A billion Reasons why Sampras is the GOAT.

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by samprasvsfederer123, Nov 18, 2009.

  1. samprasvsfederer123

    samprasvsfederer123 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Inside Federer's Mind
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GPmQyTVpM&feature=related

    federer only had nadal to stop him, sampras had a much harder time, federer might be the better overall player cause he could do something good in clay but when these two face each others' strengths like grass, or hard court no matter the speed of the courts i think sampras would win. sampras could have a dazzling game even without serve and volleying.
     
    #1
  2. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I wonder.

    Sampras is generally regarded as having one of, if not the greatest serve is the history of the game. His volleys are considered very strong, probably second tier (behind McEnroe, Edberg, Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, etc.) in the history of the game.

    How good would he have been without both?
     
    #2
  3. samprasvsfederer123

    samprasvsfederer123 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Inside Federer's Mind
    is this a real question or are you trying to intimidate my position lol?
     
    #3
  4. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,211
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    A billion reasons why he's NOT.

    1. His lack of a French Open title, and thus a career slam, is the most obvious flaw in his resume. He played in an era with a few tough clay courters, but none of them named "Nadal," "Borg," or "Rosewall." The Grand Slams are far and away the most important tournaments in the tennis world, and if you're missing one or more, it seriously hurts your case. True, it doesn't stop Borg or Rosewall from being mentioned, but they sure as hell got a lot closer to winning the U.S. Open and Wimbledon, respectively, than Sampras ever did at the French Open. Sampras was never considered much of a threat on clay, and clay consists of approximately a third of the tennis season.

    2. Even before Roger won 15, Sampras's record 14 Slams hardly cemented his place as GOAT. Going back to the Career Slam discussion, Rosewall had (and still has) more majors than anyone, even if we discount his amateur Slams. However, despite being mentioned in the GOAT discussion among Open Era and pre-Open Era contenders, he is rarely rated above Laver, due in large part to his lack of a Wimbledon title, widely considered the most important tournament in the game, despite his success at majors on grass.

    3. Yes, he finished six straight seasons as the World #1, which is extremely impressive, but few of those seasons can be considered particularly dominant. Arguably his best season, 1994 saw Pete attain career highs in titles (10) and winning percentage (87). However, Federer and Borg both had four straight seasons winning 87% or better of their matches, and winning 10 titles or more was common place for a lot of great players.

    4. Speaking of dominance, Sampras lost quite a few Slam matches to players we can rightfully call clowns in retrospect, even if we ignore his antics at the French Open (though we shouldn't) - his 1994 U.S. Open loss to Yzaga, getting demolished at the 1996 Aussie Open by Philippoussis, and another laugher at the AO against Kucera in '98.

    5. His record against Agassi, his chief rival, is obviously impressive, one of the few things that makes him stand out when discussing his GOAT status. Why? We all know Federer's objectively abysmal record against Nadal, but Laver was 5-7 in major finals against Rosewall and Borg was 1-3 against McEnroe. However, in all of the cases except Sampras and Agassi, there is a considerable discrepancy in the age of the rivals - Federer and Rosewall have around five years on Nadal and Laver, respectively, and Borg is almost three years older than McEnroe. It isn't just the decline of physical skills, but also changes in motivation, what surfaces were played on, and other influences that must be acknowledged.

    6. The source you provided adds very little to the discussion, unless credibility has suddenly become measured by the amount of times you can use the word "smoke" to illustrate your points.

    Anyone else, feel free to add more!
     
    #4
  5. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    I stand by this statment: Losing Tim, he lost the French Open.... Tim's goal for Sampras was to win the FO... I bet if Tim didn't die, Pete would have won the FO.
     
