PDA

View Full Version : Sampras would have beaten Fed at their primes


Pages : [1] 2

Wondertoy
09-17-2009, 10:04 AM
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

drakulie
09-17-2009, 10:06 AM
Here is a nice article about this topic:

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

wyutani
09-17-2009, 10:06 AM
uhh...no. fed beat sampras in wimbly 2001. so no.

akv89
09-17-2009, 10:06 AM
Sampras isn't going to be serving every game.

tudwell
09-17-2009, 10:11 AM
So Federer, who's won 15 grand slams, 6 Wimbledons, and 65 consecutive matches on grass, could not do what one-slam-wonder Krajicek did in 1996?

Right.

AAAA
09-17-2009, 10:18 AM
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

Wayne Ferreira has a better record against Sampras than Agassi so there's no need to be the better or best returner to have better success against Sampras.

warreng
09-17-2009, 10:21 AM
What silly logic.

If we were thinking this way, Andre owned Pete at the French and Aussie opens. By your thinking then Federer would wipe the floor with Pete on those surfaces...

DrpShot!
09-17-2009, 10:22 AM
Neither of them would hold as many slams as they do now if they were playing at the same time.

wyutani
09-17-2009, 10:23 AM
nadal will beat both + agassi easily.

ASL
09-17-2009, 10:26 AM
Of course Prime Sampras would of beaten Federer. Just look at the exhibition match they played in Macau where a RETIRED Pete wionagainst a Fed who was in his PRIME.

rocket
09-17-2009, 10:29 AM
Of course Prime Sampras would of beaten Federer. Just look at the exhibition match they played in Macau where a retired Pete WON against a Fed who was in his PRIME.

Exhibition... where they giggled after each point?

rocket
09-17-2009, 10:30 AM
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

Fed possesses many more weapons than Agassi.

wyutani
09-17-2009, 10:30 AM
Of course Prime Sampras would of beaten Federer. Just look at the exhibition match they played in Macau where a retired Pete WON against a Fed who was in his PRIME.

lol, this is hilarious....you really thought sampras won for real? man, get out from that box of urs. see the world. its not all black and white, win or lose. :)

hilarious.

Wondertoy
09-17-2009, 10:30 AM
uhh...no. fed beat sampras in wimbly 2001. so no.

Pete was past his prime.

Wondertoy
09-17-2009, 10:32 AM
So Federer, who's won 15 grand slams, 6 Wimbledons, and 65 consecutive matches on grass, could not do what one-slam-wonder Krajicek did in 1996?

Right.

It's harder to break Krajicek on grass than it is to break Fed. Pete in his prime would S&V Fed's back hand to death.

ASL
09-17-2009, 10:33 AM
Exhibition... where they giggled after each point?

Point to me where there is ANY giggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIvlyvWAoI

Federer played as well as he did back in 07. Excuses are pointless.

All-rounder
09-17-2009, 10:33 AM
It's harder to break Krajicek on grass than it is to break Fed. Pete in his prime would S&V Fed's back hand to death.
Ok whatever :roll: shoulda woulda coulda doesn't change anything

All-rounder
09-17-2009, 10:35 AM
Point to me where there is ANY giggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIvlyvWAoI

Federer played as well as he did back in 07. Excuses are pointless.
It's an EXHIBTION MATCH!! for flip sake. It's not like federer was playing as if a top 10 player was on the other side of the net

drakulie
09-17-2009, 10:38 AM
Pete was past his prime.

Fact is, Sampras had a higher serving percentage in that match, than he did in any of his 7 wimbledon finals. Perhaps he should have served like this more often and he would have had even more titles (during his "prime").

Breaker
09-17-2009, 10:38 AM
Not if Jaime Yzaga got to him first.

rocket
09-17-2009, 10:40 AM
Point to me where there is ANY giggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIvlyvWAoI

Federer played as well as he did back in 07. Excuses are pointless.

1st point from your clip. Sampras smiled walking back, looked at Fed, shook his head in relief, smiled some more. Fed also smiled. They were having a good time playing & earning millions in meaningless matches.

Fed would have ripped Sampras apart if he played seriously, sorry to say. Sampras still has all the shots, but now is a bit slow and wouldn't be competitive enough.

Try again. ;)

ASL
09-17-2009, 10:43 AM
1st point from your clip. Sampras smiled walking back, looked a Fed, shook his head in relief, smiled some more. Fed also smiled. They were having a good time playing & earning millions in meaningless matches.

Fed would have ripped Sampras apart if he played seriously, sorry to say. Sampras still has all the shots, but now is a bit slow and wouldn't be competitive enough.

Try again. ;)

Yeah, We all know Federer's mentality when he loses (USO Final). He obviously wanted to win that match too. Or did he just let Pete win? :rolleyes:

drakulie
09-17-2009, 10:50 AM
Or did he just let Pete win?

yes, he did.

Cesc Fabregas
09-17-2009, 12:30 PM
Regardless of the 1 more major, Sampras is the better player. He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys. Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals and a winning record over his nearest rival.

grafselesfan
09-17-2009, 12:32 PM
In their primes this is what I see:

At Wimbledon: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At U.S Open: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At French Open: Federer wins the 1 or 2 out of 1 or 2 (but they are tougher than people expect)
At Australian Open: they split 2 out 4 each

Given that the gravy place for slams titles are Wimbledon and the U.S Open for both Sampras clearly has the advantage.

ArrowSmith
09-17-2009, 12:35 PM
What a pointless discussion. Would you make Federer play with the same raquet(no Luxilon strings) and make him use the same training techniques as circa 1993 Sampras? There are so many variables that go into this prime vs prime nonsense, that's no use even trying.

Chadwixx
09-17-2009, 12:35 PM
Yeah, We all know Federer's mentality when he loses (USO Final). He obviously wanted to win that match too. Or did he just let Pete win? :rolleyes:

Did he lose 6-0 or 6-1 like the mental giant pete did? Did pete even win a set off safin or hewitt?

Hard to claim a greater mental game when one lost in 5 sets and the other lost in 3.

ArrowSmith
09-17-2009, 12:35 PM
Regardless of the 1 more major, Sampras is the better player. He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys. Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals and a winning record over his nearest rival.

If the net game mattered more, Federer would have superior volleys. But we live in a baseline bashing age, and Fed does well in that. You make absolute no sense. "More powerful forehand"? Please.

ArrowSmith
09-17-2009, 12:36 PM
Did he lose 6-0 or 6-1 like the mental giant pete did? Did pete even win a set off safin or hewitt?

Hard to claim a greater mental game when one lost in 5 sets and the other lost in 3.

Yeah I remember when PRIME Sampras got bageled by Kafelnikov at the 1996 French semis....

fed_rulz
09-17-2009, 01:21 PM
Regardless of the 1 more major, Sampras is the better player. He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys. Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals and a winning record over his nearest rival.

LOL, so many epic fails in this post, i don't know where to begin.

>> He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys

Yet, he has 3 majors less than Federer at the same age. No FO either. What's the use of all those "weapons" if it does not win him majors?

>>Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals

Now suddenly, losing in R1 is better than losing in a slam final. Sorry, epic fail again. Fed has played in more major finals/SF than Pete, and has won more.

>> a winning record over his nearest rival
which is skewed, because Pete chickened out of meeting Agassi on Agassi's strongest surfaces; whereas Agassi was man enough to meet Sampras on Pete's favorite surfaces. Same with Fed/Nadal; Having said that, the Fedal rivalry is at a much higher level than the Pete-dre one.

Let me give you an analogy:
We have two guys, P & A, who are both great champions in eating competitions. P loves hot-dogs, but is not fond of burritos. A loves burritos, and hot-dogs came second.

In a given year, there were 10 each of hot-dog and burrito competitions. P & A both participated in the hot-dog competitions. P won every time. Fearing the nasty aftermath of eating burritos, P never participated in any of the burrito eating competitions. A won every one of them.

End result: h2h between P & A : 10-0 in P's favor.

go figure!

DownTheLine
09-17-2009, 01:24 PM
Pete was past his prime.

Federer was also very young and inexpierenced..

ASL
09-17-2009, 01:46 PM
In their primes this is what I see:

At Wimbledon: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At U.S Open: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At French Open: Federer wins the 1 or 2 out of 1 or 2 (but they are tougher than people expect)
At Australian Open: they split 2 out 4 each

Given that the gravy place for slams titles are Wimbledon and the U.S Open for both Sampras clearly has the advantage.

It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

truthorbust
09-17-2009, 01:53 PM
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

That makes little sense. You have forgotten that tiebreaks are tricky territory and that Fed serves alot better than Andre did and that his game is much more well rounded and varied. That would have caused Pete big concern adn IMO most likely defeat.For Pete.

flying24
09-17-2009, 01:53 PM
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

Right as if Sampras is better on clay, ROTFL!!!

wilkinru
09-17-2009, 01:55 PM
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

Yeah, he ONLY makes it to the finals EVERY YEAR.

Damn he is a joke!

The dude made it to the finals of EVERY MAJOR this year and won 2 of them. Who are you kidding?

flying24
09-17-2009, 01:58 PM
Yeah, he ONLY makes it to the finals EVERY YEAR.

Damn he is a joke!

The dude made it to the finals of EVERY MAJOR this year and won 2 of them. Who are you kidding?

Yeah he should have instead lost to Gilbert Schaller, Roman Delgado, and a pre prime then nobody Magnus Norman (who himself would lose to Filip Dewful in that years semifinalist) at the French Open during his prime like the clay court legend Pete Sampras.

Agassifan
09-17-2009, 02:24 PM
LOL. Prime Fed > Prime Sampras > Prime Agassi

akv89
09-17-2009, 02:47 PM
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

Del Potro is now a 20 year old major winner. Federer's draw at the FO can no longer be considered a joke :p

flying24
09-17-2009, 02:54 PM
Pretty desperate straw grasping too to mock Federer for having a 5 setter with Haas. Prime Kuerten was 1 point from a straight sets loss to Russell. Everyone has their off days.

luishcorreia
09-17-2009, 02:56 PM
Do we really need another "Sampras would defeat Federer" thread???

Come on!!

Agassifan
09-17-2009, 02:56 PM
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

He beat the second best player on THAT surface in the final.

Chadwixx
09-17-2009, 02:57 PM
I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final.

Kinda like pete's 1999 wimbledon where the avgerage ranking of his opponenet was #141, LOL.

flying24
09-17-2009, 02:59 PM
Kinda like pete's 1999 wimbledon where the avgerage ranking of his opponenet was #141, LOL.

or Petes draw in 1997 where in the quarters he played a retiring washed up Becker who had lost to Kafelnikov on grass the event before, in the semis played Todd Woodbridge a doubles specialist, and in the final the great Cedric Pioline. His lone test being in the 4th round form Petr Korda who took him to 5 sets.

Net47
09-17-2009, 06:57 PM
To the OP, there's no reasoning with the Federer fanatics on this board. (Or the snobby Borgians, who think the guy could have competed with his loopy topsin groundstrokes and meek serve in any era other than his own). I will say this for Sampras: he could step on the court today and blow his serve consistently by anyone on the tour...including Federer. He did exactly that in the exos. And exos or not, that was embarrassing for Federer. No one likes to get smoked time after time on the serve.

Lion King
09-17-2009, 07:17 PM
To the OP, there's no reasoning with the Federer fanatics on this board. (Or the snobby Borgians, who think the guy could have competed with his loopy topsin groundstrokes and meek serve in any era other than his own). I will say this for Sampras: he could step on the court today and blow his serve consistently by anyone on the tour...including Federer. He did exactly that in the exos. And exos or not, that was embarrassing for Federer. No one likes to get smoked time after time on the serve.

Buddy, you're forgetting one thing: hitting aces in an exo is not the same as hitting aces in the fifth set of a tough match. If Pete's serve was that great, why did he ever lose to anyone? He was supposed to ace all of them to death :)

Azzurri
09-17-2009, 07:20 PM
uhh...no. fed beat sampras in wimbly 2001. so no.

uhh, prime Sampras. While Fed was not at his prime either the match means NOTHING. So if Aurnaud Clement played Sampras once he is better? One match means NOTHING, has no bearing on anything.

doom
09-17-2009, 07:33 PM
Point to me where there is ANY giggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIvlyvWAoI

Federer played as well as he did back in 07. Excuses are pointless.

They were giggling after the very first point.

IvanAndreevich
09-17-2009, 07:36 PM
uhh, prime Sampras. While Fed was not at his prime either the match means NOTHING. So if Aurnaud Clement played Sampras once he is better? One match means NOTHING, has no bearing on anything.

It does mean something. It doesn't mean that Federer would own Sampras all the way, but it illustrates that there is no match-up problem for Fed.

Net47
09-17-2009, 07:41 PM
Buddy, you're forgetting one thing: hitting aces in an exo is not the same as hitting aces in the fifth set of a tough match. If Pete's serve was that great, why did he ever lose to anyone? He was supposed to ace all of them to death :)

Lol. "If Pete's serve was that great..." Many, many people outside of this board think it may have been the greatest ever when both first and second serve are taken into account. YOU'RE forgetting that his serve was good enough to win 14 slams. All hail Roger, fine. He's done a great job of beating Andy Roddick time after time. (Not so great at beating Nadal.) But the dismissive view that so many here have of Sampras is impossible to fathom.

jamesblakefan#1
09-17-2009, 07:47 PM
Of course Prime Sampras would of beaten Federer. Just look at the exhibition match they played in Macau where a RETIRED Pete wionagainst a Fed who was in his PRIME.

What's up GameSampras? :lol:

jamesblakefan#1
09-17-2009, 07:49 PM
In their primes this is what I see:

At Wimbledon: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At U.S Open: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At French Open: Federer wins the 1 or 2 out of 1 or 2 (but they are tougher than people expect)
At Australian Open: they split 2 out 4 each

Given that the gravy place for slams titles are Wimbledon and the U.S Open for both Sampras clearly has the advantage.

This is the biggest load of crap I've seen.

In other words, par for the course for you, GSF.

darthpwner
09-17-2009, 07:52 PM
Sampras is underrated on this forum, but Federer would probably own their h2h.

edberg505
09-17-2009, 07:55 PM
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

LOL, I can't tell you this. Federer has never been given a double bread stick by Fabrice Santoro on clay. Hahaha, I mean seriously? 1 and 1?

grafselesfan
09-17-2009, 08:09 PM
This is the biggest load of crap I've seen.

In other words, par for the course for you, GSF.

Andre Agassi, the greatest returner of serve since Connors atleast could not even return the Sampras serve on any fast surface. So what on earth makes you think Federer, who has an inferior return of serve to Agassi, would be able to. Then on the other side Federer takes great care of his serve games but he is far from unbreakable. Even Roddick has had some success breaking his serve in their Wimbledon and U.S Open meetings, and Roddick does not have the return or ground game that Sampras does. On top of that Sampras is mentally tougher than Roger.

fed_rulz
09-17-2009, 08:35 PM
GSF you exceeded your own crappy standards in spewing BS.

Andre Agassi, the greatest returner of serve since Connors atleast could not even return the Sampras serve on any fast surface. So what on earth makes you think Federer, who has an inferior return of serve to Agassi, would be able to.

Epic logic fail. Yzaga was able to return/break Pete's serve. Krajicek could. Alex correjta could. Wayne effing Ferreira could. Paul whoami haarhauis could.
Now tell me, could Federer return his serve or not?

