PDA

View Full Version : Federer's era HC quality vs. Sampras' era HC quality


P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:29 PM
Ok, we've had the Federer vs. Sampras on hard courts poll, and Federer won by a huge atvantage.

But who Had the better HC competition?

Pete had Agassi, Courier, Becker, Rafter and Chang among others.

Fed had Agassi, Nalbandian, Safin, Blake, Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt among others.

Personally I think Sampras' era had better grass players and clay players, but Fed's era had much better HC players.

Discuss.

THESEXPISTOL
08-08-2009, 12:30 PM
Not again......

CountryHillbilly
08-08-2009, 12:31 PM
Pete had Agassi, Courier, Becker, Rafter and Chang among others.

Fed had Agassi, Nalbandian, Safin, Blake, Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt among others.

Personally I think Sampras' era had better grass players and clay players, but Fed's era had much better HC players.

Discuss.

What's Fed's era? Which years?

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:32 PM
What's Fed's era? Which years?

2003 until now so far.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 12:32 PM
Id say Feds era is 2003/2004-present
Sampras was 1991/1992-2000

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 12:40 PM
I'd have to say both are a/b the same. Neither really had a consistently great rival on hard courts. Agassi was too up and down to consider him "consistently great", Roger and Andy have only played twice @ HC slams, doesn't Rafa also count as the same HC era, BTW?

Yeah, I'd say a/b the same competition wise. Maybe this era has more depth, but that era was top heavy, so it evens out.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:42 PM
I'd have to say both are a/b the same. Neither really had a consistently great rival on hard courts. Agassi was too up and down to consider him "consistently great", Roger and Andy have only played twice @ HC slams, doesn't Rafa also count as the same HC era, BTW?

Yeah, I'd say a/b the same competition wise. Maybe this era has more depth, but that era was top heavy, so it evens out.

I haven't included Rara, Murray and Djokovic because they are only recently became great HC players, but in most of Fed's domination years they weren't. Maybe I should have included Djokovic because he's the first of the bunch to get to an HC slam final and beat Fed at an HC slam.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 12:42 PM
Id say that the competition was about the same , Sampras`s era had the bigger stars,more famous names, but level-wise the players in Petes and Rogers era is about the same.

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Easily Federer has played in a much tougher era then pansy Sampras.

maximo
08-08-2009, 12:49 PM
Pete had prime Agassi.

I go with Sampras.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 01:13 PM
Agassi was better after 30 than he was before.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 01:16 PM
Agassi was better after 30 than he was before.
Absolutely, id say Agassis prime was 1999-2001,2003. He was a HC-monster back then, i loved to watch him play.

GasquetGOAT
08-08-2009, 01:19 PM
Don't forget former King Rafa, Murray and Djokovic! Any of these guys would crush any of Pete's competition on HC!:twisted:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 01:23 PM
Don't forget former King Rafa, Murray and Djokovic! Any of these guys would crush any of Pete's competition on HC!:twisted:
No, they wouldnt, it would be very tough matches.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 01:28 PM
No, they wouldnt, it would be very tough matches.

If you add those 3 to Federer's HC era, then along with Roddick, Nalby, Safin, Davy and Hewitt, it wins easily. However, Murray and Djokovic have been HX specialists only in the second part of Fed's career, and Nadal became an HC force just recently, so it wouldn't be fair to add them completley.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 01:31 PM
If you add those 3 to Federer's HC era, then along with Roddick, Nalby, Safin, Davy and Hewitt, it wins easily. However, Murray and Djokovic have been HX specialists only in the second part of Fed's career, and Nadal became an HC force just recently, so it wouldn't be fair to add them completley.
They are great players, but Kafelnikov,Agassi,Kuerten,Courier,Edberg,Becker were also very good players...If we look at it this way, add the men of Sampras era vs the men of Federers era, whos got the most HC-GS? That is the guys from Sampras`s era...

The-Champ
08-08-2009, 01:31 PM
Don't forget former King Rafa, Murray and Djokovic! Any of these guys would crush any of Pete's competition on HC!:twisted:



But according to fed fans, rafa is only a moon-balling, one-dimensional clay courter.....so maybe Rafa shouldn't be counted as a contender on HC just to legitimize the "strong" federer era.



just my 2 cents...

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 01:32 PM
They are great players, but Kafelnikov,Agassi,Kuerten,Courier,Edberg,Becker were also very good players...If we look at it this way, add the men of Sampras era vs the men of Federers era, whos got the most HC-GS? That is the guys from Sampras`s era...

That's because it was longer and Federer was a much more dominant HC player than Sampras was (which the former poll confirms).

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 01:33 PM
But according to fed fans, rafa is only a moon-balling, one-dimensional clay courter.....so maybe Rafa shouldn't be counted as a contender on HC just to legitimize the "strong" federer era.



just my 2 cents...
I cant speak for all the Fed-fans but i personally think that Nadal is a very good HC-player. Far from the best, but still a good one.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 01:34 PM
But according to fed fans, rafa is only a moon-balling, one-dimensional clay courter.....so maybe Rafa shouldn't be counted as a contender on HC just to legitimize the "strong" federer era.



just my 2 cents...

Nadal has improved a lot as far as his HC game goes. He hits with more variety, slices the ball better, can hit flatter forehands. He'll still have trouble on the faster courts, but I'm sure we will see improvment on those as well.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 01:44 PM
That's because it was longer and Federer was a much more dominant HC player than Sampras was (which the former poll confirms).
Yeah, thats a good point...well well, what matters to me is that Fed stands alone at 15, the next time Fed plays Murray the referee can call out "-Fifteen-Love before the match has started:twisted:

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 01:46 PM
Yeah, thats a good point...well well, what matters to me is that Fed stands alone at 15, the next time Fed plays Murray the referee can call out "-Fifteen-Love before the match has started:twisted:

I hope they meet again in the US Open final in a rematch of last year's final. It'd be interesting to see how Fed plays against Murray this time.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 01:48 PM
I hope they meet again in the US Open final in a rematch of last year's final. It'd be interesting to see how Fed plays against Murray this time.
Absolutely, in a MS-semi or even a final, im worried about Feds chanses, in a Slam-final, i feel pretty confident...

Serendipitous
08-08-2009, 01:49 PM
Absolutely, in a MS-semi or even a final, im worried about Feds chanses, in a Slam-final, i feel pretty confident...

It's great to be confident. :):):):)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 01:50 PM
It's great to be confident. :):):):)
Well yeah, if you are not confident in life people are gonna run over you.

CountryHillbilly
08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
Yeah, I guess Fed had it harder. ALthough Sampras can be proud of having Agassi against him.

Roddick and Hewitt are good. Safin, Nalby and Blake are too inconsistent, and Davydenko...seriously :)

But I think there is a case for Djokovic, Murray and the new improved hardcourt Nadal. They may be better competition than Roddick and Hewitt.

They are great players, but Kafelnikov,Agassi,Kuerten,Courier,Edberg,Becker were also very good players...If we look at it this way, add the men of Sampras era vs the men of Federers era, whos got the most HC-GS? That is the guys from Sampras`s era...

Federer's era was 3-4 years. These 90s guys span over 10 years.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 02:10 PM
Yeah, I guess Fed had it harder. ALthough Sampras can be proud of having Agassi against him.

Roddick and Hewitt are good. Safin, Nalby and Blake are too inconsistent, and Davydenko...seriously :)

But I think there is a case for Djokovic, Murray and the new improved hardcourt Nadal. They may be better competition than Roddick and Hewitt.



Federer's era was 3-4 years. These 90s guys span over 10 years.

Nalby had a winning record over Fed for quite some time, and Davy can beat anyone on any given day, Safin has 2 HC slams in his pocket and Blake has a winning record over Nadal on HCs.

Cesc Fabregas
08-08-2009, 02:38 PM
Agassi and Courier are better than any hardcourt rival in Federer's era so Sampras by far.

CountryHillbilly
08-08-2009, 02:40 PM
Nalby had a winning record over Fed for quite some time, and Davy can beat anyone on any given day, Safin has 2 HC slams in his pocket and Blake has a winning record over Nadal on HCs.

Nalby and Safin are very, very inconsistent. We have to factor that in. They may be more talented than many others, but have not performed on a high-level when it counted (except AO 05).

Davydenko is not better Murray, Nadal, or Djokovic, or any of 90s hardcourters. Do we really need to discuss this? Blake has a winning record over old Nadal that hadn't made a HC semi.

Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are definitely better than Davydenko, Blake or Nalby. And it's not entirely clear that they are inferior to Roddick and Safin, so I'll postpone the judgement until they reach their peak.

Chadwixx
08-08-2009, 02:41 PM
Jaime yzaga, why even have a poll? No one in today game could handle that guy.

The term "competition" is misleading, the lesser player (pete) is guarenteed to have stronger competition.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 02:43 PM
Agassi and Courier are better than any hardcourt rival in Federer's era so Sampras by far.

Agassi was better after he came back, and this poll disagrees with you.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 02:44 PM
Nalby and Safin are very, very inconsistent. We have to factor that in. They may be more talented than many others, but have not performed on a high-level when it counted (except AO 05).

Davydenko is not better Murray, Nadal, or Djokovic, or any of 90s hardcourters. Do we really need to discuss this? Blake has a winning record over old Nadal that hadn't made a HC semi.

Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are definitely better than Davydenko, Blake or Nalby. And it's not entirely clear that they are inferior to Roddick and Safin, so I'll postpone the judgement until they reach their peak.

Just at last year's TMC, Davydenko destroyed Murray. He also destroyed Nadal last year in Miami. It's Federer he can't deal with.

Cesc Fabregas
08-08-2009, 02:45 PM
Agassi was better after he came back, and this poll disagrees with you.

Agassi's peak was USO 94 to USO 95 in which Pete played him at the AO 95 and USO 95.

maximo
08-08-2009, 02:46 PM
Agassi was better after he came back, and this poll disagrees with you.

Agassi 2000, 2001 was incredible.

Just watch the AO match between Pete and Andre. Admire the beauty of his double hander. :twisted:

Serendipitous
08-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Agassi 2000, 2001 was incredible.

Just watch the AO match between Pete and Andre.

Time for bed! :)


Only 10 more minutes on the computer.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 02:50 PM
Agassi's peak was USO 94 to USO 95 in which Pete played him at the AO 95 and USO 95.

Agassi was a beast on hard courts after his 30s.

Cesc Fabregas
08-08-2009, 02:54 PM
Agassi was a beast on hard courts after his 30s.

