PDA

View Full Version : Assessing Federer and Sampras


Laurie
12-09-2011, 04:15 PM
Slightly tricky article to write as Federer's career is not over, but the bulk of it has been completed so I thought I would give it a go, they have a lot of similarities yet a lot of differences. Read on....

The last 20 years have been a very interesting period for men’s tennis with two of the most prolific champions of the 1990s and 2000s overlapping each other. Both players had significant rivals and set many records along the way. With Roger Federer breaking yet another record at the year end ATP World Tour finals a couple of weeks ago, it will be interesting to assess how both players have helped to define their eras.

http://burnstennis.blogspot.com/2011/12/assessing-federer-and-sampras.html

droliver
12-09-2011, 04:32 PM
I think you miss it somewhat with your analysis. Sampras was a lot more of a flawed player (relatively speaking) compared to Federer as his game was largely dependent on the serve with significant vulnerability to lesser players, particularly on clay (see Blanco, Galo). By every metric, Federer has been both a higher level and more consistent player to some degree in an era with a higher overall level and more demanding style of play.

Mustard
12-09-2011, 04:37 PM
Sampras won Paris Indoors twice (1995 and 1997), not 3 times. Just thought I'd point that out :)

Edit: Also, Muster is 2-9 against Sampras, the two wins coming at 1995 Essen Indoors and 1998 Indian Wells.

BrooklynNY
12-09-2011, 05:00 PM
Nice write up

Both Pete and Roger are players cut from the same cloth, an extremely rare one.

Bobby Jr
12-09-2011, 05:11 PM
You also say about the Sampras era that "Grass was hard, fast and low bouncing and clay slow and high bouncing, fast balls were used on grass"

Grass in that era was soft, not hard. Hence the lower more skiddy bounces.

Also, "Federer’s trademark has been his forehand and serve, and exceptional movement which has allowed him to stay relatively injury free.." > I'm not sure his exceptional movement has contributed to him remaining injury free - in fact it's certainly the other way around: his ability to remain injury free has enabled him to have exceptional movement. He's just very lucky genetically and has his training techniques/amount down to a fine art, plus a dose of luck no doubt. His forehand may be a reason - since it has saved him a lot of extra running over the course of his career.

Laurie
12-10-2011, 04:34 AM
You also say about the Sampras era that "Grass was hard, fast and low bouncing and clay slow and high bouncing, fast balls were used on grass"

Grass in that era was soft, not hard. Hence the lower more skiddy bounces.

Also, "Federer’s trademark has been his forehand and serve, and exceptional movement which has allowed him to stay relatively injury free.." > I'm not sure his exceptional movement has contributed to him remaining injury free - in fact it's certainly the other way around: his ability to remain injury free has enabled him to have exceptional movement. He's just very lucky genetically and has his training techniques/amount down to a fine art, plus a dose of luck no doubt. His forehand may be a reason - since it has saved him a lot of extra running over the course of his career.

Thanks for that. I based my thoughts on the fact that 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997 had unusually hot early summers during those Wimbledons and the court was playing harder, aiding baseliners like Courier, Agassi, Malavai Washington and Chang who all made good Wimbledon runs in those years. (Chang got to the quarters or semis in 1994?) The centre court was also taking a good kick off the serve, Pat Cash mentioned that a lot during his time as commentator for the BBC, that helped the serving of Andre Agassi and Pat Rafter in particular who relied on kick serves, Pat Cash said that was because the court was hard. The courts were also more chopped up then than now so you got more bad and skiddy bounces as well.

I would say that the courts in 1999, 2000 and 2001 were at its best because the weather wasn't as hot and there was more rain, we got some great matches at Wimbledon in those 3 years, attackers and baseliners did well during this period.

Laurie
12-10-2011, 04:36 AM
Sampras won Paris Indoors twice (1995 and 1997), not 3 times. Just thought I'd point that out :)

Edit: Also, Muster is 2-9 against Sampras, the two wins coming at 1995 Essen Indoors and 1998 Indian Wells.

Cheers, I knew it was 9-2 so thanks for reminding me.

Mustard
12-10-2011, 07:51 AM
(Chang got to the quarters or semis in 1994?).

Yes, Chang lost to Sampras in the Wimbledon quarter finals in 1994.

mattennis
12-10-2011, 10:28 AM
Great article, Laurie.

Federer and Sampras are two truly amazing talented players that have defined these last two decades.

I watched last week the following five matches: Courier-Sampras Australian Open'94 SF, Courier-Sampras Miami'94 SF, Sampras-Korda Indian Wells' 94 Final, Agassi-Sampras Miami'94 Final, and Agassi-Sampras Miami'95 Final.

I almost had forgotten how much more of a baseliner Pete was back then. He almost never did serve and volley on second serves, so about 75% of the points in those matches were baseline rallies. And he was good at it (much much better than, say, Krajicek, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Forget, Ivanisevic....these players being not bad at all from the baseline in their own).

Actually Sampras did just everything in those matches: forehand lobs winners, backhand lobs winners, drop-shot winners, forehands, backhands, volleys, aces......just everything.

He truly changed his game around 1998, and started playing much like Rafter, Rusedski or Edberg, serve and volleying even on second serve and chip and charge on the return.

And more, yesterday I watched Ivanisevic-Sampras Indianapolis'96 Final, on fast hardcourt, and neither did serve and volleys on second serve, so about 50% of the points were baseline rallies as well.

It is amazing that so many people say that in the 90s there were no baseline rallies.

Most players were baseline players back then, and even players like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich, Philippoussis....only did serve and volley on second serve when playing on grass or on a very fast indoor carpet. If they were playing on hardcourt, and against a baseliner, 75% of the points were baseline rallies (that ended with a baseline winner or with one the players coming in after serveral baseline shots).

There's more, on clay, many of them stayed back even on first serve.

So that saying of "in the 90s there were no baseline rallies" is just completely untrue. Most of the season were played on hardcourt and on clay, and most players played baseline rallies and/or all-court game there.

Only on grass and some indoor carpet tournament, some players (and they were a minority even back then) did serve and volley on first and second serve.

I've been re-watching many matches from the 80s and first half of the 90s the last few months, and now I realize how much more fun tennis was in that period. There were all kind of games, styles, and finesse and touch.

I truly believe it started to look bad only at the end of the 90s, when too much power on serve and baseline shots started to change tennis into some kind of "gambling game", "hit or miss", and all that beautiful tennis from past years slowly disappeared.

Federer, with his extremely beautiful game, has been the savior of the last decade.

When he actually leave tennis, I don't know what will happen, but it can look very ugly.

I love tennis, but I miss profoundly that period of mid-80s-to-mid 90s where the variety of players like McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Cash, Noah, Mecir, Becker, Edberg, Leconte, Gomez, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Agenor, Perez-Roldan, Mancini, Muster, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Novacek, Korda, Forget, Rafter,... was truly amazing.

Devilito
12-10-2011, 10:33 AM
Federer, with his extremely beautiful game, has been the savior of the last decade.

When he actually leave tennis, I don't know what will happen, but it can look very ugly.



Strap yourself in for the wild and exciting ride that will be the “Nadal / Djokovic Rivalry’” consisting of match after match of 40 ball rallies and the winner decided by who dies first on court due to exhaustion. Great eh?

Mustard
12-10-2011, 11:19 AM
It was always at Wimbledon and that we would hear the "big serves, no rallies" criticisms in the 1990s, and to a lesser extent on carpet. If I recall correctly, John Lloyd advocated around the year 2000 that Wimbledon should get rid of grass altogether.

urban
12-10-2011, 11:31 AM
Agree with Mattennis, Sampras was originally more of a baseliner in the Lendl mode, although with softer hands. He could outrally people like Courier and Agassi on medium hard courts in long baseline duels. In his prime year 1994 he dominated the hard court circuit in the US and Asia. Wasn't there a record rally on set point in the Sampras-Agassi USO final 1995.
The indoor game was a different matter: I recall some matches with Becker and Goran, or Sampras and Becker or Stich at Frankfurt or Hannover, when the rallies consisted only of one or two points, the serve and serve game dominated and almost all sets ended in tiebreakers. And some Wim matches like the 1994 Wim final were no fun to watch, they should have begun in the tiebreaker, would have been more interesting to watch.

Laurie
12-10-2011, 11:54 AM
Agree with Mattennis, Sampras was originally more of a baseliner in the Lendl mode, although with softer hands. He could outrally people like Courier and Agassi on medium hard courts in long baseline duels. In his prime year 1994 he dominated the hard court circuit in the US and Asia. Wasn't there a record rally on set point in the Sampras-Agassi USO final 1995.
The indoor game was a different matter: I recall some matches with Becker and Goran, or Sampras and Becker or Stich at Frankfurt or Hannover, when the rallies consisted only of one or two points, the serve and serve game dominated and almost all sets ended in tiebreakers. And some Wim matches like the 1994 Wim final were no fun to watch, they should have begun in the tiebreaker, would have been more interesting to watch.

Hi Urban

Sampras and Becker played some great matches on indoor carpet which had lots of rallies, Sampras liked to stay back on 2nd serve on indoor carpet during that period. As this last point of the 96 ATP final illustrates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8lo1SFxyIA

Laurie
12-10-2011, 12:00 PM
Great article, Laurie.

