PDA

View Full Version : sampras is always better than fed


bagung
06-25-2006, 08:31 PM
during the peak time of sampras, there are so many good and potential players like boris becker, rafter, jim courier, stefan edberg, andre agasi, goran, micheal chang......yet sampras can still win 7 wimbledon and a total of 14 g slam. not like today, only nadal is probably the only one that can give fed the problems.....

Tennis_Goodness
06-25-2006, 08:36 PM
Not many people that know tennis agree with you!

punch
06-25-2006, 08:55 PM
well when Sampras was playing, from TOP to BOTTOM (the whole field) was not as strong as what Federer goes through today, sure their may not be as much at the top.

Also i'm sure a lot of people would agree, Federer is more talented than Sampras in the all-around aspects, at least IMO.

DJ Edwards
06-25-2006, 09:47 PM
Federer did exist during the time of Sampras: his name was Cedric Pioline. Pete had little trouble with the versatile and talented Frenchman, therefore he would have had little trouble with Federer either.

DX_Psycho
06-25-2006, 09:54 PM
Cedric Pioline's career high was 5. i'm sure if Pete Sampras is better than Federer and all the competition was still there, then Federer would still be rank 2. which means that Cedric Pioline is not equal to Roger Federer.

raftermania
06-25-2006, 09:56 PM
WTF! Fed is like Pioline???? That's like saying my Corolla is a ****ing Ferrari!!!

Virtuous
06-25-2006, 10:08 PM
*yawn*
Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

arosen
06-25-2006, 10:39 PM
during the peak time of sampras, there are so many good and potential players like boris becker, rafter, jim courier, stefan edberg, andre agasi, goran, micheal chang......yet sampras can still win 7 wimbledon and a total of 14 g slam. not like today, only nadal is probably the only one that can give fed the problems.....

Congrats, you got yourself the most ammazingly original thread going. I mean, I've been around this board awhile, and I have never heard anyone compare Pete with Roger. How the phuck did you come up with such a brilliant idea for a thread? Genius, pure genius. Darwin award kind of genius.

superman1
06-25-2006, 11:33 PM
Yeah, criminy. Enough with this.

Let's give Federer some time. He's not up to Sampras yet and I don't like when people call him the greatest ever even though he has crumbled 6 times against a player who, while also very dominant, has been beat down a few times by other guys. He's already one of the greats, and at 25 he has the potential to be the greatest of the greats, so leave it at that and stop comparing him to a guy whose career is complete.

Gilgamesh
06-25-2006, 11:54 PM
Not this old argument again.

I find it funny that when Sampras was dominating his supporters had to defend against criticisms of his competition which coincidently Federer is also facing now.

laurie
06-26-2006, 04:27 AM
well when Sampras was playing, from TOP to BOTTOM (the whole field) was not as strong as what Federer goes through today, sure their may not be as much at the top.

Also i'm sure a lot of people would agree, Federer is more talented than Sampras in the all-around aspects, at least IMO.

That's your opinion and I profoundly disagree with it. Federer's serve is not as good as Sampras, Sampras is more talented there, particularly the second serve where Federer's serve can be short on many occasions where Sampras' was prfoundly deep with a lot of spin and slice for variation. Federer's volleys are not as good, Sampras is more talented there, Federer's anticipation at the net and coverageis not as good, Sampras is more talented.

Federer doens't have a slam dunk or smashes from any position even falling backwards. Running forehands winners from 3 feet behind the baseline? No. As much power as Sampras? Definitely not. Federer has his racket strung a lot loooser than Sampras to generate power. Sampras strung his racket over twenty pounds tighter, with natural gut as thin as squash strings to control the power with a much heavier frame. You need talent to play with that equipment. As a result Federer does not hit winners from defensive counterattacking positions like Sampras did. Federer needs to dictate play to feel comfortable. He needs to step in and attack short balls. His game is more like Agassi in that respect which is why Agassi likes Federer so much and praises him. What Agassi couldn't stand is Sampras' ability to hit winners off both wings anywhere and anytime on the court, Sampras was more unpredictable. It was written all over Agassi's face during their meetings.

As for the backhand, Federer's backhand is not profoundly better than Sampras either. He's prone to stand up on his shots and not bend his knees often enough. When Federer gets to age 30 and loses some of his movement, like Sampras he's going to have a lot of problems on the backhand as Sampras did when he got 30 and lost some of his movement. Like Sampras, Federer has problems with the high kick to the backhand, who doesn't for goodness sake? Even Clijsters with her two handed backhand hates high balls up there.

Now the point the chap makes about Pioline is this. If Federer stayed at the 2002 level and not developed a winning mentality, would some people say he's the most talented player ever? I don't think so. The winning is more important. Players like Pioline and Henri Leconte are not mentioned because they never developed a winning mentality. Can Gasquet develop a winning mentality?

dh003i
06-26-2006, 08:11 AM
sufficed to say, many of the game's greatest players thing Federer is the most talented player to ever play. As for greatest, he'll need either 8 more slams, or 7 more with 1 on clay.

Fischer76
06-26-2006, 08:21 AM
That's your opinion and I profoundly disagree with it. Federer's serve is not as good as Sampras, Sampras is more talented there, particularly the second serve where Federer's serve can be short on many occasions where Sampras' was prfoundly deep with a lot of spin and slice for variation. Federer's volleys are not as good, Sampras is more talented there, Federer's anticipation at the net and coverageis not as good, Sampras is more talented.

