How could someone call Sampras the Goat

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tennisbuck, Jan 21, 2013.

  1. Laurie

    Laurie Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,415
    Location:
    London
    I have been consistent in saying that there is no one greatest player of all time, especially as the Open era has only been around for the last 45 years or so.

    As for Sampras being the "greatest" or wanting to be known as "the greatest" then that is not possible. Federer has broken all of his records bar one and is still playing at a very high level at the age of 31.

    When Sampras won the US Open in 2002 he should have kept on playing in my opinion, I thought that at the time. Also, Sampras knew the importance of the French Open, an extensive article / interview was done on Sampras in early 1997 (might still be on the internet I'm sure) where it was stated that Sampras needed to win the French to be considered the greatest. In fact, Pete Fisher was quoted as saying just that, apparently they would have arguments over dinner about that topic (this is before Pete Fisher had trouble with the law and went to prison).

    Sampras' counter argument apparently was to state if he racked up the majors that would be as significant as not winning the French, so breaking the record became his obsession I suppose. As we know as well, Sampras' clay results took a real dive from 1997 onwards, when you would have thought they would actually improve as he was only 25 years old at the time.

    Therefore I don't think Sampras can legitimately say he wants to be known as the greatest player to play tennis. He can legitimately say he is one of the greatest and put his name forward as one of the few players to play the highest level of tennis when in the zone.

    We will never know but I often wondered how Sampras' clay results would have fared had Gullickson stayed alive and continued to be his coach until around 2000? He might not have won the French but perhaps he would have taken the clay tournaments more seriously and been much more committed to it 1997 and post 1997.
     
    #51
  2. pvaudio

    pvaudio Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,543
    You do know that the exho matches are more or less pre-determined, yes? It is no coincidence that the matches almost always include a tiebreak and a set with a single break: 7-6, 6-4 or 6-4, 7-6.
     
    #52
  3. pvaudio

    pvaudio Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,543
    What the flying **** are you talking about? Even by your logic, the fact that he didn't "try" at the French means he's not a multi-faceted. I don't even buy that because in Sampras' day, people were still hailing Laver's achievements.
     
    #53
  4. ctjpm

    ctjpm New User

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    No that indicates the player was the most successful winning GS championships. Beating your main rival 12% of the time does not denote the greatest.

    Take clay away. Why? Federer is a former RG champion and was more successful in Hamburg than Nadal. He stated himself he felt natural playing on clay, why remove an historic surface because it doesn't suit an argument?
     
    #54
  5. ctjpm

    ctjpm New User

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    'Surely the competitor with the most slams is the GOAT?'

    No that indicates the player was the most successful winning GS championships. Beating your main rival 12% of the time does not denote the greatest.

    Sorry missed the quote.
     
    #55
  6. rajah84

    rajah84 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    527
    Don't get exited, I never said he didn't have champion qualities. I was comparing both their qualities. And it's no contest really, unbiased fans will admit that Pete had more of that "champion" quality than Rog. Pete made the most of what he had and dominated his rivals. Rog, I've always felt under achieved. I think he should have won the calendar slam more than once and allowing Nadal to own him is his greatest fault as a champion. If you compare the numbers Rog wins, obviously, but measuring the status of a champion has more to do with character than stats. Rog has done well, he's the most talented player ever, 17-time GS champ and a great ambassador for the sport. There's no such thing as the perfect player. Wanting and believing him to have everything is just silly and greedy.
     
    #56
  7. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,391
    Main rival = the field.

    Federer has a winning record vs the field.... much, much moreso than Sampras had.

    So, what does Sampras have over Federer again other than consecutive year ending number ones? Pretty much nothing in the bigger scheme of things.
     
    #57
  8. rajah84

    rajah84 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    527
    Him not "trying" has nothing to do with his abilities, as I'm sure you're aware. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Greatness isn't measured by multi-faceted game.