Agreed. 00-02 Pete played Andre 3 times on hardcourts at majors whilst Andre was still playing very good tennis, Federer on the otherhand caught Andre 03 onwards when Andre got old.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 02:56 PM
Agreed. 00-02 Pete played Andre 3 times on hardcourts at majors whilst Andre was still playing very good tennis, Federer on the otherhand caught Andre 03 onwards when Andre got old.

Nah, Andre played some of his best tennis against Fed. But even if we don't count Andre, Fed had the better competition, including your hero Nadal.

maximo
08-08-2009, 02:59 PM
Nah, Andre played some of his best tennis against Fed. But even if we don't count Andre, Fed had the better competition, including your hero Nadal.

No he didn't.

Agassi was indeed getting old. His serve got worst after 03.

Cesc Fabregas
08-08-2009, 02:59 PM
Nah, Andre played some of his best tennis against Fed. But even if we don't count Andre, Fed had the better competition, including your hero Nadal.

Federer has played Nadal once in a hardcourt slam and the other people in your list the likes of Nalbandian, Blake and Davydenko are nowhere near as good as Agassi and Courier.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Federer has played Nadal once in a hardcourt slam and the other people in your list the likes of Nalbandian, Blake and Davydenko are nowhere near as good as Agassi and Courier.

I have to disagree with that.

Either way, if you add Murray and Djokovic, Fed's HC era is clearly better.

ChrisCrocker
08-08-2009, 03:06 PM
Ok, we've had the Federer vs. Sampras on hard courts poll, and Federer won by a huge atvantage.

But who Had the better HC competition?

Pete had Agassi, Courier, Becker, Rafter and Chang among others.

Fed had Agassi, Nalbandian, Safin, Blake, Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt among others.

Personally I think Sampras' era had better grass players and clay players, but Fed's era had much better HC players.

Discuss.

Agassi, Courier, Becker, Rafter and Chang have slams compared to Nalbandian, Blake, Davy and Murray.

Nadal has 1 HC slam and so does Djokovic, Hewitt and Roddick. But Chang has no HC slams.

Safin has 2 though, but so does Rafter with 2 back-to-back usopen.

But only Safin has stopped Federer on HC slams from 2004-2007 (what people call federer's best years). While Agassi and Rafter (just naming 2 from the list) have stopped Sampras in HC Slams.

Also Blake has never reached a Grand Slam semi. Davy has Reached the USO Semi twice but never an AO semi.

So Sampras's HC competition has more slams than Federer's and only 1 person has stopped federer in HC slams when he was playing his best. Sounds like a pretty big difference in HC competition if you ask me.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 03:09 PM
Agassi was better after 30 than he was before.

Federer's reign on hard courts did not begin until Agassi was 33 and 7 months old. Before that he was a bit factor on hard courts, not even making it past the round of 16 of a single hard court slam, and only 1 Masters final (which he lost to 32 year old Agassi). Agassi before 30 was rarely better than 33-35 year old Agassi which prime Federer faced. Only 1996-1998 Agassi was possibly worse.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 03:10 PM
I have to disagree with that.

Either way, if you add Murray and Djokovic, Fed's HC era is clearly better.

Murray did not become a hard court factor until July 2008. Djokovic not until March 2007. To date Federer's time as a huge hard court factor has been November 2003-currently. They were hardly much of contemporaries yet.

maximo
08-08-2009, 03:13 PM
Let's fix your list a bit shall we.

Fed had declining Agassi, Never won a slam Nalbandian, One slam wonder Safin, never reached a QF in a GS Blake.

You can't compare these guys to Courir, Becker, Rafter and Chang.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 03:14 PM
Let's fix your list a bit shall we.

Fed had declining Agassi, Never won a slam Nalbandian, One slam wonder Safin, never reached a QF in a GS Blake.

Well Safin was a two slam wonder in fairness. :) He was a huge mental flake though. Blake has reached quarters of hard court slams, but never semis. The fact the list of opponent are shallow enough for his name to even come up already says it all.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:15 PM
Agassi, Courier, Becker, Rafter and Chang have slams compared to Nalbandian, Blake, Davy and Murray.

Nadal has 1 HC slam and so does Djokovic, Hewitt and Roddick. But Chang has no HC slams.

Safin has 2 though, but so does Rafter with 2 back-to-back usopen.

But only Safin has stopped Federer on HC slams from 2004-2007 (what people call federer's best years). While Agassi and Rafter (just naming 2 from the list) have stopped Sampras in HC Slams.

Also Blake has never reached a Grand Slam semi. Davy has Reached the USO Semi twice but never an AO semi.

So Sampras's HC competition has more slams than Federer's and only 1 person has stopped federer in HC slams when he was playing his best. Sounds like a pretty big difference in HC competition if you ask me.

I don't go by Federer's best years, he's still relevant today despite not being in his prime. Nadal has stopped Federer from winning an HC slam and so did Djokovic.

Cesc Fabregas
08-08-2009, 03:16 PM
Blake being shown as a rival to Federer is a joke and sums up Federer's era. Blake has never been to a slam semi before even on his favourite hardcourt surface the guy just aint very good.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:16 PM
Well Safin was a two slam wonder in fairness. :) He was a huge mental flake though. Blake has reached quarters of hard court slams, but never semis. The fact the list of opponent are shallow enough for his name to even come up already says it all.

Funny you completley ignore Hewitt, who is a 2-time slam winner, and has reached the USO final more than once.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 03:17 PM
Blake being shown as a rival to Federer is a joke and sums up Federer's era. Blake has never been to a slam semi before even on his favourite hardcourt surface the guy just aint very good.

Calling Blake a joke is calling Nadal even a bigger joke. No need to explain why.

Cesc Fabregas
08-08-2009, 03:20 PM
Calling Blake a joke is calling Nadal even a bigger joke. No need to explain why.

I didn't call Blake a joke and Nadal is reaching legendary status in the game Blakes h2h with him is meaningless.

maximo
08-08-2009, 03:22 PM
Well Safin was a two slam wonder in fairness. :) He was a huge mental flake though. Blake has reached quarters of hard court slams, but never semis. The fact the list of opponent are shallow enough for his name to even come up already says it all.

The USO final in 2000 was a joke. the score didn't represent the match and Sampras was injured i suppose.

I Don't count it.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 03:23 PM
I didn't call Blake a joke and Nadal is reaching legendary status in the game Blakes h2h with him is meaningless.
Ahaa, but Feds h2h to Nadal isnt meaningless?? explanation plz?

Cesc Fabregas
08-08-2009, 03:27 PM
Ahaa, but Feds h2h to Nadal isnt meaningless?? explanation plz?

Nadal and Federer are rival but Blake and Nadal aren't. Blake is just a random player that Nadal happens to have a losing record too just like Federer and Hbarty, whilst Federer's h2h with Nadal means alot because Nadal has beaten Federer in a lot of slam finals and puts into question Federer's legacy.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 03:28 PM
Nadal and Federer are rival but Blake and Nadal aren't. Blake is just a random player that Nadal happens to have a losing record too just like Federer and Hbarty, whilst Federer's h2h with Nadal means alot because Nadal has beaten Federer in a lot of slam finals and puts into question Federer's legacy.
Fair enough, Feds legacy will be, "he stands alone, unthreatened at ?? slams"

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 03:37 PM
Funny you completley ignore Hewitt, who is a 2-time slam winner, and has reached the USO final more than once.

OK here are legimate hard courter Federer's legitimate hard court opponents:

Nadal 2005-present
Hewitt 2004-2005
Roddick late 2003-2005
Safin 2004-early 2005
Nalbandian late 2003-present

Now legitimate Sampras's legitimate hard court opponents:

Edberg late 1990-early 1993
Becker late 1990-early 1996
Agassi late 1990-retirement
Courier late 1990-early 1996
Rafter late 1997-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Chang late 1990-end of 1997
Kafelnikov early 1994-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Krajicek early 1992-end of 2000
Ivanisevic end of 1990-early 1997

I will take the Sampras group collectively over the Federer group anyday.

Claudius
08-08-2009, 03:42 PM
OK here are legimate hard courter Federer's legitimate hard court opponents:

Nadal 2005-present
Hewitt 2004-2005
Roddick late 2003-2005
Safin 2004-early 2005
Nalbandian late 2003-present

Now legitimate Sampras's legitimate hard court opponents:

Edberg late 1990-early 1993
Becker late 1990-early 1996
Agassi late 1990-retirement
Courier late 1990-early 1996
Rafter late 1997-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Chang late 1990-end of 1997
Kafelnikov early 1994-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Krajicek early 1992-end of 2000
Ivanisevic end of 1990-early 1997

I will take the Sampras group collectively over the Federer group anyday.

You forgot Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Blake, Del Potro,

ChrisCrocker
08-08-2009, 03:44 PM
You forgot Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Blake, Del Potro,

just add djokovic and murray if you want the list to look better.

Carsomyr
08-08-2009, 04:04 PM
I'd have to say both are a/b the same. Neither really had a consistently great rival on hard courts. Agassi was too up and down to consider him "consistently great", Roger and Andy have only played twice @ HC slams, doesn't Rafa also count as the same HC era, BTW?

Yeah, I'd say a/b the same competition wise. Maybe this era has more depth, but that era was top heavy, so it evens out.

Federer played Agassi have played four times on HC Slams; 2001 U.S. Open, 2004 U.S. Open, 2005 Australian Open, and 2005 U.S. Open.

Don't delude yourselves; Agassi from 1999-2005 was playing the best tennis of his career. He won five of his eight Slams in that stretch. His commitment to tennis and to fitness brought a new element to his game he didn't have in the early/mid-90s, when he basically won on talent alone. Sure, if he had the same dedication to tennis in his 22-26 years, he would have maximized his talent. But as it is, he canceled out the step he would have lost with age via a rigorous and extensive work effort.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 04:09 PM
Pete had prime Agassi.

I go with Sampras.


Agassi did not win the majority of his slams until after Sampras retired or when he was well past his prime. And even then, Sampras still kicked his butt when it mattered most. Agassi was the perennial door mat for most of his career.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 04:10 PM
Nadal and Federer are rival but Blake and Nadal aren't. Blake is just a random player that Nadal happens to have a losing record too just like Federer and Hbarty, whilst Federer's h2h with Nadal means alot because Nadal has beaten Federer in a lot of slam finals and puts into question Federer's legacy.


Hrbaty beat Federer at Cincinnati and small tournaments. Blake beat Nadal at the USO and the TMC. Quite a different set of circumstances.