Then on the other side Federer takes great care of his serve games but he is far from unbreakable. Even Roddick has had some success breaking his serve in their Wimbledon and U.S Open meetings, and Roddick does not have the return or ground game that Sampras does.

of course roddick breaking Fed is a sign that Fed has an inferior service game than Pete :confused:. Wait, what does Santoro breaking Sampras's serve multiple times tell you? What about the other guys mentioned above?

On top of that Sampras is mentally tougher than Roger.
You have a point there. I can see that Sampras' mental toughness won him ZERO FO crowns in 12 attempts. As further evidence, you can see that whenever Sampras lost, he always went to 5 sets. His mental toughness meant that he never went out in straights.

If you were to believe some nut jobs on this board, you can draw the following conclusions:

- sampras never lost his serve EVER (obviously, best serve ever)
- Sampras never lost a match EVER (mentally toughest ever)
- 14 >> 15; in fact 14 > x, for any x > 14
- winning 14 slams in 12 yrs is better than winning 15 in 7
- Not having a FO crown is better than having one
- losing to nobodies is better than losing to the one of the all time clay court greats
- losing early in the slams is certainly more desirable than losing in the finals
- chickening out of meeting your "biggest rival" in his favorite surfaces is better than actually meeting your rival in his strongest surface and losing (of course, good for h2h)

Please feel free to add :???:

JoshDragon
09-17-2009, 08:42 PM
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

That's absolutely stupid to base Federer's theoretical h2h against Sampras based on Andre's results against Sampras. Andre was a great returner, I don't think the best but his game was poorly suited to beating Pete on faster courts. Andre was also, terribly erratic and had the tendency to blow important finals, especially in the beginning of his career.

Andre and Federer play nothing alike Federer is far more versatile. He would have owned Pete Sampras if they had played in their primes.

Tennis_Monk
09-17-2009, 08:51 PM
If you were to believe some nut jobs on this board, you can draw the following conclusions:

- sampras never lost his serve EVER (obviously, best serve ever)
- Sampras never lost a match EVER (mentally toughest ever)
- 14 >> 15; in fact 14 > x, for any x > 14
- winning 14 slams in 12 yrs is better than winning 15 in 7
- Not having a FO crown is better than having one
- losing to nobodies is better than losing to the one of the all time clay court greats
- losing early in the slams is certainly more desirable than losing in the finals
- chickening out of meeting your "biggest rival" in his favorite surfaces is better than actually meeting your rival in his strongest surface and losing (of course, good for h2h)

Please feel free to add :???:

Winning in an Exhibition is better than losing in a Grandslam match.

LOL.. Lets face it, Sampras is the best clay court player. Only reason he lost is because he didnt want his attire to get dirty and all

jamesblakefan#1
09-17-2009, 09:05 PM
GSF you exceeded your own crappy standards in spewing BS.

Epic logic fail. Yzaga was able to return/break Pete's serve. Krajicek could. Alex correjta could. Wayne effing Ferreira could. Paul whoami haarhauis could.
Now tell me, could Federer return his serve or not?

of course roddick breaking Fed is a sign that Fed has an inferior service game than Pete :confused:. Wait, what does Santoro breaking Sampras's serve multiple times tell you? What about the other guys mentioned above?

You have a point there. I can see that Sampras' mental toughness won him ZERO FO crowns in 12 attempts. As further evidence, you can see that whenever Sampras lost, he always went to 5 sets. His mental toughness meant that he never went out in straights.

If you were to believe some nut jobs on this board, you can draw the following conclusions:

- sampras never lost his serve EVER (obviously, best serve ever)
- Sampras never lost a match EVER (mentally toughest ever)
- 14 >> 15; in fact 14 > x, for any x > 14
- winning 14 slams in 12 yrs is better than winning 15 in 7
- Not having a FO crown is better than having one
- losing to nobodies is better than losing to the one of the all time clay court greats
- losing early in the slams is certainly more desirable than losing in the finals
- chickening out of meeting your "biggest rival" in his favorite surfaces is better than actually meeting your rival in his strongest surface and losing (of course, good for h2h)

Please feel free to add :???:

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

fed_rulz
09-17-2009, 09:06 PM
Winning in an Exhibition is better than losing in a Grandslam match.

LOL.. Lets face it, Sampras is the best clay court player. Only reason he lost is because he didnt want his attire to get dirty and all

LOL, yeah, I completely forgot about that. And yes, Sampras is the best clay court player ever :)

TheFifthSet
09-17-2009, 09:06 PM
In their primes this is what I see:

At Wimbledon: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At U.S Open: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At French Open: Federer wins the 1 or 2 out of 1 or 2 (but they are tougher than people expect)
At Australian Open: they split 2 out 4 each

Given that the gravy place for slams titles are Wimbledon and the U.S Open for both Sampras clearly has the advantage.

Really? I think you're giving Federer too much credit. He is, after all, the 9th best grasscourter of the open era. :rolleyes:

Oh, 4 French Open finals and 22 red claycourt finals >>>> 1 Semi and 3 red clay finals. Sampras may very well win 2/10 vs. Federer on clay. That is, if we're being generous to Sampras.

Oh, and where do you rank Nadal historically on clay? Does he crack your top 10? Because his greatest rival is apparently worse on clay than Sampras, Kafelnikov, Moya, Ferrero, Corretja, et al. :rolleyes:

ucrctennis
09-17-2009, 09:11 PM
ten...................

Wondertoy
09-17-2009, 10:09 PM
Andre Agassi, the greatest returner of serve since Connors atleast could not even return the Sampras serve on any fast surface. So what on earth makes you think Federer, who has an inferior return of serve to Agassi, would be able to. Then on the other side Federer takes great care of his serve games but he is far from unbreakable. Even Roddick has had some success breaking his serve in their Wimbledon and U.S Open meetings, and Roddick does not have the return or ground game that Sampras does. On top of that Sampras is mentally tougher than Roger.

My points exactly. I think many of the people who underrated Sampras are young and had never seen Pete in his prime. I am talking fast court so stop all the clay arguments, they don't apply, ergo not applicable. Sampras had the BEST 2nd serve in the history of the game and that's why he was rarely broken. Fed averages first serves at around 115mph and 2nd's around 95mph. Pete's averages 1st serves around 125mph ans 2nd's around 110mph. Pete's 2nd serves were like Fed's 1st serves and much heavier and tourquey. When Agassi lost to him in their 1st US Open final when Pete was only 19, he said that it's hard to beat someone who has two first serves!

sunny_cali
09-17-2009, 11:55 PM
Good thread and good post here. Pete Sampras was very tough mentally - hardly a strength of Roger Federer (SWI). Federer's first and second serve are average for the tour, and even Roddick (serve-only player with poor return game and subpar baseline game) broke Federer regularly in their one-sided slam meetings. Heck, the old retired Sampras is still a match for prime Federer now. Prime vs. prime is not even a valid question IMO.

oh yeah ? Why did Sampras lose to teenaged Fed at Wimbledon then ? Did'nt get to see much of his vaunted "mental toughness" then. In fact, he showed us what a choker he is -- losing to pubescent Fed on his best surface.

IvanAndreevich
09-18-2009, 12:03 AM
My points exactly. I think many of the people who underrated Sampras are young and had never seen Pete in his prime. I am talking fast court so stop all the clay arguments, they don't apply, ergo not applicable. Sampras had the BEST 2nd serve in the history of the game and that's why he was rarely broken. Fed averages first serves at around 115mph and 2nd's around 95mph. Pete's averages 1st serves around 125mph ans 2nd's around 110mph. Pete's 2nd serves were like Fed's 1st serves and much heavier and tourquey. When Agassi lost to him in their 1st US Open final when Pete was only 19, he said that it's hard to beat someone who has two first serves!
Pete's second serve as effective as Fed's first serve? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. :shock:

Federer will get more Sampras serves in play than Agassi, although he obviously won't do as much with them.

flying24
09-18-2009, 12:08 AM
Pete's second serve as effective as Fed's first serve? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. :shock:

Federer will get more Sampras serves in play than Agassi, although he obviously won't do as much with them.

That is a potential big problem for Federer though since Sampras most times is serve/volleying. You absolutely have to do something with the return when facing a quality volleyer like Sampras, a floater that would land often towards the baseline and begin a neutral ralley vs another baseliner is just an easy knock off most times for a quality volleyer.

ASL
09-18-2009, 12:34 AM
Federer is still pre-pubescent at 28, even though he looks twice his age (substances, anyone?). Prime upcoming Federer did manage a win against nearly retired unmotivated Sampras at Wimbledon. Heck, Leander Paes beat prime Sampras in their only meeting - Paes for GOAT anyone?

These Federer fans are clinging on to 1 meeting which means nothing.

Prime Pete >>>>>>> Prime Federer

sunny_cali
09-18-2009, 01:06 AM
Federer is still pre-pubescent at 28, even though he looks twice his age (substances, anyone?). Prime upcoming Federer did manage a win against nearly retired unmotivated Sampras at Wimbledon. Heck, Leander Paes beat prime Sampras in their only meeting - Paes for GOAT anyone?

Good. Thats the point -- any tom, dick and harry on their day beat Pete in his prime. One day it was Paes, another day Yzaga, Schaller the third, head-case Krajicek the fourth, Fereira the next and so on...

Its good we agree on something.

navratilovafan
09-18-2009, 01:10 AM
These Federer fans are clinging on to 1 meeting which means nothing.

Prime Pete >>>>>>> Prime Federer

Atleast it is better than clinging onto an exhibition match.

And what is your basis for Prime Pete >>>>>>> Prime Federer other than personal biased opinion. It certainly isnt based on combined achievements at this point, definitely not on versatility, not on dominance, not on consistency. Federer is still on course at this moment to reach Sampras in the longevity department, and will continue to be unless he drops well off at some point before reaching it. What does that leave? The tired quality of competition argument is dubious at best. It is not like Sampras was part of the Borg- McEnroe-Connors-Lendl-Vilas Golden Era of tennis himself or anything.

sunny_cali
09-18-2009, 01:10 AM
These Federer fans are clinging on to 1 meeting which means nothing.

Prime Pete >>>>>>> Prime Federer

And what are you Petetards clinging on to? Ya, thats right - zilch, nada, nothing.

Except for your fanboy delusions/pointless conjectures /shoulda's and coulda's..

15 >14
1 FO > none.

get over it. This topic is done and dusted -- find something else to troll about.

flying24
09-18-2009, 01:16 AM
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

Again I ask do you really believe Sampras is better than Federer on clay.

Tennis_Monk
09-18-2009, 02:46 AM
These Federer fans are clinging on to 1 meeting which means nothing.

Prime Pete >>>>>>> Prime Federer

May be if you can indulge and define what you consider as Prime Sampras and what you consider as Prime Federer, i can understand.

I can definitely see Federer aged 14 or less losing to a 25 yr old Sampras.

If you are looking at the Federer of 2005 and beyond (incl 2008,2009) , sorry guys--it aint happening.

Sampras is an awesome player. We do great injustice if we say he isnt. At the same time he isnt better than Federer.

How hard this is for people to understand?. Sampras is a NON FACTOR on CLAY. He is an ALSO RAN on CLAY. Lets face it guys, Sampras doesnt even rank in top 100 for Clay court mastery.


At his best, Sampras managed to win 2 slams a year and usually ended up being a non factor in other majors. Federer came with in 1.5 set of a Calendar year Grandslam. Not to mention he won 3 slams a year thrice .


I digress.. this isnt a logical argument. Sampras happens to be sentimental fav for some people and they are having trouble getting over the fact that their hero is now relegated into background as Federer took sole control of GOAT candidature.

someday you get over it..(may be)

dropshot winner
09-18-2009, 03:07 AM
My points exactly. I think many of the people who underrated Sampras are young and had never seen Pete in his prime. I am talking fast court so stop all the clay arguments, they don't apply, ergo not applicable. Sampras had the BEST 2nd serve in the history of the game and that's why he was rarely broken. Fed averages first serves at around 115mph and 2nd's around 95mph. Pete's averages 1st serves around 125mph ans 2nd's around 110mph. Pete's 2nd serves were like Fed's 1st serves and much heavier and tourquey. When Agassi lost to him in their 1st US Open final when Pete was only 19, he said that it's hard to beat someone who has two first serves!

And yet Federer usually wins a higher % of points on his second serve than Sampras did with his other "1st serve".

It's even more remarkable considering that Sampras played on faster surfaces, had the better 2nd serve, and faced worse returners on average.

5th Element
09-18-2009, 04:04 AM
To answer the thread's questions of course Sampras would have beaten Federer if he faced him in his prime. A few things to consider:

1) When Sampras's serve was on he was unbeatable. He may not have been the best returner in the game but he would still win many many tie breaks.

2) To be entirely honest if we take RO out of the equation no one could come evel close to sampras at Wimbledon or the USO. It is fair to say that he was too good for his era.

3) If Federer can lose to Henman 6 times am sure that he would lose at least the same number of times to Sampras.

Federer is the GOAT no doubt but Sampras is not far behind.

MizunoMX20
09-18-2009, 04:24 AM
Pete's 2nd serves were like Fed's 1st serves and much heavier and tourquey.

Fed hit 50 aces in one match, Sampras came never even close to that.. with his first serve, let alone his second.

Do you watch tennis wearing a blindfold?

AAAA
09-18-2009, 06:31 AM
These Federer fans are clinging on to 1 meeting which means nothing.

Prime Pete >>>>>>> Prime Federer

The Wimbledon was reality as opposed to the conjecture which is hopeful thinking.

fed_rulz
09-18-2009, 06:33 AM
To answer the thread's questions of course Sampras would have beaten Federer if he faced him in his prime. A few things to consider:

of course, sampras would have some wins. but the h2h will clearly be slanted towards Fed.


1) When Sampras's serve was on he was unbeatable. He may not have been the best returner in the game but he would still win many many tie breaks.

hyperbole. He came up with one of his best serving performances ever: 69% first serves in, 25+ aces, yet he lost to Fed. Sampras would have trouble if the opponent's serve was on fire (he himself admitted that he hated facing big servers). Unlike Fed, the outcome of the match is not always on Pete's racquet.


2) To be entirely honest if we take RO out of the equation no one could come evel close to sampras at Wimbledon or the USO. It is fair to say that he was too good for his era.
RO? What is that? Anyways, sampras was dominant at wimby, but not even close at the USO. He only won 5 in a span of 12 yrs.. sorry, Fed is a better player at USO, and on par or slightly better at wimby. How about the fact that Pete was a NON-factor at RG, and not the firm favorite at Aus?


3) If Federer can lose to Henman 6 times am sure that he would lose at least the same number of times to Sampras.

Federer is the GOAT no doubt but Sampras is not far behind.


What a load of BS. Aren't we talking "primes"? Fed never lost to henman in his "prime" - so it's fair to say that Fed would have never lost to Sampras?

Lack of FO, and lack of consistency across all surfaces do put sampras quite a distance behind Fed. You cannot overlook his deficiencies on clay and throw him in the GOAT mix.

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 06:35 AM
It does mean something. It doesn't mean that Federer would own Sampras all the way, but it illustrates that there is no match-up problem for Fed.

one match? so again, if Pete played Aurnaud in ONE match that means Pete would have match-up problems with Aurnaud? Are you serious?:shock::confused:

UsualSuspect
09-18-2009, 06:35 AM
These Federer fans are clinging on to 1 meeting which means nothing.