    There was much more media play on Federer/Sampras than the Sampras/Laver thing. For the most part they only started mentioning Laver when Pete was getting close to breaking those records. From the beginning, Roger's career was shadowed by Pete all the way down to the comparisons of their game. By 05, Roger's career was already paved, break Pete's Records and become the "greatest player ever" giving him a clear head start in the competition to break his rival's records. Pete didn't consider the race to greatness till he was half way through his career.
     
    #58
  9. rajah84

    rajah84 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    527
    In a word, balls. If Federer had any wouldn't be having this debate.

    He let the number 1.5 player in the world flat out own him. Pete would never have done that. That makes Pete greater right there. It's not just about numbers.
     
    #59
  10. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    There is some truth to this. But im not sure I would have worded it the way you did...

    Sampras legend is enhanced because he definitely overachieved and also he surpassed expectations in some of the most hyped matches with agassi.

    Sampras beat agassi in all their encounters at the usopen, even though prior to the matches it was considered a more 50-50 proposition. Agassi had been beating pete before on HC, so sampras stepped up in those big matches and won. This definitely adds to his "legend".

    Similarly, people point to the wimbledon final. Everyone expected pete to win, but not in such a convincing fashion. Pete outplayed andre and sent him home in straights.

    With federer, he certainly surpassed expectations against his age-range rivals - hewitt, roddick etc. J.Mcenroe was skeptical that fed could dominate because of the depth - this was seen in 2003 with the different slam winners.

    But, people were generally puzzled to see him lose against a younger player nadal, even on clay. In 2005, fed was the favorite and in 2006 - he was given a great chance to beat nadal as well.

    Everyone expected roger to win because he was perceived as far more talented, well-rounded and powerful. His legend had risen to the status since his domination of hewitt, roddick etc. But he was humbled by nadal numerous times, and also challenged by nadal on grass...and losing at the AO TWICE to nadal...Federer's mental fortitude was seriously questioned.

    There are two problems though, when comparing pete to fed....

    both fed and pete dominated their peers. But fed dominated more, and also is good enough to compete against the next generation consistently. Sampras had already started waning when safin, kuerten and hewitt came around. Pete also retired earlier and did not stay around to receive defeats from younger players too much.

    Agassi was pete's direct peer. Nadal is from a different generation. In tennis, 5 years is a generation.

    People overrated federer's talent and skill and severely underrated nadal. In hindsight, it was silly that federer was ever perceived to have a strong chance to defeat nadal on clay. So the fact that he "underachieved" is obvious.

    Pete's gamestyle was about holding serve and stringing a few pts a set to get the one-break. There were many sets where it seemed that the opponent played well, but lost the set because pete was able to hang in there with his serve and win the important pts. Thus pete was able to win many more close matches than roger.

    Federer generally outplayed guys from start to finish in the same way like agassi. Federer's bp conversion is generally horrible. And the matches federer has lost have typically been close ones, because bar a few exceptions it was really difficult to blow federer out in 3 sets.
     
    #60
  11. Mick3391

    Mick3391 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,161
    Location:
    WA State
    Yea that's a great point, I wondered about that in the past. You see Fed barely get by an old Aggassi or Sampras and wonder how they would be at say 25 years old each.

    I don't think we can even know for sure, anymore than who really is greatest Ali or Louis, people will typically pick their favorite. Yea man Sampras COULD PLAY!
     
    #61
  12. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    Pete let the clay surface own him.

    If federer lacks balls, pete lacks heart.

    Pete wanted that RG title badly, and he knew it. He tried everything and then just gave up.

    It is revisionist history to suggest that pete didnt care about RG.

    Federer took his beatings on clay against nadal like a man. but he fought and his consistency was rewarded finally.

    SAmpras??? He just gave up. That is not the mindset of a champion.

    Federer is not perfect, but he has definitely got way more heart than sampras.

    At age 31, federer is still so dedicated and fighting many rivals in their peak.