Cesc Fabregas
08-08-2009, 04:14 PM
Hrbaty beat Federer at Cincinnati and small tournaments. Blake beat Nadal at the USO and the TMC. Quite a different set of circumstances.

Blake beat 19 year old Nadal at the USO which is Nadal's worst slam, Nadal had no chance of winning that anyways so it is irellevant.

Cyan
08-08-2009, 04:27 PM
Sampras had better competition on HC for sure. There are no players of Fed's generation that have won 6 slams on HC like Agassi did.

Cyan
08-08-2009, 04:31 PM
OK here are legimate hard courter Federer's legitimate hard court opponents:

Nadal 2005-present
Hewitt 2004-2005
Roddick late 2003-2005
Safin 2004-early 2005
Nalbandian late 2003-present

Now legitimate Sampras's legitimate hard court opponents:

Edberg late 1990-early 1993
Becker late 1990-early 1996
Agassi late 1990-retirement
Courier late 1990-early 1996
Rafter late 1997-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Chang late 1990-end of 1997
Kafelnikov early 1994-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Krajicek early 1992-end of 2000
Ivanisevic end of 1990-early 1997

I will take the Sampras group collectively over the Federer group anyday.

Definetely.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 04:38 PM
Sampras had better competition on HC for sure. There are no players of Fed's generation that have won 6 slams on HC like Agassi did.

Actually there were players like Agassi. There was Agassi himself.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 04:46 PM
Hmmm.... With Agassi around?? Pete obviously. THen you have becker, edberg in the early years.. Chang was a good hardcourt player. Courier? Not bad.



Fed has Roddick, Hewitt. Hewitt was very good.. But again.. All finished by 2005.. And even Agassi at 32 years old DEFEATED the defending champ Hewitt in his prime. Murray and Djoker, I dont really consider as "Fed's era guys"... Why you ask??? Well because neither were even significant until Fed won his 11th or 12th slam.


So at the end of the day Pete had it tougher. Prior to 08, Nadal didnt even reach HC slam final. Barely even a semi's.. So he was not significant as far as Hardcourt slams are concerned.


And we all know, Nadal is no Agassi on hardcourts.. Not even close.

So yes... Pete had it tougher. Agassi alone is a better hardcourt player than anyone today not named Federer. By far

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 04:48 PM
Hmmm.... With Agassi around?? Pete obviously. THen you have becker, edberg in the early years..



Fed has Roddick, Hewitt.. Murray and Djoker, I dont really consider as "Fed's era guys"... Why you ask??? Well because neither were even significant until Fed won his 11th or 12th slam.


So at the end of the day Pete had it tougher. Prior to 08, Nadal didnt even reach HC slam final. Barely even a semi's.. So he was not significant as far as Hardcourt slams are concerned.


And we all know, Nadal is no Agassi on hardcourts.. Not even close.

So yes... Pete had it tougher

Agassi was a better HC player after he returned, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalby, are all better on HCs than most guys Pete had to face.

So yes, Fed had it tougher (as the results of this poll suggest).

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 04:48 PM
You forgot Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Blake, Del Potro,

OK I stand corrected on Djokovic and Murray. Revised:

Here are legitimate hard courter Federer's legitimate hard court opponents:

Nadal 2005-present
Hewitt 2004-2005
Roddick late 2003-2005
Djokovic March 2007-present
Murray July 2008-present
Safin 2004-early 2005
Nalbandian late 2003-present
old Agassi late 2003-end of 2005

Now legitimate Sampras's legitimate hard court opponents:

Edberg late 1990-early 1993
Becker late 1990-early 1996
Agassi late 1990-retirement
Courier late 1990-early 1996
Rafter late 1997-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Chang late 1990-end of 1997
Hewitt late 2000-retirement
Safin late 2000-retirement
Kafelnikov early 1994-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Krajicek early 1992-end of 2000
Ivanisevic end of 1990-early 1997

Davydenko, Gonzalez, and heaven forbid Blake (heheh), are not good enough to count as legitimate opponents. If we count them we might as well count Pioline, Korda, Rios, Muster on hard courts, Enqvist, Philippousis and a slew of others I didnt count either in the Sampras group, and most of those have achieved more than Davydenko, Gonzalez, or Blake on hard courts. I STILL will take the Sampras group collectively over the Federer group anyday.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 04:49 PM
And Im actually trying to be objective here.. But its true.

Cyan
08-08-2009, 04:51 PM
Actually there were players like Agassi. There was Agassi himself.

35 yr old Agassi. LMAO!

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 04:51 PM
Agassi was a better HC player after he returned, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalby, are all better on HCs than most guys Pete had to face.

So yes, Fed had it tougher (as the results of this poll suggest).




I dont care about polls around here nor do I vote on them since they are made by Fed fans.. And Fed fans are just as BIASED as us PEte fans.


Was Safin a threat?? Sure.. Awesome hardcourt player..... When he SHOWED UP... And how often was that? 10 PERCENT OF HIS CAREER!!!!???


Roddick is tough yes. Good hardcourt player.. Not on Andre's level.. And certainly not on Pete's. PEte whiped the floor with Roddick at 31 years old.. And Agassi even at an old age matched up nicely with Roddick on hards.

Cyan
08-08-2009, 04:52 PM
OK I stand corrected on Djokovic and Murray. Revised:

Here are legitimate hard courter Federer's legitimate hard court opponents:

Nadal 2005-present
Hewitt 2004-2005
Roddick late 2003-2005
Djokovic March 2007-present
Murray July 2008-present
Safin 2004-early 2005
Nalbandian late 2003-present
old Agassi late 2003-end of 2005

Now legitimate Sampras's legitimate hard court opponents:

Edberg late 1990-early 1993
Becker late 1990-early 1996
Agassi late 1990-retirement
Courier late 1990-early 1996
Rafter late 1997-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Chang late 1990-end of 1997
Hewitt late 2000-retirement
Safin late 2000-retirement
Kafelnikov early 1994-end of 2001
Stich late 1990-end of 1995
Krajicek early 1992-end of 2000
Ivanisevic end of 1990-early 1997

Davydenko, Gonzalez, and heaven forbid Blake (heheh), are not good enough to count as legitimate opponents. If we count them we might as well count Pioline, Korda, Rios, Muster on hard courts, Enqvist, Philippousis and a slew of others I didnt count either in the Sampras group, and most of those have achieved more than Davydenko, Gonzalez, or Blake on hard courts. I STILL will take the Sampras group collectively over the Federer group anyday.

Lets face it, Sampras had better competition. Fed was able to win so many slams in such a short period of time due to a mug era! :oops:

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 04:53 PM
Was Safin a threat?? Sure??? Awesome hardcourt player..... When he SHOWED UP... And how often was that? 10 PERCENT OF HIS CAREER!!!!???

Exactly, when he wasnt drunk, stoned, hung over, tanking, cranky, tempermental, jaded, or thinking of the hot chick he was going to bang that night. All in all 10 percent of the time at most.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 04:55 PM
For Agassi alone.. I rate Pete's competition tougher.. Agassi is arguably the best rebound ace player ever. He took a few slams away from Pete there. Hes a very good USO player as well.. But unfortunately Pete stood in his way..

You really want to compare Roddick, or Davydenko, or Blake to Agassi?? Thats asinine.


Cant compare Nadal.. Hes only sitting on 1 hardcourt slam, and for years couldnt even reach a HC semifinals.

Agassi is sitting on what? 6 HC slams a crapload of Masters, and is possibly the best rebound ace player of all time

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 04:57 PM
Again... Im not really including Djoker and Murray in this since they really arent apart of Fed's era IMO. Nadal is the exception.. Very early bloomers. Djoker wasnt significant until 07.. Murray until this past year.. Fed had already 3-4 years of big tennis under his belt.
And even if we did include them, they arent better than Andre

drakulie
08-08-2009, 04:58 PM
Blake beat 19 year old Nadal at the USO which is Nadal's worst slam, Nadal had no chance of winning that anyways so it is irellevant.

and a 19 year old swiss beat Sampras on center court of Wimbledon.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 04:59 PM
I dont care about polls around here nor do I vote on them since they are made by Fed fans.. And Fed fans are just as BIASED as us PEte fans.


Was Safin a threat?? Sure.. Awesome hardcourt player..... When he SHOWED UP... And how often was that? 10 PERCENT OF HIS CAREER!!!!???


Roddick is tough yes. Good hardcourt player.. Not on Andre's level.. And certainly not on Pete's. PEte whiped the floor with Roddick at 31 years old.. And Agassi even at an old age matched up nicely with Roddick on hards.

Funny I could have sworn you have voted in the Fed vs Pete on HCs poll a few weeks back.

Cyan
08-08-2009, 05:00 PM
For Agassi alone.. I rate Pete's competition tougher.. Agassi is arguably the best rebound ace player ever. He took a few slams away from Pete there. Hes a very good USO player as well.. But unfortunately Pete stood in his way..

You really want to compare Roddick, or Davydenko, or Blake to Agassi?? Thats asinine.


Cant compare Nadal.. Hes only sitting on 1 hardcourt slam, and for years couldnt even reach a HC semifinals.

Agassi is sitting on what? 6 HC slams a crapload of Masters, and is possibly the best rebound ace player of all time

Agreed....

luckyboy1300
08-08-2009, 05:09 PM
sampras' era players have better HC resumes because pete was simply not dominant enough to stop them winning slams in his presence. otoh, federer stopped most of his rivals from winning HC slams by winning 8 of the last 11 HC slams since 2004. so comparison using HC resumes is meaningless. imo, era comparison is always meaningless, that's why i always go with the default stance: they are about equal.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 05:11 PM
sampras' era players have better HC resumes because pete was simply not dominant enough to stop them winning slams in his presence. otoh, federer stopped most of his rivals from winning HC slams by winning 8 of the last 11 HC slams since 2004. so comparison using HC resumes is meaningless. imo, era comparison is always meaningless, that's why i always go with the default stance: they are about equal.



Ahh the old "Fed was too dominant" reason.. I guess Fed was so dominant, that was the reason Nadal for years couldnt reach a hardcourt slam semis?

That was all because of Fed right?


Fed was the reason, Safin never showed up to play because he was too busy hungover in the bars with the ladies for his pre and post match workouts doing 12 ounce shotglass curls... Fed was the reason Nalbandian spent more time in the doughnut factory than playing winning tennis?

Fed was the reason Blake didnt do crap in his career?

Fed was the reason hewitt was all washed up in his early 20s.
Andre had a better resume than Fed's contemporaries on hardcourt, because was SUPERIOR to Fed's contemporaries on hardcourts. Plain and simple.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 05:17 PM
Ahh the old "Fed was too dominant" reason.. I guess Fed was so dominant, that was the reason Nadal for years couldnt reach a hardcourt slam semis?