Federer doens't have a slam dunk or smashes from any position even falling backwards. Running forehands winners from 3 feet behind the baseline? No. As much power as Sampras? Definitely not. Federer has his racket strung a lot loooser than Sampras to generate power. Sampras strung his racket over twenty pounds tighter, with natural gut as thin as squash strings to control the power with a much heavier frame. You need talent to play with that equipment. As a result Federer does not hit winners from defensive counterattacking positions like Sampras did. Federer needs to dictate play to feel comfortable. He needs to step in and attack short balls. His game is more like Agassi in that respect which is why Agassi likes Federer so much and praises him. What Agassi couldn't stand is Sampras' ability to hit winners off both wings anywhere and anytime on the court, Sampras was more unpredictable. It was written all over Agassi's face during their meetings.

As for the backhand, Federer's backhand is not profoundly better than Sampras either. He's prone to stand up on his shots and not bend his knees often enough. When Federer gets to age 30 and loses some of his movement, like Sampras he's going to have a lot of problems on the backhand as Sampras did when he got 30 and lost some of his movement. Like Sampras, Federer has problems with the high kick to the backhand, who doesn't for goodness sake? Even Clijsters with her two handed backhand hates high balls up there.

Now the point the chap makes about Pioline is this. If Federer stayed at the 2002 level and not developed a winning mentality, would some people say he's the most talented player ever? I don't think so. The winning is more important. Players like Pioline and Henri Leconte are not mentioned because they never developed a winning mentality. Can Gasquet develop a winning mentality?

Nice arguments there Laurie.. Fed has good volleying skills, that does not make him a volleyer. So, the comparison to Sampras is quite unfair. I think he is more like an Agassi with a more than decent volleying skills.

phat
06-26-2006, 08:31 AM
*yawn*
unscientific analysis...... what a load of crap.

laurie
06-26-2006, 09:13 AM
*yawn*
unscientific analysis...... what a load of crap.

We need your intelligent opinions, assuming you have one.

ACE of Hearts
06-26-2006, 09:17 AM
LMAO, the person who compared Federer to Pioline.Sampras has a better serve then Fed but i would take Fed's backhand and his forehand slightly.Its hard to compare players.

Dedans Penthouse
06-26-2006, 09:33 AM
WTF! Fed is like Pioline???? That's like saying my Corolla is a ****ing Ferrari!!!No it's not! Well...maybe if you got the:

--All Weather Guard Package
--Sunroof and Side Airbag Package
--Enhanced Power Package
--Sport Plug Package
--Enhanced Value Package 1

then yes, your Corolla would be like an *expletive*deleted* Ferrari.

flymeng
06-26-2006, 09:42 AM
WTF! Fed is like Pioline???? That's like saying my Corolla is a ****ing Ferrari!!!

Pioline is no Corolla. He was in USO and Wimbledon finals, lost to Sampras. I like his backhand, very stylish and graceful player.

lucky leprechaun
06-26-2006, 10:50 AM
sampras's stock has gone up in my mind in the last couple months, due to roger's inability to beat nadal, because I think pete's game would absolutely own nadal's game. Too bad pete didn't stick around a little longer to make it happen a couple times to be sure.

AAAA
06-26-2006, 11:00 AM
The very fact that is discussion exists at all is because there is no certainty hence the need to seek comfort in one's opinion from like mind individuals.

raftermania
06-26-2006, 11:58 AM
Dedans, it's okay to be a proud Corolla owner, but let's not get carried away! Corolla's get way better mileage anyways, let's not talk about which car wins the 0-60 race.

Flymeng, you're right. I think Pioline is a Tercel.

jackson vile
06-26-2006, 12:17 PM
well when Sampras was playing, from TOP to BOTTOM (the whole field) was not as strong as what Federer goes through today, sure their may not be as much at the top.

Also i'm sure a lot of people would agree, Federer is more talented than Sampras in the all-around aspects, at least IMO.


That is a good point yet Sampras still did what he did with out the natural gifts that Roger takes for granted.

You can see by the wins and points of matches from Sampras to all the other greats of Sampras' time that it was far far more difficult.

You look at Roger's and it looks too easy, and these players are losing all their other matches as well.

IE Nadal is the only player on the tour with a high consistant win ratio besides Roger, everyone else is very inconsistent like the WTA.

With Sampras' age it was not like that, the people he played against had much better records and thus were much better players, he had multiple Nadals.

Consider this, if Sampras was in Rogers place at that age how many titles more do you think he would have?

Ripper
06-26-2006, 12:22 PM
You can talk about Sampras being better than Federer as long as he holds the GS record. The day Federer breaks that record, this is not going to be discussed or, even, mentioned anymore.

AAAA
06-26-2006, 12:41 PM
With Sampras' age it was not like that, the people he played against had much better records and thus were much better players, he had multiple Nadals.


If better players(more and bigger titles) were tougher opponents then Sampras should have better records against Wayne Ferreira, Stich and Krajicek than Courier, Agassi and Becker. The opposite is true so the theory that more accomplished opponents are also always tougher isn't supportable by facts.

In short the tougher opponents are the ones you have more difficulty beating.

fastdunn
06-26-2006, 01:08 PM
WTF! Fed is like Pioline???? That's like saying my Corolla is a ****ing Ferrari!!!