Federer and Sampras are two truly amazing talented players that have defined these last two decades.

I watched last week the following five matches: Courier-Sampras Australian Open'94 SF, Courier-Sampras Miami'94 SF, Sampras-Korda Indian Wells' 94 Final, Agassi-Sampras Miami'94 Final, and Agassi-Sampras Miami'95 Final.

I almost had forgotten how much more of a baseliner Pete was back then. He almost never did serve and volley on second serves, so about 75% of the points in those matches were baseline rallies. And he was good at it (much much better than, say, Krajicek, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Forget, Ivanisevic....these players being not bad at all from the baseline in their own).

Actually Sampras did just everything in those matches: forehand lobs winners, backhand lobs winners, drop-shot winners, forehands, backhands, volleys, aces......just everything.

He truly changed his game around 1998, and started playing much like Rafter, Rusedski or Edberg, serve and volleying even on second serve and chip and charge on the return.

And more, yesterday I watched Ivanisevic-Sampras Indianapolis'96 Final, on fast hardcourt, and neither did serve and volleys on second serve, so about 50% of the points were baseline rallies as well.

It is amazing that so many people say that in the 90s there were no baseline rallies.

Most players were baseline players back then, and even players like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich, Philippoussis....only did serve and volley on second serve when playing on grass or on a very fast indoor carpet. If they were playing on hardcourt, and against a baseliner, 75% of the points were baseline rallies (that ended with a baseline winner or with one the players coming in after serveral baseline shots).

There's more, on clay, many of them stayed back even on first serve.

So that saying of "in the 90s there were no baseline rallies" is just completely untrue. Most of the season were played on hardcourt and on clay, and most players played baseline rallies and/or all-court game there.

Only on grass and some indoor carpet tournament, some players (and they were a minority even back then) did serve and volley on first and second serve.

I've been re-watching many matches from the 80s and first half of the 90s the last few months, and now I realize how much more fun tennis was in that period. There were all kind of games, styles, and finesse and touch.

I truly believe it started to look bad only at the end of the 90s, when too much power on serve and baseline shots started to change tennis into some kind of "gambling game", "hit or miss", and all that beautiful tennis from past years slowly disappeared.

Federer, with his extremely beautiful game, has been the savior of the last decade.

When he actually leave tennis, I don't know what will happen, but it can look very ugly.

I love tennis, but I miss profoundly that period of mid-80s-to-mid 90s where the variety of players like McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Cash, Noah, Mecir, Becker, Edberg, Leconte, Gomez, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Agenor, Perez-Roldan, Mancini, Muster, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Novacek, Korda, Forget, Rafter,... was truly amazing.

Indeed, Sampras' game really did go through some stages, three stages as I identified in the article.

And as for Federer, even non Federer fans will concede that when he retires, tennis is in danger of just becomming a physical game where natural talent is no longer the most important factor. Flair players like Tsonga and Gasquet haven't been able to break through, Dmitrov so far looks not to have the inner belief to become one of the best, maybe that may change in the next year or two who knows.

urban
12-10-2011, 12:00 PM
Hi Laurie,
yes i recall this point. But in the other 4 sets, serve prevailed, and there were very few breaks of serve or break points at all. Not that those serve contests were not electric. The Boris-Goran semi in 1991 or so at Frankfurt, had the public on their feet. It was a brutal war of wills, with Boris excelling in front of his public.

Laurie
12-10-2011, 12:36 PM
Hi Laurie,
yes i recall this point. But in the other 4 sets, serve prevailed, and there were very few breaks of serve or break points at all. Not that those serve contests were not electric. The Boris-Goran semi in 1991 or so at Frankfurt, had the public on their feet. It was a brutal war of wills, with Boris excelling in front of his public.

I watched the 1996 Hanover final a few weeks ago for the first time since 2006 when I transferred it to DVD and I was pleasantly surprised by the level of tennis from the backcourt and the forecourt by both players. For some reason I always preferred the 1994 final in Frankfurt, probably because that match had no tiebreaks. I prefer lots of breaks in matches and had forgotten that even though there were hardly any breaks, the tennis was amazing - much like the 2001 US Open quarterfinal.

mattennis
12-10-2011, 02:25 PM
Strap yourself in for the wild and exciting ride that will be the “Nadal / Djokovic Rivalry’” consisting of match after match of 40 ball rallies and the winner decided by who dies first on court due to exhaustion. Great eh?

jaja, that reminds me of the third set of this year USOPEN Final.

Don't get me wrong, it was amazing in itself. An incredible feat of human physical endurance. But, as you say, no one can expect players running and fighting like that, with amazing 30-something powerful and extremely heavy shots rallies one after one, for an entire gruelling match, and being able to stay healthy at the same time.

Seriously, I was very worried for Nadal in that fourth set, I saw him so physically empty that I could easily see him falling to the floor unconscious.

Fortunately both players could finish the match, but I think that was a sample of something that is not going well in the whole picture (about the direction tennis is heading).

droliver
12-10-2011, 04:43 PM
Hi Urban

Sampras and Becker played some great matches on indoor carpet which had lots of rallies, Sampras liked to stay back on 2nd serve on indoor carpet during that period. As this last point of the 96 ATP final illustrates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8lo1SFxyIA


While I can appreciate those guys playing high-level tennis, that video makes for very unappealing watching and should remind you why people complained about 1990's tennis on fast courts. Too choppy, like watching a doubles match. As a spectator, this pales in comparison to a slug-fest like this years US OPEN semifinals and finals.

Sid_Vicious
12-10-2011, 05:23 PM
Strap yourself in for the wild and exciting ride that will be the “Nadal / Djokovic Rivalry’” consisting of match after match of 40 ball rallies and the winner decided by who dies first on court due to exhaustion. Great eh?

I prefer Federer and Sampras's style of play, but you can't deny that Nadal and Djokovic played some amazing tennis in the final. The crowd was going crazy. Every point was war.

vive le beau jeu !
12-11-2011, 04:30 AM
Sampras won Paris Indoors twice (1995 and 1997), not 3 times. Just thought I'd point that out :)

Edit: Also, Muster is 2-9 against Sampras, the two wins coming at 1995 Essen Indoors and 1998 Indian Wells.
another detail: sampras is not 3-5 but 2-3 against bruguera.
3 of those 5 matches were played on clay...
(can't believe bruguera out-aced sampras in their RG match... are the ATP website stats correct for that match ?!)

the sod could be also added to the list of roger's rivals...

droliver
12-11-2011, 08:30 AM
I prefer Federer and Sampras's style of play, but you can't deny that Nadal and Djokovic played some amazing tennis in the final. The crowd was going crazy. Every point was war.

That was some sick hitting in that USO match with amazing defense and movement being played point after point. Absolutely beautiful and brutal tennis at the highest level. You really can't imagine Sampras being able or wanting to try and engage in that for long. I'd presume he'd just check out of it at 1st chance (low % winner attempt or chip & charge) to conserve energy and just dig in on his service games to try and steal a set in tie breakers. It worked well for him with such a good serve, but it makes very un-compelling points more often then not.

Laurie
12-11-2011, 05:22 PM
That was some sick hitting in that USO match with amazing defense and movement being played point after point. Absolutely beautiful and brutal tennis at the highest level. You really can't imagine Sampras being able or wanting to try and engage in that for long. I'd presume he'd just check out of it at 1st chance (low % winner attempt or chip & charge) to conserve energy and just dig in on his service games to try and steal a set in tie breakers. It worked well for him with such a good serve, but it makes very un-compelling points more often then not.

Sampras v Corretja US Open 1996?

And what about Sampras v Courier coming from two sets down in the 1995 Australian Open? That was brutal hitting and Sampras stayed with it till the end, no matter how long it took, in a stage of his career where chip and charge was not part of his strategy.

I would point out that the US Open final this year was so brutal that both particpants seem traumatised and absolutely knackered 3 months after the match took place. I remember the first 3 games alone took over 30 minutes. That is unsustainable.

droliver
12-11-2011, 05:52 PM
And what about Sampras v Courier coming from two sets down in the 1995 Australian Open? That was brutal hitting and Sampras stayed with it till the end, no matter how long it took, in a stage of his career where chip and charge was not part of his strategy.

Watch a clip of that 1995 AO match on youtube. Lots of very short points. You can go games or sets and not see a rally of 6-7 shots in a Sampras match. It was an effective strategy for him because he held serve almost 90% of the time, but it doesn't make for very interesting points on TV for the casual fan.

Funny, I remember watching that match on ESPN years ago in the middle of the night thinking how hard it looked like they were hitting. Now it looks like they're playing 3/4 speed in terms of court coverage compared to Novak and Rafa.

sportsfan1
12-11-2011, 05:56 PM
I enjoyed reading this article! Interesting to see that Sampras leads in the head to head against almost everyone that's listed, and is also very close to even against the one's he doesn't, such as Stich.
That's perhaps leads into another possible and interesting section for this article - list of players in their era's that posed most problems to Pete and Fed respectively, and why. Did they ever manage to find solutions and how (e.g. Fed vs Nalbandian early on, but maybe it had more to do with Nalbandian's injuries etc)? Example, in the case of Fed vs Nadal, its the well known high topspin to the 1hbh. You do touch upon this briefly but there can be more meat to it.