That was all because of Fed right?


Fed was the reason, Safin never showed up to play... Fed was the reason Nalbandian spent more time in the doughnut factory than playing winning tennis?

Fed was the reason Blake didnt do crap in his career?


Andre had a better resume than Fed's contemporaries on hardcourt, because was SUPERIOR to Fed's contemporaries on hardcourts. Plain and simple.

You keep avoiding the fact that you did vote for my poll a few weeks back yet you claim to not vote for stupid ******* polls.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 05:18 PM
You keep avoiding the fact that you did vote for my poll a few weeks back yet you claim to not vote for stupid ******* polls.

What poll?

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 05:28 PM
What poll?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=276304&highlight=Sampras

Yep, you have voted...so far for claiming you do not vote in *******s threads. Sigh....:neutral:

drakulie
08-08-2009, 05:29 PM
What poll?


the poll stuck in your ...erhmm,,,,,,,,,,,,, uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................................. ...... ear. :)

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 05:33 PM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=276304&highlight=Sampras

Yep, you have voted...so far for claiming you do not vote in *******s threads. Sigh....:neutral:

:)


Ahhh yea you got me..

lawrence
08-08-2009, 05:52 PM
Let's fix your list a bit shall we.

Fed had declining Agassi, Never won a slam Nalbandian, One slam wonder Safin, never reached a QF in a GS Blake.

You can't compare these guys to Courir, Becker, Rafter and Chang.

this guy doesnt even know his statistics and is trying to parade players around with demoralizing adjectives
lmao

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 05:54 PM
this guy doesnt even know his statistics and is trying to parade players around with demoralizing adjectives
lmao

Your avatar is great...:)

World Beater
08-08-2009, 10:40 PM
its too bad pete sampras wasn't as good as federer.

poor petey. lets all cry a river because his competition was sooo hard.

maximo
08-09-2009, 01:39 AM
this guy doesnt even know his statistics and is trying to parade players around with demoralizing adjectives
lmao

Oh really?

Care to explain which arn't true?

I didn't count the Safin 2000 slam since it was just pure luck.

Steve132
08-09-2009, 06:34 AM
Oh really?

Care to explain which arn't true?

I didn't count the Safin 2000 slam since it was just pure luck.

In 2000 Safin defeated Grosjean, Ferrero, Kiefer, Martin and Sampras to win the U.S. Open. The claim that his victory was due to "pure luck" is not only absurd but also disqualifies you as a serious commentator on this or any other tennis topic.

drakulie
08-09-2009, 06:45 AM
I didn't count the Safin 2000 slam since it was just pure luck.


I sort of agree with you here, which is why I don't count any of Sampras' 14 slams, as they were also due to luck.

maximo
08-09-2009, 06:46 AM
In 2000 Safin defeated Grosjean, Ferrero, Kiefer, Martin and Sampras to win the U.S. Open. The claim that his victory was due to "pure luck" is not only absurd but also disqualifies you as a serious commentator on this or any other tennis topic.

Sampras had Hewitt, Krajicek and Calleri. He was injured yet still got past these guys. Anyway, Safin is a mega choker and you can't deny that.

FredMurray
08-09-2009, 07:23 AM
Federer Prime 2003 - present

US Open - before final


4 set lost - us open 2003 (failed to reach final)
3 set lost - us open 2004
2 set lost - us open 2005
1 set lost - us open 2006
2 set lost - us open 2007
3 set lost - us open 2008

Players Lost to(us open) -

Nalbandian

Player who he has lost most sets to(us open) -

Agassi - 3 sets
Nalbandian - 3 sets



Sampras Prime 1993 - 2000

US Open - before final

2 set lost - us open 1993
4 set lost - us open 1994 (failed to reach final)
2 set lost - us open 1995
5 set lost - us open 1996
3 set lost - us open 1997 (failed to reach final)
4 set lost - us open 1998 (failed to reach final)
1 set lost - us open 2000

Players he has lost to(us open) -

Korda
Safin
Rafter
yzaga

Players he has lost most sets to(us open)-

Korda - 3 sets
Safin - 3 sets
Rafter - 3 sets
yzaga - 3 sets


Just comparing their domination of the us open,not their competition.

cknobman
08-09-2009, 08:09 AM
Not good to compare era's so Im calling equal.

NamRanger
08-09-2009, 08:12 AM
Sampras had Hewitt, Krajicek and Calleri. He was injured yet still got past these guys. Anyway, Safin is a mega choker and you can't deny that.



No one wins a slam by luck. Although there are more "fortunate circumstances."

NamRanger
08-09-2009, 08:14 AM
Blake beat 19 year old Nadal at the USO which is Nadal's worst slam, Nadal had no chance of winning that anyways so it is irellevant.


Bullcrap, Nadal beat Agassi in Montreal in a Masters Final, the same Agassi that you and GameSampras like to harp about.



He totally had a chance of winning; in fact he was indeed a favorite going into that match, and one of the favorites to win that tournament outside of Federer and Roddick.

JeMar
08-09-2009, 08:30 AM
I sort of agree with you here, which is why I don't count any of Sampras' 14 slams, as they were also due to luck.

Don't forget about Murray's first slam if it ever comes. It will be the product of ultimate luck.

In case Murray never wins a slam, let's just call his masters series shields luck as well.

Fedfan1234
08-09-2009, 08:50 AM
Safin and Hewitt bad players?
Safin vs Sampras US open final 2000 6-4 6-3 6-3
Hewitt vs Sampras US open final 2001 7-6 6-1 6-1

Hewitt even beat Sampras on grass twice at Queens 2000 and 2001.
Let's get a grip on reality shall we?
Federer owned them is his era, just like Roddick, Ferrero and Moya.
Anybody that says Nalbandian is a bad player clearly knows nothing about tennis. Probably only been a tennis fan for a couple of years. Bad players don't win a masters cup title.
And not to mention Federer also had to face Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro. Yeah I know these are pretty bad players, sorry but I had to try.

dincuss
08-09-2009, 09:15 AM
Not completely sure, so i willl say both.

P_Agony
08-09-2009, 11:44 AM
Well, so far more than 50% of the voters think Federer had the tougher HC competition. About 26% think the eras quality was roughly the same, and only 22% think Pete Sampras had the tougher HC competition.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 11:53 AM
Well, so far more than 50% of the voters think Federer had the tougher HC competition. About 26% think the eras quality was roughly the same, and only 22% think Pete Sampras had the tougher HC competition.



Over 50 % to 22% in favor of Roger in this case?

LOL.... Now tell me that this board isnt filled with biased posters. Hell most of the people here didnt even begiin watching until the early 00s.


No way Roger had the tougher hardcourt competition from 03-07.. No wayyy in helll.....


And his main rival Nadal, wasnt even a blip on the radar on hardcourts.. Agassi was at his best on hardcourts. A blind man could see Nadal doesnt measure up


See thats why polls around here are silly. They lack any objectiveness, and people dont know what they are talking about.



When people are voting over 50 percent of the votes Fed's way on hardcourts, I think that shows me either, they are either biased, never watched tennis prior to 2003, or never watched tennis in the 90s

P_Agony
08-09-2009, 11:58 AM
Over 50 % to 22% in favor of Roger in this case?

LOL.... Now tell me that this board isnt filled with biased posters. Hell most of the people here didnt even begiin watching until the early 00s.


No way Roger had the tougher hardcourt competition from 03-07.. No wayyy in helll.....


And his main rival Nadal, wasnt even a blip on the radar on hardcourts.. Agassi was at his best on hardcourts. A blind man could see Nadal doesnt measure up


See thats why polls around here are silly. They lack any objectiveness, and people dont know what they are talking about.

I don't think they are biased. Like I said, I think Pete had the tougher grass and clay competition (aside of Nadal) and Fed had the tougher HC competition.

Since there are 2 HC slams and 2 non-HC slams, it evens out and the eras are roughly of the same quality.

Not everyone has to agree with you, and not anyone who disagrees with you "lacks any objectiveness, and dont know what they are talking about."

Don't become gj011 please, you can do better than that.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 12:10 PM
I don't think they are biased. Like I said, I think Pete had the tougher grass and clay competition (aside of Nadal) and Fed had the tougher HC competition.

Since there are 2 HC slams and 2 non-HC slams, it evens out and the eras are roughly of the same quality.

Not everyone has to agree with you, and not anyone who disagrees with you "lacks any objectiveness, and dont know what they are talking about."

Don't become gj011 please, you can do better than that.


If we factor in Djoker and Murray MAYBE.. But as I mentioned before, Im not sure how you can objectively do it.. Once again... Djoker and Murray werent around until Fed picked his 11th or 12th slam already.

I'll do the run down.

Agassi- 6 HC slam, Masters titles on HC, arguably the best rebound ace player.

Chang- Solid hardcourt player.. Finals of the AO and USO. 7 Masters titles on hardcourts

Edberg- Still a awesome player even in the early 90s with big wins over Pete at the USO

Becker- Solid hardcourt player. Masters title, 2 Australian Opens and USO win


Both Becker and Edberg were still factors during the early part of the 90s.. Both of which Pete needed to overcome. Kind of a difference in Fed's case where Djoker and Murray never showed up on the radar until around Fed's 12-13th slam






Feds:

Roddick: 1 USO title to his resume, very questionable regardless due to the circumstances surrounding his match with Nalbandian. His resume is more similiar to Changs on hardcourt

Safin- Tough Hardcourt player. One of the best could have been.. But showed up to play tennis a minute portion of his career. 00 USO and AO 05 he was the most unstoppable.. But never duplicated that level. Spent more time out of the top 10 in the world than in it.


Hewitt- Tough in his prime.. Defeated Sampras at the USO.. But as the defending champ got defeated by Andre Agassi at 31 years old at the USO.. This was Prime Hewitt mind you and he is getting defeated by 90's era holdovers.



Nalbandian, Davydenko, Blake, and the rest... Are these guys even worth mentioning on hardcourts?

Sartorius
08-09-2009, 12:11 PM
Nalbandian, Davydenko, Blake, and the rest... Are these guys even worth mentioning on hardcourts?

Yes, they are worth mentioning.

maximo
08-09-2009, 12:14 PM
Don't become gj011 please, you can do better than that.

You be ashamed of yourself. Please stop being like vtmike.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 12:20 PM
Yes, they are worth mentioning.

Why is that?


What have they accomplished?

