Federer wants to avoid Sampras fate

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by laurie, May 26, 2006.

  1. laurie

    laurie Guest

    #1
  2. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,465
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    I don't think he necessarily wants to "avoid" Sampras' fate-he simply wants to win the French to be one of only a few to have won them all. In addition, I am sure he understands if he does win the French, and reach or surpass Sampras' 14 slams there will be no question he is a greater player than Sampras.
     
    #2
  3. wyutani

    wyutani Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,760
    Location:
    hong kong
    actually sampras wanted to avoid mcEnroe's fate. didnt work out well eh?
     
    #3
  4. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    Federer's game is much more suited for FO than Sampras'.
    I'm pretty sure he will win FO more than once in his career.

    But I'm not sure if it will end debate on whether he would be
    #2 or #3 behind Laver unless he wins more than 14 slams
    even if he wins FO.

    For example, even if Federer wins FO and has career slams,
    I'm not sure if I would value it over Agassi's career slams.
    Wimbledon's are using slow surface, hard courts got slow.
    All surfaces are being played with same style now while
    Agassi achieved it when all surfaces are very different
    and was being played very differently....

    Agassi was a bit lucky in Wimbledon but he truely did
    very well in all slams on truely different surfaces...
     
    #4
  5. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,036
    If he wins FO, he will be tied at #2 with Agassi with Laver at #1.
     
    #5
  6. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    Now from you I find this amazing because did you also not say that you expected Nadal to win Wimbledon in the next few(no more than next 3 I presume you mean)years.

    So Nadal will become good enough on grass to win Wimbledon during Federer's prime in only a few years max, yet Fed will manage to win the French more then once against Nadal all the same? That is interesting to say the least.
     
    #6
  7. lucky leprechaun

    lucky leprechaun Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    412
    If federer wins 2 french opens with decent showings on clay all around with his career, and goes on another wimbledon trilogy, the fat lady would sing. It's great that Fed has a definitely more urgent sense of the importance of the french than sampras did, with the hindsight that he's lucky to have. He knows the next few years will be his best chances at the french, unfortunately having to face a minotaur guarding the gates of the type never been seen before. Getting by that will be a huge part of the evaluation, he will go down as the unquestionable GOAT to end all goat discussions, and we will throw his form into the sky and name a constellation after him.
     
    #7
  8. Defcon

    Defcon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,708
    We must not forget that Laver played 3 of the 4 slams on grass !! Imagine how many Sampras or Fed would have (the undisputed kings of grass) if that were true today - easily 20+.

    And even though the courts at Wimbledon has been slowed and destroyed beyond recognition, it seems to have had no effect on Fed's dominance.
     
    #8
  9. Kid Carlos

    Kid Carlos Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    622
    Federer clearly has the game to beat nadal or anybody for that matter on clay. Granted he hasnt done that so far, but he has come close, closer than anybody else. One has to think that come June 11 if they both do in fact meet alot could happen and you have to think that Federer has to win at some point.
     
    #9
  10. Kid Carlos

    Kid Carlos Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    622
    I would also like at this point to make everyone aware of Juan Martin Del Porto, a 17 year old 6 foot 5 Argentine with a huge game, he qualified for the french and could cause some noise.
     
    #10
  11. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    I think what people are excited about Federer and THIS year's FO
    is: If he wins it, he strengthens his domination even more and very
    likely to win as many as 14 slams or even more...
     
    #11
  12. Aykhan Mammadov

    Aykhan Mammadov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Baku, Azerbaijan
    "Federer wants to avoid Sampras fate"

    I've already avoided Sampras' fate.
     
    #12
  13. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    I've said it many times. Don't assume I hate Federer just because I said
    Nadal will do better on grass. These are not conflicts. They are both
    fabulous players.. Federer's getting close to beat Nadal, isn't he ?

    In fact, when I saw Federer 1st time, I thought
    he had clay courter's mold. Top-spin based baseline games but he had
    good shot making abilities. I did not expect Federer do this good
    at Wimbledon.

    I actually never thought Federer would had this much trouble
    winning FO. If not Nadal or if he did not bump into Kuerten
    a few years ago, I think Federer would have won FO by now.

    Again, all surfaces are playing similar compared to past.
    If conditions remain similar as now, top players will do better
    on all surfaces unlike past when tennis was very polarized
    on each surface.
     
