PDA

View Full Version : Sampras never even made it to the French Open Final


buder
06-13-2006, 08:00 PM
...and he only reached the semis once.

The reason Sampras NEVER made it to the French Open Final was because Clay denied him all the free service points.

Sampras didn't have the ground strokes to win the French.

He couldn't even get to the Finals.

Kudos to Federer...at least he's accomplished something Sampras never did: he made it to the Finals of the French Open.

[whispering] "Sampras didn't have the backhand to get to the finals of the French"

Sampras is the best server of all time -- and on fast suraces that is enough.

...but Federer has the most complete game of all time. He can and will win the French Open. Don't count him out of future French Opens because, unlike Sampras, he lost against (what history will some day proclaim) the most dominant Clay Courter of all time.

dudero
06-13-2006, 08:41 PM
...and he only reached the semis once.

The reason Sampras NEVER made it to the French Open Final was because Clay denied him all the free service points.

Sampras didn't have the ground strokes to win the French.

He couldn't even get to the Finals.

Kudos to Federer...at least he's accomplished something Sampras never did: he made it to the Finals of the French Open.

[whispering] "Sampras didn't have the backhand to get to the finals of the French"

Sampras is the best server of all time -- and on fast suraces that is enough.

...but Federer has the most complete game of all time. He can and will win the French Open. Don't count him out of future French Opens because, unlike Sampras, he lost against (what history will some day proclaim) the most dominant Clay Courter of all time.

Serve is the most important shot in tennis, in case you haven't noticed.
And just because Federer has more complete game does not mean he is a better player than Sampras. It's like saying Chris Byrd is a better boxer than Tyson since he has more diverse skills but just does not have the power of Tyson.

TennisDog
06-13-2006, 09:03 PM
Who cares. No one remembers who came in 2nd place

Viper
06-13-2006, 09:08 PM
Sampras never had someone retire in an important match either

siber222000
06-13-2006, 09:14 PM
Sampras never had someone retire in an important match either
in fact, he played a match when he should've been retired... and he won it too haha

aznkb888
06-13-2006, 09:17 PM
Sampras never had someone retire in an important match either

Does Phillippousis retiring in the QF in 99 at Wimbledon count as important?

Matthew
06-13-2006, 09:31 PM
So whats the point? Are you trying to bash Pete? Praise Roger? I don't get it... all you did was state what we already know.

BaseLineBash
06-13-2006, 09:39 PM
It's very hard to win something you don't care about, no matter who you are playing.

BaseLineBash
06-13-2006, 09:43 PM
Sampras didn't have the ground strokes to win the French.
That's a pretty ignorant statement. "Sampras didn't have the drive to try to win the French."-This is a more accurate assessment.

Viper
06-13-2006, 09:51 PM
Does Phillippousis retiring in the QF in 99 at Wimbledon count as important?

I meant in the French, I should have said that huh?:(

bismark
06-13-2006, 09:53 PM
So whats the point? Are you trying to bash Pete? Praise Roger? I don't get it... all you did was state what we already know.
Maybe he bashed Pete to overcome his disappointment in Fed's loss.......kind of a consolation thing to make one feel better.

La Bomba
06-13-2006, 11:06 PM
...and he only reached the semis once.

The reason Sampras NEVER made it to the French Open Final was because Clay denied him all the free service points.

Sampras didn't have the ground strokes to win the French.

He couldn't even get to the Finals.

Kudos to Federer...at least he's accomplished something Sampras never did: he made it to the Finals of the French Open.

[whispering] "Sampras didn't have the backhand to get to the finals of the French"

Sampras is the best server of all time -- and on fast suraces that is enough.

...but Federer has the most complete game of all time. He can and will win the French Open. Don't count him out of future French Opens because, unlike Sampras, he lost against (what history will some day proclaim) the most dominant Clay Courter of all time.


Ok buddy, serve and volleyers never win the French, Sampras was one of the great S&v's and so was Pat Rafter, who won a slam on every other surface than clay. Reason is its to slow to serve volley. Federer is succesful cauz he plays mainly from the baseline. Just cauz sampras and rafter didnt win the french doesnt mean anything they are some of greatest players of all time. Clay did deny him of the serve to set up the volley which one him his points.

Tennis_Goodness
06-13-2006, 11:44 PM
Serve is the most important shot in tennis, in case you haven't noticed.
And just because Federer has more complete game does not mean he is a better player than Sampras. It's like saying Chris Byrd is a better boxer than Tyson since he has more diverse skills but just does not have the power of Tyson.

