennis, do you?

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:05 PM
Ehhh.. nadal has not been "Nadalesque" since the Australian Open I think. I still believe that slam took a bit of starch out of him. He narrowly escape Djoker a few weeks ago and was taken out by Soderling? A player he used to destroy? Thats not the Nadal on clay I know. Hes playing too much tennis and not focusing on smarter scheduling and its caught up with him obviously.

Sorry but IW, Barcelona, Rome and MC disagree with you

bruce38
06-07-2009, 06:06 PM
Ehhh.. nadal has not been "Nadalesque" since the Australian Open I think. I still believe that slam took a bit of starch out of him. He narrowly escape Djoker a few weeks ago and was taken out by Soderling? A player he used to destroy? Thats not the Nadal on clay I know. Hes playing too much tennis and not focusing on smarter scheduling and its caught up with him obviously. Taken out before the quarterfinals? And what I saw of Soderling today, didnt impress me one bit. Horrible serving with crappy movement and terrible return of serve

He had pretty much the same schedule the last year as he himself admitted and won last year. Isn't he supposed to be getting better? So what gives? Could it be that he is more in Sampras' league, but not Feds?

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 06:06 PM
Sorry but IW, Barcelona, Rome and MC disagree with you

The French Open doesnt disagree. He burned himself out beforehand. Losing to Soderling? Please

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:08 PM
I think you are more of a troll. With bold statements like yours, theres no wonder why I laugh. You see, clay is the surface that is the most sketchy..Whenever clay is dry you have different players, whenver it is moist, you have different players. I know tennis, do you?

All i know is that the rules of tennis stay the same.... you serve motion, groundstroke motion stay the same....
If Tiger Woods and the PGA played on clay, how much do you want to bet that Woods' # would be similar

I may not know as much about mechanics and court speeds as you, but i understand luck, mentality, fight, belief, consistency. These are all just s important on the tennis court

Mansewerz
06-07-2009, 06:08 PM
Please stop calling Agassi brokeback. He has a wife and two kids.

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:09 PM
The French Open doesnt disagree. He burned himself out beforehand. Losing to Soderling? Please

Which shows that even the world no 1 is still human

but Federer hasnt lost to a player ranked outside the top 4 in a major since right here 2004

Conquistador
06-07-2009, 06:12 PM
Which shows that even the world no 1 is still human

but Federer hasnt lost to a player ranked outside the top 4 in a major since right here 2004

It shows how good Federer is. Now you know what it takes to win one single major. Sampras and Federer have 14 of them. Give them some respect.

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:14 PM
It shows how good Federer is. Now you know what it takes to win one single major. Sampras and Federer have 14 of them. Give them some respect.

Im sorry, but thats what i have been doing this whole time.... i defended Sampras against the weak era statement, and have called Federer the GOTOE (Open Era).... when i dislike Federer.... Nadal and Roddick are my favs...

federerGOAT
06-07-2009, 06:16 PM
Sampras doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the great Fed. Prime Sampras would not even be in the ATP top 5 of today.

Conquistador
06-07-2009, 06:18 PM
Sampras doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the great Fed. Prime Sampras would not even be in the ATP top 5 of today.
http://is.blick.ch/img/gen/U/S/HBUS0lHI_Pxgen_r_370x354.jpg

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:18 PM
Sampras doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the great Fed. Prime Sampras would not even be in the ATP top 5 of today.

Sorry mate, but thats a bit harsh.... Sampras did beat Federer in 07... i know it was an exhibition, but that was some good tennis from him

While i do believe Federer> Sampras, i have the greatest respect for Pete, and do believe that he is one of the greats

valiant
06-07-2009, 06:19 PM
It shows how good Federer is. Now you know what it takes to win one single major. Sampras and Federer have 14 of them. Give them some respect.

I think you are misunderstanding Clayman. He is not saying that Pete is a joke .Just that Fed dint have cake walk draws as some of the posters are trying to suggest. So he wants to show that Sampras also had some draws similarly.

clayman2000
06-07-2009, 06:22 PM
I think you are misunderstanding Clayman. He is not saying that Pete is a joke .Just that Fed dint have cake walk draws as some of the posters are trying to suggest. So he wants to show that Sampras also had some draws similarly.

Thank you for understanding what i say... my whole purpose was to disprove the argument that Federer is where he is becuase of cakewalk draws

Azzurri
06-07-2009, 06:27 PM
You are right. I would list Pete somewhere on my list of best players of all time in the 4-7 range. Sampras played in a weak era, and therefore flourished..when he ran into clay court specialists, he didnt fare well.

do you realize not a single poster that knows who you are would ever, ever take you seriously?

Azzurri
06-07-2009, 06:29 PM
Game Sampras..... you have a lot of fun calling Fed a cakewalk draw player, but let me show you Pete's cakewalk draws:

Here is an analysis of Fed's slam wins:
Wimby 03 - yes he did only beat 1 top 10 player, but he lost only 1 set
AO 2004 - beat 2 top 10 players, as well as an in form Lleyton Hewitt, and on fire Marat Safin (who would be back in the top 10 by years end)
Wimby 04 - took out 2 top 10 players both former world no 1's. Andy Roddick played the match of his life and still lost in 4
USO 04 - took out 3 top 10 players, including 2 former world no 1's, and bageled Hewitt twice in the final
Wimby 05 - lost only 1 set, and handled Hewitt and Roddick easily
USO 05 - killed his daddy Nalbandian in straights, then beat 2 former world no 1's
AO 06 - His easiest draw in a major, but did have to face an on fire Bhagdhatis, as well as an inform Tommy Haas. Also took out top 10 player Davydenko, who never beats himself
Wimby 06 - lost only 1 set in the final, had a bagel set against Nadal, and did have to play tough matches early on
USO 06 - took out 3 top 10 players including an out of his mind Blake, and a rejuvinated Roddick
AO 07 - lost no sets, embaressed Roddick who beat him the week before, and he did play 3 top 10 players, incluidng an on fire Gonzo
Wimby 07 - had to beat young gun Del Potro, former world no 1 Ferrero, and Safin, had a week of then came back an killed Gasquet, before fighting so hard to take out an on fire Nadal
USO 07 - took out the no 3, 4, 5 ranked players without loosing a set. Roddick and Djokovic were both playing great tennis
USO 08 - he had to fight to win this.... playing crap tennis for 4 rounds, killed in form Djokovic, and realled outplayed on fire Murray, whose nerves werent a big factor early on
FO 09 - statistically the easiest draw hes had, but he did take out an in form and on fire Del Potro, Nadal's killer Soderling, Gael "pong" Monfils, and really showed fight by beating Haas and Acusso

Now His losses in GS's in his prime (04 - 07):
- Guga Keurton FO 04 - no shame in loosing to a 3 time champ
- Safin AO 05 -- when on Safin can beat anyone
- Nadal FO 05 - no explanation needed
- Nadal FO 06 - ditto above
- Nadal FO 07 - ditto above
- Djoko AO 08 - had mono, and lost the the in form world no 3
- Nadal FO 08 - ditto 2 above
- Nadal Wimby 08 - lost to the very soon to be world no 1
-- his only loss outside the top 4 was Keurton, and of course he was no stranger on clay, or on the big scene

Now: here is Sampras::::

the 93 USO he beat 1 top 10 player... the overrated clay courter Chang....

AO 94 he beat only 1 top 10er Courier, yet he still lost 5 sets

USO 95 he beat only 1 top 10 player again,
same for AO 97,
Wimby 97 his best win was over 18 ranked old man becker,
Wimby 98 his highest ranked win was in the 3rd round,
Wimby 00 his highest ranked win was over 20's ranked Rafter,
USO 02, he beat overrated Haas at 3, and his only good win was over Agassi

Now let me get to the losses in his prime:
-Sergei Brugera (rank 11) 93 FO
- Jamie Yzaga (23) 94 USO
- Gilbert Schaller (24) 95 FO
- Mark Philopusis (40) 96 AO
- Krajick (13) 96 Wimby
- Petr Korda (16) 97 USO
- Karol Kucera (20) 98 AO....... wow so many i am too tired to continue

you wasted a WHOLE lotta time.

lawrence
06-07-2009, 06:57 PM
Sorry mate, but thats a bit harsh.... Sampras did beat Federer in 07... i know it was an exhibition, but that was some good tennis from him

While i do believe Federer> Sampras, i have the greatest respect for Pete, and do believe that he is one of the greats

pete is definitely top 5, imo

but you cannot be serious when talking about exo's
you think it wouldve been a good image for fed to straight set pete 3 matches in a row?
pete is good, but hes been retired for a while now

R_Federer
06-07-2009, 08:00 PM
You can run your mouth until the cows come home but if this was a court case the two damning evidences are Federer has a career Slam, Sampras doesnt and Federer will have more Slams than Sampras.

End of story.

Cenc
06-08-2009, 01:07 AM
Game Sampras..... you have a lot of fun calling Fed a cakewalk draw player, but let me show you Pete's cakewalk draws:

Here is an analysis of Fed's slam wins:
Wimby 03 - yes he did only beat 1 top 10 player, but he lost only 1 set
AO 2004 - beat 2 top 10 players, as well as an in form Lleyton Hewitt, and on fire Marat Safin (who would be back in the top 10 by years end)
Wimby 04 - took out 2 top 10 players both former world no 1's. Andy Roddick played the match of his life and still lost in 4
USO 04 - took out 3 top 10 players, including 2 former world no 1's, and bageled Hewitt twice in the final
Wimby 05 - lost only 1 set, and handled Hewitt and Roddick easily
USO 05 - killed his daddy Nalbandian in straights, then beat 2 former world no 1's
AO 06 - His easiest draw in a major, but did have to face an on fire Bhagdhatis, as well as an inform Tommy Haas. Also took out top 10 player Davydenko, who never beats himself
Wimby 06 - lost only 1 set in the final, had a bagel set against Nadal, and did have to play tough matches early on
USO 06 - took out 3 top 10 players including an out of his mind Blake, and a rejuvinated Roddick
AO 07 - lost no sets, embaressed Roddick who beat him the week before, and he did play 3 top 10 players, incluidng an on fire Gonzo
Wimby 07 - had to beat young gun Del Potro, former world no 1 Ferrero, and Safin, had a week of then came back an killed Gasquet, before fighting so hard to take out an on fire Nadal
USO 07 - took out the no 3, 4, 5 ranked players without loosing a set. Roddick and Djokovic were both playing great tennis
USO 08 - he had to fight to win this.... playing crap tennis for 4 rounds, killed in form Djokovic, and realled outplayed on fire Murray, whose nerves werent a big factor early on
FO 09 - statistically the easiest draw hes had, but he did take out an in form and on fire Del Potro, Nadal's killer Soderling, Gael "pong" Monfils, and really showed fight by beating Haas and Acusso

Now His losses in GS's in his prime (04 - 07):
- Guga Keurton FO 04 - no shame in loosing to a 3 time champ
- Safin AO 05 -- when on Safin can beat anyone
- Nadal FO 05 - no explanation needed
- Nadal FO 06 - ditto above
- Nadal FO 07 - ditto above
- Djoko AO 08 - had mono, and lost the the in form world no 3
- Nadal FO 08 - ditto 2 above
- Nadal Wimby 08 - lost to the very soon to be world no 1
-- his only loss outside the top 4 was Keurton, and of course he was no stranger on clay, or on the big scene

Now: here is Sampras::::

the 93 USO he beat 1 top 10 player... the overrated clay courter Chang....

AO 94 he beat only 1 top 10er Courier, yet he still lost 5 sets

USO 95 he beat only 1 top 10 player again,
same for AO 97,
Wimby 97 his best win was over 18 ranked old man becker,
Wimby 98 his highest ranked win was in the 3rd round,
Wimby 00 his highest ranked win was over 20's ranked Rafter,
USO 02, he beat overrated Haas at 3, and his only good win was over Agassi

Now let me get to the losses in his prime:
-Sergei Brugera (rank 11) 93 FO
- Jamie Yzaga (23) 94 USO
- Gilbert Schaller (24) 95 FO
- Mark Philopusis (40) 96 AO
- Krajick (13) 96 Wimby
- Petr Korda (16) 97 USO
- Karol Kucera (20) 98 AO....... wow so many i am too tired to continue

ON FIRE BAGHDATIS i like this one
let me remind u, also on hard court few months later baghdatis lost to ON FIRE 36 y.o. andre

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 03:25 AM
You can run your mouth until the cows come home but if this was a court case the two damning evidences are Federer has a career Slam, Sampras doesnt and Federer will have more Slams than Sampras.

End of story.

exactly...now Fed is really making it tough to call him GOAT because he is still dominated by another player in his era that has defeated him in 5 grand slams...NADAL. Pete was NEVER owned in that manner by anyone in his era.

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
06-08-2009, 03:28 AM
I agree. Nadal screwed him out of 6 Grand Slams. Sampras was screwed from Agassi in a Grand Slam way less times than that.

navratilovafan
06-08-2009, 03:34 AM
ON FIRE BAGHDATIS i like this one
let me remind u, also on hard court few months later baghdatis lost to ON FIRE 36 y.o. andre

Your beloved Sampras as the dominant #1 lost in straight sets to 33 year old Lendl in 1993, and Lendl wasnt a late bloomer who won over half of his slams between ages 29-33 like Agassi either. In fact Sampras lost 3 times to a 30 something Lendl, and took 5 sets to beat a 30 year old Lendl in the quarters when he won his first U.S Open when Lendl had already won his final slam(your other mancrush Agassi in the final was much easier to crush than the 30 year old Lendl had been mind you). Agassi also had to go 5 sets and was fed a bagel at the U.S Open by 37 year old Jimmy Connors in 1989. Then in 1991 39 year old Jimmy Connors came out of Agassi's quarter to the semis by beating Aaron Krickstein, the same guy who put out 21 year old Agassi in the first round in striaght sets. See isnt this fun.

Cesc Fabregas
06-08-2009, 03:51 AM
You are right. I would list Pete somewhere on my list of best players of all time in the 4-7 range. Sampras played in a weak era, and therefore flourished..when he ran into clay court specialists, he didnt fare well.

Lets go through Federer's slam wins

1. Old past him prime Philippoussis who was part of the Sampras era.
2. 86 ranked Safin.
3. Roddick.
4. Hewitt.
5. Roddick.
6. Old 35 broke back Andre who had played 3 5 setters in a row and was 4-2 up in the 3rd set.
7. Unseeded Baghdatis who had played 3 5 set matches before the final and was leading Federer a set and a break before running out of gas.
8. Young Nadal playing in his 4th grass court tournament of his life.
9. Roddick.
10. Gonzalez playing in his first and only slam final.
11. Nadal who had played 5 days in a row and he bust his knee at the end of the 4th set and blew 4 break points in the 5th.
12. Djokovic playing in his 1st slam final who blew 3 sets points in the 1st set and a 4-1 lead in the 2nd.
13. Murray playing in his 1st slam final and had to play 2 days in a row against Nadal whilst Federer had the Sunday off.
14. Soderling playing in his 1st slam final and before had never been past the 3rd round of a slam.

Yeah Federer's competition was great.

Rhino
06-08-2009, 04:07 AM
Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to by most everyone? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!

Even though Laver is highly regarded as the GOAT, (and still is by most) why is it Fed is always being compared to Pete?



Btw.. Are u taking Pete's injury into account against Yzaga? Yea thought not. Another federphile trying to **** me off

Dude you have to admit, there are an awful lot of FACTS in the OP's list of Grand Slams. I have nothing against Pete, but I like facts.

Rhino
06-08-2009, 04:09 AM
ON FIRE BAGHDATIS i like this one
let me remind u, also on hard court few months later baghdatis lost to ON FIRE 36 y.o. andre

Thats stupid, did you see that match? He was a cramping blister factory, he could hardly walk.

Winners or Errors
06-08-2009, 04:15 AM
Please stop calling Agassi brokeback. He has a wife and two kids.

I don't think it's a reference to the movie, but to the back problems that ended Agassi's career. Broken back... Rude, but not really indicating Agassi was gay for you homophobes out there. ;-)

grafrules
06-08-2009, 04:20 AM
Lets go through Federer's slam wins

1. Old past him prime Philippoussis who was part of the Sampras era.
2. 86 ranked Safin.
3. Roddick.
4. Hewitt.
5. Roddick.
6. Hewitt.
7. Unseeded Baghdatis who had played 3 5 set matches before the final and was leading Federer a set and a break before running out of gas.
8. Young Nadal playing in his 4th grass court tournament of his life.
9. Roddick.
10. Gonzalez playing in his first and only slam final.
11. Nadal who had played 5 days in a row and he bust his knee at the end of the 4th set and blew 4 break points in the 5th.
12. Djokovic playing in his 1st slam final who blew 3 sets points in the 1st set and a 4-1 lead in the 2nd.
13. Murray playing in his 1st slam final and had to play 2 days in a row against Nadal whilst Federer had the Sunday off.
14. Soderling playing in his 1st slam final and before had never been past the 3rd round of a slam.

Yeah Federer's competition was great.

OK lets go through Pete's 14 slam wins

1. Young choking Agassi who went 0-3 in his first 3 slam finals including a loss to 30 year old career pretender Andres Gomez in the French Open final

2. Jim Courier on GRASS where Courier has a lifetime 19-11 record and advanced past the 3rd round only three times his whole career.

3. Cedric Pioline

4. Todd Martin, a player in the first of his career two slam finals (both which he would lose)

5. Goran Ivanisevic who isnt anymore accomplished a player than Roddick or Hewitt (arguably less)

6. a well past his prime Boris Becker in his first slam final in 4 years.

7. Agassi

8. Michael Chang, a player who won his only slam title in 1989 on clay, and who is generally looked at a poor mans Hewitt

9. Carlos Moya on hard courts, a mostly clay court specialist in 1 of his only 2 career slam finals (and that even includes his prefered clay).

10. Cedric Pioline again.

11. a past his prime Ivanisevic who had gone 1-5 in his last 5 slams going into that Wimbledon and was ranked #25.

12. Agassi on grass where he is less accomplished overall than young Nadal already is, the player Federer beat in 2 Wimbledon finals already.

13. Rafter who had a 17-7 lifetime record at Wimbledon before that that year and was ranked #21 at the time.

14. Agassi who was even older than 31 year old Pete at 32.

Winners or Errors
06-08-2009, 04:22 AM
exactly...now Fed is really making it tough to call him GOAT because he is still dominated by another player in his era that has defeated him in 5 grand slams...NADAL. Pete was NEVER owned in that manner by anyone in his era.

No, Pete was owned by virtually every clay courter on the planet, and therefore rarely made it far enough to actually face a good clay courter. Weren't three of those Nadal-Federer slam finals on clay at the French Open? What's the record outside of the French Open... 2-2? Hmmm. You're silly. Pete was simply not good enough on all surfaces to amass a losing H2H record. When you're owned by #100, how can you say anything about your record against #10, who you rarely ever play?

valiant
06-08-2009, 04:35 AM
No, Pete was owned by virtually every clay courter on the planet, and therefore rarely made it far enough to actually face a good clay courter. Weren't three of those Nadal-Federer slam finals on clay at the French Open? What's the record outside of the French Open... 2-2? Hmmm. You're silly. Pete was simply not good enough on all surfaces to amass a losing H2H record. When you're owned by #100, how can you say anything about your record against #10, who you rarely ever play?

Interesting way to look at things. Thats a clear ownage. I dont want to downgrade Pete just to make my favourite player look. He was good at his time and Fed is doing well in his time. Lets just be happy :)

sh@de
06-08-2009, 05:28 AM
http://is.blick.ch/img/gen/U/S/HBUS0lHI_Pxgen_r_370x354.jpg

The most brilliant post I've seen from you :)

I think we should all just drop the GOAT discussion. Seriously, it's getting quite old. You just can't compare because of the one hundred kazillion different variables. So don't.

vtmike
06-08-2009, 05:31 AM
No, Pete was owned by virtually every clay courter on the planet, and therefore rarely made it far enough to actually face a good clay courter. Weren't three of those Nadal-Federer slam finals on clay at the French Open? What's the record outside of the French Open... 2-2? Hmmm. You're silly. Pete was simply not good enough on all surfaces to amass a losing H2H record. When you're owned by #100, how can you say anything about your record against #10, who you rarely ever play?

Those are some good points...

Gorecki
06-08-2009, 05:33 AM
Sorry.... i am not trashing Sampras..... i am trashing game Sampras becuase ive seem him on at least 3 threads today with the words "Federer" and "cakewalk" within 1 sentence of eachother

you just gave me an idea... im going to end each of my posts with:

Federer - my opinion - Cakewalk...


starting right now!


Federer - my opinion - Cakewalk

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 06:53 AM
OK lets go through Pete's 14 slam wins

1. Young choking Agassi who went 0-3 in his first 3 slam finals including a loss to 30 year old career pretender Andres Gomez in the French Open final

2. Jim Courier on GRASS where Courier has a lifetime 19-11 record and advanced past the 3rd round only three times his whole career.

3. Cedric Pioline

4. Todd Martin, a player in the first of his career two slam finals (both which he would lose)

5. Goran Ivanisevic who isnt anymore accomplished a player than Roddick or Hewitt (arguably less)

6. a well past his prime Boris Becker in his first slam final in 4 years.

7. Agassi

8. Michael Chang, a player who won his only slam title in 1989 on clay, and who is generally looked at a poor mans Hewitt

9. Carlos Moya on hard courts, a mostly clay court specialist in 1 of his only 2 career slam finals (and that even includes his prefered clay).

10. Cedric Pioline again.

11. a past his prime Ivanisevic who had gone 1-5 in his last 5 slams going into that Wimbledon and was ranked #25.

12. Agassi on grass where he is less accomplished overall than young Nadal already is, the player Federer beat in 2 Wimbledon finals already.

13. Rafter who had a 17-7 lifetime record at Wimbledon before that that year and was ranked #21 at the time.

14. Agassi who was even older than 31 year old Pete at 32.

1. Pete was 19 and so was Andre...what are you smoking??
2. Dude..c'mon, Courier won AO and made the finals of FO and W that year. he was the best player...clueless.
3. agree on this one
4. agree...
5. Goran...much more dangerous than Hewitt and Roddick. He was feared.
6. Becker was 27, still young and oh he won ANOTHER MAJOR the next year.
7. Agassi...all-time great.
8. Poor man's Hewitt?? He was better and he is a HOF'er. give him due respect.
9. its obvious you don't know anything about Moya. Consider he made the final at AO and SF at USO he was more than a cc specialist..you don't know what that is.
10. again..Pioline...i agree.
11. Goran WON Wimbledon after this..so how is he past his prime PRIOR to winning his only major???
12. Agassi was in his prime and he won W on fast, true grass unlike Nadal. Please you are so ignorant.
13. Rafter was in his prime in terms of W at that time..he made it to the final again the following year.
14. are you serious?? you are beyond clueless.

let's be honest, you don't know much or just trying to stir the pot.

Winners or Errors
06-08-2009, 06:54 AM
Interesting way to look at things. Thats a clear ownage. I dont want to downgrade Pete just to make my favourite player look. He was good at his time and Fed is doing well in his time. Lets just be happy :)

I think Sampras was a great player. I think he may have been the best serve and volleyer of all time (and this coming from someone who's favorite player is Edberg). I enjoyed watching him play.

I don't think, if you seriously look at the facts, that you can discount the fact that Sampras was simply not a good player on clay, and I get sick of Sampras fans continually bringing up the Federer H2H with Nadal as evidence that Pete was better. If you don't make it to the big show very often, you can't lose very often. Pete rarely faced his top competitors on clay, because he was rarely deep enough in tournaments to do so. Not a knock on Sampras. One of my other favorite players, sans behavior, is McEnroe. He also couldn't get it done on clay, though he certainly came closer than Sampras.

Horses for courses. It should not count against Federer that he happens to be a presence on all court surfaces.

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 07:02 AM
No, Pete was owned by virtually every clay courter on the planet, and therefore rarely made it far enough to actually face a good clay courter. Weren't three of those Nadal-Federer slam finals on clay at the French Open? What's the record outside of the French Open... 2-2? Hmmm. You're silly. Pete was simply not good enough on all surfaces to amass a losing H2H record. When you're owned by #100, how can you say anything about your record against #10, who you rarely ever play?

I understand what you are saying, but I mean that Fed is owned by ONE single player and that player has taken 6 majors (or 5) from him. He has a much better h2h...NADAL. That is pure and simple..OWNED. But who owned Pete? Who defeated him more than one time at any major final? Who has a better record h2h after 20 matches? Even 15? only ONE player has a better record h2h against Pete in 10 matches and it was 6-4..hardly owned. Is Fed a better all-around player, maybe. But the surfaces are so even compared to Pete's era that is is a difficult arguement. But one thing cannot be argued..Nadal owns Fed. Fed is owned by a player that has won 5 or 6 majors directly from him. If you think that can be ignored then you are as clueless as I thought you were.

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 07:04 AM
Those are some good points...

so someone has a 2-1 record against Pete they own him? :shock:

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 07:12 AM
I think Sampras was a great player. I think he may have been the best serve and volleyer of all time (and this coming from someone who's favorite player is Edberg). I enjoyed watching him play.

I don't think, if you seriously look at the facts, that you can discount the fact that Sampras was simply not a good player on clay, and I get sick of Sampras fans continually bringing up the Federer H2H with Nadal as evidence that Pete was better. If you don't make it to the big show very often, you can't lose very often. Pete rarely faced his top competitors on clay, because he was rarely deep enough in tournaments to do so. Not a knock on Sampras. One of my other favorite players, sans behavior, is McEnroe. He also couldn't get it done on clay, though he certainly came closer than Sampras.

