Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by fed_rulz, Dec 30, 2012.
So Nadal > Sampras > Federer > Agassi > Nadal. Got it!!
Fed's winning "majors"? No he has won ONE Major since January of 2010. Don't be talking to me about "dodging bullets" either. Fed dodged the bullet in the fact that Nadal didn't hit his all surface prime until 2008. (he couldn't even reach HC slam semis until post 2007). Fed dodged a bullet because Nole didn't get his crap together mentally and physically until last year.
Fed dodged a bullet because he fell perfectly into a transitional era where the slams were open for anyone to win. (Post Agassi/Sampras prime-Pre Prime Nadal)
Fed dodged a bullet when Nadal's peak was cut short by injury enabling Fed to win the French and break the slam record in 2009.
The "Sampras' sucks on clay" has been worn out as well. He won Rome, carried USA to a davis cup, reach the Semis of RG. And beat Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov all on clay.. Do don't do that "Sucking on clay". Sorry
We'll see, won't we? The only region Nadal won't ever come close to Sampras is in weeks at #1, YE #1. That's it. He is just 3 Slams short and I am extremely confident he can win 2 more (I may be proven wrong but I wouldn't need to be embarrassed about that with you :lol. If he manages 3, let's see where that puts them
Grand Slams : 14-14 (Nadal has a Career Grand Slam)
Masters : 11-21* (and counting)
Masters Cup : 5-0 (Okay, I concede)
That's it. I'd say barring the #1 records, Nadal would be even with Sampras if he were to win 3 more Grand Slams.
who cares? washed up or not, Federer > Sampras, and that is what this thread is about.
So thanks for admitting that Nadal is not Federer's main rival, but Roddick his (in case you didn't know, Roddick hit his prime around the same time that Federer did, and is of the same age).
And Roddick was an AVERAGE player at best. Certainly nowhere near as good as they guys we got on top right now, or the guys we had on top in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s
you have to add the all important criteria of massive h2h advantage over the "main" rival .. Nadal has beaten Federer on all surfaces in slams, but Pete hasn't.
Sampras when he was 30 years old : Lost to Bastl in Wimbledon 2nd round.
Federer when he was 30 years old : Won Wimbledon, beating prime Djokovic and prime Murray en route.
Head-to-head doesn't mean anything to me. To those that it matters to, yeah, they can factor in that too.
that's your opinion. How can you say he's worse than Agassi? you can't compare eras, can you? feel free to substitute Hewitt for Roddick, if you prefer
I was just being facetious.. you can easily use the arguments against Federer as arguments FOR Nadal, and make him look better than Pete
Federer had a dip in 2007 and a fairly major slump in 2008, you can see that in the numbers he posted across the season. It's not an invention.
Nadal only dominates Federer on clay, his best and Federer's worst surface. I'd love the the h2h of any former great who had to play Nadal 14 times on clay...
Maybe Sampras > Agassi = Nadal > Federer. After all grandpa 35 year old Agassi with a broken back took Federer to extra sets in over half their matches, and Federer didnt get his first win over Agassi until Agassi was 33, with 32 year old Agassi beating 20 year old Federer to complete his 3rd straight win. Meanwhile we all know how Nadal vs Federer went down more often than not.
No. Let me play the stupid head-to-head game.
Sampras-Agassi : 20-14 : 10-7
Federer-Agassi : 8-3 : 16-6
So Federer would win 16 times against Agassi for 6 losses. Sampras would win just 10 times for 7 losses :lol:
And let me go one better.
Federer-Sampras : 1-0 : 10-0 : 100-0
So Federer would win 100 times out of 100 times against Sampras, if their one match is anything to go by
But he's still winning majors since Nadal and Djokovic won their first. Now with Nadal out, there's only Djokovic standing in his way. I guess it's just another proof why Federer is better than Sampras - he didn't start to completely suck once out of his prime.
If he was so lucky how did he win 3 Masters, Wimbledon, something like 6 titles, regained no 1 at the age of 31 against Djokovic, Nadal, Murray who are all in their primes. Excuses will keep on coming. And Federer's advantage over Sampras will continue to grow.
Notice this - Federer at the age of 27-31 has won as many majors as Djokovic did in his entire career so far (and he hits 26 in May). It's pretty telling.
Of course his clay record sucks. For someone who is supposed to be one of the GOAT's. That surface will haunt him forever.
I agree. Laver's 2 calendar slams are incredible + Laver managed the best in both worlds dominating the beginning of open era AND before. I said before that the discussion is open between Laver and Fed. It is not anymore between Fed and Sampras. Sometimes the # are crushing to the point of no return. Fed has a better winning % overall and on every surface (bar carpet), he has more weeks at # 1, more WTF titles, more slam titles (and all slams), more master titles (and it's not even close), more titles overall, he's managed to have a better record than Sampras even at Wimbledon and he's won more titles on grass overall, on clay, he outclasses Sampras in spades with 1 slam title, 6 master titles and finals galore. There is not a surface or a category at this point where Fed hasn't outdone Sampras. What can I tell you? And I don't even like Fed. I'd much rather plead Sampras's cause, trust me, if he had one in this contest but he doesn't . Unfortunately.