Certainly not the same caliber but Federer does remind me of Pioline.
Whippy ground strokes and all around game but not quite big enough
oomp from serves. Also not so strong net game. He was somewhat
inclined more to the baseline game although he serve-and-volleyed
to the final of Wimbledon. Also did pretty good on clay with his
spinny whippy swings...

dukemunson
06-26-2006, 01:10 PM
sampras's stock has gone up in my mind in the last couple months, due to roger's inability to beat nadal, because I think pete's game would absolutely own nadal's game. Too bad pete didn't stick around a little longer to make it happen a couple times to be sure.

thats the least intelligent comment I've read on this board in quite some time...Sampras was destroyed on clay by many number of players but due to his defficiencies on clay was not routinely in clay court finals (like Federer) in order to always be playing the same and as such best clay-court players...I personally still believe Pete Sampras was the best player ever and will remain that way until Fed breaks his record. As for most talented, who cares, I mean Bo Jackson might have been the most talented running back ever but until you can sustain brilliance over a long period you cant be called the best ever. You can say Fed is playing the best tennis ever, but not that he's the greatest ever...

!Tym
06-26-2006, 01:11 PM
Federer did exist during the time of Sampras: his name was Cedric Pioline. Pete had little trouble with the versatile and talented Frenchman, therefore he would have had little trouble with Federer either.

Actually, I agree with this to a DEGREE.

Pioline and I've said this before is actually remarkably similar to Federer in terms of game and how he wins...WHEN the LACONIC Frenchman had his head screwed on right.

On the few days a year when Pioline caught fire and his head was completely screwed on from start to finish and focused, he was immmeasurably awesome. He would basically, as one person described it to me, randomly get "in these moods" where he'd get into "superman" mode.

Examples of this are when he "he's actually hitting harder than Safin now" in their first French, when by the last two sets rolled around he caught fire. The fourth set, he lost only ONE point on his serve against Safin, this on clay; then the fifth set, he's broken Safin's will and is outclassing from all parts of the court, his backhand is on fire. Another, when he beat the pants off Courier from every part of the court at the 93 US Open.

Another example, is his Wimbledon victory over Stich, who knew this was his last tournament coming in, and was playing for keeps because of it (which wasn't always the case with this half-time try, half-time don't player). He was very hot this match, and competing VERY hard, yet one of the pristine talents of his generation, the most talented according to Courier, and one of the few guys who could match up with Sampras on his own terms when his head was all there; he simply got outclassed in the end by Pioline who was simply playing better on this day. Stich afterward had no complaints even though he definitely had his eyes set on winning the whole thing, and probably expected he'd beat Pioline to get to the finals. Afterward, Stich told Pioline at the net, that if this was how he was going to go out, he wanted to go out this way...because you played beautifully today.

The thing with Pioline was that he was WEAK mentally, in TWO ways. In one way, he was weak because his powers of concentration in a typical match were wretched, he'd be up and down like a roller coaster throughout almost every match, whether against good OR bad opponent. One second, looked like a stray and shaggy dog sleeping in a dumpster, the next like someone lit a match under his azz.

That was problem #1 with him mentally and the primary reason, one USA commentator said about him, I don't think I've ever seen Cedric Pioline have an easy match, "lethargic" he put it, that mopey look and walk he'd slip back into inexeplicably after playing two points on fire. Also, the primary reason, he rarely reached the top ten, despite elite talent and athleticism.

The second problem was that he was a player who would often play great in the semis, then stink it up in the finals. He was one of the most wretched finals player in the history of tennis, and was the exact opposite of Muster who OWNED in finals because he knew how to peak mentally for them. Pioline was the type who was best when he was under a lot of pressure, yet just out of the spotlight, a slip through the cracks type, a HALF in the shadows, HALF in the sun, type. Yet in the finals, when he could not hide from the glaring spotlight, when the dust hard cleared and only two men remained and all the world knew it, THEN he would choke like a dog, well, not totally choked, but let's just say he tightened up and couldn't play as freely or fluidly as in the semis.

This second problem is also why he had mental blocks against Agassi and Sampras in my opinion, because they were "iconic" figures.

The difference between Federer and Pioline...on the RARE occasion that he was at his best...is actually not nearly as much as people here may think in my opinion.

They both rely on the fluid connnectivity of their strokes and soul to win, at their best, they were fluid from every part of the court, tremendous athletes, and add this all up and they're almost impossible to beat at their best...they SMOTHERED you like peanut better and jelly at their best, ain't no escaping it, they made a sandwich of you. The huge difference for me is that Federer walks and competes like a man ALL the time, competes that way ALL the time, irrespective of who he's playing, from round one till the last, and on the biggest of stages, he relishes the spotlight like Sampras did rather than cower from it, shrivel up into his French shell like escargo a la Pioline...mode, that too was one of his unfortunate and inescapable "modes."

fastdunn
06-26-2006, 01:18 PM
As I recall, Pioline actually had some kind of health problem early
in his career (some kind of serious poisoning, or something like
that). So he broke out into the scene pretty late with his
magnesium based racquet (with very small head size).
He often looked not healthy to me.
Almost every time I saw his match, he would NOT "start" playing
match until he loses a set or two, if you know what I mean.
He also stayed in top 10 without winning any title ever., as I recall
I'm not even sure if he actually won a title or not before
the end of his career.

lucky leprechaun
06-26-2006, 02:52 PM
thats the least intelligent comment I've read on this board in quite some time...Sampras was destroyed on clay by many number of players but due to his defficiencies on clay was not routinely in clay court finals (like Federer) in order to always be playing the same and as such best clay-court players...I personally still believe Pete Sampras was the best player ever and will remain that way until Fed breaks his record. As for most talented, who cares, I mean Bo Jackson might have been the most talented running back ever but until you can sustain brilliance over a long period you cant be called the best ever. You can say Fed is playing the best tennis ever, but not that he's the greatest ever...