Horses for courses. It should not count against Federer that he happens to be a presence on all court surfaces.

you are too much. so Nadal beating Fed at Wimbledon and AO does not count? You are trying too hard and are totally missing/omitting facts. One cannot be the GOAT if they are not GOAT within their own generation. How hard is that to understand.

Pete is NOT the greatest S&V tennis player...Mac is at the top followed closely by Edberg. I give the nod to Mac because he had a much better serve...but volleys were nearly identical.

MichaelH
06-08-2009, 07:18 AM
I don't often visit here, so I'm not "up to date" on the ongoing debate. Here are some facts, though, that might be worth y'all considering:
1. Tennis at this level is a bigtime money sport.
2. The world's #1 will get preferential treatment each and every time he/she enters a tournament, and at each-and -every tournament. Believe not? Think back through the decades at how people like McEnroe, Conners, and the like were allowed to be absolute jerks by officials. Think "Joe Shmuck -- number 29 in the world" would have been allowed to stand there and call a chair umpire names?
3. The preferential treatment extends "preferentially" (whether consciously or not) to the draw, as well. Thus it can be reasonably argued that Sampras had some "cakewalks"...Agassi had some...Federer had some...Borg had some...on and on.
4. Arguing relative tennis quality on the basis of draws, is nonsense. They all have been "issued" cakewalks to the finals, at one time or another.
5. Arguing relative tennis quality on the basis of just plain ability is FUN FUN FUN, but don't get too dedicated to it...it's too problematical to get your panties in a twist over it.

scineram
06-08-2009, 07:53 AM
No ****! LOL!

MichaelH
06-08-2009, 07:54 AM
Watching this airheaded jerk, scineram, spam the board is a good reason to not visit again. Have fun, children.

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 08:22 AM
I don't often visit here, so I'm not "up to date" on the ongoing debate. Here are some facts, though, that might be worth y'all considering:
1. Tennis at this level is a bigtime money sport.
2. The world's #1 will get preferential treatment each and every time he/she enters a tournament, and at each-and -every tournament. Believe not? Think back through the decades at how people like McEnroe, Conners, and the like were allowed to be absolute jerks by officials. Think "Joe Shmuck -- number 29 in the world" would have been allowed to stand there and call a chair umpire names?
3. The preferential treatment extends "preferentially" (whether consciously or not) to the draw, as well. Thus it can be reasonably argued that Sampras had some "cakewalks"...Agassi had some...Federer had some...Borg had some...on and on.
4. Arguing relative tennis quality on the basis of draws, is nonsense. They all have been "issued" cakewalks to the finals, at one time or another.
5. Arguing relative tennis quality on the basis of just plain ability is FUN FUN FUN, but don't get too dedicated to it...it's too problematical to get your panties in a twist over it.

4. true to a point. but what we have not discussed is who Pete beat on the way to all of those finals. Pete played in an era with better competition. The last four/five years has one guy in every final and the other in most others and that one guy beats the other guy who is in every final. Basically, every one of Pete's opponents was a better player than Bag's, Soderling, Gonzo, Murray and Scud. None of those players are anything special. I realize Murray is a good player, but he has done NOTHING thus far.

Chadwixx
06-08-2009, 09:05 AM
Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to by most everyone? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!


Thats because the other guys and their fans have to class to let fed have the spotlight while in his prime. They arent graveytraining his fame like pete does.

Mada
06-08-2009, 01:43 PM
exactly...now Fed is really making it tough to call him GOAT because he is still dominated by another player in his era that has defeated him in 5 grand slams...NADAL. Pete was NEVER owned in that manner by anyone in his era.

Federer > Sampras.

Steve132
06-08-2009, 04:45 PM
I understand what you are saying, but I mean that Fed is owned by ONE single player and that player has taken 6 majors (or 5) from him. He has a much better h2h...NADAL. That is pure and simple..OWNED. But who owned Pete? Who defeated him more than one time at any major final? Who has a better record h2h after 20 matches? Even 15? only ONE player has a better record h2h against Pete in 10 matches and it was 6-4..hardly owned. Is Fed a better all-around player, maybe. But the surfaces are so even compared to Pete's era that is is a difficult arguement. But one thing cannot be argued..Nadal owns Fed. Fed is owned by a player that has won 5 or 6 majors directly from him. If you think that can be ignored then you are as clueless as I thought you were.

Why is it worse for Federer to lose in Slam finals to a Nadal than it is for Sampras to lose in the first or second rounds to journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado?

jukka1970
06-08-2009, 04:48 PM
And I dont deny that Pete had some cakewalks in his later years.


This is how I look at it.



During Pete's rise to the top, he had much much tougher opposition particular at the top then Fed to his. Pete had Edberg, Becker, Chang, Goran, Courier, Andre, etc to overcome in his rise to the top. Where Fed had Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Old Brokeback Agassi, Davydenko etc. Pete had a tougher hill to climb during his rise say early-mid 90s. Whereas Fed didnt have it as tough I feel until about 2008 where Nadal finally primed, and you had Djoker and Murray come on the scene (though both are really impressing me slam wise but still feel they are a tougher rivals overrall during the course of the season then Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nabandian were). Late 90s, competition leveled off a bit for Pete and it definitely wasnt what it was early to mid 90s. I feel Sampras' clay court competition was far superior depth wise to Roger's


Yes both had some cakewalk draws at slams. But why cant I comment on a cakewalk draw Roger had without you bringing pete into the equation. What I said about Roger's cakewalk at RG, really cant be disputed. I mean its obvious thats what it was as soon as Djoker and Nadal went out (two players who would have given Fed fits and its very doubtul Fed would have got through both). Yes a win is a win. A slam is a slam. But a cakewalk is a cakewalk as well

Now, for as much as I couldn't stand Sampras, I do have to back some of this up. I completely agree that Sampras didn't play in a weak era, just as Federer hasn't.

As far as who Sampras played. Goran and Agassi, I agree completely, both very dangerous especially Goran who could ace his way out of anything when he was on. For the most part I agree with Edberg and Becker, though Edberg's game by this point had started to fall as his serve and volley techniques were becoming less effective with the change of the racquet. Becker, I'd say about 90-95%, he was still playing well and his style would keep him in a few more years then Edberg. Chang, I think was a bit overrated, and was best on clay which was Sampras worst surface, so I wouldn't put Chang on that list. And Courier, I don't know, his peak was such a short one, along with injuries and retiring early, I'd say he was outside of Sampras' time.

Now for Federer. Roddick and Safin definitely, was like having 2 Gorans that Sampras had. Roddick with his powerful serve, and Safin with his unpredictablility. I think Agassi wasn't broke down, he was still playing quite well, and I felt that he had 2 careers. I think he was in better shape during Federer's time, by working out etc, but his back was breaking down. Djokovic definitely, he's was number 3 for a while. Murray is just starting to be a factor.

Conquistador
06-08-2009, 05:11 PM
do you realize not a single poster that knows who you are would ever, ever take you seriously?

Are you kidding me? Look at Bud Collins, he made an idiot out of himself by trying to downgrade Federer as much as he did. I hope you're not Bud Collins.

Winners or Errors
06-08-2009, 05:33 PM
you are too much. so Nadal beating Fed at Wimbledon and AO does not count? You are trying too hard and are totally missing/omitting facts. One cannot be the GOAT if they are not GOAT within their own generation. How hard is that to understand.

Pete is NOT the greatest S&V tennis player...Mac is at the top followed closely by Edberg. I give the nod to Mac because he had a much better serve...but volleys were nearly identical.

Laughable as usual. Do I have to spell it out completely every post? Without the dominance on clay at the FO, the Wimbledon and AO wins don't happen because he doesn't get into Federer's head. [edit: He also doesn't gain the confidence to improve his hard and grass court games.] Sampras never, and I mean never, had to deal with anything remotely like the Nadal-Federer rivalry. He was, once more for the record, pathetic on clay. Had he made it to four consecutive FO finals, or even consistently deep in clay court tournaments, he would likely have had the opportunity to be "owned" by a few top 10 players. Instead, he just lost to journeyman X or Y that week, a guy he probably wouldn't play again, and rarely got to play top rivals on that surface.

It's so easy to say he wasn't "owned" by a single player, but let's be honest... he didn't give himself much of a chance to be "owned" with a career 62.5% (90-54) winning percentage on clay. To this point, Federer's record is 76.8% (139-42) on that surface, so he's given himself a lot more chances to meet up with quality competition late in tournaments on his worst surface. Of course, who is possibly the best player in history on that surface? Nadal. How many times has he beaten Federer on that surface? 9. Are you seriously saying that had Pete met a Nadal frequently on clay he'd have done better than 2-9? No way. His lack of a losing H2H is just the result of seeding, which meant he'd play and be beaten by someone way down the totem pole in the first or second round of most clay court tournaments and rarely get owned by good claycourters later.

As for the title of S&V king, I think Sampras-Mac-Edberg are fairly equal. Very different players, even though they all played S&V. Hard to compare.

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 05:43 PM
Why is it worse for Federer to lose in Slam finals to a Nadal than it is for Sampras to lose in the first or second rounds to journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado?

lack of competition...thought I made this clear.:)

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 05:44 PM
Are you kidding me? Look at Bud Collins, he made an idiot out of himself by trying to downgrade Federer as much as he did. I hope you're not Bud Collins.

again...not able to read what you wrote.

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 05:45 PM
Laughable as usual. Do I have to spell it out completely every post? Without the dominance on clay at the FO, the Wimbledon and AO wins don't happen because he doesn't get into Federer's head. [edit: He also doesn't gain the confidence to improve his hard and grass court games.] Sampras never, and I mean never, had to deal with anything remotely like the Nadal-Federer rivalry. He was, once more for the record, pathetic on clay. Had he made it to four consecutive FO finals, or even consistently deep in clay court tournaments, he would likely have had the opportunity to be "owned" by a few top 10 players. Instead, he just lost to journeyman X or Y that week, a guy he probably wouldn't play again, and rarely got to play top rivals on that surface.

It's so easy to say he wasn't "owned" by a single player, but let's be honest... he didn't give himself much of a chance to be "owned" with a career 62.5% (90-54) winning percentage on clay. To this point, Federer's record is 76.8% (139-42) on that surface, so he's given himself a lot more chances to meet up with quality competition late in tournaments on his worst surface. Of course, who is possibly the best player in history on that surface? Nadal. How many times has he beaten Federer on that surface? 9. Are you seriously saying that had Pete met a Nadal frequently on clay he'd have done better than 2-9? No way. His lack of a losing H2H is just the result of seeding, which meant he'd play and be beaten by someone way down the totem pole in the first or second round of most clay court tournaments and rarely get owned by good claycourters later.

As for the title of S&V king, I think Sampras-Mac-Edberg are fairly equal. Very different players, even though they all played S&V. Hard to compare.

again, since you missed it. Fed is a a better all-court (surfaces) player. But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not. any questions?

Steve132
06-08-2009, 05:49 PM
lack of competition...thought I made this clear.:)

So Schaller and Delgado represent tougher competition than the players Federer has beaten over the past five years (Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick, etc.)?

Conquistador
06-08-2009, 05:52 PM
again, since you missed it. Fed is a a better all-court (surfaces) player. But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not. any questions?

Pete Sampras played inferior competition..he never won at roland garros-thats a fact. Nadal is a once in a lifetime player,like Fed..You cannot say that anybody in Petes era had anything on Nadal. You are again missing the point..Federer has done more in the history books than Sampras ever did. Federer's accomplishments are regarded a lot higher than Sampras's because Sampras was 31 when he won his 14th slam. Federer is only 27. You see, Federer holds the record of aPPEARING in last 15 of 16 slam finals. Thats dominating his peers, Sampras never accomplished anything like that.

fed_rulz
06-08-2009, 05:59 PM
again, since you missed it. Fed is a a better all-court (surfaces) player. But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not. any questions?

Please do not let facts come in the way of your blind fanboyism. I got a good laugh out of this :)

Do you honestly believe that Pete dominated more than Fed? Then why is it that in his best year he recorded 16 losses, while Fed only recorded 4. Oh wait, it is the weak competition in Fed's era. But if the competition was weak, and fed dominated them more than sampras dominated his competition, how could "But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not" be true?? :confused: <head spinning>

Winners or Errors
06-08-2009, 06:12 PM
again, since you missed it. Fed is a a better all-court (surfaces) player. But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not. any questions?

One last time, since you missed it. The two things, being a better all-surfaces player and being dominated by a peer who happens to be one of the best on clay of all time, are related. That's why Pete dominated his peers. He was never in a position to be dominated by them because he wasn't good enough on all surfaces. Pretty painful discussing this with you, but I didn't really expect you to be rational where Sampras is concerned, so I'm not really sure why I tried. :???:

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 07:25 PM
So Schaller and Delgado represent tougher competition than the players Federer has beaten over the past five years (Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick, etc.)?

i am sure i can find a few no-names too.

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 07:26 PM
Pete Sampras played inferior competition..he never won at roland garros-thats a fact. Nadal is a once in a lifetime player,like Fed..You cannot say that anybody in Petes era had anything on Nadal. You are again missing the point..Federer has done more in the history books than Sampras ever did. Federer's accomplishments are regarded a lot higher than Sampras's because Sampras was 31 when he won his 14th slam. Federer is only 27. You see, Federer holds the record of aPPEARING in last 15 of 16 slam finals. Thats dominating his peers, Sampras never accomplished anything like that.

i may need someone to translate...:confused:

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 07:27 PM
Please do not let facts come in the way of your blind fanboyism. I got a good laugh out of this :)

Do you honestly believe that Pete dominated more than Fed? Then why is it that in his best year he recorded 16 losses, while Fed only recorded 4. Oh wait, it is the weak competition in Fed's era. But if the competition was weak, and fed dominated them more than sampras dominated his competition, how could "But Pete dominated his peers while Fed did not" be true?? :confused: <head spinning>

no one dominated pete..nadal owns fed...odd you still don't get it.:confused:

Azzurri
06-08-2009, 07:28 PM
One last time, since you missed it. The two things, being a better all-surfaces player and being dominated by a peer who happens to be one of the best on clay of all time, are related. That's why Pete dominated his peers. He was never in a position to be dominated by them because he wasn't good enough on all surfaces. Pretty painful discussing this with you, but I didn't really expect you to be rational where Sampras is concerned, so I'm not really sure why I tried. :???:

thanks for your input.:)

obsessedtennisfandisorder
06-08-2009, 08:05 PM
Azzuri has a point, I'm ok with fed getting beaten on clay by nadal..but
there's no question nadal recent defeats of federer off clay must be a
knock on fed's legacy.....sure I know some poster will bring up Korda,krajicek
safin hewitt etc but in the biggest stages pete generally got the better of boris and andre, and Jimmy.......

OK, now I'll get falmed for discrediting fed's roland win..but the point i'm
making is that things are going to get interesting off clay if fed and nadl meet again.

still alot to happen in the future I think...

If fed can get another win over nadal somewhere, say USOpen, he'll get
less posters on his case about that head to head currently 6-2 to rafa

vbranis
06-08-2009, 08:28 PM
Every great player had troubles against certain opponents, not just Federer. Sampras had a losing record to Stich and Krajicek. Connors was 11-13 against Nastase. Yet who was the better player?

The point is that Federer has a career slam, and (will have) more Slams than Sampras. It's that simple. We could go on and on comparing the competition of different eras, which IMO is impossible. Numbers are all we are able to compare, and Fed's numbers are better. Period.

MichaelH
06-08-2009, 09:02 PM
Every great player had troubles against certain opponents, not just Federer. Sampras had a losing record to Stich and Krajicek. Connors was 11-13 against Nastase. Yet who was the better player?

The point is that Federer has a career slam, and (will have) more Slams than Sampras. It's that simple. We could go on and on comparing the competition of different eras, which IMO is impossible. Numbers are all we are able to compare, and Fed's numbers are better. Period.Sure, his numbers are (will be) better, but the problem is still that a scientific comparison can't be made between the decades in which they played. If numbers are the only thing in play, here, one has to go back to Laver and try to factor in the years in which he wasn't able to record "grand slam" wins due to the restrictions on professionals. For the record, I never did like Sampras much but that doesn't allow me to degrade his performance vis a vis Federer. We'll just have to be grateful for the incredible ability both of them had, in their own time-slots. Also for the record, my fav alltime player still remains Andre. He did more for the sport, overall, than either Sampras or Federer.

vbranis
06-08-2009, 09:20 PM
Sure, his numbers are (will be) better, but the problem is still that a scientific comparison can't be made between the decades in which they played. If numbers are the only thing in play, here, one has to go back to Laver and try to factor in the years in which he wasn't able to record "grand slam" wins due to the restrictions on professionals. For the record, I never did like Sampras much but that doesn't allow me to degrade his performance vis a vis Federer. We'll just have to be grateful for the incredible ability both of them had, in their own time-slots. Also for the record, my fav alltime player still remains Andre. He did more for the sport, overall, than either Sampras or Federer.

Good point, and I agree it is impossible to compare different eras. For example, many players didn't even play the Australian Open because of its distance and scheduling. Impossible to tell how many additional Slams Borg would've had if he played the AO.

380pistol
06-08-2009, 10:05 PM
Oh you know I had to get in this....

FEDERER

2003 Wimbledon - Roddick (who had 4-2 record coming in and has never beat a top 10 player at SW19 to date... in fact the top 20 players he beat were T. Johansson, Schrichapan and Coria), and P'sis (after ACL knee surgery, a Sampras era holdover

2004 Aus Open -Hewitt (who lost in 2003 lost in slams to El Anayoui, Robredo and Karlovic), Feerero (who was fell off after 2003) and Safin... ranked 86th

2004 Wimbldeon Hewitt (the only yop 20 player he beat to his Wim title was that Sampras era holdover... Henman) and Roddick (see above)

2004 US Open - struggled through 5 sets with 34 yr old Dre (a Sampras era holdover), 30 yr old Henman (another Sampras era holdover) and Hewitt

2005 Wimbledon - that dynamic duo Hewitt and Roddick again

2005 US Open -impressively blew threw Nalbandian, Hewitt play him well, but then was caught up in a dog fight with 35 yr broke back, cortizone shot getting, coming of 3 consecutive 5 setters Agassi

2006 Aus Open - 5 sets with Haas, 4 ctough sets with Davydenko, Kiefer, and Baghdatis

2006 Wimbledon - Gasquet (rk 50 - whatever), Henman (Sampras era holdover at 32 this time), Mahut, s Berdych, Ancic, grandpa Bjorkman (yet another Sampras era holdover), and Nadal (in his 4th career grasscourt tourney)

2006 US Open -Blake (who in 16 HC slam appearances has 3 QF to his name), Davydenko and Roddick (who beat 2 top 10 players in his life in HY, gassed Ferrero from the t'storm of 2003, and Berdych???)

2007 Aus Open -Robredo, destroyred Roddick, and Gonzalez (who's impressive slam resume includes 5 QF or ebetter in 33 slam appearances, that's 1 QF evey 6.6 slams a year and half... and one of those QF was the 2002 US Open won by Sampras)

2007 Wimbledon -Ferrero, Gasquet, and Nadal (who choked away break pts at 15-40 and 1-1 and 2-2 in 5th set)

2007 US Open -Roddick (who actuallt played well), Davydenko (again!!!) and Djokovic (I'll just leave that one alone

2008 US Open -best match came vs Djokovic and Murray put up that outstanding 16 winner, 28 unforced error performance in the final

2009 French Open -Haas, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling

Stay tuned for Sampras.....

bakla
06-08-2009, 10:24 PM
If you ask me, the most telling statistic is how many slams played vs how many slams won.

Federer has played 52 slams and won 14 of them.

Sampras has played 64 slams and won 14.

That's a big difference. Federer will have to lose the next 12 straight slams to come back down to Pete's level. That is 3 straight years of losing.

380pistol
06-08-2009, 10:26 PM
SAMPRAS

1990 US Open - at 19 took out #6 Muster, #3 Lendl (who had 8 consecutive US Open finals and was #1 until Aug 1990), McEnroe and #4 Agassi (French finalist and 1988 and 89 US Open SF losing to Lendl)

1993 Wimbledon def. champ Agassi, 3 time Wim champ #4 Becker, and Couireir (who beat 2 time champ and #2 Edberg in SF)

1993 US Open - easy for Pete as upsest opened the draw up, oblitterated Chang in last 2 sets and set aside Pioline (who beat #1 Courier)

1994 Aus Open - eaily beat reigning Rebound Ace king Couier in SF and Martin (who took out #4 Edberg in SF)

1994 Wimbledon - nothing special with Chang (on grass), Martin (who beat Agassi that year, and Ivanisevic (who had claimed Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Sampras on grass at that point played in a F and SF and would add Krajicek, Henman, Rafter and Fed contemporaries Roddick and Safin to his list)... Pete only lost a set and held 103/106 serve games (and 20 of 22 sets he played)

1995 Wimbledon Ivanisevic and Becker.... his 9.71 winner to every unforced error (68 winners to 7 unforced errors), highest ratio in slam final only to McEnroe in open era, and maybe all time (depending on records)

1995 US Open Martin, Courier and peak Agassi

1996 US Open -Ivanisevic and Chang (straight setted top 5 Agassi in SF) both at their best on hardcourts

1997 Aus Open -struggled in middle rds due to heat wave, destroyed top 5 Muster in SF and Moya (who beat def. champ #6 Becker and #2 Chang in SF) in 87 minutes

1997 Wimbledon - a soft draw with Agassi MIA, Rafter not blossomed, Goran... being Goran, but played sublime vs Becker in QF (70 winners, 10 unforced errors) and Pioline (aprrox. 45-50 winners, 8 unforced erors), held serve 116/118 serve games (incl. 97 straight)

1998 Wimbledon - P'sis, Heman, and Ivanisevic, even in his worst Wimbledon still held 116/121 serve games and put up 63 winners, 19 unforced (50 to10 after 1st set) in F

1999 Wimbledon overblown losing opening set to P'sis, that was the 1st he lost to Mark since 1996 (I believe), and blew away Agassi in F

2000 Wimbledon -severly injuerd shin in 2nd rd, was getting injections prior to matches, yet still held 118/123 serve games including last 85 (which he would extend breaking his own record with 118]

2002 US Open -beat #3 haas (at his best before all the injuries), destroyed Roddcic, and Agassi (who beat wire to wire #1 Hewitt in SF)

I won't even talk about the slams Sampras fell short in due to injuries. Take from it what you will, but I believe Sampras' road was harder. It just is what it is. If not just put each in the other's shoes.

bakla
06-08-2009, 10:28 PM
If you ask me, the most telling statistic is how many slams played vs how many slams won.

Federer has played 52 slams and won 14 of them.

Sampras has played 64 slams and won 14.

That's a big difference. Federer will have to lose the next 12 straight slams to come back down to Pete's level. That is 3 straight years of losing.

Woops, that should be 40 slams with 14 wins for Federer and 52 slams with 14 for Sampras. The rest is correct, though.

Cesc Fabregas
06-08-2009, 10:30 PM
SAMPRAS

1990 US Open - at 19 took out #6 Muster, #3 Lendl (who had 8 consecutive US Open finals and was #1 until Aug 1990), McEnroe and #4 Agassi (French finalist and 1988 and 89 US Open SF losing to Lendl)

1993 Wimbledon def. champ Agassi, 3 time Wim champ #4 Becker, and Couireir (who beat 2 time champ and #2 Edberg in SF)

1993 US Open - easy for Pete as upsest opened the draw up, oblitterated Chang in last 2 sets and set aside Pioline (who beat #1 Courier)

1994 Aus Open - eaily beat reigning Rebound Ace king Couier in SF and Martin (who took out #4 Edberg in SF)

1994 Wimbledon - nothing special with Chang (on grass), Martin (who beat Agassi that year, and Ivanisevic (who had claimed Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Sampras on grass at that point played in a F and SF and would add Krajicek, Henman, Rafter and Fed contemporaries Roddick and Safin to his list)... Pete only lost a set and held 103/106 serve games (and 20 of 22 sets he played)

1995 Wimbledon Ivanisevic and Becker.... his 9.71 winner to every unforced error (68 winners to 7 unforced errors), highest ratio in slam final only to McEnroe in open era, and maybe all time (depending on records)

1995 US Open Martin, Courier and peak Agassi

1996 US Open -Ivanisevic and Chang (straight setted top 5 Agassi in SF) both at their best on hardcourts

1997 Aus Open -struggled in middle rds due to heat wave, destroyed top 5 Muster in SF and Moya (who beat def. champ #6 Becker and #2 Chang in SF) in 87 minutes

1997 Wimbledon - a soft draw with Agassi MIA, Rafter not blossomed, Goran... being Goran, but played sublime vs Becker in QF (70 winners, 10 unforced errors) and Pioline (aprrox. 45-50 winners, 8 unforced erors), held serve 116/118 serve games (incl. 97 straight)

1998 Wimbledon - P'sis, Heman, and Ivanisevic, even in his worst Wimbledon still held 116/121 serve games and put up 63 winners, 19 unforced (50 to10 after 1st set) in F

1999 Wimbledon overblown losing opening set to P'sis, that was the 1st he lost to Mark since 1996 (I believe), and blew away Agassi in F

2000 Wimbledon -severly injuerd shin in 2nd rd, was getting injections prior to matches, yet still held 118/123 serve games including last 85 (which he would extend breaking his own record with 118]

2002 US Open -beat #3 haas (at his best before all the injuries), destroyed Roddcic, and Agassi (who beat wire to wire #1 Hewitt in SF)

I won't even talk about the slams Sampras fell short in due to injuries. Take from it what you will, but I believe Sampras' road was harder. It just is what it is. If not just put each in the other's shoes.