Prime Pete >>>>>>> Prime Federer
Oh hey! I can give my own subjective opinion on the issue as well. :D
Prime Federer>>>>>>>>>>>>>Prime Pete.

AAAA
09-18-2009, 06:35 AM
3) If Federer can lose to Henman 6 times am sure that he would lose at least the same number of times to Sampras.



If Sampras can loss 5/6 times to Ferreira am sure that he would lose at least the same number of times to Federer. Does it work both ways? Is your extrapolation even valid?

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 06:57 AM
Lol. "If Pete's serve was that great..." Many, many people outside of this board think it may have been the greatest ever when both first and second serve are taken into account. YOU'RE forgetting that his serve was good enough to win 14 slams. All hail Roger, fine. He's done a great job of beating Andy Roddick time after time. (Not so great at beating Nadal.) But the dismissive view that so many here have of Sampras is impossible to fathom.

good point. when Pete was on his serve (which was most of the time), he was nearly unbeatable. Drakulie notes he served well in the match and he did, but he was beaten by a better player that day. I have watched this match 4-5 times and will say that Fed played incredible tennis. I remember Kraijek gave him a spanking, but Pete did not play well that day. In the Fed match Pete played well enough to win, but Fed just outplayed him. But again, one match means nothing with regard to who is the better player.

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 07:10 AM
My points exactly. I think many of the people who underrated Sampras are young and had never seen Pete in his prime. I am talking fast court so stop all the clay arguments, they don't apply, ergo not applicable. Sampras had the BEST 2nd serve in the history of the game and that's why he was rarely broken. Fed averages first serves at around 115mph and 2nd's around 95mph. Pete's averages 1st serves around 125mph ans 2nd's around 110mph. Pete's 2nd serves were like Fed's 1st serves and much heavier and tourquey. When Agassi lost to him in their 1st US Open final when Pete was only 19, he said that it's hard to beat someone who has two first serves!

funny how people want to use clay against Pete. no one will argue that Fed is a better CC player. but the key is they would rarely, if ever meet on clay. Pete would have to get to the sf-finals of CC tourney's to meet Fed and that rarely happened (assuming these two would be ranked between 1-4). Pete would see Roger on the faster courts much more and that is where Pete was his best.

OJ ROD
09-18-2009, 07:12 AM
Why do they keep making these threads?!?!?!

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 07:17 AM
oh yeah ? Why did Sampras lose to teenaged Fed at Wimbledon then ? Did'nt get to see much of his vaunted "mental toughness" then. In fact, he showed us what a choker he is -- losing to pubescent Fed on his best surface.

LOL, silly ignorant teenager that never saw Sampras play.

by the age of 28, Sampras was 12-2 in GS finals. He lost to Edberg and Agassi. Fed has lost 6 GS finals by the same age. So I guess (based on your idiotic logic) Fed is a HUGE choker.

Fed BEAT, OUTPLAYED Sampras in their lone match. Pete played very well overall. It was not Pete at his best (overall play), but it was still pretty good. Choke and Pete don't mix.

akv89
09-18-2009, 07:20 AM
LOL, silly ignorant teenager that never saw Sampras play.

by the age of 28, Sampras was 12-2 in GS finals. He lost to Edberg and Agassi. Fed has lost 6 GS finals by the same age. So I guess (based on your idiotic logic) Fed is a HUGE choker.

Fed BEAT, OUTPLAYED Sampras in their lone match. Pete played very well overall. It was not Pete at his best (overall play), but it was still pretty good. Choke and Pete don't mix.

Why do people keep thinking that losing in major finals is worse than losing before getting to the final?

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 07:20 AM
And yet Federer usually wins a higher % of points on his second serve than Sampras did with his other "1st serve".

It's even more remarkable considering that Sampras played on faster surfaces, had the better 2nd serve, and faced worse returners on average.

LOL...so now Fed has a better 2nd serve that Pete????:confused::shock:

Can this post be anymore wrong??

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 07:22 AM
Fed hit 50 aces in one match, Sampras came never even close to that.. with his first serve, let alone his second.

Do you watch tennis wearing a blindfold?

LOL..against CEMENT foot Roddick.:lol:

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 07:26 AM
Why do people keep thinking that losing in major finals is worse than losing before getting to the final?

maybe because the finals is the most nerve racking of all the matches? I notice commentators always make note about how nervous a player is in the finals. They made note of this (especially Mac) about how nervous Delpo was in the beginning of the USO final. I was thinking what about the semi-final the day prior? Was Delpo not nervous against Nadal? I guess someone shows their true mettle when its the finals of a tourney. I get it, I guess.

OJ ROD
09-18-2009, 07:29 AM
Why do they keep making these threads?!?!?!

They just ignore it and keep on going.

ASL
09-18-2009, 07:34 AM
of course, sampras would have some wins. but the h2h will clearly be slanted towards Fed..

Clearly Slanted? LOL!!

It's 1-0 to Fed. Pete's best days were long gone when they met.

akv89
09-18-2009, 07:38 AM
maybe because the finals is the most nerve racking of all the matches? I notice commentators always make note about how nervous a player is in the finals. They made note of this (especially Mac) about how nervous Delpo was in the beginning of the USO final. I was thinking what about the semi-final the day prior? Was Delpo not nervous against Nadal? I guess someone shows their true mettle when its the finals of a tourney. I get it, I guess.

Sure, but you can't just ignore all of a player's losses in majors before reaching the final. It would be like saying Nadal did better than Federer at the US Open this year because he only lost in the semis against Del Potro while Federer lost to Del Potro in the finals, when it "really" matters. Just because there isn't as much pressure in non-final matches, it doesn't mean that losses before the final should be excused. In fact, they should be seen as more damaging to a player's legacy than a loss in the final.

drwood
09-18-2009, 07:42 AM
Clearly Slanted? LOL!!

It's 1-0 to Fed. Pete's best days were long gone when they met.

WHen they met, Pete was the 4-time defending Wimbledon champ (who would make the US Open final in 2 months and then win the US Open one year later) -- Fed was only in his 2nd QF ever of a slam.

So no, Pete's best days were not gone -- and they were playing on Pete's best surface (2001 was the last year before the grass was slowed down at Wimbledon).

The ignorance on this board is remarkable.

rommil
09-18-2009, 07:44 AM
Hypothetical situation threads like these are made for one thing, to discredit reality.

drwood
09-18-2009, 07:53 AM
In their primes this is what I see:

At Wimbledon: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At U.S Open: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At French Open: Federer wins the 1 or 2 out of 1 or 2 (but they are tougher than people expect)
At Australian Open: they split 2 out 4 each

Given that the gravy place for slams titles are Wimbledon and the U.S Open for both Sampras clearly has the advantage.

Laughable.

On 90s grass wimbledon, Sampras takes 3 or 2 out of 5
On todays grass at wimbledon, Fed takes 3 or 4 out of 5
AT US Open: Fed takes 3 out of 5
At French -- they don't play 5 since Pete was never good enough to reach a final. But Fed takes 3 out of 3.
At Australian: Fed takes 3 or 4 out of 5.

Sampras does not clearly have an edge at the US Open, and certainly doesn't on today's grass at Wimbledon.

drwood
09-18-2009, 07:57 AM
Regardless of the 1 more major, Sampras is the better player. He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys. Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals and a winning record over his nearest rival.

The only clear advantages Sampras has are on the 1st serve, 2nd serve and the running FH. Slight to Sampras are volleys and overhead.

Clear advantages to Fed are stationary FH, stationary BH, running BH, return of serve, and physical conditioning.

15>14
1-0 H2H on Pete's best surface.

Major finals aren't everything -- Fed's good enough to reach finals when he's not at his best -- Pete flames out to nobodies early in slams.

ac3111
09-18-2009, 07:58 AM
What happened to Sampras in the 2000 US OPen Final?
He was at the same age like Federer is now and faced a 20 years old like Federer did in the Us Open final...

FlamEnemY
09-18-2009, 08:11 AM
How hard this is for people to understand?. Sampras is a NON FACTOR on CLAY. He is an ALSO RAN on CLAY. Lets face it guys, Sampras doesnt even rank in top 100 for Clay court mastery.


Well, JBF#1 and others made a list with players with greater CC accomplishments and he was just outside the top 50. Then again, they continued the search for players with comparable results and he ended up around #75.

Just saying :)

HellBunni
09-18-2009, 08:15 AM
by the age of 28, Sampras was 12-2 in GS finals. He lost to Edberg and Agassi. Fed has lost 6 GS finals by the same age. So I guess (based on your idiotic logic) Fed is a HUGE choker.

Fed BEAT, OUTPLAYED Sampras in their lone match. Pete played very well overall. It was not Pete at his best (overall play), but it was still pretty good. Choke and Pete don't mix.

1.) it is pointless to compare players on what they have accomplished at a certain active age. By that logic, Nadal should be GOAT. Different players peak at different age. Only the accomplishment over the whole career should be compared.

2.) Rogers has been in 21 slam finals, winning 15 (71%). Pete has been in 18 slam finals, winning 14 (78%). Those % are pretty close. But Roger has been to more slam finals than Pete in his whole career. That is consistency and longevity.

3.) "Choke and Pete don't mix" - then why has he lost to so many lower ranked players even at the slams?

funny how people want to use clay against Pete. no one will argue that Fed is a better CC player. but the key is they would rarely, if ever meet on clay. Pete would have to get to the sf-finals of CC tourney's to meet Fed and that rarely happened (assuming these two would be ranked between 1-4). Pete would see Roger on the faster courts much more and that is where Pete was his best.

lol, that is like arguing Nadal is better because all the other services don't matter except for RG.

and if you take out RG
Roger would be 17 slam finals, and 14 wins = 82%

sunny_cali
09-18-2009, 08:20 AM
LOL, silly ignorant teenager that never saw Sampras play.

by the age of 28, Sampras was 12-2 in GS finals. He lost to Edberg and Agassi. Fed has lost 6 GS finals by the same age. So I guess (based on your idiotic logic) Fed is a HUGE choker.

Fed BEAT, OUTPLAYED Sampras in their lone match. Pete played very well overall. It was not Pete at his best (overall play), but it was still pretty good. Choke and Pete don't mix.

don't assume too much, kiddo. I am in my late 30's. I started watching tennis around the 82 time-frame.

And yes, in the Fed-Sampras match I recollect Sampras had opportunities to shut out Fed in the 5th. He failed -- you can argue Fed played well, I can argue Pete choked.

I don't think there is any doubt that Fed has choked (not always -- at times Nadal was just too good) a few times against Nadal.

I agree that Sampras was among the most mentally tough players, I also agree that Sampras may just get the better of Fed on grass -- i am just tired of the ***** trying to argue that Sampras was the better overall player. That argument is just pointless after Fed's performances this year.

OJ ROD
09-18-2009, 08:23 AM
Sooommmwherrrrrre over the rainbow....

Rabbit
09-18-2009, 08:57 AM
Laughable.

On 90s grass wimbledon, Sampras takes 3 or 2 out of 5
On todays grass at wimbledon, Fed takes 3 or 4 out of 5
AT US Open: Fed takes 3 out of 5
At French -- they don't play 5 since Pete was never good enough to reach a final. But Fed takes 3 out of 3.
At Australian: Fed takes 3 or 4 out of 5.

Sampras does not clearly have an edge at the US Open, and certainly doesn't on today's grass at Wimbledon.

I was going to take the same tact. But...

On 90s grass at Wimbledon, Sampras takes 4 out of 5.

My reasoning here is the Sampras serve and his tactic. Sampras concentrated on breaking serve once. I don't think that Federer's serve would hold up.
If it did, Sampras has the advantage in the tiebreak as the bigger server.

On today's grass at Wimbledon, Federer takes 3 of 5.

Sampras has said that he doesn't believe you can't come in on today's grass. Well, there are those who'd disagree. The courts are, according to players like Pat Cash, dramatically different and that difference may be enough to put the final nail in the coffin of S/V tennis in the Sampras tradition.

That said, if anyone could do it, Sampras would be the one who could (or Kraijcek).

French - agreed, if Sampras got to the final, Fed wins 5 of 5.

Fed grew up on clay and knows how to play unfortunately for him, he's up against the best clay courter around today.

Folks do tend to shortsell Sampras on clay ignoring his DC performance against Russia and a very, very good squad. He was 3/3 that weekend.

At the Australian:

Rebound Ace, agreed, Federer takes 3 or 4 of 5
On Plexipave, even odds.

At the U.S. Open:

Even odds.

drwood
09-18-2009, 09:02 AM
I was going to take the same tact. But...

On 90s grass at Wimbledon, Sampras takes 4 out of 5.

My reasoning here is the Sampras serve and his tactic. Sampras concentrated on breaking serve once. I don't think that Federer's serve would hold up.
If it did, Sampras has the advantage in the tiebreak as the bigger server.

Well, Fed's already 1-0 against Pete on that surface -- I don't think he loses 4 in a row to Sampras anywhere, even on 90s grass.

French - agreed, if Sampras got to the final, Fed wins 5 of 5.

Fed grew up on clay and knows how to play unfortunately for him, he's up against the best clay courter around today.

Folks do tend to shortsell Sampras on clay ignoring his DC performance against Russia and a very, very good squad. He was 3/3 that weekend.

I don't...that was a phenomenal performance in 95 by Pete in the DC final. That plus his Rome 1994 title are the main reasons Pete is respectable on clay. However, compared to other GOAT candidates, Pete on clay is a joke.

At the Australian:

Rebound Ace, agreed, Federer takes 3 or 4 of 5
On Plexipave, even odds.

At the U.S. Open:

Even odds.

Makes sense.

TMF
09-18-2009, 09:41 AM
Laughable.

Sampras does not clearly have an edge at the US Open, and certainly doesn't on today's grass at Wimbledon.


TMF made 7 consecutive final at SW19 and 6 consecutive final at the USO. It took Nadal to play a match of his life to BARELY beat him at SW19. His loss to Del Potro was due to TMF serve was so pathetic(51 1st serve %, and 11 double faults), but still it end in a 5th set.

I wouldn't be a bit surprise TMF would go undefeated against Sampras on today's grass and at the USO.

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 09:44 AM
Sure, but you can't just ignore all of a player's losses in majors before reaching the final. It would be like saying Nadal did better than Federer at the US Open this year because he only lost in the semis against Del Potro while Federer lost to Del Potro in the finals, when it "really" matters. Just because there isn't as much pressure in non-final matches, it doesn't mean that losses before the final should be excused. In fact, they should be seen as more damaging to a player's legacy than a loss in the final.

I get what you are saying, but we are talking about 2 different things. I was noting something else and now I can't remember what this part of the discussion was about...it's been a long day.:oops:

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 09:52 AM
WHen they met, Pete was the 4-time defending Wimbledon champ (who would make the US Open final in 2 months and then win the US Open one year later) -- Fed was only in his 2nd QF ever of a slam.

So no, Pete's best days were not gone -- and they were playing on Pete's best surface (2001 was the last year before the grass was slowed down at Wimbledon).