    #5
  6. CHOcobo

    CHOcobo Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    MN
    you just stated he's a better player. haha

    nadal being the only person to stop him doesn't mean he had it easy. so he had to be stopped by many more players to be closer to goat? doesn't that mean you loose more games? federer just makes everything looks easy.

    im not saying pete sucks or anything. i think he has the best serves ever but both at their prime, federer is the victor. by far everything here is too subjective, but it makes it fun.
     
    #6
  7. pundekman

    pundekman Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    103
    Carsomyr;4120512]1. His lack of a French Open title, and thus a career slam, is the most obvious flaw in his resume. He played in an era with a few tough -.....
    years older than McEnroe. It isn't just the decline of physical skills, but also changes in motivation, what surfaces were played on, and other influences that must be acknowledged.

    6. The source you provided adds very little to the discussion, unless credibility has suddenly become measured by the amount of times you can use the word "smoke" to illustrate your points.

    Anyone else, feel free to add more![/QUOTE]

    Wow, good one. took the words right out of my keyboard.
     
    #7
  8. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    good post carsomyr.
     
    #8
  9. Fed Kennedy

    Fed Kennedy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,788
    Location:
    With Roger
    Sampras was great. But Fed is the greatest. Sampras was a balling ass american with no clay game. He just loses out overall. Roger beat rafa on clay in MADRID in a final this year. Thats crazy. Bad luck for rafa to lose to a zoning soderling at FO, but Fed got the job done.
    15 slams at 28? Ridiculous.
     
    #9
  10. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    that's only 6.
     
    #10
  11. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    LOL, some just don't see the big picture. Everyone knows Fed would own Pete on clay. But on nay other surface Pete would have a better h2h. NOT because of skill either but because Pete possessed a stronger mental game. Fed looks flashier and plays in an era with garbage (except Nadal) competition (many freely admit they are defeated even before getting into the ring with this guy) with slower courts. Don't get me wrong, I think the two are neck and neck and some days I think Fed is the best and others Pete is. But everytime I read some of the ridiculous reasons the teenagers give on these threads, I pick PETE!
     
    #11
  12. flying24

    flying24 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,924
    Lets dissect your epic post of fail one step at a time.

    Sorry you dont even come close to listing a billion.

    In that case Sampras from 93-2000 had nobody almost all the time. Agassi was only really around in summer 94-summer 95 and spring 99-winter 2000 when Sampras won only 3 of his 12 slams during this frame. He denied Sampras a grand total of 2 slams during this mere roughly 2 years of "non slump" play. Becker and Edberg were well past their primes by 1993. Courier had one remaining year of prime level tennis- 1993, then was a shadow of himself thereafter. Chang is a poor mans Hewitt. Ivanisevic is a more talented but mentally flakier Roddick clone, with nowhere near Roddick's ability to perform with any success on hard courts. Krajicek is an even weaker and more oft injured Ivanisevic clone of sorts. Rafter was a late bloomer whose overall career does not even stack up to the likes of Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick (despite having 1 more slam than Roddick). Henman was a poor mans Rafter. Kafelnikov was a pedestrian baseliner who tennis wise looks like a Davydenko clone at best.

    Most times Sampras denied himself slam winning chances it was due to inexplicable losses like Yzaga at the 94 U.S Open, Schaller at the 95 French Open, a pre prime Philippoussis at the 96 Australian Open, his pigeon Kafelnikov at the 96 French Open, Krajicek at Wimbledon 96, Norman at the 97 French Open, Korda at the 97 U.S Open, Kucera at the 98 Australian Open, Delgado at the 98 French Open, another of his longtime pigeons Rafter at the 98 U.S Open, his own bizarre withdrawal from the 99 Australian Open,
    his loss to Philippoussis the clay court clutz at the 2000 French Open. Very rarely was it due to losses to the built up major rivals who apart from Agassi for roughly 2 years, and Courier for 1 year, were mostly out of their primes or badly out of form during this whole time period anyway.