Good post.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:39 PM
The way Nadal was playing this year at RG. Muster, Courier or Bruguera would have demolished Rafa no problem. Possibly even Agassi as well. Nadal did not look good at all. Obviously he is far from 100 percent. It showed too.

Didn't look like it when he demolished Hewitt and who won only 5 games. Nadal actaully looked like FO 08 Nadal right there. That made the Soderling upset even more shocking.

cork_screw
06-08-2009, 10:53 PM
You're right. Budge had something like 14 grandslams, and so did Pancho, and Laver, right? So they're all on even ground with pete right? Most of those guys were playing in a different era, wood racquets. You need to start comparing guys in the modern era of tennis, pete is the closest one in the modern era of tennis and he holds the record for GS's. Also when you start comparing people who played with wood vs. graphite why not say that grass and clay are the same and the players who win clay should be compared to a grass experts. During the woodie period people were hitting 60-80 mph serves, slow enough that you could serve and volley; and make a killing doing so and not worry so much about a 100 mph + passing shot . Now we have different racquets and strings. You can't compare old school tennis with modern tennis. That's why he didn't use those names you mentioned, and did they win 14 grandslams? This is also why we don't compare NASCAR racing to steam engine buggie races during the turn of the century because they are DIFFERENT.

Good logic

Its funny... Who is Fed ALWAYS being compared to by most everyone? Not Pancho, Not Budge, Not Laver, Not Rosewall.. But Sampras!!!

Even though Laver is highly regarded as the GOAT, (and still is by most) why is it Fed is always being compared to Pete?



Btw.. Are u taking Pete's injury into account against Yzaga? Yea thought not. Another federphile trying to **** me off

cork_screw
06-08-2009, 10:59 PM
Yeah I guess you're right, sampras just played against some no names like Borg, Becker, Agassi, Chang, Connors, and Courier. Where's the challenge?

You are right. I would list Pete somewhere on my list of best players of all time in the 4-7 range. Sampras played in a weak era, and therefore flourished..when he ran into clay court specialists, he didnt fare well.

cork_screw
06-08-2009, 11:07 PM
Australian open wasn't that long ago. Djokovic isn't a cakewalk. If he lost to him it's not considered a serious upset, he's a quality player. Losing a few matches doesn't mean you're falling apart, and he's won all the clay court matches except for Madrid. That's not bad at all. And "A player he used to destroy" (soderling), Nadal destroyed him the tournament before just a few weeks before Roland Garros. I wouldn't say nadal is in bad shape, he might not have played an inspired match, but he's still a fantastic player and still dominates, even with his bad knees.

Soderling probably didn't "impress" you because fed is a bad match up against him. Fed is 10-0 against him and couldn't really hit all out because fed was mixing the game around and throwing a lot of junk. Did you see how many times he drop shot him? It doesn't make soderling a bad player, it just is a bad match up. Did you see soderling vs. Gonzalez? He was hitting out of his mind. It's not as black and white as you make it seem.

Ehhh.. nadal has not been "Nadalesque" since the Australian Open I think. I still believe that slam took a bit of starch out of him. He narrowly escape Djoker a few weeks ago and was taken out by Soderling? A player he used to destroy? Thats not the Nadal on clay I know. Hes playing too much tennis and not focusing on smarter scheduling and its caught up with him obviously. Taken out before the quarterfinals? And what I saw of Soderling today, didnt impress me one bit. Horrible serving with crappy movement and terrible return of serve

cork_screw
06-08-2009, 11:14 PM
Was safin ranked 86th when they played in aussie open 05 ??? I don't think so.

You are trying hard to to subject your love of pete where it screws with actual facts.


Lets go through Federer's slam wins

1. Old past him prime Philippoussis who was part of the Sampras era.
2. 86 ranked Safin.
3. Roddick.
4. Hewitt.
5. Roddick.
6. Old 35 broke back Andre who had played 3 5 setters in a row and was 4-2 up in the 3rd set.
7. Unseeded Baghdatis who had played 3 5 set matches before the final and was leading Federer a set and a break before running out of gas.
8. Young Nadal playing in his 4th grass court tournament of his life.
9. Roddick.
10. Gonzalez playing in his first and only slam final.
11. Nadal who had played 5 days in a row and he bust his knee at the end of the 4th set and blew 4 break points in the 5th.
12. Djokovic playing in his 1st slam final who blew 3 sets points in the 1st set and a 4-1 lead in the 2nd.
13. Murray playing in his 1st slam final and had to play 2 days in a row against Nadal whilst Federer had the Sunday off.
14. Soderling playing in his 1st slam final and before had never been past the 3rd round of a slam.

Yeah Federer's competition was great.

prosealster
06-08-2009, 11:43 PM
Yeah I guess you're right, sampras just played against some no names like Borg, Becker, Agassi, Chang, Connors, and Courier. Where's the challenge?

sampras played against borg?? didnt know that....and i dont think we can put connors on that list since he was already 40 at the time

prosealster
06-08-2009, 11:50 PM
some of u guys are citing the fed nadal h2h as an argument that sampras is superior to fed??? how is that an argument....sure i can see why people want to use that against fed for GOAT, but for fed and sampras comparison...nad's h2h shouldnt come into it at all, unless pete played nadal as well.... since pete never played nad, for all we know, he might lose to nad every single time...since the accomplishment of fed can be argued to be better than pete, so by bring nad into the discussion...are we saying nad>fed>pete (this might actually be true by the time nad is done...we just dont know)

since some of u think h2h is that important, disregarding surface, relative prime etc etc... then i guess the real answer is here :)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?player1=Sampras%2C+Pete&player2=federer

FlamEnemY
06-08-2009, 11:53 PM
You know, winning a slam doesn't consist in only winning the final...

TennisFan481
06-09-2009, 12:54 AM
Federer's 2006 Wimbledon draw was incredibly difficult. Any time you have to play Gasquet and Henman in the first 2 rounds, and then Berdych and Ancic in the 4th round and QFs, you have pretty much the toughest grass court draw imaginable. Bjorkman in the SFs was pretty much a reprieve, but at that point, anyone who comes through a draw that far has been playing exceptionally brilliant tennis and has a lot of momentum (though Bjorkman's age kind of cancelled that out). Even Mahut in the 3rd round was a dangerous "floater" (big serve guy).

And what did Federer do? STEAMROLL the competition, not dropping a set (big serving Mahut was the only one to even take him to a tie break until Nadal in the final). Federer played absolutely breathtaking tennis, hitting every shot in the book with perfection.

I think that was Federer's best tournament ever (I know some would give that distinction to AO 07 because he didn't drop even 1 set in that one, but I found his play to be more impressive in Wimbledon 06).

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 03:17 AM
Azzuri has a point, I'm ok with fed getting beaten on clay by nadal..but
there's no question nadal recent defeats of federer off clay must be a
knock on fed's legacy.....sure I know some poster will bring up Korda,krajicek
safin hewitt etc but in the biggest stages pete generally got the better of boris and andre, and Jimmy.......

OK, now I'll get falmed for discrediting fed's roland win..but the point i'm
making is that things are going to get interesting off clay if fed and nadl meet again.

still alot to happen in the future I think...

If fed can get another win over nadal somewhere, say USOpen, he'll get
less posters on his case about that head to head currently 6-2 to rafa

yes, Fed needs to beat Nadal at a major. Nadal has a 5-2 edge on him and not a single GOAT era player had that type of losing record (Tilden, Laver, Borg, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Sampras) against any peer in majors and h2h. Its too important to dismiss.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 03:22 AM
Every great player had troubles against certain opponents, not just Federer. Sampras had a losing record to Stich and Krajicek. Connors was 11-13 against Nastase. Yet who was the better player?

The point is that Federer has a career slam, and (will have) more Slams than Sampras. It's that simple. We could go on and on comparing the competition of different eras, which IMO is impossible. Numbers are all we are able to compare, and Fed's numbers are better. Period.

while your statement is true, you still missed the point. Fed has MAJOR trouble with one guy and that guy has beaten him in 5 slams. That one guy also has a much better h2h record. None of the "troubles" Pete had were of this magnitude. NO ONE owned Pete...I am also thinking comapring era's has nothing to do with the fact that Pete had no one that was at his level, while Fed does and this guy owns him.

Fed's #'s are better, but that does not make him the better player. Hank Aaron hit more HR than Ruth...no way Aaron can touch Ruth. Ruth was a monster in his day and he had NO one in his league (hitting HR's). But the record shows HA as the greatest HR hitter...not true.

thejoe
06-09-2009, 03:23 AM
Roger has had to deal with Rafa. But outside of a Rafa, has Roger had to overcome anyone on Bruguera's, Muster's, Courier's, Andre's level on clay? No he hasnt.t Especially this year. He played guys at RG this year that couldnt whipe Sergi Bruguera's jockstrap on clay.

I dont believe the depth today on clay is anywhere near the depth today as it was in Pete's era. Not even remotely close.

I think you're seriously overrating the clay court opposition. I don't know how you can't see that Courier and Agassi just weren't as great as you think on clay.

thejoe
06-09-2009, 03:24 AM
yes, Fed needs to beat Nadal at a major. Nadal has a 5-2 edge on him and not a single GOAT era player had that type of losing record (Tilden, Laver, Borg, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Sampras) against any peer in majors and h2h. Its too important to dismiss.

But Lendl's pitiful grand slam final rate is easy to dismiss?

Cesc Fabregas
06-09-2009, 03:26 AM
I think you're seriously overrating the clay court opposition. I don't know how you can't see that Courier and Agassi just weren't as great as you think on clay.

Andre is about Federer's level on clay maybe a touch lower but Courier was a beast better clay courter than Federer and anyone else in this era apart from Nadal.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 03:26 AM
some of u guys are citing the fed nadal h2h as an argument that sampras is superior to fed??? how is that an argument....sure i can see why people want to use that against fed for GOAT, but for fed and sampras comparison...nad's h2h shouldnt come into it at all, unless pete played nadal as well.... since pete never played nad, for all we know, he might lose to nad every single time...since the accomplishment of fed can be argued to be better than pete, so by bring nad into the discussion...are we saying nad>fed>pete (this might actually be true by the time nad is done...we just dont know)

since some of u think h2h is that important, disregarding surface, relative prime etc etc... then i guess the real answer is here :)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?player1=Sampras%2C+Pete&player2=federer

I clearly stated that Fed is the better all-surface player. odd how you then make the Pete vs. Nadal comparison...you are obviosuly a kid since you cannot make a solid arguement nor can you read/recall information.:neutral:

thejoe
06-09-2009, 03:31 AM
Andre is about Federer's level on clay maybe a touch lower but Courier was a beast better clay courter than Federer and anyone else in this era apart from Nadal.

IMO Federer is way, way above Agassi and still above Courier.

flying24
06-09-2009, 03:34 AM
Andre is about Federer's level on clay maybe a touch lower but Courier was a beast better clay courter than Federer and anyone else in this era apart from Nadal.

Compared to the best clay courters of the 90s I would rater peak Courier, peak Muster, and peak Kuerten ahead of Federer. I would rate Federer about even with peak Bruguera. I would rate Agassi, Moya, or Kafelnikov below Federer on clay without hesitation. However Courier and Muster never had anywhere near as long a near top level on clay as Federer. They only lasted 2-3 years at that level. Federer has already lasted around 5 years at that level. That is a big difference. Even if Federer was the same age he would end up with winning records over both on clay for that reason IMO.

vtmike
06-09-2009, 04:05 AM
yes, Fed needs to beat Nadal at a major. Nadal has a 5-2 edge on him and not a single GOAT era player had that type of losing record (Tilden, Laver, Borg, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Sampras) against any peer in majors and h2h. Its too important to dismiss.

Yes but you cannot disregard the fact that Nadal has always been a bad match-up for Federer's game and is 4 years younger than Fed...I think these are important factors too...

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 05:54 AM
IMO Federer is way, way above Agassi and still above Courier.

way, way?? I can only assume you never watched Andre and Courier play. This has to be the least competitive clay era ever. Andre and Jim played with some tough CC specialists and won the FO. Agassi also made it to 3 finals. to say "way, way" only shows how little you know about tennis.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 05:57 AM
Yes but you cannot disregard the fact that Nadal has always been a bad match-up for Federer's game and is 4 years younger than Fed...I think these are important factors too...

4 years...that only makes it worse. a very young Nadal was taking it to Fed then. you just made things worse. A top level Fed could not handle a very young player in Nadal...thanks for the extra ammunition.

I agree match-ups do matter, but Nadal has been the #2 and #1 player for years, so he is obviously at Fed's level (I think above).

Match-ups do matter (see Sampras vs Stich, Kraijek and Hewitt), but none of those guys dominated like Nadal does..so its more than a simple match-up.

you guys are too easy...

abmk
06-09-2009, 06:53 AM
2003 Wimbledon - Roddick (who had 4-2 record coming in and has never beat a top 10 player at SW19 to date... in fact the top 20 players he beat were T. Johansson, Schrichapan and Coria), and P'sis (after ACL knee surgery, a Sampras era holdover

Roddick won queens that year beating agassi along the way
P'sis was playing pretty well in the tournament serving esp. well

2004 Aus Open -Hewitt (who lost in 2003 lost in slams to El Anayoui, Robredo and Karlovic), Feerero (who was fell off after 2003) and Safin... ranked 86th

hewitt - who owned him at that time, beat him in the davis cup previous year

nalbandian - owned him at that time

2004 Wimbldeon Hewitt (the only yop 20 player he beat to his Wim title was that Sampras era holdover... Henman) and Roddick (see above)

roddick who played pretty well in the finals

2004 US Open - struggled through 5 sets with 34 yr old Dre (a Sampras era holdover), 30 yr old Henman (another Sampras era holdover) and Hewitt

blew away hewitt who hadn't lost a set till the finals

2007 Aus Open -Robredo, destroyred Roddick, and Gonzalez (who's impressive slam resume includes 5 QF or ebetter in 33 slam appearances, that's 1 QF evey 6.6 slams a year and half... and one of those QF was the 2002 US Open won by Sampras)

gonzalez was on fire that aussie open and put up a near flawless performance against haas in the SF, but hey why would you care ?

2007 Wimbledon -Ferrero, Gasquet, and Nadal (who choked away break pts at 15-40 and 1-1 and 2-2 in 5th set)

outtoughed nadal mentally, clutch play


2009 French Open -Haas, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling

haas played pretty well and del potro was real good ,blew away soderling in the finals ....


Just showing the way you under-mine fed, pete had the tougher path in his wins , but you wayyyyyy overblow it ....

Also no path is "easy" in a slam --> latest example ( rafael nadal found out when he met soderling in this years FO ) .. its all relative ! Fed's 20 consec. slam semis is a great achivement considering all this .

abmk
06-09-2009, 07:00 AM
4 years...that only makes it worse. a very young Nadal was taking it to Fed then. you just made things worse. A top level Fed could not handle a very young player in Nadal...thanks for the extra ammunition.

Prime fed ( 2k4-2k7) was 5-2 outside clay against nadal ..

abmk
06-09-2009, 07:08 AM
I agree with obssessedtennisfandisorder, fed needs to get atleast win against nadal in a slam

abmk
06-09-2009, 07:11 AM
Was safin ranked 86th when they played in aussie open 05 ??? I don't think so.

You are trying hard to to subject your love of pete where it screws with actual facts.

that was aussie open 2004 ....

abmk
06-09-2009, 07:16 AM
while your statement is true, you still missed the point. Fed has MAJOR trouble with one guy and that guy has beaten him in 5 slams. That one guy also has a much better h2h record. None of the "troubles" Pete had were of this magnitude. NO ONE owned Pete...I am also thinking comapring era's has nothing to do with the fact that Pete had no one that was at his level, while Fed does and this guy owns him.



6 slams actually ... but outside clay its 2-2

you are also under-estimating the mental aspect in tennis ; those wins of nadal on clay would've taken their toll on fed mentally

pete didn't have to deal with that, meeting with his rivals mainly on his "non-worst" surfaces ( grass,decoturf and rebound ace in that order )

vbranis
06-09-2009, 08:45 AM
6 slams actually ... but outside clay its 2-2

you are also under-estimating the mental aspect in tennis ; those wins of nadal on clay would've taken their toll on fed mentally

pete didn't have to deal with that, meeting with his rivals mainly on his "non-worst" surfaces ( grass,decoturf and rebound ace in that order )

Well said, remember that Pete often crashed out early on clay, meaning he never got the chance to have a bad H2H record against some top clay-courters. He was playing them on hard and grass, and obviously winning. Fed, OTOH, had to play Nadal more times on clay than on any other surface because he consistently made it to the finals. Nadal himself crashed out early at some of the hard-court events, taking away some Fed opportunities for a win, which would've made their H2H closer.

morten
06-09-2009, 09:30 AM
as great as Fed is i still think the top 10 the last 10 years has been weaker then the years just before that. The top 100 is better now but then(1985-2000) you had so many great players at the same time, and there was much more variety AND serve and volley players! Players i think are much better than the top players now(apart from Fed and Nadal): Kraijcek, Stich, Rios, Rafter, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi of course, Courier, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Pioline, Forget, Larson...the list goes on, i even think Todd Martin would easily make the top 10 today...

380pistol
06-09-2009, 09:50 AM
Roddick won queens that year beating agassi along the way
P'sis was playing pretty well in the tournament serving esp. well

Is Wimbldeon Queens???
Has Roddick ever beaten a top 10 player at SW19???
Who are the top 20 players he's beaten at SW19???



hewitt - who owned him at that time, beat him in the davis cup previous year

nalbandian - owned him at that time

Hewitt was starting to fall hence he was losing to El Anayoui, Robredo and Karlovi in slams in 2003. He didn't pick it up til mid 2004. He was outside the top 10, and they met as ealy as the 4th rd, and it wasn't as if Hewitt had injuries, or personal problems that dropped his rank. It was his play.

Nalbandian was a good win. Nalbandian has always been more of a nemesis to Roger than a great player.



roddick who played pretty well in the finals

Are we gonna mention that Roddick played almost 3 sets on Saturday, while Roger played a handful of gamesvs Grosjean??

Roddick played well in the 1st half of the match, but again Roddic (see above and answer those 3 questions).



blew away hewitt who hadn't lost a set till the finals

Who the highest seeded player he beat was #30. He played well, but come on, call a psade a spad. Shall we recall Fed's 5 set struggle over 34 yr old Dre in QF, which conspicously failed to address. Or the Sampras era holdover iin the SF (never got this far in Pete's time... ironic isn't it).



gonzalez was on fire that aussie open and put up a near flawless performance against haas in the SF, but hey why would you care ?

He played extremely well against Haas. I can pull a match for damn near any player and say they played flawless on this day.

He beat.....
-Hewitt (who was falling since 2005 US Open, if hadn't fallen already)
-Blake (and his horrendeous career slam record
-Nadal (who not reaching a HC slam SF was par for the course for him then)
-Haas

What has Gonzalez done in slams prior and pist. 5 QF (or better) in 33 career slams. Mighty impressive. Well I guess it's better than Blakes 3 in what 27,28?? Oh look, he beat Blake.



outtoughed nadal mentally, clutch play

Are you serious??? Who was damn near in ters about turning off hawk eye?? Fed was outplayed that day, but he served extremely well.... and also served well in clutch moments, which made the difference. If you watched the match you'd know. His serve carried him to that title.

Shall we talk about Nadal wgho at 15-40 at 1-1 and 2-2 in the 5th failed to put 2nd serves in play???


haas played pretty well and del potro was real good ,blew away soderling in the finals ....

Please?? What does it tell you when Roger played better in Paris in years he didn't win the title??? But produced a very good performance in the final.


Just showing the way you under-mine fed, pete had the tougher path in his wins , but you wayyyyyy overblow it ....

Also no path is "easy" in a slam --> latest example ( rafael nadal found out when he met soderling in this years FO ) .. its all relative ! Fed's 20 consec. slam semis is a great achivement considering all this .

Undermine what, by stating my opinion based on facts?? Read how I summed it up, I said Sampras had a tougher time in his day, but of course to you that's undermining Fed, wayyyyyyyyyy overblowing it. Federerphile in peak form.

Now it's the typical war cry no "easy" roads in slams, but are they all exactly the same?? And should they not be discussed??

380pistol
06-09-2009, 09:51 AM
Prime fed ( 2k4-2k7) was 5-2 outside clay against nadal ..

Was Nadal (2k4-2k7) prime Nadal???

380pistol
06-09-2009, 09:59 AM
as great as Fed is i still think the top 10 the last 10 years has been weaker then the years just before that. The top 100 is better now but then(1985-2000) you had so many great players at the same time, and there was much more variety AND serve and volley players! Players i think are much better than the top players now(apart from Fed and Nadal): Kraijcek, Stich, Rios, Rafter, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi of course, Courier, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Pioline, Forget, Larson...the list goes on, i even think Todd Martin would easily make the top 10 today...


This is true. I've said on many occasions, if Federer were to chang positions with Sampras, Lendl, Norg or Laver, he's still at the top and winning slams. At what pace and what frequency can be debated.

Along with the variety you mentioned, the top level players. With Safin bing as inconsistent as he his, Ferrero MIA after his excellent 2003, you were left with Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal. Many cite the best of Federer as 2004-07, Nadal failed to make HC slam SF during that period. Other than that the top players weren't as strong as thsose from previous eras.

Now the game is deeper down the line. Laver once said he didn;t have to show up during the 1st weeks of slams, but the 2nd week he could see any of Rosewall, Emerson, Necombe, Ashe, Fraser to see the title. Now would he trade those players for Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Baghdatis, Kiefer, Robredo etc., and take Roger's tougher 1st week?? Likely.

It's not a slight against Roger, that's just how it is. I fell if Federer played in Laver's shoes he'd still be #1 and winning slams, but his road would be more difficult than the on he had in this era.

MichaelH
06-09-2009, 10:05 AM
I gotta be impressed with the scholarship so many of you display here. Really good information provided about both players. I'm not at all sure that the number of slams played v number won is too significant, though, since the level of the competition varies from year to year. When Sampras was trying to win the French, for example, he was being ousted with regularity by a long line of great dirt players...including a valid claimant to the title of #1, Thomas Muster.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 10:27 AM
6 slams actually ... but outside clay its 2-2

you are also under-estimating the mental aspect in tennis ; those wins of nadal on clay would've taken their toll on fed mentally

pete didn't have to deal with that, meeting with his rivals mainly on his "non-worst" surfaces ( grass,decoturf and rebound ace in that order )

6?? You mean 3 FO, one W and one AO..that would be 5. Yes, he beat him in the SF a few years back at the FO, but that does not count since we are discussing finals.

The rivals Pete faced that were FO winners and CC specialists he did quite well against. I am not talking about 2-3 matches, but a good 10 or more.

fed_rulz
06-09-2009, 10:32 AM
while your statement is true, you still missed the point. Fed has MAJOR trouble with one guy and that guy has beaten him in 5 slams. That one guy also has a much better h2h record. None of the "troubles" Pete had were of this magnitude. NO ONE owned Pete...I am also thinking comapring era's has nothing to do with the fact that Pete had no one that was at his level, while Fed does and this guy owns him.

Fed's #'s are better, but that does not make him the better player. Hank Aaron hit more HR than Ruth...no way Aaron can touch Ruth. Ruth was a monster in his day and he had NO one in his league (hitting HR's). But the record shows HA as the greatest HR hitter...not true.

You can deny all you want, but it **DOES** make him the better player.

Steve132
06-09-2009, 11:35 AM
I gotta be impressed with the scholarship so many of you display here. Really good information provided about both players. I'm not at all sure that the number of slams played v number won is too significant, though, since the level of the competition varies from year to year. When Sampras was trying to win the French, for example, he was being ousted with regularity by a long line of great dirt players...including a valid claimant to the title of #1, Thomas Muster.

Sampras at his peak (1995 and 1998 respectively) lost to Schaller in the first round and to Delgado in the second round at Roland Garros. Do you consider them to be "great dirt players"?

From 2004 to 2009 Federer lost at Roland Garros only to Kuerten (once) and Nadal (four times). His record against all other players over this period is 32-0.

Tell me again, who faced the tougher clay court competition?

380pistol
06-09-2009, 12:02 PM
Sampras at his peak (1995 and 1998 respectively) lost to Schaller in the first round and to Delgado in the second round at Roland Garros. Do you consider them to be "great dirt players"?

From 2004 to 2009 Federer lost at Roland Garros only to Kuerten (once) and Nadal (four times). His record against all other players over this period is 32-0.

Tell me again, who faced the tougher clay court competition?

Sampras QF (or potential opp.) in Paris.....
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Bruguera
1994 - Courier
1995 - Bruguera (potentially)
1996 - Courier (after getting passed Bruguera)
1997 - Dewulf (potentially, but would have had the Guga Kafelnikov winner in SF and Bruguera in F)
1998 - Muster (potentially, then Moya the eventual champ in SF)

Federer QF (or potential opp.) in Paris.....
2004 - Nalbandian
2005 - Hanescu
2006 - Ancic
2007 - Robredo (Davidenko in SF)
2008 - Gonzalez (Monfils in SF)
2009 - Monfils


Sampras lost to Schaller and Delgago. Federer lost to Bo Jackson hipped Kuerten and was down a set and 2 breaks to Nalbandian in 2006 SF (6-3,3-0 before David got hurt). So your point would be???