Wow that's one of the dumbest replies I've had the pleasure of reading, lol bo jackson. I was expecting something deep but I'm stupefied to hear that federer has a better record than sampras on clay and that's why sampras cannot beat nadal. I bet your logic circuits are still trying to digest how in the world blake manhandled almagro at the french. Does not compute! does not compute! lol.

dukemunson
06-26-2006, 03:03 PM
it's obvious your not knowledge of tennis is limited but I'll try to help you out here...lets begin with trying to discern where your going with your argument: Federer has completely dominated the game except for one surface (on which he is the second best in the world)...Sampras was never a threat on clay and I think it could safely be assumed that Nadal would have little to no trouble beating Sampras on clay. As such, how is your assement and respect for Sampras going up with each loss Federer takes to the best player who at this point is probably playing at the highest level ever played on clay? While I consider Sampras the greatest tennis player to ever step onto a court, the fact that Federer can switch so easily amongst surfaces is (if sustained several more years) going to move him to the top of the list of greatest ever...

lucky leprechaun
06-26-2006, 03:11 PM
Sampras was never a threat on clay and I think it could safely be assumed that Nadal would have little to no trouble beating Sampras on clay. As such, how is your assement and respect for Sampras going up with each loss Federer takes to the best player who at this point is probably playing at the highest level ever played on clay?

no I don't assume nadal would have NO PROBLEM beating sampras with his attacking style read dude, you think sampras would get into a baseline rally with nadal lol? I definitely think sampras would match up way better with nadal than federer. And for the last time, no, player A > player B > player C, does not mean player C can't beat player A.

jukka1970
06-26-2006, 03:19 PM
Federer did exist during the time of Sampras: his name was Cedric Pioline. Pete had little trouble with the versatile and talented Frenchman, therefore he would have had little trouble with Federer either.

LOL, you're comparing Pioline to Federer, oh now that's funny. Talk about apples and oranges. Dude, what have you been smoking. Federer is in an entirely different league the Pioline, Federer of course being in the higher league.

jukka1970
06-26-2006, 03:30 PM
Well I personally think you're giving Sampras to much credit on his ground strokes. I'm not saying his ground strokes were horrible, but they certainly weren't at the level you're putting them at. But I do fully agree with the comments about the serve, and that's why I think he won so many titles. I mean lets face it if your serve is that good, and Sampras serve was that good (as much as I couldn't stand him) then he's not going to drop his service game very often. So people needed to break him, and then hold serve right afterwards to have any chance at beating him. Now of course this is what one needs to do to actually win a set unless it goes to a tiebreaker then you just need to take one point of the opponents serve as opposed to a game, but with others there was always a chance to break someone more then once in a set so the hold wasn't as crucial. With Sampras, if you got one break of his serve you were lucky and he almost never dropped it twice in the same set, and I believe that's what made him so dangerous.

the other reason why I think his ground strokes weren't as good as you're saying is because they didn't need to be because of the serve. I mean if you can fire your serve and put it in the right places the opponent is going to have a tough time returning it where they want it to go, and Sampras usually put that ball away.

Federer on the other hand constructs his points, and that's how he wins with an all around game. I don't think he even has the best of any one thing like serve, backhand slice etc, but as a whole he's got the best.


That's your opinion and I profoundly disagree with it. Federer's serve is not as good as Sampras, Sampras is more talented there, particularly the second serve where Federer's serve can be short on many occasions where Sampras' was prfoundly deep with a lot of spin and slice for variation. Federer's volleys are not as good, Sampras is more talented there, Federer's anticipation at the net and coverageis not as good, Sampras is more talented.

Federer doens't have a slam dunk or smashes from any position even falling backwards. Running forehands winners from 3 feet behind the baseline? No. As much power as Sampras? Definitely not. Federer has his racket strung a lot loooser than Sampras to generate power. Sampras strung his racket over twenty pounds tighter, with natural gut as thin as squash strings to control the power with a much heavier frame. You need talent to play with that equipment. As a result Federer does not hit winners from defensive counterattacking positions like Sampras did. Federer needs to dictate play to feel comfortable. He needs to step in and attack short balls. His game is more like Agassi in that respect which is why Agassi likes Federer so much and praises him. What Agassi couldn't stand is Sampras' ability to hit winners off both wings anywhere and anytime on the court, Sampras was more unpredictable. It was written all over Agassi's face during their meetings.

As for the backhand, Federer's backhand is not profoundly better than Sampras either. He's prone to stand up on his shots and not bend his knees often enough. When Federer gets to age 30 and loses some of his movement, like Sampras he's going to have a lot of problems on the backhand as Sampras did when he got 30 and lost some of his movement. Like Sampras, Federer has problems with the high kick to the backhand, who doesn't for goodness sake? Even Clijsters with her two handed backhand hates high balls up there.

Now the point the chap makes about Pioline is this. If Federer stayed at the 2002 level and not developed a winning mentality, would some people say he's the most talented player ever? I don't think so. The winning is more important. Players like Pioline and Henri Leconte are not mentioned because they never developed a winning mentality. Can Gasquet develop a winning mentality?