    #13
  14. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    I disagree that surfaces are similar to the extent you seem to think they are. If Federer is able to win a couple French Opens while Nadal is near the top, that just makes it that much more certain Nadal wont have a prayer if he plays Federer at Wimbledon EVER. Likewise if Nadal is able to win even a single Wimbledon before Federer retires, Federer will have to pray he doesnt play Nadal at the French to ever win it, and even then the level on clay is so high and he is vurnerable enough as a player if he allows Nadal to win a couple Wimbledons it would still then be a miracle for Fed to win the French.
     
    #14
  15. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    You lost me somewhere in the middle of your post.

    This is not complicated. Don't mix Federer into Nadal soup too much.
    Think about it independently.

    Federer: Doing already pretty good on clay. Proly will win FO someday if Nadal
    is not on the final or evene if he faces Nadal, he is pretty close to beat him.

    Nadal: Currently horrible at grass. But doing fine on hard courts and will
    do better at Wimbledon in the future. He has a chance because it's better
    time for baseliners to win Wimbledon because they use "rye" grass that
    slows down the ball and makes it bounce high...

    These two opinions do not conflict each other.

    What are your opinion then ? Nadal won't do better in Wimbledon and
    Federer will never win French ????
     
    #15
  16. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    I absolutely think Nadal will never win Wimbledon, in fact I dont think he has a hope in he$l of ever winning it. Here are several reason:

    1)Roger is not even retiring until after the 2012 season. Nadal is likely to have his last year as a contender to win slams the year he turns 25, because his game style is the same one as Wilander, Borg, and Chang, who all had their last years as contenders to win slams at the age of 25. Thus 2011 is Nadal's last year as a contender to win grand slams anyway, and he would need Roger to be out of the game to win Wimbledon even if he became good enough on grass to have a chance, since he would never win Wimbledon with Roger around. Since his last year as a contender to win slams because of his game style is a full year before Roger's planned retirement it is already a realistic impossability.

    2)There are already players Nadal's own age group equal or better then him on grass: Gasquet, Monfils, Murray, and Berdych are all equal or better then Nadal on grass already. He is much better then them on other surfaces, but on grass if he played one of them even last year he would have atleast a 50% of losing. You can tell his game is more developed at this point then these players, and he has less improvement anyway then they do. Granted he is so far ahead of these players he may be the best on hard courts and clay of that group even after they improve more then him, but no way will he be as far ahead as he is now of them. Yet on grass he is already equal or behind them, and they all have more improvement then him as almost anybody would admit I am sure-since nobody really thinks he will stay as far ahead of them on clay and hard courts as he is right now. So that also shows him never able to win Wimbledon, since players who have more improvement ahead of them then him are already equal or better then him on grass.

    3)Nothing about his game on grass is suitable to winning Wimbledon-too big of backswings, not good enough serve, not good enough volley, playing too far behind the baseline, grips not right, doesnt move comfortably on the grass. Agassi who took the ball much earlier, had much shorter backswings, a better serve(the best Nadal might ever has is a serve equal to Agassi's, and that is only if he improve it alot more), and moved better on grass then Nadal(not on any other surface but certainly on grass, Nadal slips around trying to move on grass)still only won Wimbledon once.


    I dont think Roger will win the French more then once either, he might win it once if he is lucky. Right now is his best chance to win it probably since the overall field on clay is a bit weak compared to some other times. Of course the guy on top is Nadal who is incredable, but in time there will be other clay courters that are better among the contenders on clay then the current group of Ferrer, slumping Coria, Gaudio, Robredo, agining Moya. Federer is a very good clay courter, who might even be able to sneak out a big title vs a strong clay field, but still would not regularly be top 2 in every significant event on clay like he is today. In the field that had Moya, Kuerten, Rios, Costa, and Correjta all in their primes Nadal would probably still be the player to beat on clay, but Federer would be somewhere between 4th-6th best on clay overall probably, not 2nd best like he is now, and while he still would be a contender, would find it even harder to win a big title on clay then now. Yet even now as 2nd best on clay, and far ahead of the others it is looking on the surface, he is finding it hard enough. It will only get harder as the clay court field gets stronger then it is now.
     
    #16
  17. arosen

    arosen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,101
    I heard good things about him, it would be nice to see a fresh face going deep in a draw.

    I suspect the real reason Fed lost so many matches to Nadal is Fed's lack of mental fortitude. Fed's game is tremendous, he should have at least won one or two of those. He chokes, that is the only plausible explanation.
     
    #17
  18. nadalgirl26

    nadalgirl26 Banned

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    182
    You cant compare the magnificent incredable Pete Sampras to Federer. Federer won a bunch of slams in a row against a bunch of losers like Hewitt and Roddick. He pretty much is the best of players that suck. Put him up to a real player like Nadal and you see what happens.