Who's road was harder???

thejoe
06-09-2009, 12:10 PM
way, way?? I can only assume you never watched Andre and Courier play. This has to be the least competitive clay era ever. Andre and Jim played with some tough CC specialists and won the FO. Agassi also made it to 3 finals. to say "way, way" only shows how little you know about tennis.

Federer is a much better clay courter than Agassi. End of.

fed_rulz
06-09-2009, 12:49 PM
Sampras QF (or potential opp.) in Paris.....
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Bruguera
1994 - Courier
1995 - Bruguera (potentially)
1996 - Courier (after getting passed Bruguera)
1997 - Dewulf (potentially, but would have had the Guga Kafelnikov winner in SF and Bruguera in F)
1998 - Muster (potentially, then Moya the eventual champ in SF)

Federer QF (or potential opp.) in Paris.....
2004 - Nalbandian
2005 - Hanescu
2006 - Ancic
2007 - Robredo (Davidenko in SF)
2008 - Gonzalez (Monfils in SF)
2009 - Monfils


Sampras lost to Schaller and Delgago. Federer lost to Bo Jackson hipped Kuerten and was down a set and 2 breaks to Nalbandian in 2006 SF (6-3,3-0 before David got hurt). So your point would be???

Who's road was harder???

I think the Steve132 is trying to point out that Sampras did not always lose to great dirt ballers, while Federer since his dominance began, always lost to the top gun(s). That's all.

OTOH, What exactly are you arguing? You show two lists:
List 1: A (Sampras) Vs B (his opposition) and
List 2: C (Federer) Vs. D (his opposition)

and you want to argue that A had a tougher time in beating B, when compared to C Vs. D. If that were true, then A - B differential in terms of playing ability is negative, while C - D is positive. That's all it says. It does not tell anything about B - D or A - C.

Care to elaborate on your rationale?

herosol
06-09-2009, 01:07 PM
I agree with obssessedtennisfandisorder, fed needs to get atleast win against nadal in a slam

are you an idiot? no no my apologies. you are an idiot.

Fed has beaten Nadal in two Wimbledon finals.

I love how people compare the records. Nadal is so much younger then Fed not in number but how just 2-3 years is such a big difference in professional tennis. They are almost in different "eras" cause in two years its possible that Fed will no longer be high in the ranking, or possibly retire.

Steve132
06-09-2009, 01:47 PM
Sampras QF (or potential opp.) in Paris.....
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Bruguera
1994 - Courier
1995 - Bruguera (potentially)
1996 - Courier (after getting passed Bruguera)
1997 - Dewulf (potentially, but would have had the Guga Kafelnikov winner in SF and Bruguera in F)
1998 - Muster (potentially, then Moya the eventual champ in SF)

Federer QF (or potential opp.) in Paris.....
2004 - Nalbandian
2005 - Hanescu
2006 - Ancic
2007 - Robredo (Davidenko in SF)
2008 - Gonzalez (Monfils in SF)
2009 - Monfils


Sampras lost to Schaller and Delgago. Federer lost to Bo Jackson hipped Kuerten and was down a set and 2 breaks to Nalbandian in 2006 SF (6-3,3-0 before David got hurt). So your point would be???

Who's road was harder???

The identity of a player's "potential quarter final opponents" does not matter in the slightest. What matters is whom the player actually met in a tournament and what the results of those matches were. All too often Sampras fans present Lists of Great Names of players who are supposed to constitute "tough competition" without discussing whether Sampras actually faced these players.

The fact is that during the six years in which he ended as world No. 1 Sampras failed to reach even the quarter finals at Roland Garros on three occasions. He won only one of his three quarter final matches, and was then promptly beaten in straight sets by Kafelnikov, a good but not great clay court player.

The highest ranked player that Sampras ever defeated at RG was Courier (no. 8 in 1996). The highest ranked players that he ever met were Courier and Kafelnikov (ranked no.7 in 1994 and 1996 respectively). Sampras lost both matches.

That is not an especially impressive resume. It is not as though Sampras was regularly facing the clay court elite on his trips to Roland Garros. He usually lost before he could meet them.

Kuerten, a three time French Open champion, was ranked no. 30 in the world when he defeated Federer in 2004. Norman and Delgado were ranked at 65 and 97 when they defeated Sampras in 1997 and 1998 respectively. I think that most ATP players would have preferred to face "Bo Jackson hipped Kuerten" rather than the Delgado of 1998.

In all Slams played between 1994 and 1998 Sampras lost to Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado and Rafter.

In Slams played between 2004 and 2008 Federer lost only to Kuerten, Safin, Nadal (six times) and Djokovic - all Slam winners.

Federer is the only player, male or female, amateur or Open eras, to have won 11 Slams in a four year period. He holds the all-time male record of reaching 10 consecutive Slam finals, and the all-time record of reaching 20 consecutive Slam semi-finals. Sampras never reached the semi finals of any major for five years in a row - much less doing so for all four in the same period, as Federer has done.

These comparisons do not favor Sampras. You need to do better in order to maintain his GOAT claims.

Conquistador
06-09-2009, 01:58 PM
6?? You mean 3 FO, one W and one AO..that would be 5. Yes, he beat him in the SF a few years back at the FO, but that does not count since we are discussing finals.

The rivals Pete faced that were FO winners and CC specialists he did quite well against. I am not talking about 2-3 matches, but a good 10 or more.

Federer played much better clay court specialists than Sampras. Look at the rivals. Sampras never did much at Roland Garros. You look at his resume and don't see a final appearance, and that says that he just wasn't good enough to be in the GOAT discussion. IMO Agassi has a strong argument for having a better career than Sampras did. Winning the Grand Slam means that you excelled on 3 of 3 surfaces. Sampras's career was 2 for 3 and half of his slam wins came on grass and the other half on hardcourts. When you break down everything, all 3 surfaces matter equally. Winning on clay to me is extremely hard to do for people like Federer and Sampras, and thats what makes Federer the best ever.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 03:49 PM
You can deny all you want, but it **DOES** make him the better player.

Thank you for the opinion, but I disagree with it. So hank Aaron is a greater HR hitter than Babe Ruth..according to your logic.:rolleyes:

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 03:51 PM
Federer is a much better clay courter than Agassi. End of.

Thnaks for your opinion..I disagree. Fed is not better. I would rate them about even..IMO.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 03:55 PM
are you an idiot? no no my apologies. you are an idiot.

Fed has beaten Nadal in two Wimbledon finals.

I love how people compare the records. Nadal is so much younger then Fed not in number but how just 2-3 years is such a big difference in professional tennis. They are almost in different "eras" cause in two years its possible that Fed will no longer be high in the ranking, or possibly retire.

odd how someone that completely missed the point calls someone else an idiot.

let me help you; Nadal, in recent times, has owned Fed in the majors (since he has now beaten him at W and the AO) and with all the "backlash" as to Fed maybe not being the GOAT because Nadal owns him, needs to beat Nadal at a major or two to solidify he is the best player in his generation in the near future. he is not taking away's Fed prior wins, but he has been owned by Nadal. If they never play again, Nadal owned him...no question.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 03:57 PM
Federer played much better clay court specialists than Sampras. Look at the rivals. Sampras never did much at Roland Garros. You look at his resume and don't see a final appearance, and that says that he just wasn't good enough to be in the GOAT discussion. IMO Agassi has a strong argument for having a better career than Sampras did. Winning the Grand Slam means that you excelled on 3 of 3 surfaces. Sampras's career was 2 for 3 and half of his slam wins came on grass and the other half on hardcourts. When you break down everything, all 3 surfaces matter equally. Winning on clay to me is extremely hard to do for people like Federer and Sampras, and thats what makes Federer the best ever.

This is exactly why you are the biggest joke on this board. Thank you for the new signature.

fed_rulz
06-09-2009, 04:33 PM
Thank you for the opinion, but I disagree with it. So hank Aaron is a greater HR hitter than Babe Ruth..according to your logic.:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I do not know who Aaron or Babe Ruth are. As far as numbers go, Pete's career and Fed's career are exactly 10 years apart, and are very similar in many aspects - in fact their careers had some intersection, and their wimby match kind of signified passing of the torch. So it makes comparing them easier

1. Do you agree that accomplishments-wise, Fed has surpassed Pete by winning the FO? I'd like to hear your reasons if you think otherwise.

2. Fed's h2h with nadal should have no bearing on his achievements. When talking about greatness, you compare achievements, not tennis skill. As of now, Nadal may have Fed's number because some of his "skills" overshadow Fed's; but unless Nadal equals Fed's achievements, he will not be part of the GOAT conversation. The h2h should be considered only when it comes to nadal vs fed for the GOAT discussion (h2h used as a tiebreaker). I'm sorry, that's the way I see it. I'd like your reasoning on that too.

3. If you insist on knocking Fed's competition, I'd like to hear your rationale based on facts/data, and not merely your opinions and visual conclusions.

clayman2000
06-09-2009, 04:43 PM
This is exactly why you are the biggest joke on this board. Thank you for the new signature.

So true......

How can Agassi's 8 slams over a longer career beat Sampras' 14....

Dont get me wrong Andre is one the the all time greats, but Pete was better

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 05:38 PM
I'm sorry, I do not know who Aaron or Babe Ruth are. As far as numbers go, Pete's career and Fed's career are exactly 10 years apart, and are very similar in many aspects - in fact their careers had some intersection, and their wimby match kind of signified passing of the torch. So it makes comparing them easier

1. Do you agree that accomplishments-wise, Fed has surpassed Pete by winning the FO? I'd like to hear your reasons if you think otherwise.

2. Fed's h2h with nadal should have no bearing on his achievements. When talking about greatness, you compare achievements, not tennis skill. As of now, Nadal may have Fed's number because some of his "skills" overshadow Fed's; but unless Nadal equals Fed's achievements, he will not be part of the GOAT conversation. The h2h should be considered only when it comes to nadal vs fed for the GOAT discussion (h2h used as a tiebreaker). I'm sorry, that's the way I see it. I'd like your reasoning on that too.

3. If you insist on knocking Fed's competition, I'd like to hear your rationale based on facts/data, and not merely your opinions and visual conclusions.

1. yes

2. No one dominated Pete, yet Fed is owned by nadal..figure it out

3. disagree with you completely on #3.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 05:39 PM
So true......

How can Agassi's 8 slams over a longer career beat Sampras' 14....

Dont get me wrong Andre is one the the all time greats, but Pete was better

I was a bigger, longer fan of Agassi's then Pete so i say this without subjectivity..Pete is heads above Andre.

abmk
06-09-2009, 06:05 PM
Is Wimbldeon Queens???
Has Roddick ever beaten a top 10 player at SW19???
Who are the top 20 players he's beaten at SW19???

Why consider only SW19 record at that point of time ? Roddick won Queens , grass-court event , which means he was good on that surface by that time and in good form coming into the tournament ...

Who the highest seeded player he beat was #30. He played well, but come on, call a psade a spad. Shall we recall Fed's 5 set struggle over 34 yr old Dre in QF, which conspicously failed to address. Or the Sampras era holdover iin the SF (never got this far in Pete's time... ironic isn't it).

I thought the fed-andre match was discussed and done to death already .... Hewitt didn't face any top player till the finals, I agree, but he was in pretty good form going into the finals, that's what his run to the finals indicated ....


He played extremely well against Haas. I can pull a match for damn near any player and say they played flawless on this day.

He beat.....
-Hewitt (who was falling since 2005 US Open, if hadn't fallen already)
-Blake (and his horrendeous career slam record
-Nadal (who not reaching a HC slam SF was par for the course for him then)
-Haas

What has Gonzalez done in slams prior and pist. 5 QF (or better) in 33 career slams. Mighty impressive. Well I guess it's better than Blakes 3 in what 27,28?? Oh look, he beat Blake.


I was discussing his form in that tourney ! That's what matters ....... So if fernando verdasco doesn't do well in the future, does it take away anything from his great performance in the AO 2009 ????? Duh !


Are you serious??? Who was damn near in ters about turning off hawk eye?? Fed was outplayed that day, but he served extremely well.... and also served well in clutch moments, which made the difference. If you watched the match you'd know. His serve carried him to that title.

He managed to compose himself ....Fed was outplayed for the first 4 sets , not for the whole match ; he had more points than nadal at the end of the match ... And I agree, his serve bailed him out

Shall we talk about Nadal wgho at 15-40 at 1-1 and 2-2 in the 5th failed to put 2nd serves in play???

I already know your so called definition of "choking" >> I already said I disagree with that .

Please?? What does it tell you when Roger played better in Paris in years he didn't win the title??? But produced a very good performance in the final.

He played better in the previous years - esp 2k5,2k6 and 2k7 , but was facing nadal , the best/or 2nd best claycourter ( depending on how you rate borg with respect to him ) of all times and fell short .

How does it change that acusaso played well above his usual level against fed, haas played a very good match and del potro played an excellent one ?

Undermine what, by stating my opinion based on facts?? Read how I summed it up, I said Sampras had a tougher time in his day, but of course to you that's undermining Fed, wayyyyyyyyyy overblowing it. Federerphile in peak form.

Now it's the typical war cry no "easy" roads in slams, but are they all exactly the same?? And should they not be discussed??


Read what I said ... I also agreed sampras had the tougher time . Duh !

I showed some of the ways in which you under-mined fed's paths to the slam victories , as simple as that .. That "wayyyyy" was just added for fun :)

Also I like how you failed to address the 20 consec SFs :twisted:

abmk
06-09-2009, 06:29 PM
6?? You mean 3 FO, one W and one AO..that would be 5. Yes, he beat him in the SF a few years back at the FO, but that does not count since we are discussing finals.

You missed the main point again. The mental aspect of it . Already 2 ppl ( including me mentioned it )

The rivals Pete faced that were FO winners and CC specialists he did quite well against. I am not talking about 2-3 matches, but a good 10 or more.

care to elaborate ???

abmk
06-09-2009, 06:34 PM
Was Nadal (2k4-2k7) prime Nadal???

I didn't say it was ... it was in response to azzurri's statement that fed could not handle a young nadal ... That was to show he handled him alright outside clay ....

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 06:41 PM
You missed the main point again. The mental aspect of it . Already 2 ppl ( including me mentioned it )



care to elaborate ???

mental aspect?

do your own research. I know Pete much better than you.

Azzurri
06-09-2009, 06:42 PM
I didn't say it was ... it was in response to azzurri's statement that fed could not handle a young nadal ... That was to show he handled him alright outside clay ....

so now Fed can't handle a seasoned Nadal..oh yea, Fed has to be GOAT.:rolleyes:

TennisFan481
06-09-2009, 06:46 PM
I don't understand these Sampras dickriding arguments.

Does anyone here HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Sampras played Nadal in several French Open finals that he'd EVER beat him? Seriously?

Sampras wasn't even good enough to get to a French Open final. Tougher clay court era, sure...but losing to guys like Delgado and Schaller suggests that wasn't the reason he wasn't making it deeper. Would Sampras beat Jose Acasuso? I honestly don't think he would. How about Paul-Henri Mathieu? Not unless Mathieu choked. Monfils? Get real.

So Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. And so...why are we bringing this garbage up again?

Nadal "owned him?" He only "owns him" on clay. Their non-clay head-to-head is 5-4 in favor of Federer. In 3 of those 4 Nadal wins, the matches went the distance. Two 5-set Grand Slam finals and a 3 setter at 06 Dubai.

Yeah, that's really "owning." Federer got "owned" 9-7 in the 5th set at Wimbledon last year.

Nadal has lost just 4 times in the past 100-something matches on clay. 2 of them were to Roger Federer. Obviously, though...if PETE SAMPRAS were here...he'd be showing Rafael Nadal a thing or two on clay, yo.

But yeah, what's this Federer talk? Sampras is where it's at, yo. He has 2 AO titles to Federer's 3 and counting. He had 5 US Open titles in his career. Federer has FIVE IN A ROW and counting. He never won the FO. Never even reached a final. Federer has won it. Federer has been in 4 finals. Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles, with 4 in a row being his longest streak. Federer's streak snapped at 5 in a row (and made the record-tying 6th finals appearance in a row), and he's now looking like the favorite to win a 6th total.

Federer has made 20 SFs in a row at the GSs and counting. Sampras' career long? 3. THREE.

Heck, Federer made 10 GS FINALS in a row.

abmk
06-09-2009, 06:47 PM
are you an idiot? no no my apologies. you are an idiot.

Fed has beaten Nadal in two Wimbledon finals.

I love how people compare the records. Nadal is so much younger then Fed not in number but how just 2-3 years is such a big difference in professional tennis. They are almost in different "eras" cause in two years its possible that Fed will no longer be high in the ranking, or possibly retire.

LOL, take a chill pill .... If Fed beats nadal in a slam again, that'll make all his doubters quiet ...

clayman2000
06-09-2009, 06:51 PM
I don't understand these Sampras dickriding arguments.

Does anyone here HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Sampras played Nadal in several French Open finals that he'd EVER beat him? Seriously?

Sampras wasn't even good enough to get to a French Open final. Tougher clay court era, sure...but losing to guys like Delgado and Schaller suggests that wasn't the reason he wasn't making it deeper. Would Sampras beat Jose Acasuso? I honestly don't think he would. How about Paul-Henri Mathieu? Not unless Mathieu choked. Monfils? Get real.

So Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. And so...why are we bringing this garbage up again?

Nadal "owned him?" He only "owns him" on clay. Their non-clay head-to-head is 5-4 in favor of Federer. In 3 of those 4 Nadal wins, the matches went the distance. Two 5-set Grand Slam finals and a 3 setter at 06 Dubai.

Yeah, that's really "owning." Federer got "owned" 9-7 in the 5th set at Wimbledon last year.

Nadal has lost just 4 times in the past 100-something matches on clay. 2 of them were to Roger Federer. Obviously, though...if PETE SAMPRAS were here...he'd be showing Rafael Nadal a thing or two on clay, yo.

But yeah, what's this Federer talk? Sampras is where it's at, yo. He has 2 AO titles to Federer's 3 and counting. He had 5 US Open titles in his career. Federer has FIVE IN A ROW and counting. He never won the FO. Never even reached a final. Federer has won it. Federer has been in 4 finals. Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles, with 4 in a row being his longest streak. Federer's streak snapped at 5 in a row (and made the record-tying 6th finals appearance in a row), and he's now looking like the favorite to win a 6th total.

Federer has made 20 SFs in a row at the GSs and counting. Sampras' career long? 3. THREE.

Heck, Federer made 10 GS FINALS in a row.

Amen........

abmk
06-09-2009, 06:53 PM
so now Fed can't handle a seasoned Nadal..oh yea, Fed has to be GOAT.:rolleyes:

I already said he needs to beat nadal at a slam ..... should try to keep the H2H outside clay in his favour ... but to expect him to change the H2H overall to make it closer would be a tad unreasonable ....

clayman2000
06-09-2009, 06:54 PM
I already said he needs to beat nadal at a slam ..... should try to keep the H2H outside clay in his favour ... but to expect him to change the H2H overall to make it closer would be a tad unreasonable ....

Wimbledon 06 and 07 are slams are they not....

zagor
06-09-2009, 06:55 PM
I don't understand these Sampras dickriding arguments.

Does anyone here HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Sampras played Nadal in several French Open finals that he'd EVER beat him? Seriously?

Sampras wasn't even good enough to get to a French Open final. Tougher clay court era, sure...but losing to guys like Delgado and Schaller suggests that wasn't the reason he wasn't making it deeper. Would Sampras beat Jose Acasuso? I honestly don't think he would. How about Paul-Henri Mathieu? Not unless Mathieu choked. Monfils? Get real.

So Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. And so...why are we bringing this garbage up again?

Nadal "owned him?" He only "owns him" on clay. Their non-clay head-to-head is 5-4 in favor of Federer. In 3 of those 4 Nadal wins, the matches went the distance. Two 5-set Grand Slam finals and a 3 setter at 06 Dubai.

Yeah, that's really "owning." Federer got "owned" 9-7 in the 5th set at Wimbledon last year.

Nadal has lost just 4 times in the past 100-something matches on clay. 2 of them were to Roger Federer. Obviously, though...if PETE SAMPRAS were here...he'd be showing Rafael Nadal a thing or two on clay, yo.

But yeah, what's this Federer talk? Sampras is where it's at, yo. He has 2 AO titles to Federer's 3 and counting. He had 5 US Open titles in his career. Federer has FIVE IN A ROW and counting. He never won the FO. Never even reached a final. Federer has won it. Federer has been in 4 finals. Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles, with 4 in a row being his longest streak. Federer's streak snapped at 5 in a row (and made the record-tying 6th finals appearance in a row), and he's now looking like the favorite to win a 6th total.

Federer has made 20 SFs in a row at the GSs and counting. Sampras' career long? 3. THREE.

Heck, Federer made 10 GS FINALS in a row.

Good analysis on the the advantages Fed has over Sampras at the moment when comparitn their careers but aren't you the guy that said Fed would go down to Monfils and that he isn't talented or something? Why the change of heart?

abmk
06-09-2009, 06:59 PM
mental aspect?

Nadal beating him frequently on clay where they've met the majority of the times taking a mental toll on Fed ....That'd carry over to the other surfaces eventually with fed declining, wouldn't it ? As you decline, those doubts get stronger

abmk
06-09-2009, 07:11 PM
do your own research. I know Pete much better than you.

say what ?????? A 63% winning record on clay , a single RG SF , NO finals, a single CC masters ... That's supposed to impress me ?????

Yes, he's beaten CC specialists ( or those good on clay ) on clay , but you cannot classify that as handling CC specialists well ... H2H with them on clay combined is still negative by some margin

abmk
06-09-2009, 07:45 PM
Wimbledon 06 and 07 are slams are they not....

I mean after nadal has started beating him consistently in slams , esp the ones outside clay ...

Conquistador
06-09-2009, 07:46 PM
This is exactly why you are the biggest joke on this board. Thank you for the new signature.

How many Grand Slams does Sampras have? Tell me. I need to know his record number of Grand Slams, oo wait next year at Roland Garros, Federer will try to capture his 2nd Grand Slam over. Pete never had the luxury of holding one.

sh@de
06-09-2009, 08:17 PM
I don't understand these Sampras dickriding arguments.

Does anyone here HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Sampras played Nadal in several French Open finals that he'd EVER beat him? Seriously?

Sampras wasn't even good enough to get to a French Open final. Tougher clay court era, sure...but losing to guys like Delgado and Schaller suggests that wasn't the reason he wasn't making it deeper. Would Sampras beat Jose Acasuso? I honestly don't think he would. How about Paul-Henri Mathieu? Not unless Mathieu choked. Monfils? Get real.

So Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. And so...why are we bringing this garbage up again?

Nadal "owned him?" He only "owns him" on clay. Their non-clay head-to-head is 5-4 in favor of Federer. In 3 of those 4 Nadal wins, the matches went the distance. Two 5-set Grand Slam finals and a 3 setter at 06 Dubai.

Yeah, that's really "owning." Federer got "owned" 9-7 in the 5th set at Wimbledon last year.

Nadal has lost just 4 times in the past 100-something matches on clay. 2 of them were to Roger Federer. Obviously, though...if PETE SAMPRAS were here...he'd be showing Rafael Nadal a thing or two on clay, yo.

But yeah, what's this Federer talk? Sampras is where it's at, yo. He has 2 AO titles to Federer's 3 and counting. He had 5 US Open titles in his career. Federer has FIVE IN A ROW and counting. He never won the FO. Never even reached a final. Federer has won it. Federer has been in 4 finals. Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles, with 4 in a row being his longest streak. Federer's streak snapped at 5 in a row (and made the record-tying 6th finals appearance in a row), and he's now looking like the favorite to win a 6th total.

Federer has made 20 SFs in a row at the GSs and counting. Sampras' career long? 3. THREE.

Heck, Federer made 10 GS FINALS in a row.

You're a genius... :D.

abmk
06-09-2009, 08:32 PM
to me, federer was better than agassi as a CC even before this year's FO .... This year's FO win puts him clearly above agassi as a CC, achievement wise

as far as courier is concerned, its pretty close b/w him and federer as a CC, IMO

380pistol
06-09-2009, 09:57 PM
I think the Steve132 is trying to point out that Sampras did not always lose to great dirt ballers, while Federer since his dominance began, always lost to the top gun(s). That's all.

OTOH, What exactly are you arguing? You show two lists:
List 1: A (Sampras) Vs B (his opposition) and
List 2: C (Federer) Vs. D (his opposition)

and you want to argue that A had a tougher time in beating B, when compared to C Vs. D. If that were true, then A - B differential in terms of playing ability is negative, while C - D is positive. That's all it says. It does not tell anything about B - D or A - C.

Care to elaborate on your rationale?

My point is the basis used when discussing Sampras/Federer on clay. The genral warcry has been Fed has been in 3 French Open finals and Sampras zero. But it isn't that cut and dry.

During Sampras' prime he would get to the QF and run into Agassi, Courier, Bruguera and Kafelnikov, while on the otherhand Federer has gotten Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo, Gonzalez and Monfils.

Now if we interchanged them Fed (who lost to Bo Jackson hipped Guga, trailed Nalbandian before David got hurt etc.), it's entirely possible he go out at the QF stage. As those players who beat Sampras (92-96) are better than anyone Federer has beaten to see Nadal at RG. On the other hand, I don't see Sampras beating Nadal at RG (well after Soderling anything's possible, but very difficult), but I'm sure he would take his chances with Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo, Gonzalez and Monfils rather than Agassi, Courier, Bruguera and Kafelnikov. Now if he has a couple of French Open final losses to Nadal (let's say just 2), it's Sampras would've won a French Open if not for Nadal", while Fed on the other hand would get to the QF and be in a dogfight.

