PDA

View Full Version : Best US Open player of the open era?


Pages : [1] 2

tennis_pro
03-07-2012, 02:00 PM
We have 3 main candidates (going with the wins naturally):

1) Connors - 5 wins + 2 finals
-97 matches won (a record by some distance)
-12 SF in a row
-from 1973-1991 only twice didn't reach the QF stage, one of those when he didn't play at all
-the only player to win the US Open on 3 different surfaces (in fact he beat Borg twice on clay there)
- reached the US semi in 1991 aged 39

2) Sampras - 5 wins + 3 finals
- won the US Open in his teens, 20's and 30's
- a 12 year difference between his first (1990) and last wins (2002)
- 4-0 against his main rival there (Agassi) who never pushed him to a 5th set

3) Federer - 5 wins + 1 final
- 5 consecutive wins (against 5 different opponents)
- 40 consecutive victories
- almost 90 % of the matches won (a record atm)
- 8 consecutive SF appearances and counting
- won two 6-0 sets in one of the finals (04 against Hewitt)
- lost only 12 sets in 2004-2008, pushed to a 5-setter only twice

Other:
- McEnroe (3 wins in a row, 4 titles overall out of 5 finals)
- Lendl (3 wins in a row, 8 consecutive finals)
- Agassi (2 titles out of 6 finals)

timnz
03-07-2012, 02:16 PM
But only due to the arthimetic. 8 finals won 5. If Federer wins another it will be a different question as he will be the open era leader in US Open titles.

Moose Malloy
03-07-2012, 02:17 PM
from 1973-1991 only twice didn't reach the QF stage, one of those when he didn't play at all


had 12 straight SF's there, which is a record at any major.

97 matches won (a record by some distance)


doesn't he have 98 matches won?

Its a shame he didn't play all the majors throughout his career, his career stats strongly indicate he would likely have the most matches won at every major(is also the leader at Wimbledon), most slam semis, quarters etc had he done so. Santoro is the all time leader with 70 majors appearances, but his career was so much shorter than Connors.

McEnroe (3 wins in a row

in 1981 McEnroe became the first player since Tilden in the 20s to win 3 straight US Championships, a fact that got much attention at the time.

The Bawss
03-07-2012, 02:30 PM
My money is on Fed winning this poll.

pvaudio
03-07-2012, 02:34 PM
This really is only a competition between Sampras and Federer. While it's neat that Connors won the USO on Har-Tru,that isn't the hard court that everyone else is playing on. Plus, the court was much faster in Sampras' and in the beginning of Federer's reign. Until(less) Federer wins another USO, they're tied.

kragster
03-07-2012, 02:41 PM
A Sampras vs Fed poll on TW. Put me down for a 1000 bucks on Fed. I think this would have been more interesting if it had been Wimby. My money would be on people still picking Fed :P.

timnz
03-07-2012, 02:53 PM
This really is only a competition between Sampras and Federer. While it's neat that Connors won the USO on Har-Tru,that isn't the hard court that everyone else is playing on. Plus, the court was much faster in Sampras' and in the beginning of Federer's reign. Until(less) Federer wins another USO, they're tied.

The fact that Connors won on multiple surfaces (Grass, Har-Tru and Hard) adds to his achievement rather than takes away from it.

Regarding Federer/Sampras tie - Sampras is ahead because he has reached 2 more finals than Federer.

Bobby Jr
03-07-2012, 02:54 PM
Federer - he won his 5 all in a row - imo it's a rarer thing to be in winning form for 5 consecutive years than it is to win a tournament every 3rd year over 15 years.

Depends if you rate dominance over longevity I guess.

tennis_pro
03-07-2012, 03:08 PM
Federer - he won his 5 all in a row - imo it's a rarer thing to be in winning form for 5 consecutive years than it is to win a tournament every 3rd year over 15 years.

Depends if you rate dominance over longevity I guess.

I think the biggest advantage Federer has over Sampras is the fact that he's still an active player and has another good 2-3 shots at a 6th US Open title.

pvaudio
03-07-2012, 03:09 PM
The fact that Connors won on multiple surfaces (Grass, Har-Tru and Hard) adds to his achievement rather than takes away from it.

Regarding Federer/Sampras tie - Sampras is ahead because he has reached 2 more finals than Federer.You couldn't be more wrong. The purpose of the grand slams is this: you have the pinnacle tournament for each surface.

AO: Med-slow hard court
FO: Clay
WB: Grass
USO: Fast hard court

Winning on the four different surfaces is what shows dominance of the grand slams. Let's look at it like this: Rafa won the USO, and no one thought he could possibly win it because it's the fast hard court slam. What if in 2010 it was changed to clay and Rafa won? No one would give his career slam any or at least as much merit. No one is denying that Connors is one of the all time greats. The point is the best US Open player. If you want to talk about the best player who plays a GS level tournament in New York state, then yes, Connors can be in the poll. Since it's obvious that it's about the fast hard court slam at the end of the year, he's not in contention with Sampras and Federer.

And about the Sampras finals: Federer won all of his consecutively. Tie restored.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-07-2012, 03:45 PM
The five in a row plus the quality of Federer's wins made me put him over the top. I feel that if it would have been as fast as when Sampras won it then Federer would be looking at 5 to 8 USO titles. As for the quality, I don't think I have a slam final as dominant as the 2004 USO final. Many talk about Federer's high quality of play at Wimbledon, but to me his best tennis has been at the USO.

jackson vile
03-07-2012, 03:46 PM
If finals matter to you then clearly Sampras is #1. Personally I would base it off the most exciting matches played/ those with greatest competition/ closesest matches.

SystemicAnomaly
03-07-2012, 03:50 PM
My first inclination was to go with Federer. However, Sampras and Connors both have some very impressive results/stats.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-07-2012, 04:06 PM
My first inclination was to go with Federer. However, Sampras and Connors both have some very impressive results/stats.

There really isn't a bad choice. Federer has dominance, Sampras has bludgeoning play, and Connors has a nearly inhuman length of high quality play at the USO.

raphMODE
03-07-2012, 04:10 PM
Fed, cause he will win a 6th.

Dilettante
03-07-2012, 04:24 PM
The purpose of the grand slams is this: you have the pinnacle tournament for each surface.

No.

Ten surfaces.

Mustard
03-07-2012, 04:48 PM
Jimmy Connors.

Mustard
03-07-2012, 05:14 PM
Here are all their US Open records, by the way:

Jimmy Connors
1970: Round of 128 Loser
1971: Round of 64 Loser
1972: Round of 128 Loser
1973: Quarter Final Loser
1974: CHAMPION
1975: Runner-up
1976: CHAMPION
1977: Runner-up
1978: CHAMPION
1979: Semi Final Loser
1980: Semi Final Loser
1981: Semi Final Loser
1982: CHAMPION
1983: CHAMPION
1984: Semi Final Loser
1985: Semi Final Loser
1986: Round of 32 Loser
1987: Semi Final Loser
1988: Quarter Final Loser
1989: Quarter Final Loser
1990: DID NOT PLAY (wrist injury)
1991: Semi Final Loser
1992: Round of 64 Loser

Pete Sampras
1988: Round of 128 Loser
1989: Round of 16 Loser
1990: CHAMPION
1991: Quarter Final Loser
1992: Runner-up
1993: CHAMPION
1994: Round of 16 Loser
1995: CHAMPION
1996: CHAMPION
1997: Round of 16 Loser
1998: Semi Final Loser
1999: DID NOT PLAY (back injury)
2000: Runner-up
2001: Runner-up
2002: CHAMPION

Roger Federer
1999: DID NOT QUALIFY
2000: Round of 32 Loser
2001: Round of 16 Loser
2002: Round of 16 Loser
2003: Round of 16 Loser
2004: CHAMPION
2005: CHAMPION
2006: CHAMPION
2007: CHAMPION
2008: CHAMPION
2009: Runner-up
2010: Semi Final Loser
2011: Semi Final Loser

John McEnroe
1977: Round of 16 Loser
1978: Semi Final Loser
1979: CHAMPION
1980: CHAMPION
1981: CHAMPION
1982: Semi Final Loser
1983: Round of 16 Loser
1984: CHAMPION
1985: Runner-up
1986: Round of 128 Loser
1987: Quarter Final Loser
1988: Round of 64 Loser
1989: Round of 64 Loser
1990: Semi Final Loser
1991: Round of 32 Loser
1992: Round of 16 Loser

Ivan Lendl
1979: Round of 64 Loser
1980: Quarter Final Loser
1981: Round of 16 Loser
1982: Runner-up
1983: Runner-up
1984: Runner-up
1985: CHAMPION
1986: CHAMPION
1987: CHAMPION
1988: Runner-up
1989: Runner-up
1990: Quarter Final Loser
1991: Semi Final Loser
1992: Quarter Final Loser
1993: Round of 128 Loser
1994: Round of 64 Loser

Andre Agassi
1986: Round of 128 Loser
1987: Round of 128 Loser
1988: Semi Final Loser
1989: Semi Final Loser
1990: Runner-up
1991: Round of 128 Loser
1992: Quarter Final Loser
1993: Round of 128 Loser
1994: CHAMPION
1995: Runner-up
1996: Semi Final Loser
1997: Round of 16 Loser
1998: Round of 16 Loser
1999: CHAMPION
2000: Round of 64 Loser
2001: Quarter Final Loser
2002: Runner-up
2003: Semi Final Loser
2004: Quarter Final Loser
2005: Runner-up
2006: Round of 32 Loser

monfed
03-07-2012, 05:15 PM
Fed's still got a decent shot at a 6th title. Winning 5 consecutive should count for something.
Even Nadal's not won 5 consecutive RGs. ;)

kishnabe
03-07-2012, 06:53 PM
Jimmy Connors is the ideal player for the US Open. He would use the crowd energy to it's finest point. No wonder he did well all those years at US.

Sampras and Federer may have won the same amount of titles....their temperament isn't going to give them edge. Still Federer has a shot to be better than Sampras and Connors at the US.....but I doubt Djokovic and Nadal will let him stain it.

purge
03-07-2012, 08:38 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. The purpose of the grand slams is this: you have the pinnacle tournament for each surface.

AO: Med-slow hard court
FO: Clay
WB: Grass
USO: Fast hard court

Winning on the four different surfaces is what shows dominance of the grand slams.

following that you wouldnt acknowledge a grand slam in these days at all since its pretty much the same surface in different colors 4 times. no grand slam to be won like that


as for the poll.. federer in 2 -.-

jokinla
03-07-2012, 10:12 PM
Tough call, Connors has some impressive longevity, but then again Sampras had the twelve year gap between first and last title, but then again Fed got five straight, I say it's a three way tie.

merlinpinpin
03-07-2012, 10:20 PM
Too close to call as far as I'm concerned, the three of them have huge (and very different) merits. Of course, should Federer win a 6th, this would likely clinch the deal... ;)

Edit: at the moment, I would still go with Connors, though. The US Open really was "his" tournament (open era, I mean--otherwise, Big Bill Tilden gets my vote, of course).

Satsuma Florida
03-07-2012, 11:22 PM
Jimmy Connors ruled the U.S. Open like nobody ever did. Can't just look at the numbers.

Towser83
03-08-2012, 09:24 AM
You couldn't be more wrong. The purpose of the grand slams is this: you have the pinnacle tournament for each surface.

AO: Med-slow hard court
FO: Clay
WB: Grass
USO: Fast hard court

Winning on the four different surfaces is what shows dominance of the grand slams. Let's look at it like this: Rafa won the USO, and no one thought he could possibly win it because it's the fast hard court slam. What if in 2010 it was changed to clay and Rafa won? No one would give his career slam any or at least as much merit. No one is denying that Connors is one of the all time greats. The point is the best US Open player. If you want to talk about the best player who plays a GS level tournament in New York state, then yes, Connors can be in the poll. Since it's obvious that it's about the fast hard court slam at the end of the year, he's not in contention with Sampras and Federer.

And about the Sampras finals: Federer won all of his consecutively. Tie restored.

Is it about that though? I mean US Open was on grass first, so if Wimbledon gets changed to hardcourt will the greatest Wimbledon player then become about who is the greatest on the new hardcourt version?

Difficult to discount Connors for me but also not the others fault that they never played it on grass or clay. Federer at best has a tie, 5 wins in a row nd 6 finals is impressive and he was one point away from making 7 finals and another point away from 8 finals in a row which would tie Lendl but with more wins and tie Sampras's amount of finals with them tied on wins but having more finals and wins in a row. Given the closeness he got to this I can't really chose between connors, Sampras or Federer, maybe edge to Sampras.

celoft
03-08-2012, 11:24 AM
Federer won 5 in a row.

wimble10
03-08-2012, 11:35 AM
Federer won 5 in a row.
I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

Hood_Man
03-08-2012, 11:38 AM
I agree with Mustard. Connors is joint 1st in titles won, but has all those years of amazing consistency.

If Lendl had won 5 of the 8 consecutive finals though I'd give it to him.

If Federer wins a 6th then it would be him without a doubt.

celoft
03-08-2012, 11:54 AM
Winning 5 years in a row is bloody hard. Borg did it at Wimbledon. Federer did it at Wimbledon and at the USO... Sampras and Nadal couldn't do it anywhere(slams).

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-08-2012, 12:07 PM
I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

Except Korda, Safin, Hewitt, and Yzaga right? Have you not seen the 2004 USO final? It doesn't get much more on than that.

tennis_pro
03-08-2012, 12:21 PM
I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

Ehhmm...Federer barely lost any sets in any of his 2004-2008 wins, especially 05,06,07, Sampras lost to Yzaga in 1994 (and was forced to a 5th set in the 2nd roud by Novak), was match points down against Corretja in 1996, lost to Kodra at the 1997 US Open, that's only his peak years. Later on he used to get owned by Safin and Hewitt in the 00' and 01' US finals respectively.

So please, could you please tell us in which exact matches Sampras was "on" at the US Open? Cause I don't remember Sampras being dominant in ANY of the US Opens he played.

fed_rulz
03-08-2012, 01:01 PM
I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

BS -- is that why he lost to Petr Korda or Jamie Yzaga (I'm not going to bring up Safin and Hewitt, because I know the answer that Pete-***** come up with)?

Oh yes, I forgot -- Pete wasn't "on" during those times.

fed_rulz
03-08-2012, 01:02 PM
Ehhmm...Federer barely lost any sets in any of his 2004-2008 wins, especially 05,06,07, Sampras lost to Yzaga in 1994 (and was forced to a 5th set in the 2nd roud by Novak), was match points down against Corretja in 1996, lost to Kodra at the 1997 US Open, that's only his peak years. Later on he used to get owned by Safin and Hewitt in the 00' and 01' US finals respectively.

So please, could you please tell us in which exact matches Sampras was "on" at the US Open? Cause I don't remember Sampras being dominant in ANY of the US Opens he played.

weak era. 10 chars.

tennis_pro
03-08-2012, 01:06 PM
BS -- is that why he lost to Petr Korda or Jamie Yzaga (I'm not going to bring up Safin and Hewitt, because I know the answer that Pete-***** come up with)?

Oh yes, I forgot -- Pete wasn't "on" during those times.

For a guy who is supposedly the best US Open player ever he wasn't "on" a lot of the times, no?:)

Rock Strongo
03-08-2012, 01:15 PM
Except Korda, Safin, Hewitt, and Yzaga right? Have you not seen the 2004 USO final? It doesn't get much more on than that.

Stefan Edberg wants to have a word with you regarding that.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-08-2012, 01:42 PM
Stefan Edberg wants to have a word with you regarding that.

Send him over. I'd love to meet the guy. I just find double bageling Hewitt to be more impressive than beating Courier 2, 4, and love. Hewitt's greatest strength has always been his ability to get the balls back. Courier had a great forehand(for the time) and a good serve. To do that to Hewitt you would need to have surgical precision which I believe Federer did. But yes you are right. Edberg's performance was a great one.

mattennis
03-08-2012, 01:47 PM
The three of them are the best US OPEN players (in the Open Era). It is impossible to choose just one of them.

Federer winning 5 consecutive titles (plus 1 Final), Connors winning 5 titles in three surfaces (plus 2 Finals) in many years apart, Sampras winning 5 titles (plus 3 Finals) in even more years apart.

The three of them are great US OPEN players. The best ones there.

After them you have Lendl (3 titles, 5 Finals), McEnroe (3 titles, 1 Final), Agassi (2 titles, 4 finals),.....

Talker
03-08-2012, 01:50 PM
Looking at things for awhile I had to go with Conners.

5 wins
2 finals
7 semis
3 quarters



Conners made at least the semis for 12 straight tournaments(14 times total).
5 straight years in the finals(3-2).


Fed is very close at #2.

luishcorreia
03-08-2012, 01:50 PM
Thise 8 finals by lendl... He could be on number one if'd won more 2 or 3...

luishcorreia
03-08-2012, 01:51 PM
But i will go with connors

Rock Strongo
03-08-2012, 01:52 PM
Send him over. I'd love to meet the guy. I just find double bageling Hewitt to be more impressive than beating Courier 2, 4, and love. Hewitt's greatest strength has always been his ability to get the balls back. Courier had a great forehand(for the time) and a good serve. To do that to Hewitt you would need to have surgical precision which I believe Federer did. But yes you are right. Edberg's performance was a great one.

Aight, Maybe I shouldn't be the one to comment on that as I'm biased against Federer and haven't actually seen the match and therefore can't comment on how he played (though I've seen the Edberg match), but I probably would've watched the final if JoJo would've won his semi. So for the purposes of this conversation I'll redact my comment until I've seen the 2004 USO final and hopefully have provided an unbiased view.

BTW, How come Fed got in a tiebreak situation in the 2nd?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-08-2012, 02:00 PM
Aight, Maybe I shouldn't be the one to comment on that as I'm biased against Federer and haven't actually seen the match and therefore can't comment on how he played (though I've seen the Edberg match), but I probably would've watched the final if JoJo would've won his semi. So for the purposes of this conversation I'll redact my comment until I've seen the 2004 USO final and hopefully have provided an unbiased view.