Mustard
12-11-2011, 06:31 PM
Sampras has losing records against a few players. Stich, Bruguera and Krajicek come to mind. And Bastl ;)

DjokovicForTheWin
12-11-2011, 06:50 PM
Sampras has losing records against a few players. Stich, Bruguera and Krajicek come to mind. And Bastl ;)

Wow and those players are not even in the upper echelon of greats.

ClairHarmony
12-11-2011, 10:01 PM
Wow and those players are not even in the upper echelon of greats.

This is very deceiving. The 90s were fraught with what Moose has quite accurately termed "half-time champions."

Stich, Krajicek, and Bruguera were in the upper tier of talent. Don't let Bruguera's extre grips fool you, take that away and you have a man who was for certain up there in terms of raw ability. His passes were at times from another planet. In the 97 Lipton, note that Cliff and Patrick were NOT surprised that Bruguera was taking it to Sampras, or even that he beat him...their comments were more along the lines of, "Don't let his ranking fool you...he's a MUCH better play than that...," and "WHEN fit and healthy, and feeling good about himself, Bruguera can be a GREAT competitor...," but when he's not?

That's how a small but sizeable handful of guys from that generation were. They were NOT *intimidated* by the "legend" type guys like Sampras and Agassi. The question, however, was always were they HEALTHY and/or MOTIVATED. Because, it was truly a half-azzed era. Talent was up there with the best, it really was not that surprising that they could on any given day match the very best in terms of talent...what would be surprising is if they could KEEP IT UP with any consistency.

Basically, it was like a bunch of BJ Penn's running in and out of the ranks...on any given day, they could "call Sampras' bluff," but over a career? NO WAY. They didn't have the day-to-day fortitude that is required, or their bodies simply proved to be too fragile to stand up to the rigors of tour life.

The difference between then and now is that now everyone's afraid of the top guns. They defer to them, pay homage to them, want to be buddy-buddies with them...but try and k.o. their teeth to the moon? Not a chance...they're lacking seriously in chutzppa.

Ask Bruguera and Stich who they think is the best of all time, and they won't hesistate...oh, Rogie is da greatest, I can't stop licking his strawberry shortcake shoelaces...then, ask them, what would you be thinking if you got them on your surface of choice? And, then they immediately start chopming on the shoelaces, and say, "I would be thinking, I would beat him." Without any hesitation, Stich thinks out loud, I would be thinking, I'mmma gonna beat you up on grass.

And you know? That's really a PREREQUISITE if you are to have ANY hope of derailing such greatness. Guys like Rios, Bruguera, Stich, Korda, Krajicek, Medvedeve, so on and so forth, had the mentality that I can beat anyone on any given day. They'll huff and puff, oh, "the guy should consider himself lucky, if even wins a few games," or whatever Rios once said of facing peak Muster on clay. Then, he went out and backed up the talk...*for a day*. That's how it was with those guys. On any given day, they were *quite* confident in their ability to take out ANYONE. The problem with them was always that they had nowhere near the same confidence in themselves to do it day-after-day given the unyielding, grinding, nature of tour LIFE.

It's an entirely different animal when you add that aspect to the equation. Sampras, in particular, was so single-minded that he was able to put up with it better than his "rivals." He actually had quite a few of them, the only problem was that while those guys could never sustain their motivation or stay out of the sick ward...he *could*. ...and so he did. It's no mystery.

The 90s was an exciting time, because there were so many more guys who could act, talk, and play like a real champion...but, unfortunately, not for very long. These days, it's ALWAYS the same guys...and then everybody else. The "other" guys, it almost feels like they're not even there.

Basically, tennis these days feels like it's filled with "jobbers." Guys who don't believe in themselves enough to win a big one, against one of the living "legends" when it matters most. In pro wrestling, you have your "mainstay" "championship caliber" champions like Cena, Hogan, The Rock, Macho Man, or whoever else, etc. The promotion is consistently built around them, but this does NOT mean that you don't have room for the occasional flash of lightning, fresh of breath air, impromptu champion for a day type...who joins the promotion for a few months, wins the belt for a day at a PPV, and it's "believeable" enough, and then they kind of just dissapear back into the woodlands again. They're not really *franchise champions* per say, but they sure are a nice change of pace from the monotony of watching the same big three winning everything in sight until the end of the world. To me, that's boring. REALLY boring.

The 90s was a stock market era of ups and downs, big crashes, and arousing areolas...I mean, rises. Lots of up and downs, was cool. What good is watching surfing, if the Joker can't throw us for a loop by winning every once in a while, carrying his own utility built once in a while that can match Batman's tit-for-tat? What good would an ocea be without any waves, and sharks (fate) to randomly take a bite out of the competition? Oh, no, mayday, mayday...Bruguera and Krajicek down, in the waters, one shark has taken a nibble off Bruguera's ankle, the other Krajicek's elbow...good thing they're good buddies, bosom buddies even, where am I going with this? I don't know. But they was injured a lot. It's not talent that they lacked, it was resolve...and bones made out of titanium, not twigs.

Russeljones
12-11-2011, 10:16 PM
in an era with a higher overall level and more demanding style of play.

Huh? Where do you get this from?

Nathaniel_Near
12-11-2011, 10:37 PM
Sampras v Corretja US Open 1996?

And what about Sampras v Courier coming from two sets down in the 1995 Australian Open? That was brutal hitting and Sampras stayed with it till the end, no matter how long it took, in a stage of his career where chip and charge was not part of his strategy.

I would point out that the US Open final this year was so brutal that both particpants seem traumatised and absolutely knackered 3 months after the match took place. I remember the first 3 games alone took over 30 minutes. That is unsustainable.

The US Open 2011 Final looks better than it is. Many points could have been ended much earlier and actually Djokovic is so confident in the match-up that he often played a very safe and containing game, constantly aiming to seek the Nadal backhand, and not going after kill-shots with 100% conviction often until very late in rallies. Players like Sampras and Federer offer absolute answers on the court which bypass the need for an extra 10 impressive stroke because ONE super impressive stroke already ended the rally.

Mustard
12-12-2011, 07:42 AM
It's certainly true about the 1990s. There were plenty of players who would believe on their day that they could beat anybody, but they just didn't have the consistency to get to number 1. I just can't imagine players from the 1990s being as awestruck by the top guys as today's players seem to be. Sampras didn't intimidate them, even though he was achieving far more than them. Players like Ivanisevic, Bruguera, Yzaga, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado etc. could and did beat Sampras on the biggest stages.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 08:01 AM
It's impossible to speak about a player's beliefs without pulling things out of your asss.

Mustard
12-12-2011, 08:03 AM
It's impossible to speak about a player's beliefs without pulling things out of your asss.

Nonsense. The point is that people wouldn't be all THAT surprised if say, Bruguera beat Sampras in Miami, like in the 1997 semi finals.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 08:06 AM
Nonsense. The point is that people wouldn't be all THAT surprised if say, Bruguera beat Sampras in Miami, like in the 1997 semi finals.

Who are these 'people'? Did you poll them? Or again pulling things out of your....

Mustard
12-12-2011, 08:11 AM
Who are these 'people'? Did you poll them? Or again pulling things out of your....

The pundits and commentators.

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 08:15 AM
It's certainly true about the 1990s. There were plenty of players who would believe on their day that they could beat anybody, but they just didn't have the consistency to get to number 1. I just can't imagine players from the 1990s being as awestruck by the top guys as today's players seem to be. Sampras didn't intimidate them, even though he was achieving far more than them. Players like Ivanisevic, Bruguera, Yzaga, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado etc. could and did beat Sampras on the biggest stages.

Two players should be compared only if they're in the same league -- Fed is in a higher one than Pete, so the comparison is moot.

Re: the bolded, Federer raised the bar significantly (IMO, he was the first one to be a great attacker AND a defender), while Sampras did not. For starters, Sampras was not as consistent as Federer, so he provided a lot of opportunities for the lower ranked ones to beat him, and hence the lesser "intimidation" factor. Agassi put it best when he said that there was place to go to when one is playing Pete, but none existed when playing Federer. Safin said Fed = Pete + Agassi, so it's only natural that the lower ranked ones are awestruck by Federer.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 08:28 AM
The pundits and commentators.

LOL, talk about nonsense. example: Didn't Wilander say Fed was not in decline? The only reason those other players could and did beat Sampras on the big stage was because he was not as good as Federer.

celoft
12-12-2011, 08:32 AM
It's certainly true about the 1990s. There were plenty of players who would believe on their day that they could beat anybody, but they just didn't have the consistency to get to number 1. I just can't imagine players from the 1990s being as awestruck by the top guys as today's players seem to be. Sampras didn't intimidate them, even though he was achieving far more than them. Players like Ivanisevic, Bruguera, Yzaga, Schaller, Philippoussis, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado etc. could and did beat Sampras on the biggest stages.