Why is that never considered? Steve said Federer had it harder at RG than Pete and I disagree. Nadal is upset and the draw opened up. In Pete's era there is no Nadal, but in any year you could see Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Kafelnikov, Kuerten and even Moya.

Yes Sampras had some bad losses at RG, but in his prime 1992-98, there were only 2, Schaller and Delgado. He was sick in 3rd loss to Norman in 1997. But Fed it only starts in 2005, but for Sampras it's his entire RG career. If that's the case why aren't Corretja (twice), Arazi, Horna, and Bo Jackson hipped Guga mentioned for Roger??

380pistol
06-09-2009, 10:04 PM
I didn't say it was ... it was in response to azzurri's statement that fed could not handle a young nadal ... That was to show he handled him alright outside clay ....

Really. Maybe indoors. Nadal was 2-1 on outdoor hard vs Fed 04-07, his only loss was when he blew a 6-2,7-6,4-1. On grass, 2006 Wimbledon F (Rafa's 4th career grass touney, which incl. a 2nd rd loss and a retirement), and Rafa still belw a chance to serve for the 2nd set. And the 2007 Wimbledon F where Nadal had 4 break chances to go up in the 5th set.

So what is youur definition of "handle"?

380pistol
06-09-2009, 10:07 PM
The identity of a player's "potential quarter final opponents" does not matter in the slightest. What matters is whom the player actually met in a tournament and what the results of those matches were. All too often Sampras fans present Lists of Great Names of players who are supposed to constitute "tough competition" without discussing whether Sampras actually faced these players.

The fact is that during the six years in which he ended as world No. 1 Sampras failed to reach even the quarter finals at Roland Garros on three occasions. He won only one of his three quarter final matches, and was then promptly beaten in straight sets by Kafelnikov, a good but not great clay court player.

The highest ranked player that Sampras ever defeated at RG was Courier (no. 8 in 1996). The highest ranked players that he ever met were Courier and Kafelnikov (ranked no.7 in 1994 and 1996 respectively). Sampras lost both matches.

That is not an especially impressive resume. It is not as though Sampras was regularly facing the clay court elite on his trips to Roland Garros. He usually lost before he could meet them.

Kuerten, a three time French Open champion, was ranked no. 30 in the world when he defeated Federer in 2004. Norman and Delgado were ranked at 65 and 97 when they defeated Sampras in 1997 and 1998 respectively. I think that most ATP players would have preferred to face "Bo Jackson hipped Kuerten" rather than the Delgado of 1998.

In all Slams played between 1994 and 1998 Sampras lost to Courier, Yzaga, Agassi, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado and Rafter.

In Slams played between 2004 and 2008 Federer lost only to Kuerten, Safin, Nadal (six times) and Djokovic - all Slam winners.

Federer is the only player, male or female, amateur or Open eras, to have won 11 Slams in a four year period. He holds the all-time male record of reaching 10 consecutive Slam finals, and the all-time record of reaching 20 consecutive Slam semi-finals. Sampras never reached the semi finals of any major for five years in a row - much less doing so for all four in the same period, as Federer has done.

These comparisons do not favor Sampras. You need to do better in order to maintain his GOAT claims.

Sampras French Open QF opponnents (who he faced): Agassi, Bruguera, and Courier (twice)
Sampras French Open QF opponnents (who he faced): Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo, Gonzalez and Del Potro

.
Tell me again, who faced the tougher clay court competition?

So you still think Roger's road was tougher. Well I'd love to hear you explain how/why Hanescu, Ancic, Robredo, Gonzalez and Del Potro > Agassi, Bruguera, and Courier.

I'm all ears.

380pistol
06-09-2009, 10:31 PM
Why consider only SW19 record at that point of time ? Roddick won Queens , grass-court event , which means he was good on that surface by that time and in good form coming into the tournament ...

I asked you is Queens Club Wimbledon??? If you wanna go that route, then hell Scott Draper, Mark Philippoussis, Tood Martin and Wayne Ferreira won there how much weight does that hold.

The fact remains in his life Roddcik has beaten no one of consequence at Wimbledon yet he has 2 Wimbledon finals on his resume?? So how the hell is he getting there?? He's not doing anything impressive and saying he was playing well at Queens well so did Scott Draper, Mark Philippoussis, Tood Martin and Wayne Ferreira.


I asked......

"Is Wimbldeon Queens???
Has Roddick ever beaten a top 10 player at SW19???
Who are the top 20 players he's beaten at SW19???"

And no response from you... vintage abmk.


I thought the fed-andre match was discussed and done to death already .... Hewitt didn't face any top player till the finals, I agree, but he was in pretty good form going into the finals, that's what his run to the finals indicated ....

So what does hat say about the draw. 34 yr old Agassi?? Discussed to death,,, the truth hurts doesn't it?? And then Hewit. Wow, impressive I might say.




I was discussing his form in that tourney ! That's what matters ....... So if fernando verdasco doesn't do well in the future, does it take away anything from his great performance in the AO 2009 ????? Duh !

Hell young Moya, Pioline(twice), Woodruff all had great performances, so what's your point???

He had a great performance that week, and that the rest of his pathetic career shouldn;t take away from that. So does that week make up for the average final he played?? He missed a "sitting" forehand on set point serving for the frst set. But since he played well vs Haas, hey we'll overlook all that.


He managed to compose himself ....Fed was outplayed for the first 4 sets , not for the whole match ; he had more points than nadal at the end of the match ... And I agree, his serve bailed him out

Compose himself?!? When??? When he was down 15-40 at 1-1 in the 5th or when he got down 15-40 at 2-2 in the 5th?? His serve kept him in the match. Nadal had TWO 2nd serves to look at in each of those aforementioned games at what happened?? So not 4 sets, he was outplayed for 4.5 sets.

He had nore points, so that's what matteres?? Who had more....
Points at 2-2 in the 5th??
Break chances at 2-2 in the 5th??
Games won at 2-2 in the 5th??
Breaks at 2-2 in the 5th???


I already know your so called definition of "choking" >> I already said I disagree with that .

So at 1-1 and 2-2 in the 5th set Nadal was up 15-40 had TWO 2nd serves to look at and didn;t put one in play. So what do you call that.

Nadal couldn;t put a 2nd serve in play on TWO occasions, and that was Fed "composing himself" right??



He played better in the previous years - esp 2k5,2k6 and 2k7 , but was facing nadal , the best/or 2nd best claycourter ( depending on how you rate borg with respect to him ) of all times and fell short .

How does it change that acusaso played well above his usual level against fed, haas played a very good match and del potro played an excellent one ?

What does that say?? When he played better in 2005,06 and 07 but didn;t win the title, wasn't great in 2009 but won the title. Does the fact Nadal and Djokovic lost erlay, the draw (rather lack there of) opening up be part of the reson. You think?? Could it be?? Just maybe???



Read what I said ... I also agreed sampras had the tougher time . Duh !

I showed some of the ways in which you under-mined fed's paths to the slam victories , as simple as that .. That "wayyyyy" was just added for fun :)

Also I like how you failed to address the 20 consec SFs :twisted:

You said "wayyyyyyyy overblowing it", I just called a spade a spade. I didn;t fail to diminish the 20 consecutive SF, cuz if I did I'd be "undermining" Fed again. This from the clown who never answeres any questions I answered.

Now take that 20 and straight SF which stretches from 2005 Wim to presnt. Look at Nalbandian 06 French, the entire 2008 French and this years French???

If those were any of Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Agassi even Medvedev from the 1999 French that streak could have been snapped could it not?? He could be in the Lendl range. Unlike you who looks at something and cuz you like it keep it, I go deeper. Not just what he did, but how he did it.

Now are you gonna answer the questions I posed of Roddick and the ones about the 2007 Wim F, or bytch up as usual??? 3-1 odds say you bytch up.

grafrules
06-09-2009, 10:38 PM
I still dont think it is clear cut which is greater. In fact I think Federer's French Open title and tieing Sampras's record of slams in the process only makes it even a debate between the two at this point. Federer still has to achieve more to make it clear cut. He probably will but it isnt to that point yet.

Comparing the two Sampras still has 2 more year end #1s, 2 more Wimbledons, the same # of slams, wasnt owned by any major rivals, 8 straight years winning atleast 1 slam (Roger is now up to 7), winning slams 12 years apart. Federer has a much better French Open record, slightly better Australian Open record, more dominance at the U.S Open (albeit same # of titles), more overall dominance during his best years. Federer also faces a much weaker field on grass then Pete, and even a much weaker field at the U.S Open. Sampras has won Davis Cup, Federer hasnt really tried yet. So for now which is better is very much up in the air. More time will give us the answer.

Federer tieing Sampras's slam titles and winning the career slam does not automaticaly put him ahead. It is not as if Agassi with 8 slams and the career slam is automaticaly put over Rosewall, Lendl, Connors, or McEnroe (Mac only 7 slams remember) who have no more slams and no career slam. In fact very few put him over any of those, a few over McEnroe maybe but that is it.

zagor
06-10-2009, 01:46 AM
I still dont think it is clear cut which is greater. In fact I think Federer's French Open title and tieing Sampras's record of slams in the process only makes it even a debate between the two at this point. Federer still has to achieve more to make it clear cut. He probably will but it isnt to that point yet.

Comparing the two Sampras still has 2 more year end #1s, 2 more Wimbledons, the same # of slams, wasnt owned by any major rivals, 8 straight years winning atleast 1 slam (Roger is now up to 7), winning slams 12 years apart. Federer has a much better French Open record, slightly better Australian Open record, more dominance at the U.S Open (albeit same # of titles), more overall dominance during his best years. Federer also faces a much weaker field on grass then Pete, and even a much weaker field at the U.S Open. Sampras has won Davis Cup, Federer hasnt really tried yet. So for now which is better is very much up in the air. More time will give us the answer.

Federer tieing Sampras's slam titles and winning the career slam does not automaticaly put him ahead. It is not as if Agassi with 8 slams and the career slam is automaticaly put over Rosewall, Lendl, Connors, or McEnroe (Mac only 7 slams remember) who have no more slams and no career slam. In fact very few put him over any of those, a few over McEnroe maybe but that is it.

Well then how about we wait until Fed finishes career before comparing him to great unbeatable Sampras? This way it is a bit unfair to Fed since he's still 27 and Sampras is retired for 6 years now already,unless Sampras gets out of retirement and wins FO there's not a whole lot he can do to add to his resumee.

Now maybe this FO is the last slam Fed wins(which I'm sure a lot of people are hoping in this forum)but maybe he'll add much more or maybe he'll add 1-2 more,it's pretty much up in the open and no one knows the answer right now.But the thing is that Fed still has a say in the matter while other greats who are long retired don't,what they did they did while Fed even though he's 27-28 has been in the last 4 slam finals.

I just don't quite get GOAT frenzy on this forum,I mean sure analyze Fed's career when he's done but right now it's unfair for him to compare him like he's retired already and doesn't have a chance to add more.

grafrules
06-10-2009, 02:04 AM
Well then how about we wait until Fed finishes career before comparing him to great unbeatable Sampras? This way it is a bit unfair to Fed since he's still 27 and Sampras is retired for 6 years now already,unless Sampras gets out of retirement and wins FO there's not a whole lot he can do to add to his resumee.

Now maybe this FO is the last slam Fed wins(which I'm sure a lot of people are hoping in this forum)but maybe he'll add much more or maybe he'll add 1-2 more,it's pretty much up in the open and no one knows the answer right now.But the thing is that Fed still has a say in the matter while other greats who are long retired don't,what they did they did while Fed even though he's 27-28 has been in the last 4 slam finals.

I just don't quite get GOAT frenzy on this forum,I mean sure analyze Fed's career when he's done but right now it's unfair for him to compare him like he's retired already and doesn't have a chance to add more.

Of course Federer can still achieve more and probably will, and probably will be clearly over Sampras by the time his career is over. My only point was many on this thread seem to be setting a tone that he is now clearly over him that he won the French and tied Pete's slam count. I am suggesting I dont feel it is clear whch is ahead at this point, Roger winning the French and the 14th slam in conjuction merely makes it debateable now which is ahead whereas before the French it was clearly Pete IMHO. Again as I said I expect in the future Roger will clearly be ahead, probably end by the end of this year if things go as I am now sensing they will the rest of the year.

I dont consider either Federer or Sampras the mens GOAT anyway so I dont feel I am getting involved in any GOAT frenzy when comparing them.

zagor
06-10-2009, 02:18 AM
Of course Federer can still achieve more and probably will, and probably will be clearly over Sampras by the time his career is over. My only point was many on this thread seem to be setting a tone that he is now clearly over him that he won the French and tied Pete's slam count. I am suggesting I dont feel it is clear whch is ahead at this point, Roger winning the French and the 14th slam in conjuction merely makes it debateable now which is ahead whereas before the French it was clearly Pete IMHO. Again as I said I expect in the future Roger will clearly be ahead, probably end by the end of this year if things go as I am now sensing they will the rest of the year.

I dont consider either Federer or Sampras the mens GOAT anyway so I dont feel I am getting involved in any GOAT frenzy when comparing them.

I agree that It isn't clear cut yet who is better as Sampras still has some records over Fed which you mentioned(more years end number one,better H2H against main rival,more Wimbledons,DC etc.)it's just that this board seemed to have exploded since Fed won FO,a month or two ago people here were out for Fed's head and were screaming for his retirement and yet now he's GOAT? Nadal was about to win more slams than either Fed and Sampras as well and now people are questioning if he'll ever win another slam? Things change too quickly around here for my liking.

grafrules
06-10-2009, 02:32 AM
I agree that It isn't clear cut yet who is better as Sampras still has some records over Fed which you mentioned(more years end number one,better H2H against main rival,more Wimbledons,DC etc.)it's just that this board seemed to have exploded since Fed won FO,a month or two ago people here were out for Fed's head and were screaming for his retirement and yet now he's GOAT? Nadal was about to win more slams than either Fed and Sampras as well and now people are questioning if he'll ever win another slam? Things change too quickly around here for my liking.

I remember at the end of 1996 when Graf won her 21st slam and her 7th Wimbledon everyone was predicting her to smash Court's record of 22 slams. Some were predicting her to win over 30. Martina even went public and said she expected Graf to break her record of 9 Wimbledons. Lo and behold she only won 1 major the rest of her career, and even that was a mini miracle one (the famous Hingis meltdown and the crazy soccer like crowd). Instead of smashing all the records she ends up without the slam record, without the record at any of the slam venues, and her more marginal records or near records she now only held brought more into question with the Seles stabbing now.

In 1984 everyone was predicting McEnroe to win double digit slams. Some were hailing him the future GOAT. At the tender age of 25 never again was a slam title in singles to be his.

In early 1990 Lendl at the age of 30 still seemed to be still going incredibly strong. It looked like he would probably win quite a few more majors, maybe a shot at Emerson's 12 mark. He was getting closer all the time at Wimbledon, surely the title there was nearly due. Instead the 1990 Australian Open would be his last major. Skipped out on a near certain title at the French to give more preperation to his Wimbledon obsession. Bombed out at Wimbledon where he gets spanked by Edberg after his dominating performance at Queens right before. Then as the clear favorite at the U.S Open, especialy after Edberg's early loss, is bumped out in the quarters in a shock to some 19 year old kid named Pete Sampras. After losing the 91 Australian Open final to Becker next January really begins to shows his age and never comes that close again.

Now we look at Martina Hingis. In 1997 when she wins 3 majors at only 16 many are heralding her as the future best ever. Despite her dominance surprisingly broken in 98, where she is upset by a revived fitter Seles at the French, a late blooming Novotna at Wimbledon, and a fitter Davenport at the U.S Open, in addition to being challenged by an emerging Venus and a comebacking Graf as well, she still looks on strong track to be one of the greatest ever when she wins her 5th slam in early 99. Lo and behold it was to be her last ever slam at barely 18 years old, including some painful gut wreching near misses.

Serena Williams in summer of 2003 looked on her way to being the greatest player ever. Winner of 5 of the last 6 slams, only stopped by Henin very narrowly on clay. Despite Venus as competition, an emerging Henin as competition, and Clijsters also looking like a major contender, she seemed to be the class of that strong group for years to come apart from perhaps Henin on clay and on her way to years of dominance. Since then only 4 majors, even in an increasingly terrible womens field which doesnt compare to the 2002-2003 field she dominated.

Clijsters at the end of 2005 finally breaks her to win her first slam still at only 21. With her talent, the Wiliams on decline, Henin struggling with illness, she seemed likely to win many more slams in the future. She never again reached a final and was retired in less than 2 years (although supposably coming back now).

Davenport after winning her 3rd slam in the last 6 in early 2000 seemed on her way to winning many more slams. Not a future female GOAT but perhaps a 7 or 8 slam winner. She has not tasted victory in a slam yet, like Hingis some painful defeats under some painful circumstances.

As much as I cant stand her who really though the 2002 Australian Open would be Capriati's last ever major. Even acknowledging the extreme luck she got it seemed like she had another 1 or 2 in her. Turns out she didnt.

Henin at the end of 2007 looked certain to win well into double digit slams. Perhaps challening or besting Evert's record 7 French Opens. Probably on her way to besting Serena as the top player of her generation, especialy she was increasingly having Serena's number. Soon to be retired.

Although he didnt have the ability to ever be a dominant player, even on clay, would one have thought after reaching the Australian Open final at only 20, and winning the French Open at 21, Carlos Moya had already reached his last ever slam final? Heck his U.S Open semifinal later that same year at 22 would be his last ever slam semi.

Who really believed Jim Courier had reached his last ever slam final at Wimbledon 93 when he had been in all 3 slam finals that year, and 7 slam finals in the last 2 and a half years alone. Well it was, his last ever slam final was on grass of all places, LOL!

zagor
06-10-2009, 02:42 AM
I remember at the end of 1996 when Graf won her 21st slam and her 7th Wimbledon everyone was predicting her to smash Court's record of 22 slams. Some were predicting her to win over 30. Martina even went public and said she expected Graf to break her record of 9 Wimbledons. Lo and behold she only won 1 major the rest of her career, and even that was a mini miracle one (the famous Hingis meltdown and the crazy soccer like crowd). Instead of smashing all the records she ends up without the slam record, without the record at any of the slam venues, and her more marginal records or near records she now only held brought more into question with the Seles stabbing now.

In 1984 everyone was predicting McEnroe to win double digit slams. Some were hailing him the future GOAT. At the tender age of 25 never again was a slam title in singles to be his.

In early 1990 Lendl at the age of 30 still seemed to be still going incredibly strong. It looked like he would probably win quite a few more majors, maybe a shot at Emerson's 12 mark. He was getting closer all the time at Wimbledon, surely the title there was nearly due. Instead the 1990 Australian Open would be his last major. Skipped out on a near certain title at the French to give more preperation to his Wimbledon obsession. Bombed out at Wimbledon where he gets spanked by Edberg after his dominating performance at Queens right before. Then as the clear favorite at the U.S Open, especialy after Edberg's early loss, is bumped out in the quarters in a shock to some 19 year old kid named Pete Sampras. After losing the 91 Australian Open final to Becker next January really begins to shows his age and never comes that close again.

Now we look at Martina Hingis. In 1997 when she wins 3 majors at only 16 many are heralding her as the future best ever. Despite her dominance surprisingly broken in 98, where she is upset by a revived fitter Seles at the French, a late blooming Novotna at Wimbledon, and a fitter Davenport at the U.S Open, in addition to being challenged by an emerging Venus and a comebacking Graf as well, she still looks on strong track to be one of the greatest ever when she wins her 5th slam in early 99. Lo and behold it was to be her last ever slam at barely 18 years old, including some painful gut wreching near misses.

Serena Williams in summer of 2003 looked on her way to being the greatest player ever. Winner of 5 of the last 6 slams, only stopped by Henin very narrowly on clay. Despite Venus as competition, an emerging Henin as competition, and Clijsters also looking like a major contender, she seemed to be the class of that strong group for years to come apart from perhaps Henin on clay and on her way to years of dominance. Since then only 4 majors, even in an increasingly terrible womens field which doesnt compare to the 2002-2003 field she dominated.

Clijsters at the end of 2005 finally breaks her to win her first slam still at only 21. With her talent, the Wiliams on decline, Henin struggling with illness, she seemed likely to win many more slams in the future. She never again reached a final and was retired in less than 2 years (although supposably coming back now).

Davenport after winning her 3rd slam in the last 6 in early 2000 seemed on her way to winning many more slams. Not a future female GOAT but perhaps a 7 or 8 slam winner. She has not tasted victory in a slam yet, like Hingis some painful defeats under some painful circumstances.

As much as I cant stand her who really though the 2002 Australian Open would be Capriati's last ever major. Even acknowledging the extreme luck she got it seemed like she atleast had another couple in her. Turns out she didnt.

Henin at the end of 2007 looked certain to win well into double digit slams. Perhaps challening or besting Evert's record 7 French Opens. Probably on her way to besting Serena as the top player of her generation, especialy she was increasingly having Serena's number. Soon to be retired.

Although he didnt have the ability to ever be a dominant player, even on clay, would one have thought after reaching the Australian Open final at only 20, and winning the French Open at 21, Carlos Moya had already reached his last ever slam final? Heck his U.S Open semifinal later that same year at 22 would be his last ever slam semi.

Who really believed Jim Courier had reached his last ever slam final at Wimbledon 93 when he had been in all 3 slam finals that year, and 7 slam finals in the last 2 and a half years alone. Well it was, his last ever slam final was on grass of all places, LOL!

That's some amazing stuff you wrote,so many examples of things turning out worse than expected.I was especially bummed about Henin retiring,I thought she will eclipse Serena as the top player of the generation for sure and would have a 3 slam year in 2008,instead she retired.

I was also pretty sure in 2003 that Serena was going to win over 15 slams the way she was dominating,she looked almost unbeatable then.Didn' turn out that way but she has herself to blame mostly.

And LOL at Courer's last slam final being on grass,amazing the way that turned out.

I also think American media expected much more from Roddick after he won USO but there were signs that Fed would take over after 2003 TMC.

grafrules
06-10-2009, 02:53 AM
That's some amazing stuff you wrote,so many examples of things turning out worse than expected.I was especially bummed about Henin retiring,I thought she will eclipse Serena as the top player of the generation for sure and would have a 3 slam year in 2008,instead she retired.

I was also pretty sure in 2003 that Serena was going to win over 15 slams the way she was dominating,she looked almost unbeatable then.Didn' turn out that way but she has herself to blame mostly.

And LOL at Courer's last slam final being on grass,amazing the way that turned out.

I also think American media expected much more from Roddick after he won USO but there were signs that Fed would take over after 2003 TMC.

Serena had that injury after Wimbledon 2003. I have no idea why she has never returned the same. She was an underachiever given her insane talent and athletic ability ever in the 99-2001 years she still doing well before 2002. I didnt mind as I never liked her and always rooted against her, although I appreciated her talent. It is like she got in this bubble for 18 months where she finally had tennis as her #1 priority and she enjoyed winning, dominating, and playing great so much she didnt leave it. However the injury after Wimbledon 2003 made her leave the bubble, feel some of the "normal life" again, and given that she has always had that inner pull to that more than many other champions she has never quite left that life again. With the field weakening to the point she is able to start winning slams more often again even 50 pounds overweight and probably barely practicing she now sees even less need to leave it. She is so delusional at times it seems that she probably believes she isnt an underachiever, and that most people see her as the best ever already anyway. Oh well.

Henin's retirement was a shock. I was so excited that she had reached the point she had surpassed Venus, and seemingly was going to pass Serena as for the longest time it seemed the Wililams would be unassailable amongst the present generation. It was such a huge letdown for me when she retired. The womens game since has suffered. Nobody has really stepped in to fill her shoes, and in many ways it has just gotten worse.

I always thought there was a good shot the 2003 U.S Open would be Roddick's only slam and said so many times at the time but people laughed at me so I doubt I was in the majority. I am sure the U.S media (which are biased) were expecting atleast 4 career slams. Most others were expecting more than that 1 and only certainly.

So many other examples one could think of:

-Austin's 2nd U.S Open title in 1981 would be her last slam? Nobody could have imagined. You never know when your body breaks down for good at a very young age though.

-Jaeger would never win a slam and like Austin be retired at around 20.

-Shriver's U.S Open final in 1978 at only 16 would be her only ever slam final.

-Zvereva's French Open final in 1988 would be her only slam final. I always though the double bagel from Graf set her back mentally the rest of her career.

-In 1997 or 1998, Agassi would have 5 more slams to add to the 3 he already won? Heck no, I thought he would never win a slam again at that point. I thought maybe 1 more if he got a bit of luck after his "comeback" to form in 98 (which still produced poor slam results even seemingly back in form).

-Hewitt's 2002 Wimbledon title would be his last slam? I always thought he wasnt going to have the career some were projecting at that point and was filling the void in a very weak interim period for mens tennis. However never would have guessed that would be his last ever slam.

