PRADEEPKUMAR MANI
New User
http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis.cfm?id=1846412007Sampras insists Federer's opposition falls short of the standard of Rafter, Agassi, Edberg, Becker and Courier, who formed the American's main challengers when he dominated in the 1990s and early part of this decade.
"I had more major winners up against me versus the rising stars behind Roger."
I don't see why Pete has to be so insecure. He is one of the tennis greats, his legacy lives. Yet he is always condescending in his opinions of Roger's achievements- he always seems to praise Roger, but adds a caveat that implies that Roger has it easier now ("tougher" competition during Pete's time, lack of S & V players, etc.). I don't understand how S & V tennis is an guaranteed recipe for success. It is true that players don't S & V now - but they have become that much better at the baseline. The more he shoots off his mouth like this, the more I lose respect for him.
Some one posted this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A26834592:
The prime years would be 94-97 for Pete, and 04-07 for Roger.
During that time Pete lost to the following "greats"
Courier in French quarters
Jaime Yzaga in R16 US Open
Agassi in Australian finals
Gilbert Schaller in French R128
Mark Phillipousis in Australian R32
Kafelnikov in French semis (his only semis)
Krajicek in Wimbledon quarters
Magnus Norman in French R32
Petr Korda in US Open R16
During his best four years Roger lost to the following "weak era" players:
Kuerten in French R32
Safin in Australian Semis
Nadal in French Semi Finals
Nadal in French Finals
Nadal in French Finals
So what is clear beyond a shadow of doubt is that, Pete lost to players he shouldn't have - Norman, Yzaga, Schaller, Phillippousis
Couldn't agree more!