Two words: Surface homogenization. The top 4 will rarely suffer an upset at the slams these days. Murray made at least the SF at all 4 slams this year.:shock:

Sampras was mediocre on clay, though.:oops:

jackson vile
12-12-2011, 08:34 AM
Two words: Surface homgenization. The top 4 will rarely suffer an upset at the slams these days.

That is right, since 2001.

helloworld
12-12-2011, 08:38 AM
Two players should be compared only if they're in the same league -- Fed is in a higher one than Pete, so the comparison is moot.



Wow, did you pull that one out of your own a-s-s? :oops:

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 08:41 AM
Wow, did you pull that one out of your own a-s-s? :oops:

wow, didn't know that ATP maintained records in my a-s-s. thanks for the heads-up.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 08:41 AM
Wow, did you pull that one out of your own a-s-s? :oops:

Check the data.

helloworld
12-12-2011, 08:48 AM
wow, didn't know that ATP maintained records in my a-s-s. thanks for the heads-up.
So winning a couple more slams makes one an entire league higher?? Not a chance.

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 08:51 AM
So winning a couple more slams makes one an entire league higher?? Not a chance.

you sure pulled this out of your a-s-s.

One word: CLAY

helloworld
12-12-2011, 08:55 AM
Check the data.

Just for the record, Federer still hasn't break many of Pete's amazing records, namely;
-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)
-7 Wimbledon
-US Open Record(still tied)

Now you still think Fed is an entire league higher than Pete? :oops:

DRII
12-12-2011, 09:13 AM
I think you miss it somewhat with your analysis. Sampras was a lot more of a flawed player (relatively speaking) compared to Federer as his game was largely dependent on the serve with significant vulnerability to lesser players, particularly on clay (see Blanco, Galo). By every metric, Federer has been both a higher level and more consistent player to some degree in an era with a higher overall level and more demanding style of play.

Absolutely not!

Samprsas' era had much more depth than Federer's. As a matter of fact Federer won a slew of slams with sub-par competition before Nadal strived on more than just clay, or Nole came of age, or Murray started to play well (even though he's still weak at the slams when it comes to facing Federer).

And there's no way Federer out classes Sampras on every level or metric. I do agree Federer is more of a complete player but his serve and athleticism at the net pale in comparison!

celoft
12-12-2011, 09:22 AM
So winning a couple more slams makes one an entire league higher?? Not a chance.

I liked Sampras but Federer has reached 5 RG finals, gives him the edge. Plus he won 2 more slams and RG.

helloworld
12-12-2011, 09:32 AM
I liked Sampras but Federer has reached 5 RG finals, gives him the edge. Plus he won 2 more slams and RG.

If Fed has won those 5 Finals, I'd have given him a clear edge, but he didn't. He failed to make history. He could have won multiple CYGS, but he didn't. In the end, it's not about what if, what should be. It's what you have won that counts. Federer isn't even as good as Kuerten was on clay. That's the fact that has been proven during one of Federer's best year.

TMF
12-12-2011, 09:34 AM
Just for the record, Federer still hasn't break many of Pete's amazing records, namely;
-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)
-7 Wimbledon
-US Open Record(still tied)

Now you still think Fed is an entire league higher than Pete? :oops:
Check the data.


What DjokovicForTheWin meant was check these data...

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 16
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
4. Rafael Nadal 10
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
5. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
7. Rafael Nadal 14
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
5. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3

GS semi-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 31
2. Roger Federer 29
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
10. Rafael Nadal 15

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Ivan Lendl 6
= Novak Djokovic 6
5. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
= Nadal 5
8. Rod Laver 4
9. Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4


All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Roger Federer 48
3. Feliciano Lopez 39
4. David Ferrer 37
5. Fernando Verdasco 34
6. Tomas Berdych 33
7. Albert Montanes 21
8. Philipp Kohlschreiber 29
9. Nicolas Almagro 28
10. Novak Djokovic 28

Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Jimmy Connors 233 wins
2. Roger Federer 228
3. Andre Agassi 224 wins
4. Ivan Lendl 222 wins
5. Pete Sampras 204 wins[/QUOTE]

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Roger Federer 285
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

helloworld
12-12-2011, 09:39 AM
What DjokovicForTheWin meant was check these data...


GS finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
5. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
7. Rafael Nadal 14
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
5. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3

GS semi-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 31
2. Roger Federer 29
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
10. Rafael Nadal 15

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Ivan Lendl 6
= Novak Djokovic 6
5. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
= Nadal 5
8. Rod Laver 4
9. Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4



All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

So Now semi finals and finals are records to brag about as well?? Should we have records for being number 2 and number 3 in the world too? I'm sure Nadal would win that one hands down. :lol:

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 09:49 AM
Just for the record, Federer still hasn't break many of Pete's amazing records, namely;
-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)
-7 Wimbledon
-US Open Record(still tied)

Now you still think Fed is an entire league higher than Pete? :oops:

TMFs post FTW.

Here's the deal: In ALL records that sampras holds, Federer is very close or has equalled him. In MANY records that Federer holds, there's a country mile separating Federer and Sampras.

Oh, and I forgot: CLAY

TMF
12-12-2011, 09:51 AM
So Now semi finals and finals are records to brag about as well?? Should we have records for being number 2 and number 3 in the world too? I'm sure Nadal would win that one hands down. :lol:

I just gave you the stats that overshadowed Sampras which you can't dispute.

The semifinals record is among the greatest record of all time.


"It's just ridiculous," Lendl added. "There is no other way to say it. You can't explain it to people, it's just absurd. "It says," Lendl mused, "how much better he is than anybody else."

"It's pretty safe to say," said ESPN analyst Darren Cahill, "it's one record that will never be broken."



"The consistency of his play is amazing," Higueras said. "I would put it up with any major run in any sport ever. He is hitting so easy and so winning so much, you tend to overlook the streak."

• Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak in 1941 for the New York Yankees. Pete Rose's 44 games is second on the all-time list.

• Edwin Moses' 107 consecutive victories in 400-meter intermediate hurdles finals. The American went 9 years, 9 months and 9 days without a loss before falling to Danny Harris in 1987.

• Cael Sanderson's 159-0 wrestling career at Iowa State. He remains the only undefeated wrestler in college history, winning three NCAA titles at 184 pounds and one at 197.

• The Edmonton Oilers' Wayne Gretzky's streak of scoring at least a goal or an assist in 51 straight games in 1983-84.

• Orel Hershiser's run of 59 consecutive scoreless innings in 1988 for the Los Angeles Dodgers.

• Russia's Greco-Roman super heavyweight wrestler Alexander Karelin went 13 years without losing a match -- a full decade without surrendering a point -- before losing to Rulon Gardner at the Sydney Olympics.

Federer's semis streak among greatest (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen09/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4458857)

helloworld
12-12-2011, 09:52 AM
TMFs post FTW.

Here's the deal: In ALL records that sampras holds, Federer is very close or has equalled him. In MANY records that Federer holds, there's a country mile separating Federer and Sampras.

Oh, and I forgot: CLAY

How is ANY of Federer's credible record a country mile from Sampras? Oh, did you mean the semi-finals and finals record?? Sampras doesn't care for **** for those records. It only proved that you were a loser(Nadal's lapdog), many many times. :lol:

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 09:54 AM
Just for the record, Federer still hasn't break many of Pete's amazing records, namely;
-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)
-7 Wimbledon
-US Open Record(still tied)

Now you still think Fed is an entire league higher than Pete? :oops:

Wow I didn't realize it was so few records Pete was clinging onto! Thanks for clearing that up. I'd ask you to list Fed's records for comparison, but I imagine there is a word limit on the posts ;)

celoft
12-12-2011, 09:55 AM
If Fed has won those 5 Finals, I'd have given him a clear edge, but he didn't. He failed to make history. He could have won multiple CYGS, but he didn't. In the end, it's not about what if, what should be. It's what you have won that counts. Federer isn't even as good as Kuerten was on clay. That's the fact that has been proven during one of Federer's best year.

Problem is Pete never reached a RG final. Not even once.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 09:56 AM
So Now semi finals and finals are records to brag about as well?? Should we have records for being number 2 and number 3 in the world too? I'm sure Nadal would win that one hands down. :lol:

That's fine, remove those records, and Fed still destroys Pete overall. And as someone else pointed out, in any record that Pete still clings to, Fed is like 1 behind :) LOL. Game set match ;)

helloworld
12-12-2011, 09:57 AM
Wow I didn't realize it was so few records Pete was clinging onto! Thanks for clearing that up. I'd ask you to list Fed's records for comparison, but I imagine there is a word limit on the posts ;)

Oh, this guy must be talking about semis-finals record as well. Why didn't he win? Oh, I forgot. He was Nadal's lapdog for so long! :lol:

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 09:57 AM
How is ANY of Federer's credible record a country mile from Sampras? Oh, did you mean the semi-finals and finals record?? Sampras doesn't care for **** for those records. It only proved that you were a loser(Nadal's lapdog), many many times. :lol:

may be, but the rest do. so go back to your cave.