When you think of it tennis is probably one of the most unpredictable sports out there. It is amazing.

prosealster
06-10-2009, 02:57 AM
I clearly stated that Fed is the better all-surface player. odd how you then make the Pete vs. Nadal comparison...you are obviosuly a kid since you cannot make a solid arguement nor can you read/recall information.:neutral:

i did not go around and call u a kid..so you shouldnt too...funny how u seems so confident about your judgements..and u absolutely got that part wrond

did i deny u saying that fed is the better all surface player?? then why are u bring that up with me??

where did i make a pete vs nadal comparison?? please explain?? As I stated in my post....even if nad-fed h2h is important....even if nadal totally owns fed....it does not affect how fed compares to pete...i dont know how to break down the logic for you simpler... if player A and player B has similar accomplishments, even if play C beats player B everytime, that does not make B worse than A or make judgement based on that in an A vs B comparison unless C has played A?? Get it?? I then go on and say since it can be argued that fed is better than sampras in terms of achievements, so by saying how important the h2h is...you can be seen arguing nad>fed hence >pete.... so bringing down ur idol by 1 notch...
again i stated that we should not bring nad into the argument, i am NOT making a comparison of nadal vs pete...i simply stated by bring him into fed/pete discussion, u r the one that is bringing him into the arguement.

obviously, u see h2h as really important irrespectively of scenario/ relative prime etc....since fed and sampras have actually played each other....why are you not bring that up?? :)

before u come flamming back.....maybe take some time, read it again, and digest....i dont know how to make it simpler for you...

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 03:09 AM
I don't understand these Sampras dickriding arguments.

Does anyone here HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Sampras played Nadal in several French Open finals that he'd EVER beat him? Seriously?

Sampras wasn't even good enough to get to a French Open final. Tougher clay court era, sure...but losing to guys like Delgado and Schaller suggests that wasn't the reason he wasn't making it deeper. Would Sampras beat Jose Acasuso? I honestly don't think he would. How about Paul-Henri Mathieu? Not unless Mathieu choked. Monfils? Get real.

So Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. And so...why are we bringing this garbage up again?

Nadal "owned him?" He only "owns him" on clay. Their non-clay head-to-head is 5-4 in favor of Federer. In 3 of those 4 Nadal wins, the matches went the distance. Two 5-set Grand Slam finals and a 3 setter at 06 Dubai.

Yeah, that's really "owning." Federer got "owned" 9-7 in the 5th set at Wimbledon last year.

Nadal has lost just 4 times in the past 100-something matches on clay. 2 of them were to Roger Federer. Obviously, though...if PETE SAMPRAS were here...he'd be showing Rafael Nadal a thing or two on clay, yo.

But yeah, what's this Federer talk? Sampras is where it's at, yo. He has 2 AO titles to Federer's 3 and counting. He had 5 US Open titles in his career. Federer has FIVE IN A ROW and counting. He never won the FO. Never even reached a final. Federer has won it. Federer has been in 4 finals. Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles, with 4 in a row being his longest streak. Federer's streak snapped at 5 in a row (and made the record-tying 6th finals appearance in a row), and he's now looking like the favorite to win a 6th total.

Federer has made 20 SFs in a row at the GSs and counting. Sampras' career long? 3. THREE.

Heck, Federer made 10 GS FINALS in a row.

I did not even bother reading your post. you are the joke that made absurd statements about Federer in that stupid thread of yours. you are a troll and will be banned (in fact, I will send a note to the admin's to look at your ISP because I know you were a former banned member). Good riddance.

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 03:10 AM
Nadal beating him frequently on clay where they've met the majority of the times taking a mental toll on Fed ....That'd carry over to the other surfaces eventually with fed declining, wouldn't it ? As you decline, those doubts get stronger

maybe........

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 03:11 AM
say what ?????? A 63% winning record on clay , a single RG SF , NO finals, a single CC masters ... That's supposed to impress me ?????

Yes, he's beaten CC specialists ( or those good on clay ) on clay , but you cannot classify that as handling CC specialists well ... H2H with them on clay combined is still negative by some margin

we are not talking about who is the better CC player, if so Fed is by far better. When did I ever say otherwise. But, Pete was never owned by any single player in his era. Fed is owned by Nadal, hence cannot be GOAT.

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 03:12 AM
I mean after nadal has started beating him consistently in slams , esp the ones outside clay ...

hey, don't worry about this fool. he is the guy that started that stupid thread about Fed having a terrible BH and being overrated.

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 03:13 AM
How many Grand Slams does Sampras have? Tell me. I need to know his record number of Grand Slams, oo wait next year at Roland Garros, Federer will try to capture his 2nd Grand Slam over. Pete never had the luxury of holding one.

see my signature you %^^&$$^

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 03:22 AM
I still dont think it is clear cut which is greater. In fact I think Federer's French Open title and tieing Sampras's record of slams in the process only makes it even a debate between the two at this point. Federer still has to achieve more to make it clear cut. He probably will but it isnt to that point yet.

Comparing the two Sampras still has 2 more year end #1s, 2 more Wimbledons, the same # of slams, wasnt owned by any major rivals, 8 straight years winning atleast 1 slam (Roger is now up to 7), winning slams 12 years apart. Federer has a much better French Open record, slightly better Australian Open record, more dominance at the U.S Open (albeit same # of titles), more overall dominance during his best years. Federer also faces a much weaker field on grass then Pete, and even a much weaker field at the U.S Open. Sampras has won Davis Cup, Federer hasnt really tried yet. So for now which is better is very much up in the air. More time will give us the answer.

Federer tieing Sampras's slam titles and winning the career slam does not automaticaly put him ahead. It is not as if Agassi with 8 slams and the career slam is automaticaly put over Rosewall, Lendl, Connors, or McEnroe (Mac only 7 slams remember) who have no more slams and no career slam. In fact very few put him over any of those, a few over McEnroe maybe but that is it.

now this is a logical post..well written. too bad the Fedfans won't get it (they were just born yesterday).

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 03:26 AM
i did not go around and call u a kid..so you shouldnt too...funny how u seems so confident about your judgements..and u absolutely got that part wrond

did i deny u saying that fed is the better all surface player?? then why are u bring that up with me??

where did i make a pete vs nadal comparison?? please explain?? As I stated in my post....even if nad-fed h2h is important....even if nadal totally owns fed....it does not affect how fed compares to pete...i dont know how to break down the logic for you simpler... if player A and player B has similar accomplishments, even if play C beats player B everytime, that does not make B worse than A or make judgement based on that in an A vs B comparison unless C has played A?? Get it?? I then go on and say since it can be argued that fed is better than sampras in terms of achievements, so by saying how important the h2h is...you can be seen arguing nad>fed hence >pete.... so bringing down ur idol by 1 notch...
again i stated that we should not bring nad into the argument, i am NOT making a comparison of nadal vs pete...i simply stated by bring him into fed/pete discussion, u r the one that is bringing him into the arguement.

obviously, u see h2h as really important irrespectively of scenario/ relative prime etc....since fed and sampras have actually played each other....why are you not bring that up?? :)

before u come flamming back.....maybe take some time, read it again, and digest....i dont know how to make it simpler for you...

bottom line is to be GOAT there can be no one better than you in your own era. As of now, Nadal owns Fed. There is no excuse, could care less what surface. Nadal owns Fed in h2h. Sampras had no equal. Is this plain and simple enough for you?:)

clayman2000
06-10-2009, 03:48 AM
bottom line is to be GOAT there can be no one better than you in your own era. As of now, Nadal owns Fed. There is no excuse, could care less what surface. Nadal owns Fed in h2h. Sampras had no equal. Is this plain and simple enough for you?:)

Federer is the GOAT in his era..... lets say Nadals run at no 2 began after French Open 05.... Since that time, Federer has won 10 slams... Federer has won like 70% of his slams with Nadal as the no 2 player in the world.... during that time Rafa won 6.... 10 > 6..... H2H doesnt matter, Nadal's game is a huge disadvantage for Federer

abmk
06-10-2009, 03:54 AM
Really. Maybe indoors. Nadal was 2-1 on outdoor hard vs Fed 04-07, his only loss was when he blew a 6-2,7-6,4-1. On grass, 2006 Wimbledon F (Rafa's 4th career grass touney, which incl. a 2nd rd loss and a retirement), and Rafa still belw a chance to serve for the 2nd set. And the 2007 Wimbledon F where Nadal had 4 break chances to go up in the 5th set.

So what is youur definition of "handle"?

5-2 is handling someone fine ..period.

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 04:08 AM
Federer is the GOAT in his era..... lets say Nadals run at no 2 began after French Open 05.... Since that time, Federer has won 10 slams... Federer has won like 70% of his slams with Nadal as the no 2 player in the world.... during that time Rafa won 6.... 10 > 6..... H2H doesnt matter, Nadal's game is a huge disadvantage for Federer

LOL..ok, whatever you say. So having a 7-13 record against your greatest rival is a non-factor?

I will say this, if Andre had the 20-14 record vs. Pete, there would be a lot of people making the same arguement I am making. Pete's greatest rival was Agassi and he had a better h2h2 and also in majors, but Fed does not have this against Nadal. Anyway, since h2h means nothing to you, then please don't bother posting to me.

clayman2000
06-10-2009, 04:19 AM
LOL..ok, whatever you say. So having a 7-13 record against your greatest rival is a non-factor?

I will say this, if Andre had the 20-14 record vs. Pete, there would be a lot of people making the same arguement I am making. Pete's greatest rival was Agassi and he had a better h2h2 and also in majors, but Fed does not have this against Nadal. Anyway, since h2h means nothing to you, then please don't bother posting to me.

Like i said, Agassi played exactly like everyone else, except that he was a bit better at everything.... Nadal does everything completely different

Also add to the fact that Agassi wasnt the most consistent player in his career thus their matches were spread over a long period of time
Whereas in this rivalry, Federer had faced Nadal 3 times in every clay court season going into Wimbledon.... when you are lossing 2 or 3 of those matches, it is hard to feel confident against that player

H2H doesnt mean anything.... there are too many intangibles, for all we know, Nadal could go on a spree taking like 6 more slams and he would be a GOAT contender, or he could do nothing

abmk
06-10-2009, 04:26 AM
So what does hat say about the draw. 34 yr old Agassi?? Discussed to death,,, the truth hurts doesn't it?? And then Hewit. Wow, impressive I might say.

truth hurts ???? ROFL :) He won that match, why should the truth hurt ? It may not have been pretty, but he got the job done alright

Hell young Moya, Pioline(twice), Woodruff all had great performances, so what's your point???

He had a great performance that week, and that the rest of his pathetic career shouldn;t take away from that. So does that week make up for the average final he played?? He missed a "sitting" forehand on set point serving for the frst set. But since he played well vs Haas, hey we'll overlook all that.

He played all right in the final .

Compose himself?!? When??? When he was down 15-40 at 1-1 in the 5th or when he got down 15-40 at 2-2 in the 5th?? His serve kept him in the match. Nadal had TWO 2nd serves to look at in each of those aforementioned games at what happened?? So not 4 sets, he was outplayed for 4.5 sets.

He had nore points, so that's what matteres?? Who had more....
Points at 2-2 in the 5th??
Break chances at 2-2 in the 5th??
Games won at 2-2 in the 5th??
Breaks at 2-2 in the 5th???


If he wasn't able to compose himself, he wouldn't have been clutch . Duh !
In the end , fed had more points than nadal , so I wouldn't say nadal outplayed him ...I wouldn't say that fed outplayed him either .

So at 1-1 and 2-2 in the 5th set Nadal was up 15-40 had TWO 2nd serves to look at and didn;t put one in play. So what do you call that.

Nadal couldn;t put a 2nd serve in play on TWO occasions, and that was Fed "composing himself" right??

no, he failed to put those 2 good second serves into play does not mean he choked -> those were not lollypop 2nd serves that he wayyy mishit to call it choking ....

What does that say?? When he played better in 2005,06 and 07 but didn;t win the title, wasn't great in 2009 but won the title. Does the fact Nadal and Djokovic lost erlay, the draw (rather lack there of) opening up be part of the reson. You think?? Could it be?? Just maybe???

nadal , of course, yes .. djokovic , I doubt he could've played better than what del potro did

It happens , sometimes you don't win even when you are playing at your near best and sometimes you do even when you are not playing near your best

You said "wayyyyyyyy overblowing it", I just called a spade a spade. I didn;t fail to diminish the 20 consecutive SF, cuz if I did I'd be "undermining" Fed again. This from the clown who never answeres any questions I answered.

Now take that 20 and straight SF which stretches from 2005 Wim to presnt. Look at Nalbandian 06 French, the entire 2008 French and this years French???

If those were any of Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Agassi even Medvedev from the 1999 French that streak could have been snapped could it not?? He could be in the Lendl range. Unlike you who looks at something and cuz you like it keep it, I go deeper. Not just what he did, but how he did it.



@ bold, lol @ you calling me a clown, YOU are the one who said scud was gassed in the wimbledon 2003 and embarassed yourself .. YOU are the one who didn't know the word learnt existed .

Now come back to the truth >> He has 20 consec. SFs , there is no kafelnikov, agassi , kuerten,medvedev etc standing in his path .... It has NOT snapped

BTW the stretch was from USO 2004 and NOT wimbledon 2005

What was pete's max consec. SF stretch even outside the french ?

abmk
06-10-2009, 04:28 AM
bottom line is to be GOAT there can be no one better than you in your own era. As of now, Nadal owns Fed. There is no excuse, could care less what surface. Nadal owns Fed in h2h. Sampras had no equal. Is this plain and simple enough for you?:)

Unless nadal comes close to fed in the slam count, he's not better than fed ... If he does, then the H2H becomes significant wrt to comparing them . Until then nadal is NOT better than fed . Fed will remain the best player of his era

fed_rulz
06-10-2009, 04:30 AM
bottom line is to be GOAT there can be no one better than you in your own era. As of now, Nadal owns Fed. There is no excuse, could care less what surface. Nadal owns Fed in h2h. Sampras had no equal. Is this plain and simple enough for you?:)

Fed may not be GOAT (I don't think there's one yet, because there's no universally accepted metric(s) for such a determination), but he certainly has surpassed sampras. By your logic, Fed is being penalized for making the numerous finals on clay.. whereas, sampras who sucked on clay and lost most often than not, gets rewarded because he lost not to one player, but MANY players..

In other words, on clay courts, it's NOT OK to be owned by one player, while getting OWNED BY THE ENTIRE FIELD is completely acceptable??? :confused:... Grasping at straws??

If you considered Sampras the GOAT prior to the FO 2009, you have to concede that Fed has surpassed sampras, and now is the GOAT..

The rivals Pete faced that were FO winners and CC specialists he did quite well against. I am not talking about 2-3 matches, but a good 10 or more.

Pete's rivals were "better" because they had won the FO, when compared to Fed's because they hadn't won any? In other words, Pete's rivals were better because they had better "numbers" than fed's.... I see... But I thought you said the following..

Fed's #'s are better, but that does not make him the better player

Double standards much??:confused:

abmk
06-10-2009, 04:37 AM
I asked you is Queens Club Wimbledon??? If you wanna go that route, then hell Scott Draper, Mark Philippoussis, Tood Martin and Wayne Ferreira won there how much weight does that hold.

The fact remains in his life Roddcik has beaten no one of consequence at Wimbledon yet he has 2 Wimbledon finals on his resume?? So how the hell is he getting there?? He's not doing anything impressive and saying he was playing well at Queens well so did Scott Draper, Mark Philippoussis, Tood Martin and Wayne Ferreira.

I asked......

"Is Wimbldeon Queens???
Has Roddick ever beaten a top 10 player at SW19???
Who are the top 20 players he's beaten at SW19???"

And no response from you... vintage abmk.



He continued the good form from queens into wimbledon in 2003 and did well in wimbledon 2004,putting up a good performance in the final ... That's what matters most to me ... You already know the answer to your questions . They're not that significant to me though I concede that your point is valid ...

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 09:13 AM
Like i said, Agassi played exactly like everyone else, except that he was a bit better at everything.... Nadal does everything completely different

Also add to the fact that Agassi wasnt the most consistent player in his career thus their matches were spread over a long period of time
Whereas in this rivalry, Federer had faced Nadal 3 times in every clay court season going into Wimbledon.... when you are lossing 2 or 3 of those matches, it is hard to feel confident against that player

H2H doesnt mean anything.... there are too many intangibles, for all we know, Nadal could go on a spree taking like 6 more slams and he would be a GOAT contender, or he could do nothing

This is my last post to you since you did not understand me the last time: YOU ARE EXTREMELY CLUELESS, PLEASE DON'T POST TO ME. I WILL NO LONGER DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT WITH A MORON.

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 09:16 AM
Unless nadal comes close to fed in the slam count, he's not better than fed ... If he does, then the H2H becomes significant wrt to comparing them . Until then nadal is NOT better than fed . Fed will remain the best player of his era

So if neither wins any more slams, but Nadal ends witha h2h of say 40-7, it means nothing? Fed is still the better player? My god, no wonder people hate the *******s on this board...you people are truly a joke. I could care less about either one. I think today's tennis is far below the 80-90's tennis. I still watch and have interest, but could give a crap about any one player. I respect Nadal and Fed as players, but the rest of the field is such a joke that Roddick can't get out of the top 10...give me a break.

zagor
06-10-2009, 09:17 AM
Azzuri,just one thing.Here's my opinion-yes Fed's H2H with Nadal hurts his case for GOAT(especially given the fact that he lost to Nadal so often on a big occasion)but on the other hand the fact that Pete was mediocre(for GOAT standards)on one of the major surfaces in tennis-clay hurts his case as well.He never showe he was a contender at the FO given the fact that he never reached a FO final.For me you can't be a GOAT if you're not a major contender on every surface,agains just in my opinion.

So IMO neither Fed nor Sampras are GOAT.Fed has a chance to correct his H2H with Nadal but given the age gap between the two that's not that likely to happen.

clayman2000
06-10-2009, 09:17 AM
This is my last post to you since you did not understand me the last time: YOU ARE EXTREMELY CLUELESS, PLEASE DON'T POST TO ME. I WILL NO LONGER DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT WITH A MORON.

Im sorry, but im not the one getting mad over a H2H.... i guess you don't understand that there is more to tennis than beating 1 guy..... you are the clueless one friend....

especially since i am a Nadal fan....

Anyways.... its not Roger fault that Rafa didnt make a HC slam until this year, by which time Roger is clearly not in his true prime

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 09:24 AM
Fed may not be GOAT (I don't think there's one yet, because there's no universally accepted metric(s) for such a determination), but he certainly has surpassed sampras. By your logic, Fed is being penalized for making the numerous finals on clay.. whereas, sampras who sucked on clay and lost most often than not, gets rewarded because he lost not to one player, but MANY players..

In other words, on clay courts, it's NOT OK to be owned by one player, while getting OWNED BY THE ENTIRE FIELD is completely acceptable??? :confused:... Grasping at straws??

If you considered Sampras the GOAT prior to the FO 2009, you have to concede that Fed has surpassed sampras, and now is the GOAT..



Pete's rivals were "better" because they had won the FO, when compared to Fed's because they hadn't won any? In other words, Pete's rivals were better because they had better "numbers" than fed's.... I see... But I thought you said the following..



Double standards much??:confused:

Do me a favor...please choose the best clay court players from 1990-2000. Include the FO winners (10 should be good). I will prove to you that Pete had better OVERALL records against every one of them..foregt it, I will do it myself. I already stated many, many times that Pete was not that good on clay (63% is still beter than most players regardless). I said Fed is a better CC player, but what does that matter in the whole scheme? Its one of 5 surfaces. Pete is better in every other surface. h2h, I think Pete would be the winner vs. Fed.

I will use the 10 FO winners of the 90's and Pete's overall h2h against them..but before I do, would that be a fair assessment? You claim Pete was owned by the entire field..if you mean the field on ONE surface, fine I agree. But again, it means little. Please be clear, because I will prove to you that Pete has an incredible winning % against the FO winners from 1990-00.

Try not to twist my words and take them out of context, you may hurt yourself. Anyoen with half a brain knows the clay court players of the 90's were a much stronger field than today...not even close.

By the way, Muster played a very similiar game to Nadal (this has been noted many times) and guess what Pete's record was against him????

380pistol
06-10-2009, 09:31 AM
truth hurts ???? ROFL :) He won that match, why should the truth hurt ? It may not have been pretty, but he got the job done alright

You think your slick he won. He struggled immensely with 34 yr old and 35 year old broke back Agassi while Fed was in his prime losing 9 matches those 2 years.

What if that was Agassi from the 1994 or 1995 US Opens?? Let me guess... Federer straight sets him and hands out some bagels. We are talking about his draws and the calibur of them, NOT if he won!!!!!!!!!! Stay on topic!!!!!!!



He played all right in the final .

He played all right. You said despite Gonzalez' horrible career in slams he played well that week in Melbourne???

I asked.. despite his hot week, does that make up for the marginal final he played which included damn near giving away the 1st set???

Yet another question you don't man up and answer!!!!!


If he wasn't able to compose himself, he wouldn't have been clutch . Duh !
In the end , fed had more points than nadal , so I wouldn't say nadal outplayed him ...I wouldn't say that fed outplayed him either .

I asked.....
"He had nore points, so that's what matteres?? Who had more....
Points at 2-2 in the 5th??
Break chances at 2-2 in the 5th??
Games won at 2-2 in the 5th??
Breaks at 2-2 in the 5th???"

And you keep bytching up.... where are the answers???

Did he compose himself by going down 15-40 at 1-1 in 5th set??
Did he compose himself by going down 15-40 at 2-2 in 5th set??
Did he compose himself by not getting a 1st serve in in both games own break point???
Did he compose himself when Nadal didn't put a 2nd serve in play?? Of course he was compose watching them go out and into the net!!!!

Fed's serve was what got him into the 5th set in that match, He=is great serving day is what kept him in it.



no, he failed to put those 2 good second serves into play does not mean he choked -> those were not lollypop 2nd serves that he wayyy mishit to call it choking ....

Is Federer Sampras??? Is he gonna put it on the line like Pete?? Is he Goran, will he fire a 2nd serve @ 120mph and not give a f***??? Fed will hit a kicker on the 2nd serve 85-90% of the time, usually to a players backhand. Even Rafa himself said "I got nervous".

I love how Fed had 17 break chances in the 2007 French final, but does anyone talk about Nadal putting in 1st serves on 14 of them??? 14 of 17!!!!!!!

Nadal had TWO... again TWO 2nd serves at break point in the 5th set, and did not put them in play. He did not make Federer hit a shot. But somehow that's not Nadal choking those chances away. You kill me. You would reason how the sky is red if it favoured Roger.


nadal , of course, yes .. djokovic , I doubt he could've played better than what del potro did

It happens , sometimes you don't win even when you are playing at your near best and sometimes you do even when you are not playing near your best

Djokovic could not have played better, you sure about that?? based on what??

Would Djokovic had made 3-4 unforced errors in the 2nd set tie break???
Would Djokovic have conceeded an early break after going up 2 sets to 1???
Would Djokovic have been broken twice in the 5th set???
Would Djokovic after getting back on serve, concede his next service game, while struggling to put in a 1st serve???

More qustions, 5-1 odds you won't answer!!!!!!



@ bold, lol @ you calling me a clown, YOU are the one who said scud was gassed in the wimbledon 2003 and embarassed yourself .. YOU are the one who didn't know the word learnt existed .

Now come back to the truth >> He has 20 consec. SFs , there is no kafelnikov, agassi , kuerten,medvedev etc standing in his path .... It has NOT snapped

BTW the stretch was from USO 2004 and NOT wimbledon 2005

What was pete's max consec. SF stretch even outside the french ?

Scud said he was gassed, and if I'm not mistaken, Cash cosigned it. But it's just me right?? I can say in the 1995 Becker got gassed midway through. That's the difference between me and you, one of us is a man (me), and the other is a beyatch (you).

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 09:32 AM
Azzuri,just one thing.Here's my opinion-yes Fed's H2H with Nadal hurts his case for GOAT(especially given the fact that he lost to Nadal so often on a big occasion)but on the other hand the fact that Pete was mediocre(for GOAT standards)on one of the major surfaces in tennis-clay hurts his case as well.He never showe he was a contender at the FO given the fact that he never reached a FO final.For me you can't be a GOAT if you're not a major contender on every surface,agains just in my opinion.

So IMO neither Fed nor Sampras are GOAT.Fed has a chance to correct his H2H with Nadal but given the age gap between the two that's not that likely to happen.

I hear what you are saying, but then we can't call anyone GOAT, even Laver. He won all of his slams on 2 surfaces. When I say GOAT, I mean in my lifetime. I cannot judge a Laver or Rosewall because I never saw them play. However, I can judge Fed and Pete. Yes, Fed has been more dominate (06-08 years were incredible), but I also feel that Fed had no where near the competition Pete had. You see, Pete had to play tons of players that were surface specialists, but does Fed? Guys today are able to play the 4 surfaces partly because the courts have been slowed down so much over the past 5 years (see Nadal and how he won on grass and HC). But Pete had to play tremendous clay court specialists, grass court guys, etc. The variety Pete faced daily far exceeds what Fed has to prepare for.

Fed certainly has a chance to catch up, but you never know. Nadal has those knee issues. I don't see the guy lasting into his mid-late twenties.

Lastly, Agassi was a contender in every major surface..yes? I can only assume by what you wrote that He would have been a greater player than Pete...please think about it and take a look at my signature. I would hate to add you along w/Conquistador. I have great respect for you.

380pistol
06-10-2009, 09:36 AM
He continued the good form from queens into wimbledon in 2003 and did well in wimbledon 2004,putting up a good performance in the final ... That's what matters most to me ... You already know the answer to your questions . They're not that significant to me though I concede that your point is valid ...

That's what matter to you. "You", you have the itellingence of a numbnut, why would I care what you think. What has Roddick ever done in his grasscourt career, that would make him calibur quality for arguably the 2nd or 3rd best grasscourter (depending on how one rates him in relation to Borg) of the open era??

My point is valid it's good that you know. Stop taking everything as a slight vs Roger and take it for what it is. Pioline was nothing special, it's nothing against Pete who beat him in a Wim F, he is what he is.