    By contrast Nadal has denied Federer 7 slam titles. Sampras is very lucky to not have had anyone of Nadal's calibre playing his own top level tennis consistently at the same time, who was also a bad matchup for him. Basically someone who presented the matchup issues of Krajicek but who had the ability (not playing style) of Agassi, and the consistency of Nadal himself, and then you might have come close. Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Nalbandian, have all played their own prime level tennis for atleast 2+ years (most longer than that) of Federer's time regularly winning slams from mid 2003-end of 2009. A sharp contrast to Becker, Edberg, Courier, and Agassi in that regard, and those players are easily as good or better than all the others Sampras faced. Federer by far had it tougher than did Sampras.

    He certainly had a much harder time avoiding embarassing losses to players outside the top 10 in slams as shown above. Yet he still has only 1 fewer slam at this point (granted that is almost certain to increase). Wow just goes to show how much weaker the competition Sampras faced, all those horrible losses in slams vs the near invincability of Federer (apart from 1 player) and still not yet way behind in slams.

    Yes Sampras still could win alot of slams with just an ok serve and never coming to net. Thanks for the laughs. :lol:
     
    #12
  13. zapvor

    zapvor Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,132
    Location:
    tennis courts
    i still dont get it. to say sampras is more GOAT then fed is akin to saying michael jordan is a better baseball player than jackie robinson or babe ruth.

    plain and simple, by the facts, the facts i repeat, fed has accomplished more on the tennis court then sampras has, in LESS amount of time. in every aspect. the only thing i may give sampras is he had better serves, but that doesnt matter really. who cares if i could serve 200mph. if i couldnt win my matches, it amounts to little. (ie. roddick/karlovic).
     
    #13
  14. zapvor

    zapvor Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,132
    Location:
    tennis courts
    good post flying
     
    #14
  15. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    you're still a complete tool.

    who would make this silly comparison. MJ is a basketball player and should not be compared to anyone else but a basketball player. I never,m ever heard anyone make a ridiculous comment like Jordan was better than Ruth (if you think saying Pete is better than Fed is the same comment, then you are a bigger tool than I thought).
     
    #15
  16. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    the rest of your "rant" is pure balony. good job wasting 20 minutes to be completely wrong (as confirmed by Zapvor who agreed with you).
     
    #16
  17. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    here you go folks. this truly shows Zapvors complete ignorance on tennis. You should stick to your MAC thread.
     
    #17
  18. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    So says the poster who believes Roddick playing the same tennis he couldnt beat a 34 year old Agassi with would destroy Federer and the other top players of today:

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3562943&highlight=roddick#post3562943
     
    #18
  19. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    ^^^^^^
    great post.





    see above post for complete pwnage of delusional sampras muppet fanboys such as yourself.
     
    #19
  20. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    LOL...great response. Thanks for setting me straight.:rolleyes:
     
    #20
  21. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    you're welcome;)
     
    #21
  22. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    I was thinking of the relative merits of Sampras against Federer the other day and it occurs to me that on virtually any surface aside from clay I think Sampras can impose his style of game on Federer. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm a little influenced by the exhibitions they played but Pete seems to be able to force the play on Federer,

    I'm not necessarily saying Pete would win the majority nor am I saying that of Federer but Federer would clearly be out of his comfort zone with Sampras. No long baseline rallying. Federer would have to worry about Sampras at the net, among other things.

    As Agassi wrote Pete can play a lousy 43 minutes of tennis, play one good minute and win the set! His serve allows him to control the game and Sampras always has the threat of being able to approach the net and volley which Federer doesn't have to fear against his opponents of today.

    It's a tough match for both and believe it or not I think Sampras can be a tough match for Federer even on clay if he is in shape and rested even though objectively you have to favor Federer on clay.

