Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Young Pete, May 16, 2009.
ne1 else agree?
No. Not even close.
No the Andre-Sampras rivalry was way less lopsided and much more enjoyable. The h2h was 20-14 in favor of Pete. While Fed is a pathetic 6-13 against Nadal and its only going to get even more lopsided
dude look at the way fed is playing and he is on the final of a clay tourney..that is not lopsided in my book.
Logic is something you seem not to have. Pete beat Agassi 6 times more and Nadal 7 times more then Federer. Tomorrow hopefully it will go down. How do you get it was more lopsided from that. Also don't give me crap that Agassi won more times because Fed-Nadal haven't played as much as Agassi and Sampras did. Not to mention they played the best-ever final at Wimbledon along with other epic matchs.
You really think the h2h isnt going to get lopsided between these two? Guess again. The problem is, Fed really doesnt have a surface he is safe against Nadal accept for the USO which Nadal has failed to reached the finals at. Nadal has beaten Fed at 3 of the last 4 slams. Pete could never beat Andre on clay or at the AO.
Rafa owns Fed - that's not even funny anymore.
Federer/Nadal are far better players than Agassi.
Sampras beat Agassi 6 more times.
Nadal has beaten Federer 7 more times.
How the heck is that lopsided you trolls? Because Fed is in a losing slump against Nadal? or have you quickly forgotten how the matches was anyone's ball game, just Nadal pulled through (like he always does)?
What about when Agassi had a four match winning streak on Sampras? Was it becoming lopsided then?
And the only SAFE place Nadal has against Fed in on clay. Any other court it's both their ball game, but anyone in there right mind gives Fed the advantage on hard and 50% (I say 60% Fed) on grass. Not to mention Fed all the way indoors.
What is your point? Besides to try and troll
Rafa/Fed is indeed more lopsided. Even though Nadal has one win difference compared to Sampras/Agassi, they've played 15 less matches. Nadal has won 68% of his matches against Fed, while Sampras only has 58% against Agassi. Although I must say it's not entirely fair to compare the two, as Sampras and Agassi were only a year apart.
The Madrid final will be an excellent chance for Fed to even up if he can't do it tomorrow its hard to seem him do it elsewhere
I think it's a bit unfair for Fed because Nadal is sort of later generation. In with the exception of clay, Nadal was own by Fed on other surfaces until Fed start declining. If Samprass keep playing for 3-4 years more and lose to Fed, we can't say Fed owns Peter. I means we better compare Djoko vs Nadal or Fed vs Roddick, regards
Sampras Agassi - Clay
Not sure what you mean. The only times that Agassi beat Sampras on clay was when Sampras was 17 years old and 20 years old. The last 2 times they played on clay Sampras beat Agassi in straight sets both times!
Most stats can be somewhat skewed based on how they're presented. If you compare the head to head records percentage wise it looks really bad for Fed.
If you present it as loss difference then Fed doesn't look quite as bad.
From a percentage point of view GameSampras's arguement actually makes a lot of sense. From a loss difference point of view you also makes sense. Based on the fact they've played so many matches not just a couple, I personally think the percentage arguement does have more weight in this case. You both actually make logical arguments but based on what I have seen I don't think GameSampras will acknowledge your logic or you his. That's what this board is all about. Sticking to your guns at all cost.
Either way, win or lose, let's hope Fed plays a great match tomorrow.
Rafa owns Fed on 4 surfaces now.
Clay, Grass, hard court, Clay/grass combo
You just failed grade 1 math. Agassi beat Sampras 8 more times than Federer beat Nadal. We can start treating Fed vs Nadal a real rivalry once Fed starts beating Nadal 14 times.
See this is what I don't get. I don't see how someone 'owns' someone on grass when the last time they played they only won by the thinest of margins - 9-7 in the fifth set, and every other time on that surface lost against the other person. Need explanation here.
I think in general Nadal is owning Federer but there aren't enough grass tournaments in the year for either one to own the other on grass.
At this point i can see some i just have trouble seeing past the 13-6 and counting
I know the most popular match between Sampras and Agassi is the 4 sets in US Open where all sets were in tie break.. But Federer and Nadal have competed each other in 3 five sets Grand Slam final, which is Wimbledon 2007, 2008 and AO 2009. All these matches were classified as classics by the press. So while the H2H record between Federer and Nadal doesn't look as competitive as Sampras vs Agassi, the rivalry is still better if you look at the quality of the matches between Nadal and Fed.
Who is who?
Federer is suppose to be the Sampras of the rivalry but he has a losing record against the 'Aggasi'. Unless you're saying Nadal is Sampras, if so then *walks out of thread before GameSampras reads this*
If by quality you mean tension, drama, etc, I agree that the Nadal vs Fed matches were of more quality. However if you by quality you mean winners to errors ratios, serving percentage, both players playing well at the same time vs one being up while the other is down then no. In that sense the Agassi vs Sampras matches were of much higher quality. A lot of the Fed vs Nadal matches despite having produced some great moments/winners, have been riddled with bad serving percentages, unforced errors etc. So in that sense they were not really quality matches.
Separate names with a comma.