Well I personally think you're giving Sampras to much credit on his ground strokes. I'm not saying his ground strokes were horrible, but they certainly weren't at the level you're putting them at. But I do fully agree with the comments about the serve, and that's why I think he won so many titles. I mean lets face it if your serve is that good, and Sampras serve was that good (as much as I couldn't stand him) then he's not going to drop his service game very often. So people needed to break him, and then hold serve right afterwards to have any chance at beating him. Now of course this is what one needs to do to actually win a set unless it goes to a tiebreaker then you just need to take one point of the opponents serve as opposed to a game, but with others there was always a chance to break someone more then once in a set so the hold wasn't as crucial. With Sampras, if you got one break of his serve you were lucky and he almost never dropped it twice in the same set, and I believe that's what made him so dangerous.

the other reason why I think his ground strokes weren't as good as you're saying is because they didn't need to be because of the serve. I mean if you can fire your serve and put it in the right places the opponent is going to have a tough time returning it where they want it to go, and Sampras usually put that ball away.

Federer on the other hand constructs his points, and that's how he wins with an all around game. I don't think he even has the best of any one thing like serve, backhand slice etc, but as a whole he's got the best.

jukka1970
06-26-2006, 03:38 PM
during the peak time of sampras, there are so many good and potential players like boris becker, rafter, jim courier, stefan edberg, andre agasi, goran, micheal chang......yet sampras can still win 7 wimbledon and a total of 14 g slam. not like today, only nadal is probably the only one that can give fed the problems.....

Well I think we can eliminate 3 of these people right away. Edberg and Becker were nearing their time of retirement. Both excellent players but were fading, especially Edberg who was a complete serve and volley player, and the new racquets changed the speed of the game. As for Agassi, I think his peak was around 4 or 5 years ago, I think he plays a hell of a lot better now then he did back then.

As for Goran who I enjoyed watching at times, and was very happy that he finally held up the trophy at wimbledon, I'm not sure that I'd call him a rival. I say this because Goran relied heavily on his serve, so if his serve was off at all that was usually the match he'd lose. I mean he still holds the record for the most aces in a Wimbledon tournament.

So that leaves us with Rafter, Chang and Courier. I'm not sure Chang would really be in that elite class, I mean yes he won the French Open and beat two tough people at the end to win it being Lendl and Edberg. Aside from his speed though am not sure I'd call Chang a rival either.

So that leaves two, Rafter and Courier.

Federer has at least Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal and Nalbandian and Safin (when healthy).

dukemunson
06-26-2006, 03:41 PM
no I don't assume nadal would have NO PROBLEM beating sampras with his attacking style read dude, you think sampras would get into a baseline rally with nadal lol? I definitely think sampras would match up way better with nadal than federer. And for the last time, no, player A > player B > player C, does not mean player C can't beat player A.

You think Sampras matches up on clay better with Nadal than Federer? If you honestly believe that then there really is no purpose to a debate as you are A) an idiot, and B) an idiot that knows nothing about tennis...Sampras was, and I cant stress this enough, a complete NON-FACTOR on clay. There is no conceivable way he finals Monte Carlo and has match points on a guy playing the clay at the level of Nadal, it doesnt happen. Please re-examine your argument, put down the paint chips and attempt something of coherance, or intelligence or at least mild understanding of a sport that you obviousaly play and know little about....

mowcopian
06-26-2006, 03:45 PM
federer vs. sampras what a match tht would have been. the 2 greatest ever players of the game. in my opinion. federe i think has the more complete game and has been able to dominate on every surface except clay with the arrival of rafael nadal, which is the only person federer has lost to this year. where as sampras only really dominated on grass although he did well at every other grand slam, wimbeldon was his best one just like federer.

DJ Edwards
06-26-2006, 05:31 PM
Actually, I agree with this to a DEGREE.

Pioline and I've said this before is actually remarkably similar to Federer in terms of game and how he wins...WHEN the LACONIC Frenchman had his head screwed on right.

The difference between Federer and Pioline...on the RARE occasion that he was at his best...is actually not nearly as much as people here may think in my opinion.

They both rely on the fluid connnectivity of their strokes and soul to win, at their best, they were fluid from every part of the court, tremendous athletes, and add this all up and they're almost impossible to beat at their best...they SMOTHERED you like peanut better and jelly at their best, ain't no escaping it, they made a sandwich of you. The huge difference for me is that Federer walks and competes like a man ALL the time, competes that way ALL the time, irrespective of who he's playing, from round one till the last, and on the biggest of stages, he relishes the spotlight like Sampras did rather than cower from it, shrivel up into his French shell like escargo a la Pioline...mode, that too was one of his unfortunate and inescapable "modes."

Very well put, the iconic Frenchman did possess enormous talent and very fluid strokes and that's the point I was trying to make.

I saw him play several times over the years on his home turf: at the Phillips Open in Nice, the F.O. and Bercy. It was a little funny because the French crowd often seemed to side against him. He got whistled at many times. I think the problem was that they viewed him as a bit of an aristocratic snob.

He also let distractions around the court bother him and really pull down his level of play. Such was the case when I saw him on a rainy Tuesday in Nice in 1995. He lost in the second round to an absolute unknown and was severely booed by the fans. While leaving he looked towards the stands with this amazing look of defiant mockery on his face. He didn't care what they thought of him. What he should have done is take that attitude and apply it towards his opponents, especially in the tournament finals.
You're absolutely right: Pioline was weak mentally.

Sampras rose to the level of his opponents. I don't know what his career record against the long time Numéro un français was, but based on the USO and Wimbledon finals in which he squashed Chevalier de Pioline like a winemaker does grapes, I think he would have beaten Federer as well.

jukka1970
06-26-2006, 05:46 PM
[QUOTE=DJ Edwards]Very well put, the iconic Frenchman did possess enormous talent and very fluid strokes and that's the point I was trying to make.