The ignorance on this board is remarkable.

that would you included. pete was not the player in 2001 he was in 1995-1999. His USO finals was a poor showing for Pete and yes he gave it one last try at the USO 2002. But he was PAST his prime by 2001 and his motivation was not what it had been. He admitted that fact several times over the years. So you think losing 4th round W (2001), Losing Finals at USO (2001), 4th rd at AO, 1st rd French and 2nd rd at W (2002) is still his best days? The guy did not win a tourney for 2 years before the 02 USO. Oh, one last thing (Mr. Ignorant), he was no longer ranked #1 by 2000. In fact, he was #10 in 01 and #13 in 02. If this is not his best days, then what is? The was #1 6 straight years...HE WAS PAST HIS BEST DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!

"The ignorance on this board is remarkable" dr. wood 9/19/09

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 09:54 AM
Laughable.

On 90s grass wimbledon, Sampras takes 3 or 2 out of 5
On todays grass at wimbledon, Fed takes 3 or 4 out of 5
AT US Open: Fed takes 3 out of 5
At French -- they don't play 5 since Pete was never good enough to reach a final. But Fed takes 3 out of 3.
At Australian: Fed takes 3 or 4 out of 5.

Sampras does not clearly have an edge at the US Open, and certainly doesn't on today's grass at Wimbledon.

again, I agree with the red part of your post.

drwood
09-18-2009, 09:56 AM
that would you included. pete was not the player in 2001 he was in 1995-1999. His USO finals was a poor showing for Pete and yes he gave it one last try at the USO 2002. But he was PAST his prime by 2001 and his motivation was not what it had been. He admitted that fact several times over the years. So you think losing 4th round W (2001), Losing Finals at USO (2001), 4th rd at AO, 1st rd French and 2nd rd at W (2002) is still his best days? The guy did not win a tourney for 2 years before the 02 USO. Oh, one last thing (Mr. Ignorant), he was no longer ranked #1 by 2000. In fact, he was #10 in 01 and #13 in 02. If this is not his best days, then what is? The was #1 6 straight years...HE WAS PAST HIS BEST DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!

"The ignorance on this board is remarkable" dr. wood 9/19/09

Pete at that point in his career was still a bigger threat to win slams than Federer...that was the point of my orignial post. Don't pretend as though Fed was some proven commodity when he handled Pete on Pete's best surface, because he wasn't.

And Pete losing 1st rd of the French was common...he did that regularly in his prime, as any objective person knows.

And, yes Pete was ranked #1 in 2000...his last stint was after he was smoked by Safin in the 2000 US Open final. That's why Pete was seeded #1 in 2001 Wimbledon when he lost to Fed.

The ignorance on this board remains remarkable.

OJ ROD
09-18-2009, 09:59 AM
Dem bones, dem bones, dem....dry bones!!!

the toe bone connected to the...

Wondertoy
09-18-2009, 09:59 AM
As the OP my original argument was not that Sampras in better than Fed. I acknowledge that Fed is the GOAT and better than Pete. However My argument is that Sampras is better than FED on FAST surfaces. In days of yore, the Wimbledon Championships were call the World Championships and commonly acknowledged that the winner was the world's best. The French was never in the league that W and the US Open are. So no more clay arguments please. Even the Clay King, Nadal considers W as the pinnacle.

drwood
09-18-2009, 10:01 AM
As the OP my argument was not that Sampras in better than Fed. I acknowledge that Fed is the GOAT and better than Pete. However My argument is that Sampras is better than FED on FAST surfaces. In days of yore, the Wimbledon Championships were call the World Championships and commonly acknowledged that the winner was the world's best. The French was never in the league that W and the US Open are. So no more clay arguments please. Even the Clay King, Nadal considers W as the pinnacle.

I think Sampras vs. Fed on fast surfaces is a coin flip...not the 7-3 for Pete that ***********s are saying. Fed's record on fast surfaces is far better than Pete's was, AND he's 1-0 vs. Pete on the fastest surface imaginable (old Wimbledon grass).

TMF
09-18-2009, 10:02 AM
TMF gets 100% full credits for beating Sampras in 2001 SW19.

-Sampras was 4 time defending champions
-TMF was only 19
-Sampras was ranked higher than TMF
-Sampras was an overwhelming favorite in that match
-Sampras served BETTER than his previous SW19 finals
-Equivalent to an underdog Mac overthroned 5 times defending champions Borg at SW19
-Changing in the guard...TMF did became an all time great at SW19

West Coast Ace
09-18-2009, 10:07 AM
...My argument is that Sampras is better than FED on FAST surfaces....Fed has a pretty good record indoors on faster courts - so your claim here is dubious at best.

And changing the rules midway through - "leave out clay" - shows you know you're beat.

Fed has a much better return game than Sampras. So it stands that he'd get more sniffs at breaking than Sampras - and eventually would cash some in.

All you Sampras jock sniffers can try to spin things this way and that - but you're fighting a losing cause. He was the best server of all time - but hardly the best player.

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 10:15 AM
Fed has a pretty good record indoors on faster courts - so your claim here is dubious at best.

And changing the rules midway through - "leave out clay" - shows you know you're beat.

Fed has a much better return game than Sampras. So it stands that he'd get more sniffs at breaking than Sampras - and eventually would cash some in.

All you Sampras jock sniffers can try to spin things this way and that - but you're fighting a losing cause. He was the best server of all time - but hardly the best player.

I agree Fed is a terrific returner, but give Pete credit. He handled and best some of the great servers in his day. He pretty much owned Goran and next to Pete he was considered the premier server. But yes, Roger has the edge.

Now one thing to consider, Fed plays baseliners that don't attack the net. Pete played all types. In all honesty, Fed deals with far less variety. The speeds are up, but so are juice on those guns...who knows.

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 10:31 AM
Pete at that point in his career was still a bigger threat to win slams than Federer...that was the point of my orignial post. Don't pretend as though Fed was some proven commodity when he handled Pete on Pete's best surface, because he wasn't.

And Pete losing 1st rd of the French was common...he did that regularly in his prime, as any objective person knows.

And, yes Pete was ranked #1 in 2000...his last stint was after he was smoked by Safin in the 2000 US Open final. That's why Pete was seeded #1 in 2001 Wimbledon when he lost to Fed.

The ignorance on this board remains remarkable.

he did what at the French?? He lost in the 1st round regularly?? Here are the stats:

between 1992-1999 (a long prime) he made 1 SF, 3 QF, 1 3rd, 3 2nd, 3 1st. so in 11 years he lost in the 1st round 3 times. Again, why are we even talking Clay...PETE WAS IFFY AT BEST ON THAT SURFACE AND HAD A FEW GOOD TOURNEYS. NO ONE can argue this. What is your point? Somehow I think you were a former banned poster because I know some idiot that argued this way and he was a nuisance...kinda like you at this point.

Pete was ranked #1 in 2000? I don't recall. I would need some proof. He had a 42-13 record, and won 2 tournies. He bowed out early and often in the little events. I just don't remember him regaining #1 in 2000. He ended #3. Any proof?

Wimbledon has it own seedings...you did not know this? please read my new signature compliments of you.

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 10:34 AM
wow....thanks for showing everyone that you are such a troll.

consistency - who holds the most consecutive weeks at #1? who holds the most consecutive slam finals? slam semis? and slam quarters?

not making it to the finals and losing to "lesser" players = choking.
even worse than losing at the finals, because that player at the final is someone who has overcame his draw and made it through.

They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

jamesblakefan#1
09-18-2009, 11:06 AM
Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

Are you kidding me? So Roddick had a better USO than Federer? :roll: That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Makes no sense.

TMF
09-18-2009, 11:11 AM
They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

That has to be one of the most ******** statement I've ever came across on this board.

TMF
09-18-2009, 11:14 AM
I wish I could beeeeee assss coooooll asssss youuuuuuuu.....

No, Azzurri is not cool. He's just a Sampras fanatic.

Jchurch
09-18-2009, 11:15 AM
They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!


Hmmmmmmmmmm....... Making it to the finals = more money. Also means more points = higher ranking = MORE MONEY. You're right. I'd rather lose in the third. Emotionally it is worse to lose in the finals, but that is just about all.

All-rounder
09-18-2009, 11:20 AM
uhh, prime Sampras. While Fed was not at his prime either the match means NOTHING. So if Aurnaud Clement played Sampras once he is better? One match means NOTHING, has no bearing on anything.

It was a 4th round match in wimbledon in a face off between the defending champion and soon to be GOAT. Don't tell me that match meant nothing because thats silly. Had Sampras won would you be saying that??????

HellBunni
09-18-2009, 11:23 AM
No, Azzurri is not cool. He's just a Sampras fanatic.

worst than that, just look at the amount of names he's called me.. and I only posted like 3 or 4 replies here.

fed_rulz
09-18-2009, 11:49 AM
They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

Tribute to 380Pistol: hohihohohihohoooohiiiihooooo

3rd round:
- much less pressure,
- usually you'd meet a journeyman

finals:
- much more pressure
- usually meet the top dogs

So, what constitutes mental strength? losing under higher pressure or lower pressure? Ideally, you'd want to come out a winner in both situations. However, losing earlier does prove that you're mentally weaker than someone who loses in the finals.

Again, losing to a nobody is apparently better than losing to the top dog. How can you be mentally strong if you cannot handle the pressure of a 3rd rd? I don't know. You be the judge :).

Mkie7
09-18-2009, 12:01 PM
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

I have watched them both play for years... I don't think your assessment is right. My guess is.. if Sampras was in his prime today... he would be in the top ten for sure but not the number one player. The game is different today.

Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Roddick, Murray and Federer are pretty tough to beat on any given day.

Net47
09-18-2009, 12:17 PM
I have watched them both play for years... I don't think your assessment is right. My guess is.. if Sampras was in his prime today... he would be in the top ten for sure but not the number one player. The game is different today.

Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Roddick, Murray and Federer are pretty tough to beat on any given day.

Lol. Right, right. Sampras would struggle against all-time greats like Roddick, Murray and Jokevic. (Del Potro...who knows how good he will be? Nice win on a day that Federer's serve failed him. Will at least make Australia interesting.)

lambielspins
09-18-2009, 12:22 PM
Lol. Right, right. Sampras would struggle against all-time greats like Roddick, Murray and Jokevic. (Del Potro...who knows how good he will be? Nice win on a day that Federer's serve failed him. Will at least make Australia interesting.)

Except for the fact during his prime from 1993-1998 Sampras has lost in grand slams to players no better or many cases worse than Roddick, Murray, and Djokovic. Jaime Yzaga, Gilbert Schaller, Mark Philippoussis, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Richard Krajicek, Magnus Norman, Petr Korda, Karol Kucera, Roman Delgado, Patrick Rafter ring a bell. By the way only 3 of those were at the French Open.

Mkie7
09-18-2009, 12:28 PM
Lol. Right, right. Sampras would struggle against all-time greats like Roddick, Murray and Jokevic. (Del Potro...who knows how good he will be? Nice win on a day that Federer's serve failed him. Will at least make Australia interesting.)

all this is speculation right??? We don't know anything for a fact... sometimes a silly question requires a silly answer. Why stop there? :)

drwood
09-18-2009, 12:28 PM
Pete was ranked #1 in 2000? I don't recall. I would need some proof. He had a 42-13 record, and won 2 tournies. He bowed out early and often in the little events. I just don't remember him regaining #1 in 2000. He ended #3. Any proof?

Wimbledon has it own seedings...you did not know this? please read my new signature compliments of you.

This just shows your ignorance and trolling. Anyone who is objective and has the ability to search the internet can clearly find that Pete regained the #1 ranking the day after he lost to Safin in the 2000 US Open...sheesh.

Oh, and as for your signature -- today is the 18th, not the 19th...yet another example of your inaccuracy.

Did you actually watch Sampras during his entire career? Or are you like GameSampras=DaysOfGrace=ASL (all who have been banned) -- a *********** who only started watching tennis in the mid-90s?

Net47
09-18-2009, 12:30 PM
Except for the fact during his prime from 1993-1998 Sampras has lost in grand slams to players no better or many cases worse than Roddick, Murray, and Djokovic. Jaime Yzaga, Gilbert Schaller, Mark Philippoussis, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Richard Krajicek, Magnus Norman, Petr Korda, Karol Kucera, Roman Delgado, Patrick Rafter ring a bell. By the way only 3 of those were at the French Open.

Yeah, he wasn't perfect. But many of your choices are ridiculous. Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Korda, and Rafter were all very talented players. A lot of Slam titles in there.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
09-18-2009, 12:30 PM
Wow, this tells me something about the Sampras fans on this board, Roger keeps making Slam-finals and adds record after record and still this discussion is going. Imo Roger is a better player than Sampras in every aspect of the game except the serve, and what Federer has accomplished is already way ahead of Sampras.

JoshDragon
09-18-2009, 12:38 PM
Pete was past his prime.

Pete Sampras, was the four time Wimbledon champion going into that match. And even after Pete lost, he still made two more US Open finals and then won it in 2002. Fed's win against Pete counts.

lambielspins
09-18-2009, 12:41 PM
Yeah, he wasn't perfect. But many of your choices are ridiculous. Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Korda, and Rafter were all very talented players. A lot of Slam titles in there.

Korda is a ridiculous choice, ROTFL!!! There is nobody (other than a blind 90s ****) you will find who thinks Korda is better than Roddick or Djokovic, and Murray is pretty certain to be better too. Korda was a talented and dangerous player but is still one of the weaker 1 slam winners.

Kafelnikov sure as heck is not better than Hewitt, Roddick, or Djokovic. The guy is one of the worst 2 slam winners ever considering he coudlnt even win a Masters titles and had joke draws to both his slams. At the peak of his career in 99-2000 he was also completely owned by a young pre prime Hewitt.

Krajicek was only a grass/carpet specialist who lost 4th round or sooner in 75% of the slams in his prime including even his beloved Wimbledon. He is overall an inferior player to those you mentioned as well.

Rafter also is not better than the guys you mentioned. He has only been past the round of 16 of 7 slams his whole career, and has won only 2 Masters titles. He has ended the year ranked in the top 10 only 3 times his whole career.

These guys are all only 1 or 2 slam winners just like Roddick, Hewitt, and Djokovic so it is stupid to say there are lots of slams with these guys is not with the current ones.

FlamEnemY
09-18-2009, 12:42 PM
Yeah, he wasn't perfect. But many of your choices are ridiculous. Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Korda, and Rafter were all very talented players. A lot of Slam titles in there.

Fortunately, there are always 4 slams a year and someone must win them. Winning slams doesn't exactly equal quality. I know this arguments goes both ways, it's just that you can't say 'they won slams' = great quality players, because by this logic Federer is the most uber talented player ever.

Baikalic
09-18-2009, 12:46 PM
These type of discussions make me think of the silly "Deadliest Warrior" show on Spike where they base the matchups of warriors from different eras from solely the weapons and their role in each culture. It's similar to what we have attempted here.

Regardless of the strength of each weapon (Forehand, backhand, serve, volley, movement, etc) and the perceived strength of the era they inhabited, the intangibles, such as adjustments to the different environment in the 90s and 00s play a huge role that we cannot account for.

Assuming Sampras would play exactly the same way that he did facing Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and others in this era is probably incorrect. He would make adjustments to fit into the game today. And then who knows what would have happened? The argument isn't that important IMO because tennis is a game of matchups. What we have is a sample size of 1 match played at a time when neither were at their primes.

Net47
09-18-2009, 12:47 PM
Korda is a ridiculous choice, ROTFL!!! There is nobody (other than a blind 90s ****) you will find who thinks Korda is better than Roddick or Djokovic, and Murray is pretty certain to be better too. Korda was a talented and dangerous player but is still one of the weaker 1 slam winners.