BTW, How come Fed got in a tiebreak situation in the 2nd?

Hewitt is a scrappy fighter and Federer has been prone to momentary lapses on occasion. He went up 2-0 in the set and was returning at 2-4 with a good chance to go up 5-2 and should have served it out at 5-4 but he didn't. I just feel that Federer's forehand was going off with the accuracy of a sniper in that match.

I do agree that Edberg was fantastic in those two USO finals.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 02:22 PM
Ehhmm...Federer barely lost any sets in any of his 2004-2008 wins, especially 05,06,07, Sampras lost to Yzaga in 1994 (and was forced to a 5th set in the 2nd roud by Novak), was match points down against Corretja in 1996, lost to Kodra at the 1997 US Open, that's only his peak years. Later on he used to get owned by Safin and Hewitt in the 00' and 01' US finals respectively.

So please, could you please tell us in which exact matches Sampras was "on" at the US Open? Cause I don't remember Sampras being dominant in ANY of the US Opens he played.

1993 was Pete Sampras' most dominant US Open win, 2 sets dropped in the tournament, 1 against Daniel Vacek in the R64 and 1 against Michael Chang in the quarter finals. Federer dropped just 2 sets in his 2006 and 2007 US Open wins. Connors dropped just 1 set in winning the 1976 US Open.

Not since Neale Fraser in 1960 has a men's singles player won the title without dropping a set in the tournament.

tennis_pro
03-08-2012, 02:42 PM
1993 was Pete Sampras' most dominant US Open win, 2 sets dropped in the tournament, 1 against Daniel Vacek in the R64 and 1 against Michael Chang in the quarter finals. Federer dropped just 2 sets in his 2006 and 2007 US Open wins. Connors dropped just 1 set in winning the 1976 US Open.

Not since Neale Fraser in 1960 has a men's singles player won the title without dropping a set in the tournament.

Well Federer with Sampras 1993 US draw wouldn't've lost a single set. Sampras had Volkov in the SF and Pioline in the F while Fed had Blake, Davydenko, Roddick in the 06 US and Roddick, Davydenko, Djokovic in the 07 US.

wimble10
03-08-2012, 02:46 PM
These are the semifinalists during the years Sampras and Federer made it to the quarterfinals or better. I think it's pretty clear their was more variety in Sampras era, and I think this indicates that it was more competitive during those years.

2011 : Novak, Fed, Rafa, Murray
2010: Novak, Fed, Rafa Youzhny
2009: Novak, Fed, Rafa, Del Potro
2008: Novak, Fed, Rafa, Murray
2007: Novak, Fed, Davydenko, Ferrer
2006: Fed, Davydenko, Roddick, Youzhny
2005: Fed, Hewitt, Ginepri, Agassi
2004: Fed, Johansson, Roddick, Henman

1990: McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Becker
1991: Connors, Courier, Lendl, Edberg
1992: Courier, Sampras, Chang, Edberg
1993: Pioline, Masur, Volkov, Sampras
1995: Agassi, Becker, Courier, Sampras
1996: Sampras, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Chang
1998: Sampras, Rafter, Phillipoussis, Moya
2000: Hewitt, Safin, Sampras, Martin
2001: Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Sampras, Safin
2002: Hewitt, Agassi, Sampras, Schalken

Mustard
03-08-2012, 03:01 PM
Have you not seen the 2004 USO final? It doesn't get much more on than that.

The 1974 US Open final saw Connors beat Rosewall 6-1, 6-0, 6-1. I doubt there's ever been a more one-sided scoreline in a men's singles major final.

Well Federer with Sampras 1993 US draw wouldn't've lost a single set. Sampras had Volkov in the SF and Pioline in the F

A Volkov who had beaten Muster (who had been on a 19 match winning streak) in the quarter finals, and Pioline had beaten Courier (world number 1) and Medvedev.

2004: Fed, Johansson, Roddick, Henman

Just to point out that this was Joachim Johansson, not Thomas Johansson. Oh, and it was Federer, J. Johansson, Hewitt and Henman. Johansson beat Roddick in the quarter finals.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 03:13 PM
1990: McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Becker
1991: Connors, Courier, Lendl, Edberg
1992: Courier, Sampras, Chang, Edberg
1993: Pioline, Masur, Volkov, Sampras
1995: Agassi, Becker, Courier, Sampras
1996: Sampras, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Chang
1998: Sampras, Rafter, Phillipoussis, Moya
2000: Hewitt, Safin, Sampras, Martin
2001: Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Sampras, Safin
2002: Hewitt, Agassi, Sampras, Schalken

1994 was Stich, Novacek, Agassi and Martin
1997 was Bjorkman, Rusedski, Rafter and Chang
1999 was Martin, Pioline, Kafelnikov and Agassi

tennis_pro
03-08-2012, 03:13 PM
The 1974 US Open final saw Connors beat Rosewall 6-1, 6-0, 6-1. I doubt there's ever been a more one-sided scoreline in a men's singles major final.

Maybe because you don't see 40-year olds in major finals anymore?

A Volkov who had beaten Muster (who had been on a 19 match winning streak) in the quarter finals, and Pioline had beaten Courier (world number 1) and Medvedev.

A qualifier named Gilles Muller beat Haas, Almagro and Davydenko at the 2008 US Open. I guess he was a tougher opponent for Federer than Davydenko himself:D

billnepill
03-08-2012, 03:13 PM
The 1974 US Open final saw Connors beat Rosewall 6-1, 6-0, 6-1. I doubt there's ever been a more one-sided scoreline in a men's singles major final.



A Volkov who had beaten Muster (who had been on a 19 match winning streak) in the quarter finals, and Pioline had beaten Courier (world number 1) and Medvedev.



Just to point out that this was Joachim Johansson, not Thomas Johansson.

I thought you are going to point out that Hewitt should have been there as us open finalist in 2004

billnepill
03-08-2012, 03:16 PM
No seriously I am all for fed but Connors seems more impressive in us open at this point

Mustard
03-08-2012, 03:16 PM
I thought you are going to point out that Hewitt should have been there as us open finalist in 2004

I have ;) 10 characters

tennis_pro
03-08-2012, 03:17 PM
These are the semifinalists during the years Sampras and Federer made it to the quarterfinals or better. I think it's pretty clear their was more variety in Sampras era, and I think this indicates that it was more competitive during those years.

2011 : Novak, Fed, Rafa, Murray
2010: Novak, Fed, Rafa Youzhny
2009: Novak, Fed, Rafa, Del Potro
2008: Novak, Fed, Rafa, Murray
2007: Novak, Fed, Davydenko, Ferrer
2006: Fed, Davydenko, Roddick, Youzhny
2005: Fed, Hewitt, Ginepri, Agassi
2004: Fed, Johansson, Roddick, Henman

1990: McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Becker
1991: Connors, Courier, Lendl, Edberg
1992: Courier, Sampras, Chang, Edberg
1993: Pioline, Masur, Volkov, Sampras
1995: Agassi, Becker, Courier, Sampras
1996: Sampras, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Chang
1998: Sampras, Rafter, Phillipoussis, Moya
2000: Hewitt, Safin, Sampras, Martin
2001: Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Sampras, Safin
2002: Hewitt, Agassi, Sampras, Schalken

You're telling me that 20 different players who competed in the finals makes the 90's a stronger era than the 00's/10's where we have only top tier guys in the semi-finals? I think it means that the top players in the 90's were far more inconsistent (not neccessarily worse AT THEIR BEST compared to today's top 4), that's why we could see a 31-year old 6-7 years past his prime Johny Mc, a 39-year old Connors or guys like Masur, Volkov, Schalken, Rusedski, Novacek or Bjorkman in the semis (which seems IMPOSSIBLE these days), I mean Sampras at the peakest of his powers could lose to Yzaga at the US Open. Is Yzaga a part of the tough competition as well:D?

It seems like the 90's had tougher competition because the titles (or semi/final spots) were divided between tons of different kind of players. Right now the top cream is so compressed that it seems unlikely for an outsider to go far.

billnepill
03-08-2012, 03:17 PM
I have ;) 10 characters

Spoke too soon

Mustard
03-08-2012, 03:17 PM
Maybe because you don't see 40-year olds in major finals anymore?

Well, Rosewall was a special player when it comes to longevity, like Connors and Gonzales. Special mention to Agassi as well.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 03:23 PM
A qualifier named Gilles Muller beat Haas, Almagro and Davydenko at the 2008 US Open. I guess he was a tougher opponent for Federer than Davydenko himself:D

Muller was tough for Federer, actually, 3 very tight sets. Anyways, Muller is one of the biggest enigmas in tennis, capable of beating the very best players in the game on his day (beat Nadal at 2005 Wimbledon, beat Roddick at the 2005 US Open), yet is unbelievably inconsistent.

tennis_pro
03-08-2012, 03:26 PM
Well, Rosewall was a special player when it comes to longevity, like Connors and Gonzales. Special mention to Agassi as well.

That's true but the 1974 US final score was more or less expected. Connors was hungry for his first US title, he was at the peak of his powers and on the other side of the net you had a 40-year old Rosewall who played his best tennis 10-15 years before.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 03:29 PM
That's true but the 1974 US final score was more or less expected. Connors was hungry for his first US title, he was at the peak of his powers and on the other side of the net you had a 40-year old Rosewall who played his best tennis 10-15 years before.

Connors was expected to win obviously, seeing as he'd just hammered Rosewall 6-1, 6-1, 6-4 in the 1974 Wimbledon final. The 1974 US Open final made the one-sided Wimbledon final look very competitive by comparison. Rosewall's excellent wins over Newcombe in both tournaments tend to be forgotten.

fed_rulz
03-08-2012, 04:22 PM
I voted for Sampras. I don't think it matters that much if you win the titles consecutively. I think Sampras would have the edge over Federer at the USO. When Pete was on at Flushing Meadows, no one could stop him.

These are the semifinalists during the years Sampras and Federer made it to the quarterfinals or better. I think it's pretty clear their was more variety in Sampras era, and I think this indicates that it was more competitive during those years.

2011 : Novak, Fed, Rafa, Murray
2010: Novak, Fed, Rafa Youzhny
2009: Novak, Fed, Rafa, Del Potro
2008: Novak, Fed, Rafa, Murray
2007: Novak, Fed, Davydenko, Ferrer
2006: Fed, Davydenko, Roddick, Youzhny
2005: Fed, Hewitt, Ginepri, Agassi
2004: Fed, Johansson, Roddick, Henman

1990: McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Becker
1991: Connors, Courier, Lendl, Edberg
1992: Courier, Sampras, Chang, Edberg
1993: Pioline, Masur, Volkov, Sampras
1995: Agassi, Becker, Courier, Sampras
1996: Sampras, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Chang
1998: Sampras, Rafter, Phillipoussis, Moya
2000: Hewitt, Safin, Sampras, Martin
2001: Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Sampras, Safin
2002: Hewitt, Agassi, Sampras, Schalken

for someone who claims to think a lot, you really don't seem to be doing that.

Limpinhitter
03-08-2012, 05:21 PM
The Rocket!

Mustard
03-08-2012, 06:03 PM
Sampras lost to Yzaga in 1994 (and was forced to a 5th set in the 2nd roud by Novak), was match points down against Corretja in 1996.

Sampras' 5-set R64 match against Jiri Novak was at the 1996 US Open, the same year as the Corretja quarter final match. At the 1994 US Open, before Sampras' 5-set loss to Yzaga in the R16, he lost the first set of his R32 match against Roger Smith before coming back to win in 4 sets. Sampras won his first two matches at that tournament in straight sets.

When Sampras lost to Yzaga at the US Open, in 1988 and 1994, he avenged those defeats at the following years' tournaments, 1989 and 1995.

TMF
03-08-2012, 07:34 PM
Sampras and Connors had the home court advantage. It's a lot easier when they have 20,000 fans rooting them. Unlike Federer, he didn't get the support when he play Agassi, Roddick, Blake etc....

TMF
03-08-2012, 07:39 PM
The Rocket!

We are talking about US Open on hard court, not on grass during Laver's era.


Stay on topic !:mad:

timnz
03-08-2012, 07:39 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. The purpose of the grand slams is this: you have the pinnacle tournament for each surface.

AO: Med-slow hard court
FO: Clay
WB: Grass
USO: Fast hard court

Since it's obvious that it's about the fast hard court slam at the end of the year, he's not in contention with Sampras and Federer.

And about the Sampras finals: Federer won all of his consecutively. Tie restored.

The OP didn't say "The best US Open winner since 1978". No they said the best US Open winner. The tournament has existed since 1968 (or the 19th century if you include the US Championships).

Regarding surface. So if they changed the US Open surface to Grass then Sampras' and Federer's achievements wouldn't be rated at all anymore according to you (because they played on hard and now it's grass!)? Players historical achievements aren't invalidated by changes to court surface. You are judging from current conditions not what they were at the time the players played.

monfed
03-08-2012, 07:39 PM
Sampras and Connors had the home court advantage. It's a lot easier when they have 20,000 fans rooting them. Unlike Federer, he didn't get the support when he play Agassi, Roddick, Blake etc....

Never occurred to me. This particular point should be the tiebreaker.

timnz
03-08-2012, 07:54 PM
We are talking about US Open on hard court, not on grass during Laver's era.


Stay on topic !:mad:

The title of the thread is 'Best US Open player of the open era?' . Nothing was mentioned about hard court only. Hence, 1968 to 1977 is included (First 7 US Opens were on Grass, then next 3 were on clay)

wimble10
03-08-2012, 08:18 PM
for someone who claims to think a lot, you really don't seem to be doing that.
what's your point ?

Bobby Jr
03-08-2012, 08:47 PM
... I think it's pretty clear their was more variety in Sampras era, and I think this indicates that it was more competitive during those years.
OR the level was much less professional than it is now and few players could keep up their form as often.

Players who are all over the place in their results - a semi at one tournament, a 1st round loss at the next, then a win... etc are today considered unreliable or streaky and not worthy of the top spot.

But when you look at the same thing from the 1990s some people astonishingly interpret heaps of different players reaching semifinals etc as evidence of greater depth? Go figure.

mattennis
03-09-2012, 12:32 AM
Sampras loss against Izaga in the US OPEN'94 is not surprising at all. The US OPEN was his first tournament after Wimbledon, he was off for two months because of injury (ankle).

He himself said he was not match-fit at all, he had no time to get in shape before the US OPEN.


His loss against Korda in the US OPEN'97 (7-6 5-7 6-7 6-3 6-7) is not surprising either. Korda was one of the most dangerous players of the 90s when he was on, and Sampras did not play good enough that day (that long match hurt Korda too, who defaulted from the next match because of injury)

Sampras was leading 2 sets to 1 in the SF of the US OPEN'98 against Rafter when he injured his leg. He lost the last two sets (and later said he would have won the tournament easily had he not got injured, something that Rafter did not like at all).

His 2000 and 2001 losses in the final against Safin and Hewitt are not surprising either. At that stage Sampras was not fit enough to endurance SF and Final in the US OPEN in consecutive days.

All in all, he "might" have won more US OPENs had he been fitter or uninjured in those several years, but actually the inmense majority of players get injured many times and lose or miss several GS (not only Sampras and Nadal).

Federer is the weird one in that respect, being in excellent shape and uninjured almost always (and that is a testament to his great genetics and his clever and professional care of his body).

On the other hand, Rosewall was playing great tennis in 1974 still. In Wimbledon he defeated Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith in the R16, QF and SF. Perhaps he was a bit tired in the Final against a young Connors.

In the US OPEN (as Mustard said) Rosewall defeated Newcombe again (this time in the SF) but was helpless against Connors in the final.

In general, I think Rosewall did not like to play against Connors. Connors "new power baseline game" (for the time) and powerful returns hurt an old Rosewall a lot.

IvanisevicServe
03-09-2012, 01:11 AM
The thing is, Federer's left a lot on the court at the US Open. Blew a final he had no business letting Del Potro back in in 2009, which would've given him 6 in a row...and then lost to Djokovic in 5 having had match points in back-to-back years.

Sampras, on the other hand, was steamrolled by Safin and Hewitt in his consecutive finals lost before the triumphant final victory in 2002.

And yet, my gut is still going with Sampras on this one.

mattennis
03-09-2012, 01:58 AM
Yes, Federer has had more of "mental" problems I would say.

He could have won the US OPEN'09, it would have been his sixth title. But for one thing or another, he seemed to lose focus in important moments of that match, specially the second and fifth sets.

He could have beaten Djokovic in both SF in '10 and '11 and maybe have won one or two US OPENs more. It's true, he could have done it, but maybe he lacked a bit of mental strenght/focus in important moments in those matches.

It is a bit strange this things that happens to Roger. For the majority of players, being injury free almost all the time is impossible. Look at Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Rafter......all of them missed several GS because of injury (and/or entered but played bad and lost or retired because of injury) but Federer must be the first and only one nº1 player that has entered all the GS tournaments in maybe a decade or more, and has always been in excellent physical shape in all of them (bar AO'08 maybe).

So it is such a pity that he did not take advange of it more. As I said, those three losses (against Del Potro in '09 and against Djokovic the last two years, in the US OPEN I mean) were very painful to me, because he was almost there, very close, and what set him down was more of a focus/mental thing that any injury or physical problem (against you can do nothing).

That is why many people (included myself) think those losses were very painful.

When there is a physical problem that clearly harm you, well, bad luck, you can't even compete.

But when you were in good physical shape and lose, probably part of you always think about it and regret it.

Sampras's case is different in that sense. He might have won the US OPEN'94 had he been uninjured and fit (because he was playing amazing tennis that year before the ankle injury in July that took him out for two months), but an injury is something you can not always avoid.

He could have won the US OPEN'97 and that is totally his fault. Had he beaten Korda in that amazingly close match, he would have played Bjorkman in the QF, Rusedski in the SF and Rafter in the Final (three players Sampras used to play very well against and beat them usually with ease). That was a great chance missed and he knew it and lamented it later.