Nalbandian- Won in Shangahi on hards over Fed. Won in Madrid in Paris..

So I think we can establish Nalbandian was ALRIGHT when he wanted to be.. But lets look at his Record at the masters.. 2-4 in the finals of the masters.
And we know Nalbandian is sitting on a big goose egg in the slam count..
He only has 20 singles titles and is .500 in doing so

Daydenko? Only 4 titles on hardcourts. Only two masters titles. 0 Slams. 0 finals of hardcourt slams..

So once again... Why mention him?


Blake- 10 hardcourt titles. 0-2 in Masters finals. 0 hardcourt slams to his resume.. Never could get beyond a quarterfinals in a hardcourt slam

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 12:20 PM
delete post

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-09-2009, 12:31 PM
The discussion is very interesting, but what is it either of you wants to prove? That Sampras had tougher HC-competition? That Federer did? Either way, as i have told millions of Nadal-fans, you can only beat the one in front of you, you cant affect who you play against, i can agree that Feds hc-"rivals" should have been a little better to have adjusted their games in order to try and keep up with him,on the other hand...maybe he WAS just to good, at a level where noone had ever been before? A tennis-pioneer. Someone to look back on in 50 years and point and say-"Yeah,that guy revolutionized the game of tennis,took it to another level more than anyone has ever done before". It can take years for the "pack" to get there if someone is so supreme.
Lets say that Sampras HAD (im not sure he had, just an example) tougher hc-rivals than Fed, he still lost to journey-men on Hc during his prime (in GS to!), Fed never did that, hes been close (if u count AO 08 and US open 08 into Feds prime) but never done it. Thoughts?

Sartorius
08-09-2009, 12:32 PM
I'm not even gonna go into Nalbandian.

Daydenko?... 0 Slams. 0 finals of hardcourt slams..

Davydenko is (still) one of the cleanest hitters in the game and one of the most dangerous players when he is on, except on grass. Was the No.3 for very long time, and still in the top 10.

And there is a certain player who is largely responsible for that 0 Slams and 0 finals of HC slams. Guess who.


Blake- ... Never could get beyond a quarterfinals in a hardcourt slam

Again that same player is somewhat responsible.


But yeah, I'm sure they are not "talented" after all and they mostly "choked" against that certain player in most of their matches.

flying24
08-09-2009, 12:36 PM
If we factor in Djoker and Murray MAYBE.. But as I mentioned before, Im not sure how you can objectively do it.. Once again... Djoker and Murray werent around until Fed picked his 11th or 12th slam already.

I'll do the run down.

Agassi- 6 HC slam, Masters titles on HC, arguably the best rebound ace player.

Chang- Solid hardcourt player.. Finals of the AO and USO. 7 Masters titles on hardcourts

Edberg- Still a awesome player even in the early 90s with big wins over Pete at the USO

Becker- Solid hardcourt player. Masters title, 2 Australian Opens and USO win


Both Becker and Edberg were still factors during the early part of the 90s.. Both of which Pete needed to overcome. Kind of a difference in Fed's case where Djoker and Murray never showed up on the radar until around Fed's 12-13th slam






Feds:

Roddick: 1 USO title to his resume, very questionable regardless due to the circumstances surrounding his match with Nalbandian. His resume is more similiar to Changs on hardcourt

Safin- Tough Hardcourt player. One of the best could have been.. But showed up to play tennis a minute portion of his career. 00 USO and AO 05 he was the most unstoppable.. But never duplicated that level. Spent more time out of the top 10 in the world than in it.


Hewitt- Tough in his prime.. Defeated Sampras at the USO.. But as the defending champ got defeated by Andre Agassi at 31 years old at the USO.. This was Prime Hewitt mind you and he is getting defeated by 90's era holdovers.



Nalbandian, Davydenko, Blake, and the rest... Are these guys even worth mentioning on hardcourts?

First off if you are so hell bent on the competition factor than Agassi most certainly would NOT be the greatest rebound ace player ever. You love to harp on competition but Agassi won his last 2 Australian Open titles with the lamest draws ever, a bunch of journeymen and Rafter who always sucked on rebound ace (once past the round of 16 but still nearly beat Agassi). If Federer faced the field at the Australian Open Agassi did from 1998 to 2003 he would have won all 6 of them, and currently have 6 Australian Opens instead of 3. Who was going to stop him? Instead of Djokovic, Safin, and Nadal on fire (where his 3 losses came from) he now gets past his prime Korda, Rios the flake, Enqvist, Kafelnikov, Clement, aging Ferreria, Grosjean, and Schuettler. Courier, Sampras, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, all played well enough in Australia to win 4 or more vs the lame 1998-2003 fields there also. If anyone was lucky to scalp on weakened competition it was Agassi in Australia in his later years, and he still didnt take advantage of it some years.

I love how you refer to 31 year old Agassi when 31 year old Agassi was in the midst of the 1999-2003 he played the best tennis of his career (apart from late 1994-1995) winning 5 of his 8 slams. Prime Hewitt still went 3-2 vs Agassi during this stretch Agassi played most of his best tennis ever. If you only want to consider ages 27 year old Agassi couldnt even beat 16 year old Hewitt in their first meeting, couldnt even get a set as a matter of fact.

During the bulk of Sampras's reign Agassi was the 90s version of Safin. Showing up when he felt like, spiralling from #3 in the world, down to #9, down to #24, up to #1, down to #8, down to #141, back up to #6, back up to #1, back down to #8. Had Agassi retired in April 1999 when Sampras already had his record 6 year end #1s and 11 of his 14 slams, his place in history would be similar to Safin, as how he would have been remembered.

In the early 90s when Edberg was an "awesome player" Sampras won only 1 slam when Edberg crashed out early. So your point being?

Chang you bring up but dismiss Hewitt, LOL! Chang is just a poor mans Hewitt, and he also burnt out around 25 so no difference there.

Becker after Wimbledon 91 (a full 2 years before Sampras's 2nd slam) played 10 more hard court slams, only made it past the 3rd round of 4 of 10, and only past the 4th round of 2 of 10. Some hard court giant he was by then, LOL!

zagor
08-09-2009, 12:52 PM
Just a few questions I have,how is Boris Becker Pete's competition on HC when they never played in any HC slam EVER?

Most of their matches were on carpet,they had very,very few matches on HC(which is what this thread is about).

Someone also mentioned Goran as part of a HC competition,he played Pete only once in HC slam in his whole career.

So if we count those guys as Pete's competition on HC we also have to count Nadal as Fed's competition on HC(he played Fed once in a HC slam) and he was much more consistant and achieved more on HC during Fed's time(and he ain't even done yet,neither him nor Fed)than both Goran and Becker did during Pete's time.

You also have to count Murray for Fed as well if we count Becker and Goran for Pete as he and Fed met once in a HC slam and chances are they will meet more.

And you definitely have to count Djokovic for Fed as he played against Fed in HC slams 4(!) times.

So my question is how is it that Becker(played Pete zero times at AO and USO),Goran(played Pete once) and Edberg(played Pete twice) are counted as Pete's competition on HC but Djokovic,Murray and Nadal aren't?

I mean Pioline was more competition for Pete on HC than Becker was.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 12:54 PM
First off if you are so hell bent on the competition factor than Agassi most certainly would NOT be the greatest rebound ace player ever. You love to harp on competition but Agassi won his last 2 Australian Open titles with the lamest draws ever, a bunch of journeymen and Rafter who always sucked on rebound ace (once past the round of 16 but still nearly beat Agassi). If Federer faced the field at the Australian Open Agassi did from 1998 to 2003 he would have won all 6 of them, and currently have 6 Australian Opens instead of 3. Who was going to stop him? Instead of Djokovic, Safin, and Nadal on fire (where his 3 losses came from) he now gets past his prime Korda, Rios the flake, Enqvist, Kafelnikov, Clement, aging Ferreria, Grosjean, and Schuettler. Courier, Sampras, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, all played well enough in Australia to win 4 or more vs the lame 1998-2003 fields there also. If anyone was lucky to scalp on weakened competition it was Agassi in Australia in his later years, and he still didnt take advantage of it some years.




I love how you refer to 31 year old Agassi when 31 year old Agassi was in the midst of the 1999-2003 he played the best tennis of his career (apart from late 1994-1995) winning 5 of his 8 slams. Prime Hewitt still went 3-2 vs Agassi during this stretch Agassi played most of his best tennis ever. If you only want to consider ages 27 year old Agassi couldnt even beat 16 year old Hewitt in their first meeting, couldnt even get a set as a matter of fact.

During the bulk of Sampras's reign Agassi was the 90s version of Safin. Showing up when he felt like, spiralling from #3 in the world, down to #9, down to #24, up to #1, down to #8, down to #141, back up to #6, back up to #1, back down to #8. Had Agassi retired in April 1999 when Sampras already had his record 6 year end #1s and 11 of his 14 slams, his place in history would be similar to Safin, as how he would have been remembered.

In the early 90s when Edberg was an "awesome player" Sampras won only 1 slam when Edberg crashed out early. So your point being?

Chang you bring up but dismiss Hewitt, LOL! Chang is just a poor mans Hewitt, and he also burnt out around 25 so no difference there.

Becker after Wimbledon 91 (a full 2 years before Sampras's 2nd slam) played 10 more hard court slams, only made it past the 3rd round of 4 of 10, and only past the 4th round of 2 of 10. Some hard court giant he was by then, LOL!

Agassi wasnt playing the best tennis of his career post 2002.. Nice try though. AGassi was playing his best 95, 99-01.

Hewitt, Chang, Roddick are all a wash IMO.. Chang burned out early, hewitt burned out early and Chang and Roddick have similiar careers.


So that leaves us with what? Nadal? Nadal who for years couldnt reach a HC slam semifinals? AGassi is accomplished on hardcourts. Very accomplished at was at his best on hardcourts.. Nadal is at his worst on hardcourts. Nadal cant ever sniff a USO final. Nadal has only 1 Australian Open to his resume

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 12:59 PM
Just a few questions I have,how is Boris Becker Pete's competition on HC when they never played in any HC slam EVER?

Most of their matches were on carpet,they had very,very few matches on HC(which is what this thread is about).

Someone also mentioned Goran as part of a HC competition,he played Pete only once in HC slam in his whole career.

So if we count those guys as Pete's competition on HC we also have to count Nadal as Fed's competition on HC(he played Fed once in a HC slam) and he was much more consistant and achieved more on HC during Fed's time(and he ain't even done yet,neither him nor Fed)than both Goran and Becker did during Pete's time.