    Pete??? He was on his way to retirement and lost to many lower ranked players. He wasnt working as hard as he did - he was losing hunger and desire.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #62
  13. rajah84

    rajah84 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    527
     
    #63
  14. rajah84

    rajah84 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    527
    I'm going to have to disagree with you about the "Federer taking his beatings on clay like a man" part. And he never beat Nadal on clay.

    I don't think Pete took the "all surface" thing all that seriously, I could be wrong. He wanted to win Wimbledon then the USO, the AO was also an after thought in that era and he could have one that many more times if he was chasing the records like Rog. I doubt Roger would have been as motivated if he was chasing Laver.

    Heart and balls are the same. Don't confuse "heart" with dedication. :)
     
    #64
  15. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,391
    Pete did do that. He was owned in head to heads by Hewitt, Sergi Bruguera, Paul Haarhuis, Krajicek, Michael Stich, Derrick Rostagno... and these are only the guys who played him at least 3 times.

    What explanation do you have for these? Their combined majors (and probably title numbers too) is less and Sampras.

    So, what were you saying about the numbers again? Which numbers matter more: the total majors, weeks at number one or all those losses to chumps?

    You can't argue it both ways unless you want to show yourself as a partisan flack.
     
    #65
  16. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,391
    His legend is also significantly enhanced because his career was in the pre-social media age so, like Lendl, Borg etc., his legend is somewhat clouded, framed using only the most easily found online data - all the tributes to his wins and records but ignoring all the losses he had to complete chumps - the likes of which Federer hasn't had nearly the amount of.
     
    #66
  17. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    The only people who believe Sampras is even in the GOAT discussion are **** nitwits on tennis forums.

    Disclaimer: I was a big Pete fan.
     
    #67
  18. ctjpm

    ctjpm New User

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    'In tennis, 5 years is a generation.'

    This is a new one. McEnroe and Connors were from different generations? A generation = 30 years. A tennis generation = 5 years.
     
    #68
  19. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Problem for Federer is though, almost every time Nadal has progressed far enough, he's flat out beaten Federer fair and square. And there is nothing to suggest that had he progressed more times, the 2-8 H2H scoreline wouldn't be 2-12, or 2-15.

    As some one else said, you wanna be the hands down undisputed GOAT, you gotta beat your main rival. Simple as that. That's a given.

    In 10 slam matches:

    5-0 to Nadal at the FO
    3-2 to Nadal away from the FO.

    It's quite comprehensive. In fact, it's probably the most one-sided H2H scoreline seen between two potential GOATs in the open era. It's a big thorn in Federer's resume, as big as Sampras' non FO thorn. Quite simply, Federer is Nadal's *****, there's no other way to put it.
     
    #69
  20. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Very well said.
     
    #70
  21. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328


    Great post.. 100 percent agreed
     
    #71
  22. rajah84

    rajah84 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    527
    The loses to Hewitt were at the end of Pete's career. Bruguera, I'm guessing he lost to him on clay, the surface he didn't care about. Stich and Krajicek were quality opponents, but hardly Nadal status, Paul who?

    To be considered the "greatest" you can't lose to the number 2 (virtual number 1) in the world. For the record I don't consider Pete the goat. I mearly suggesting why some people could argue that he is greater than Federer.
     
    #72
  23. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Did it ever occur to you that Nadal was not good enough to progress far enough to meet Federer? Or, do you subscribe to the popular fiction that each loss was due to some injury or other. Your post is mere speculation.

    Not trying to argue. Just trying to say what the most probable conclusion is, given the facts.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #73
  24. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,066
    Location:
    Antarctica
    :cry: :mad: :cry: :sad:

    __________________
     
    #74
  25. ctjpm

    ctjpm New User

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    'Did it ever occur to you that Nadal was not good enough to progress far enough to meet Federer?'

    If this is AO/US Open inclusive, weren't both players the same age when reaching their first hc GS final? Why is Nadal expected to achieve something on hc that Federer who favours the surface more, couldn't? (Same could be said about '10 & '11 US finals.)
     