The next year, in the SF against Rafter, he was leading 7-6 4-6 6-2 and then injured his leg. Bad luck, you can't do anything in that situation. He was that sure that he would have won that match and the final against Philippoussis had he not get injured, that he clearly said it (something that many did not like, specially Rafter).

The next year, in 1999, he could not even play because he injured severely his back (he had won the previous 4 tournaments and was in a 20-something winning streak, playing great tennis that summer). Again, nothing you can do about it.

In 2000 and 2001 he should have been in better physical shape to endurance two consecutive days matches (SF and F) after five previous best of five rounds, and that is his fault, but Sampras always had this stamina/endurance problems and when he was 29/30 it simply got even worse and probably he could do little to improve that thing (it is a genetic condition).

At the end of the day, you won what you won, and you didn't win what you didn't win. Everything counts and the end result is what everybody remember.

Connors was close to beat McEnroe in the 84 SF (lost in five sets) and perhaps could have beaten Lendl in the final for the third consecutive time. Who knows. Had he won the third set tie-breaker in the 77 final (on clay) against Vilas and maybe the forth set would have been different. Who knows.

Every player can have this type of thoughts about many moments in this career.

At the end of the day you won X nº of GS (and Y nº of other titles, and you were Z nº of years Nº1) and that's it.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 07:18 AM
Sampras was the overwhelming favourite at the 1997 US Open. Everyone knew how dangerous Korda was on his day, but Sampras losing was still a shock. As for what happened in 1994, as Jim Courier once said "Pete is always injured". Who gave Yzaga any chance of beating Sampras that day?

mattennis
03-09-2012, 07:33 AM
Sampras was the overwhelming favourite at the 1997 US Open. Everyone knew how dangerous Korda was on his day, but Sampras losing was still a shock. As for what happened in 1994, as Jim Courier once said "Pete is always injured". Who gave Yzaga any chance of beating Sampras that day?

Not before the match, but many people (included myself) saw Sampras struggling physically even at the end of the third set. It was clear to everybody that he had no energy anymore (despite that he fought and lost two more sets).

He later said that the two months off (because of the ankle injury) made it impossible to be in physical shape for the tournament (the US OPEN was his first tournament since Wimbledon).

Something similar happened to Roger in the Masters Cup'05, in the final against Nalbandian. At the begining of the third set Federer got extremely tired. He fought till the end, but lost.

mattennis
03-09-2012, 07:34 AM
Press of the time: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1994-09-07/sports/9409080221_1_ninth-seeded-todd-martin-kevin-ullyett-grand-slam-title

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/07/sports/us-open-94-lots-of-pain-little-gain-sampras-upset-by-yzaga.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

abmk
03-09-2012, 07:46 AM
mattennis

The excuses for Sampras just go on and on .....jeez ....

He played what ~2 hr matches , both straight set wins in the 2000 and 2001 USO SFs ...... Jeez and he was tired because of only playing for ~2 hrs the previous day ????? Safin and Hewitt respectively were in great form in those finals , zoning in. Hence Pete got ripped !

yes, and the Korda 97 USO match, amazingly close match, eh ? How about a more accurate description being a nice lil' choke from Sampras , losing after being a break up in the final set ?

mattennis
03-09-2012, 07:53 AM
A match that ends in a fifth set tiebreak is close. Are you dumb?

fed_rulz
03-09-2012, 07:55 AM
mattennis

The excuses for Sampras just go on and on .....jeez ....

He played what ~2 hr matches , both straight set wins in the 2000 and 2001 USO SFs ...... Jeez and he was tired because of only playing for ~2 hrs the previous day ????? Safin and Hewitt respectively were in great form in those finals , zoning in. Hence Pete got ripped !

yes, and the Korda 97 USO match, amazingly close match, eh ? How about a more accurate description being a nice lil' choke from Sampras , losing after being a break up in the final set ?

choke?? from Sampras?? c'mon, you must be joking. Only federer is capable of that.. not the mental giant Sampras. especially with his serve, which never lost him a point.

mattennis
03-09-2012, 08:00 AM
A win is a win, and a defeat is a defeat, period.

And Federer was leg-tired in the last three sets of the WTF'05 final, and had sore back in the WTF'08 and Sampras was death-tired or injured countless times and Nadal has been injured countless times as well (as many other players).

The two things are not incompatible.

If a player is not fit and/or is injured, bad luck mate. A win is a win (but you don't have to pretend every player is always 100% physically and mentally, they rarely are).

That is why excuses don't make sense. You can be tired, injured or whatever (and nobody dispute that as a fact, because it happens ALL THE TIME) but if you lose, you lose. Period.

abmk
03-09-2012, 08:03 AM
A match that ends in a fifth set tiebreak is close. Are you dumb?

really ? Can you read ? When did I say the match wasn't 'close' ? I only said a more accurate description would be Sampras choking away the break in the final set ....

fed_rulz
03-09-2012, 08:07 AM
Yes, Federer has had more of "mental" problems I would say.

He could have won the US OPEN'09, it would have been his sixth title. But for one thing or another, he seemed to lose focus in important moments of that match, specially the second and fifth sets.


A match that ends in a fifth set tiebreak is close. Are you dumb?

so Federer has mental problems, but sampras losing from being a break up in the 5th set means he is a mental giant??

mattennis
03-09-2012, 08:08 AM
It is like Clarky or Namelessone all the time saying that Nadal is playing crap, or is always tired, whatever.

It may be true, but who cares? If Federer is healthier than others, props to him.

If Nadal, Djokovic, Krajicek, Stich, Sampras, Rafter, Agassi, Cash, Mecir,....have/had more physical problems, who cares? That's life.

But on the other hand you CAN appreciate the effort Sampras did in that match against Yzaga (and many other times he ran out of fuel but not always fought till the end), or the effort Federer did in the last three sets of the WTF'05 final or in the AusOpen'08, even if they ended losing those matches (normally you lose when you are dead tired/injured). You CAN appreciate the effort, it is not an excuse for the defeat (because excuses as I said don't make sense in professional sports).

Is it really that difficult to grasp?

mattennis
03-09-2012, 08:13 AM
so Federer has mental problems, but sampras losing from being a break up in the 5th set means he is a mental giant??

If it were just one match, it is OK, things like that happen to every player.

But Federer has lost MANY matches that were close, even having match-points in his favour many times.

It is a curious thing that happens to Roger MORE than to other greats.

TMF
03-09-2012, 08:22 AM
Sampras was the overwhelming favourite at the 1997 US Open. Everyone knew how dangerous Korda was on his day, but Sampras losing was still a shock. As for what happened in 1994, as Jim Courier once said "Pete is always injured". Who gave Yzaga any chance of beating Sampras that day?[/B]

Sampras wasn't moving well at all throughout the match and claimed that his whole body was sore, but that's part of the sport. This is about who's the best at the US Open, and you cannot discount certain losses or wins.

mattennis
03-09-2012, 08:26 AM
I am surprise that ********* is not here telling me "how on earth can you say that had Federer beaten Djokovic he may have won one or two more US OPEN being that it was Nadal in the final?"

hahaha, give him time.

joeri888
03-09-2012, 08:45 AM
Rafael Nadal.

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 09:10 AM
got to hand it to fedex. He just dominated US open like none other.

May be its suits his style a lot more!

Murrayalmagrofan
03-09-2012, 09:11 AM
But only due to the arthimetic. 8 finals won 5. If Federer wins another it will be a different question as he will be the open era leader in US Open titles.
+1 Sampras is my pick, but this too will change if Fed wins a 6th US Open.

TMF
03-09-2012, 09:36 AM
If it were just one match, it is OK, things like that happen to every player.

But Federer has lost MANY matches that were close, even having match-points in his favour many times.

It is a curious thing that happens to Roger MORE than to other greats.

Losing a match by having a match point is much better than Sampras getting straight set !

Fed losses were all ended in a 5th set, and that was AFTER he won 5 straight USO.

devila
03-09-2012, 09:47 AM
If it were just one match, it is OK, things like that happen to every player.

But Federer has lost MANY matches that were close, even having match-points in his favour many times.

It is a curious thing that happens to Roger MORE than to other greats.

very wise post.
the abusive fed gloryhunters can't accept that had he faced great players like
nole, federer'd have only a few slams and losers wouldn't have stopped working
hard on their games because they were dead frightened of the federer propaganda.
if the atp had rejected non-athletes, these loser federer opponents wouldn't be insulting tournament officials, lineswomen, commentators, respectful players & real tennis fans, as well as screaming "fed, you are goat, you're so nice".

Towser83
03-09-2012, 09:57 AM
If it were just one match, it is OK, things like that happen to every player.

But Federer has lost MANY matches that were close, even having match-points in his favour many times.

It is a curious thing that happens to Roger MORE than to other greats.

Yes, even when Federer loses most times he almost wins ;)

mattennis
03-09-2012, 10:00 AM
Where did I say that one thing is better or worse than another?

I said that (for me) it was painful that Federer lost some important matches in which he was in a good position to win (specially the last three US OPENs) and I said that (again, FOR ME) it was painful because he (apparently) did not have any insurmountable problem (like a bad injury or physical problem, then you can do nothing).

On the other hand, when he lost to Nalbandian in a very close match (WTF'05) it was (for me, again) not so painful because he was not match-fit and he could not do more. It was a great effort what he did, being 7-6 7-6 2-6 1-6 0-4 and still fought to the end (with very tired legs) and lost the final set in a tie-break.

I put several examples about Sampras where he fought even when feeling dead-tired (Yzaga match), and that was a good thing, even if he lost anyways, and some other where he was dead-tired BUT did not fight (Hewitt match), and other losses he had (Korda match) that (like Federer's last three US OPENs) was a really good chance to have won the tournament. And other instances where he got injured during the match (Rafter match) so he could do nothing (not that painful, simply bad luck).

Why do you want it to look like a Federer-Sampras war?

In fact they both are two of my 200 favourites all-time players to watch. I prefer watching Edberg or Rafter, or McEnroe to Sampras or Federer.

But at the same time I can see that (again, in my opinion) Federer and Sampras are the two best players (for me) of the last 20 years, even if I can't judge it properly because in different decades there are different playing conditions, but subjectively they are the two best players possibly of the Open Era for me, as a personal feeling.

And I like Federer style more than anyone in this era. In fact, even if I can't compare different era, I would say (again, personally, subjectively) that Federer is (for me) the best tennis player of the Open Era (even if I can not prove it because you can't compare different times).

So I can not understand why anytime I say something good about Sampras, or Laver, or Rosewall, many people here snaps as if I was killing Federer.

But if I say something good about Edberg, or Rafter, or Muster, or Bruguera, or Ivanisevic, or Stich, (something that I do often here), surprisingly nobody snaps as if I was killing Federer.

Isn't it funny?

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 10:43 AM
Where did I say that one thing is better or worse than another?

I said that (for me) it was painful that Federer lost some important matches in which he was in a good position to win (specially the last three US OPENs) and I said that (again, FOR ME) it was painful because he (apparently) did not have any insurmountable problem (like a bad injury or physical problem, then you can do nothing).

On the other hand, when he lost to Nalbandian in a very close match (WTF'05) it was (for me, again) not so painful because he was not match-fit and he could not do more. It was a great effort what he did, being 7-6 7-6 2-6 1-6 0-4 and still fought to the end (with very tired legs) and lost the final set in a tie-break.

I put several examples about Sampras where he fought even when feeling dead-tired (Yzaga match), and that was a good thing, even if he lost anyways, and some other where he was dead-tired BUT did not fight (Hewitt match), and other losses he had (Korda match) that (like Federer's last three US OPENs) was a really good chance to have won the tournament. And other instances where he got injured during the match (Rafter match) so he could do nothing (not that painful, simply bad luck).

Why do you want it to look like a Federer-Sampras war?

In fact they both are two of my 200 favourites all-time players to watch. I prefer watching Edberg or Rafter, or McEnroe to Sampras or Federer.

But at the same time I can see that (again, in my opinion) Federer and Sampras are the two best players (for me) of the last 20 years, even if I can't judge it properly because in different decades there are different playing conditions, but subjectively they are the two best players possibly of the Open Era for me, as a personal feeling.

And I like Federer style more than anyone in this era. In fact, even if I can't compare different era, I would say (again, personally, subjectively) that Federer is (for me) the best tennis player of the Open Era (even if I can not prove it because you can't compare different times).

So I can not understand why anytime I say something good about Sampras, or Laver, or Rosewall, many people here snaps as if I was killing Federer.

But if I say something good about Edberg, or Rafter, or Muster, or Bruguera, or Ivanisevic, or Stich, (something that I do often here), surprisingly nobody snaps as if I was killing Federer.

Isn't it funny?

Too soon. This is OTT. Federer never faced stiff challenge during his prime years. You know the results when he faced Nadal and now Djoker.

I can say one thing for sure though..... Fedex was the best in HIS era. He faced way too many lulloos (AKA loosers like Roddick,Hewitt whom he would beat with his eyes closed) for his calibre.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 10:52 AM
If it were just one match, it is OK, things like that happen to every player.

But Federer has lost MANY matches that were close, even having match-points in his favour many times.

It is a curious thing that happens to Roger MORE than to other greats.

Which matches?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 10:57 AM
Too soon. This is OTT. Federer never faced stiff challenge during his prime years. You know the results when he faced Nadal and now Djoker.

I can say one thing for sure though..... Fedex was the best in HIS era. He faced way too many lulloos (AKA loosers like Roddick,Hewitt whom he would beat with his eyes closed) for his calibre.

Yea............................................... ............................ I guess Djoker and Nadal are the absolute most super best players to ever play on a court. Fedex is also OLD now. Fedex is still able to challenge Djoker, much more so than Nadal can at least. If you think that Federer now is the same Federer of 04-07 then I guess your eyes are just closed.

mattennis
03-09-2012, 11:11 AM
Which matches?

Off the top of my head, he had match-points in his losses to Safin ( Australian Open'05, 1 match-point), Gasquet ( Monte Carlo'05 , at least 1 match-point ), Nadal ( Rome'06, 2 match-points ), Baghdatis ( Indian Wells'10 , 3 match-points ), Berdych ( Miami'10 , 1 match-point ), Djokovic ( US OPEN'10, 2 match-points ), Monfils ( Paris'10 , 4 match-points ), Djokovic ( US OPEN'11, 2 match-points ).

Add to this many losses he had in matches in which he was ahead during the match (even if he did not have match-points), like the one he lost to Tsonga when leading 5-1 in the last set, the one he lost to Nalbandian when leading 6-5 30-0 on serve, and many matches against Nadal.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 11:21 AM
Rafael Nadal.

Nadal was the first person to win the US Open for the loss of just 1 set since Lendl in 1987.

Hitman
03-09-2012, 11:23 AM
Nadal was the first person to win the US Open for the loss of just 1 set since Lendl in 1987.

That is quite impressive.

Can you list the players he beat on route to the title Mustard?

mattennis
03-09-2012, 11:25 AM
Nadal was the first person to win the US Open for the loss of just 1 set since Lendl in 1987.

Wow, that really is an amazing stat.

Last year he only lost one set prior to the Final.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 11:35 AM
That is quite impressive.

Can you list the players he beat on route to the title Mustard?

Rafael Nadal at the 2010 US Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Teymuraz Gabashvili (7-6, 7-6, 6-3)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Denis Istomin (6-2, 7-6, 7-5)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Gilles Simon (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Feliciano Lopez (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Fernando Verdasco (7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Mikhail Youzhny (6-2, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2)

Mustard
03-09-2012, 11:50 AM
By the way, Lendl's 3 US Open titles in 1985, 1986 and 1987 were all won for the loss of just 1 set. He lost a set to Yzaga in 1985 in the R16, lost a set to Leconte in 1986 in the QF, and lost to a set to Wilander in 1987 in the final. Connors in 1976 was another US Open title won for the loss of 1 set, as well as McEnroe's in 1979 (although 1 match was a walkover and another ended with his opponent retiring at 1-2 down in the first set), and Vilas in 1977.

As I said before, though, you have to go back to 1960, and Neale Fraser, to find the last time a men's singles champion won the title without dropping a set.

tudwell
03-09-2012, 12:12 PM
Definitely Connors. Winning it on three different surfaces is really impressive, combined with his stellar and consistent record outside of the times he won.

Nathaniel_Near
03-09-2012, 12:23 PM
Rafael Nadal at the 2010 US Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Teymuraz Gabashvili (7-6, 7-6, 6-3)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Denis Istomin (6-2, 7-6, 7-5)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Gilles Simon (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Feliciano Lopez (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Fernando Verdasco (7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Mikhail Youzhny (6-2, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2)

This is really impressive!:):)

Monsieur_DeLarge
03-09-2012, 12:33 PM
I think Lendl's not getting enough love here. Ok, he may not quite have a claim to be the greatest, but I hold his eight consecutive finals in higher regard than Connors' twelve consecutive semis. I think he's very, very close to the top three.

For the same reason, I have to ~ just ~ give it to Federer overall; his five-in-a-row is like a straight flush versus the Americans' mere flushes, and frankly I reckon he lost the '09 final as much as Del Potro won it. No offence, JM, and not that I'm complaining: 16/1 the month before the tourney started... ker-chingg!! ;):mrgreen:

I admit that I may be slightly biased in my analysis by Fed's 2004 performance. Strongo, if you don't like Rog you probably won't enjoy it, since it was very... Federer-esque. But it was partly down to who he beat: Hewitt had been champion only three years before, he was the #4 seed, and on a 16-match hot streak. In fact, it was Leyton's fourth final in a row, and he'd only lost four sets in his previous 22 matches. But he lost the opener to FedEx in 18 minutes; it was just ridiculous. I can't say I ever saw either Connors or Sampras at quite those heights (disclaimer: I'm too young to remember 1974).


Regards,
MDL

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 12:59 PM
Nadal was the first person to win the US Open for the loss of just 1 set since Lendl in 1987.