Big deal, still doesn't put him in the same league as Federer

[QUOTE=DJ Edwards]Sampras rose to the level of his opponents. I don't know what his career record against the long time Numéro un français was, but based on the USO and Wimbledon finals in which he squashed Chevalier de Pioline like a winemaker does grapes, I think he would have beaten Federer as well.

Again apples and oranges, can't predict something if you don't compare the same levels, and even with that, to many other factors involved.

bagung
06-26-2006, 07:38 PM
Well I think we can eliminate 3 of these people right away. Edberg and Becker were nearing their time of retirement. Both excellent players but were fading, especially Edberg who was a complete serve and volley player, and the new racquets changed the speed of the game. As for Agassi, I think his peak was around 4 or 5 years ago, I think he plays a hell of a lot better now then he did back then.

As for Goran who I enjoyed watching at times, and was very happy that he finally held up the trophy at wimbledon, I'm not sure that I'd call him a rival. I say this because Goran relied heavily on his serve, so if his serve was off at all that was usually the match he'd lose. I mean he still holds the record for the most aces in a Wimbledon tournament.

So that leaves us with Rafter, Chang and Courier. I'm not sure Chang would really be in that elite class, I mean yes he won the French Open and beat two tough people at the end to win it being Lendl and Edberg. Aside from his speed though am not sure I'd call Chang a rival either.

So that leaves two, Rafter and Courier.

Federer has at least Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal and Nalbandian and Safin (when healthy).
fed has only nadal and safin(when healthy)

lucky leprechaun
06-26-2006, 08:51 PM
you are A) an idiot, and B) an idiot that knows nothing about tennis...understanding of a sport that you obviousaly play and know little about....

lol, yes I do obviousaly play tennis. I'm glad you noticed it.

superman1
06-26-2006, 10:18 PM
Blah blah blah. Lots of bias and ignorance in this thread, and in all Sampras vs Fed threads. If you never watched Sampras in his heyday, you shouldn't be judging his game. If all he had was a serve, he'd be no better than Ivo Karlovic. Try watching some of his matches with Becker before you judge how good his groundstrokes were. Agassi would have killed him every time they played just like he did every other big server if Sampras didn't have the moves to back up that serve. And how can you get to the semis of the French Open with an impossible draw without having superb groundstrokes?

!Tym
06-27-2006, 02:05 AM
Well I think we can eliminate 3 of these people right away. Edberg and Becker were nearing their time of retirement. Both excellent players but were fading, especially Edberg who was a complete serve and volley player, and the new racquets changed the speed of the game. As for Agassi, I think his peak was around 4 or 5 years ago, I think he plays a hell of a lot better now then he did back then.

As for Goran who I enjoyed watching at times, and was very happy that he finally held up the trophy at wimbledon, I'm not sure that I'd call him a rival. I say this because Goran relied heavily on his serve, so if his serve was off at all that was usually the match he'd lose. I mean he still holds the record for the most aces in a Wimbledon tournament.

So that leaves us with Rafter, Chang and Courier. I'm not sure Chang would really be in that elite class, I mean yes he won the French Open and beat two tough people at the end to win it being Lendl and Edberg. Aside from his speed though am not sure I'd call Chang a rival either.

So that leaves two, Rafter and Courier.

Federer has at least Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal and Nalbandian and Safin (when healthy).

Well, it's not really the rackets that did Edberg in. He got slower, he lost a step. That's all it takes. Notice that top players who don't have big serves tend to drop more precipitously than top players who do have big serves. Losing a step at this level is tremendous, just look at Chang, after he badly tore his MCL, his results and level of play plummeted. And yet, when we say plumetted we're not literally talking about going from regularly winning sets 6-3 or 4 to regularly losing them 1 or 2. That's not how it works at this level. What separates the top players from the pack is just a break or so a set on average, basically just a few points here and there, it's not that much difference. So when these guys like Chang, Edberg, Rios, and Bruguera who are known for their quick feet suddenly lose a step, the results can be devastating career wise. Not just for retrieval reasons. Bruguera needed that extra step to set-up his big inside-out forehand, a step-late is no good. Chang needed that extra step to whip those incredible angled backhand passes of his, or to pull out his signature topspin lob, like pulling a rabitt from a hat. Rios needed that extra step to set his balance right to take the ball so early on the rise. Edberg needed that extra step to close off the net and cut of returner angles, etc. A guy like Sampras could "hang around" so to speak, because of his serve, and conserve his energy for the biggest moments when he lost a step. These other guys couldn't do that, because fundamentally their speed SET-UP and enabled them on EVERY point to do what they did best. You lose that, you don't suddenly lose love and love all the time, but you do plummet whereas Sampras merely dropped, huge difference there. When you drop, you don't win as often, but can save up for a few key moments here or there. When you plummet, day in and day out, you've lost something you can't recover...after all, the big serve will always be there for the big server, and that basically can win points outright. These other guys couldn't do that. Still again, we're talking little differences making huge differences in the rankings. Regularly losing 3-6, or 4-6 sets, wheras once you routinely won those sets. Just a matter of reversing the break a set routine that is pro tennis, takes oh so very little to make that difference.