    #75
  26. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    GTFO right now (Hamburg and Madrid).
     
    #76
  27. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    OP is right. Sampras was AWOL for a third of the season.

    Also this h2h argument is ridiculous. Better to have a losing h2h to an all time great like Nadal than to a collective bunch of nobodies spread out like sampras.
     
    #77
  28. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    That was never the point. Blocker was making a (cherry-picked) speculation about the rivalry. I never made any point about surfaces at all. It is obvious that Federer has better results on grass and HC while Nadal has vastly superior results on clay. It is historical fact also, that Nadal was an early bloomer and Federer was a late bloomer. But, if you want to play that game, here are the facts regarding performance at the same (approximate) ages, when both started making finals at the similar tournaments:

    Federer
    22-1
    23-3
    24-2
    25-3
    26-3

    27-1
    28-2
    29-1
    30-0
    31-1

    Nadal
    19-1
    20-1
    21-1
    22-2
    23-1
    24-3
    25-1
    26-1


    8 against 12. The numbers speak for themselves.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #78
  29. fluffyyelloballz

    fluffyyelloballz Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    177
    I can see why.
    They both have one huge achievement each over each other: Federer the career slam, Pete the six consecutive end of year number ones.
    They both have great records at the two biggest Majors historically, Wimbledon and the US. Remember that when Pete won his first Major, the Australian Open was just beginning to be considered equal. Agassi, the biggest star, did not even show up until 1995, TEN years into his Major playing career.
    They both have a big hole in their resume: Pete without the French, Federer being owned by Nadal.
    Federer leads Pete in records, yes. That is what gives him the edge. But the GOAT debate is subjective, partly because the conditions of the game are different across every era. In Pete's day, fast courts were fast and clay was clay. It took until 1999 for another man after Laver to win all four slams. In 2009/10, two men did it, and in 2012 another one was a match away. There is no denying that the slowing down of surfaces across the board has made it easier to transition from slam to slam.
     
    #79
  30. fedfan46

    fedfan46 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    140
    you guys do realize that fed and nadal have played 28 times right? half of those were on clay? there is no possible way for fed to have a winning record vs nadal when half of their meetings have been on clay. there is no way for ANYONE to have a winning record vs nadal when half their meeting are on clay.
     
    #80
  31. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden

    Federer should have won all the matches outside clay.
     
    #81
  32. fedfan46

    fedfan46 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    140
    right. because mcenroe beat borg every time off of clay, agassi beat sampras every time off grass (that one may be off, sorry I'm a young fan), evert beat martina every time off grass. that isn't how tennis works!!
     
    #82
  33. fluffyyelloballz

    fluffyyelloballz Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    177
    Clay is still a tennis surface. One argument for Federer trumping Sampras is his far greater superiority on the surface, with five RG finals on his record. Yet Federer lost to his biggest rival in four of them.
    I don't know if we can argue Federer is greater than Sampras because of his greater record on Clay and then discount his losses to his biggest rival on the surface.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #83
  34. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    yeah, but none of them is as talented as Federer with multiple game plans etc. He has the advantage everytime he meets Nadal even on clay because of this supposed to be "enormous talent". Federer himself said, Nadal is only a one-dimensional player :D A player of his talents shouldn't have any problem thrashing a one-dimensional clay-courter everywhere, anytime.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #84
  35. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,391
    So let me get this right: losses to highly rated opponents are more of a blight on Federer's than Sampras' losses to lowly rated players? That make complete sense. :lol:

    And Pete didn't care about losing to Bruguera on clay? Fine, let's remove Federer's losses to Nadal on clay and see how the head to head looks.

    Where did you learn to debate? At a McDonald's counter?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #85
  36. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    You are wrong.

    It was well-documented in the press that pete was chasing rod laver's legend and his all court prowess.