Oh big deal. Just means it was a weak era. (It's actually fun to think like this!)

kiki
03-09-2012, 01:01 PM
Here are all their US Open records, by the way:

Jimmy Connors
1970: Round of 128 Loser
1971: Round of 64 Loser
1972: Round of 128 Loser
1973: Quarter Final Loser
1974: CHAMPION
1975: Runner-up
1976: CHAMPION
1977: Runner-up
1978: CHAMPION
1979: Semi Final Loser
1980: Semi Final Loser
1981: Semi Final Loser
1982: CHAMPION
1983: CHAMPION
1984: Semi Final Loser
1985: Semi Final Loser
1986: Round of 32 Loser
1987: Semi Final Loser
1988: Quarter Final Loser
1989: Quarter Final Loser
1990: DID NOT PLAY (wrist injury)
1991: Semi Final Loser
1992: Round of 64 Loser

Pete Sampras
1988: Round of 128 Loser
1989: Round of 16 Loser
1990: CHAMPION
1991: Quarter Final Loser
1992: Runner-up
1993: CHAMPION
1994: Round of 16 Loser
1995: CHAMPION
1996: CHAMPION
1997: Round of 16 Loser
1998: Semi Final Loser
1999: DID NOT PLAY (back injury)
2000: Runner-up
2001: Runner-up
2002: CHAMPION

Roger Federer
1999: DID NOT QUALIFY
2000: Round of 32 Loser
2001: Round of 16 Loser
2002: Round of 16 Loser
2003: Round of 16 Loser
2004: CHAMPION
2005: CHAMPION
2006: CHAMPION
2007: CHAMPION
2008: CHAMPION
2009: Runner-up
2010: Semi Final Loser
2011: Semi Final Loser

John McEnroe
1977: Round of 16 Loser
1978: Semi Final Loser
1979: CHAMPION
1980: CHAMPION
1981: CHAMPION
1982: Semi Final Loser
1983: Round of 16 Loser
1984: CHAMPION
1985: Runner-up
1986: Round of 128 Loser
1987: Quarter Final Loser
1988: Round of 64 Loser
1989: Round of 64 Loser
1990: Semi Final Loser
1991: Round of 32 Loser
1992: Round of 16 Loser

Ivan Lendl
1979: Round of 64 Loser
1980: Quarter Final Loser
1981: Round of 16 Loser
1982: Runner-up
1983: Runner-up
1984: Runner-up
1985: CHAMPION
1986: CHAMPION
1987: CHAMPION
1988: Runner-up
1989: Runner-up
1990: Quarter Final Loser
1991: Semi Final Loser
1992: Quarter Final Loser
1993: Round of 128 Loser
1994: Round of 64 Loser

Andre Agassi
1986: Round of 128 Loser
1987: Round of 128 Loser
1988: Semi Final Loser
1989: Semi Final Loser
1990: Runner-up
1991: Round of 128 Loser
1992: Quarter Final Loser
1993: Round of 128 Loser
1994: CHAMPION
1995: Runner-up
1996: Semi Final Loser
1997: Round of 16 Loser
1998: Round of 16 Loser
1999: CHAMPION
2000: Round of 64 Loser
2001: Quarter Final Loser
2002: Runner-up
2003: Semi Final Loser
2004: Quarter Final Loser
2005: Runner-up
2006: Round of 32 Loser

who beat im in 72?

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 01:06 PM
Yea............................................... ............................ I guess Djoker and Nadal are the absolute most super best players to ever play on a court. Fedex is also OLD now. Fedex is still able to challenge Djoker, much more so than Nadal can at least. If you think that Federer now is the same Federer of 04-07 then I guess your eyes are just closed.

I honestly don't think that age is currently a factor for fedex as he is able to see off guys like Murray, Tsonga and Delpo convincingly.

I will agree to an extent that Djoker has become a grinder of sorts. But Nadal has always been a grinder. Given the fact that Fedex can match djoker very closely at opens, I believe that Fedex never really got the run for money.he was almost unchallenged.

Only guy who even showed a bit of challenge was Marat Safin, but we all know how mentally fragile that guy was! In effect i will repeat that Fedex was best among HIS era surrounded by losers who crap on just seeing him on court!

Now He is being challenged more and more. I'm sure if Nadal and djoker waren't around, fedex would have been the best thing since sliced bread for his fans. I'm thankful Nadal and to an extent Nole put fedex in his place.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 01:06 PM
Oh big deal. Just means it was a weak era. (It's actually fun to think like this!)

No, it means he had a very weak draw. Didnt play anybody that was remotely a threat til Youhzny in the ...semi, I believe?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 01:10 PM
No, it means he had a very weak draw. Didnt play anybody that was remotely a threat til Youhzny in the ...semi, I believe?

I was just joking. I mean if anyone gets amazing numbers then it's a weak ERA, draw, etc. But if Nadal doesn't drop a set then it is utterly amazing.

Monsieur_DeLarge
03-09-2012, 01:10 PM
who beat im in 72?

Tom Gorman, who later became the US DC Cap'n. He went on to the semis that year where he lost to Nastase, having been to the Wimbledon semis in '71. Bit of a tough draw for Jimbo, actually ~ I suspect if there had been 32 seeds like nowadays, TG might have been one of 'em.


Regards,
MDL

Mustard
03-09-2012, 01:11 PM
who beat im in 72?

Connors? Tom Gorman beat him at the 1972 US Open.

Edit: Beaten to it by Monsieur DeLarge.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 01:13 PM
No, it means he had a very weak draw. Didnt play anybody that was remotely a threat til Youhzny in the ...semi, I believe?

So who would have been a "threat"?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 01:13 PM
I honestly don't think that age is currently a factor for fedex as he is able to see off guys like Murray, Tsonga and Delpo convincingly.

I will agree to an extent that Djoker has become a grinder of sorts. But Nadal has always been a grinder. Given the fact that Fedex can match djoker very closely at opens, I believe that Fedex never really got the run for money.he was almost unchallenged.

Only guy who even showed a bit of challenge was Marat Safin, but we all know how mentally fragile that guy was! In effect i will repeat that Fedex was best among HIS era surrounded by losers who crap on just seeing him on court!

Now He is being challenged more and more. I'm sure if Nadal and djoker waren't around, fedex would have been the best thing since sliced bread for his fans. I'm thankful Nadal and to an extent Nole put fedex in his place.

Movement isn't nearly as good as it was in his prime. Can't sustain the high level of play. Federer and Djoker and FH to FH whereas Federer and Nadal aren't. Federer's style of play is the worst for Djoker; someone who mixes spins, paces, and is the best junkballer in the game now. That's why Nadal does so well against Nadal but will struggle more against Federer. Nadal is the equivalent of a ball machine for Djoker. Basically he knows what is coming.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 01:14 PM
I honestly don't think that age is currently a factor for fedex as he is able to see off guys like Murray, Tsonga and Delpo convincingly.

I will agree to an extent that Djoker has become a grinder of sorts. But Nadal has always been a grinder. Given the fact that Fedex can match djoker very closely at opens, I believe that Fedex never really got the run for money.he was almost unchallenged.

Only guy who even showed a bit of challenge was Marat Safin, but we all know how mentally fragile that guy was! In effect i will repeat that Fedex was best among HIS era surrounded by losers who crap on just seeing him on court!

Now He is being challenged more and more. I'm sure if Nadal and djoker waren't around, fedex would have been the best thing since sliced bread for his fans. I'm thankful Nadal and to an extent Nole put fedex in his place.

as an arguable goat candidate?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 01:16 PM
as an arguable goat candidate?

There is no argument, Nadal's resume is on swiss cheese stationary. Full of holes.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 01:18 PM
There is no argument, Nadal's resume is on swiss cheese stationary. Full of holes.

Oh? What holes? A career Grand Slam not enough?

celoft
03-09-2012, 01:31 PM
There is no argument, Nadal's resume is on swiss cheese stationary. Full of holes.

This.........................

Rock Strongo
03-09-2012, 01:44 PM
Let's wrap this thread up. There's just one guy who can make a pic as awesome as this.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e237/JoeDali/Connors-In-5.jpg

Moose Malloy
03-09-2012, 01:51 PM
He lost the last two sets (and later said he would have won the tournament easily had he not got injured, something that Rafter did not like at all).


do you have a link showing that he said that? this is the first I've ever heard of that(& I followed the game pretty closely then), it seems very uncharacteristic of Sampras. His post match interview is online at asapsports, he seemed very reluctant to even discuss the injury, & gave full credit to Rafter(which makes it weird that Rafter got annoyed when asked about Sampras' injury, Pete didn't use it as an excuse at all, even though it was pretty obvious he was barely moving in the last 2 sets) It seems like the press were a bit misleading with Rafter about what Pete said & tried to create tension between the 2.

the level was much less professional than it is now and few players could keep up their form as often.

Players who are all over the place in their results - a semi at one tournament, a 1st round loss at the next, then a win... etc are today considered unreliable or streaky and not worthy of the top spot.

But when you look at the same thing from the 1990s some people astonishingly interpret heaps of different players reaching semifinals etc as evidence of greater depth? Go figure.

well, all the commmentators in the 90s did go on & on about how much depth there was in the game then & that all the upsets were proof of that(saying stuff like there is not much difference between #100 & #10 etc. while today the difference between 4 & 20 today seems almost astronomical to me - what is the points gap?)

with 32 seeds & all surfaces almost being standardized today, its not surprising top players are so much more consistent. in the 90s, clay & grass tennis were almost different sports, the top 20 on grass & the the top 20 on clay were almost a completely different list of players many years.

He played what ~2 hr matches , both straight set wins in the 2000 and 2001 USO SFs ...... Jeez and he was tired because of only playing for ~2 hrs the previous day ????? Safin and Hewitt respectively were in great form in those finals , zoning in. Hence Pete got ripped !


His mph was considerably lower vs Hewitt than it was vs Rafter, Agassi, Safin in '01(these stats are available), I don't know what other evidence there can be that he was tired. Did Sampras decide to serve 10 mph less vs Hewitt as a strategy or something?
Can we agree that that was the toughest path to a USO final in history? it was unpredented to play 3 former champs in a row. Not an easy turnaround after all those matches, physically or mentally.

yes, and the Korda 97 USO match, amazingly close match, eh ? How about a more accurate description being a nice lil' choke from Sampras , losing after being a break up in the final set ?

didn't Korda almost rip 3 clean return winners off Sampras' first serve to get the break back? I remember Mac going nuts after some of those passes('We are watching Rod Laver in 1997'), there were some unreal shots in that game. you consider that a choke? losing a set after being up a break doesn't always have anything to do with 'choking,' there is another guy across the net who has a say in what happens. But I do recall Pete playing a poor tiebreak to end it.

Something similar happened to Roger in the Masters Cup'05, in the final against Nalbandian. At the begining of the third set Federer got extremely tired. He fought till the end, but lost.

I always thought the Nalbandian match was very similar to the Yzaga match(who btw had a great bh)
I remember Gerulaitis saying after Sampras lost that when he took his socks off in the locker room he had no skin on the bottom of his feet. After playing no matches for months(& not practicing much either) his body wasn't ready for a best of 5 hardcourt tournament.

Sampras and Connors had the home court advantage. It's a lot easier when they have 20,000 fans rooting them

Right, Sampras was another Connors or something. He was far from a crowd favorite at the USO(until he started to decline. and vomit in matches) I was at many matches at the USO in the 90s where the crowd was pretty sparse/indifferent during Sampras' early round matches. While they would pack the seats in & go nuts during Agassi's matches.

I think Fed is actually more popular at the Open than Sampras, he's always received great support at the Open(look at how often he gets scheduled at night, he has the record for most night matches, way more than Sampras played) I think that Fed-Santoro match in '05 set some record for attendance in a night session.
even vs Roddick, I thought Fed had great support. against Agassi? not so much. But he's the most popular USO player(or 2nd to JC) of the last 25 years. Fed may well be #3, you don't win 5 straight USOs without getting a lot of fans. And his game is very crowd pleasing(lots of long rallies etc, Americans aren't big on big servers. Sampras was ragged on pretty badly by the US media and a lot of fans for his boring style of tennis every time he won Wimbledon. Heck, Connors & Mac would rag on him as well, which didn't help matters. While Mac has been in love with Fed's game from Day 1)

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 02:13 PM
Oh? What holes? A career Grand Slam not enough?

Not for GOAT contention.

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 02:23 PM
Nadal was the first person to win the US Open for the loss of just 1 set since Lendl in 1987.

and what a draw that was. Goating against the likes of Gasbashvilli, and gargatuan semi-finalist Youzhny....

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 02:24 PM
as an arguable goat candidate?

In my opinion he is GOAT just by slam counts. I mean it is close to impossible for anyone to come that close even with consistent level of play.

however, if there were no Djoker or Nadal then he be the G of GOAT :) and people would be going gaga over his achievements time and time again without even thinking that he did not have any close competition for his level of play.

But I would also like to say that that he would have not over achieved this much had there been a fair bit of resistance like now. No way in hell!! Look at the finalists he beat in 5 US open finals:

Winner 2004 US Open vs Lleyton Hewitt 6–0, 7–6(7–3), 6–0
Winner 2005 US Open vs Andre Agassi 6–3, 2–6, 7–6(7–1), 6–1
Winner 2006 US Open vs Andy Roddick 6–2, 4–6, 7–5, 6–1
Winner 2007 US Open vs Novak Djokovic 7–6(7–4), 7–6(7–2), 6–4
Winner 2008 US Open vs Andy Murray 6–2, 7–5, 6–2

There was only one worthy opponent for him in all of the finals and that was by all means Novak Djokovic (he was just rising talent then). Agassi was aging and was on his last legs. The other three (hewitt, Roddick and Murray) are his favorite whipping boys!

Mustard
03-09-2012, 02:32 PM
and what a draw that was. Goating against the likes of Gasbashvilli, and gargatuan semi-finalist Youzhny....

Youzhny beat the man who beat Murray. What does that say about Murray?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 02:41 PM
In my opinion he is GOAT just by slam counts. I mean it is close to impossible for anyone to come that close even with consistent level of play.

however, if there were no Djoker or Nadal then he be the G of GOAT :) and people would be going gaga over his achievements time and time again without even thinking that he did not have any close competition for his level of play.

But I would also like to say that that he would have not over achieved this much had there been a fair bit of resistance like now. No way in hell!! Look at the finalists he beat in 5 US open finals:

Winner 2004 US Open vs Lleyton Hewitt 6–0, 7–6(7–3), 6–0
Winner 2005 US Open vs Andre Agassi 6–3, 2–6, 7–6(7–1), 6–1
Winner 2006 US Open vs Andy Roddick 6–2, 4–6, 7–5, 6–1
Winner 2007 US Open vs Novak Djokovic 7–6(7–4), 7–6(7–2), 6–4
Winner 2008 US Open vs Andy Murray 6–2, 7–5, 6–2

There was only one worthy opponent for him in all of the finals and that was by all means Novak Djokovic (he was just rising talent then). Agassi was aging and was on his last legs. The other three (hewitt, Roddick and Murray) are his favorite whipping boys!

So Federer has always owned Hewitt? Damn right on Roddick being a whipping boy. Could you imagine what would have happened if Nadal played someone besides his whipping boy? Imagine if Djoker was there instead of Federer, Nadal would be slamless. Thanks for all the new found logic JOKEdull.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 02:44 PM
Hewitt got the better of pre-prime Federer. Roddick can't say the same.

Mainad
03-09-2012, 02:45 PM
There was only one worthy opponent for him in all of the finals and that was by all means Novak Djokovic (he was just rising talent then). Agassi was aging and was on his last legs. The other three (hewitt, Roddick and Murray) are his favorite whipping boys!

Funny to call someone like Murray who, unlike Djokovic or anybody else except Nadal, has a positive H2H against him, one of his ' favorite whipping boys' ! What the heck kind of whip has he been using on him then? :)

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 02:47 PM
Hewitt got the better of pre-prime Federer. Roddick can't say the same.

Mustard, I know you're a rational poster who has an unbelievable amount of tennis knowledge. This Jokedulll bloke on the other hand seems to have diarrhea of the keyboard.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 02:52 PM
Winner 2004 US Open vs Lleyton Hewitt 6–0, 7–6(7–3), 6–0
Winner 2005 US Open vs Andre Agassi 6–3, 2–6, 7–6(7–1), 6–1
Winner 2006 US Open vs Andy Roddick 6–2, 4–6, 7–5, 6–1
Winner 2007 US Open vs Novak Djokovic 7–6(7–4), 7–6(7–2), 6–4
Winner 2008 US Open vs Andy Murray 6–2, 7–5, 6–2

There was only one worthy opponent for him in all of the finals and that was by all means Novak Djokovic (he was just rising talent then). Agassi was aging and was on his last legs. The other three (hewitt, Roddick and Murray) are his favorite whipping boys!

LOL. Hewitt was a former US Open and Wimbledon champion. Agassi was an 8-time major winner (albeit 35 years old), Roddick a former US Open Champion and Murray had a positive head-to-head record against Federer. I backed Hewitt to pull off the upset, as he was bang in form, a former champion and I wasn't sure the US Open was to Federer's liking.

mattennis
03-09-2012, 03:22 PM
do you have a link showing that he said that? this is the first I've ever heard of that(& I followed the game pretty closely then), it seems very uncharacteristic of Sampras. His post match interview is online at asapsports, he seemed very reluctant to even discuss the injury, & gave full credit to Rafter(which makes it weird that Rafter got annoyed when asked about Sampras' injury, Pete didn't use it as an excuse at all, even though it was pretty obvious he was barely moving in the last 2 sets) It seems like the press were a bit misleading with Rafter about what Pete said & tried to create tension between the 2.


It was not during the US OPEN, it was some days later. I think I read it in a tennis magazine. Sampras said something like "when I see Rafter with the US OPEN trophy, it ****es me off, it should be mine" I think meaning that he would have won it had he not got injured.