Fischer76
06-27-2006, 03:34 AM
Well, it's not really the rackets that did Edberg in. He got slower, he lost a step. That's all it takes. Notice that top players who don't have big serves tend to drop more precipitously than top players who do have big serves. Losing a step at this level is tremendous, just look at Chang, after he badly tore his MCL, his results and level of play plummeted. And yet, when we say plumetted we're not literally talking about going from regularly winning sets 6-3 or 4 to regularly losing them 1 or 2. That's not how it works at this level. What separates the top players from the pack is just a break or so a set on average, basically just a few points here and there, it's not that much difference. So when these guys like Chang, Edberg, Rios, and Bruguera who are known for their quick feet suddenly lose a step, the results can be devastating career wise. Not just for retrieval reasons. Bruguera needed that extra step to set-up his big inside-out forehand, a step-late is no good. Chang needed that extra step to whip those incredible angled backhand passes of his, or to pull out his signature topspin lob, like pulling a rabitt from a hat. Rios needed that extra step to set his balance right to take the ball so early on the rise. Edberg needed that extra step to close off the net and cut of returner angles, etc. A guy like Sampras could "hang around" so to speak, because of his serve, and conserve his energy for the biggest moments when he lost a step. These other guys couldn't do that, because fundamentally their speed SET-UP and enabled them on EVERY point to do what they did best. You lose that, you don't suddenly lose love and love all the time, but you do plummet whereas Sampras merely dropped, huge difference there. When you drop, you don't win as often, but can save up for a few key moments here or there. When you plummet, day in and day out, you've lost something you can't recover...after all, the big serve will always be there for the big server, and that basically can win points outright. These other guys couldn't do that. Still again, we're talking little differences making huge differences in the rankings. Regularly losing 3-6, or 4-6 sets, wheras once you routinely won those sets. Just a matter of reversing the break a set routine that is pro tennis, takes oh so very little to make that difference.

Very good analysis there m8. This is exactly what happened to me. No I did not lose half a step. I guess I lost 3 and a half steps. But I did not "plummet" at all because of that, since I was never up there anyway :mrgreen:

AndrewD
06-27-2006, 09:19 AM
during the peak time of sampras, there are so many good and potential players like boris becker, rafter, jim courier, stefan edberg, andre agasi, goran, micheal chang......yet sampras can still win 7 wimbledon and a total of 14 g slam. not like today, only nadal is probably the only one that can give fed the problems.....

Wind the clock back 10 years before Sampras and you've got Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander and Edberg all slugging it out for the major titles. That's what you call tough competition. No bloody wonder Sampras managed to win 7 Wimbledons when the best player he faced there was a well-past-his-peak Boris Becker. During Sampras's 'peak time', Edberg had gone and Becker was past his peak. Rafter was a gutsy player but no champion, Ivanisevic was slightly better and Chang was a little better than both but all were still second tier. That leaves Courier and Agassi and Courier was finished as a contender after 93. So, in effect, Sampras had Agassi as his only serious rival. Not much different to Federer and Nadal.

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 11:57 AM
Well I personally think you're giving Sampras to much credit on his ground strokes.
....
Well I personally think you're giving Sampras to much credit on his ground strokes. I'm not saying his ground strokes were horrible, but they certainly weren't at the level you're putting them at.

Well, try to get some matches of mid-90's or before, between
Sampras vs Korda, Sampras vs Agassi, or Sampras vs other baseliners,
and then tell us what you think about Sampras' ground strokes.

jukka1970
06-27-2006, 05:09 PM
Well, it's not really the rackets that did Edberg in. He got slower, he lost a step. That's all it takes. Notice that top players who don't have big serves tend to drop more precipitously than top players who do have big serves. Losing a step at this level is tremendous, just look at Chang, after he badly tore his MCL, his results and level of play plummeted. And yet, when we say plumetted we're not literally talking about going from regularly winning sets 6-3 or 4 to regularly losing them 1 or 2. That's not how it works at this level. What separates the top players from the pack is just a break or so a set on average, basically just a few points here and there, it's not that much difference. So when these guys like Chang, Edberg, Rios, and Bruguera who are known for their quick feet suddenly lose a step, the results can be devastating career wise. Not just for retrieval reasons. Bruguera needed that extra step to set-up his big inside-out forehand, a step-late is no good. Chang needed that extra step to whip those incredible angled backhand passes of his, or to pull out his signature topspin lob, like pulling a rabitt from a hat. Rios needed that extra step to set his balance right to take the ball so early on the rise. Edberg needed that extra step to close off the net and cut of returner angles, etc. A guy like Sampras could "hang around" so to speak, because of his serve, and conserve his energy for the biggest moments when he lost a step. These other guys couldn't do that, because fundamentally their speed SET-UP and enabled them on EVERY point to do what they did best. You lose that, you don't suddenly lose love and love all the time, but you do plummet whereas Sampras merely dropped, huge difference there. When you drop, you don't win as often, but can save up for a few key moments here or there. When you plummet, day in and day out, you've lost something you can't recover...after all, the big serve will always be there for the big server, and that basically can win points outright. These other guys couldn't do that. Still again, we're talking little differences making huge differences in the rankings. Regularly losing 3-6, or 4-6 sets, wheras once you routinely won those sets. Just a matter of reversing the break a set routine that is pro tennis, takes oh so very little to make that difference.