    Sampras admitted in his auto-biography that he stopped caring / trying for the french, and that this was a regret of his.

    Heart and balls are different.

    Heart = When you get hit, you bounce back up and keep fighting. Persistency, perseverance...

    Balls = Bravery, fearlessness.

    It can be argued that pete was slightly better in the latter, but in the former it is no contest. Federer is much better than sampras. Federer didnt need RG to pass pete sampras. He already was going to achieve more slams. But he didnt give up on winning RG. Yeah, he didnt beat nadal - but the objective of tennis is to win tournaments, not to have necessarily favorable h-h against everyone.
    if that were the case, pete is also disqualified. he got annhilated by krajicek at wimbledon and never avenged his defeat there.

    LOL..at the "AO afterthought"..did you follow tennis at all in the 90s? The AO was a big deal and was played by pete everytime he was fit.
     
    #86
  37. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    You can just shorten your post and say "I am a Sampras hater." ;)
     
    #87
  38. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    It wasn't played by Andre for about half of his career though. AO was still 2nd rated Grand Slam in the 90s.
     
    #88
  39. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Sampras didn't own Agassi as much as some people say. That perception comes from Sampras winning all 4 of their US Open matches, 3 of them pretty comfortably, despite Agassi having been the pre-match favourite before all 4 of those matches. Sampras' dominant win in the 1999 Wimbledon final is a part of that perception too, where Sampras was even out rallying Agassi.

    Agassi did have some big wins over Sampras too, such as their 1995 and 2000 Australian Open matches, and the 2001 Indian Wells final. The 1992 French Open as well, although that wasn't as big at that time because Courier was the best player in the world back then.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
    #89
  40. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Here are the Sampras vs. Agassi head-to-head matches.

    Pete Sampras 20-14 Andre Agassi
    1989 Rome R32: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-1)
    1990 Philadelphia R16: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 7-5 ret.)
    1990 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
    1990 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
    1991 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 1-6, 6-3)
    1992 Atlanta F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-4)
    1992 French Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-2, 6-1)
    1993 Wimbledon QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
    1994 Miami F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 6-3, 6-3)
    1994 Osaka SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-1)
    1994 Paris Indoor QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5)
    1994 World Championships SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (4-6, 7-6, 6-3)
    1995 Australian Open F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
    1995 Indian Wells F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-5, 6-3, 7-5)
    1995 Miami F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 7-6)
    1995 Montreal F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 6-3)
    1995 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
    1996 San Jose F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-3)
    1996 Stuttgart Indoor QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-1)
    1996 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-1)
    1998 San Jose F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4)
    1998 Monte Carlo R32: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 7-5)
    1998 Toronto QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-1, 6-2)
    1999 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
    1999 Los Angeles F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 7-6)
    1999 Cincinnati SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 6-4)
    1999 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-2)
    1999 World Championships F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
    2000 Australian Open SF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
    2001 Indian Wells F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 6-1)
    2001 Los Angeles F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
    2001 US Open QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6)
    2002 Houston SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5)
    2002 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)

    Hardcourt: 11-9 to Sampras
    Clay: 3-2 to Agassi
    Grass: 2-0 to Sampras
    Carpet: 5-2 to Sampras
    In Majors: 6-3 to Sampras
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #90
  41. DeShaun

    DeShaun Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,837
    I do this only to give a certain poster a taste of his own medicine. I will not name him, but he is apparently an avid Sampras fan who seems to relish in twisting the knife when he thinks that he can get inside the heads of Roger's fans. So, I sometimes cannot forego blowing a little bit of his own pixie dust back in his face when the mood strikes me. Otherwise, I have no problem with Pete being considered one of the three best to have played ever.
     
    #91
  42. ctjpm

    ctjpm New User

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    '8 against 12. The numbers speak for themselves.'

    Federer didn't miss a major in that time. Didn't have to worry about Djokovic and Murray till 2008, US Open 2007 maybe in Djokovic's case.