Kafelnikov sure as heck is not better than Hewitt, Roddick, or Djokovic. The guy is one of the worst 2 slam winners ever considering he coudlnt even win a Masters titles and had joke draws to both his slams. At the peak of his career in 99-2000 he was also completely owned by a young pre prime Hewitt.

Krajicek was only a grass/carpet specialist who lost 4th round or sooner in 75% of the slams in his prime including even his beloved Wimbledon. He is overall an inferior player to those you mentioned as well.

Rafter also is not better than the guys you mentioned. He has only been past the round of 16 of 7 slams his whole career, and has won only 2 Masters titles. He has ended the year ranked in the top 10 only 3 times his whole career.

These guys are all only 1 or 2 slam winners just like Roddick, Hewitt, and Djokovic so it is stupid to say there are lots of slams with these guys is not with the current ones.

Thanks for sharing your OPINION. Certainly no more valid than mine.

(By the way, Philippoussis wasn't bad either. Two Slam finals, and in twilight of his career pushed your man Federer pretty hard in one of them.

lambielspins
09-18-2009, 12:51 PM
Thanks for sharing your OPINION. Certainly no more valid than mine.

(By the way, Philippoussis wasn't bad either. Two Slam finals, and in twilight of his career pushed your man Federer pretty hard in one of them.

Federer isnt my man and neither is Sampras. Believe it or not there are many TW posters who have neither of those as their favorite (nor Nadal either).

The 2003 Wimbledon final wasnt a tough match at all. After the close 1st set it was a blowout. It never looked for a moment after the 1st set Philippoussis stood a prayer of winning. The fact you claim he was in the twilight of his career at only 26 once the new generation emerged also says all you need to know about him.

edberg505
09-18-2009, 12:54 PM
Thanks for sharing your OPINION. Certainly no more valid than mine.

(By the way, Philippoussis wasn't bad either. Two Slam finals, and in twilight of his career pushed your man Federer pretty hard in one of them.

Yeah, he got pushed real hard. Didn't even drop a set. The great Mardy Fish did better Flipper. Hell, that was the only set Federer dropped that entire tournament (IIRC).

Net47
09-18-2009, 12:58 PM
Federer isnt my man and neither is Sampras. Believe it or not there are many TW posters who have neither of those as their favorite (nor Nadal either).

The 2003 Wimbledon final wasnt a tough match at all.

The fact you claim he was in the twilight of his career at only 26 once the new generation emerged also says all you need to know about him.



Sure, two tiebreaks is a cakewalk.

The guy had three knee surgeries, by the way.

TheNatural
09-18-2009, 01:01 PM
Sampras is more talanted because he beat Fed with Fed's own racket 5 years after he retired!Fed couldn't break old Sampras' serve for 2 matches in a row.Prime Sampras playing with his modern racket and strings would be one scary sight!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
09-18-2009, 01:04 PM
Sampras is more talanted because he beat Fed with Fed's own racket 5 years after he retired!Fed couldn't break old Sampras' serve for 2 matches in a row.Prime Sampras playing with his modern racket and strings would be one scary sight!
You are an idiot if you think Fed went for it 100%! Fed is so talented and good he can make it look like he is going at it, but he is holding back, you really should know that.

edberg505
09-18-2009, 01:08 PM
Sampras is more talanted because he beat Fed with Fed's own racket 5 years after he retired!Fed couldn't break old Sampras' serve for 2 matches in a row.Prime Sampras playing with his modern racket and strings would be one scary sight!

LOL, didn't Federer do the same thing to Pete and Wimbledon? Hahahaha, hey I thought you were a Nadal fan anyways.

Chadwixx
09-18-2009, 01:09 PM
Sampras is more talanted because he beat Fed with Fed's own racket 5 years after he retired!Fed couldn't break old Sampras' serve for 2 matches in a row.Prime Sampras playing with his modern racket and strings would be one scary sight!

Fed beat pete with his own racket at wimbledon, and it was a real tournament!!!

cknobman
09-18-2009, 01:13 PM
You mistyped your thread title. Here I fixed it for you:
Sampras would have been beaten by Fed at their primes

lambielspins
09-18-2009, 01:26 PM
Sure, two tiebreaks is a cakewalk.

The guy had three knee surgeries, by the way.

The first set was close. The 2nd set was 6-2. The 3rd set Mark was never close to breaking serve while Roger had 2 different break point games. The first one Roger missed an easy forehand into a wide open court which would have given him the break. The second game Roger had a break point Mark hit a double fault which was overruled. The tiebreak though was 7-1 anyway. If you think Mark was ever in the match after a close 1st set you can continue kidding yourself.

DunlopDood
09-18-2009, 02:01 PM
Sampras on Grass in 1999 beats anyone, including federer. Sorry federer fanboys, but it's the truth, and the truth hurts sometimes :-(

edberg505
09-18-2009, 02:05 PM
Sampras on Grass in 1999 beats anyone, including federer. Sorry federer fanboys, but it's the truth, and the truth hurts sometimes :-(

You mean that same Sampras in 99 that lost his first set to Philippoussis in the semis? He was giving Sampras all he could handle in that match before Flipper retired with an injury.

lambielspins
09-18-2009, 02:06 PM
You mean that same Sampras in 99 that lost his first set to Philippoussis in the semis? He was giving Sampras all he could handle in that match before Flipper retired with an injury.

The Sampras in the final was unbeatable though. Sampras and Federer wouldnt ever play in the quarters anyway when both were in their primes.

MizunoMX20
09-18-2009, 02:37 PM
Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round.

I've come across many ludicrous statements on these boards, but this one takes first prize. I'm not sure if it will ever be topped either. So there you go, you made it into the history books!

Chadwixx
09-18-2009, 02:39 PM
Sampras on Grass in 1999 beats anyone, including federer. Sorry federer fanboys, but it's the truth, and the truth hurts sometimes :-(

Sorry but when people bring up pete's 1999 it only proves they werent paying attension.

The avg ranking of his opponents that year was #141, one of the easiest draws in the history of grand slam play.

He was basically playing tier 2 opponents. That also shows how weak the era was when guys ranked that low can be a threat at wimbledon.

akv89
09-18-2009, 02:58 PM
Sampras on Grass in 1999 beats anyone, including federer. Sorry federer fanboys, but it's the truth, and the truth hurts sometimes :-(

Federer in 2004 USO final/2005 W final/2006 W/2007 AO etc beats anyone, including Sampras. That was easy.

TMF
09-18-2009, 03:00 PM
Sampras on Grass in 1999 beats anyone, including federer. Sorry federer fanboys, but it's the truth, and the truth hurts sometimes :-(

Sorry, but you left out some details. Sampras beat Andre in the final but it was one of Andre worst GS performance ever. He was having an awful serving day, serving at 44% 1st serve. Andre didn't show up, which was the reason he lost straight set. Anyone can straight set someone when he's serving 44%.

Wondertoy
09-18-2009, 03:08 PM
Agassi is the most overrated player in history.

Net47
09-18-2009, 03:09 PM
Sorry but when people bring up pete's 1999 it only proves they werent paying attension.

The avg ranking of his opponents that year was #141, one of the easiest draws in the history of grand slam play.

He was basically playing tier 2 opponents. That also shows how weak the era was when guys ranked that low can be a threat at wimbledon.

Ah, the strength of era argument. Having been a tennis fan since the late 70s, I don't hold the current era in high regard beyond federer and nadal (we'll see about del porto). Hard to take jokovic and murray very seriously (and they are boring to watch to boot). Davydenko however is truly a player for the ages...

Anyway, the link below will hopefully take you a good, straightforward analysis that a fellow put together. Shows clearly that Sampras faced the better competition by a wide margin.

http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/07/06/federer-vs-sampras-grand-slam-comparison-%E2%80%93-who-had-a-tougher-job/

BallzofSkill
09-18-2009, 03:16 PM
They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

Dumbest statement I've ever heard.

UsualSuspect
09-18-2009, 03:22 PM
Sampras on Grass in 1999 beats anyone, including federer. Sorry federer fanboys, but it's the truth, and the truth hurts sometimes :-(
Not really. Sorry Peteboy but sometimes a little thing called "the truth" hurts. :(

darthpwner
09-18-2009, 03:23 PM
Agassi is the most overrated player in history.

Bull **** Nalbandian is

akv89
09-18-2009, 03:29 PM
Ah, the strength of era argument. Having been a tennis fan since the late 70s, I don't hold the current era in high regard beyond federer and nadal (we'll see about del porto). Hard to take jokovic and murray very seriously (and they are boring to watch to boot). Davydenko however is truly a player for the ages...

Anyway, the link below will hopefully take you a good, straightforward analysis that a fellow put together. Shows clearly that Sampras faced the better competition by a wide margin.

http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/07/06/federer-vs-sampras-grand-slam-comparison-%E2%80%93-who-had-a-tougher-job/

There are so many things wrong with that article:

1) It doesn't address the weak era vs. strong player argument. Did Sampras win against a strong era or was he just not good enough to dominate everybody like Federer did to his era?

2) Even assuming that the logic behind that article was true, it is counting the number of majors won by players in the top 10 throughout their entire career instead of looking at their form during that tournament.

3) Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro etc have all been in the top 10 for a year now and will be winning majors in the future, which will increase the number that the article is using to assess strength of the era. For example, for every major Nadal wins from now on, Federer's number will go up by 8. If Roddick wins a major, it will go up by 14. If Djokovic wins one, it will go up by 4 etc.

fed_rulz
09-18-2009, 03:33 PM
Ah, the strength of era argument. Having been a tennis fan since the late 70s, I don't hold the current era in high regard beyond federer and nadal (we'll see about del porto). Hard to take jokovic and murray very seriously (and they are boring to watch to boot). Davydenko however is truly a player for the ages...

Anyway, the link below will hopefully take you a good, straightforward analysis that a fellow put together. Shows clearly that Sampras faced the better competition by a wide margin.

http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/07/06/federer-vs-sampras-grand-slam-comparison-%E2%80%93-who-had-a-tougher-job/

That analysis is riddled with more holes than an oz of swiss cheese.
- For starters, comparing the # of grand slams that the REST of top 10 had won for each GS won by pete/Roger is BS. Roger won his GS at a much faster pace than Pete, so his competition has had lesser # of slams to accumulate their count. E.g., sampras won his 1st in 1990, and 2nd in 1993. Which means his opposition has had 3 yrs to increment their total. However, Fed won his first in 2003, and 2 slams later won his 2nd, so obviously his opposition slam count will be lower.

- If a player, say edberg, won 5 slams when pete won his xth slam, and when edberg still remained at 5 for pete's x+1, then the 5 gets credited twice. In other words, Pete gets multiple credits for STARTING to win slams when some legends were sticking around.

- a 2-slam winner is not very different from a 4 slam winner in terms of difficulty presented, etc. The author starts off by saying "f there are 5 players that have won a Grand Slam competing against you, then that is definitely more difficult than competing against players where no one has won a Grand Slam before".... and then goes on to add the # of grandslams, as opposed to the number of grandslam winners themselves. OBVIOUSLY, Pete benefited from ex-legends playing at their washed-up stage (Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, etc.), to add up to his oppositions' GS count.

- If Pete had stuck around for a couple more years playing competitive tennis, then Fed would have had at least 3-4 GS wins with 14 * (3 or 4) added to his oppositions GS count (assuming Pete was in the top 10)

Chadwixx
09-18-2009, 03:33 PM
Ah, the strength of era argument. Having been a tennis fan since the late 70s, I don't hold the current era in high regard beyond federer and nadal (we'll see about del porto). Hard to take jokovic and murray very seriously (and they are boring to watch to boot). Davydenko however is truly a player for the ages...

Anyway, the link below will hopefully take you a good, straightforward analysis that a fellow put together. Shows clearly that Sampras faced the better competition by a wide margin.

http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/07/06/federer-vs-sampras-grand-slam-comparison-%E2%80%93-who-had-a-tougher-job/

Not a very good article. The way they determined the outcome is silly.

In 1999 there were 11 gs winners in the draw, yet the average ranking of his opponent was #141. How is that explained? Were the players past their primes, debunking this method of proving stronger comp?

This has been discussed here many times in much greater detail than i can give. Do a search and you will find very detailed information that got gamesampras so mad he was bant 5 times :)

fed_rulz
09-18-2009, 03:35 PM
There are so many things wrong with that article:

1) It doesn't address the weak era vs. strong player argument. Did Sampras win against a strong era or was he just not good enough to dominate everybody like Federer did to his era?

2) Even assuming that the logic behind that article was true, it is counting the number of majors won by players in the top 10 throughout their entire career instead of looking at their form during that tournament.

3) Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro etc have all been in the top 10 for a year now and will be winning majors in the future, which will increase the number that the article is using to assess strength of the era. For example, for every major Nadal wins from now on, Federer's number will go up by 8. If Roddick wins a major, it will go up by 14. If Djokovic wins one, it will go up by 4 etc.

Not quite; I think he uses the # of GS won by his opposition at the TIME of Fed winning his GS.

MizunoMX20
09-18-2009, 04:13 PM
Ah, the strength of era argument. Having been a tennis fan since the late 70s, I don't hold the current era in high regard beyond federer and nadal (we'll see about del porto). Hard to take jokovic and murray very seriously (and they are boring to watch to boot). Davydenko however is truly a player for the ages...

Anyway, the link below will hopefully take you a good, straightforward analysis that a fellow put together. Shows clearly that Sampras faced the better competition by a wide margin.

http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/07/06/federer-vs-sampras-grand-slam-comparison-%E2%80%93-who-had-a-tougher-job/

I hope the guy who came up with this logic doesn't have to make a living out of analyzing numbers, because he would die in poverty.


According to his logic you can draw the following conclusions:

- When an old and declining Agassi at the age of 35 retired with 8 slams to his merit, winning slams for Federer became much more easy all of a sudden

- Taking three years to win your second slam results in having stronger competition for the rest of your career


And these are just two examples. You can make numbers say anything you want, but this is just a poor effort, as some of the above posters have already pointed out.

Net47
09-18-2009, 04:18 PM
Well, glad you enjoyed the analysis that fellow rather painstakingly put together. Predictable responses for this board.

I find it a good, solid way to look at the strength of eras. Your mileage may vary.

Honestly, though, as I look at the likes of Murray, Jokevic and Roddick as the top contenders faced by Federer in recent years, common sense tells me we aren't exactly in a golden era of tennis. Not much there other than Nadal, who of course demands great respect for his domination of Federer, although he may unfortunately flame out due to his fierce style of play.

MizunoMX20
09-18-2009, 04:51 PM
Well, glad you enjoyed the analysis that fellow rather painstakingly put together. Predictable responses for this board.

I find it a good, solid way to look at the strength of eras. Your mileage may vary.

Honestly, though, as I look at the likes of Murray, Jokevic and Roddick as the top contenders faced by Federer in recent years, common sense tells me we aren't exactly in a golden era of tennis. Not much there other than Nadal, who of course demands great respect for his domination of Federer, although he may unfortunately flame out due to his fierce style of play.

I actually do enjoy people who back their statements up with facts and mathematical analysis, much more than the usual ''Swiss Shanky won his slams in a weak era. Fakt.'' or ''Sampras was a Clay Court Clown and can therefor never be considered a great'' which we come across on these boards far too often.