    It's a good point that Sampras seems to be mentally tougher than Federer. I read a comment about Sampras in John Newcombe's book and it was really stunning. Newcombe wrote about a match Sampras played against Patrick Rafter in the Davis Cup. Newcombe was on the side of the court coaching Rafter when Sampras ran to hit a ball near Newcombe. Newcombe was shocked at the fierceness of Sampras close up. I think he felt Sampras would have run over him to win. It's subjective of course but Sampras to me is one of the toughest and gutsiest players I've ever seen.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2009
    #22
  23. David_86

    David_86 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    216
    Whenever Sampras was sick on court, or looking like he was about to break down or die, I always had more sympathy for the other guy. It's like a McEnroe tantrum. What can you do? Go up to the umpire and say "this is ridiculous, do something about this guy" knowing that they will just let the best player in the world do whatever he feels like doing. And then Sampras would serve an ace and everyone would go "wow, what a hero". Not me though.
     
    #23
  24. samprasvsfederer123

    samprasvsfederer123 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Inside Federer's Mind
    many of you dont get my point my point is that lets say there is this thing where to save usa pete has to win and to save switzerland roger has to win and the goal is to win the most grand slams by facing each other 4 times one time for each slam, i think pete would win the majority, because when i look at their strengths hard court and grass pete has an upper hand .

    pete was just unstoppable in his best, in hard court and clay. if they were both together in same era federer would only be winning clay and (some) of the other grnad slams but pete would be owning
     
    #24
  25. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    I was thinking of the relative merits of Sampras against Wayne Ferreira the other day and it occurs to me that on any surface I think Sampras can impose his style of game on Wayne Ferreira.
    However when I look at their actual h2h it occurs to me when they actually played all theory went out of the window and Ferreira held his own no problem.
     
    #25
  26. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    Pete SEEMED unstoppable in his best. As did Federer. That's why they're great. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as an unstoppable force, you're argument is based purely on a conjecture. You made up a hypothetical match in your head, came up with a hypothetical result with no significant explanation, and you're using that to make your case. Not very convincing at all.
     
    #26
  27. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    A billion? I count two.
     
    #27
  28. quest01

    quest01 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,616
    Federer is definitely the GOAT. Federer has won every grand slam something Sampras has never done, he never won the French Open or even made it to the final. Federer has a winning record against Sampras where he beat him at the 2001 Wimbledon 4th round snapping Sampras's win streak. Federer also played in a more competitive era that included Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, while Sampras only had to contend with Agassi, Courier, Chang, who were all weaker then Federer's rivals. Overall Federer is by far the better player then Sampras, he's won more grand slams and he'll still win more, he's made it to 22 consecutive grand slam semifinals, and he stands alone in so many categories. Sampras is maybe the 2nd best ever but he's nowhere near as accomplished as Federer.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2009
    #28
  29. sphinx780

    sphinx780 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,071
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    I just came in here to see an actual list to 1 billion. That would be something new and compelling into this continued back and forth.
     
    #29
  30. Meaghan

    Meaghan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,994
    Location:
    England
    I do think Fed would have sorted Pete out in the French but I think Pete would have a better head to head on all other surfaces.
    As for the level of competitors there have been some good points made but for me Pete had a harder time due to the diversity of play from baseliners to all courters, S&V and Brad Gilbert! Todays game has its own pressures of course but it certainly doesnt have an array of player types.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2009
    #30
  31. President of Serve/Volley

    President of Serve/Volley Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    Pete Sampras had: Edberg, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Becker, Stich, Kuerten, Kraijeck, Corretja, Rafter, Kafelnikov and Ivanisevic.

    You're telling me that they are worse than Murray, Joker, Nadal? Yeah, Right. They would toy with Murray and Joker like you wouldn't believe. Nadal would have a hell of a tough time vs prime Serve and Volleyers like Becker, Stich, Kraijeck, Rafter. On Clay, Kuerten, Corretja, and Thomas Muster would given him a run for his money... They would all give Federer a tough time.