Roddick is good, but he's overblown. The 2nd best grasscourter from 2003-06 (well until Wim 06 loss anyay), but his Wimbledon resume is nothing great. A lot of people could have walked in Roddick shoes and saw Federer on the 2nd Sunday, that makes the questions significant.

zagor
06-10-2009, 09:42 AM
I hear what you are saying, but then we can't call anyone GOAT, even Laver. He won all of his slams on 2 surfaces. When I say GOAT, I mean in my lifetime. I cannot judge a Laver or Rosewall because I never saw them play. However, I can judge Fed and Pete. Yes, Fed has been more dominate (06-08 years were incredible), but I also feel that Fed had no where near the competition Pete had. You see, Pete had to play tons of players that were surface specialists, but does Fed? Guys today are able to play the 4 surfaces partly because the courts have been slowed down so much over the past 5 years (see Nadal and how he won on grass and HC). But Pete had to play tremendous clay court specialists, grass court guys, etc. The variety Pete faced daily far exceeds what Fed has to prepare for.

Fed certainly has a chance to catch up, but you never know. Nadal has those knee issues. I don't see the guy lasting into his mid-late twenties.

Lastly, Agassi was a contender in every major surface..yes? I can only assume by what you wrote that He would have been a greater player than Pete...please think about it and take a look at my signature. I would hate to add you along w/Conquistador. I have great respect for you.

LOL don't worry,no I don't think Agassi was anywhere near Pete as a player.I do greatly respect Andre's versatility across all surfaces(especially winning Wimbledon on fast grass from the baseline)however Pete's accomplishments are just way above his.

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 09:49 AM
LOL don't worry,no I don't think Agassi was anywhere near Pete as a player.I do greatly respect Andre's versatility across all surfaces(especially winning Wimbledon on fast grass from the baseline)however Pete's accomplishments are just way above his.

Exactly, even though Fed has been more accomplished in terms of winng the GS, to me his issue with Nadal hurts him. I agree with some posters that Pete lost too early at the FO to play the "best" players, but he made it to the QF and beyond 4 times. His cc winning % was 63 which is far above 50%. He was a good player, but not good enough. It just shows his game was not made for that surface. Edberg, Becker, Mac...none won the FO. It just shows that Fed has an all-court game, but a lot of guys on tour have that. In Pete's day, he would face the toughest grass player and the toughest HC player because they were...not lucky with the draw or face a guy like Novak that quits.

The issue is not Pete and his lack of a FO. If somone were to have them play 20 times...5 on each court (AO, FO, W and USO), I say Pete wins 12-8. He was way more dominant on grass, He played in an era with better HC players and he had a much tougher mental game than Fed.

veroniquem
06-10-2009, 09:52 AM
LOL don't worry,no I don't think Agassi was anywhere near Pete as a player.I do greatly respect Andre's versatility across all surfaces(especially winning Wimbledon on fast grass from the baseline)however Pete's accomplishments are just way above his.
And yet Andre was so much more fun to watch than Pete! There's more to tennis than records.

fed_rulz
06-10-2009, 10:15 AM
Do me a favor...please choose the best clay court players from 1990-2000. Include the FO winners (10 should be good). I will prove to you that Pete had better OVERALL records against every one of them..foregt it, I will do it myself. I already stated many, many times that Pete was not that good on clay (63% is still beter than most players regardless). I said Fed is a better CC player, but what does that matter in the whole scheme? Its one of 5 surfaces. Pete is better in every other surface. h2h, I think Pete would be the winner vs. Fed.

I will use the 10 FO winners of the 90's and Pete's overall h2h against them..but before I do, would that be a fair assessment? You claim Pete was owned by the entire field..if you mean the field on ONE surface, fine I agree. But again, it means little. Please be clear, because I will prove to you that Pete has an incredible winning % against the FO winners from 1990-00.

Try not to twist my words and take them out of context, you may hurt yourself. Anyoen with half a brain knows the clay court players of the 90's were a much stronger field than today...not even close.

By the way, Muster played a very similiar game to Nadal (this has been noted many times) and guess what Pete's record was against him????

No, that's a wrong assessment. I meant Pete was owned by the whole field on ONE surface, a surface that spans 33% of the tennis season, and 25% of the GS. I do know that Pete was awesome on other surfaces, and he probably does own a winning h2h against FO winners in 1990-2000. But that is irrelevant here. The CC is a very important part of the tennis season, so no reason to "discount" it.

you're making connections when there are none - muster playing a "similar" game to nadal? so what? though there are some similarities, there are plenty of differences. Does muster impart the same amount of spin in his FH as nadal? didn't think so.. does muster have the same defensive capabilities as nadal? didn't think so.. was muster considered as clay court GOAT? didn't think so.. so what if pete had a winning h2h against muster? how do you know if Fed wouldn't have done better vs. muster?

All I wanted to do was to point out to your double standard in using the # slams won by pete's opposition to bolster your argument of "better" competition, while at the same time you want to discount Fed's better slam numbers in his claim of being better than pete. As for pete's CC competition winning CC slams: pete was a non-factor on clay, so his competition could collect some CC slams; OTOH, pete was a major factor on other surfaces, so his competition could NOT collect slams. Fed's case is the same, except that he was a major factor in all surfaces. And throw one of the the clay court GOATs into the mix, and you'll end with an opposition that has virtually no slams (clay or otherwise). sorry, how does that tell you how "strong" or "weak" the competition was?

by "anyone with half a brain" do you mean some pete fans whose new found obsession seems to be discrediting federer with his h2h with Nadal, while at the same time trying to project pete's opposition as something super-strong, when in fact, it was not different from other eras, including the current one? I'm sorry, I still don't see how you can claim that Pete's CC competition was stronger... especially when the potential clay court GOAT played alongside Fed!! Did Pete's CC competition play against Fed's? Did you go by their h2h records? How do you even know if pete's CC competition would beat Fed's?

If you can provide me with some insight/analysis into why Pete's competition was stronger WITHOUT using the clay court slams/titles (numbers), then I'll concede it (hey, you're the one who commented that numbers don't mean much).

Also, if you want to discount Pete's numbers on clay (if it matters "little"), then you should do that for Fed as well. guess what: Fed owns a 5-4 advantage over nadal outside of clay...


And how do you claim that pete is better than Fed outside of clay? do you have any proof? or is it still your opinion, without any backing? The only piece of relevant data we have is that Fed Vs Sampras is 1-0, and I'll concede that it does not mean much.

For the record: I do not claim to know what would have happened if Fed played in pete's era or vice versa, because we do not have any data to support any of my hypothetical claims. I only claim that Fed's accomplishments have surpassed Pete's (and even you admit that), and ergo, if Pete was the GOAT in your eyes, then the mantle now has to be passed on to Fed. thats all. Pete is an all-time great, and happens to be one of my favorites, and actually I hate to agrue this hypothetical BS; I only do this because i see that you (and some other posters) are being unfair to Federer, and not giving his due credit.

abmk
06-10-2009, 10:42 AM
So if neither wins any more slams, but Nadal ends witha h2h of say 40-7, it means nothing? Fed is still the better player? My god, no wonder people hate the *******s on this board...you people are truly a joke. I could care less about either one. I think today's tennis is far below the 80-90's tennis. I still watch and have interest, but could give a crap about any one player. I respect Nadal and Fed as players, but the rest of the field is such a joke that Roddick can't get out of the top 10...give me a break.

If nadal widens the H2H between him and federer, but still ends up with a slam count much lesser than fed , its a huge dent on fed's legacy and hurts his claim as the best ever/GOAT etc , but it doesn't mean nadal's the better player . How can he be when he's achieved clearly lesser than fed ? You'd do well to read posts rather than go and label people as whatever you want

abmk
06-10-2009, 11:15 AM
You think your slick he won. He struggled immensely with 34 yr old and 35 year old broke back Agassi while Fed was in his prime losing 9 matches those 2 years.

What if that was Agassi from the 1994 or 1995 US Opens?? Let me guess... Federer straight sets him and hands out some bagels. We are talking about his draws and the calibur of them, NOT if he won!!!!!!!!!! Stay on topic!!!!!!!


2004 match was affected by wind, what if it was not ?
2005 was not an immense struggle . Yes, was in state of trouble at 2-4 in the 3rd set, but a combination of fed raising his level and agassi dropping his ensured the match finished in 4 .

BTW agassi was dominated (straight-setted) by fed on his fav. surface , rebound ace, in between these 2 matches , that doesn't matter at all ?? And hasn't fed done better at the USO ( wrt to AO ) and agassi at the AO ( wrt to USO ) ?? A little ironic how the matches turned out considering that . Again, predicting may be fun, but doesn't mean that much in reality , cannot be proven ...

Oh and yeah the question was about the difficulty of the draws. The actual draws . Doesn't necessarily include all fantasy about how play would've gone on if it were a 10 year younger agassi -> the whole mindset and conditions >> everything changes there . But hey, you think all this who wins against whom in imaginary draws matters that much , when it does not !

He played all right. You said despite Gonzalez' horrible career in slams he played well that week in Melbourne???

I asked.. despite his hot week, does that make up for the marginal final he played which included damn near giving away the 1st set???

Yet another question you don't man up and answer!!!!!

NO, it does not. But part of the reason being that fed took the 1st set >> it puts lot more pressure on the 1st time finalist . He was playing pretty well in the 1st set .



I asked.....
"He had nore points, so that's what matteres?? Who had more....
Points at 2-2 in the 5th??
Break chances at 2-2 in the 5th??
Games won at 2-2 in the 5th??
Breaks at 2-2 in the 5th???"

And you keep bytching up.... where are the answers???

Did he compose himself by going down 15-40 at 1-1 in 5th set??
Did he compose himself by going down 15-40 at 2-2 in 5th set??
Did he compose himself by not getting a 1st serve in in both games own break point???
Did he compose himself when Nadal didn't put a 2nd serve in play?? Of course he was compose watching them go out and into the net!!!!

Fed's serve was what got him into the 5th set in that match, He=is great serving day is what kept him in it.


Fed had composed himself by the 5th set . Did I say fed having more points was all that matters ? All I said that the margin of points which was small ( that too in fed's favour ) indicates that neither player outplayed each other . Now if you were to say nadal outplayed fed from the baseline >> that is very true


Is Federer Sampras??? Is he gonna put it on the line like Pete?? Is he Goran, will he fire a 2nd serve @ 120mph and not give a f***??? Fed will hit a kicker on the 2nd serve 85-90% of the time, usually to a players backhand. Even Rafa himself said "I got nervous".

I love how Fed had 17 break chances in the 2007 French final, but does anyone talk about Nadal putting in 1st serves on 14 of them??? 14 of 17!!!!!!!

Nadal had TWO... again TWO 2nd serves at break point in the 5th set, and did not put them in play. He did not make Federer hit a shot. But somehow that's not Nadal choking those chances away. You kill me. You would reason how the sky is red if it favoured Roger.

blah , blah , blah .....I already responded to this .

Djokovic could not have played better, you sure about that?? based on what??

Would Djokovic had made 3-4 unforced errors in the 2nd set tie break???
Would Djokovic have conceeded an early break after going up 2 sets to 1???
Would Djokovic have been broken twice in the 5th set???
Would Djokovic after getting back on serve, concede his next service game, while struggling to put in a 1st serve???

More qustions, 5-1 odds you won't answer!!!!!!

I said I doubted if he could . I didn't say he couldn't have at all . And if djokovic could lose in straights to kohlschreiber, he could do all the above as well , in fact he could do MUCH worse ... Fact is del potro played pretty well .. I haven't seen novak play better on clay in a 5 set match ; 3 setters yes,I've seen him play at a similar level, but not at a cut above this level ... That's why I said that ...

Scud said he was gassed, and if I'm not mistaken, Cash cosigned it. But it's just me right?? I can say in the 1995 Becker got gassed midway through. That's the difference between me and you, one of us is a man (me), and the other is a beyatch (you).

ROFL :) Yes,scud was gassed and you are superman... I showed you scud's interview -> He said he wasn't gassed . In which fantasy world of yours was he gassed ? And you're still ......... waterpistol

federerGOAT
06-10-2009, 11:33 AM
Sampras has an overrated 2nd serve. If it was that fantastic, he would have a 99.5% hold percentage and be competitive with the dirt-ballers at Roland Garros during his era.

I can't see anything that Sampras does better than Federer, not even the volleying ability.

Prime Sampras would have no slams and not even be in the top 5 if he were playing today.

Winners or Errors
06-10-2009, 11:56 AM
By the way, Muster played a very similiar game to Nadal (this has been noted many times) and guess what Pete's record was against him????

Since you know all about Sampras, do you happen to have a list of the matches he played with Muster? The only significant matches I have found were on hardcourts, a surface on which Muster was worse than Sampras was on clay. I am curious about how many of Sampras' 9 wins against Muster were on clay...

380pistol
06-10-2009, 12:26 PM
2004 match was affected by wind, what if it was not ?
2005 was not an immense struggle . Yes, was in state of trouble at 2-4 in the 3rd set, but a combination of fed raising his level and agassi dropping his ensured the match finished in 4 .

BTW agassi was dominated (straight-setted) by fed on his fav. surface , rebound ace, in between these 2 matches , that doesn't matter at all ?? And hasn't fed done better at the USO ( wrt to AO ) and agassi at the AO ( wrt to USO ) ?? A little ironic how the matches turned out considering that . Again, predicting may be fun, but doesn't mean that much in reality , cannot be proven ...

Oh and yeah the question was about the difficulty of the draws. The actual draws . Doesn't necessarily include all fantasy about how play would've gone on if it were a 10 year younger agassi -> the whole mindset and conditions >> everything changes there . But hey, you think all this who wins against whom in imaginary draws matters that much , when it does not !

It was windy during their 2004 match and.... ??? It was windy during the 1995US Open F, so your point..?? Hell "the point" Sampras won he was going into that heavy wind, Agassi said after the match that's what surprised him.

Agassi was straight setted by Fed in 2005 Aus Open. The same Dre who was almost 35 and was in such great shape he damn near crawled out f RG, missed Wimbledon and was getting cortizone shots to play in the US Open. Speaking of that, how well did Fed do vs 35 year old broke back Agassi... with no wind???

How Agassi would have played 10 years ago, as in this thread the draws of BOTH Sampras and Federer were discussed. Scroll back I addressed both. Did Sampras not have to deal with Dre 10 years prior?? OK then.

Fed struggled more than he shuould vs older Agassi, accept it.



NO, it does not. But part of the reason being that fed took the 1st set >> it puts lot more pressure on the 1st time finalist . He was playing pretty well in the 1st set .

Nonsense. Was Gonzalez nervous his first 4 service games?? Was he nervice when he broke Federer?? Was he nervous when he got set points on his serve??? Bottom line he had a sitting forehand on set point, and dumped it into the net. Regardless of anything Gonzalez should have at least taken the 1st set. What happens after that is what happens, but stop with the stupidity, he damn near gave the 1st set away.


Fed had composed himself by the 5th set . Did I say fed having more points was all that matters ? All I said that the margin of points which was small ( that too in fed's favour ) indicates that neither player outplayed each other . Now if you were to say nadal outplayed fed from the baseline >> that is very true

So at 7-6,4-6,7-6, 2-6 Federer had composed himself so.........

How the hell did Nadal get 4 break chances in Roger's 1st 3 service games??? He clicked his Nike's 3 times and wizard granted them to him???

Where did Fed outplay Nadal from?? The net?? It was close. Nadal, from the baseline, returned better, moved better. Fed serve was waht kept him in it, He sevrved extremely well, and well in clutch situations, that got him to the 5th set.



blah , blah , blah .....I already responded to this .

Yes, yes, your usual nonsensical garbage.



I said I doubted if he could . I didn't say he couldn't have at all . And if djokovic could lose in straights to kohlschreiber, he could do all the above as well , in fact he could do MUCH worse ... Fact is del potro played pretty well .. I haven't seen novak play better on clay in a 5 set match ; 3 setters yes,I've seen him play at a similar level, but not at a cut above this level ... That's why I said that ...

No dumbass, you said..... so if you doubt that what does that mean?? Is it fact?? Is it based on anything?? That's your personal feelng, which I care nothing about, and it's based on...... NOTHING!!!!!!!!!

He could do better, he could do worse, what the hell is your point.
You as a Federphile, on the first day of the French Open, if I said you can pick Roger's SF opponent either Djokovic or Del Potro, who would you have picked???




ROFL :) Yes,scud was gassed and you are superman... I showed you scud's interview -> He said he wasn't gassed . In which fantasy world of yours was he gassed ? And you're still ......... waterpistol

So you ignore what Cash said as well, I know, keep them coming, nonsense as usual. Yes I'm waterpistol, can't even be original, calling me something somoeone else calls me. Well you're a Federphile, you'r a beyatch, I would say more but you might run to the mod again, cuz you're a stu pidegon, a dime dropper, a snitch, a whistleblower, an informant, a rat..... etc. , etc., etc.

380pistol
06-10-2009, 12:27 PM
Since you know all about Sampras, do you happen to have a list of the matches he played with Muster? The only significant matches I have found were on hardcourts, a surface on which Muster was worse than Sampras was on clay. I am curious about how many of Sampras' 9 wins against Muster were on clay...


They played once on clay in the 1991 French Open. Sampras won in 5 sets. He came back after losing the first 2. Mind you Muster was in the SF of RG in 1990, and won Rome that year as well.

abmk
06-10-2009, 01:02 PM
Fed struggled more than he shuould vs older Agassi, accept it.

ok, accepted ...

So at 7-6,4-6,7-6, 2-6 Federer had composed himself so.........

How the hell did Nadal get 4 break chances in Roger's 1st 3 service games??? He clicked his Nike's 3 times and wizard granted them to him???

Where did Fed outplay Nadal from?? The net?? It was close. Nadal, from the baseline, returned better, moved better. Fed serve was waht kept him in it, He sevrved extremely well, and well in clutch situations, that got him to the 5th set.

So, if fed composed himself, means rafa can't get BPs ? What sort of logic is that ?

Fed's serve kept him in it , who disagrees ? It kept it close . Hence IMO, its not correct to say nadal outplayed him overall in the match ...

No dumbass, you said..... so if you doubt that what does that mean?? Is it fact?? Is it based on anything?? That's your personal feelng, which I care nothing about, and it's based on...... NOTHING!!!!!!!!!

Who said it was a fact ? I expressed my opinion. Duh !

He could do better, he could do worse, what the hell is your point.
You as a Federphile, on the first day of the French Open, if I said you can pick Roger's SF opponent either Djokovic or Del Potro, who would you have picked???

Del potro ...

Now answer me: whom would you have picked to win b/w nadal and soderling ?

Do things always turn out to be as you predict them to be ? NO

Del potro was a quality opponent in the SF and played very well >> That was my point . Duh !

So you ignore what Cash said as well, I know, keep them coming, nonsense as usual. Yes I'm waterpistol, can't even be original, calling me something somoeone else calls me. Well you're a Federphile, you'r a beyatch, I would say more but you might run to the mod again, cuz you're a stu pidegon, a dime dropper, a snitch, a whistleblower, an informant, a rat..... etc. , etc., etc.

1. Learn to provide links . I did -> scud said in the interview he was perfectly fine .

2. Still whining about the non-existent complaint ,I see .. Good , keep whining :)

Cenc
06-10-2009, 01:02 PM
So if neither wins any more slams, but Nadal ends witha h2h of say 40-7, it means nothing? Fed is still the better player? My god, no wonder people hate the *******s on this board...you people are truly a joke. I could care less about either one. I think today's tennis is far below the 80-90's tennis. I still watch and have interest, but could give a crap about any one player. I respect Nadal and Fed as players, but the rest of the field is such a joke that Roddick can't get out of the top 10...give me a break.

u couldnt say it any better, just perfect
ur signature is excellent as well wow
we might start to agree with each other in some things :twisted:

Cenc
06-10-2009, 01:08 PM
Do me a favor...please choose the best clay court players from 1990-2000. Include the FO winners (10 should be good). I will prove to you that Pete had better OVERALL records against every one of them..foregt it, I will do it myself. I already stated many, many times that Pete was not that good on clay (63% is still beter than most players regardless). I said Fed is a better CC player, but what does that matter in the whole scheme? Its one of 5 surfaces. Pete is better in every other surface. h2h, I think Pete would be the winner vs. Fed.

I will use the 10 FO winners of the 90's and Pete's overall h2h against them..but before I do, would that be a fair assessment? You claim Pete was owned by the entire field..if you mean the field on ONE surface, fine I agree. But again, it means little. Please be clear, because I will prove to you that Pete has an incredible winning % against the FO winners from 1990-00.

Try not to twist my words and take them out of context, you may hurt yourself. Anyoen with half a brain knows the clay court players of the 90's were a much stronger field than today...not even close.

By the way, Muster played a very similiar game to Nadal (this has been noted many times) and guess what Pete's record was against him????

as far as i know sampras managed to defeat muster even on clay once, right? im not sure though and too lazy to check :P btw i know for sure that he defeated many other great claycourters on CLAY (much more good claycourters than fed defeated)

Cenc
06-10-2009, 01:17 PM
Sampras has an overrated 2nd serve. If it was that fantastic, he would have a 99.5% hold percentage and be competitive with the dirt-ballers at Roland Garros during his era.

I can't see anything that Sampras does better than Federer, not even the volleying ability.

Prime Sampras would have no slams and not even be in the top 5 if he were playing today.

is this guy ever going to get warned by a moderator or something?
every single thing he posts is the same
"sampras was overrated" "fed does everything better" without any context without any idea
he comes up only at those topics and discusses nothing else
and btw let me tell u mate, you dont know anything about tennis
99.5% of time holding serve
can u remind me what feds percentage is?

380pistol
06-10-2009, 01:18 PM
ok, accepted ...

Moving on....



So, if fed composed himself, means rafa can't get BPs ? What sort of logic is that ?

Fed's serve kept him in it , who disagrees ? It kept it close . Hence IMO, its not correct to say nadal outplayed him overall in the match ...

Did I say Nadal can't get break chances. You said fed composed himself in the 5th set, I said Nadal choked break chances away. How is Nadal not being able to put a 2nd serve in on break points TWICE, Federer composing himself??

That's Rafa no matter how you look at it.



Who said it was a fact ? I expressed my opinion. Duh !

And I said you opinion is meaningless. As we proceed....



Del potro ...

Now answer me: whom would you have picked to win b/w nadal and soderling ?

Do things always turn out to be as you predict them to be ? NO

Del potro was a quality opponent in the SF and played very well >> That was my point . Duh !

I would have picked Nadal. Now what has that got to to with the French Open draw opening up for Roger. Blow up Del Potro all you want, but with the rash of upsets, a lot of things wemt well and fell into place for him. Now add Nadal's knees, and his current Wimbledon situation and it becomes more apparent.

Reason it all you like, but truth is truth.



1. Learn to provide links . I did -> scud said in the interview he was perfectly fine .

2. Still whining about the non-existent complaint ,I see .. Good , keep whining :)


Learn to kiss my ***. I even mentioned Cash said similar things. But of course you failed to adress that. As of course you were closer to the situation than him.

I'm still whining please... but you're still snitching!!!!!!!

Go and listen to "A Week Ago"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RESncBXYGBs

"You know sh** is bad/ when your sister is mad
And your son's gotta grow up like, "this is my dad?!?"

bruce38
06-10-2009, 01:18 PM
So if neither wins any more slams, but Nadal ends witha h2h of say 40-7, it means nothing? Fed is still the better player? My god, no wonder people hate the *******s on this board...you people are truly a joke. I could care less about either one. I think today's tennis is far below the 80-90's tennis. I still watch and have interest, but could give a crap about any one player. I respect Nadal and Fed as players, but the rest of the field is such a joke that Roddick can't get out of the top 10...give me a break.

But why do you look at only one extreme? What if Nadal wins no more slams and Fed ends up with 30 slams. But Nadal's H2H is 60-7. Then what? Fed is better despite the H2H - because Nadal couldn't beat anyone else, whereas Fed could beat everyone else. Slams count more, that's the bottom line.

380pistol
06-10-2009, 01:23 PM
as far as i know sampras managed to defeat muster even on clay once, right? im not sure though and too lazy to check :P btw i know for sure that he defeated many other great claycourters on CLAY (much more good claycourters than fed defeated)

As I said earlier.....

They played once on clay in the 1991 French Open. Sampras won in 5 sets. He came back after losing the first 2. Mind you Muster was in the SF of RG in 1990, and won Rome that year as well.

I got it for you....
4-6 4-6 6-4 6-1 6-4

Cenc
06-10-2009, 01:29 PM
But why do you look at only one extreme? What if Nadal wins no more slams and Fed ends up with 30 slams. But Nadal's H2H is 60-7. Then what? Fed is better despite the H2H - because Nadal couldn't beat anyone else, whereas Fed could beat everyone else. Slams count more, that's the bottom line.

it just means that fed is being dominated by his main rival
short and simple
so he isnt dominant when he comes to the court against 2nd best player of HIS GENERATION
and he is the best ever?! huh

Cenc
06-10-2009, 01:31 PM
As I said earlier.....

They played once on clay in the 1991 French Open. Sampras won in 5 sets. He came back after losing the first 2. Mind you Muster was in the SF of RG in 1990, and won Rome that year as well.

I got it for you....
4-6 4-6 6-4 6-1 6-4

thx

i just checked fed played against bruguera once while he was at the same age at which nadal won his first FO
and you know what? 1/6 1/6 ouch that hurts

bruce38
06-10-2009, 01:35 PM
it just means that fed is being dominated by his main rival
short and simple
so he isnt dominant when he comes to the court against 2nd best player of HIS GENERATION
and he is the best ever?! huh

IT also means Nadal is being dominated by everyone else. Being dominated by one player only is better than being dominated by the rest. Do the math.