But to me it's obvious this guy had a certain point of view (Sampras played in a stronger era than Federer) and then went on to find a way to 'manipulate' some numbers so that his theory would come out correct. That's not the way research should be done. First of all you start with a hypothesis, then you do the analysis of the numbers and you will find if your hypothesis was correct. What he's done is, he came up with a hypothesis, then went to search if there was a way to make the numbers imply his hypothesis was correct.

There's way too much room for interpretation with all these figures. As I stated before, you can make the numbers say whatever you want. Research should be objective, not subjective. Look at the two conclusions (in Italics) I've drawn from his analysis, those are clearly wrong.

I do however want to give the guy credit for at least trying and thinking about a way era's can be compared. I'm afraid he just chose the wrong way of comparing.

Chadwixx
09-18-2009, 05:11 PM
"number of Grand Slam titles that the rest of the top 10 players HAD at that time"

Why limit it to the top 10? Was tojo #11 or something :)

A more detailed version would be the players that pete faced vs the players fed faced in route to the title.

In this case there is no debating that pete's 1999 wimbledon was the biggest hypejob in the history of grand slam play (aside from one of his AO's). And yes, this includes murray :)

AAAA
09-18-2009, 05:11 PM
Well, glad you enjoyed the analysis that fellow rather painstakingly put together. Predictable responses for this board.

I find it a good, solid way to look at the strength of eras. Your mileage may vary.

Honestly, though, as I look at the likes of Murray, Jokevic and Roddick as the top contenders faced by Federer in recent years, common sense tells me we aren't exactly in a golden era of tennis. Not much there other than Nadal, who of course demands great respect for his domination of Federer, although he may unfortunately flame out due to his fierce style of play.

Strength of era /= strength of competition Sampras actually faced in winning those Majors. You know, who Sampras actually played winning those slams. What were his draws? what were his h2h scores against actual opponents? Where these opponents actually competitive against Sampras or did Sampras own them in slams?

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 05:59 PM
Are you kidding me? So Roddick had a better USO than Federer? :roll: That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Makes no sense.

Losing in the 3rd round is a loss, lot's of players lose in the early rounds. most players don't ever make it to a final. However, when someone does make it, the loss in a final is a far worse FEELING!

Tell that to Pete Sampras you twit. In his book, it was not any other loss but the FINALS of the 92 USO that made him feel the worst he has ever felt.

Do you get the point? I was not talking about placement...but losing in a final is far worse than in the 3rd round because the player was so close to winning a major.

Chadwixx
09-18-2009, 06:01 PM
I think they feel a little better when they get a finalists check vs a 3rd round check :)

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 06:02 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmm....... Making it to the finals = more money. Also means more points = higher ranking = MORE MONEY. You're right. I'd rather lose in the third. Emotionally it is worse to lose in the finals, but that is just about all.

yes, that is what I meant. you understood.:)

of course making a final is better in every other aspect, but true champions like Fed and Pete are worried about titles and honor..not so much the money. The money comes with the titles.

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 06:05 PM
They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

this is the statement I made. You idiots are clueless if you think I meant losing in the 3rd round is better than getting to the finals in terms of record or achievement in that particular tourney...the people that question me are very, very clueless and cannot comprehend..figures.:roll:

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 06:06 PM
It was a 4th round match in wimbledon in a face off between the defending champion and soon to be GOAT. Don't tell me that match meant nothing because thats silly. Had Sampras won would you be saying that??????

can I make it any clearer..one match means nothing no matter who won. what is it you don't get?

Chadwixx
09-18-2009, 06:07 PM
You feel bad if you lose in the final but feel worse if you lose in the 3rd round. Making it to the finals is an accomplishment.

Then again if I played in pete's weak era I would also be upset if i didnt win it all :)

edberg505
09-18-2009, 06:16 PM
Well, glad you enjoyed the analysis that fellow rather painstakingly put together. Predictable responses for this board.

I find it a good, solid way to look at the strength of eras. Your mileage may vary.

Honestly, though, as I look at the likes of Murray, Jokevic and Roddick as the top contenders faced by Federer in recent years, common sense tells me we aren't exactly in a golden era of tennis. Not much there other than Nadal, who of course demands great respect for his domination of Federer, although he may unfortunately flame out due to his fierce style of play.

Hmm, how about we look at it this way. Let's look at some of the players that Pete lost to in his early rounds in his quest for a slam since winning his maiden slam at the USO. Yzaga, Schaller, Kucera, Mark Philippoussis (got straight setted here), Ramon Delgado, Magnus Norman.

Now let's look at the people that Federer lost to since he won his first slam. Guga Kuerten, David Nalbandian and umm, that's it! But I'll throw you guys a bone. Let's look at some players he could have lost to: Berdych, Andreev, Tipsarevic. So, by some people's assertion, Tipsarevic, Berdych, Andreev, and Nalbandian are no match for guys like Yzaga, Schaller, Kucera, Delgado and Philippoussis. Based solely on the fact that this era is weaker. Well, that's just, complete nonsense!

Chadwixx
09-18-2009, 06:21 PM
Net47, i wonder if he hit 50 serve's then made his name :)

Tennis_Monk
09-18-2009, 06:53 PM
I never mentioned Nadal. Pete would own him.

Sorry . Nadal will have Sampras for breakfast.

borg number one
09-18-2009, 07:02 PM
I am a Nadal fan, more than a Federer fan, though I have great respect for both of them, but I must disagree. No one could have "owned" Sampras, not even Borg or Federer, and the same applies to Nadal. His serve was just too good, and he was as clutch as anyone. He was especially good at turning it "way up" at the right time. Borg and Federer do this as well, "turning up the volume" at will seemingly, but the delta when Sampras turned it on was interesting to watch. He loved winning 6-4, getting 1 break, and just holding serve the rest of the set sort of on automatic.

Azzurri
09-18-2009, 07:19 PM
Sorry . Nadal will have Sampras for breakfast.

maybe. as long as its a healthy breakfast, but in terms of playing tennis matches in the GS's Pete would dominate him on grass and hardcourts. Nadal has a weak serve (compared to his counterparts) and his return game is not good enough shen it comes to a serve like Pete's and attacking style..look at what happened to nadal when Tsonga played a similiar (SIMILIAR) style to the old days..Nadal was BURNED UP.

Tennis_Monk
09-18-2009, 07:27 PM
maybe. as long as its a healthy breakfast, but in terms of playing tennis matches in the GS's Pete would dominate him on grass and hardcourts. Nadal has a weak serve (compared to his counterparts) and his return game is not good enough shen it comes to a serve like Pete's and attacking style..look at what happened to nadal when Tsonga played a similiar (SIMILIAR) style to the old days..Nadal was BURNED UP.

Sorry boss. You can come up with 100 reasons but the fact is they have never played each other on ATP tour and so you cant prove your argument (the other way round is true as well--ie Nadal beating sampras)

SIMILAR doesnt cut it for me. If you have any objective data , please share.

Ditto with "Would" dominate , "Could" dominate . I am interested in "Has dominated" or "Is dominating".

AJK1
09-18-2009, 07:35 PM
Another yawn of a thread........

Steffi-forever
09-18-2009, 09:37 PM
In my French Magazine of November 1998, Sampras said he would prefer losing in the first round than in the final.

NamRanger
09-18-2009, 09:48 PM
Sorry boss. You can come up with 100 reasons but the fact is they have never played each other on ATP tour and so you cant prove your argument (the other way round is true as well--ie Nadal beating sampras)

SIMILAR doesnt cut it for me. If you have any objective data , please share.

Ditto with "Would" dominate , "Could" dominate . I am interested in "Has dominated" or "Is dominating".



Sampras' game on a theoretical level matches up very well with Nadal's. That's about as objective as we can get.

BorisBeckerFan
09-18-2009, 10:24 PM
In a month or two we'll have a simliar thread.

sunny_cali
09-18-2009, 11:58 PM
one word for you: HYPOCRITE

one more thing...you never watched Pete play live and in his prime. I don't believe you. Anyone that questions Pete's mental toughness and mentions CHOKE has no clue what they are talking about. Have a nice day.

I notice you did'nt really have much of an argument, except for ad-hominem's thrown in.

A word for you : ****

Was is like God's 11th commandment: Pete NEVER chokes ? Give me a break.

jamesblakefan#1
09-19-2009, 12:28 AM
Losing in the 3rd round is a loss, lot's of players lose in the early rounds. most players don't ever make it to a final. However, when someone does make it, the loss in a final is a far worse FEELING!

Tell that to Pete Sampras you twit. In his book, it was not any other loss but the FINALS of the 92 USO that made him feel the worst he has ever felt.

Do you get the point? I was not talking about placement...but losing in a final is far worse than in the 3rd round because the player was so close to winning a major.

You're still a twit if you think in any way, shape, or form losing in the 3rd round is better than losing in a final. That is just the worst argument I've ever heard, nothing you can say can change how stupid that idiotic statement and argument is. You must really hate Federer to argue this illogical P.O.V. ...

Lotto
09-19-2009, 12:45 AM
Pete was past his prime.


Neither was Roger. But Pete had proved he could win slams, and he was going for 5 win a row and had lost 1 match at Wimbledon since 1993.... while this was Roger's first time ever on Centre Court at Wimbledon and he still managed to beat Sampras....and Roger had done nothing significant at that age.....so take your prime crap and stuff it somewhere. Do you also recall that 1 slam wonder, Richard Krajicek beat Sampras in his prime at Wimbledon in 1996?? If he can do that I'm pretty sure Roger could. End of discussion bud, you fail.


And shut up, Rafa would not beat Roger at his prime at Wimbledon or in a hardcourt slam, especially US Open....

MizunoMX20
09-19-2009, 01:16 AM
this is the statement I made. You idiots are clueless if you think I meant losing in the 3rd round is better than getting to the finals in terms of record or achievement in that particular tourney...the people that question me are very, very clueless and cannot comprehend..figures.:roll:

We are idiots? You've come up with the most stupid post ever to grace these boards, and then when you see all the reactions, you post about 4 consecutive comments to save face. Calling people (and I quote):

- ''you twit''
- ''idiots like you would not understand''
- ''you on the other hand are a fool.''
- ''You idiots are clueless''
- ''the people that question me are very, very clueless and cannot comprehend''
- ''thanks dr. twit''

Try and have a bit of decency please. Or is that too tall an order... for an idiot?

Elegant_Roger
09-19-2009, 03:13 AM
Losing in the 3rd round is a loss, lot's of players lose in the early rounds. most players don't ever make it to a final. However, when someone does make it, the loss in a final is a far worse FEELING!

Tell that to Pete Sampras you twit. In his book, it was not any other loss but the FINALS of the 92 USO that made him feel the worst he has ever felt.

Do you get the point? I was not talking about placement...but losing in a final is far worse than in the 3rd round because the player was so close to winning a major.

In short, the 90's game was softer/easier so Pete's strategy and execution were more effective. It's highly questionable whether he would have the same results with that game plan in today's powerful baseline game. Three parts of today's game are noticeably improved today vs 90's: return of serve, passing shots and speed & fitness. All of these make it more risky to serve/volley in today's game. It's no coincidence that there are no serve/volleyers in today's game. It's because this style has largely been neutralized. Nadal and Federer are perfect examples of the 2000's game, playing predominantly from the back and mid-court, but able to mix it up when necessary.

So when we're comparing who Pete faced versus today's game we're comparing apples with oranges. In the same way that comparing Pete to Borg and Connors who were in their prime 10-15 years before Pete dominated is comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not saying Pete wouldn't have been a threat in today's game, but I think his serve/volley game wouldn't have been nearly as effective in today's game. He wouldn't be able to rush the net every other point as the balls he received would be harder, further back in the court and with more top-spin. I do think he would take out Taylor Dent 8/10 tiimes.

I don't buy that prime Pete would have taken prime Fed on grass. I see why you say he would because he owned grass in the 90's, but let's remember a few things. First, 'prime' Pete was 93-99. That's 10-16 years before where we are now and tennis has consistently progressed in 5-10 year segments. The 90's game compared to the 2000's game is like comparing the 80's game to the 90's. That doesn't definitively state that Roger would be the stronger of the 2, but it provides some some perspective.

Roger is a fantastic attacker at the net and he can volley probably better than anyone on the tour but he doesn't play like that too much. Why? Because he's able to dictate from the back and mid-court and he knows he can only win a point if his approach is strong enough. There are too many players now who can play great defense who can pass him at the net. Now granted, Pete was arguably the greatest net-player of all-time and more effective at the net than Roger but he doesn't and never had the approach shot that Roger has. Basically Pete got away with that strategy more then because the guys he faced were slower, less accurate and weaker from the back.

Chelsea_Kiwi
09-19-2009, 03:56 AM
one word for you: HYPOCRITE

one more thing...you never watched Pete play live and in his prime. I don't believe you. Anyone that questions Pete's mental toughness and mentions CHOKE has no clue what they are talking about. Have a nice day.

Ok so watching Sampras live and watching him in a replay is different how? Does he play different in a replay?

Worst logic yet from you Azzurri, what a schools teaching these days.

Also to anyone who thinks Federer was trying anything more then 50% in those exos needs to get a reality check.

Tennis_Monk
09-19-2009, 04:07 AM
Sampras' game on a theoretical level matches up very well with Nadal's. That's about as objective as we can get.

Not sure what you mean by Theory here. I am making an assumption that you are comparing Serve, FH, BH, return of serve, etc.

May be similar to Brad Gilbert tick's before a match [he usually drops 2 or 3 ticks for Federer in several areas]

I am not a big fan of this kind of comparison (though it makes for a nice discussion) for couple of reasons.
a) Most top players (definitely Pete and Nadal) are good strategists and oncourt thinkers. So they adjust their games/strategies based on other players strength, weakness, whats working for them that day, court type, etc

b) Just because one has an edge on paper (as Brad gilbert or TW forum dropped a few extra ticks) doesnt mean that too much once a player steps on the court.

c) If we rely on theory, then Federer (and Sampras) should never lose a match. Fact is they both do lose.


Purely from an opinion perspective, i believe Nadal can take on Sampras. Fact is they never played during Pete's prime and hence we have no way to ascertain it.

diggler
09-19-2009, 05:17 AM
Fed would kill him on a slow surface like clay. On a fast surface, Sampras has his best chance, though it is not a certainty Sampras would win.

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:12 AM
In my French Magazine of November 1998, Sampras said he would prefer losing in the first round than in the final.

Thank you! People miss obvious points all the time here.

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:13 AM
Sorry boss. You can come up with 100 reasons but the fact is they have never played each other on ATP tour and so you cant prove your argument (the other way round is true as well--ie Nadal beating sampras)

SIMILAR doesnt cut it for me. If you have any objective data , please share.

Ditto with "Would" dominate , "Could" dominate . I am interested in "Has dominated" or "Is dominating".

Really? so if I said Nadal would dominate Jimmy Arias my statement would hold no water because they never played before? You don't know much about tennis.

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:16 AM
You're still a twit if you think in any way, shape, or form losing in the 3rd round is better than losing in a final. That is just the worst argument I've ever heard, nothing you can say can change how stupid that idiotic statement and argument is. You must really hate Federer to argue this illogical P.O.V. ...

here is the deal. i find you to be an ignorant poster for the most part, but have tolerated you. Sampras himself said the same thing, so in your odd little world Sampras is also a twit. You are a fool. I can no longer stand your idiocy on this board. I will place you on my ignore list and never have to bother with you again...have a nice life.