What are you talking about? Your boxing analogy makes no sense at all. Federer is a more complete player then Sampras and is better in almost every department except his serve and volleying. The Chris Byrd/ Mike Tyson comparison is completely off. Federer reminds me more of Ali then of Chris Byrd, somebody who had everyshot in the book and good power!

superman1
06-14-2006, 12:14 AM
Sampras had the game to win on any surface. He still has the game. That's not the reason why he didn't win the French. I don't know exactly what the reasons were, only he knows that for sure, but I do know that Wimbledon was the most important thing in his life for quite a while.

It's like with Laver. He was a serve and volleyer, but he says he played some of the best tennis in his life in the '69 French Open. Serve and volley works on any surface if you're good enough.

Fischer76
06-14-2006, 01:51 AM
Sampras had the game to win on any surface. He still has the game. That's not the reason why he didn't win the French. I don't know exactly what the reasons were, only he knows that for sure, but I do know that Wimbledon was the most important thing in his life for quite a while.

It's like with Laver. He was a serve and volleyer, but he says he played some of the best tennis in his life in the '69 French Open. Serve and volley works on any surface if you're good enough.

1996 was the year that Pete could've won the French. I believe his game suited or not on clay would've carried him through were it not for the luck of having a tight draw. Just him getting to the semis was already an accomplishment in itself.

His tight draw : http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E0DE1139F936A15756C0A9609582 60

Ist rnd bt. - Magnus Gustafsson
2nd rnd bt. - Sergi Bruguera (FO champion 1993-94)
3rd rnd bt. - Todd Martin
4th rnd bt. - Scott Draper
Qtr - bt. Jim Courier (FO champion 1991-92)
Semi l. - Kafelnikov

Pete beat 2 repeat FO champions on his way to the semis. Unfortunately he ran out of gas when he got there. If Pete had to contend with a lesser player in his one match right before the semis, I believe he could've won it. Why?? He lost to eventual winner Kafelnikov in the semis (A clay court player he trashed 6 months before on clay!!!). Contrast this fact to how Federer got to the FO finals.

His easy draw : http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/2886/2006/05/27/165@95857.htm

Ist rnd bt. - A. Falla (Titles - none)
2nd rnd bt. - N Massu (Titles 7 No GS)
3rd rnd bt. - T. Berdych (Titles 3 No GS)
4th rnd bt. - M. Ancic (Titles 1 No GS)
Semis bt(ret.). - D. Nalbandian (Titles 5 No GS)


Some people here point out that Pete not having the ground strokes to beat anyone from the baseline. He out baselined Kafelnikov 6 months prior to 1996 FO on clay, he out baselined Bruguera in the FO, he out baselined Courier at the FO, he out baselined Agassi in 1999 Wimbledon as well as USO 2000

So Buder, get your facts straight before posting otherwise it's just pure unsubstantiated jibberish

Rhino
06-14-2006, 01:57 AM
Does Phillippousis retiring in the QF in 99 at Wimbledon count as important?
Yeah I remember that match, Phlip was kicking his *** too, that was a very lucky result for Sampras.
This won't be Federers last French final.

armand
06-14-2006, 05:02 AM
Sampras never even made it to the French Open FinalTrue, but you know what else Sampras didn't do?: Choke in a final the way Federer did.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but at age 24, Federer is 9-10 in 5 setters. Sampras at age 24 was 19-7:shock: That tells me that Sampras had better rivals because he was pushed to the limit far more often and, that Federer is a bit of a choker. Maybe choker is too harsh a term. Sampras is just way more clutch.

Fischer76, Right On! Excellent post, I was largely unaware of those facts.

Gilgamesh
06-14-2006, 05:33 AM
Why is so often that fanboys must create a thread that in order to praise their player they must essentially bash/criticize another?

Fed lost...get over it.

Sampras never made the FO final...we know. He still has 14 GS.

Fed might never win the FO but he has the potential to surpass 14 GS when all is said and done.

Fischer76
06-14-2006, 07:08 AM
Why is so often that fanboys must create a thread that in order to praise their player they must essentially bash/criticize another?

Fed lost...get over it.

Sampras never made the FO final...we know. He still has 14 GS.

Fed might never win the FO but he has the potential to surpass 14 GS when all is said and done.