    Nadal missed two majors. Has not played since mid June'12,
    fit at Wimbledon up in the air. Retired against Murray AO'10, if he was fully fit against Ferrer AO'11, I'm a monopoly piece. Tsonga played the match of his life AO'08, arguably Murray did US'08. Djokovic 2011-AO'12.

    Federer beat Roddick three times in those finals. The greats Baghdatis, Gonzalez & Philipoussis. Beat Nadal twice,
    2007 an accomplishment. 2006 - Rafa a claycourter, with occasional good results elsewhere.
    Nadal beat Federer four times. Sometimes there's more to numbers than meets the eye.

    'I don't know if we can argue Federer is greater than Sampras because of his greater record on Clay and then discount his losses to his biggest rival on the surface.'
    Well put.
     
    #92
  43. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Can you also compare Federer vs Nadal H2H in grand slam matches only? Just my curiosity.
     
    #93
  44. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Rafael Nadal 8-2 Roger Federer
    2005 French Open SF: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3)
    2006 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
    2006 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)
    2007 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
    2007 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)
    2008 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
    2008 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
    2009 Australian Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2)
    2011 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1)
    2012 Australian Open SF: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-7, 6-2, 7-6, 6-4)
     
    #94
  45. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Thank you for your cooperation, Mustard. So, the only chance for Federer to beat Nadal in slam is to play him on Federer's best surface, grass. Even then, the score was very very close. This is not looking good for Federer at all.
     
    #95
  46. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The only record of Sampras which Federer destroyed was his slam record, which was never that great to begin with. Well also the weeks at #1, which was a better record then the slam one. He only tied Sampras for most Wimbledons, that is not destroying a record, he only tied Sampras for most Open Era U.S Opens, that is not destroying a record. He did not even reach Sampras in most years as the #1 player.
     
    #96
  47. fluffyyelloballz

    fluffyyelloballz Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    177
    I don't think Pete's off court behaviour should come into this debate.

    I also think we should bear in mind that tennis 2013 is a completely different beast. When Sampras won 3 of 4 Majors 1993/4, the prize money at the Majors was less than $10,000,000 a purse. When Federer did it in 2004, it was double. When Sampras won in 93/94 there was no internet, no atp website. There was not the multi-media pressures and the ATP was not so developed PR and marketing wise. Sampras, being reclusive, was happy there were not the same demands no doubt. Tennis was a different world back then and both he and Steffi were happy to be at the top and letting their tennis do the talking. They were not sending tweets about their nails or giving on court interviews about how big their left biceps were to please media-happy governing bodies and fanbases.
     
    #97
  48. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Well Federer he has only equaled Sampras at Wimbledon (7) and the US Open (5), which are traditionally the Grand Slams people care about the most. Sampras was more dominant at Wimbledon, winning 7 in 8 years. The competition on grass and hard courts was far higher back then.

    Federer's definitely better on clay and slow hardcourts in particular, although Sampras was no slouch on those surfaces, winning the AO twice to Federer's 4 and getting to a third AO final he might have won if his coach and best friend hadn't just been diagnosed with brain cancer.

    And of course on clay he was up against Muster, Courier, Medvedev, Agassi, Chang, Brugera, etc. The golden age of clay. In that era in a 5 year period when he actually cared about clay he got to 3 QF's and 1 SF, knocking out FO champions along the way. Federer on the other hand never had to play a single clay court specialist but Nadal at the French Open, and he's lost to him every time.

    In addition, when Sampras played all the surfaces were dramatically different, they are all the same now making it easier to dominate.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #98
  49. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Sigh. All the facepalms in the world are not enough for this. There is no argument I can make in the face of willful denial of this kind. My IQ fell 10 points just by reading this. I cannot afford to keep replying to this thread. I give up. :)
     
    #99
  50. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,816
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    An American who thinks that another American would beat a non-American if both are at their best. Really?
     

Share This Page