Here's a record that's a country mile ahead:
- 237 consecutive weeks @ #1 vs 102

and another one:
- 1 FO + 5 MS titles on clay vs ZERO FO (best SF) + 1 MS title on clay

It's better to be a lapdog of a GOAT on a surface, than be a b!tch of many journeymen. Or is it the other way round in your Pete cave?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 09:58 AM
Oh, this guy must be talking about semis-finals record as well. Why didn't he win? Oh, I forgot. He was Nadal's lapdog for so long! :lol:

No disregard all the semi-finals and streaks. Sampras even then comes a distant third to Nadal, no?

mattennis
12-12-2011, 10:04 AM
When a player is 10 years older than the other (like Sampras and Federer), or 11 years older (like Lendl and Sampras), they are from different eras. You can not say who would have been better or who would have achieved more had they been the same age and competed with the same players and conditions.

You can only say who achieved more in his own time, and it says that Federer in his era has achieved a bit more than Sampras in his era, who achieved a bit more than Lendl in his era (taking these three players for example).

But that in no way implies that had these three players been the same age, Federer would achieve more than Sampras and Sampras more than Lendl. It simply hasn't happened.

That is why you can only compare players who faced the same competition and the same tennis conditions.

The same with Laver or Rosewall. They achieved, in their time, probably more than any other tennis player (about 20 Majors or more, each one, and more than one hundred titles overall each one).

Does that mean that Laver and Rosewall were "better" than Lendl, or Sampras, or Borg, or Federer (because they achieved more)?

It is a stupid question, because you are talking about players that never faced the same field of conditions-competition.

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 10:08 AM
When a player is 10 years older than the other (like Sampras and Federer), or 11 years older (like Lendl and Sampras), they are from different eras. You can not say who would have been better or who would have achieved more had they been the same age and competed with the same players and conditions.

You can only say who achieved more in his own time, and it says that Federer in his era has achieved a bit more than Sampras in his era, who achieved a bit more than Lendl in his era (taking these three players for example).

But that in no way implies that had these three players been the same age, Federer would achieve more than Sampras and Sampras more than Lendl. It simply hasn't happened.

That is why you can only compare players who faced the same competition and the same tennis conditions.

The same with Laver or Rosewall. They achieved, in their time, probably more than any other tennis player (about 20 Majors or more, each one, and more than one hundred titles overall each one).

Does that mean that Laver and Rosewall were "better" than Lendl, or Sampras, or Borg, or Federer (because they achieved more)?

It is a stupid question, because you are talking about players that never faced the same field of conditions-competition.

who achieved more is not the same as who would win in their primes/peak etc?

If you stand by your argument, then you'd have no problem admitting that one could not truly claim Pete Sampras is greater than Thimo De Bakker?

helloworld
12-12-2011, 10:10 AM
When a player is 10 years older than the other (like Sampras and Federer), or 11 years older (like Lendl and Sampras), they are from different eras. You can not say who would have been better or who would have achieved more had they been the same age and competed with the same players and conditions.

You can only say who achieved more in his own time, and it says that Federer in his era has achieved a bit more than Sampras in his era, who achieved a bit more than Lendl in his era (taking these three players for example).

But that in no way implies that had these three players been the same age, Federer would achieve more than Sampras and Sampras more than Lendl. It simply hasn't happened.

That is why you can only compare players who faced the same competition and the same tennis conditions.

The same with Laver or Rosewall. They achieved, in their time, probably more than any other tennis player (about 20 Majors or more, each one, and more than one hundred titles overall each one).

Does that mean that Laver and Rosewall were "better" than Lendl, or Sampras, or Borg, or Federer (because they achieved more)?

It is a stupid question, because you are talking about players that never faced the same field of conditions-competition.

You just nailed it. The only reason that Federer made so many finals was because only one player can play on Clay in this era(Nadal). If Federer were playing against KUERTEN, BRUGUERA, MUSTER, KAFELNIKOV he'd have struggled. Different eras just makes it hard to compare achievements. Fed didn't have to face to opponents that Pete had to face. I'll agree that Fed is only the best in this current era. But the GOAT? Not a chance.

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 10:12 AM
You just nailed it. The only reason that Federer made so many finals was because only one player can play on Clay in this era(Nadal). If Federer were playing against KUERTEN, BRUGUERA, MUSTER, KAFELNIKOV he'd have struggled. Different eras just makes it hard to compare achievements. Fed didn't have to face to opponents that Pete had to face. I'll agree that Fed is only the best in this current era. But the GOAT? Not a chance.

please list the names that beat Pete at the FO? I'm interested to know..:twisted:

Laurie
12-12-2011, 10:18 AM
Ah, it looks like this thread is about to descend into a free for all, I suppose that always happens when the names Federer and Sampras are mentioned in the same sentence. That's a pity, it started so well but I suppose it's inevitable on a forum.

Thanks to everyone who made interesting replies over the weekend.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 10:21 AM
Agreed, Federer and Sampras should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 10:25 AM
Agreed, Federer and Sampras should not be mentioned in the same sentence.
+1. That was my whole point.

TMF
12-12-2011, 10:28 AM
Saying Federer and Sampras are in the same sentence is like saying Jordan and Kobe, or Phelps and Spitz are in the same sentence.

Mustard
12-12-2011, 12:15 PM
Two words: Surface homogenization. The top 4 will rarely suffer an upset at the slams these days. Murray made at least the SF at all 4 slams this year.:shock:

Sampras was mediocre on clay, though.:oops:

There's still plenty of differences between the different surfaces, just not as drastic as it was in the 1990s.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 12:29 PM
There's still plenty of differences between the different surfaces, just not as drastic as it was in the 1990s.

Yes but somehow Agassi managed to win all slams on all surfaces when they were not homogenized, yet Pete could not.

Mustard
12-12-2011, 12:32 PM
please list the names that beat Pete at the FO? I'm interested to know..:twisted:

Pete Sampras' French Open record
1989 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jorge Lozano (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)

1991 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Thomas Muster (4-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-4)
R64: Thierry Champion def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-1, 6-1)

1992 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Marc Rosset (7-6, 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Laurent Prades (7-6, 6-4, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Rodolphe Gilbert (6-3, 6-2, 6-3)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Carl-Uwe Steeb (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-2, 6-1)

1993 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Andrei Cherkasov (6-1, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Marcos Ondruska (7-5, 6-0, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Jonas Svensson (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. MaliVai Washington (6-3, 7-6, 6-1)
QF: Sergi Bruguera def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 4-6, 6-1, 6-4)

1994 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Albert Costa (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Marcelo Rios (7-6, 7-6, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Paul Haarhuis (6-1, 6-4, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4)
QF: Jim Courier def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4)

1995 French Open
R128: Gilbert Schaller def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4)

1996 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Magnus Gustafsson (6-1, 7-5, 7-6)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Sergi Bruguera (6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 2-6, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Scott Draper (6-4, 7-5, 6-2)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (6-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-0, 6-2)

1997 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Fabrice Santoro (6-3, 7-5, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Francisco Clavet (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
R32: Magnus Norman def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4)

1998 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R64: Ramon Delgado def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-3, 6-4)

1999 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Juan Antonio Marin (6-7, 6-4, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4)
R64: Andrei Medvedev def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 1-6, 6-4, 6-3)

2000 French Open
R128: Mark Philippoussis def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6)

2001 French Open
R128: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Kauffmann (6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 8-6)
R64: Galo Blanco def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-3, 6-2)

2002 French Open
R128: Andrea Gaudenzi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 7-6)

zagor
12-12-2011, 12:43 PM
Yes but somehow Agassi managed to win all slams on all surfaces when they were not homogenized, yet Pete could not.

That's why Agassi's career slam is so special(more so than other players who achieved the same)and in my eyes atleast boosts his all time greatness by quite a bit.

Bobby Jr
12-12-2011, 12:54 PM
Just for the record, Federer still hasn't break many of Pete's amazing records, namely;
-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)
-7 Wimbledon
-US Open Record(still tied)

Now you still think Fed is an entire league higher than Pete? :oops:
You could look at some of these another way:
Consecutive stretches
Wimbledon - Fed 5, Pete 4
USO - Fed 5, Pete 2
Australian Open - Fed 2, Pete 0

Plus...
Year ending championships - Fed 2 (on 3 different occasions), Pete 2 (on one occasion)
#1 Ranking - Fed 237, Pete 102 (Pete is behind Lendl and Connors here)
2 slam years - Federer 5 (04, 05, 06, 07, 09), Pete 4 (93, 94, 95, 97)
3 slam years - Fed 3, Pete 0

This is why people who say Pete's prime was even remotely close to as dominant as Federer's are dreaming. His total prime period (bookended by his 1st and last slams) was just much longer than Federer's - so far at least.

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 01:00 PM
Pete Sampras' French Open record
....


Hey Mustard, thanks for the effort, but my question was purely rhetorical :)

mattennis
12-12-2011, 01:01 PM
who achieved more is not the same as who would win in their primes/peak etc?

If you stand by your argument, then you'd have no problem admitting that one could not truly claim Pete Sampras is greater than Thimo De Bakker?

Sampras achieved way more in his era than De Bakker in his, but they are from different eras. In this case, the different in achievement is huge. It is way different (in terms of achievement) than what you get when you try to compare Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Laver,....(each one of them the best from a period of time), but I know what you mean.