Me too I wonder. Especially from someone who is clueless about the facts.
Still, I like the "potential" thing as it is so apt a word to use with Fed.
Reminder: Nadal is the first and only test Fed has faced during his reign as #1 and sadly he has failed to live up to the billing. Hopefully he'll get over the hump. Otherwise, I'm pitching my tent some place else.

dh003i
06-14-2006, 09:00 AM
Fischer,

Nadal is a clay-court specialist, and possibly the most talented clay-courter of all time. He has the potential to surpas Borg in all-time clay-greatness. Even before Nadal, clay was Federer's weakest surface.

So, now Federer vastly improves his clay-court games and gets to the finals at the FO, and somehow that's a failure?

If someone was challenging Federer and beating him on hardcourts or grass, I'd say he failed to "live up to the billing". As it is, he's winning grand slams left and right on those surfaces.

fastdunn
06-14-2006, 09:43 AM
Sampras didn't have the ground strokes to win the French[/SIZE].
.

I would say Sampras did not have fitness to endure all the grinding
on clay. He ran out of gas at semi's with Kafelnikov.
You know he has somewhat abnomal blood condition(low # of red cells?).

About Sampras groundies, get his matches before 1996 or so.
He had glorious ground strokes.
His match with Korda on hard court at Newsweek is still the best
ground stroke match I've ever seen..

Fischer76
06-14-2006, 10:12 AM
Fischer,

Nadal is a clay-court specialist, and possibly the most talented clay-courter of all time. He has the potential to surpas Borg in all-time clay-greatness. Even before Nadal, clay was Federer's weakest surface.

So, now Federer vastly improves his clay-court games and gets to the finals at the FO, and somehow that's a failure?

If someone was challenging Federer and beating him on hardcourts or grass, I'd say he failed to "live up to the billing". As it is, he's winning grand slams left and right on those surfaces.

FYI Fed and Nadal have already played 7 times. 4 of those matches were on clay and 3 of those seven meetings were on hard courts. The ist one Fed barely won (owing to Nadals inexperience and coming off a bad call). Two of those 3 matches Nadal won. What I said about failure, is him being a champion and that is, so far (meaning he has failed to live up to the billing as being a champion for the time being). I said so because Nadal is his first test and he has (so far) failed to get over the hump so to speak. I am not saying that things are going to stay like the way they are. Hopefully it doesn't. BTW Fed is a European, he grew up playing on clay since his ballboy days. Hope that fact helps.

quest01
06-14-2006, 10:31 AM
Sampras has made it to the semifinals once and the quarterfinals a few times. Granted he never made it to the final at the French, he is still the best player ever in the game of tennis.

Amone
06-14-2006, 10:36 AM
What are you talking about? Your boxing analogy makes no sense at all. Federer is a more complete player then Sampras and is better in almost every department except his serve and volleying. The Chris Byrd/ Mike Tyson comparison is completely off. Federer reminds me more of Ali then of Chris Byrd, somebody who had everyshot in the book and good power!

In all honesty, a boxing analogy is unfair; you can actually compare Ali in his prime with Fazier, or Foreman, and know that Ali beat them, where we can only compare right now Nadal and Fed, and Fed fans think this is an unfair analogy, because they seem to only play on clay or hard court, where topspin is effective. They want to compare to Sampras, the other GOAT-prospect, but the non-Fed camp continually point out that Fed is consistently beaten by Nadal; there's a problem here. So, we'll make a very direct and uncontrovercial statement:

Federer has the most complete game of all time, and he is the best grass player in the world.

Nadal has the most complete CLAY game of all time, and he is the best CLAY player in the world.

The two of them, at this time, are vying for the title of Hard Court #1, and then whoever ends up dominating there will probably start finding more chinks in the armor of the other's specialty. Am I saying Nadal's going to figure out grass? He's the far and away no. 2 in the world; of course he will, even if only to the point of being just okay at it. Maybe not this year, but consider Blake: he's a hard courter, no doubt, with his clean and flat strokes, but this year he played quite well on the french dirt.

Also, consider that Nadal's actually playing a grass tournament right now, probably trying to adjust.. I think that he will make it to at least the third round of wimby, but this is just a guess, and not an educated prediction.

Dedans Penthouse
06-14-2006, 10:59 AM
fischer76 (along with adely, Gilgamesh and fastdunn): spot on.

Btw fischer76, Sampras' run in the French Open, the year when he beat two "multi" French Open " champions, had him logging over 12 hours heading into his semi-final matchup with Kafelnikov; more than 4 hours more than Yegevny. That clay court "bum" Sampras also owns a French Open win over a former #1 in the world "clay court specialist," one Thomas Muster.