It is true that it was uncharacteristic of Sampras, but in those weeks there was a bit of bad tension between them, because in the Cincinnati Final there was an overrule in the match-point (a Rafter ace to end the match) that Sampras thought was clearly out (besides, Sampras was probably ****ed off because he was murdering Rafter in that final, 6-1 5-3 or something like that, and ended up losing 6-1 6-7 4-6 speaking from memory here).

Rafter then said that the final ace was clearly in.

Sampras said (IIRC) that Rafter must have been smoking something hard to say that it was in.

Then Rafter said something like "Pete doesn't give credit to players that beat him".

All this is talking from my memory, but I am quite sure all this happened during those weeks.

Months later they talked to each other through telephone and solved it.

wimble10
03-09-2012, 03:22 PM
It's ironic how some media used to call Sampras "boring." I guess it was because he didn't show a lot of emotion to go along with all his winning. I see a lot of similarities between the Sampras and Federer temperaments.

Federer's dominance at the USO seemed very Lendl-like to me. With Sampras it seemed like you didn't know what you were going to get. That's why he was more exciting to me. His game wasn't as balanced as Federer's, but his strengths (serve, netgame, forehand) were enough to make him one of the greats.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 03:45 PM
That Sampras vs. Rafter rivalry was pretty spicy in the summer of 1998. When Sampras was asked after the 1998 Cincinnati final what he would say the difference was between him and Rafter as a player, Sampras replied "10 Grand Slams", Sampras having 11 and Rafter having 1 at the time.

Rafter beat Sampras in the 1998 US Open semi finals in 5 sets, with Sampras getting injured during the match, and Rafter retained the US Open title by beating Philippoussis in the final. After the tournament, Sampras said "When I see Rafter with the US Open trophy, it really ****es me off". Rafter's reponse was "Pete refuses to show any respect and that is what really upsets me about him, and why I try to **** him off as much as I can".

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 04:25 PM
Youzhny beat the man who beat Murray. What does that say about Murray?

there we go again...

So you are saying that if all that matter is random h2h's then it's fair to say Hrbaty = GOAT

face it = when it comes to nadal you just drop to Bulzilla levels! which is perfectly fine (god knows i'm a FC Porto Loonie)....

Mustard
03-09-2012, 04:43 PM
there we go again...

So you are saying that if all that matter is random h2h's then it's fair to say Hrbaty = GOAT

face it = when it comes to nadal you just drop to Bulzilla levels! which is perfectly fine (god knows i'm a FC Porto Loonie)....

For goodness sakes. Murray lost to Wawrinka, so he's out. Nadal beat the 7 players who got through to face him, end of story.

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 04:54 PM
as an arguable goat candidate?

So Federer has always owned Hewitt? Damn right on Roddick being a whipping boy. Could you imagine what would have happened if Nadal played someone besides his whipping boy? Imagine if Djoker was there instead of Federer, Nadal would be slamless. Thanks for all the new found logic JOKEdull.

yeah....it will sound weird. Can you look up see if any of his opponents showed any fight whatsoever like they do now?

Hewitt was just holding on during the transition period between Sampras to Federer. To my best knowledge he was Federer's pet, and started getting thrashed when Federer started hitting prime.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 04:57 PM
Hewitt was just holding on during the transition period between Sampras to Federer. To my best knowledge he was Federer's pet, and started getting thrashed when Federer started hitting prime.

Nadal aside, who didn't Federer thrash when in his prime?

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 04:58 PM
LOL. Hewitt was a former US Open and Wimbledon champion. Agassi was an 8-time major winner (albeit 35 years old), Roddick a former US Open Champion and Murray had a positive head-to-head record against Federer. I backed Hewitt to pull off the upset, as he was bang in form, a former champion and I wasn't sure the US Open was to Federer's liking.

You just don't get it. All of what you say is valid, but they all happened before we even saw THE REAL FEDEX. The fedex I'm speaking is a monster when we started raking up slams for 4-5 years.

All others were not even close. Its really a joke to say Roddick was US open champ. That guy was not even good even to tie shoe laces of Federer IMO. So go on and continue arguing that fedex defeated some of the greatest champions.Be happy :)

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 04:59 PM
Nadal aside, who didn't Federer thrash when in his prime?

That was my point....the guys who played with him cannot even put up a fight. thats why I said they were not even should be considered in the same league. Fedex was clearly head and shoulders above those guys.

Fedex never was made to fight until Nadal came in and now Djoker.

In my opinion he still own Murray at Majors. Records speak for themselves

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 05:02 PM
Mustard, I know you're a rational poster who has an unbelievable amount of tennis knowledge. This Jokedulll bloke on the other hand seems to have diarrhea of the keyboard.

Wait.... I just stated the facts that Fedex's opponents didn't even stand up to him and you think my keyboard has diarrhea.

Nice presumption! Hail fedex all you want. Let him win Nadal once and I will accept!

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 05:04 PM
Funny to call someone like Murray who, unlike Djokovic or anybody else except Nadal, has a positive H2H against him, one of his ' favorite whipping boys' ! What the heck kind of whip has he been using on him then? :)

Even Nalbandian has a good H2H with Fedex, but all of those don't translate into performances in a Major. If you throw Murray into Federer's draw on a Major again you will know the result.

Why do you think Fedex fans nowadays want to meet Djoker in SF and Murray in Finals of Majors? Why cannot they man up and face the draw? Guess Fedex's fans are more desperate than fedex himself!

Tennis_Hands
03-09-2012, 05:05 PM
At the moment:

Connors
Sampras and Federer tied.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 07:47 PM
yeah....it will sound weird. Can you look up see if any of his opponents showed any fight whatsoever like they do now?

Hewitt was just holding on during the transition period between Sampras to Federer. To my best knowledge he was Federer's pet, and started getting thrashed when Federer started hitting prime.

Your best knowledge seems to be pretty bad then. You should look up the Hewitt Federer 2003 Davis Cup. Hewitt absolutely owned him until 2004.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-09-2012, 07:53 PM
Even Nalbandian has a good H2H with Fedex, but all of those don't translate into performances in a Major. If you throw Murray into Federer's draw on a Major again you will know the result.

Why do you think Fedex fans nowadays want to meet Djoker in SF and Murray in Finals of Majors? Why cannot they man up and face the draw? Guess Fedex's fans are more desperate than fedex himself!

You do realize that Nalbandian's H2H looks good because he won their first five meetings right?

This is what I mean by diarrhea of they keyboard, or in your case trollboard. Attempting to cite examples without any actual knowledge of what you're talking about.

DragonBlaze
03-09-2012, 07:58 PM
That was my point....the guys who played with him cannot even put up a fight. thats why I said they were not even should be considered in the same league. Fedex was clearly head and shoulders above those guys.

Fedex never was made to fight until Nadal came in and now Djoker.

In my opinion he still own Murray at Majors. Records speak for themselves

So basically what you are saying is, if Federer loses = there is competition.

If Fed wins = no competition.

So he can't win either way :lol:

Djokodal Fan
03-09-2012, 09:15 PM
You do realize that Nalbandian's H2H looks good because he won their first five meetings right?

This is what I mean by diarrhea of they keyboard, or in your case trollboard. Attempting to cite examples without any actual knowledge of what you're talking about.


H2H Vs Murray was brought up....thats why I showed Nalbandian's record(not sure if it was you). But none of it translates when it comes to Majors, don't they?

What ever diarrhoea ....you wanna type, you can. My point Fedex is not the best in open era.Period. That's why I thought you went OTT with your diarrhea claim. Let the guy win and prove against his Nemesis like Nole & nadal and I'll agree with best of open era or diarrhoea or whatever.

Ever felt sick of seeing him loose to nadal time and time again....I do:lol:

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 09:42 PM
H2H Vs Murray was brought up....thats why I showed Nalbandian's record(not sure if it was you). But none of it translates when it comes to Majors, don't they?

What ever diarrhoea ....you wanna type, you can. My point Fedex is not the best in open era.Period. That's why I thought you went OTT with your diarrhea claim. Let the guy win and prove against his Nemesis like Nole & nadal and I'll agree with best of open era or diarrhoea or whatever.

Ever felt sick of seeing him loose to nadal time and time again....I do:lol:

Federer is made to fight NOW because he is playing guys 5-6 years younger than him. You're asking Federer to play guys a generation younger than him to prove himself? Some different kind of logic here.

Nadal didn't exactly become a factor on hard courts until very recently, yet he was playing the same guys Federer was playing for much of his career. Djokovic only just became a factor everywhere. Why were these two being held back so much by supposedly inferior players?

If Federer isn't the best Open Era player (to you) despite having much of the data and accomplishments pointing to him, then who do you think is the best Open Era player?

devila
03-09-2012, 10:28 PM
djoker has more quality opponents than players from federer's age group.
if hewitt, roddick and safin are age 21 or 23, none of them would
own more than 1 or 2 masters titles, and none would win a slam. roddick scraped by a less than fully fit nalbandian at the 2003 us oopen.
djoker's big slam losses came when he was age 21, not age 24.

berdych, tsonga and del potro have remained good players who can win
titles, if not masters titles now.
tipsarevic reached the top 10 finally.

the only very good opponent in the top 10 that is federer's age is ferrer.
of course, federer has no problem with the weak players.

monfed
03-09-2012, 10:38 PM
djoker has more quality opponents than players from federer's age group.
if hewitt, roddick and safin are age 21 or 23, none of them would
own more than 1 or 2 masters titles, and none would win a slam. roddick scraped by a less than fully fit nalbandian at the 2003 us oopen.
djoker's big slam losses came when he was age 21, not age 24.

berdych, tsonga and del potro have remained good players who can win
titles, if not masters titles now.
tipsarevic reached the top 10 finally.

the only very good opponent in the top 10 that is federer's age is ferrer.
of course, federer has no problem with the weak players.

Incidentally, Fedthief is 12-0 against Ferrer. Maybe you didn't mean him..typos happen, totally understandable.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 10:40 PM
Incidentally, Fedthief is 12-0 against Ferrer. Maybe you didn't mean him..typos happen, totally understandable.

Don't bother responding to devila. I'm very surprised he/she hasn't been banned yet, since this person (who clearly has an obsession with Roddick) trolls in every thread, no matter the topic.

monfed
03-09-2012, 10:43 PM
Don't bother responding to devila. I'm very surprised he/she hasn't been banned yet, since this person (who clearly has an obsession with Roddick) trolls in every thread, no matter the topic.

You're right, but I like his dark humour. Fedthief :lol:

Crazy man
03-09-2012, 10:43 PM
djoker has more quality opponents than players from federer's age group.
if hewitt, roddick and safin are age 21 or 23, none of them would
own more than 1 or 2 masters titles, and none would win a slam. roddick scraped by a less than fully fit nalbandian at the 2003 us oopen.
djoker's big slam losses came when he was age 21, not age 24.

berdych, tsonga and del potro have remained good players who can win
titles, if not masters titles now.
tipsarevic reached the top 10 finally.

the only very good opponent in the top 10 that is federer's age is ferrer.
of course, federer has no problem with the weak players.

Ahaha. Sorry, gotta laugh at this one. Marat could come back from retirement and still challenege these players in bold. If not even beat them.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 10:45 PM
Ahaha. Sorry, gotta laugh at this one. Marat could come back from retirement and still challenege these players in bold. If not even beat them.

Classic devila. Trying to say three players who have a combined 2 slam finals and one slam win are better than former World No. 1s and multiple slam winners.

Crazy man
03-09-2012, 11:00 PM
Classic devila. Trying to say three players who have a combined 2 slam finals and one slam win are better than former World No. 1s and multiple slam winners.

I think Devila is funny. Enjoy reading his/her troll posts. Probably the rattiest troll on the boards, goes un-noticed too.

monfed
03-09-2012, 11:41 PM
I think Devila is funny. Enjoy reading his/her troll posts. Probably the rattiest troll on the boards, goes un-noticed too.

I'd take 10 devilas over 1 dullzilla anyday.

kiki
03-10-2012, 12:34 AM
Connors? Tom Gorman beat him at the 1972 US Open.



Edit: Beaten to it by Monsieur DeLarge.

Which means I don´t understand the seedings then.Gorman and Connors met at the Masters just 3 month after the end of Forest Hills.They all should have been seeded at the USO, since were members of the top 10...how comes they played their USO match in the round of 32?

devila
03-10-2012, 01:54 AM
Incidentally, Fedthief is 12-0 against Ferrer. Maybe you didn't mean him..typos happen, totally understandable.

i give you a b- for trying to be funny. you couldn't dispute that ferrer is top 4 and still beating top 10 opponents and winning 3 titles in 2 months,
while the number 2 player of 2005, roddick, um...well...went away.

where's safin if he's beating nobodies? oh yeah, in retirement, which is what roddick soon will be. they both went away after getting a rare win against federer.

a physically damaged hewitt clearly mentally destroyed roddick this australian open. kind of like in the 2005 australian open, when
the tourney promoter dragged the wimpy roddick back out of the locker room after roddick lost the 3rd set lead.
you'd never see del potro choking against hewitt and totally lose his ability to hit forehands.

ferrer, a weaker player than tsonga and del potro, still remained a better all surface player than roddick. ferrer rarely choked.
berdych and tsonga beat a solid federer, but you'll never see them choke with 4 set points and 0-40 chances against federer in wimbledon.

tennis_pro
03-10-2012, 02:15 AM
djoker has more quality opponents than players from federer's age group.
if hewitt, roddick and safin are age 21 or 23, none of them would
own more than 1 or 2 masters titles, and none would win a slam. roddick scraped by a less than fully fit nalbandian at the 2003 us oopen.
djoker's big slam losses came when he was age 21, not age 24.

berdych, tsonga and del potro have remained good players who can win
titles, if not masters titles now.
tipsarevic reached the top 10 finally.

the only very good opponent in the top 10 that is federer's age is ferrer.
of course, federer has no problem with the weak players.

Apparently Nadal (lost twice in hard court majors against Ferrer) and Djokovic (who even at his peak has huge problems against him on clay and to lesser extent on hard courts) do.

joeri888
03-10-2012, 03:15 AM
Apparently Nadal (lost twice in hard court majors against Ferrer) and Djokovic (who even at his peak has huge problems against him on clay and to lesser extent on hard courts) do.

Devila's reasoning is ******** anyway. Because Federer outlasts his peers, and thus there are no Federer contemporaries in the top 10 now, Federer had weaker competition?

Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Henman, Agassi, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Ferrero were Federer contemporaries and many of them greater than Ferrer (and everyone below Ferrer for that matter), and Fed has great records against them.

devila
03-10-2012, 05:51 AM
read carefully: players aged 30-31 either retired 2-4 years ago or rarely won a mickey mouse title.

rafter handled federer well in 1999, but 41 yr. olds are not playing.
only multiple slam winner, 35 yr. old agassi was close to beating federer in 2005 us open final.
henman was not an all surface player, & did nothing against federer in his last 5 yrs. on tour.
roddick? ljubicic who? top 3 in 2006, and blake was number 4. LOLOLOL
hewitt was humiliated by karlovic in 2003 after 2002 wimbledon, then got bagelled in 2004 us open final, and damaged his hip/leg a year later.

Djokodal Fan
03-10-2012, 06:39 AM
Federer is made to fight NOW because he is playing guys 5-6 years younger than him. You're asking Federer to play guys a generation younger than him to prove himself? Some different kind of logic here.

Nadal didn't exactly become a factor on hard courts until very recently, yet he was playing the same guys Federer was playing for much of his career. Djokovic only just became a factor everywhere. Why were these two being held back so much by supposedly inferior players?

If Federer isn't the best Open Era player (to you) despite having much of the data and accomplishments pointing to him, then who do you think is the best Open Era player?

If playing with young players is the issue for Federer, I cannot buy that story.I dont wanna repeat....but how can see off Murray, Tsonga, Delpo on a consistent basis? Heck he even beats Tomic in Straight sets. So that is not a valid argument.

Whom do I consider best....I think I answered it before....just by slam counts I consider fedex to be the greatest. But in my opinion he has over achieved due to lack of competition. If he were at his prime now, there is no way he could won that many slams due to stiffer fight from the like of Djokodal.....but its no point comparing player from a previous decade to current(you just cannot quantify the quality!)

abmk
03-10-2012, 06:42 AM
didn't Korda almost rip 3 clean return winners off Sampras' first serve to get the break back? I remember Mac going nuts after some of those passes('We are watching Rod Laver in 1997'), there were some unreal shots in that game. you consider that a choke? losing a set after being up a break doesn't always have anything to do with 'choking,' there is another guy across the net who has a say in what happens. But I do recall Pete playing a poor tiebreak to end it.



This was the game in which Korda broke back vs Sampras in the final set ...

sampras - makeable volley missed
Korda BH passing shot - comment about rod laver like BH
sampras forehand volley winner
2nd serve - sampras - missed BH slice
2nd serve - sampras- missed BH slice

Then of course the poor tie-break to end it.....Hence I used the work "choke" .

Its there on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIl04Kgb7XA&t=6m20s


Some of Korda's returns and passes in that match were absolutely phenomenal , no doubt .....

Djokodal Fan
03-10-2012, 06:43 AM
So basically what you are saying is, if Federer loses = there is competition.

If Fed wins = no competition.

So he can't win either way :lol:


Not really... I give it to fedex for handing over SF defeat to Novak at french and being so close to Finals @ US open.

Not sure why....but Novak & Murray always struggle against Fedex even now. They just simply could not decode him comprehensively like Nadal did.

joechiang
03-10-2012, 06:48 AM
I dont know what these guys wud get on today's US Open court,as it has become a middle-speed hard court.

abmk
03-10-2012, 07:01 AM
Not really... I give it to fedex for handing over SF defeat to Novak at french and being so close to Finals @ US open.

Not sure why....but Novak & Murray always struggle against Fedex even now. They just simply could not decode him comprehensively like Nadal did.

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Federer is that good, Nadal's game matches up very well with his ( apart from Nadal himself being very good ), that's why ....

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-10-2012, 07:07 AM
Not really... I give it to fedex for handing over SF defeat to Novak at french and being so close to Finals @ US open.