The thing I try to say is this: for me Federer "is a bit better than Sampras, Lendl, Borg, Connors...." but I know for sure that that is a subjective opinion of mine, and in no way I pretend to be saying some kind of "the ultimate truth", because they really never compete in the same era against the same field with the same conditions. Because of that, I try to not compare players from different eras.

If we go solely by "achievement in their era" then Laver or Rosewall would be at the top (or some would say Pancho, because he was the best in the world for something like 8 years, or another would say Tilden who rarely lose any match at all during years).

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 01:03 PM
That's why Agassi's career slam is so special(more so than other players who achieved the same)and in my eyes atleast boosts his all time greatness by quite a bit.

I agree 100%. For me Agassi edges Sampras by a bit, especially consider how Agassi was much less focused on tennis than Sampras.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 01:05 PM
Wow it looks like most of the time Sampras lost to a bunch of nobodies at the FO.

zagor
12-12-2011, 01:05 PM
Samprsas' era had much more depth than Federer's.

Matter of an opinion. I disagree, some other things made 90s era tougher to dominated(polarizing surfaces, variety of playing styles, different seeding system less friendly to top players etc. ) but depth? Don't see it.

As a matter of fact Federer won a slew of slams with sub-par competition before Nadal strived on more than just clay

Nadal won Canada and Madrid masters in 2005 and was very close to winning Miami that year as well (how often do players come close to winning 3 HC masters in a given year?), he also reached Wimbledon final already in 2006.

or Nole came of age

After Nadal, Novak is arguably Fed's biggest rival so he hardly avoided him or something. He's a part of Fed's opposition, they faced each other 8 times in slams already, Agassi and Sampras for comparison played 9 times in slams, quite possible Fed-Novak will beat that number soon(heck for all we know they may even surprass Fedal slam meetings count).

or Murray started to play well (even though he's still weak at the slams when it comes to facing Federer).

Murray's a tough player but hard to use him as some proof when it comes to Fed, he couldn't beat a lesser version of Fed(compared to his best years) in slam finals. I like Murray's game but he needs to do more to convince me he's this super tough competition compared to guys Fed faced in 2004-2007.

And there's no way Federer out classes Sampras on every level or metric.

Of course.

I do agree Federer is more of a complete player but his serve and athleticism at the net pale in comparison!

Not that easy to define "complete" when it comes to tennis, frankly I think having one(or two) big weapons while still having weak spots is a better trade off than being a well rounded player with no weapons that can distinguish you from your rivals. They're different players, each with their own set of strength and weakness, the different conditions they played in also makes it even more difficult to compare.

zagor
12-12-2011, 01:07 PM
I agree 100%. For me Agassi edges Sampras by a bit, especially consider how Agassi was much less focused on tennis than Sampras.

Wouldn't go that far but I do think Agassi is underrated by tennis purists.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 01:10 PM
Absolutely not!

Samprsas' era had much more depth than Federer's. As a matter of fact Federer won a slew of slams with sub-par competition before Nadal strived on more than just clay, or Nole came of age, or Murray started to play well (even though he's still weak at the slams when it comes to facing Federer).

And there's no way Federer out classes Sampras on every level or metric. I do agree Federer is more of a complete player but his serve and athleticism at the net pale in comparison!

Time for the uber stupid once again folks. Let's get ready.

fed_rulz
12-12-2011, 01:13 PM
Sampras achieved way more in his era than De Bakker in his, but they are from different eras. In this case, the different in achievement is huge. It is way different (in terms of achievement) than what you get when you try to compare Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Laver,....(each one of them the best from a period of time), but I know what you mean.

The thing I try to say is this: for me Federer "is a bit better than Sampras, Lendl, Borg, Connors...." but I know for sure that that is a subjective opinion of mine, and in no way I pretend to be saying some kind of "the ultimate truth", because they really never compete in the same era against the same field with the same conditions. Because of that, I try to not compare players from different eras.

If we go solely by "achievement in their era" then Laver or Rosewall would be at the top (or some would say Pancho, because he was the best in the world for something like 8 years, or another would say Tilden who rarely lose any match at all during years).

I see where you're coming from: to me claiming Federer is just a "bit" better than Sampras is simply undermining Federer's credentials and hyping Pete's, ignoring his deficiencies along the way. Consider this:

Federer and Sampras are about the same in terms of non-clay GS achievements. Federer is a couple of leagues higher than Pete in clay achievements (and Pete's clay failures are not due to his competition). Federer is way higher than Sampras in day-in-day-out consistency. Federer has won more matches and 10% more titles than Pete (Federer's proportion of mm tournament wins to the more important ones is lower than Pete's, so it's not like Federer padded his tournament wins with less important ones).

There are facts that are verifiable through data. I'm not even bringing in subjective criteria like appeal of the game etc. Ergo, it is intellectually dishonest to treat them as if they are of the same caliber.

mattennis
12-12-2011, 01:16 PM
I agree 100%. For me Agassi edges Sampras by a bit, especially consider how Agassi was much less focused on tennis than Sampras.

And here you see yet another subjective opinion. For this person, the thing that Agassi won the four GS weights more than the thing that Sampras won 19 GS+WTF ( 14+5 ) to 9 of Agassi ( 8+1 ), or the fact that Sampras ended six consecutive seasons as nº1 in the world and Agassi only could do it once.

To show you how subjective the thing can become, you have plenty of people who think that Marcelo Rios was way better than Sampras or Agassi even though he never won a GS nor a WTF (he even only got once to a GS Final) and he stayed at nº1 only six weeks in total.

And Sampras, Agassi and Rios are from the same era (more or less). Can you imagine how much more subjective the thing become when trying to compare players from different eras?

That is the reason why there will never be an undisputed GOAT, because that thing does not exist (as an objective thing).

Mustard
12-12-2011, 01:16 PM
I agree 100%. For me Agassi edges Sampras by a bit, especially consider how Agassi was much less focused on tennis than Sampras.

The Agassi of mid-1994 to mid-1995 and the Agassi of November 1997 onwards, was a very dedicated tennis player. He could have been a lot more serious in the "Image is Everything" era, but at least he rectified that eventually. And he went through a 2 year spell of indifference followed by a slump in 1996-1997 following his 1995 US Open final loss to Sampras. He handled that loss very badly.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 01:25 PM
The Agassi of mid-1994 to mid-1995 and the Agassi of November 1997 onwards, was a very dedicated tennis player. He could have been a lot more serious in the "Image is Everything" era, but at least he rectified that eventually. And he went through a 2 year spell of indifference followed by a slump in 1996-1997 following his 1995 US Open final loss to Sampras. He handled that loss very badly.

Now imagine if Agassi was as nerdy as Sampras was from the start:

Final slam count:
Agassi 15
Sampras 7

DjokovicForTheWin
12-12-2011, 01:26 PM
And here you see yet another subjective opinion. For this person, the thing that Agassi won the four GS weights more than the thing that Sampras won 19 GS+WTF ( 14+5 ) to 9 of Agassi ( 8+1 ), or the fact that Sampras ended six consecutive seasons as nº1 in the world and Agassi only could do it once.

To show you how subjective the thing can become, you have plenty of people who think that Marcelo Rios was way better than Sampras or Agassi even though he never won a GS nor a WTF (he even only got once to a GS Final) and he stayed at nº1 only six weeks in total.

And Sampras, Agassi and Rios are from the same era (more or less). Can you imagine how much more subjective the thing become when trying to compare players from different eras?

That is the reason why there will never be an undisputed GOAT, because that thing does not exist (as an objective thing).

I agree with you, it's my subjective opinion. On a statistical basis, Sampras tops Agassi, just like Federer destroys Sampras.

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 12:57 AM
Lol, these threads are generally just fans trolling, anyway. Of course, we can always say that they are from different eras so we can't compare, but in fact, in this case, we can.

Is Federer the GOAT? Depends on personal preferences, but he's in contention with the three (or four) other possible candidates.

Is Sampras the GOAT? Nope, and he *never* was in contention. And this has got nothing to do with the (supposed) high level of play in his era, he just couldn't play on clay to save his life.

Clay is the great equalizer, here. Had a prime Sampras entered RG with none of the other players from the top 50 in the draw, he would probably have found a way to lose before the quarterfinals. His only real chance was in 1996, and then he would have needed for both Kafelnikov and Stich to retire to win the trophy.

Sampras is definitely an all-time great, but not being able to play (ie win big titles) on any surface definitely puts him out of the conversation for GOAT (same thing with Borg).

-Highest number of weeks as world number 1
-Number of Years as world number 1
-Consecutive years as world number 1(Fed will never break this one)

Ahhh, but this is due to the fact that Sampras was playing in a weak era (you see, I can troll, too). :D

Seriously, he ended up 1998 as #1 after winning four titles: Wimbledon (that's a good one, obviously), Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Vienna (these three are crap)

With today's field, he would have been lucky to end up in the top 4. Since 2007, with such "poor" results (relatively speaking), you're out of the top 3 if you're not consistent during the whole year, and you're definitely out of the top 2. And yet, it was enough in Sampras' day (he did not do much more in 1999, except win the YEC). So much for the 'weak era' of the 2000's, then...

tennis_pro
12-13-2011, 01:06 AM
Seriously, he ended up 1998 as #1 after winning four titles: Wimbledon (that's a good one, obviously), Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Vienna (these three are crap)

With today's field, he would have been lucky to end up in the top 4. Since 2007, with such "poor" results (relatively speaking), you're out of the top 3 if you're not consistent during the whole year, and you're definitely out of the top 2. And yet, it was enough in Sampras' day (he did not do much more in 1999, except win the YEC). So much for the 'weak era' of the 2000's, then...