Sampras

Total Grand Slams = 14 (Match Play record in Grand Slams: 203 - 38)

Grand Slam Finals:
5-setters: ONE
4-setters: FIVE
Straight-sets: EIGHT

Hardcourt Record: 423-101
Grasscourt Record: 101-20
Record on "Carpet": 148-47
Record on CLAY: 90-54 (well, whadda ya know....why, lookie here..... :roll: )

Overall Record: 762 - 222

(sucking thumb while crying): "yeah Fed may've lost.....but his backhand was better than Sampras'!!! whaaa!

Useles, "prove-nothing," serve-nothing, TROLL "bash" THREAD.

lude popper
06-14-2006, 12:23 PM
I think we got punked. Seems pretty clear that the original poster just wants to make Sampras fans waste time and energy stating the obvious. I can't imagine he actually means what he says -- the tone is way too exaggerated and (wink-wink) obnoxious. It's kind of odd that people took this seriously.

When you guys get to college, study irony.

Anyone who questions the dominance of Sampras is crazy.

right?

fastdunn
06-14-2006, 01:18 PM
Federer is a more complete player then Sampras and is better in almost every department except his serve and volleying.

You're contradicting yourself. How can he be more complete
without serve and volley ? Net game used to be almost half
of the game, you know. That's a big defieciency, especially
someone starts to neutralize his baseline game......

oscar_2424
06-14-2006, 01:21 PM
...and he only reached the semis once.

The reason Sampras NEVER made it to the French Open Final was because Clay denied him all the free service points.

Sampras didn't have the ground strokes to win the French.

He couldn't even get to the Finals.

Kudos to Federer...at least he's accomplished something Sampras never did: he made it to the Finals of the French Open.

[whispering] "Sampras didn't have the backhand to get to the finals of the French"

Sampras is the best server of all time -- and on fast suraces that is enough.

...but Federer has the most complete game of all time. He can and will win the French Open. Don't count him out of future French Opens because, unlike Sampras, he lost against (what history will some day proclaim) the most dominant Clay Courter of all time.
boring!

superman1
06-14-2006, 03:13 PM
It's always ridiculous when someone makes a claim like that (such and such player was not good enough to win!) and all their claims are based on statistics. Have you ever watched Sampras play on clay? To say he didn't have the groundstrokes is ludicrous.

sugmasterflex
06-14-2006, 04:24 PM
I would say Sampras did not have fitness to endure all the grinding
on clay. He ran out of gas at semi's with Kafelnikov.
You know he has somewhat abnomal blood condition(low # of red cells?).



Sampras always had the game to win the French but never the fitness or stamina. This was likely due to his minor blood disorder.

omniexist
06-14-2006, 04:37 PM
Hrm. He was fishing and y'all took the bait!

alienhamster
06-14-2006, 05:22 PM
Can't believe I'm gonna defend Sampras here, but . . .

Look, Sampras, in terms of overall ability, is not as good as Federer. No one that I've ever seen play tennis is as talented as Federer.

BUT, in addition to the obvious (amazing) strengths Sampras did possess in several parts of his game, he was also MENTALLY STRONGER than Federer is. You don't get 14 Slams on technical talent alone.

I'm not saying Federer isn't mentally strong most of the time, cause he is. But Pete was just amazing in that department.

JayxTheKoolest
06-14-2006, 06:29 PM
Who cares. No one remembers who came in 2nd place

Are you saying that people will never remember that Federer lost to Nadal in the French Open final, failing to create tennis history?

AAAA
06-14-2006, 06:29 PM
Until we see Sampras play a slam final on his weakest surface against a player that owns him we'll never know if he'd choke or not or play without a game plan.

JayxTheKoolest
06-14-2006, 06:43 PM
Until we see Sampras play a slam final on his weakest surface against a player that owns him we'll never know if he'd choke or not or play without a game plan.

Fed had a game plan, it just didn't work.

Tolip
06-14-2006, 06:50 PM
Wining is winning. Losing is losing. No matter how close is it. For now, Federer still has no French open title under his belt. Sampras don't have the strokes. You must be freakin kidding me. He had the one of the best forehand in the tour. All his shot even his back hand had great pace.

superman1
06-15-2006, 12:06 AM
Clay is Federer's weakest surface, but not by a whole lot. Fed has said that he probably feels most comfortable on clay. If you don't count his losses to Nadal, only 1 guy (Gasquet) has beaten him on clay in the past 2 years.

He has all the tools to beat Nadal, we've seen that time and again. He choked, that's all there is to it. I've never heard of Sampras choking like that.