You also have to count Murray for Fed as well if we count Becker and Goran for Pete as he and Fed met once in a HC slam and chances are they will meet more.

And you definitely have to count Djokovic for Fed as he played against Fed in HC slams 4(!) times.

So my question is how is it that Becker(played Pete zero times at AO and USO),Goran(played Pete once) and Edberg(played Pete twice) are counted as Pete's competition on HC but Djokovic,Murray and Nadal aren't?

I mean Pioline was more competition for Pete on HC than Becker was.


You can include Nadal as a bit of hardcourt competition overrall.. But we know Nadal is a this weakest on hardcourts. You cant conclude as even remote competition to Fed as far hardcourt slam go.. They have only met each other in a hardcourt slam final. A hardcourt slam in general because Nadal was always getting taken out early at hc slams

zagor
08-09-2009, 01:06 PM
You can include Nadal as a bit of hardcourt competition overrall.. But we know Nadal is a this weakest on hardcourts. You cant conclude as even remote competition to Fed as far hardcourt slam go.. They have only met each other in a hardcourt slam final. A hardcourt slam in general because Nadal was always getting taken out early at hc slams

But you included Becker who never met Pete at HC slam in his whole career as Pete's HC competition,if we go by those standards then Nadal is in as well since he actually played Fed at HC slam(plus chances are they'll play atleast once more in HC slam before they're done).You also included Goran as well if If I'm not mistaken and he also played Pete only once.

Edberg only has one more HC slam meeting with Pete than Nadal does with Fed.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 01:10 PM
But you included Becker who never met Pete at HC slam in his whole career as Pete's HC competition,if we go by those standards then Nadal is in as well since he actually played Fed at HC slam(plus chances are they'll play atleast once more in HC slam before they're done).You also included Goran as well if If I'm not mistaken and he also played Pete only once.

Edberg only has one more HC slam meeting with Pete than Nadal does with Fed.



I see your point.. Slam wise, no Becker shouldnt really be included with HC majors duriing that time. But Becker did win the AO in 1996. Even passed his prime, he accomplished essentially what Nadal accomplished at his peak/prime last year for years prior to 08 couldnt. Reach and win a HC slam

JoshDragon
08-09-2009, 01:13 PM
I'd have to say both are a/b the same. Neither really had a consistently great rival on hard courts. Agassi was too up and down to consider him "consistently great", Roger and Andy have only played twice @ HC slams, doesn't Rafa also count as the same HC era, BTW?

Yeah, I'd say a/b the same competition wise. Maybe this era has more depth, but that era was top heavy, so it evens out.

Which Andy? Do you mean Roddick? Roger has played Roddick more than two times at hard court slams.

2006: US Open finals
2007: AO semis
2007: US Open quarters
2009: AO semis

flying24
08-09-2009, 01:16 PM
Agassi wasnt playing the best tennis of his career post 2002.. Nice try though. AGassi was playing his best 95, 99-01.

OK then. Hewitt went 1-1 vs Agassi in 2001, one loss in 3 sets, one win in two sets in the bigger match. He outdueled Agassi for the year end #1 which Agassi stated himself he badly wanted that year at the year end Masters where Hewitt spanked Agassi in their critical RR match which led to Agassi's elimination (and being elminated from the chance of overtaking Hewitt for year end #1) while Hewitt went on to dominate and win the title. Again you lose, or are you now going to change it to 95, 99-2000 as his prime now that these facts have been brought upon you, LOL! And again if you insist on ages Hewitt at 16 beat Agassi at 27 when they played.

Hewitt, Chang, Roddick are all a wash IMO.. Chang burned out early, hewitt burned out early and Chang and Roddick have similiar careers.

Hewitt > Roddick > Chang. Hewitt has two year end #1s and a Wimbledon and U.S Open title, and decent head to heads vs every great he faced (even Federer he has beaten 7 times) so regardless what you think of his competition he is clearly tops of those three. Chang won one of the flukiest slams ever at 17 on what wasnt even his best surface, a Conchita Martinez like triumph, and never won a big title again while not matching the consistency or longevity of Roddick. The end.

So that leaves us with what? Nadal? Nadal who for years couldnt reach a HC slam semifinals?

Nadal has more hard court slams than Agassi had at his age (ZERO), and many more hard court achievements on the surface overall with all his Masters title and Olympic singls gold.

AGassi is accomplished on hardcourts.

and tripled his accomplishments on hard courts from late 1999 onwards when Sampras already had his 6 year end #1s and 6 of his 7 career hard court slams (12 of his 14 career overall slams) in the bag. In the middle of 1999 he was barely if any more accomplished than 23 year old Nadal on hard courts at the already advanced age of 29, even with his 1 extra slam.

Very accomplished at was at his best on hardcourts.. Nadal is at his worst on hardcourts. Nadal cant ever sniff a USO final. Nadal has only 1 Australian Open to his resume

What had Agassi done on hard courts at age 23? No slam titles, 1 slam final where he was destroyed by 19 year old Sampras, even 30 year old Lendl in the beginning of his twilight years took Sampras to 5 sets that same U.S Open, and even washed up for 5-6 years McEnroe gave Sampras a much tougher match than Agassi was able to. U.S Open first round losses to Krickstein, the same Krickstein who couldnt even beat 39 year old Jimmy Connors that same U.S Open with Connors emerging out of Agassi's quarter to the semis, and to a 19 year old Tomas Enqvist.

jamesblakefan#1
08-09-2009, 01:16 PM
Which Andy? Do you mean Roddick? Roger has played Roddick more than two times at hard court slams.

2006: US Open finals
2007: AO semis
2007: US Open quarters
2009: AO semis

I was talking a/b Roddick, and I guess I was only thinking of the USO. They have played 4x at slams, thanks for pointing that out.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 01:17 PM
Ehh.. The proof is there. Roddick has had countless opportunities to win.. And a few times where he had the match in his hands against Fed.. A few wimbeldons there and never capitialized on those chances

jamesblakefan#1
08-09-2009, 01:19 PM
Great counter argument. "Ehh.." I think that's called OWNAGE. Good job, flying24.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 01:19 PM
OK then. Hewitt went 1-1 vs Agassi in 2001, one loss in 3 sets, one win in two sets in the bigger match. He outdueled Agassi for the year end #1 which Agassi stated himself he badly wanted that year at the year end Masters where Hewitt spanked Agassi in their critical RR match which led to Agassi's elimination (and being elminated from the chance of overtaking Hewitt for year end #1) while Hewitt went on to dominate and win the title. Again you lose, or are you now going to change it to 95, 99-2000 as his prime now that these facts have been brought upon you, LOL! And again if you insist on ages Hewitt at 16 beat Agassi at 27 when they played.



Hewitt > Roddick > Chang. Hewitt has two year end #1s and a Wimbledon and U.S Open title, and decent head to heads vs every great he faced (even Federer he has beaten 7 times) so regardless what you think of his competition he is clearly tops of those three. Chang won one of the flukiest slams ever at 17 on what wasnt even his best surface, a Conchita Martinez like triumph, and never won a big title again while not matching the consistency or longevity of Roddick. The end.



Nadal has more hard court slams than Agassi had at his age (ZERO), and many more hard court achievements on the surface overall with all his Masters title and Olympic singls gold.



and tripled his accomplishments on hard courts from late 1999 onwards when Sampras already had his 6 year end #1s and 6 of his 7 career hard court slams (12 of his 14 career overall slams) in the bag. In the middle of 1999 he was barely if any more accomplished than 23 year old Nadal on hard courts at the already advanced age of 29, even with his 1 extra slam.



What had Agassi done on hard courts at age 23? No slam titles, 1 slam final where he was destroyed by 19 year old Sampras, even 30 year old Lendl in the beginning of his twilight years took Sampras to 5 sets that same U.S Open, and even washed up for 5-6 years McEnroe gave Sampras a much tougher match than Agassi was able to. U.S Open first round losses to Krickstein, the same Krickstein who couldnt even beat 39 year old Jimmy Connors that same U.S Open with Connors emerging out of Agassi's quarter to the semis, and to a 19 year old Tomas Enqvist.



Agassi had some big time losses when he was 28 years old in 1998. Agassi wasnt nearly at his best during 96-98.. I think we can agree on that. We saw what Andre did to the defending champ Hewitt at the USO when Andre was more at another level..

And no Andre didnt have the success at 23 Nadal did, but youre implying Nadal may be winning more HC slams or overrall succes in the future. ANd thats not exactly set in stone.. He cant even finish a season healthy. Agassi>Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal on hardcourt. End of story.

If Nadal doesnt see any other success in his career he will only have 1 AO and 0 USO final to his resume. Pretty weak

flying24
08-09-2009, 01:30 PM
I see your point.. Slam wise, no Becker shouldnt really be included with HC majors duriing that time. But Becker did win the AO in 1996. Even passed his prime, he accomplished essentially what Nadal accomplished at his peak/prime last year for years prior to 08 couldnt. Reach and win a HC slam

Here are Becker's slam results on hard courts after Wimbledon 91 (like I said a full 2 years before the Sampras reign began in mid 93 with his long awaited 2nd slam title).

1991 U.S Open- 3rd round loss to doubles specialist Paul Haarhuis 6-3, 6-4, 6-2. Again another player who later this same touranment couldnt beat 39 year old Connors, allowing 39 year old Connors to advance out of the Agassi/Becker quarter by victimizing the same guys who victimized Agassi and Becker. Funny how such stellar greats like 91-98 version of Agassi and 91-98 version of Becker arent even able to stop 39 year old men from advancing out of their quarters. And here you are bringing up 31 year old late bloomers, LOL!

1992 Australian Open- 3rd round loss to 33 year old 7 years past his prime John McEnroe 6-4, 6-3, 7-6. John would go on to lose in straight sets to Wayne Ferreria btw, after taking 8-6 in the 5th to beat little clay courter Javier Sanchez (the 3rd best player in his own family.

1992 U.S Open- 4th round loss to 32 year old nearly retired Lendl, the same Lendl who used to be a great matchup for Becker whom Becker went 5-0 agaisnt in slams from 86-early 91.

1993 Australian Open- 1st round loss to qualifer Andres Jarryd, who would go on to win only 2 games vs doubles specialist Todd Woodbridge next round.

1993 U.S Open- 1st round loss to clay courter Andrei Cherkasov.

1994 Australian Open- did not play.

1994 U.S Open- 1st round loss to Richey Reneberg.

1995 Australian Open- 1st round loss to Patrick McEnroe.

1995 U.S Open- semifinal loss to Agassi

1996 Australian Open- champion

1996 U.S Open- did not play

1997 Australian Open- 1st round loss to Carlos Moya

1997 U.S open onwards- retired

So basically from mid 1991 onwards he had a 5 month blip he played well in 2 hard court slams (still didnt face Sampras in either of them).