Not sure why....but Novak & Murray always struggle against Fedex even now. They just simply could not decode him comprehensively like Nadal did.

Because they aren't lefties with insane amounts of spin.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-10-2012, 07:08 AM
It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Federer is that good, Nadal's game matches up very well with his ( apart from Nadal himself being very good ), that's why ....

Come on ABMK, you can't use the truth with Jokedull.

abmk
03-10-2012, 07:08 AM
His mph was considerably lower vs Hewitt than it was vs Rafter, Agassi, Safin in '01(these stats are available), I don't know what other evidence there can be that he was tired. Did Sampras decide to serve 10 mph less vs Hewitt as a strategy or something?
Can we agree that that was the toughest path to a USO final in history? it was unpredented to play 3 former champs in a row. Not an easy turnaround after all those matches, physically or mentally.



That post mentioned two USO finals .....

What about USO 2000 ? It was just a Safin blitz , how was Sampras tired in that final ?

Tough path in 2001 USO no doubt ....He was serving ~5 mph slower than usual in the match vs hewitt. Maybe some slight signs of fatigue, but not too much that showed up in the match....Anyways Hewitt was zoned in that match ( the last 2 sets ) and very rarely seems to get credit/mention for that .....Hewitt zoning in and playing flawless tennis in the last 2 sets IMO seemed a much bigger factor than the toll that the 3 matches took on Sampras .....

The point was about the SF and F being back to back hindering Sampras .I don't think that really was the case as neither of the semi matches were draining ....

Djokodal Fan
03-10-2012, 07:20 AM
It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Federer is that good, Nadal's game matches up very well with his ( apart from Nadal himself being very good ), that's why ....

I never claimed Fedex was bad in any of my previous posts....I just told he never faced stiff competition.

Because they aren't lefties with insane amounts of spin.

Come on ABMK, you can't use the truth with Jokedull.
Yeah.... what ever Goldbiscuit.There is no point arguing with you either.Fedex simply cannot win over Nadal when Djoker can (right handed if you didn't know)

Mustard
03-10-2012, 07:27 AM
Which means I don´t understand the seedings then.Gorman and Connors met at the Masters just 3 month after the end of Forest Hills.They all should have been seeded at the USO, since were members of the top 10...how comes they played their USO match in the round of 32?

Gorman went on to reach the semi finals of the 1972 US Open, so that got his ranking up quite a bit.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-10-2012, 07:27 AM
I never claimed Fedex was bad in any of my previous posts....I just told he never faced stiff competition.




Yeah.... what ever Goldbiscuit.There is no point arguing with you either.Fedex simply cannot win over Nadal when Djoker can (right handed if you didn't know)

Well I am ecstatic that your eyes work! You might also notice one other difference between Federer and Djoker, mainly that he has a two hander that takes spin higher, but it's ok Jokedull.

Also, it's clear stiff competition to you is when you lose. I guess the fact Nadal had 11 losses make his 2008 the best year in tennis then. The competition he faced was the greatest ever.

Djokodal Fan
03-10-2012, 07:30 AM
Well I am ecstatic that your eyes work! You might also notice one other difference between Federer and Djoker, mainly that he has a two hander that takes spin higher, but it's ok Jokedull.

Also, it's clear stiff competition to you is when you lose. I guess the fact Nadal had 11 losses make his 2008 the best year in tennis then. The competition he faced was the greatest ever.

Which simply means that Djoker has what it takes to counter Nadal whereas Fedex doesn't have one. Try better goldbiscuit.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-10-2012, 07:34 AM
Which simply means that Djoker has what it takes to counter Nadal whereas Fedex doesn't have one. Try better goldbiscuit.

I guess that means Federer has what it takes to counter the field whereas Nadal doesn't wouldn't you agree Jokedull?

Djokodal Fan
03-10-2012, 09:03 AM
I guess that means Federer has what it takes to counter the field whereas Nadal doesn't wouldn't you agree Jokedull?

no....djoker has learnt and modified his game to beat Nadal at his own game whereas fedex could still not do it after years and years of trying.

if only fedex fangirls were more mature to accept the fact....well it looks like they can't!

kiki
03-10-2012, 09:09 AM
Gorman went on to reach the semi finals of the 1972 US Open, so that got his ranking up quite a bit.

...but not before 1972 US Open started, right? that is why I cannot understand both met in the round of last 32.It would be, more or less like Fish and Tsonga facing in the round of 32.Their rankings wouldn´t allow that to happen.

TMF
03-10-2012, 09:35 AM
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Connors
4. Lendl

Mustard
03-10-2012, 10:19 AM
...but not before 1972 US Open started, right? that is why I cannot understand both met in the round of last 32.It would be, more or less like Fish and Tsonga facing in the round of 32.Their rankings wouldn´t allow that to happen.

Connors and Gorman met in the R128 at the 1972 US Open. That tournament had 16 seeds, Connors being the number 15 seed and Gorman wasn't seeded. Since 2001 Wimbledon, the majors have had 32 seeds.

kiki
03-10-2012, 10:58 AM
Connors and Gorman met in the R128 at the 1972 US Open. That tournament had 16 seeds, Connors being the number 15 seed and Gorman wasn't seeded. Since 2001 Wimbledon, the majors have had 32 seeds.

Ok.Gorman not being seeded is still a mistery to me.But at least I know how 2 top tenners could play the first round of a non exhibitional event.

wimble10
03-10-2012, 11:42 AM
This was the game in which Korda broke back vs Sampras in the final set ...
sampras - makeable volley missed
Korda BH passing shot - comment about rod laver like BH
sampras forehand volley winner
2nd serve - sampras - missed BH slice
2nd serve - sampras- missed BH slice
Then of course the poor tie-break to end it.....Hence I used the work "choke"
Its there on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIl04Kgb7XA&t=6m20s
Some of Korda's returns and passes in that match were absolutely phenomenal , no doubt .....
The guy was on steroids. What do you expect ?

Mustard
03-10-2012, 11:56 AM
The guy was on steroids. What do you expect ?

You do realise that the failed test was at 1998 Wimbledon, yes?

sandy mayer
03-10-2012, 04:47 PM
I voted for Connors. He has won as many US Opens as Federer and Sampras but won more matches there.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 05:19 PM
If playing with young players is the issue for Federer, I cannot buy that story.I dont wanna repeat....but how can see off Murray, Tsonga, Delpo on a consistent basis? Heck he even beats Tomic in Straight sets. So that is not a valid argument.

Whom do I consider best....I think I answered it before....just by slam counts I consider fedex to be the greatest. But in my opinion he has over achieved due to lack of competition. If he were at his prime now, there is no way he could won that many slams due to stiffer fight from the like of Djokodal.....but its no point comparing player from a previous decade to current(you just cannot quantify the quality!)

Federer didn't face stiff competition because he was better than everyone else. Nadal never had this kind of domination, even though he was playing the same guys Federer was. Nadal beats most players his age, but loses to Federer, Davydenko, (lost to Roddick as late as 2010). It's only now that Djokovic has provided a match-up disadvantage for Nadal.

That's your opinion, and I respect it. But Federer is still making slam SFs and finals (most of the time dropping less sets than Nadal along the way), so the fact that he's still super-competitive with players a generation after his shows that he was an absolute monster in his prime, not just that he faced weak competition.

Limpinhitter
03-10-2012, 05:49 PM
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Connors
4. Lendl

Laver
Sampras
Federer
Connors

Towser83
03-10-2012, 05:53 PM
If playing with young players is the issue for Federer, I cannot buy that story.I dont wanna repeat....but how can see off Murray, Tsonga, Delpo on a consistent basis? Heck he even beats Tomic in Straight sets. So that is not a valid argument.

Whom do I consider best....I think I answered it before....just by slam counts I consider fedex to be the greatest. But in my opinion he has over achieved due to lack of competition. If he were at his prime now, there is no way he could won that many slams due to stiffer fight from the like of Djokodal.....but its no point comparing player from a previous decade to current(you just cannot quantify the quality!)

True, but if Federer were in his prime now there's probably no way Djokovic would have won 4 of the last 5 slams, probably no way Nadal wins 3 slams in 2010. They both have or have had a chance to benifit from Federer declining a bit just like he had the benefit of being in his prime when they were younger. If they all have their primes at the same time they ALL lose.

Fate Archer
03-10-2012, 06:07 PM
It's very debatable right now I guess, though if Federer wins one more it would seal the deal me thinks. Only Tilden has won more than 5 times afaik and he wasn't playing in the Open era.

Winning a Slam 5 times in a row is also a huge accomplishment that only a few have in their careers.

Not even Nadal has won Roland Garros, his best Slam 5 times in a row (and he most likely never will).

wimble10
03-12-2012, 10:32 PM
I don't mind saying Federer's the best US Open player but I still think Sampras era was tougher competition.

magnut
03-12-2012, 10:43 PM
Jimmy Conners is the Elvis Presley of Flushing Meadows. Always was and always will be. It doesnt matter if another player has more titles there. Jimmy is the King in New York. His working class attitude is just that of a New Yorker. Which is funny because he is not even from there. I guess he was adopted.

tennis_pro
03-13-2012, 08:02 AM
Laver
Sampras
Federer
Connors

What is Laver doing there?

TMF
03-13-2012, 08:10 AM
Laver
Sampras
Federer
Connors

Laver isn't even nominated to be the best US Open player to begin with. He only won 2 US Open and one of the two was during the amateur.

TMF
03-13-2012, 08:10 AM
What is Laver doing there?

Limin has no idea how many USO Fed/Sampras/Connors have won.

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 08:23 AM
I don't mind saying Federer's the best US Open player but I still think Sampras era was tougher competition.

Yes, sampras losing to Yzaga and Korda is proof that his era was tougher competition.

Also, this is how the finals of the US open under tougher competition looks like:

1993: Sampras vs Pioline
1994: Agassi vs Stich
1995: Sampras vs Agassi
1996: Sampras vs Chang
1997: Rafter vs Rusedski
1998: Rafter vs Scud

Compare that to the weaker era of Federer:
2004: Federer vs Hewitt
2005: Federer vs Agassi
2006: Federer vs Roddick
2007: Federer vs Djoker
2008: Federer vs Murray
2009: Federer vs Delpo

Devilito
03-13-2012, 08:35 AM
Wtf people keep bringing up Yzaga and Korda. They were both good players that had played well on one day. If Korda was on he’d beat anybody. This was the era of shotmakers. It’s a lot harder now to create upsets on slow surfaces with nothing but a field of baseliners. In the 90s upsets happened more often and if the current crop played in the 90s they’d have lost more often to lesser ranked players given the vastly different surfaces and game styles. The only people that think things are black and white are the ignorant. Tennis is not Baseball where the equipment and playing fields have stayed the same for 100000 years. You can’t even compare stats from 5 years ago. I know Americans are crazy about STATS but Tennis is the last sport you can compare things like that. All things being said i'd put guys like Connors, Sampras, Federer and Lendl about equal at the US Open. Saying one is vastly superior than the other is ridiculous

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 08:59 AM
Wtf people keep bringing up Yzaga and Korda. They were both good players that had played well on one day. If Korda was on he’d beat anybody. This was the era of shotmakers. It’s a lot harder now to create upsets on slow surfaces with nothing but a field of baseliners. In the 90s upsets happened more often and if the current crop played in the 90s they’d have lost more often to lesser ranked players given the vastly different surfaces and game styles. The only people that think things are black and white are the ignorant. Tennis is not Baseball where the equipment and playing fields have stayed the same for 100000 years. You can’t even compare stats from 5 years ago. I know Americans are crazy about STATS but Tennis is the last sport you can compare things like that. All things being said i'd put guys like Connors, Sampras, Federer and Lendl about equal at the US Open. Saying one is vastly superior than the other is ridiculous

you should take it up with morons who claim Federer had it easy when compared to Sampras...

wait a min, now that I think about it, given that Federer is more capable and more well-rounded than Sampras tenniswise, it is understandable that he had it easier than Sampras (ergo, more dominant).

magnut
03-13-2012, 09:23 AM
you should take it up with morons who claim Federer had it easy when compared to Sampras...

wait a min, now that I think about it, given that Federer is more capable and more well-rounded than Sampras tenniswise, it is understandable that he had it easier than Sampras (ergo, more dominant).

It wasnt just Sampras that had it rougher it was everyone. One only need look at the ranking point spread across those years. Getting into the top ten was a big deal. Now its a revolving door. Win one tournament and your almost in. As opposed tot the old days where you would need to pocket 3-5 tournys a year to stay in the top 10 unless you won a major.

The surface manipulation is the biggest change..... Not the strings. Grinding it out at the French and then baselining your way through Wimbledon was almost impossible back in the old days.

Put it this way....Imagine Djokavic winning the French and then having to go serve and volley 100% of the time for Wimbledon. Thats how the game was back then and thats how much they have manipulated the surface conditions to influence the outcomes for the top players.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 12:07 PM
Here are Sampras' and Federer's US Open matches, so you can compare them yourselves:

Pete Sampras
1988 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Jaime Yzaga def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-7, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2)

1989 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Agustin Moreno (6-3, 5-7, 6-4, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Mats Wilander (5-7, 6-3, 1-6, 6-1, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Jaime Yzaga (4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R16: Jay Berger def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-2, 6-1)

1990 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Dan Goldie (6-1, 7-5, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Peter Lundgren (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Jakob Hlasek (6-3, 6-4, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Thomas Muster (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-3)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Ivan Lendl (6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 4-6, 6-2)
SF: Pete Sampras def. John McEnroe (6-2, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)

1991 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Christo Van Rensburg (6-0, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Wayne Ferreira (6-1, 6-2, 2-2 ret.)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Stephane Simian (7-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-3)
R16: Pete Sampras def. David Wheaton (3-6, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
QF: Jim Courier def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 7-6, 7-6)

1992 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. David Dilucia (6-3, 7-5, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Martin Damm (7-5, 6-1, 6-2)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (7-6, 2-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Guy Forget (6-3, 1-6, 1-6, 6-4, 6-3)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Alexander Volkov (6-4, 6-1, 6-0)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (6-1, 3-6, 6-2, 6-2)
FR: Stefan Edberg def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2)

1993 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Fabrice Santoro (6-3, 6-1, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Vacek (6-4, 5-7, 6-2, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Arnaud Boetsch (6-4, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Thomas Enqvist (6-4, 6-4, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-7, 7-6, 6-1, 6-1)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Alexander Volkov (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)

1994 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Kevin Ullyett (6-2, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Vacek (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Roger Smith (4-6, 6-2, 6-4, 6-3)
R16: Jaime Yzaga def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 7-6, 7-5)

1995 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Fernando Meligeni (6-0, 6-3, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Jaime Yzaga (6-1, 6-4, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (7-6, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Byron Black (7-6, 6-4, 6-0)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (7-5, 4-6, 6-4, 7-5)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)

1996 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jimy Szymanski (6-2, 6-2, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Jiri Novak (6-3, 1-6, 6-3, 4-6, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Alexander Volkov (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (6-3, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Alex Corretja (7-6, 5-7, 5-7, 6-4, 7-6)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-1, 6-4, 7-6)

1997 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Todd Larkham (6-3, 6-1, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Patrick Baur (7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Alex Radulescu (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Petr Korda def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6)

1998 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Marc-Kevin Goellner (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Paul Goldstein (7-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-2, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Marat Safin (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Karol Kucera (6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
SF: Patrick Rafter def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3)

2000 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Martin Damm (7-6, 7-5, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Justin Gimelstob (6-3, 6-1, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Agustin Calleri (7-6, 7-6, 6-3)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Hyung-Taik Lee (7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Richard Krajicek (4-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Lleyton Hewitt (7-6, 6-4, 7-6)
FR: Marat Safin def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)

2001 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Julien Boutter (6-4, 7-6, 7-6)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Andre Sa (7-6, 6-4, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Mikhail Youzhny (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Patrick Rafter (6-3, 6-2, 6-7, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Marat Safin (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
FR: Lleyton Hewitt def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-1, 6-1)

2002 US Open - Pete Sampras
R128: Pete Sampras def. Albert Portas (6-1, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Kristian Pless (6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Greg Rusedski (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Tommy Haas (7-5, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Andy Roddick (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Sjeng Schalken (7-6, 7-6, 6-2)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)


Roger Federer
2000 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Peter Wessels (4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 3-4 ret.)
R64: Roger Federer def. Daniel Nestor (6-1, 7-6, 6-1)
R32: Juan Carlos Ferrero def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 1-6, 7-6)

2001 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Lars Burgsmuller (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Robby Ginepri (6-2, 7-5, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Sjeng Schalken (6-4, 7-5, 7-6)
R16: Andre Agassi def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-2, 6-4)

2002 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Jiri Vanek (6-1, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
R64: Roger Federer def. Michael Chang (6-3, 6-1, 6-3)
R32: Roger Federer def. Xavier Malisse (4-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Max Mirnyi def. Roger Federer (6-3, 7-6, 6-4)

2003 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Jose Acasuso (5-7, 6-3, 6-3, 2-0 ret.)
R64: Roger Federer def. Jean-Rene Lisnard (6-1, 6-2, 6-0)
R32: Roger Federer def. James Blake (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
R16: David Nalbandian def. Roger Federer (3-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-3)

2004 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Albert Costa (7-5, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Marcos Baghdatis (6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Fabrice Santoro (6-0, 6-4, 7-6)
R16: Roger Federer def. Andrei Pavel (Walkover)
QF: Roger Federer def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3)
SF: Roger Federer def. Tim Henman (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
FR: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-0, 7-6, 6-0)

2005 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Ivo Minar (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
R64: Roger Federer def. Fabrice Santoro (7-5, 7-5, 7-6)
R32: Roger Federer def. Olivier Rochus (6-3, 7-6, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Nicolas Kiefer (6-4, 6-7, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. David Nalbandian (6-2, 6-4, 6-1)
SF: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 7-6, 4-6, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 2-6, 7-6, 6-1)