Neither was anyone from the 90's except Sampras and Agassi. Roddick with his serve would trouble anyone in the 90's given how fast the surfaces were. And we all know how Sampras struggled against everyone who had as big or a bigger serve than he had.
...additionally, it is the reason the unsubstantiated BS claim of the OP exists: another chance for the Fed-fanboys to try really hard to convince themselves of Federer's questionable status. If they were truly confident, there would be no need to even address opposing views of the GOAT..but it is clear Federer is not that guy, so once again, we have another desperate, defensive, pro-Fed thread.
Courier was a much better player then Roddick as well. Roddick is probably equal to Rafter thereabouts. Becker even at older Age in the 90s was probably superior to Roddick as was Edberg in the early 90s
Sampras DESTROYED Roddick at the USO don't forget in his last slam appearance of his career. Agassi completely decimated Roddick as well
After Federer won his 7th Wimbledon, even NadalAgassi admitted that Sampras was no longer in discussions and that it was between Federer, Laver and Gonzales? But being the hypocrite that he is, he's singing a different song now.
Roddick was inferior, and a serve alone would not help him in an era where movement--and real understanding of the court was essential (the reason even baseliners such as Courier and Agassi had to do more than plant their feet at the baseline--like too many players today).
But Courier and Edberg (especially Edberg) were almost non-factors later on in Sampras' career. Courier could've well retired in 1995, it wouldn't make a difference. Edberg had his last good showing in a major in January 1994.
Roddick just barely got out of his teens. He wasn't half as good as his 2003-2004 self. He already had 2 wins against Sampras in 2001 and 2002 but that doesn't mean anything since Sampras was playing like crap at the time.
What does that even mean?
Sampras was the greatest of his time. That is the same as of all time for most people. It's not surprising that he should think this. Our limited perspective makes it unavoidable. Few people will ever get to experience the highs that he achieved so it is left to armchair warriors and creatures who live under bridges to try to construct the borders of his achievements - rather like ants crawling over a suspension bridge.
"To see a world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower Hold infinity in the palms of your hand and eternity in an hour."
Sampras was at the tail end of his carer though.. So I think it kind of evens out. Roddick was way closer to his prime (1-2 years prior) then Sampras was (3-4 years past his prime).
Edberg was #2 in the world in the early 90s and still playing at a high level (a higher level then I saw from Roddick through 95 percent of his career).
Courier was just flat out more talented and superior to Roddick bottom line.
Like I said.. Roddick is probably the equivalent to Patrick Rafter.
Sampras was already working on DOUBLE DIGIT slams by the time Kuerten, Rafter and even Agassi became consistent factors.
Sampras still had majors in him (unlike Courier, Edberg, Bruguera) who were done after 1993/1994. Becker only managed 1 major after January 1991 as well, one he didn't even have to face Sampras (nor Agassi).
Performance-wise, the 2002 US Open by Sampras was one of his best performances ever. Just like Federer isn't in his prime anymore but can deliver a GOAT-match from time to time (like the 2011 beating on Nadal in the Tour Finals). Roddick despite being "closer" to his prime wasn't really that good until 2003.
Agassi and Sampras were one year apart who's primes/peaks coincided with each others.. I dont think Fed's prime coincided with Nole's, Murray's or Nadals.. Or at least peaks did.. There is a 5-6 year age difference between Fed and those guys
Federer when he was 31 lost in the US open quarter finals to Berdych
Pete when he was 31 won the US Open!
Agree with your points. So the only thing left for Sampras is his superior head to head with his main rival. But because he mentions it without reference to surface then it is an invalid comparison. (Unlike is the case for Federer/Nadal, Sampras didn't face Agassi mostly on clay his worst surface).
Having said that I still put Sampras ahead of Nadal because of his weeks at number 1, 5 WTF wins vs 0 for Nadal and three more slams.
Federer still played 10 times with Nadal in majors, 11 times against Djokovic, 3 times against Murray. There was a time where Fed was in his prime while these youngsters weren't, a short span when both were "sort of" in their primes and now when Federer is past his and these youngsters are in theirs.
It's nothing different than saying - Sampras had it more or less the same level with Agassi while Federer had it easier, then even and now harder. Unluckily for him, most of the time (and going forward) he has it harder.
And don't get me started on the surfaces. Bring back the old AO/Wimbledon/US surfaces and Federer's chances against them rises 2-3 times.
What was Sampras's record at the French Open after 1996? 5 wins and 6 losses? :lol:
Well competition is different and we can never know how Sampras would do vs today's guys or how Federer would do in the 90s. Grass HAS slowed, and so has some HC. Very few serve and volley players. Also way more emphasis is placed on the masters and olympics.