    When Pete was on top he faced all-time greats like Agassi and Becker and Edberg and Courier. He faced other really good players like Ivanosevic and his amazing serve and Chang and his amazing running and toughness and Kafelnikov and his amazing backhand and smooth game and Krajieck and his amazing serve and volley and Rafter and his amazing serve and volley game. He won against real people. Roger would lose to people like Agassi and Courier and Becker and Rafter and Chang on every single surface.
     
    #18
  19. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    Yes, Sampras was trying to avoid McEnroe's fate. McEnroe "only" won 7 slams (I mean, obviously, the guy's a loser). Sampras won 14. Obviously, an even bigger loser.

    Let's put it this way...

    Right now, Federer is the best player at every slam except te French. In the Wimbledon, he's way way ahead of everyone else, and also at the US Open. At Australlian, he's the best.

    And at the French, he's second favorite to Nadal, and is playing an excellent clay-court game. As the Rome final proved, he's narrowed or eliminated the gap between him and Nadal on clay. He has great odds to win the French.
     
    #19
  20. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,465
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    The only thing Federer wants to avoid in relation to Sampras is the patches of hair missing on the top of Sampras' head. He looks like he got in a fight with a weed-eater and got his a** wooped.
     
    #20
  21. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    nadalgirl,

    You don't know what the f--k you're talking about. People said that Sampras has "weak" competition when he was playing too.

    The fact of the matter is, the greatest players of history think Federer is one of the all-time greats, including Sampras.

    Here's a fact: no-one's talking about Nadal having a chance to surpass Sampras' record, because he can't do it. People are talking about Federer surpassing Sampras' record, because he has a realistic chance to do it, and a game that's built to last many years (unlike Nadal's game, which isn't built to last).

    Hell, Rod Laver has said he's "honored" to be compared to Roger Federer, when normally it's the other way around (I'm sure Federer feels honored by the comparison to Laver, and to Sampras).

    Just to summarize to you your complete ignornace of tennis:

    Let me break it down for you, nadalgirl. You are a nobody. That would be fine, if you had some logical arguments, based on a knowledge of tennis and sound analysis of reality, but you don't. All that you're relying on is bald-faced assertions, which means your reputation.

    Your reputation in tennis is 0, because you are a nobody. You aren't a pro tennis player, and haven't won any Grand Slams.

    Rod Laver, on the other hand, is a living legend and tennis genius. A demigod of tennis, so to speak. Along with every other former top-player and coach, Laver thinks that Federer has a great chance to win the French.

    That also makes federerhooligan's comments seem incredibly ignorant. No offense, but he's also a nobody in tennis. It is, however, baffling how he can have some intelligent analysis, and then say such rubbish as "Nadal is a lock for the French Open". Federer isn't even a "lock" for the Wimbledon, and he's arguably playing as great on grass as was Sampras. And there's no-one even with Federer on grass. Contarily, Federer has narrowed and closed the gap between him and Rafa on clay, as the Rome final proved.
     
    #21
  22. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    You always go by what the greats say, and that is:

    1. Sampras
    2. Laver
    3. Federer

    Although some might say:

    1. Sampras
    2. Laver
    3. Borg
    4. Federer

    And some might say

    1. Laver
    2. Sampras
    3. Borg
    4. Federer
    ..etc...those guys will be immediately followed by McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, etc.

    The main point is, Federer is always in there somewhere.
     
    #22
  23. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    superman1,

    Well, I'd say you go by what the greats say on players other than themselves. So, when judging Federer we see what Laver, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, etc say.

    Summarily, what they say is this: Federer is one of the all-time greatest players ever, and has a chance to win the Grand Slam.

    I thus conclude: anyone who disagrees with that is a tennis-ignoramus, is talking out of their asses, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
     
    #23
  24. Gilgamesh

    Gilgamesh Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Sure Sampras didn't win the FO...

    But you know what is amazing he won 14 GS without winning the FO.

    Fed is the 2nd best clay player on the tour right now. The problem is we are witnessing the emergence of perhaps the greatest clay player ever in Rafa.

    Fed has his work cut out for him if the two match up in any FO finals.

    Nadal is almost like Fed's kryptonite.
     
    #24
  25. Gilgamesh

    Gilgamesh Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    SO TRUE.

    It is not so much so "weak" competition for Sampras but rather his dominance made his competition look "weak".

    I reckon we will probably say the same thing for Fed when his career is over.

    Guy is just so dominant he doesn't leave room for his competition (except for Rafa) to win anything and therefore they appear "weak".
     
    #25

Share This Page