If the 90's was such a strong era, why couldn't anyone step up when Sampras slipped?

Sampras didn't deserve to finish no 1 in half of the years he did, 1996, 1998 - 1 slam + a bunch of small titles, hell Del Potro with his 2009 points could challenge for the no 1 spot in 1998, identical results in slams, better run at WTF, same no of titles, while Pete finished 1998 as no 1 Del Potro was the 5th (!!!) best player of 2009. Sampras shouldn't even finish 1995 as no 1 because Agassi was clearly the best player throughout the year (missed out the last 2-3 months of the year, tho) and the difference in rankings was marginal (100 points or so).

If Sampras was so much better than Federer, why did he lose to the likes of Yzaga, Philippoussis, Krajicek, Kucera on fast courts in slams and a bunch of nobodies at the French Open IN HIS PRIME? Federer even now at 30 is losing only to the top cream - Nadal, Djokovic while he dominated his best years like Sampras never would in any era.

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 01:55 AM
If the 90's was such a strong era, why couldn't anyone step up when Sampras slipped?

Sampras didn't deserve to finish no 1 in half of the years he did, 1996, 1998 - 1 slam + a bunch of small titles, hell Del Potro with his 2009 points could challenge for the no 1 spot in 1998, identical results in slams, better run at WTF, same no of titles, while Pete finished 1998 as no 1 Del Potro was the 5th (!!!) best player of 2009. Sampras shouldn't even finish 1995 as no 1 because Agassi was clearly the best player throughout the year (missed out the last 2-3 months of the year, tho) and the difference in rankings was marginal (100 points or so).

If Sampras was so much better than Federer, why did he lose to the likes of Yzaga, Philippoussis, Krajicek, Kucera on fast courts in slams and a bunch of nobodies at the French Open IN HIS PRIME? Federer even now at 30 is losing only to the top cream - Nadal, Djokovic while he dominated his best years like Sampras never would in any era.

1995 ended up as a funny year. Sampras just won 5 titles, but two of them were slams, which gave him the edge (+2 MS). Agassi won 7 (including 1 slam and 3 MS), but Muster won a whopping total of *12* (including 1 slam and 3 MS), so having the Austrian as #1 at year's end would have been thoroughly deserved (he blew his chances big time at the YEC, though).

Mustard
12-13-2011, 02:14 AM
1995 ended up as a funny year. Sampras just won 5 titles, but two of them were slams, which gave him the edge (+2 MS). Agassi won 7 (including 1 slam and 3 MS), but Muster won a whopping total of *12* (including 1 slam and 3 MS), so having the Austrian as #1 at year's end would have been thoroughly deserved (he blew his chances big time at the YEC, though).

Muster totally dominated clay in 1995, and won the Essen indoors, which was a masters series event that year, and it did help him to get number 1 for 6 weeks in 1996. Agassi won some tournaments early in the year, including his Australian Open final win over Sampras, and totally dominated the summer hardcourts, only to fall at the last hurdle by losing the US Open final. Sampras, apart from his Australian Open final loss to Agassi, seemed to peak at the right moments, winning Indian Wells, Queen's Club and Wimbledon, and then beating Agassi when it mattered most in the US Open final. It's no secret that Agassi took the loss very badly and barely played for the rest of the year.

merlinpinpin
12-13-2011, 02:24 AM
Muster totally dominated clay in 1995, and won the Essen indoors, which was a masters series event that year, and it did help him to get number 1 for 6 weeks in 1996. Agassi won some tournaments early in the year, including his Australian Open final win over Sampras, and totally dominated the summer hardcourts, only to fall at the last hurdle by losing the US Open final. Sampras, apart from his Australian Open final loss to Agassi, seemed to peak at the right moments, winning Indian Wells, Queen's Club and Wimbledon, and then beating Agassi when it mattered most in the US Open final. It's no secret that Agassi took the loss very badly and barely played for the rest of the year.

Agassi was clearly frustrated at this stage of his carreer. Even before the loss (during the US Open, in fact), he said that Muster didn't deserve to get the #1 spot as all his rankings points came from clay. Funny thing is, even though clay made the bulk of Muster's points this year, Agassi won a greater % of his off HC tournaments. So he was even more of a "one-surface wonder" than Muster (who comprehensively beat Sampras indoors in the Essen semi before beating Washington in the final) during this year.

tennis_pro
12-13-2011, 02:13 PM
Agassi was clearly frustrated at this stage of his carreer. Even before the loss (during the US Open, in fact), he said that Muster didn't deserve to get the #1 spot as all his rankings points came from clay. Funny thing is, even though clay made the bulk of Muster's points this year, Agassi won a greater % of his off HC tournaments. So he was even more of a "one-surface wonder" than Muster (who comprehensively beat Sampras indoors in the Essen semi before beating Washington in the final) during this year.

I think it's the other way round. Agassi apart from hard courts (which is 70 % of the tour anyway) played some good tennis on other surfaces, reaching the QF of the French and SF (should've reached the final here) at Wimbledon and won 16 out of 20 matches he played on grass/clay courts that year.

Muster apart from his fluke Essen win did nothing out of clay in 1995.

NadalAgassi
12-13-2011, 02:20 PM
Sampras deserved #1 in 1995. 2 slams > 1 slam, 3 slam finals > 2 slam finals. It is pretty simple really. Everyone knew at the time the U.S Open would determine the true #1 of that year regardless of the computer and Sampras won, and as it turned out the rankings followed suit.

Muster has won Miami, one of the biggest non slam events, in his career. He was the 2nd best player of the 97 Australian Open when he lost to Sampras. He also made the quarters of the U.S Open 4 out of 5 years (the other he lost in the round of 16 to Courier). so I dont think it is fair to call his Essen win a fluke. He has proven he can play great tennis on non clay surfaces, he just isnt consistently that strong on them.

mattennis
12-13-2011, 02:55 PM
Sampras deserved #1 in 1995. 2 slams > 1 slam, 3 slam finals > 2 slam finals. It is pretty simple really. Everyone knew at the time the U.S Open would determine the true #1 of that year regardless of the computer and Sampras won, and as it turned out the rankings followed suit.

Muster has won Miami, one of the biggest non slam events, in his career. He was the 2nd best player of the 97 Australian Open when he lost to Sampras. He also made the quarters of the U.S Open 4 out of 5 years (the other he lost in the round of 16 to Courier). so I dont think it is fair to call his Essen win a fluke. He has proven he can play great tennis on non clay surfaces, he just isnt consistently that strong on them.

He did it three times ( 93, 94 and 96 ), but yes, he was more than capable on hardcourts ( he was semifinalist in Australian Open'89 and '97 ).

Mustard
12-13-2011, 04:00 PM
Muster apart from his fluke Essen win did nothing out of clay in 1995.

That was no fluke.

kiki
12-13-2011, 04:08 PM
Muster was a beast that intimidated , on clay, anybody for 2-3 years.Ask 2 times FO winner Bruguera, or Chang, another FO champion how did they feel at the idea of meeting a top form Muster on clay...

Mustard
12-13-2011, 04:21 PM
Muster was a beast that intimidated , on clay, anybody for 2-3 years.Ask 2 times FO winner Bruguera, or Chang, another FO champion how did they feel at the idea of meeting a top form Muster on clay...

Bruguera said that Muster was his nightmare opponent, because Muster would have focus on every point while Bruguera was much more up and down with his focus. Muster seemed to knock the resilience out of Chang in the 1995 French Open final, which is some achievement. Kafelnikov said playing against Muster was like being a fly up against an elephant.

merlinpinpin
12-14-2011, 12:00 AM
I think it's the other way round. Agassi apart from hard courts (which is 70 % of the tour anyway) played some good tennis on other surfaces, reaching the QF of the French and SF (should've reached the final here) at Wimbledon and won 16 out of 20 matches he played on grass/clay courts that year.

Muster apart from his fluke Essen win did nothing out of clay in 1995.

It was anything but a fluke. Muster always saif that, in his early years, his carreer plan was to follow in Lendl's footsteps as far as progressing went. And in fact, he was more of a HC player than a claycourter at that time. Then, in 1989, after he made the AO semi (lost to Lendl) and qualified for the Key Biscayne final (to play the same Lendl), his knee was crushed by a reckless driver. After that, he had to rethink his carreer and play a lot more on clay than on other surfaces, as his knee couldn't stand the strain of too much playing on HC. But he as still very competitive outside clay, even if he didn't play a lot on HC.

sadowsk2
12-14-2011, 08:29 AM
This cracks me up... Until someone invents a time machine where we can have Sampras - Fed play H2H in THEIR PRIMES over a large sample size I think they're games are so close its difficult to give the edge to one or the other (aside from being on clay)... My own personal opinion: Fed is the more complete player (evidenced by clay performance) while the things Sampras did well, he did so well they were DOMINANT- however does that necessarily make you the BETTER player? Perhaps or perhaps not...