    Roger Federer is a brilliant player, and one of my favorites to watch as with everyone else, but he wouldn't be as successful as he is if he played in the 1990s. Let's face it here: 1990's had one of the strongest era in tennis history. It makes the 2000s look pale.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2009
    #31
  32. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,211
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    And? I was generous enough to post that many, which was more than the "billions" of "reasons" the OP posited.
     
    #32
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Just to enjoy myself I put in some reasons, even if I don't necessarily believe some of them and some don't make any sense. And yes some of these reasons can be argued in Pete's favor in a reasonable manner. But a billion is a lot so I had to figure out something. :)

    1. Sampras is the greatest server ever.
    2. Sampras is the greatest serve and volleyer ever.
    3. Sampras is the guttiest player ever.
    4. Sampras has the most powerful running forehand ever
    5. Sampras is the greatest athlete in tennis history
    6. Sampras is the most well rounded tennis player in history
    7. Sampras has the greatest overhead in history
    8. Sampras has the greatest second serve of all time.
    9. Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player of all time.
    10. Sampras is married to Bridgette Wilson. :confused:
    11. Sampras beats Agassi when it counts
    12. Sampras has the most powerful forehand ever.
    13. Sampras was number one six years in a row.
    14. Sampras knows how to throw up in a flower bed at the National Tennis Center during a big match.:confused:
    15. Sampras is one of the mentally toughest players ever.
    16. Sampras is married to someone who was in movies with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Adam Sandler.
    17. Sampras has played in a tournament with a wood racket.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0_YyhKV0ig
    18. The name Sampras sounds tough.
    19. The name Pete sounds tougher.
    20. Sampras has a great slice backhand approach.
    21. Sampras is married to someone who was in "Saved by the Bell."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwyk...7ECC59B6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=27
    22. Pete has a one handed backhand.
    23. Sampras has won 64 tournaments in his career and a lot of Masters Events.
    24. Pete is mentioned a few times in Andre's book.
    25. Andre is mentioned a few times in Pete's book.
    26. Sampras led the ATP numerous times in percentage of holding serve.
    27. Sampras can serve a lot of aces on big points.
    28. Sampras beat Russia all by himself in Davis Cup.
    29. Sampras has seven letters in it.
    30. Sampras thinks his name sounds better than Roger Federer.
    31. Sampras thinks his name sounds better than Andre Agassi
    32. Sampras has super footwork and movement.
    33. Sampras has won the Italian Open proving he can win on clay.
    34. Sampras has won the Italian Open proving he likes pasta.
    35. Sampras has won 14 majors.

    Only 999,999,965 reasons more to one billion. lol. This may take a while.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2009
    #33
  34. lawrence

    lawrence Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,878
    Lol @ Azzurri.
    You get posters Carsomyr and flying24 presenting reasonable and factual arguments as to voice their opinions on Federer/Sampras being GOAT, and in comes Azzurri replying without any logical argument calling them teenagers and tools.
     
    #34
  35. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Nice list. Pretty funny. (I really like no. 14.) A few are fairly open to debate, though. Yes, you do have a long way to go.

    Here, let me help you: how about
    36. Agassi thinks Sampras is dull.
    37. Sampras did not take crystal meth.
    38. Sampras did not wear a hairpiece at the French Open.
    39. Sampras did not hate tennis.
    40. Sampras did not have an abusive father.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2009
    #35
  36. zapvor

    zapvor Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,132
    Location:
    tennis courts
    lol yea. even more funny to me is that 1. he did not get the point of my post, and 2. he still cant read. i have long given up on him.
     
    #36
  37. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    No, it was a legitimate question. (I would not know how to " intimidate my [your] position"--whatever that means.) Most importantly, you suggested it in the first place, right here--
    I was just logically following through on the concept you initiated.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2009
    #37
  38. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Excellent reasons. Only 999,999,940 to go.
     
    #38
  39. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Here are some reasons I think Sampras could be considered a strong GOAT candidate atleast.