Blake sucks by the way...

fed_rulz
09-19-2009, 06:19 AM
In short, the 90's game was softer/easier so Pete's strategy and execution were more effective. It's highly questionable whether he would have the same results with that game plan in today's powerful baseline game. Three parts of today's game are noticeably improved today vs 90's: return of serve, passing shots and speed & fitness. All of these make it more risky to serve/volley in today's game. It's no coincidence that there are no serve/volleyers in today's game. It's because this style has largely been neutralized. Nadal and Federer are perfect examples of the 2000's game, playing predominantly from the back and mid-court, but able to mix it up when necessary.

So when we're comparing who Pete faced versus today's game we're comparing apples with oranges. In the same way that comparing Pete to Borg and Connors who were in their prime 10-15 years before Pete dominated is comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not saying Pete wouldn't have been a threat in today's game, but I think his serve/volley game wouldn't have been nearly as effective in today's game. He wouldn't be able to rush the net every other point as the balls he received would be harder, further back in the court and with more top-spin. I do think he would take out Taylor Dent 8/10 tiimes.

I don't buy that prime Pete would have taken prime Fed on grass. I see why you say he would because he owned grass in the 90's, but let's remember a few things. First, 'prime' Pete was 93-99. That's 10-16 years before where we are now and tennis has consistently progressed in 5-10 year segments. The 90's game compared to the 2000's game is like comparing the 80's game to the 90's. That doesn't definitively state that Roger would be the stronger of the 2, but it provides some some perspective.

Roger is a fantastic attacker at the net and he can volley probably better than anyone on the tour but he doesn't play like that too much. Why? Because he's able to dictate from the back and mid-court and he knows he can only win a point if his approach is strong enough. There are too many players now who can play great defense who can pass him at the net. Now granted, Pete was arguably the greatest net-player of all-time and more effective at the net than Roger but he doesn't and never had the approach shot that Roger has. Basically Pete got away with that strategy more then because the guys he faced were slower, less accurate and weaker from the back.

kudos! great post. Do NOT expect logical replies (if any at all) :).

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:20 AM
We are idiots? You've come up with the most stupid post ever to grace these boards, and then when you see all the reactions, you post about 4 consecutive comments to save face. Calling people (and I quote):

- ''you twit''
- ''idiots like you would not understand''
- ''you on the other hand are a fool.''
- ''You idiots are clueless''
- ''the people that question me are very, very clueless and cannot comprehend''
- ''thanks dr. twit''

Try and have a bit of decency please. Or is that too tall an order... for an idiot?


Exactly. This forum is filled with ignorant tools.

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:22 AM
Ok so watching Sampras live and watching him in a replay is different how? Does he play different in a replay?

Worst logic yet from you Azzurri, what a schools teaching these days.

Also to anyone who thinks Federer was trying anything more then 50% in those exos needs to get a reality check.

sorry, but watching clips and old videos is not the same as watching the guy during his playing days. I never saw Laver play, so how can I make a judgement about a guy I saw play on youtube. your logic is flawed.

fed_rulz
09-19-2009, 06:28 AM
In my French Magazine of November 1998, Sampras said he would prefer losing in the first round than in the final.

Sour grapes, perhaps? At least as far as the FO is concerned, he doesn't have a clue as to how it'd feel to lose in the finals, so obviously he can only comment on something he's experienced (i.e. losing in the first rd) - so his word is hardly the holy grail. Plus, some champion he is, if he went around with that attitude.

britbox
09-19-2009, 06:29 AM
maybe. as long as its a healthy breakfast, but in terms of playing tennis matches in the GS's Pete would dominate him on grass and hardcourts. Nadal has a weak serve (compared to his counterparts) and his return game is not good enough shen it comes to a serve like Pete's and attacking style..look at what happened to nadal when Tsonga played a similiar (SIMILIAR) style to the old days..Nadal was BURNED UP.

Tsonga? But I thought you'd already made it clear that you can't make a judgement based on one match?

... or maybe you can when it suits you? :)

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:30 AM
Sour grapes, perhaps? At least as far as the FO is concerned, he doesn't have a clue as to how it'd feel to lose in the finals, so obviously he can only comment on something he's experienced (i.e. losing in the first rd) - so his word is hardly the holy grail. Plus, some champion he is, if he went around with that attitude.

you are an obvious twit if you question Sampras's attitude. no wonder people ont his board hate you Fed fans. He was not talking specific about the French..where did you get that?

britbox
09-19-2009, 06:32 AM
They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

That's a ludicrous post. Coming out of a slam with less ranking points, less prize money and losing to a weaker player...

Righto - lots of players covering themselves in glory by way of 3rd round exits.:confused:

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:34 AM
Tsonga? But I thought you'd already made it clear that you can't make a judgement based on one match?

... or maybe you can when it suits you? :)

I was talking about playing style...I used this match as an example, but its hard to find more because there are no S&V players today that are any good. I was noting style, not so much Tsonga himself. Tsonga played way more agressive against Nadal in that one match than I saw him play since (I could be wrong..have not seen him play more than a handful of matches). Again, the style of play. It has been discussed many times.

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:35 AM
That's a ludicrous post. Coming out of a slam with less ranking points, less prize money and losing to a weaker player...

Righto - lots of players covering themselves in glory by way of 3rd round exits.:confused:

I fully explained my point. I was talking about the feeling of losing in a final compared to the 3rd round.

britbox
09-19-2009, 06:35 AM
Clearly Slanted? LOL!!

It's 1-0 to Fed. Pete's best days were long gone when they met.

This is hilarious. You said earlier in the thread that the exhibition match (that Pete won) indicated what what would have happened if they'd met in their primes.

Yet, you ignore a match roughly seven years earlier (7 years nearer Pete's prime) in grand slam circumstances where Pete was the defending champion and number one seed. Lol, you couldn't make it up.:):):)

britbox
09-19-2009, 06:37 AM
I fully explained my point. I was talking about the feeling of losing in a final compared to the 3rd round.

The player might feel better, but the accomplishment obviously isn't better.

thejoe
09-19-2009, 06:37 AM
here is the deal. i find you to be an ignorant poster for the most part, but have tolerated you. Sampras himself said the same thing, so in your odd little world Sampras is also a twit. You are a fool. I can no longer stand your idiocy on this board. I will place you on my ignore list and never have to bother with you again...have a nice life.

Blake sucks by the way...

Right, he's the one with the problem. It's not your crap-stream and general toolery.

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:39 AM
The player might feel better, but the accomplishment obviously isn't better.

I know that. so I can't discuss how a player feels? what is it you don't get?

tired of the fools and teens on this board.

fed_rulz
09-19-2009, 06:40 AM
you are an obvious twit if you question Sampras's attitude. no wonder people ont his board hate you Fed fans. He was not talking specific about the French..where did you get that?

dude, you need to quit calling people names. One more instance, and I will report you. In your little sampras-**** world, sampras is always right, his style is the right way to play tennis, and he was super-human; anyone who disagrees with you is either a twit, ignorant fool, idiot etc , and some how you are the expert on tennis (self-proclaimed at that). Get off your high horse; you are no more than a fan boy who needs to pull his head out of sampras' rear, and realize that the game has changed a whole lot and stop with the "it is right because sampras said so or did so" kinda arguments.

And here's the deal: if sampras did say that he'd prefer to lose in the 1st rd, then yes, he is a chicken, and I would question his attitude.

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:42 AM
dude, you need to quit calling people names. One more instance, and I will report you. In your little sampras-**** world, sampras is always right, his style is the right way to play tennis, and he was super-human; anyone who disagrees with you is either a twit, ignorant fool, idiot etc , and some how you are the expert on tennis (self-proclaimed at that). Get off your high horse; you are no more than a fan boy who needs to pull his head out of sampras' rear, and realize that the game has changed a whole lot and stop with the "it is right because sampras said so or did so" kinda arguments.

And here's the deal: if sampras did say that he'd prefer to lose in the 1st rd, then yes, he is a chicken, and I would question his attitude.

do you really think I care that much. have fun reporting me.

britbox
09-19-2009, 06:46 AM
I know that. so I can't discuss how a player feels? what is it you don't get?

tired of the fools and teens on this board.

You can discuss what you like, I'm not your mother. But if you don't want people to engage you on what you've written then you might be better typing your thoughts into Notepad on your PC rather than a public tennis forum.

The part I don't get is how a players feelings represent their achievements in comparison with another player. Spin it whichever way you like, getting to a final is a more difficult and higher achievement - feelings don't really come into it.

You made a good point on the surface meetings - they would be more likely to meet up on the faster courts. I'd edge toward Sampras on grass, Federer on faster hardcourts.
Anywhere else, Federer would enjoy the target practice.

fed_rulz
09-19-2009, 06:51 AM
do you really think I care that much. have fun reporting me.

go ahead, call me another name, and i will report you.

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:53 AM
go ahead, call me another name, and i will report you.

I just reported you for harrasement. thanks for your concern.

fed_rulz
09-19-2009, 06:55 AM
I just reported you for harrasement. thanks for your concern.

LOL. this is hilarious :)

Azzurri
09-19-2009, 06:56 AM
seems like this thread has run its course. have a nice day teens!

Omega_7000
09-19-2009, 07:04 AM
seems like this thread has run its course. have a nice day teens!

and how old are you?

AndrewD
09-19-2009, 07:05 AM
Now granted, Pete was arguably the greatest net-player of all-time

I'm sorry, but that results in you losing absolutely all credibility.

borg number one
09-19-2009, 07:28 AM
Pete's great serves made his volleys less difficult to execute, but he was a great volleyer. He volleyed better than Federer, but falls short of Mcenroe's ability in that department. I've never seen anyone that could rival McEnroe's abilities as a volleyer. He was truly a volleying GENIUS, creating unheard of angles, with great pace as well. His reflexes were also lightning quick up honed from years of serving and volleying. I think that these 2 would have traded off in terms of wins head to head.

jamesblakefan#1
09-19-2009, 07:39 AM
here is the deal. i find you to be an ignorant poster for the most part, but have tolerated you. Sampras himself said the same thing, so in your odd little world Sampras is also a twit. You are a fool. I can no longer stand your idiocy on this board. I will place you on my ignore list and never have to bother with you again...have a nice life.

Blake sucks by the way...

Yeah, it's better to lose the 1st round then lose in the finals....Roddick had a better 05 USO than Blake and Agassi...:roll:

Have fun with your flawed logic, since apparently you're the best poster on here now. 3rd round losses are the way of the world now. In fact, Safina deserves her #1 rank now, she had the better US Open than Serena...:lol:

Get those rocks out of your head, my man. The Pete-GOAT argument has stooped to new lows, if you're using his 3rd round lossses as a strength over Federer's finals losses. Think about that, and you tell me who's 'the ignorant poster'.

And two bit insults like 'Blake sucks' only goes to show how immature you truly are. Here's a hint - age does not equal maturity. You may be older than me, but you're clearly flawed in the maturity department. Good luck in your life, where the 3rd round losers are GOATs and guys that lose in finals suck.

Heck by your logic, Blake may be GOAT due to his stellar record of 3rd round losses. He did it again this year, outperforming Federer at the USO and AO. Yep, Blake = GOAT in your eyes. He's the real #1. ;)

drakulie
09-19-2009, 07:50 AM
Losing in the 3rd round is a loss, lot's of players lose in the early rounds. most players don't ever make it to a final. However, when someone does make it, the loss in a final is a far worse FEELING!

Tell that to Pete Sampras you twit. In his book, it was not any other loss but the FINALS of the 92 USO that made him feel the worst he has ever felt.

Do you get the point? I was not talking about placement...but losing in a final is far worse than in the 3rd round because the player was so close to winning a major.

agreed, and anyone who doesn't understand this is either a momo, MOMO, or MOMO. sad truth, but this board is filled with them. To add, anyone who thinks Nadal has even a prayer to beat Sampras on grass or hard courts of the US Open, is either a MOMO, MOMO, or MOMO.

see you later twits.

borg number one
09-19-2009, 08:28 AM
I disagree. Nadal would have likely lost more often than not to Sampras at both W and the US Open (even w/o injuries, playing at his current level). Yet, I do think he would have recorded some wins over him on grass/hard courts. His topspin would have made Sampras' volleys very difficult. I think that if Nadal could beat Federer at W last year, he would also have a chance at beating Sampras at least once for a big win. I don't think it's that clear cut. After all, Agassi was able to beat him on hard courts, so it's not out of the realm of possibilities. I would give the overall edge to Sampras though vs. Nadal. He, in my opinion, was also more "clutch" than Federer, so that would have helped him against the strong willed Nadal. He was very talented indeed. Then, on the Clay, it would NOT have been pretty.

Jchurch
09-19-2009, 09:10 AM
LOL. this is hilarious :)

You damn harasser you =) This truly is hilarious.

matchmaker
09-19-2009, 09:14 AM
I just love hypotheses....

Rabbit
09-19-2009, 09:25 AM
Well, Fed's already 1-0 against Pete on that surface -- I don't think he loses 4 in a row to Sampras anywhere, even on 90s grass.

Problem is, the Sampras that Federer played wasn't the Sampras in his prime. Prime vs prime an I go with Sampras.

Tennis_Monk
09-19-2009, 09:26 AM
Really? so if I said Nadal would dominate Jimmy Arias my statement would hold no water because they never played before? You don't know much about tennis.

Let me clear couple of things for you.

1) I dont care what you think of my knowledge.


2 ) Statements have to be fact based, not speculative.

"Would" is not deterministic. it is speculation. If they never played on tour, you cannot empirically state that one "will" dominate other.

Nadal dominates Federer is deterministic --one look at their Head-Head reveals the facts. Nadal dominates Jimmy Arias is speculative. May be it is true. may be it isnt.

I suggest you follow your advise and learn some tennis.

ubermeyer
09-19-2009, 09:32 AM
what a stupid thread...

Mahboob Khan
09-19-2009, 09:47 AM
uhh...no. fed beat sampras in wimbly 2001. so no.

Exactly, in 2001 Federer was virtually an unknown youngster and he beat inform Sampras on his favorite turf .. Grass .. in Wimbledon.

Maybe Sampras had a better serve than Federer, but Federer is as good a returner as Sampras.

Federer's forehand is as good as Sampras if not better.

Federer's 1-handed BH is better than Sampras' 1-handed BH.

Sampras has a better net game, but Federer can also play the net in case the King elects to do so.

I think Federer moves better than Sampras.

Federer has won the French Open whereas Sampras has not. Even in the presence of Nadal, Federer has done much better in his losing effort than Sampras in his losing effort.

Just prior to French Open, Federer convincingly beat Nadal on clay in Madrid Masters, and once before in Germany on clay.

Federer has a better sense/better anticipation of the ball.

I think Federer is a better player and that shows in his 15 GS titles.

Federer is King Cobra whereas Sampras is rattle snake!

Federer is the King of tennis, period.

If tennis has any face/any personality, it will look like Roger Federer for he is tennis.

TMF
09-19-2009, 10:49 AM
see my prior post...figures idiots like you would not understand. go tell Sampras he's a ******. I happen to agree with his statements...you on the other hand are a fool.

This is your initial post going back on page 7....

They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

You made a fool out of yourself with this ******** statement. Everyone agree, and now you're trying to say the post was about FEELING just to save your face, but no one is buying it. Big mistake dude.