Cenc
06-10-2009, 01:36 PM
IT also means Nadal is being dominated by everyone else. Being dominated by one player only is better than being dominated by the rest. Do the math.

it doesnt mean he is dominated
he doesnt have 10-40 with the rest of the field
however fed does have it with nadal

bruce38
06-10-2009, 01:42 PM
it doesnt mean he is dominated
he doesnt have 10-40 with the rest of the field
however fed does have it with nadal

If he fails to win any more grand slams, it will mean precisely that.

AAAA
06-10-2009, 01:59 PM
as far as i know sampras managed to defeat muster even on clay once, right? im not sure though and too lazy to check :P btw i know for sure that he defeated many other great claycourters on CLAY (much more good claycourters than fed defeated)

Edberg is 10-Nil head-to-head lifetime against Muster and 4-nil on clay. Muster couldn't even beat Edberg on clay in 4 attempts.

Edberg didn't have a great ground game for a top player, he always looked for opportunities to hit approach shots to finish off points at the net and yet Muster still lost to the guy on a surface Muster is supposed to be a monster on.

So if Edberg with a weaker serve and groundgame than Sampras can beat Muster on clay I'm not surprised Sampras did aswell. It doesn't say much for Muster.

clayman2000
06-10-2009, 02:08 PM
it just means that fed is being dominated by his main rival
short and simple
so he isnt dominant when he comes to the court against 2nd best player of HIS GENERATION
and he is the best ever?! huh

Federer is not being "dominated" -- except for the FO 08, Nadal has never beaten Federer in straights...

And Nadal isnt even in Federer's generation... Nadal was no where until 05, and even until 05, what was he doing outside clay

zagor
06-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Exactly, even though Fed has been more accomplished in terms of winng the GS, to me his issue with Nadal hurts him. I agree with some posters that Pete lost too early at the FO to play the "best" players, but he made it to the QF and beyond 4 times. His cc winning % was 63 which is far above 50%. He was a good player, but not good enough. It just shows his game was not made for that surface. Edberg, Becker, Mac...none won the FO. It just shows that Fed has an all-court game, but a lot of guys on tour have that. In Pete's day, he would face the toughest grass player and the toughest HC player because they were...not lucky with the draw or face a guy like Novak that quits.

The issue is not Pete and his lack of a FO. If somone were to have them play 20 times...5 on each court (AO, FO, W and USO), I say Pete wins 12-8. He was way more dominant on grass, He played in an era with better HC players and he had a much tougher mental game than Fed.

Well look you're certainly entitled to your opinion about how Pete-Fed H2H would like if they met in their primes but personally I don't like to deal that much with coulda,woulda,shoulda.I honestly don't know how would Pete and Fed match-up in their prime,I mean they're both great players certainly and while Fed did got the better of Pete in their one sole meeting neither were in their primes and one match is too small of a sample to conclude how the whole hypothetical rivalrly would have gone anyway.

I don't like to compare Fed's achievements to Pete's yet as Fed still hasn't finished his career,I think people should wait when he does before comparing his results,records etc. to past tennis greats like Pete.Although I don't really care that much who's better or greater between the two,I think people here just spend too much time trying to figure out who's the GOAT when the reality is that everyone will have their own opinion and their own take on the GOAT discussion and these debates are kinda pointless because they'll never end unless some player comes and has a perfect career which is almost impossible,these guys while great tennis legends are still only humans not machines.

I also agree that Nadal issue hurts Fed(he should try to even the H2H at slams a bit as Nadal has gotten the better of him on quite a few big occasions) but I still also think that lack of FO title or final hurts Pete as well,it's completely fine if you disagree.I understand that his game didn't suit clay and that he had thalassemia and if you don't include Nadal an overall deeper clay field but still a champion of Pete's caliber should have done more on the red stuff IMO,atleast reach a final to show he's a contender.

Bare in mind that this is just my opinion,I'm not trying to force anything on you.If you think Pete is better than Fed(like you do)then that's perfectly fine with me.There are too many people here screaming Fed is GOAT now that he won the FO anyway so a bit of a diversity in opinions is sort of welcome.

MarcRosset1992
06-10-2009, 02:42 PM
As I said earlier.....

They played once on clay in the 1991 French Open. Sampras won in 5 sets. He came back after losing the first 2. Mind you Muster was in the SF of RG in 1990, and won Rome that year as well.

I got it for you....
4-6 4-6 6-4 6-1 6-4

Such a brilliant result; but do you remember what happened in the next round? Save time, I got for you: Sampras - Champion : 3-6 1-6 1-6

Champion became later (in)famous for being on the receiving end of a triple O-ring from Bruguera.

TennisFan481
06-10-2009, 02:46 PM
Muster had trouble with serve-and-volley players, which is why Edberg owned him and one of the reasons he lost to Michael Stich in that shocking upset in the 4th round of the French Open in 1996.

Thus, it's not that surprising Sampras was able to trouble him on the surface.

And Sampras wasn't a bad clay courter in his prime...he just wasn't a great one.

Which is all beside the point since I don't think anyone would argue that Sampras is better on clay than Federer, which makes me wonder why Azzurri keeps spinning around in circles talking about clay court competition and the like.

So where is Sampras superior? Fast grass courts? MAYBE...that's all conjecture.

Hard courts? Certainly not based on results.

Carpet? Nope.

Indoors? Nope.

lightning.lu10
06-10-2009, 03:31 PM
There are some MAJOR homers on this board and most points brought up in this thread are really poor strawman arguments.

Winners or Errors
06-10-2009, 03:38 PM
They played once on clay in the 1991 French Open. Sampras won in 5 sets. He came back after losing the first 2. Mind you Muster was in the SF of RG in 1990, and won Rome that year as well.

Nice win. Of course, this validates my theory. They played 11 times and only 1 was on clay. Why? Sampras just rarely made it deep enough in clay court tournaments to meet other highly seeded players.

So to logically finish the Federer-Nadal comparison to Sampras-Muster, it's pretty easy to see that Sampras dominated Muster with a 9-2 record, and that the record was compiled almost exclusively on surfaces Muster simply never performed well on, even when he was among the top players in the world. It's also pretty safe to say Nadal is vastly superior to Muster on hard-courts and grass; it's not even close. So, let's look at that Federer-Nadal head to head. 11 meetings on clay, where Nadal is 9-2. 9 meetings on other surfaces, where Federer is 5-4. Not too tough to see that the reason for the differential in H2H is that Pete didn't rack up many matches on clay against his top competition, while Federer seems to find himself deep in clay court tournaments facing Nadal and other top players all the time.

One last time... This is why the Federer-Nadal H2H argument is complete and utter rubbish. Sure, the Sampras-Muster thing is just one example, but it's not one I came up with. It's the one that was tossed out as an argument about how Pete had a great H2H against a strong clay court player who he only happened to meet on clay a single time during one of Muster's least productive years, 1991. [Edit: Muster's ranking before the match was #57 in the world, it was in the 1st round, obviously not a high point for him.]

Conquistador
06-10-2009, 05:21 PM
LOL..ok, whatever you say. So having a 7-13 record against your greatest rival is a non-factor?

I will say this, if Andre had the 20-14 record vs. Pete, there would be a lot of people making the same arguement I am making. Pete's greatest rival was Agassi and he had a better h2h2 and also in majors, but Fed does not have this against Nadal. Anyway, since h2h means nothing to you, then please don't bother posting to me.

Im going to break down logic really quick. Petros Sampras dominated Agassi in his era. That is certain. Sampras was the best player of his era bar none. Federer dominated his era, however the wild card (Nadal) is still playing tennis. Right now we cannot Judge Nadal until his career major mark moves up. So now we are down to Sampras and the great Federer. If you look at all the numbers, Federer's winning percentage is higher than all of Sampras winning percentages on the surfaces. If that doesnt end the debate what does.

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 06:06 PM
No, that's a wrong assessment. I meant Pete was owned by the whole field on ONE surface, a surface that spans 33% of the tennis season, and 25% of the GS. I do know that Pete was awesome on other surfaces, and he probably does own a winning h2h against FO winners in 1990-2000. But that is irrelevant here. The CC is a very important part of the tennis season, so no reason to "discount" it.

you're making connections when there are none - muster playing a "similar" game to nadal? so what? though there are some similarities, there are plenty of differences. Does muster impart the same amount of spin in his FH as nadal? didn't think so.. does muster have the same defensive capabilities as nadal? didn't think so.. was muster considered as clay court GOAT? didn't think so.. so what if pete had a winning h2h against muster? how do you know if Fed wouldn't have done better vs. muster?

All I wanted to do was to point out to your double standard in using the # slams won by pete's opposition to bolster your argument of "better" competition, while at the same time you want to discount Fed's better slam numbers in his claim of being better than pete. As for pete's CC competition winning CC slams: pete was a non-factor on clay, so his competition could collect some CC slams; OTOH, pete was a major factor on other surfaces, so his competition could NOT collect slams. Fed's case is the same, except that he was a major factor in all surfaces. And throw one of the the clay court GOATs into the mix, and you'll end with an opposition that has virtually no slams (clay or otherwise). sorry, how does that tell you how "strong" or "weak" the competition was?

by "anyone with half a brain" do you mean some pete fans whose new found obsession seems to be discrediting federer with his h2h with Nadal, while at the same time trying to project pete's opposition as something super-strong, when in fact, it was not different from other eras, including the current one? I'm sorry, I still don't see how you can claim that Pete's CC competition was stronger... especially when the potential clay court GOAT played alongside Fed!! Did Pete's CC competition play against Fed's? Did you go by their h2h records? How do you even know if pete's CC competition would beat Fed's?

If you can provide me with some insight/analysis into why Pete's competition was stronger WITHOUT using the clay court slams/titles (numbers), then I'll concede it (hey, you're the one who commented that numbers don't mean much).

Also, if you want to discount Pete's numbers on clay (if it matters "little"), then you should do that for Fed as well. guess what: Fed owns a 5-4 advantage over nadal outside of clay...


And how do you claim that pete is better than Fed outside of clay? do you have any proof? or is it still your opinion, without any backing? The only piece of relevant data we have is that Fed Vs Sampras is 1-0, and I'll concede that it does not mean much.

For the record: I do not claim to know what would have happened if Fed played in pete's era or vice versa, because we do not have any data to support any of my hypothetical claims. I only claim that Fed's accomplishments have surpassed Pete's (and even you admit that), and ergo, if Pete was the GOAT in your eyes, then the mantle now has to be passed on to Fed. thats all. Pete is an all-time great, and happens to be one of my favorites, and actually I hate to agrue this hypothetical BS; I only do this because i see that you (and some other posters) are being unfair to Federer, and not giving his due credit.

Sampras won 63% of his matches on clay..how is that owned by the field you twit!

Azzurri
06-10-2009, 06:07 PM
If nadal widens the H2H between him and federer, but still ends up with a slam count much lesser than fed , its a huge dent on fed's legacy and hurts his claim as the best ever/GOAT etc , but it doesn't mean nadal's the better player . How can he be when he's achieved clearly lesser than fed ? You'd do well to read posts rather than go and label people as whatever you want

Nadal has way more slams at 22 then Fed had at 22....duhhhh.

bruce38
06-10-2009, 06:13 PM
Nadal has way more slams at 22 then Fed had at 22....duhhhh.

Nadal's career will end way before Fed's, just wait and see. That nullifies Nadal's precocious start.

Conquistador
06-10-2009, 06:21 PM
The numbers speak for themselves ladies and gentlemen. The verdict is out.

Grass: Federer (81–12) 87.1% Sampras (101–20) 84%
Carpet: Sampras (148-47) 76% Federer (50–19) 72.46
Clay: Federer (139–42) 76.8% Sampras (90–54) 63%
Hard: Federer (380–82) 82.25% Sampras (423–101) 81%

Winners or Errors
06-10-2009, 06:23 PM
Sampras won 63% of his matches on clay..how is that owned by the field you twit!

Hello? That means he usually lost between the second and third round... that's called being owned by the field. It's not called going deep into the tournament.

abmk
06-10-2009, 07:36 PM
Nadal has way more slams at 22 then Fed had at 22....duhhhh.

So ?? Different players peak and burn out/retire at different times . We'll see how nadal's career goes .

abmk
06-10-2009, 07:52 PM
Did I say Nadal can't get break chances. You said fed composed himself in the 5th set, I said Nadal choked break chances away. How is Nadal not being able to put a 2nd serve in on break points TWICE, Federer composing himself??

That's Rafa no matter how you look at it.

I said fed was able to mentally compose himself after that outburst in the 4th set -> hence was able to remain clutch , serve well in the final set ,...again you're showing off your lack of comprehension skills :)

And I said you opinion is meaningless. As we proceed....

Care to explain why ?

I would have picked Nadal. Now what has that got to to with the French Open draw opening up for Roger. Blow up Del Potro all you want, but with the rash of upsets, a lot of things wemt well and fell into place for him. Now add Nadal's knees, and his current Wimbledon situation and it becomes more apparent.

Reason it all you like, but truth is truth.

what do you mean blow up del potro all you want ? He played a very good match ... there is no blowing up .. truth is truth

I already agreed about the nadal part ( well , only if I were crazy I wouldn't) , but I am not sold on the djokovic one


Learn to kiss my ***. I even mentioned Cash said similar things. But of course you failed to adress that. As of course you were closer to the situation than him.

I'm still whining please... but you're still snitching!!!!!!!

Go and listen to "A Week Ago"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RESncBXYGBs

"You know sh** is bad/ when your sister is mad
And your son's gotta grow up like, "this is my dad?!?"

BOO HOO HOO, why don't you provide a link to what exactly cash said ?

Not that it'll conclusively prove anything, just that it'll show what you say has some credibility

TheTruth
06-10-2009, 10:02 PM
Federer is not being "dominated" -- except for the FO 08, Nadal has never beaten Federer in straights...

And Nadal isnt even in Federer's generation... Nadal was no where until 05, and even until 05, what was he doing outside clay

Growing up. The guy was a teenager, wasn't he?

380pistol
06-10-2009, 10:18 PM
Such a brilliant result; but do you remember what happened in the next round? Save time, I got for you: Sampras - Champion : 3-6 1-6 1-6

Champion became later (in)famous for being on the receiving end of a triple O-ring from Bruguera.

At that same age, or I'm sorry a year older Federer was losing to Arazi, and the Horna the following year in RG, while beating whom??? And Arazi and Horna were (in)famous for what exactly??

And yes while young Sampras was beating Muster, what was Roger doing vs. the aforementioned Bruguera?? Getting bytchslapped while Sergi Fed him 2 breadsticks!!!

Stop posting nonsense!!!!!!!

krosero
06-10-2009, 10:30 PM
Did he compose himself by not getting a 1st serve in in both games own break point???
Did he compose himself when Nadal didn't put a 2nd serve in play??

Nadal had TWO... again TWO 2nd serves at break point in the 5th set, and did not put them in play.

Serve well in the final set is going down 15-40 twice!!!!!!!
Serve well is not putting a first serve in those clutch spots?!?

Where'd you get these stats?

380pistol
06-10-2009, 10:52 PM
Where'd you get these stats?

Memeory. In the 5th set of 2007 Wimbledon final at 1-1 and 2-2 in the 5th Nadal was up 15-40, and each game he got a 2nd serve to look at which he didn't put back in play.

jamesblakefan#1
06-10-2009, 10:59 PM
oh man. 380pistol. Are you trying to say that on clay, Sampras >= Federer? Because if so, I may just laugh myself to death.

MarcRosset1992
06-10-2009, 11:10 PM
At that same age, or I'm sorry a year older Federer was losing to Arazi, and the Horna the following year in RG, while beating whom??? And Arazi and Horna were (in)famous for what exactly??

And yes while young Sampras was beating Muster, what was Roger doing vs. the aforementioned Bruguera?? Getting bytchslapped while Sergi Fed him 2 breadsticks!!!

Stop posting nonsense!!!!!!!

So young Sampras lost to mighty Thierry Champion, but that was only a minor incident on his way to French Open glory...

...which he won how many times exactly?
...oh sorry, he didn't, but reached the final how many times?
...oh sorry again, bur surely he went multiple times to the semis, right? or maybe not.

Other than the 1995 Davis Cup final, Sampras has been a total failure on clay, face it.

krosero
06-10-2009, 11:13 PM
Memeory. In the 5th set of 2007 Wimbledon final at 1-1 and 2-2 in the 5th Nadal was up 15-40, and each game he got a 2nd serve to look at which he didn't put back in play.Check the video.

abmk
06-10-2009, 11:22 PM
Check the video.

He's right , I've seen it .

krosero
06-10-2009, 11:30 PM
He's right , I've seen it .I checked Federer's first serves; he made 3 of 4 on those break points.

abmk
06-10-2009, 11:43 PM
I checked Federer's first serves; he made 3 of 4 on those break points.

Yeah, you are right, I checked it again now ..... my bad ... :oops:

I must've been drowsy when I checked it previously.. :(

He did get the first serves in at 15-40,30-40 at 1-1 and at 30-40 at 2-2

Thanks for the correction .

abmk
06-10-2009, 11:57 PM
380pistol

Watch the video again. I hope you'd shut up about nadal 'choking' (by your own definition of choking ) after this . That's another bunch of failed arguments from you.

Watch it before coming with your hoo hii , snitch,rat, baboon blah blah whatever posts

severus
06-11-2009, 01:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgUIDtGUeNE

Azzurri
06-11-2009, 03:29 AM
Hello? That means he usually lost between the second and third round... that's called being owned by the field. It's not called going deep into the tournament.

wow, please tell me where you came up with that? you don't even realize how clueless you are, hence you are clueless.

clayman2000
06-11-2009, 04:22 AM
wow, please tell me where you came up with that? you don't even realize how clueless you are, hence you are clueless.

i think you are the clueless one: 9 out of 13 times Pete played the French he was gone by the 3rd round

Winners or Errors
06-11-2009, 04:30 AM
wow, please tell me where you came up with that? you don't even realize how clueless you are, hence you are clueless.

Do the math. It's not that difficult. Simple logic. Let me spell it out for you. Sampras' record on clay is 90-54. He won 3 clay titles, therefore unless he withdrew and played in more tournaments than I think making these numbers worse, or some of his clay court tournaments were round robin (which I doubt), he played in 57 claycourt tournaments. Since he won 90 matches, it's pretty clear he averaged making it out of the first round. Of course, that only leaves 33 matches, which means that on average he only made it out of the second round a little over half the time. Duh.

Since he did win 3 tournaments and got past the first couple of rounds of RG more than once, his record is even worse than my estimate. That means, in general, that he was owned by the field. In fact, the estimate from my earlier post is generous.

fed_rulz
06-11-2009, 05:02 AM
Sampras won 63% of his matches on clay..how is that owned by the field you twit!

For starters, if you expect to have a civil discussion, you should not resort to name calling - reeks of desperation. Getting owned by the field = losing to multiple players (10 different players to be precise, since his domination began in 1993) in the FO. According to your twisted logic, that is somehow more acceptable than losing to just ONE player..

Secondly, you are yet to give any responses to any of the points I raised. In fact, most of your responses are based on fallacious logic, hypothetical "ifs" & "buts", strongly "corroborated" your fanboy-coated opinions. None of your assertions about Fed Vs. Pete are based on any relevant factual data. There is one piece of objective relevant data that could have been used: slam numbers, but you were quick to dismiss that saying "they don't mean much". seriously, you need to try harder.

Finally, if someone dares to contradict your opinion, you are quick to dismiss them (in due process resorting to name calling), as if what you said was ultra-obvious to the world (any one with a half-brain, remember...). I have news for you: some one pointed out to a poll yesterday on euro sport; 80% of the poll respondents (out of a total of 18000+) believe that Fed is now the GOAT with his FO win. So perhaps it's you who needs to wake up and smell the coffee...

I have nothing more to add to this discussion. You could learn a thing or two from your idol who was very gracious in passing the mantle.

Azzurri
06-11-2009, 06:25 AM
i think you are the clueless one: 9 out of 13 times Pete played the French he was gone by the 3rd round

I love the idiots on here...the 63% was his clay court winning %. please show me where I stated that was his FO winning %. the talk was Pete on clay...I have noted many, many times he was not very good on clay, but how can someone be "owned" by a field of clay-court players considering he still won 63% of his matches. This is where you and the other twit show how clueless you are.

Done with argueing with fools.

grafrules
06-11-2009, 06:29 AM
I agree Sampras wasnt owned by one particular rival head to head. If you wanted to talk about his lesser clay court record being something to hold against him that makes sense, but trying to somehow tie in his lesser clay court record with being owned by any major rival is stupid. Actually his performances on clay, while overall not great drive this point home in a certain way. Despite being not even up to say Federer caliber of clay courter and vurnerable enough to be able to be upset by alot of low ranked players at the French, he still managed to beat Courier, Bruguera, and Muster at the French. So on the one surface he isnt even that good he still beats some of the top dogs when he got to play them. Federer despite being a clearly superior clay courter to Sampras has failed time and time again at the hands of Nadal at the French, and his one time facing a Kuerten way past his prime when much lesser people like Robredo and an aging Costa even were able to handle him.

MarcRosset1992
06-11-2009, 06:30 AM
I love the idiots on here...the 63% was his clay court winning %. please show me where I stated that was his FO winning %. the talk was Pete on clay...I have noted many, many times he was not very good on clay, but how can someone be "owned" by a field of clay-court players considering he still won 63% of his matches. This is where you and the other twit show how clueless you are.

Done with argueing with fools.

anger management issues?:? pop those pills and cool down

heftylefty
06-11-2009, 07:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgUIDtGUeNE

Did Nike just punk'd Sampras?!

Sick and wrong!.....oh and funny too.

fed_rulz
06-11-2009, 07:36 AM
I agree Sampras wasnt owned by one particular rival head to head. If you wanted to talk about his lesser clay court record being something to hold against him that makes sense, but trying to somehow tie in his lesser clay court record with being owned by any major rival is stupid. Actually his performances on clay, while overall not great drive this point home in a certain way. Despite being not even up to say Federer caliber of clay courter and vurnerable enough to be able to be upset by alot of low ranked players at the French, he still managed to beat Courier, Bruguera, and Muster at the French. So on the one surface he isnt even that good he still beats some of the top dogs when he got to play them. Federer despite being a clearly superior clay courter to Sampras has failed time and time again at the hands of Nadal at the French, and his one time facing a Kuerten way past his prime when much lesser people like Robredo and an aging Costa even were able to handle him.

think of it this way: if fed lost to multiple players earlier in the various FO/CC tournies, then his h2h with nadal would not be skewed. If you take a closer look at the Fedal h2h, the CC losses skew it significantly. So it makes sense to compare Fed's CC Vs Pete's CC (as some Pete fanboys make a case for Pete's GOAT status saying that he wasn't "owned" by a single player..).

Some how losing to nadal (one of the CC all time greats) in the CC finals seems to be less desirable than Pete losing to multiple players. What ridiculous logic? Do you see the connection now?

Azzurri
06-11-2009, 08:27 AM
I agree Sampras wasnt owned by one particular rival head to head. If you wanted to talk about his lesser clay court record being something to hold against him that makes sense, but trying to somehow tie in his lesser clay court record with being owned by any major rival is stupid. Actually his performances on clay, while overall not great drive this point home in a certain way. Despite being not even up to say Federer caliber of clay courter and vurnerable enough to be able to be upset by alot of low ranked players at the French, he still managed to beat Courier, Bruguera, and Muster at the French. So on the one surface he isnt even that good he still beats some of the top dogs when he got to play them. Federer despite being a clearly superior clay courter to Sampras has failed time and time again at the hands of Nadal at the French, and his one time facing a Kuerten way past his prime when much lesser people like Robredo and an aging Costa even were able to handle him.

once again, you completely understand the point. thank you so very much. it was beginning to get frustrating talking to the kids and morons on this thread. amazing how little sense so many posters on this forum have.

Excelletn post!

Azzurri
06-11-2009, 08:30 AM
anger management issues?:? pop those pills and cool down

difference between anger and frustrated. see grafrules post above. he completely understand the point that so many have missed. these fed fans want so badly to claim Roger as GOAT simply because Sampras was not as good one ONE surface, yet Pete was much better than Fed on grass (real grass) and a tad better on HC (mostly cuz of the serve) and indoor carpet. They are probably even on slower HC. So Pete has Fed on most surfaces, yet clay is the only one mentioned. the bottom line is Fed is not even the best in his own era....again, not angry.:)

Azzurri
06-11-2009, 08:34 AM
think of it this way: if fed lost to multiple players earlier in the various FO/CC tournies, then his h2h with nadal would not be skewed. If you take a closer look at the Fedal h2h, the CC losses skew it significantly. So it makes sense to compare Fed's CC Vs Pete's CC (as some Pete fanboys make a case for Pete's GOAT status saying that he wasn't "owned" by a single player..).

Some how losing to nadal (one of the CC all time greats) in the CC finals seems to be less desirable than Pete losing to multiple players. What ridiculous logic? Do you see the connection now?

oh my god...of course...this is stating the obvious. but you can't say IF...what IF Sampras was not injured in 99, what if Sampras did not lose his desire when he met his wife, what if, what if, what if...the point is there is NO WHAT IF..he played him and he lost.

You also missed the point the competition is much weaker in this era of clay court players. Guys like Novak, Nadal, Murray and other top flight players are good on all surfaces..they are all very slowed down. don't you see the coincidence? No grass court specialists...cuz grass is slow, etc.