Roddick, Hewitt, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, even Davydenko >>> mid 91-onwards version of Becker on hard courts. Also says something about the hard court competition of the 90s that Becker was about half the hard court player he was from 1986-1990 from 91-97 and still won 2 slams on hard courts that period vs the 1 he won from 1986-1990, LOL! The so called stellar field allowed a guy who in 80% of his hard court slams during this period cant get past some nobody in the early rounds to do that.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 01:33 PM
Here are Becker's slam results on hard courts after Wimbledon 91 (like I said a full 2 years before the Sampras reign began in mid 93 with his long awaited 2nd slam title).

1991 U.S Open- 3rd round loss to doubles specialist Paul Haarhuis 6-3, 6-4, 6-2. Again another player who later this same touranment couldnt beat 39 year old Connors, allowing 39 year old Connors to advance out of the Agassi/Becker quarter by victimizing the same guys who victimized Agassi and Becker. Funny how such stellar greats like 91-98 version of Agassi and 91-98 version of Becker arent even able to stop 39 year old men from advancing out of their quarters. And here you are bringing up 31 year old late bloomers, LOL!

1992 Australian Open- 3rd round loss to 33 year old 7 years past his prime John McEnroe 6-4, 6-3, 7-6. John would go on to lose in straight sets to Wayne Ferreria btw, after taking 8-6 in the 5th to beat little clay courter Javier Sanchez (the 3rd best player in his own family.

1992 U.S Open- 4th round loss to 32 year old nearly retired Lendl, the same Lendl who used to be a great matchup for Becker whom Becker went 5-0 agaisnt in slams from 86-early 91.

1993 Australian Open- 1st round loss to qualifer Andres Jarryd, who would go on to win only 2 games vs doubles specialist Todd Woodbridge next round.

1993 U.S Open- 1st round loss to clay courter Andrei Cherkasov.

1994 Australian Open- did not play.

1994 U.S Open- 1st round loss to Richey Reneberg.

1995 Australian Open- 1st round loss to Patrick McEnroe.

1995 U.S Open- semifinal loss to Agassi

1996 Australian Open- champion

1996 U.S Open- did not play

1997 Australian Open- 1st round loss to Carlos Moya

1997 U.S open onwards- retired

So basically from mid 1991 onwards he had a 5 month blip he played well in 2 hard court slams (still didnt face Sampras in either of them).

Roddick, Hewitt, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, even Davydenko >>> mid 91-onwards version of Becker on hard courts. Also says something about the hard court competition of the 90s that Becker was about half the hard court player he was from 1986-1990 from 91-97 and still won 2 slams on hard courts that period vs the 1 he won from 1986-1990, LOL! The so called stellar field allowed a guy who in 80% of his hard court slams during this period cant get past some nobody in the early rounds to do that.



Noted:
I didnt say Becker was a beast or main rival at HC slams at the time did I? But he also proved he could win an Australian Open title passed his prime. Becker was more or less the threat on grass we can agree.


I will agree maybe Djoker (when he is actually plaing winning tennis, not recently), Murray and Nadal are ahead of passed prime Becker on hardcourts..

But that still does discount Andre was a bigger threat on hardcourts than all of Nadal, Murray, Djoker thus far.


Why I said for the reason alone Andre proved to be bigger threat, more accomplished overrall than Nadal.. And I already said Im not really counting Djoker and Murray as they didnt hit the radar until Fed won his 12-13th slam.

So that leaves Blake, Davydenko, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt etc We know their story. Roddick is superior to passed prime Becker on hardcourts. Hewitt AT HIS BEST, but that didnt lost long. Then you got Blake and Nalbandian, Davydenko, slam wise sitting on a goose egg. Becker at least won a slam passed his prime in 96. None of the other can even manage a HC slam final. Safin was awesome for a very short time span but they were spread out and only hit top form twice. USO 2000 and AO 05

flying24
08-09-2009, 01:34 PM
Agassi had some big time losses when he was 28 years old in 1998. Agassi wasnt nearly at his best during 96-98.. I think we can agree on that. We saw what Andre did to the defending champ Hewitt at the USO when Andre was more at another level..

And no Andre didnt have the success at 23 Nadal did, but youre implying Nadal may be winning more HC slams or overrall succes in the future. ANd thats not exactly set in stone.. He cant even finish a season healthy. Agassi>Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal on hardcourt. End of story.

If Nadal doesnt see any other success in his career he will only have 1 AO and 0 USO final to his resume. Pretty weak

You dont know what Nadal will or wont do in his career from here. If he does nothing else (how likely is that) you would have a case. The fact is right now he has far surpassed Agassi's achievements at the same age on the surface. Nadal also doesnt have to peak or last from ages 29-32 like Agassi did (which I agree he wont), he can easily make that up from all but 1 of Agassi between ages 23-29 where Agassi except summer 94-summer 95 did pretty much nothing. Your comparisions of a retired player to a 23 year old are ridiculous. The fact Nadal at the same age had achieved more than Agassi by a long ways even on hard courts, his own worst surface and Agassi's best, makes it pretty clear who is on his way to being the better player of the two barring something unforseen.

flying24
08-09-2009, 01:35 PM
Becker was more or less the threat on grass we can agree.

Sure I totally agree there. Grass and carpet he was still a beast. On a poll who had tougher grass court competition between Pete and Roger I would vote Pete.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 01:43 PM
You dont know what Nadal will or wont do in his career from here. If he does nothing else (how likely is that) you would have a case. The fact is right now he has far surpassed Agassi's achievements at the same age on the surface. Nadal also doesnt have to peak or last from ages 29-32 like Agassi did (which I agree he wont), he can easily make that up from all but 1 of Agassi between ages 23-29 where Agassi except summer 94-summer 95 did pretty much nothing. Your comparisions of a retired player to a 23 year old are ridiculous. The fact Nadal at the same age had achieved more than Agassi by a long ways even on hard courts, his own worst surface and Agassi's best, makes it pretty clear who is on his way to being the better player of the two barring something unforseen.



Im not sold on the fact Nadal is even going to remain any type of threat on hardcourts from this point out due to his knees.. But we will see. And the poll was asking Sampras competition opposed to Fed's.. So naturally I am going to go with all of Sampras' career opposed to Fed's in this case.. And the fact Agassi took 2 AO's from Pete, he was a rival to Pete at the USO for a few years.


What Rival has Nadal been at the HC slams.. Yes even as young as he is. Because he is a Fed contemporary and an early bloomer . And Nadal showed us. One AO, and zero USO finals. HC slam wise in 95 Agassi alone trumped Nadal's HC slam achievements. Agassi won the AO over Pete and reached a HC slam final. Something Nadal has yet to even accomplish

P_Agony
08-09-2009, 01:54 PM
If we factor in Djoker and Murray MAYBE.. But as I mentioned before, Im not sure how you can objectively do it.. Once again... Djoker and Murray werent around until Fed picked his 11th or 12th slam already.

I'll do the run down.

Agassi- 6 HC slam, Masters titles on HC, arguably the best rebound ace player.

Chang- Solid hardcourt player.. Finals of the AO and USO. 7 Masters titles on hardcourts

Edberg- Still a awesome player even in the early 90s with big wins over Pete at the USO

Becker- Solid hardcourt player. Masters title, 2 Australian Opens and USO win


Both Becker and Edberg were still factors during the early part of the 90s.. Both of which Pete needed to overcome. Kind of a difference in Fed's case where Djoker and Murray never showed up on the radar until around Fed's 12-13th slam






Feds:

Roddick: 1 USO title to his resume, very questionable regardless due to the circumstances surrounding his match with Nalbandian. His resume is more similiar to Changs on hardcourt

Safin- Tough Hardcourt player. One of the best could have been.. But showed up to play tennis a minute portion of his career. 00 USO and AO 05 he was the most unstoppable.. But never duplicated that level. Spent more time out of the top 10 in the world than in it.


Hewitt- Tough in his prime.. Defeated Sampras at the USO.. But as the defending champ got defeated by Andre Agassi at 31 years old at the USO.. This was Prime Hewitt mind you and he is getting defeated by 90's era holdovers.



Nalbandian, Davydenko, Blake, and the rest... Are these guys even worth mentioning on hardcourts?

Nalbandian had a winning record over Fed for the better part of his career, and he still has a winning record over Nadal. Nalbandian has beaten Federer back to back twice in 2007 - no other player could do that.

Yes, Nalby is inconsistent, but he was an HC powerhouse when he was on. So was Blake, and Davy reached HC slam semis and has destroyed the like of Murray and Nadal on hard courts.

P_Agony
08-09-2009, 02:00 PM
The discussion is very interesting, but what is it either of you wants to prove? That Sampras had tougher HC-competition? That Federer did? Either way, as i have told millions of Nadal-fans, you can only beat the one in front of you, you cant affect who you play against, i can agree that Feds hc-"rivals" should have been a little better to have adjusted their games in order to try and keep up with him,on the other hand...maybe he WAS just to good, at a level where noone had ever been before? A tennis-pioneer. Someone to look back on in 50 years and point and say-"Yeah,that guy revolutionized the game of tennis,took it to another level more than anyone has ever done before". It can take years for the "pack" to get there if someone is so supreme.
Lets say that Sampras HAD (im not sure he had, just an example) tougher hc-rivals than Fed, he still lost to journey-men on Hc during his prime (in GS to!), Fed never did that, hes been close (if u count AO 08 and US open 08 into Feds prime) but never done it. Thoughts?

This threads are here for a reason. For a while now many Sampras fans and Nadal fans have been trying to discredit Federer with the argument that Fed played in a weak era. This poll proves the opposite, at least as far as HCs go, and HCs are the biggest surface in tennis.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 02:02 PM
This threads are here for a reason. For a while now many Sampras fans and Nadal fans have been trying to discredit Federer with the argument that Fed played in a weak era. This poll proves the opposite, at least as far as HCs go, and HCs are the biggest surface in tennis.

What does it prove? Proof that most of the posters on here(Fed fans) are going to vote for Fed. There is no absolute Proof that Fed had it tougher overrall..