TMF
09-19-2009, 11:02 AM
wow....thanks for showing everyone that you are such a troll.

consistency - who holds the most consecutive weeks at #1? who holds the most consecutive slam finals? slam semis? and slam quarters?

not making it to the finals and losing to "lesser" players = choking.
even worse than losing at the finals, because that player at the final is someone who has overcame his draw and made it through.

Here is the respond from you to the poster above.....

They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!

Again, nothing had to do with feeling from above; this thread is about "Sampras beating Fed at their prime", not feeling. You just deserately made it up afterward since all the posters in here are on your case.

Elegant_Roger
09-19-2009, 11:13 AM
This is your initial post going back on page 7....

Originally Posted by Azzurri http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3954997#post3954997)
They both have records that are incredible.

Sorry, losing in the finals is FAR worse than the 3rd round. To come that close, and to lose? sorry Bunni (or should I call you Simple Jack), but the pressure is huge in a GS final..MUCH more pressure than the earlier rounds. You did not know this? wow!


You made a fool out of yourself with this ******** statement. Everyone agree, and now you're trying to say the post was about FEELING just to save your face, but no one is buying it. Big mistake dude.

Thiis quote makes it clearly obvous he is a James Blake fan. And his next argument is going to be that Blake is better than Fed because he consistently loses in the third round. :)

fed_rulz
09-19-2009, 01:48 PM
You damn harasser you =) This truly is hilarious.
i know :shock: :-P

Chadwixx
09-19-2009, 02:46 PM
Problem is, the Sampras that Federer played wasn't the Sampras in his prime. Prime vs prime an I go with Sampras.

Wasnt he a 5 or 6 time defending champ?

If he wasnt in his prime how could he win so many in a row? Weak era?

Petes serve comes back now a days, his backhand landed short when it landed in and he had poor stamina (blood disorder). He would be as effective against today players as he was on clay.

Chelsea_Kiwi
09-19-2009, 06:02 PM
sorry, but watching clips and old videos is not the same as watching the guy during his playing days. I never saw Laver play, so how can I make a judgement about a guy I saw play on youtube. your logic is flawed. So how is it different? Does he play different?

Chelsea_Kiwi
09-19-2009, 06:04 PM
here is the deal. i find you to be an ignorant poster for the most part, but have tolerated you. Sampras himself said the same thing, so in your odd little world Sampras is also a twit. You are a fool. I can no longer stand your idiocy on this board. I will place you on my ignore list and never have to bother with you again...have a nice life.

Blake sucks by the way... How childish. Atleast he supports a player for the RIGHT reasons unlike you.

grafselesfan
09-19-2009, 06:13 PM
Federer fanatics are just so biased to Roger. Roger is a great player but he is not the undisputed greatest ever they make him out to be. He is not the male Steffi Graf or anything.

UsualSuspect
09-19-2009, 06:15 PM
Federer fanatics are just so biased to Roger. Roger is a great player but he is not the undisputed greatest ever they make him out to be. He is not the male Steffi Graf or anything.
Absolutely right. He is not the undisputed GOAT for sure but you have to be blind to not realize how biased Sampras fanatics are as well. Both Sides are extremely biased and go out of their way to bring the other sides player down.

フェデラー
09-19-2009, 06:23 PM
the only person that can rival fed in goatness is sampras. and fed makes sampras' records look like jokes.

darthpwner
09-19-2009, 07:27 PM
Federer wins at US Open, French Open, and Australian Open. At Wimbledon, Sampras will win. At TMC, Sampras will win. Masters tournaments, Federer will win. Clay, Federer wins. Hard courts, Federer wins. Grass, Sampras wins. Carpet, Sampras wins. Overall, Federer wins.

cuddles26
09-19-2009, 07:28 PM
the only person that can rival fed in goatness is sampras. and fed makes sampras' records look like jokes.

Apparently you have never heard of Rod Laver.

ubermeyer
09-19-2009, 07:31 PM
Federer fanatics are just so biased to Roger. Roger is a great player but he is not the undisputed greatest ever they make him out to be. He is not the male Steffi Graf or anything.

Margaret Court had more slams than Graf...

darthpwner
09-19-2009, 07:33 PM
Apparently you have never heard of Rod Laver.

If it was a Federer vs Laver comparison. Federer wins on Hard courts and Grass courts. Laver wins on clay, theoretically. Federer wins at Wimbledon and US Open. Laver takes the French. Federer and Laver are tied at Australia.

Tennis_Monk
09-19-2009, 08:37 PM
Rod laver predates my rec tennis career. So i have no idea how good he is or how significant his accomplishments are.

As far as i my knowledge goes, Sampras enjoyed a very limited period at the top as a probably GOAT. Federer surpassed him and is the GOAT. Between Sampras and Federer, Federer is simply far better player and his record speaks for that."You cant have them all" and there may some quirks in Federer's resume but they arent glaring gaps like Sampras's on Clay.

I have no idea how Laver and Federer would stack upto each other. But can take a wild guess that Federer would indeed match up against anyone in the history.

We cant say the same for Sampras. I cant factually state it but guessing that even CORIA would be able to tame Sampras on Clay.

jamesblakefan#1
09-19-2009, 08:39 PM
How childish. Atleast he supports a player for the RIGHT reasons unlike you.

Don't worry a/b Azzurri. Judging from his posts, he has far bigger problems in life that he should be dealing with. Let's just pray for him and hope for the best. Wish no ill will upon those less fortunate, you know?

Chelsea_Kiwi
09-19-2009, 10:38 PM
Federer fanatics are just so biased to Roger. Roger is a great player but he is not the undisputed greatest ever they make him out to be. He is not the male Steffi Graf or anything. Yes you are right, he doesn't need his career saved by having someone stabbed for him.

grafselesfan
09-19-2009, 10:50 PM
Yes you are right, he doesn't need his career saved by having someone stabbed for him.

No he just needs his biggest rival to suffer a major injury at the perfect time or else be stuck on the dreaded 13 forever. By the way Seles never came close to owning Graf the way healthy Nadal owned Federer for awhile. Federer has lost slam finals on every surface to Nadal, lost 3 of their 4 matches on an outdoor hard court, lost their only hard court slam meeting when Rafa had finished a 5 hour marathon the round before, has lost 1 of their 3 Wimbledons and was saved by an injury of losing 2 of 3. Contrast that to Graf who has beaten Seles in slams on every surface multiple times, never lost to her on any faster surface, and on her turf (grass) never allowed even peak pre stabbing Seles to get more than a mere 3 games. Graf most certainly has not allowed even Seles at her peak to humiliate her in a slam final the way Federer has allowed Nadal in the 2008 French Open final either. Graf is not Federer like I said, Graf has far too much pride and ability to ever allow a main rival to school her on all surfaces like Federer has allowed Nadal to.

What Graf does to her main rival on Grafs "turf" even at the peak of her main rivals power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVFVuhNB240

What Federer lets his main rival do to him on Federer's own "turf" when his main rival is at the peak of his power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZkzH3z6M6c


The effort Graf puts up vs her main rival on her main rivals turf even at the peak of her main rivals power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGwSUoSlrr4

The effort Federer puts up vs his main rival on his main rivals turf at the peak of his main rivals power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilOKBCpii3U&feature=related

grafselesfan
09-19-2009, 11:05 PM
The only difference between Federer and Graf is that Federer did not have his career benefit hugely from a criminal act. Not that we know of, at least. Federer's "edge" over Sampras (last two slams) is built on No. 1 Nadal's sudden and tragic injury. And BTW your so-called "peak Seles" includes 15 year old Seles against prime Graf. And don't forget to focus on matches that count when you talk about pre-stabbing H2H.

Actually peak Seles I refer to was at 18 years old in 1992, yet where on Seles's turf she managed to barely escape with a 10-8 in the final set win and on Graf's turf she found herself humiliated 6-2, 6-1 . It didnt matter that Monica was #1, the great Graf simply has too much ability, determination and sheer pride to not go down without a huge fight even on her main rivals turf, and to do anything except destroy her and put her in her place on Graf's own turf. Contrast that to Federer in 2008 being humiliated on Nadal's turf 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 and even losing on his own turf in 5 sets in the Wimbledon final.

grafselesfan
09-19-2009, 11:32 PM
Look at their H2H this way:

=> 3 wins in 1989 - Graf was at her all time peak, while Seles was barely a 15 year old girl

=> 4 wins post stabbing - those wins mean nothing; Seles was nearly murdered with a knife by that countryman associate and was never going to be the same again

=> before the stabbing discounting 1989 - Seles led 4-3: 3 of Seles's 4 wins were slam finals where it really counted. 1 of Seles's 4 wins was a meaningless event, 2 of 3 of Graf's wins were also meaningless events. So that leaves Graf's only win as at Wimbledon which was tainted by the Seles grunting controversy where the All England Club threatened to bar her if she didn't stop grunting in the final. That was why she lost.

Prime Seles with no outside interference > prime Graf.

Actually their last 3 matches Graf was MORE past her prime than Seles. Graf was badly injured and about to retire. Graf was losing to clowns like Serna, Appelmans, Halard, Sugiyama, Frazier, who she never lost to during her prime. Seles wasnt hardly ever losing to anyone outside the top 5. Yet despite that Graf was clearly much further past her prime than Seles, Graf still won 2 of those 3 final meetings including the one on Seles's favorite surface of clay in the FO semis.

As for your cheesy excuse of the 92 Wimbledon final smackdown, ROTFFLLLLLLL!!! Only the blindest of fools tries to even seriously argue the grunting saga. That alone erodes any of the little credability of your argument. Monica is my 2nd favorite player but lets be real here. She isnt in Graf's planet on grass and never would have been. Even she knew she couldnt beat Graf at Wimbledon, it is why she wimped out of Wimbledon 91 without giving a suitable explanation until so late after the event opening she was fined by the WTA for it.

Lastly if we are going to make excuses all over the place, Graf in 91-92 was in one of her worst slumps ever. She lost 7 of 8 matches to Sabatini, a player of the Graf era who managed only 1 slam and who Graf totally dominated the rest of her career (22-4 outside of this period), lost 3 matches to Jana Novotna- a player she lost to only once the other 10 or so years of their mutual playing careers, lost twice to a mid 30s Navratilova who she had owned since 4 years earlier. Yet despite Graf being in the worst slump of her entire 10 year prime and Seles at her all time peak, Graf still played Seles virtually even in the head to head, never lost to her on a faster surface, beat her once on all surfaces, and destroyed Seles when they met on Graf's turf (cheesy lameass excuses aside). So there you go.

lawrence
09-19-2009, 11:33 PM
Federer fanatics are just so biased to Roger. Roger is a great player but he is not the undisputed greatest ever they make him out to be. He is not the male Steffi Graf or anything.

That goes both ways. Federer haters (ie: yourself) go out of their way to make Federer seem a lot worse than he is.

grafselesfan
09-19-2009, 11:37 PM
That goes both ways. Federer haters (ie: yourself) go out of their way to make Federer seem a lot worse than he is.

I admit I am hard on Federer at times. It is largely since a few of his fanatics are annoying though with their ignorance and lack of respect of many past greats. For example those that say things like Laver played in a country club league and would be destroyed if he played today, or devalueing the amazing feat of Borgs combined fast grass and clay court dominance.

flying24
09-19-2009, 11:44 PM
Federer's "edge" over Sampras (last two slams) is built on No. 1 Nadal's sudden and tragic injury.

What a BS statement but not surprising from someone who calls himself nadalboy. First of all Nadal could not have anywhere near the success he has without playing the way he does. And he cannot avoid inevitable injury playing the way he does. So winning the slams he has won, including the conquests over Federer in finals, and avoiding injuries like his ones this year eventually taking place all the same is not even a possability. He would have to be a better and cleaner ball striker, a more gifted offensive player, and a smoother more efficient player for that to have ever happened.

He was so injured at the French Open he only loses 1 or 2 games to Hewitt, a past his prime former champion not at home on clay yes, but a guy who has taken sets on more than one occasion off even prime Nadal on clay. The *********s were opening threads how he was unbeatable, how nobody could touch god Rafa at this years French, etc... and suddenly when he loses to Soderling poor Rafa is so hurt he cant even walk. As for Wimbledon he wins once in a deep 5th set and suddenly he is a lock to repeat there, LOL! I guess you are also going to say he only lost at the U.S Open due to injury, despite his 0 finals history. Being that I am noticing you bringing up the pathetic grunting excuse in an off topic Graf vs Seles debate it is already evident your excuse making and ignorance to logic sees no boundaries.

No I am not a ******* and I have even played down Federer and come to the defense of Nadal on some occasions past. However some of you *********s crack me up.

sunny_cali
09-19-2009, 11:56 PM
Yes and Fish, Stepanek, Karlovic, Blake, does this partial list of slam legends ring any bells?

when was the last time these guys beat Fed in Slams ? Other than Paes, everyone on my list beat Sampras in Slams, when he was in his prime. Ferreira (did'nt beat Sampras in Slams) actually lead the H2H, for a long time, finishing at 6-7 finally. One can easily make the brain-dead argument that if Wayne Ferreira can run Sampras so close, then everyone in the top 5 today should easily dispose of Sampras. But, things don't really work that way, do they ?

Sampras was great, but Fed is objectively better in terms of achievements. The rest is conjecture/woulda's /shoulda's which mean diddly squat. Fed leads the H2H 1-0, 15>14, 1 FO, case closed. Move on in life...

UsualSuspect
09-20-2009, 12:21 AM
The only difference between Federer and Graf is that Federer did not have his career benefit hugely from a criminal act. Not that we know of, at least. Federer's "edge" over Sampras (last two slams) is built on No. 1 Nadal's sudden and tragic injury. And BTW your so-called "peak Seles" includes 15 year old Seles against prime Graf. And don't forget to focus on matches that count when you talk about pre-stabbing H2H.
Sure and while we are at it, we should dock a few slams from Pete as well because his main rival, Andre Agassi, literally went of the radar for a period of almost 2 years and suffered a wrist injury. :roll:

UsualSuspect
09-20-2009, 12:23 AM
You're just a brain dead hypocrite, no need to rationalize your hatred for Federer. For example I readily admit Sampras would probably win a best of 10 matchup at SW19, something like 6-4 margin. This doesn't change the fact that Federer, is in my opinion, the best of all time right now. Or wait am I just a stupid Fed-****, as you're prone to call anyone who disagrees w/ you?

Yet you still make stupid statements like Prime Fed would stand no chance vs Prime Sampras. What does that make you, a stupid Samp-tard? Or just a stupid idiot? They're one and the same to me. ;)
Dr. Wood is a great poster who knows a ton more about tennis than GrafSelesfan yet he doest resort to make ignorant and unfair remarks about Federer and todays players. GSF thinks he is a guru because he is a Sampras fan.

Rabbit
09-20-2009, 06:41 AM
Wasnt he a 5 or 6 time defending champ?

I misspoke. Sampras was in a slump when he lost to Federer.


Petes serve comes back now a days, his backhand landed short when it landed in and he had poor stamina (blood disorder). He would be as effective against today players as he was on clay.

You and I didn't watch the same matches it would appear.

hoodjem
09-20-2009, 07:21 AM
So Federer, who's won 15 grand slams, 6 Wimbledons, and 65 consecutive matches on grass. Does this include Queens Club or Hamburg?

I thought his record at Wimbledon was 40 consecutive matches.?