2006 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Jimmy Wang (6-4, 6-1, 6-0)
R64: Roger Federer def. Tim Henman (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
R32: Roger Federer def. Vincent Spadea (6-3, 6-3, 6-0)
R16: Roger Federer def. Marc Gicquel (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
QF: Roger Federer def. James Blake (7-6, 6-0, 6-7, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Nikolay Davydenko (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1)

2007 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Scoville Jenkins (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Paul Capdeville (6-1, 6-4, 6-4)
R32: Roger Federer def. John Isner (6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Feliciano Lopez (3-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (7-6, 7-6, 6-2)
SF: Roger Federer def. Nikolay Davydenko (7-5, 6-1, 7-5)
FR: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (7-6, 7-6, 6-4)

2008 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Maximo Gonzalez (6-3, 6-0, 6-3)
R64: Roger Federer def. Thiago Alves (6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
R32: Roger Federer def. Radek Stepanek (6-3, 6-3, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Igor Andreev (6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3)
QF: Roger Federer def. Gilles Muller (7-6, 6-4, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-2)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Murray (6-2, 7-5, 6-2)

2009 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Devin Britton (6-1, 6-3, 7-5)
R64: Roger Federer def. Simon Greul (6-3, 7-5, 7-5)
R32: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Robredo (7-5, 6-2, 6-2)
QF: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-0, 6-3, 6-7, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (7-6, 7-5, 7-5)
FR: Juan Martin del Potro def. Roger Federer (3-6, 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2)

2010 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Brian Dabul (6-1, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Andreas Beck (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)
R32: Roger Federer def. Paul-Henri Mathieu (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R16: Roger Federer def. Jurgen Melzer (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
QF: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 6-4, 7-5)
SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5)

2011 US Open - Roger Federer
R128: Roger Federer def. Santiago Giraldo (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Dudi Sela (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. Marin Cilic (6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Juan Monaco (6-1, 6-2, 6-0)
QF: Roger Federer def. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5)

wimble10
03-13-2012, 01:14 PM
2011: Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga
2010: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Soderling, Berdych
2009: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Davydenko
2008: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Tsonga
2007: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Ferrer, Roddick
2006: Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Blake, Ljubicic, Roddick
2005: Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian
2004: Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Moya, Henman
2003: Roddick, Federer, Ferrero JC, Agassi, Coria, Schuettler
2002: Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Ferrero, Moya, Federer
2001: Hewitt, Kuerten, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ferrero, Grosjean
2000: Kuerten, Safin, Sampras, Norman M, Kafelnikov, Agassi
1999: Agassi, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Enqvist T, Kuerten, Kiefer N
1998: Sampras, Rios, Corretja, Rafter, Moya, Agassi
1997: Sampras, Rafter, Chang, Bjorkman J, Kafelnikov, Rusedski
1996: Sampras, Chang, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Muster, Becker
1995: Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Becker, Chang, Kafelnikov
1994: Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, Chang
1993: Sampras, Stich, Courier, Brugera, Edberg, Medvedev A
1992: Courier, Sampras, Edberg, Chang, Korda, Lendl
1991: Edberg, Courier, Becker, Stich, Lendl, Sampras
1990: Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Gomez A
1989: Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Chang, Gilbert B
1988: Wilander, Lendl, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Carlsson K

agentaviles
03-13-2012, 01:17 PM
I don't mind saying Federer's the best US Open player but I still think Sampras era was tougher competition.

Amen to that. Although it's pretty tough for Federer right now with Nadal and Djokovic, even though he's past his prime.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 02:03 PM
Yes, sampras losing to Yzaga and Korda is proof that his era was tougher competition.

Also, this is how the finals of the US open under tougher competition looks like:

1993: Sampras vs Pioline
1994: Agassi vs Stich
1995: Sampras vs Agassi
1996: Sampras vs Chang
1997: Rafter vs Rusedski
1998: Rafter vs Scud

Compare that to the weaker era of Federer:
2004: Federer vs Hewitt
2005: Federer vs Agassi
2006: Federer vs Roddick
2007: Federer vs Djoker
2008: Federer vs Murray
2009: Federer vs Delpo

I don't understand. I thought Sampras played in a tough era. Doesn't this prove he played in the weakest era of all?

magnut
03-13-2012, 02:07 PM
I don't understand. I thought Sampras played in a tough era. Doesn't this prove he played in the weakest era of all?

Not at all. Look at the ranking point spread during the 90s. Particularly the early and late 90s. Sampras was in a very tough era of tennis. Mid 90s were not as bad but still tough.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 02:29 PM
Not at all. Look at the ranking point spread during the 90s. Particularly the early and late 90s. Sampras was in a very tough era of tennis. Mid 90s were not as bad but still tough.

How does ranking point spread help? Couldn't that simply mean Sampras was not as good to dominate more than he did?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-13-2012, 02:30 PM
Not at all. Look at the ranking point spread during the 90s. Particularly the early and late 90s. Sampras was in a very tough era of tennis. Mid 90s were not as bad but still tough.

Distribution of ranking points isn't a good way to judge how tough an Era was. You can run into numerous problems such as a greater prevalence of clay and grass specialists. Someone can easily make the argument that since Federer played only major winners(sans murray) in his USO finals that his Era was tougher. Conversely you'd probably argue that Sampras era was loaded with dangerous players because the top of the game was less consistent. Mats Willander has said that the depth(outside of top 10) of today's game is greater than when he played. I'm more inclined to side with players and what I have witnessed from Federer and co. I don't see anyone on that list besides Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, and Stich that Federer and co would be seriously challenged by.

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 02:35 PM
It wasnt just Sampras that had it rougher it was everyone. One only need look at the ranking point spread across those years. Getting into the top ten was a big deal. Now its a revolving door. Win one tournament and your almost in. As opposed tot the old days where you would need to pocket 3-5 tournys a year to stay in the top 10 unless you won a major.

The surface manipulation is the biggest change..... Not the strings. Grinding it out at the French and then baselining your way through Wimbledon was almost impossible back in the old days.

Put it this way....Imagine Djokavic winning the French and then having to go serve and volley 100% of the time for Wimbledon. Thats how the game was back then and thats how much they have manipulated the surface conditions to influence the outcomes for the top players.

I could easily imagine Agassi winning french and then S & Ving his way to a wimbledon final.

Or Edberg slugging out in the baseline on his way to a FO final, and winning wimbledon S & V.

Or Stich playing grinding baseline tennis to reach the FO final, and winning wimbledon later.

Or Jim courier S & Ving his way to a wimbledon final...

But wait, none of these players ever did this, yet were quite successful in their pursuits across different surfaces.

I think you get my drift...

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 02:36 PM
How does ranking point spread help? Couldn't that simply mean Sampras was not as good to dominate more than he did?

No, in Petetard world, failure of Pete to remain consistent throughout the year implies Federer's era is weak.

magnut
03-13-2012, 02:45 PM
I could easily imagine Agassi winning french and then S & Ving his way to a wimbledon final.

Or Edberg slugging out in the baseline on his way to a FO final, and winning wimbledon S & V.

Or Stich playing grinding baseline tennis to reach the FO final, and winning wimbledon later.

Or Jim courier S & Ving his way to a wimbledon final...

But wait, none of these players ever did this, yet were quite successful in their pursuits across different surfaces.

I think you get my drift...

You seem to have some sort of selective memory. Did you ever watch any of those matches?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 02:45 PM
No, in Petetard world, failure of Pete to remain consistent throughout the year implies Federer's era is weak.

Yeah that's what I meant. A more even point spread could simply mean was Pete not as consistent or good enough to rival other players. In other words if a number #1 player is weak then the lower ranked player will accumulate more points. Sounds like a classic case of what happened in the Pete era.

magnut
03-13-2012, 02:50 PM
No, in Petetard world, failure of Pete to remain consistent throughout the year implies Federer's era is weak.

You have to understand how drastic the surface change was, specialty type players, playing styles etc. etc.

Tennis was a completly different game then.

What has happened now is everthing has been adjusted to suite a paticular style of play. Therefor you have to be the best at that style. That style is also played on ever surface exclusively. If they would have done this in the 90s with the surfaces the spanish players would have dominated the game. Guys like Moya probably would have won 4 majors. Agassi maybe would have won more majors than Pete.

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 03:04 PM
You seem to have some sort of selective memory. Did you ever watch any of those matches?

My point is it is not as uncommon to be successful on varied surfaces while playing the same style, and there is factual evidence to prove that (that is what I quoted), which is to say that your characterization of surface homogenization as the root of all evil is just hyperbole.

btw, what does that have to do with me watching those matches (and yes, I have watched them)? are you claiming that Agassi actually S & V'ed his way @ wimby to his 1 win and other finals?

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 03:07 PM
You have to understand how drastic the surface change was, specialty type players, playing styles etc. etc.

Tennis was a completly different game then.

What has happened now is everthing has been adjusted to suite a paticular style of play. Therefor you have to be the best at that style. That style is also played on ever surface exclusively. If they would have done this in the 90s with the surfaces the spanish players would have dominated the game. Guys like Moya probably would have won 4 majors. Agassi maybe would have won more majors than Pete.

thanks for admitting that Pete would suck under today's conditions.

btw, if everyone on tour played the same way, then it means you have more competition in every tournament, not less.

Limpinhitter
03-13-2012, 03:09 PM
Limin has no idea how many USO Fed/Sampras/Connors have won.

Oh! I thought this thread was about "the best U.S. Open player of open era," not "who won the most U.S. Opens." Why would we even need a thread for that?

magnut
03-13-2012, 03:28 PM
thanks for admitting that Pete would suck under today's conditions.

btw, if everyone on tour played the same way, then it means you have more competition in every tournament, not less.

Only if you think tennis is about who is the better athlete.

Surely you are not as ignorant as some of the things your posting. I am guessing you having a bit of fun in this thread.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 03:34 PM
Only if you think tennis is about who is the better athlete.

Surely you are not as ignorant as some of the things your posting. I am guessing you having a bit of fun in this thread.

Sure tennis is more than just being an athlete, it's about shotmaking too. And Pete pales in comparison to Fed on shotmaking. Perhaps that's why the point spread was so much more even as you observed in Pete's era.

magnut
03-13-2012, 03:45 PM
Sure tennis is more than just being an athlete, it's about shotmaking too. And Pete pales in comparison to Fed on shotmaking. Perhaps that's why the point spread was so much more even as you observed in Pete's era.

sure shotmaking is part of it sometimes too. There is a lot more though.

Some of you guys are really young here arent you. It was a very different game before they homoginized the surfaces. There is not a whole lot of variety out there now. Its too bad a lot of the newer people to the sport only know the current game because they really missed out. If I were starting in tennis now I honestly dont think it would hold my interest. The surface changes really screwed up the game. With that one change they completly took out styles of play.

Its also going to forever devalue the careers of Federer and Nadal. You will never honestly be able to compare them to past eras.

Max G.
03-13-2012, 03:53 PM
Eh, hasn't that's always been the case, though? You could never honestly compare one era to the previous one. This era brought homogenized surfaces, the previous era brought strings innovation, before that there was racquet innovation, and so on and so forth.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 03:57 PM
There's still clear differences between the surfaces, just not as drastically different as in the 1990s, and grass-court tennis is no longer typically associated with serve and volley amongst the most successful players on grass. Oh, and carpet courts don't exist on the tour anymore like they did back then.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-13-2012, 03:58 PM
sure shotmaking is part of it sometimes too. There is a lot more though.

Some of you guys are really young here arent you. It was a very different game before they homoginized the surfaces. There is not a whole lot of variety out there now. Its too bad a lot of the newer people to the sport only know the current game because they really missed out. If I were starting in tennis now I honestly dont think it would hold my interest. The surface changes really screwed up the game. With that one change they completly took out styles of play.

Its also going to forever devalue the careers of Federer and Nadal. You will never honestly be able to compare them to past eras.

You know Federer grew up in the era of fast courts and made his debut before the courts were slowed down to the level they are today. He plays with a rather "old school" racket when compared to the sticks the rest of the tour use and is most capable of adapting to the different surfaces and varying speeds(slow to fast) of his era and possibly all time. You speak as those Pete and the rest of the tour in his day were the absolute gods of tennis. When they look back they will see that Federer has come up with some absolutely ridiculous shots and that he was able to bring a level of delicacy and precision to his ground strokes that Pete simply couldn't. They will also see Agassi saying that Federer is better than Pete because there was no place that he considered weak enough to attack. Keep in mind better doesn't mean unbeatable or invincible because matches between Sampras and Federer would be back and forth with each one winning their share, but to continue your hatred of Federer is just sad.

Also, how do you think Sampras would fair today with the same game? I don't think he'd be near as successful and while I feel he could adapt his game to the surfaces of today I just can't seem him winning 14 majors let alone staying at the top of the rankings as he did in his time.

magnut
03-13-2012, 04:12 PM
Eh, hasn't that's always been the case, though? You could never honestly compare one era to the previous one. This era brought homogenized surfaces, the previous era brought strings innovation, before that there was racquet innovation, and so on and so forth.

Sure. I think Federer would still do quite well. I dont think Rafa would win the US Open or Wimbledon. French Open yes and probably Australia. Do I think they would dominate like they have. Nope. Take Federer. Fed lost to Rafter 3 straight times. In fact Federer has never beaten Rafter. Rafter is 3-0 lifetime against the goat. He barely beat Pete and Andre until those guys were hobbleing around with bad backs.

Players were different back then. Many had truely all court games and had self confidence. Sampras and Rafter were constantly changing styles to throw oponents off. There were a lot of big match players that believed they could win Majors. What the power brokers are doing with the game now is a disgrace. Same style and homginized surfaces are turning tennis into nothing more than a track and field event. It doesnt look like the young guys coming up are going to change it either.

Hell, 10-15 years ago you could barely compete in this sport past 30. Most guys retired before or after that age. The bodies just could not take the abuse form the explosive movement. Tennis now is played kind of 90s era clay court tennis. True attacking tennis is gone. Serve and Volleyers are gone. Feel and pace users are gone. Serve and clean up players are pretty gone (unless theyu are 6'9"). Personalities are gone. Everyone talks the same. Its like the whole game went Spanish.

The best matches in the old days were the style clashes. Server VS Returner, S&V verses counterpunchers. They did away with all of it.

slowfox
03-13-2012, 04:16 PM
I voted for Sampras, look at the numbers. (As for the WTA, c'mon... Steffi Graf)

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-13-2012, 04:21 PM
Sure. I think Federer would still do quite well. I dont think Rafa would win the US Open or Wimbledon. French Open yes and probably Australia. Do I think they would dominate like they have. Nope. Take Federer. Fed lost to Rafter 3 straight times. In fact Federer has never beaten Rafter. Rafter is 3-0 lifetime against the goat. He barely beat Pete and Andre until those guys were hobbleing around with bad backs.

Players were different back then. Many had truely all court games and had self confidence. Sampras and Rafter were constantly changing styles to throw oponents off. There were a lot of big match players that believed they could win Majors. What the power brokers are doing with the game now is a disgrace. Same style and homginized surfaces are turning tennis into nothing more than a track and field event. It doesnt look like the young guys coming up are going to change it either.

Hell, 10-15 years ago you could barely compete in this sport past 30. Most guys retired before or after that age. The bodies just could not take the abuse form the explosive movement. Tennis now is played kind of 90s era clay court tennis. True attacking tennis is gone. Serve and Volleyers are gone. Feel and pace users are gone. Serve and clean up players are pretty gone (unless theyu are 6'9"). Personalities are gone. Everyone talks the same. Its like the whole game went Spanish.

The best matches in the old days were the style clashes. Server VS Returner, S&V verses counterpunchers. They did away with all of it.

Federer lost to Rafter when he was young. I guess that he only beat Sampras that one time and due to that it had to be a fluke. Do you remember 2003 when Federer demolished Agassi at the YEC? Agassi had to be playing pretty well to get a major, a masters(Miami), and make it to the final of the YEC right?

Do you honestly feel it's harder on the body to play attacking tennis instead of grinding it out like so many do today? How many players are in the top are in their 30s? Agassi was the oldest number one after all.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 04:32 PM
Sure. I think Federer would still do quite well. I dont think Rafa would win the US Open or Wimbledon. French Open yes and probably Australia. Do I think they would dominate like they have. Nope. Take Federer. Fed lost to Rafter 3 straight times. In fact Federer has never beaten Rafter. Rafter is 3-0 lifetime against the goat. He barely beat Pete and Andre until those guys were hobbleing around with bad backs.


Rafter was undefeated against Fed. Sampras > Rafter. But Fed was undefeated against Sampras when Sampras was still in slam winning mode and Fed was a baby. It goes in circles you see?

Towser83
03-13-2012, 04:41 PM
Sure. I think Federer would still do quite well. I dont think Rafa would win the US Open or Wimbledon. French Open yes and probably Australia. Do I think they would dominate like they have. Nope. Take Federer. Fed lost to Rafter 3 straight times. In fact Federer has never beaten Rafter. Rafter is 3-0 lifetime against the goat. He barely beat Pete and Andre until those guys were hobbleing around with bad backs.

Players were different back then. Many had truely all court games and had self confidence. Sampras and Rafter were constantly changing styles to throw oponents off. There were a lot of big match players that believed they could win Majors. What the power brokers are doing with the game now is a disgrace. Same style and homginized surfaces are turning tennis into nothing more than a track and field event. It doesnt look like the young guys coming up are going to change it either.

Hell, 10-15 years ago you could barely compete in this sport past 30. Most guys retired before or after that age. The bodies just could not take the abuse form the explosive movement. Tennis now is played kind of 90s era clay court tennis. True attacking tennis is gone. Serve and Volleyers are gone. Feel and pace users are gone. Serve and clean up players are pretty gone (unless theyu are 6'9"). Personalities are gone. Everyone talks the same. Its like the whole game went Spanish.

The best matches in the old days were the style clashes. Server VS Returner, S&V verses counterpunchers. They did away with all of it.