Taking a baseball analogy as food for thought: Mariano Rivera is generally considered the greatest baseball closer of all time.. is his curveball great? no.. Is his slider great? no... is his change-up good? no. does he have more than one great pitch? NO.. Is his one great pitch, the cut-fastball, SO Much better and dominant than anyone elses "complete" game (i.e. the complete baseball pitcher): YES. So goes with Sampras: his baseline game is good. his forehand is GREAT and his SERVE is GOAT status... those two parts of his game made him the dominant player he was. So what I'm trying to say is that having the most "all around complete game" may not necessarily equate to being the best.

I have my own feelings who I feel is better, but there is not enough data to truely make that comparison definitively. Both were the GOATS of their respective eras, and probably safe to say both are deserving to be in the Top 5 of all time.

merlinpinpin
12-14-2011, 08:50 AM
I have my own feelings who I feel is better, but there is not enough data to truely make that comparison definitively. Both were the GOATS of their respective eras, and probably safe to say both are deserving to be in the Top 5 of all time.

Better make that top 10 for Sampras (as in 6th to 10th spot). Not being able to perform (at the highest level) on one of the game's major surfaces is a huge hole in his resume.

helloworld
12-14-2011, 08:55 AM
Better make that top 10 for Sampras (as in 6th to 10th spot). Not being able to perform (at the highest level) on one of the game's major surfaces is a huge hole in his resume.

You sad pup. sadowsk2 said it's impossible to compare eras, and yet you still compare it right in front of his face. Do you even read his post? :confused:

merlinpinpin
12-14-2011, 09:11 AM
You sad pup. sadowsk2 said it's impossible to compare eras, and yet you still compare it right in front of his face. Do you even read his post? :confused:

I'm not comparing *eras*, I'm comparing achievements. I know you're trying to defend Sampras tooth and nail, and that's fine, but to be in the top 5, he has push somebody else out of it (cause there can't be more than five people in the top 5, by definition). So, I guess you would push out either Tilden, or Gonzales, or Laver, or Rosewall, or Federer to make room for Sampras (or maybe you would just dismiss all of them to make room for him at the very top ;)). That's fine, but considering all of these guys' achievements compared to Pete's, *I* wouldn't.

fed_rulz
12-14-2011, 09:23 AM
This cracks me up... Until someone invents a time machine where we can have Sampras - Fed play H2H in THEIR PRIMES over a large sample size I think they're games are so close its difficult to give the edge to one or the other (aside from being on clay)... My own personal opinion: Fed is the more complete player (evidenced by clay performance) while the things Sampras did well, he did so well they were DOMINANT- however does that necessarily make you the BETTER player? Perhaps or perhaps not...

Taking a baseball analogy as food for thought: Mariano Rivera is generally considered the greatest baseball closer of all time.. is his curveball great? no.. Is his slider great? no... is his change-up good? no. does he have more than one great pitch? NO.. Is his one great pitch, the cut-fastball, SO Much better and dominant than anyone elses "complete" game (i.e. the complete baseball pitcher): YES. So goes with Sampras: his baseline game is good. his forehand is GREAT and his SERVE is GOAT status... those two parts of his game made him the dominant player he was. So what I'm trying to say is that having the most "all around complete game" may not necessarily equate to being the best.

I have my own feelings who I feel is better, but there is not enough data to truely make that comparison definitively. Both were the GOATS of their respective eras, and probably safe to say both are deserving to be in the Top 5 of all time.

Here is the thing: Federer is more complete AND more dominant than Pete across all surfaces. Period! you're free to dig up data to prove me wrong.

fed_rulz
12-14-2011, 09:23 AM
I'm not comparing *eras*, I'm comparing achievements. I know you're trying to defend Sampras tooth and nail, and that's fine, but to be in the top 5, he has push somebody else out of it (cause there can't be more than five people in the top 5, by definition). So, I guess you would push out either Tilden, or Gonzales, or Laver, or Rosewall, or Federer to make room for Sampras (or maybe you would just dismiss all of them to make room for him at the very top ;)). That's fine, but considering all of these guys' achievements compared to Pete's, *I* wouldn't.

ouch, that gotta hurt :). the classic cop-out from Petetards is to bundle up Federer and Sampras into the same caliber band, because putting Sampras ahead of Federer is indefensible, and putting Sampras behind Federer is unacceptable (to them). They must some day wake up and accept the fact that Federer has surpassed Pete by some margin....

adamX012
12-14-2011, 09:25 AM
Slightly tricky article to write as Federer's career is not over, but the bulk of it has been completed so I thought I would give it a go, they have a lot of similarities yet a lot of differences. Read on....

The last 20 years have been a very interesting period for men’s tennis with two of the most prolific champions of the 1990s and 2000s overlapping each other. Both players had significant rivals and set many records along the way. With Roger Federer breaking yet another record at the year end ATP World Tour finals a couple of weeks ago, it will be interesting to assess how both players have helped to define their eras.

http://burnstennis.blogspot.com/2011/12/assessing-federer-and-sampras.html


Good one... Love this thread... checking this thread while driving...

Devilito
12-14-2011, 09:40 AM
http://burnstennis.blogspot.com/2011/12/assessing-federer-and-sampras.html

took the time to read it and i agree with it quite strongly, which is rare.

drakulie
12-14-2011, 10:16 AM
Better make that top 10 for Sampras (as in 6th to 10th spot). Not being able to perform (at the highest level) on one of the game's major surfaces is a huge hole in his resume.

Sampras simply did not have the ground game to consistently compete with the other players consistently enough at the French.

sadowsk2
12-14-2011, 10:19 AM
Better make that top 10 for Sampras (as in 6th to 10th spot). Not being able to perform (at the highest level) on one of the game's major surfaces is a huge hole in his resume.

Thats fine for your opinion... Winning >= 14 GS has been done by only one person... That, coupled with his other significant achievments for me makes him Top 5... The fact he did all that while not winning the French (i.e. missing out on the opportunities to further boost his GS total with FO victories) is a testament to his 14GS's.

fed_rulz
12-14-2011, 10:30 AM
Thats fine for your opinion... Winning >= 14 GS has been done by only one person... That, coupled with his other significant achievments for me makes him Top 5... The fact he did all that while not winning the French (i.e. missing out on the opportunities to further boost his GS total with FO victories) is a testament to his 14GS's.

LOL, missing out? how can his inadequacy on clay be termed as missing out? I guess everyone who hasn't won anything of significance can be top 5 or top 10 of all time because they missed out on winning the big ones.

getting desperate, are we?

Devilito
12-14-2011, 10:37 AM
Sampras simply did not have the ground game to consistently compete with the other players consistently enough at the French.

I’d qualify that and say he had more than enough ground game, just not the right type of ground game for slow clay.

merlinpinpin
12-14-2011, 10:45 AM
Thats fine for your opinion... Winning >= 14 GS has been done by only one person... That, coupled with his other significant achievments for me makes him Top 5... The fact he did all that while not winning the French (i.e. missing out on the opportunities to further boost his GS total with FO victories) is a testament to his 14GS's.

That's okay. I have no problem *at all* saying that Sampras is one of the all-time greats (I guess I would put around the 6th-8th spot if I were to make a list, probably with Borg and Nadal, order to be determined). However, I feel that the five other names I've given have accomplished more, that's why he can't be top 5 for me. Not because he didn't have the level, but because the others surpassed him in my opinion. And there's clay...

But how do you compare fairly guys like Tilden with the Open Era? That's just impossible.

TMF
12-14-2011, 10:47 AM
Thats fine for your opinion... Winning >= 14 GS has been done by only one person... That, coupled with his other significant achievments for me makes him Top 5... The fact he did all that while not winning the French (i.e. missing out on the opportunities to further boost his GS total with FO victories) is a testament to his 14GS's.

You just pointed out Sampras's flaws or his weaknesses. I suggest that you should stop try to boost Sampras when actually you're making him look worse.

aphex
12-14-2011, 11:03 AM
Thats fine for your opinion... Winning >= 14 GS has been done by only one person... That, coupled with his other significant achievments for me makes him Top 5... The fact he did all that while not winning the French (i.e. missing out on the opportunities to further boost his GS total with FO victories) is a testament to his 14GS's.

Agreed. Not winning the French, was one of Sampras's greatest achievements.

fed_rulz
12-14-2011, 11:08 AM
Agreed. Not winning the French, was one of Sampras's greatest achievements.
lol, pwned :)

Sentinel
12-15-2011, 02:05 AM
Agreed. Not winning the French, was one of Sampras's greatest achievements.
The French Open is such a "cheesy event"[1].

Yup, props to Sampras for not inflating his slam count with FO titles.


[1] Babbette.

p.s. wait, was Babbette referring to the FO or WTF. Can't recall.

SLD76
12-15-2011, 03:54 AM
Hate to break it to the Pete *****, but Pete himself, in an interview I think from around 2006 even said he "never dominated the tour the way Roger does, tournament in tournament out".

So, there is that.