Well Federer let Roddick get ONE slam, Hewitt never got one after Fed won his first and Safin got 1 afterwards. The fact that there were so few slams won by other players was an argument for Federer playing weak players, but now restricting your rivals slam count is a plus? Gimme a break. By the standard Samptard argument, the fact that Nadal has won 11 slams proves fed had tougher competition than Sampras because agassi didn't win that much til pete was past it - thus sampras had a weaker rival. Make up your minds.
I do agree with this. Federer said the same. No-one is the greatest because you need records there to shoot for, no-one should forget the records that came before.
Sampras did beat up on a lot of players from the previous generation. To be honest Pete is better than guys like Becker anyway, because he is on a level few players are. So is Federer and he'd beat people like Becker a lot especially if they were a few years past their prime. Thing is all the guys like Rafter, Courier, Sampras, retired before Federer got a chance to beat up on them. Only Agassi stuck around.
Well Sampras won his last few slams (probably last 4) in a weak period. Federer kept making RG finals- good odds that one year Nadal is going to slip up.
Since djokovic peaked in 2011 he is only 3-2 vs Federer in slams and one of his wins was from match point down, and this is against a 30 year old Federer.
I do agree though, Sampras didn't suck on clay. He just wasn't anyway near as good as he was on other surfaces and was a decent clay player but not world class. But he wasn't a clay bum like some people like to make out.
Federer didn't get his first win over Agassi until Agassi was 33, but he got his first win over Sampras when Sampras was 29, at the biggest stage in the tennis world, nonetheless, when Pete was the defending champion, and overwhelming favorite to win.. In effect, baby Fed found it easier to beat 29 yr old Sampras compared to prime Fed, who found it difficult to beat 35 yr old broke back Agassi. Ergo:
Sampras > Agassi = Nadal > Federer > Sampras. makes perfect sense! thanks!
so why is Nadal Federer's "main" rival, and not Roddick or Hewitt?
Because Nadal is the only guy that got the better of Federer.
Oh, and Sampras's main rival isn't Agassi. It's Krajicek.
One should also add Nadal doesn't have any rivals besides Davydenko and Rosol. Luckily for Nadal, Davydenko and Rosol aren't 10-time major winners.
Personally I think it's between Laver and Federer..
Yep. According to the Fed-detractors it's much better to lose to Bastl and Rosol in the 2nd round than it is to lose to Nadal and Djokovic in the SF/F.
Not when 5 of those are against a surface goat. Federer is far ahead of Pete goatwise, and Nadal has yet to catch up with Sampras.
I liked Courier at 1999 Wimbledon. A straight set win over Cowan, a very good 5-set win over Moya, an epic 13-11 in the fifth set win over Schalken where Courier needed to go on a drip after getting dehydrated, and then another epic match against Henman, where Courier lost after having 3 match points. That was revenge for Henman after Courier had won 5-set epics against both Henman and Rusedski in the Davis Cup 3 months earlier.
At Roland Garros, from ages 25-31
Best Result - Champion
34 wins, 5 losses
Best Result - 3rd round
5 wins, 6 losses
PS - :lol:
Yep, well, that's totally up to personal preference. I could argue all 4 slams for Nadal and many more masters but I just think they're close. So either permutation doesn't bother me. I would also agree that no WTF is the biggest hole in Rafa's resume but he has other things going for him. In terms of Sampras vs Fed on clay, one can definitely not argue the field because Sampras didn't have adversity on clay that was even remotely comparable to formidable Nadal. And even on all surfaces, Agassi could be downright brilliant but he had 0 consistency. Heck, even Murray is more consistent than Agassi. Djoko is vastly more talented than Courier. Nadal is a beast on slow surfaces. I think the weakest opposition Fed faced was in 2002 to 2004: Hewitt, Safin didn't last, Nalby was nowhere near as talented as an Agassi and didn't have the consistency of a Chang, Roddick was a limited player, Davy bloomed quite late. (Agassi was still there but he was ancient)
And he's supposedly the GOAT. Go figure
Was Fed-Roddick a rivalry? Rivalries should bring an element of uncertainty
so why is Federer - Nadal's a rivalry? according to you, Nadal takes (or has taken) Federer to the woodshed on all surfaces...
btw, i'm yet to hear why Nadal is Federer's main rival, when by your own admission, unlike Sampras-Agassi, their primes do not coincide, and belong to the era after.
Five finals and one title at RG is very, very good combined with Federers supreme record at the other majors, and nothing Sampras or Nadal come close to matching, it is very very obvious.
There was some uncertainty at times in the Fed-Nadal rivalry in though the result was never usually in doubt.. Fed had his chances vs. Nadal over the years, but he mentally folded like laundry.
Of course, Roddick had his chances as well but you knew Fed was always going to win more times then not since he was so much better the Roddick
Its good.. But this has also been a very WEAK clay era (almost no depth whatsoever) as well. There was two times the depth on clay during Pete's time.. Thats a fact
Hell the last great clay court player (outside of nadal) I saw was Kuerten.. And that almost 10 years ago
Separate names with a comma.