Come on man, the last time Federer even played Rafter was 11 years ago when he was 19. It was at Halle and Federer won the first set 6-4 before losing 2 tiebreaks, so a bit unlucky to lose even then. Rafter had reached the Wimbledon final the year before so 19 year old Federer did well to nearly beat him. Also against Sampras, Pete was a little bit shy of 30 which is Federer's age last year, so that's basically like Federer being beaten at a major by a 19 year old who hasn't even won a masters at this point. My money would be on Fed having the advantage, just as defending Wimbledon champion Sampras should have had against young Fed. Sampras may have been past his best, but not THAT much, on the other hand Federer was 2 years away from winning a slam. It's like Federer these days is past his best but can still beat most people except the very top young guns like Novak and Rafa. Federer wasn't even one of the top young guns in 2001.

I am sad that the all court games have gone away though. I watch old tennis and find it a breath of fresh air in so many ways.

agentaviles
03-13-2012, 05:18 PM
Can you imagine how many US Opens Pete would've won if the tournament was still played on grass? Whoo man...

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 05:19 PM
Can you imagine how many US Opens Pete would've won if the tournament was still played on grass? Whoo man...

Probably fewer than Federer.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 05:22 PM
Probably fewer than Federer.

Well, we have no way of knowing, seeing as the last US Open on grass was in 1974.

agentaviles
03-13-2012, 05:23 PM
Probably fewer than Federer.

Why do you say that? They both have 5 US Open titles right now as it is, and Sampras still has the edge with 7 Wimbledons. Sampras was absolutely DOMINANT on grass, and another major on grass would've been awesome for him.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 05:25 PM
Why do you say that? They both have 5 US Open titles right now as it is, and Sampras still has the edge with 7 Wimbledons. Sampras was absolutely DOMINANT on grass, and another major on grass would've been awesome for him.

Geez, it's not like Sampras leads Fed by tons of Wimbledon titles. He leads him by ONE. On the other hand Fed leads Sampras by 2 slams overall. Hence Fed would have more if it was on grass.

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 05:26 PM
Why do you say that? They both have 5 US Open titles right now as it is, and Sampras still has the edge with 7 Wimbledons. Sampras was absolutely DOMINANT on grass, and another major on grass would've been awesome for him.

you talk as if Federer has 1 wimbledon title. Federer is only 1 shy of Sampras at wimbledon; Federer has been more dominant than Pete in ALL grandslams (not just wimby or USO). It is not a stretch to think Sampras would have fewer than Federer.

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 05:26 PM
Geez, it's not like Sampras leads Fed by tons of Wimbledon titles. He leads him by ONE. On the other hand Fed leads Sampras by 2 slams overall. Hence Fed would have more if it was on grass.

Federer would've most likely won the USO in 2009 if it was played on grass.

wimble10
03-13-2012, 06:49 PM
looks like the Rog-***** made a good comeback

Steve132
03-13-2012, 07:22 PM
Surface homogenization has actually worked AGAINST Federer. It has generally taken the form of the slowing down of fast surfaces (Wimbledon and the U.S Open, plus the disappearance of carpet in indoor tournaments) rather than speeding up of slow ones. Players and journalists (like Andy Murray and Peter Bodo after Dubai) agree that Federer would win more rather than less if the conditions of the 90's prevailed. He is not the only player who would benefit - Tsonga, Stepanek, Fish, Roddick and others would do so as well - but none of Federer's current main rivals are in that category. And I see little reason to believe that Sampras would win as much in today's conditions as he did in the 90's.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 06:02 AM
Geez, it's not like Sampras leads Fed by tons of Wimbledon titles. He leads him by ONE. On the other hand Fed leads Sampras by 2 slams overall. Hence Fed would have more if it was on grass.

Well although I'm a huge fan of both players, I do think that Federer is the better player. I think most people acknowledge that. But I also think it depends on what type of grass those tournaments would've been played on. If it's the old, super-fast, low bouncing grass that we all grew up watching, I say edge Sampras. If it's today's grass, which is much more conducive to baseline play an doesn't benefit a Serve Volleyer anywhere near as much as it used to, edge Federer.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 06:03 AM
Well although I'm a huge fan of both players, I do think that Federer is the better player. I think most people acknowledge that. But I also think it depends on what type of grass those tournaments would've been played on. If it's the old, super-fast, low bouncing grass that we all grew up watching, I say edge Sampras. If it's today's grass, which is much more conducive to baseline play an doesn't benefit a Serve Volleyer anywhere near as much as it used to, edge Federer.

What kind of grass was there in 2001?

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 06:03 AM
you talk as if Federer has 1 wimbledon title. Federer is only 1 shy of Sampras at wimbledon; Federer has been more dominant than Pete in ALL grandslams (not just wimby or USO). It is not a stretch to think Sampras would have fewer than Federer.

I definitely agree that he's been more dominant that Sampras in all of the slams, except Wimbledon. I can't say that he's been more dominant than Sampras at Wimby until/if he wins more than Pete.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 06:05 AM
What kind of grass was there in 2001?

As far as I know, it was still the old, fast grass. But if you're referring to the only time that these two played, that's hardly a fair barometer to use. Sampras was in one of the worst stretches of his career, and Federer was very young and hardly the player he's been for the past 8 years.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 06:39 AM
As far as I know, it was still the old, fast grass. But if you're referring to the only time that these two played, that's hardly a fair barometer to use. Sampras was in one of the worst stretches of his career, and Federer was very young and hardly the player he's been for the past 8 years.

You used Rafters only 3 wins over baby Fed. You get what you give.

fed_rulz
03-14-2012, 07:04 AM
I definitely agree that he's been more dominant that Sampras in all of the slams, except Wimbledon. I can't say that he's been more dominant than Sampras at Wimby until/if he wins more than Pete.

Sampras is the greater player at wimbledon; Federer has been the more dominant one (fewer # games lost, sets lost etc.). if Federer wins one more W, then Federer is the greater & more dominant one.

TMF
03-14-2012, 08:17 AM
Surface homogenization has actually worked AGAINST Federer. It has generally taken the form of the slowing down of fast surfaces (Wimbledon and the U.S Open, plus the disappearance of carpet in indoor tournaments) rather than speeding up of slow ones. Players and journalists (like Andy Murray and Peter Bodo after Dubai) agree that Federer would win more rather than less if the conditions of the 90's prevailed. He is not the only player who would benefit - Tsonga, Stepanek, Fish, Roddick and others would do so as well - but none of Federer's current main rivals are in that category. And I see little reason to believe that Sampras would win as much in today's conditions as he did in the 90's.

I agree completely. Slowing down the court benefit certain players who are a pusher, defense oriented, grinding, less offensive approach, low margin for error game. Nadal's game fit perfectly in this environment. During IW, Nole was asked about he felt playing here and said he enjoy the condition because it was SLOW, the ball stay up.

Players are at a disadvantage also include serve/volley players. They often get knocked for their inability to play serve/volley because of their lousy result. But the reality is the conditions limited their capability in compare to the 90s and before. Any serve/volley players in the past decade playing in this condition will fair no better!

To the Sampras fans, you should be happy that the conditions suit well for Sampras in the 90s. Could you imagine had they slow down the court and increase high bounce? Sampras wouldn't win 14 slams and many of his stats would be lower(e.g. weeks at #1). There were baselines that were able to win slams in the 90s, had the condition was slow, many s/v players including Sampras would win LESS!

Sampras fans and Nadal fans...be happy because your favorite player's success is owed heavily to the product of their environment.

Mustard
03-14-2012, 08:28 AM
What kind of grass was there in 2001?

2001 Wimbledon was the last year the old grass was used (70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue). The courts were changed to 100% Rye in September 2001, when they were relaid.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:32 AM
2001 Wimbledon was the last year the old grass was used (70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue). The courts were changed to 100% Rye in September 2001, when they were relaid.

Well there we go then. Baby Fed beat prime Sampras on fast grass. I say prime Sampras because he still had a slam left in him only a year later. Meanwhile Fed was still 2 whole years away from winning his first slam.

Thus baby Fed was further away from his peak than prime Sampras was away from his peak. Therefore extrapolation to their peaks based on the little data we have (some data is better than no data), indicates peak Fed would more often than not defeat peak Sampras on fast grass. On slow grass peak Sampras would have no chance. Therefore if we compromise and play 5 new grass, 5 old grass, we have the final record of Federer 8 wins, Pete 2 wins.

TMF
03-14-2012, 08:39 AM
Well although I'm a huge fan of both players, I do think that Federer is the better player. I think most people acknowledge that. But I also think it depends on what type of grass those tournaments would've been played on. If it's the old, super-fast, low bouncing grass that we all grew up watching, I say edge Sampras. If it's today's grass, which is much more conducive to baseline play an doesn't benefit a Serve Volleyer anywhere near as much as it used to, edge Federer.

But Fed beat Sampras playing s/v, not from the baseline. That's the difference. To say Sampras would beat Fed in the 90s is pure speculation. BTW, Fed is at his best when the ball stay low. For him to handle high bounce in this era means he would be more dangerous in the 90s.

monfed
03-14-2012, 08:47 AM
Well there we go then. Baby Fed beat prime Sampras on fast grass. I say prime Sampras because he still had a slam left in him only a year later. Meanwhile Fed was still 2 whole years away from winning his first slam.

Thus baby Fed was further away from his peak than prime Sampras was away from his peak. Therefore extrapolation to their peaks based on the little data we have (some data is better than no data), indicates peak Fed would more often than not defeat peak Sampras on fast grass. On slow grass peak Sampras would have no chance. Therefore if we compromise and play 5 new grass, 5 old grass, we have the final record of Federer 8 wins, Pete 2 wins.


Sampras was also the defending champion and was expected to win Wimby for the 8th time. Heck, Peak Sampras was beaten in 4 sets by Krajicek(a one slam wonder) on grass.

OTOH post prime Fed lost to prime Nadal(2 time Wimby champion, 5 time finalist) in a 5 set epic at 9-7(could've gone either way).

The most telling thing of all is that Federer beat Sampras playing S&V tennis in 2001, so he beat Sampras at his OWN game. This is why I feel Fed edges Sampras on grass.

fed_rulz
03-14-2012, 09:29 AM
Sampras was also the defending champion and was expected to win Wimby for the 8th time. Heck, Peak Sampras was beaten in 4 sets by Krajicek(a one slam wonder) on grass.

OTOH post prime Fed lost to prime Nadal(2 time Wimby champion, 5 time finalist) in a 5 set epic at 9-7(could've gone either way).

The most telling thing of all is that Federer beat Sampras playing S&V tennis in 2001, so he beat Sampras at his OWN game. This is why I feel Fed edges Sampras on grass.

correction: straight sets

monfed
03-14-2012, 09:46 AM
correction: straight sets

You're right. It's 7-5,7-6,6-4 to Krajicek. That's a straight sets victory over Peak Sampras on fast grass. :shock:

Never happened to Federer at his peak!

Mustard
03-14-2012, 10:37 AM
Sampras was also the defending champion and was expected to win Wimby for the 8th time.

But it has to be admitted that Sampras did not look convincing at 2001 Wimbledon. He was taken to 5 sets by Barry Cowan and barely got through that match despite cruising through the first 2 sets and looking on his way to an easy victory. A lot of people expected Sampras to win 2001 Wimbledon because he had dominated Wimbledon for so long.

Heck, Peak Sampras was beaten in 4 sets by Krajicek(a one slam wonder) on grass.

In straight sets, actually. 7-5, 7-6, 6-4. Krajicek was at the absolute peak of his powers at 1996 Wimbledon, although Krajicek played almost as well at times during 1998 Wimbledon, where Goran stopped him in the semis.

Mustard
03-14-2012, 10:46 AM
You're right. It's 7-5,7-6,6-4 to Krajicek. That's a straight sets victory over Peak Sampras on fast grass. :shock:

Never happened to Federer at his peak!

Federer got beaten by Berdych and Tsonga. Although Federer wasn't at his peak anymore, it's still surprising for Federer to lose to them at Wimbledon of all places. However, Sampras losing to Bastl at 2002 Wimbledon is one of the biggest upsets in tennis history.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 12:54 PM
You used Rafters only 3 wins over baby Fed. You get what you give.

I think you're confusing my quote for someone else's. I haven't said anything about Rafter.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 12:57 PM
But Fed beat Sampras playing s/v, not from the baseline. That's the difference. To say Sampras would beat Fed in the 90s is pure speculation. BTW, Fed is at his best when the ball stay low. For him to handle high bounce in this era means he would be more dangerous in the 90s.

Yeah, he beat Sampras playing serve and volley and then lost in the very next round. He also didn't win the tournament until two years later.

I never said anything about Sampras beating Federer in the 90s, so yes, that is pure speculation. Although I agree that Federer is at his best when the ball stays low.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 12:58 PM
Sampras is the greater player at wimbledon; Federer has been the more dominant one (fewer # games lost, sets lost etc.). if Federer wins one more W, then Federer is the greater & more dominant one.

I still couldn't give Federer the title of being more dominant even if he equals Pete's 7 Wimbledons. Federer may have lost fewer games and sets, but did Sampras ever lose a Wimbledon Final? Nope.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 01:03 PM
You're right. It's 7-5,7-6,6-4 to Krajicek. That's a straight sets victory over Peak Sampras on fast grass. :shock:

Never happened to Federer at his peak!

Not to make excuses, but 1996 was the year that Tim Gullikson, Sampras' longtime coach died of cancer. Sampras wasn't really the same that year. Krajicek certainly beat him fair and square though.

And have we forgotten that Federer lost to Berdych and Tsonga? I know this isn't Federer in his prime, but c'mon...

tennis_pro
03-14-2012, 01:04 PM
I still couldn't give Federer the title of being more dominant even if he equals Pete's 7 Wimbledons. Federer may have lost fewer games and sets, but did Sampras ever lose a Wimbledon Final? Nope.

I guess getting owned by Krajicek in the QF in straight sets is better than losing an absolute epic to Nadal 9-7 in the fith in a final going for a 6th title in a row. Hey, but that's just me.

Not to mention Sampras never played on the new grass courts of Wimbledon so he has no idea how much it's slower these days. Oh sorry, he did once in 2002 and got knocked out in the 2nd round by a lucky loser.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 01:13 PM
I guess getting owned by Krajicek in the QF in straight sets is better than losing an absolute epic to Nadal 9-7 in the fith in a final going for a 6th title in a row. Hey, but that's just me.

Not to mention Sampras never played on the new grass courts of Wimbledon so he has no idea how much it's slower these days. Oh sorry, he did once in 2002 and got knocked out in the 2nd round by a lucky loser.

Wow, I can sense some serious Sampras-Hate within you. Also, your posts would be a lot easier to read if you actually spelled your words correctly.

Back on topic, 2002 was the very last season of Sampras' career, when he obviously had close to nothing left in the tank. Are you really going to take that one Wimbledon appearance to measure how the real Pete would've performed on the slower grass? C'mon man.

Also, at least Krajicek went on to win the entire tournament. Federer's last two losses at Wimbledon have been to Berdych (who made his one and only slam final appearance and got his tail whipped by Nadal) and Tsonga, who lost in the next round to Djokovic.

tennis_pro
03-14-2012, 01:26 PM
Wow, I can sense some serious Sampras-Hate within you. Also, your posts would be a lot easier to read if you actually spelled your words correctly.

Care to tell me where I made some mistakes?

Back on topic, 2002 was the very last season of Sampras' career, when he obviously had close to nothing left in the tank. Are you really going to take that one Wimbledon appearance to measure how the real Pete would've performed on the slower grass? C'mon man.

That was me hatin', I confess.

Also, at least Krajicek went on to win the entire tournament. Federer's last two losses at Wimbledon have been to Berdych (who made his one and only slam final appearance and got his tail whipped by Nadal) and Tsonga, who lost in the next round to Djokovic.

I bet Berdych and Tsonga would love to face Jason Stoltenberg and MaliVai Washington in the SF and F (cause that's exactly who Krajicek played against in the last 2 rounds) instead of going through both Djokovic and Nadal to win the title. Berdych did in fact beat Djokovic but lost to Nadal in the final in 2010. Tsonga lost a pretty close match to Novak in the SF in 2011.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 01:30 PM
I guess getting owned by Krajicek in the QF in straight sets is better than losing an absolute epic to Nadal 9-7 in the fith in a final going for a 6th title in a row. Hey, but that's just me.

Not to mention Sampras never played on the new grass courts of Wimbledon so he has no idea how much it's slower these days. Oh sorry, he did once in 2002 and got knocked out in the 2nd round by a lucky loser.

Actually, I think I exaggerated about this. When I quoted you the first time the QF looked like OF. Sorry. It's just the one mistake I put in bold.

agentaviles
03-14-2012, 01:33 PM
That was me hatin', I confess. Haha! I'm glad you owned up to it!



I bet Berdych and Tsonga would love to face Jason Stoltenberg and MaliVai Washington in the SF and F (cause that's exactly who Krajicek played against in the last 2 rounds) instead of going through both Djokovic and Nadal to win the title. Berdych did in fact beat Djokovic but lost to Nadal in the final in 2010. Tsonga lost a pretty close match to Novak in the SF in 2011.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's actually a pretty sound argument. Stoltenberg and Washington aren't exactly Legends...LOL But I don't think there's any way that Berdych could've played well on the old grass. Tsonga, however, would have been fun to watch.

Mustard
03-14-2012, 01:36 PM
I bet Berdych and Tsonga would love to face Jason Stoltenberg and MaliVai Washington in the SF and F (cause that's exactly who Krajicek played against in the last 2 rounds) instead of going through both Djokovic and Nadal to win the title. Berdych did in fact beat Djokovic but lost to Nadal in the final in 2010. Tsonga lost a pretty close match to Novak in the SF in 2011.

Hang on. So who do you think Krajicek "should have" faced? Stoltenberg beat Goran Ivanisevic in a tight 4-setter just after Krajicek had beaten Sampras, and Washington beat Todd Martin from 1-5 down in the fifth set.