    -the 1990 to 1996 field which he won over half his slams and ended 4 straight years at #1 against was incredibly strong and deep. Still not quite as strong as the killer late 1960s field Laver amazingly won his Calender Slam against, but still one of the strongest and deepest in recent memory.

    -Sampras at his best played tennis on medium to fast surfaces that could IMO challenge and beat any of the greatest men in history.

    -Sampras dominated all of his biggest rivals in head to head, IMO a prerequisite for GOAT.

    -As others have mentioned the 14 slams, while mighty impressive, was never his most significant record. There are several greats who would have more slams than both Federer and Sampras currently have had the games been as it is today. Sampras's records of 7 Wimbledons and 6 consecutive year end #1s in the modern game are extremely impressive, and wont be easily matched or bettered for a long time.

    -His longevity in the modern game is also incredible. Having already referred to his amazing Wimbledon record, it is most displayed at the other of the Worlds 2 biggest events- the U.S Open. There he first was Champion in 1990 and last was Champion in 2002, a remarkable stretch of 5 titles and 8 total final appearances.
     
    #39
  40. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    ^^^Agreed on all of this. Sampras is a worthy contender.
     
    #40
  41. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I give up.
     
    #41
  42. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    LOL.

    good one.

    on paper, sampras should have imposed his game on hewitt and safin too because he was a more naturally aggressive player. ooops. after all hewitt was a poor man's chang. safin a headcase the size of goran.
     
    #42
  43. RD 7

    RD 7 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    123
    1) Pete's greatest rival was a meth addict with a wig, shagging his own balls at qualifiers in LV.

    2) The Sampras backhand was too weak for clay. He never made it past the semis in Paris.

    I'm not sure there is a GOAT, but if there is . . . he's got all 4 under his belt.
     
    #43
  44. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    This is just another pointless weak era thread. You make it sound like Roger and Rafa only played in two man competitions, or that the other people in the draw were just there to get trounced by Roger.

    Roger, beat Pete when they played on grass, so what makes you think that the results would have been any different if they played in their primes. People have taken apart Roger's and Pete's games and many have concluded that Roger was the better player. Former touring players have said that Roger was better than Pete. Everything points to Roger being the better player.
     
    #44
  45. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,454
    OK, that's one reason.

    What are the other 999,999,999 reasons? :shock:
     
    #45
  46. Prostaffer

    Prostaffer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    436
    the argument of nadal vs sampras to support fed is a bad way to go. as of feb nadal was only 4-2 against roddick. for you youngins imagine pete as roddick with fed's prime backhand times x 2. not to mention the mental edge.

    also anyone who calls pete's volleying second grade never watched a match that sampras played.

    plus pete was the iceman. same serve, all the time. 5-0 or 4-5...same serve. same volley.

    fed credits his mental change for his career. he used to be emotional and focused on keeping himself detached. pete always was and will be the emotionless assassin.
     
    #46
  47. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,211
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Wait, did you just say Pete's backhand was twice as good as Federer's?

    :lol:
     
    #47
  48. zapvor

    zapvor Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,132
    Location:
    tennis courts
    yea this too. when they actually played Roger won. If pete is really goat and better than roger...lol he lost to roger.


    someone should start a thread where we list facts. pets accomplisments in column A, roger's in column B. lets see whose list is longer. i think the pete fans would be too scared to make such a thread
     
    #48
  49. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    I was thinking of the relative merits of Federer against Andy Murray the other day and it occurs to me that on any surface I think Federer can impose his style of game on Andy Murray.
    However when I look at their actual h2h it occurs to me when they actually played all theory went out of the window and Murray held his own no problem.

    neither post means squat.
     
    #49
  50. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    Here you have it folks...the amazing Quest01 has spoken. FYI: Quest never saw Pete, Courier nor Agassi play. Also, Novak is a flake and Murray has won nothing. But hey, if Quest believes it, it must be true.:rolleyes:
     
    #50

Share This Page