In fact I think Outisde of Nadal, Sampras had a tougher clay field to contend with than Fed. Grass court Sampras had it tougher, and Pete had it tougher on hardcourts due to Agassi who is the superior hardcourt player than Anyone Fed has face in the last 4-5 years outside of Peak Safin AO 2005

P_Agony
08-09-2009, 02:07 PM
What does it prove? Proof that most of the posters on here(Fed fans) are going to vote for Fed. There is no absolute Proof that Fed had it tougher overrall..

In fact I think Outisde of Nadal, Sampras had a tougher clay field to contend with than Fed. Grass court Sampras had it tougher, and Pete had it tougher on hardcourts due to Agassi who is the superior hardcourt player than Anyone Fed has face in the last 4-5 years outside of Peak Safin AO 2005

Look at my posts, I clearly agree Pete had a much harder grass competition and a slightly harder clay competition (more variety of players, but no Nadal), however in the HC department the level of quality seems higher today than it was during Pete's time.

flying24
08-09-2009, 02:08 PM
What does it prove? Proof that most of the posters on here(Fed fans) are going to vote for Fed. There is no absolute Proof that Fed had it tougher overrall..

In fact I think Outisde of Nadal, Sampras had a tougher clay field to contend with than Fed. Grass court Sampras had it tougher, and Pete had it tougher on hardcourts due to Agassi who is the superior hardcourt player than Anyone Fed has face in the last 4-5 years outside of Peak Safin AO 2005

Saying Sampras's hard court competition is tougher just because of Agassi is like saying Federer's clay court comeptition is tougher just because of Nadal ( a far more untouchable clay courter than Agassi is a hard courter) which you dismiss each time.

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 02:09 PM
Saying Sampras's hard court competition is tougher just because of Agassi is like saying Federer's clay court comeptition is tougher just because of Nadal ( a far more untouchable clay courter than Agassi is a hard courter) which you dismiss each time.

Agassi all across the board as obviously proven more than Nadal has thus far. Nadal had 1 Wimbeldon, 1 AO, Lots of RG's tied up, but 0 USO's. Where Agassi has 6 hardcourt slams, a Wimbeldon with another Finals appearance, and an RG with a couple of finals appearances as well

And wouldnt you know it.. Nadal expects a pretty bland result at the USO this year. So there you go.. Another year Nadal sees little success at the USO because he cant stay healthy.

flying24
08-09-2009, 02:13 PM
Agassi all across the board as obviously proven more than Nadal has thus far. Nadal had 1 Wimbeldon, 1 AO, Lots of RG's tied up, but 0 USO's. Where Agassi has 6 hardcourt slams, a Wimbeldon with another Finals appearance, and an RG with a couple of finals appearances as well

And wouldnt you know it.. Nadal expects a pretty bland result at the USO this year. So there you go.. Another year Nadal sees little success at the USO because he cant stay healthy.

Nadal on clay has achieved more and been fare more dominant than Agassi on hard courts already.

Nadal on grass has achieved more at 23 than Agassi on either clay or grass has retired.

Nadal on hard courts has overall probably achieved more than Agassi on clay (only 1 Masters title), and he has even achieved more on hard courts than Agassi had at the same age.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-09-2009, 02:16 PM
gamesampras insists on getting owned

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 02:19 PM
Nadal on clay has achieved more and been fare more dominant than Agassi on hard courts already.

Nadal on grass has achieved more at 23 than Agassi on either clay or grass has retired.

Nadal on hard courts has overall probably achieved more than Agassi on clay (only 1 Masters title), and he has even achieved more on hard courts than Agassi had at the same age.



So what.. Nadal hasnt seen the success Agassi has seen overrall. And thats what its about.. Seeing overrall success. Not great success on one surface. And you want to compare ages. So we should ignore Andre's longevity in the sport then.

Its not Andre's fault Nadal cant stay healthy while only being 23

GameSampras
08-09-2009, 02:20 PM
gamesampras insists on getting owned

Way to contribute to the thread troll

Serve_Ace
08-09-2009, 02:36 PM
So what.. Nadal hasnt seen the success Agassi has seen overrall. And thats what its about.. Seeing overrall success. Not great success on one surface. And you want to compare ages. So we should ignore Andre's longevity in the sport then.

Its not Andre's fault Nadal cant stay healthy while only being 23

And it's not Roger's fault Nadal couldn't stay healthy for the French and Wimbledon.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-09-2009, 02:53 PM
Way to contribute to the thread troll

no point arguing with a ***********

NamRanger
08-09-2009, 03:12 PM
What does it prove? Proof that most of the posters on here(Fed fans) are going to vote for Fed. There is no absolute Proof that Fed had it tougher overrall..

In fact I think Outisde of Nadal, Sampras had a tougher clay field to contend with than Fed. Grass court Sampras had it tougher, and Pete had it tougher on hardcourts due to Agassi who is the superior hardcourt player than Anyone Fed has face in the last 4-5 years outside of Peak Safin AO 2005



Agassi's was Pete's perennial doormat at nearly every major HC tournament except TWO AO wins for Agassi, which can be attributed to :


1. Pete's Coach dying
2. The second one Pete tore/injured something

Cesc Fabregas
08-09-2009, 03:12 PM
I love how Blake, Davydenko are seen as better than Agassi and Courier. Blake has zero hardcourt semis let alone final in slams and zero hardcourt masters and Davydenko has never been to a slam final, Chang alone craps on these 2 and Agassi and Courier are in a different universe.

ChrisCrocker
08-09-2009, 03:13 PM
Federer Prime 2003 - present

US Open - before final


4 set lost - us open 2003 (failed to reach final)
3 set lost - us open 2004
2 set lost - us open 2005
1 set lost - us open 2006
2 set lost - us open 2007
3 set lost - us open 2008

Players Lost to(us open) -

Nalbandian

Player who he has lost most sets to(us open) -

Agassi - 3 sets
Nalbandian - 3 sets



Sampras Prime 1993 - 2000

US Open - before final

2 set lost - us open 1993
4 set lost - us open 1994 (failed to reach final)
2 set lost - us open 1995
5 set lost - us open 1996
3 set lost - us open 1997 (failed to reach final)
4 set lost - us open 1998 (failed to reach final)
1 set lost - us open 2000

Players he has lost to(us open) -

Korda
Safin
Rafter
yzaga

Players he has lost most sets to(us open)-

Korda - 3 sets
Safin - 3 sets
Rafter - 3 sets
yzaga - 3 sets


Just comparing their domination of the us open,not their competition.

Sampras lost to Yzaga and Rafter in 1997-1998 because of injury, in the 4th set sampras injured his ankle i believe when he was running to the net. After that injury there was a huge decline in his play in the match.

I don't mind you putting 1999 as sampras's prime as he destroyed Agassi in the Wimbledon Final when agassi had the FO but i highly doubt 2000 was sampras's prime.

ChrisCrocker
08-09-2009, 03:15 PM
Reading this thread all i see is Fed fans going against GameSampras, if you look through this thread there are about 4 posters who just come in this thread and say something along the line of "Fed Rules Sampras sucks"

fedtastic
08-09-2009, 03:36 PM
Both had highest quality competition available in that era. Both had to deal with the top players of their respective era. Federer has been able to dominate his peers more than Sampras could. Thats just the way it is. I do believe however that as time goes by and more countries pick up tennis the quality of the field will only get stronger and the best of the best from all races and nations on earth will be competing against each other.

luckyboy1300
08-09-2009, 03:39 PM
Reading this thread all i see is Fed fans going against GameSampras, if you look through this thread there are about 4 posters who just come in this thread and say something along the line of "Fed Rules Sampras sucks"

yes, beause during fed's difficult times you can't ever read somthing along the lines of "sampras rules fed sucks".

ChrisCrocker
08-09-2009, 04:10 PM
yes, beause during fed's difficult times you can't ever read somthing along the lines of "sampras rules fed sucks".

i don't even understand what you said so im assuming you think im lying?

its too bad pete sampras wasn't as good as federer.

poor petey. lets all cry a river because his competition was sooo hard.

Don't forget former King Rafa, Murray and Djokovic! Any of these guys would crush any of Pete's competition on HC!:twisted:

Easily Federer has played in a much tougher era then pansy Sampras.

gamesampras insists on getting owned

that was an easy 4

theroleoftheunderdog
08-09-2009, 04:18 PM
i don't even understand what you said so im assuming you think im lying?









that was an easy 4

i did not mention federer nor sampras in my post, i was referring to gamesampras and flying24

fedfan08
08-09-2009, 04:19 PM
Good grief can people quit with these pointless 'who was better/had better' discussions? They're getting so old. :rolleyes:

fedfan08
08-09-2009, 04:23 PM
Seriously are the Sampras '****' that unsure of his legacy that they have to keep engaging in these types of debates. I've never known a sport where the fans (and some sports writers) denegrate one player to build up another. Why can't we just appreciate the talent and great performances of all these great players and quit with all these stupid comparisons and who was better crap.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
08-09-2009, 10:09 PM
Nah, Andre played some of his best tennis against Fed. But even if we don't count Andre, Fed had the better competition, including your hero Nadal.

P agony why do you start these threads...

I've already stated on behalf of everyone to quit with these kinda threads.

by the way....according to what your saying...

2004&05USopen, 2005 ao andre can beat the pants of 1999-2001 andre...

umm..ok....let's just leave it there shall we....

peole with views like that are part of the reason TW is becoming a federer
love-in.....i think fed is great player but seriously ..gimme a break.

what jamesblakefan said it all...we have to put roddick, yes roddick as fed's
prime competition 2003-2007 because nadal...couldn't even make hc finals.

ps: safin nalby etc have been just as awol as andre in the 90's..

ok...I won't post again on principal.....and yes lump me in with gamesampras
but for different reasons...game has changed alot etc...

helloworld
08-10-2009, 04:39 AM
Agassi was better after he came back, and this poll disagrees with you.

Agassi was good from 1999-2002. That's hardly Federer's era at all. Fed started beating Andre when andre turned 34 years old. 99% of the players would have already retired at 34 years of age.

NamRanger
08-10-2009, 08:49 AM
Agassi was good from 1999-2002. That's hardly Federer's era at all. Fed started beating Andre when andre turned 34 years old. 99% of the players would have already retired at 34 years of age.


In 2003 where Andre and Federer were about as even as it gets, Federer got by Andre in the RR at the TMC by a slight margin, and then later on spanked Andre, bageling him.




Still, I would think Prime Federer poses significant problems to any incarnation of Andre you throw at him. In fact, the 95 Andre keeps talking about plays far more unintelligent than the Andre of later years.




In fact, Andre was Pete's perennial doormat most of the time. Two of his best wins can be attributed to circumstances beyond Sampras' control.