Tym, you're right, I should have mentioned that Edberg was slowing down as well because he was getting older. I complete agree with as one gets older if your speed is a big asset of your game then your level of playing is going to go down quicker with age. I guess what I should have said when I mentioned the racquets is that because of the extra power the newer racquets had, they cut down the reaction time even further then what Edberg had already lost due to his age. And as you said he just couldn't cut things off because he couldn't get to the net with that extra step anymore due to his age and the cut down on reaction time from the power of the racquet.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-27-2006, 05:11 PM
Well, try to get some matches of mid-90's or before, between
Sampras vs Korda, Sampras vs Agassi, or Sampras vs other baseliners,
and then tell us what you think about Sampras' ground strokes.

I would think he needs only 1 really good game of groundstroking a set to win the set, since his serve was so dominant. If he had Agassi's serve for a day, and even Federer's serve for a day(although Roger has a very good serve still), and best example of all perhaps Nadal's serve for a day, and managed to be as effective winning points over a whole match from the baseline as they are I would be impressed and very surprised.

jukka1970
06-27-2006, 05:14 PM
Well, try to get some matches of mid-90's or before, between
Sampras vs Korda, Sampras vs Agassi, or Sampras vs other baseliners,
and then tell us what you think about Sampras' ground strokes.

ok, perhaps I should quantify and describe a bit further what I meant by the comment on the ground strokes. The original person I answered made it sound like Sampras had superb ground strokes that won him many games. I agree that his ground strokes were indeed very good, but they were not superb. The piece that got him out of trouble when he was in trouble in a game was his serve. Yes of course he could hit of both wings and pull off a good shot, but I don't think that this is what got him out of trouble, nor was it as consistent.

If his ground strokes were as superb as the other person was describing then he should have been able to win the French Open at least once. Because he had the dominating serve, which isn't as fast on clay. And this is where I think you can separate him from others on ground strokes.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-27-2006, 05:20 PM
It is interesting that some has suggested Sampras's backhand being better then Federer's based on how bad Nadal might it look in the French Open final. Well imagine how bad Sampras's backhand would have looked playing Nadal on clay, that would have been a truly scary site. Also I would love to see what Nadal would be able to do to Fed's backhand if they ever played on grass, absolutely nothing.

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 05:53 PM
It is interesting that some has suggested Sampras's backhand being better then Federer's based on how bad Nadal might it look in the French Open final. Well imagine how bad Sampras's backhand would have looked playing Nadal on clay, that would have been a truly scary site. Also I would love to see what Nadal would be able to do to Fed's backhand if they ever played on grass, absolutely nothing.

You're not implying I said that, are you ?

federerhoogenbandfan
06-27-2006, 06:00 PM
You're not implying I said that, are you ?

No I said "some". There are alot of posters on here. For the record though you did start a thread on Fed's backhand vs Sampras's, right after the French Open final, as I am sure you recall doing, and referenced this years French Open final many times in the thread, so if I had been implying you(which I was not)it would not have been that far fetched either.

Chadwixx
06-27-2006, 06:01 PM
What was pete's longest grass court winning streak?

How many times did pete make it to the french open final?

How many times did pete win 3 gs in one year?

Whats the streak of weeks at #1 for both of them? Not year ending #1 but consectutive weeks.

Thanks.

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 06:04 PM
Are we debating over wording of "very good" and "superb" ?
If that's the case, I'm fine with either one.

Good ground stroke does not necessarily mean consistency required
on clay.

clay good baseline game and hard court good ground strokes
are different.

In his early days, Sampras was a baseliner with big serve.
He did win many games with his ground strokes.
What McEnroe was impressed by Sampras in 1990 US Open was his
ground strokes, not volleying technique which was obviously
immature at the time.
Big serve and big forehand. his forehand was definitely
a money making shot of his.

Too many people have a wrong image of Sampras' game because
he lost his ground game and completely switched to S&V
last few years (after he had herniated disc injury).



ok, perhaps I should quantify and describe a bit further what I meant by the comment on the ground strokes. The original person I answered made it sound like Sampras had superb ground strokes that won him many games. I agree that his ground strokes were indeed very good, but they were not superb. The piece that got him out of trouble when he was in trouble in a game was his serve. Yes of course he could hit of both wings and pull off a good shot, but I don't think that this is what got him out of trouble, nor was it as consistent.

If his ground strokes were as superb as the other person was describing then he should have been able to win the French Open at least once. Because he had the dominating serve, which isn't as fast on clay. And this is where I think you can separate him from others on ground strokes.

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 06:07 PM
No I said "some". There are alot of posters on here. For the record though you did start a thread on Fed's backhand vs Sampras's, right after the French Open final, as I am sure you recall doing, and referenced this years French Open final many times in the thread, so if I had been implying you(which I was not)it would not have been that far fetched either.

Yes, I did. But I never really stated Sampras' is better than Federer's.

My current stand is Federer's backhand is NOT better than Sampras'.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-27-2006, 06:09 PM
Yes, I did. But I never really stated Sampras' is better than Federer's.

My current stand is Federer's backhand is NOT better than Sampras'.

Fine, I strongly disagree with you then though. :cool:

antontd
06-27-2006, 06:18 PM
Yes, I did. But I never really stated Sampras' is better than Federer's.

My current stand is Federer's backhand is NOT better than Sampras'.


Federer's backhand is clearly better than Sampras'. Period. (said by a Sampras fan)

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 06:19 PM
Fine, I strongly disagree with you then though. :cool:

Well, in the spirit of this thread, I do not think Federer's backhand
is superbly better than Sampras'.

Their bottom line is same. They both have pretty good backhand
and both suffer same innate limit of 1 hander. Federer uses more
often and thus it looks better at times but its frequent usage
exposed its limit more widely to public..