90's Clay
Banned
Rafter took out an injured Sampras at the USO. Nole wouldn't touch Pete there. Nole needs slow high bouncing conditions to win.
And again.. Look at the trouble Nole had with Roddick.
If Sampras had Nole rather than Agassi in the 90s
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
Rafter took out an injured Sampras at the USO. Nole wouldn't touch Pete there. Nole needs slow high bouncing conditions to win.
And again.. Look at the trouble Nole had with Roddick.
willhunting
Banned
I thought Roddick was a weak era mug?
90's Clay
Banned
He is.. But as far as match ups go he did trouble Nole. And Sampras is a 100 times superior version of a Roddick.
Nole is a zit on Pete's butt under 90s conditions. Pete would just blow him off the court with bullet serves and attack
willhunting
Banned
For once I believe I agree with you.
90's Clay
Banned
Difference between Nole/Agassi is Agassi was a strike first, cleanest swiper of the ball in history. Which enabled to have success on ALL conditions regardless of what they were.
Nole Like Nadal are products of the poly slow court high bouncing era where they need certains speeds and the ball needs to sit in their strike zone. They need to get in long rallies and have time to track the ball down and get in rhythms etc. If Agassi had a game like Nole, he would be lucky to see any slam outside of maybe the Australian.
Nole wouldn't have nearly the success Andre did in the 90s.
Nole Like Nadal are products of the poly slow court high bouncing era where they need certains speeds and the ball needs to sit in their strike zone. They need to get in long rallies and have time to track the ball down and get in rhythms etc. If Agassi had a game like Nole, he would be lucky to see any slam outside of maybe the Australian.
Nole wouldn't have nearly the success Andre did in the 90s.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Djokovic did have trouble with Roddick but he did so during the transitional phase of his career when he stagnated between 3 and 4 in the rankings, even being behind Murray at times. 2011+ Djokovic wouldn't lose to Roddick as much and 2011+ Djokovic would give Sampras a hard fight too, look at his results against Federer at the AO in 2011, the match wasn't even close.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Andre was a little better than Kafelnikov until '99. He thrived from '99-'03 and in this time period he won 5 slams. Clearly he was more suited to a slower court than you're implying..
I'm sure Djokovic could still be devastating anyway, even with the racquet Agassi used in the 90's. He's a much better mover and way more consistent than Agassi too.. I'd even go as far as to say he is a better player than Agassi was..
90's Clay
Banned
Agassi was the only baseliner to win Wimbledon against the deadly attackers on the slow slick bouncing grass.
Nole would be lucky to see past the 3rd round under those conditions. Then you got a faster USO. Forget about it. He can only win USO in this era. He wouldn't see crap in Flushing in the 90s when the court in Armstrong stadium was much faster than Ashe/Armstrong these days
Nole would be lucky to see past the 3rd round under those conditions. Then you got a faster USO. Forget about it. He can only win USO in this era. He wouldn't see crap in Flushing in the 90s when the court in Armstrong stadium was much faster than Ashe/Armstrong these days
willhunting
Banned
Are we talking about peak 2003 level Roddick or 2010 level Roddick?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
2006-2009 Roddick level, 2003 Roddick would put up a fight but I don't ever see him dominating 2011 Djokovic either..
willhunting
Banned
No, but I see him doing fairly well against Djokovic today.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Players like Chang only made the 3rd round, Djokovic is much better. He might not win the whole tournament but a few QF/SF appearances wouldn't be unheard of surely..
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He would have beaten Djokovic at the USO this year for sure. As I've said before, I don't see Cilic stopping him in the final either.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
I'm not as impressed with Cilic as some others are but I don't see Roddick beating him there this year.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
LOL!
But seriously, was this thread really needed?
Tmf. Enough said.
willhunting
Banned
Cilic was in the zone. That was a man on a mission and no one was going to stop him. Wonderful stuff to watch.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I do. In my opinion, Ferrero > Cilic..
Seated front row behind the ad box, I've seen Pete's serve coming towards me. It seemed to have a great deal more work on it than precision to it. I think Pete relied on wearing returners down physically with the mere force of his heavily topped 1st and 2nd serves. Novak's in pretty good shape and, of course, he's a fantastic returner. On the other side, I believe Pete could have easily traded ground strokes with Novak and won a good percentage of the longer rallies again Novak without having to move forward. But I believe that Federer was able to defeat Sampras at Wimbleon largely because he consistently returned Pete's serves, meaning Pete was not winning a great number of really cheap points on serve- in fact, I think Federer may have out-aced him. My belief is that Novak would similarly force Pete too often to have to find some way to move forward, instead of simply following behind the sheer force of his serves setting the table as it were for his advance. Although Pete's ground strokes were frighteningly powerful when he had them slotted and he was in the groove, he did not really have such a game that he could have afforded to have hang around indefinitely behind his baseline against a Federer or a Novak for five sets, unless he was winning his typically large share of points by feasting off of weak returns of his serve. Just my 2 cents.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Yeah, I'm not as impressed with Andy as you are. I think Cilic showed (for today's baseline game) a pretty high level. Not just the serving but also the ball striking and defense in the last few rounds were pretty impressive IMV.
tennis_commentator
Hall of Fame
Djokovic has lost 2 of 3 meetings vs Nadal at US Open.
Surely Sampras will create even more problems for Djokovic on that surface.
Not just that but I think Sampras may be even more clutch than Nadal in slam finals.
Yes, I agree. No Sampras and Nole fans should vote at all.
Why not? Federer fans are neutral and there's no reason to take any side.
Yeah, and the great Wayne Ferreira didn't poses any problem for Sampras either.
The young Roddick had success against Sampras too, not to mention the young Safin, Hewitt and company.
Agassi didn't show up at 1999 Wimbledon final. His 1st serve was only 44%. Many current player would have beaten him that day.
OTOH, Nole 2014 serve was vastly superior than Agassi. And it would be more devastating in the 90s faster grass.
Nole lost to Nadal, so Sampras losing to Yzaga, Korda and Rafter at the USO is your evidence that Nole can't beat Sampras ? ROFL !
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Those three guys beat Sampras when he was injured. Sampras should have won 8 USO at least if not for injuries. Fed on the other hand has zero injury and still manage to win less than Sampras at the US Open. :lol:
Fed just keeps playing because he knows Sampras is still greater than him at a few slams. What a poor chump, being 34 and still having to go out there and work his a*s off.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Those three guys beat Sampras when he was injured. Sampras should have won 8 USO at least if not for injuries. Fed on the other hand has zero injury and still manage to win less than Sampras at the US Open. :lol:
Fed just keeps playing because he knows Sampras is still greater than him at a few slams. What a poor chump, being 34 and still having to go out there and work his a*s off.
Thank you for continuing to give us gems like this for our signatures :lol:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Fed wants to beat Sampras' record at Wimbledon, US Open and YE#1 so bad, but he couldn't do any of it. Why do you think he still keeps playing? He WANTS it, but he CAN'T do it. Poor Roger.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Fed wants to beat Sampras' record at Wimbledon, US Open and YE#1 so bad, but he couldn't do any of it. Why do you think he still keeps playing? He WANTS it, but he CAN'T do it. Poor Roger.
He will probably do it at one of those events. I think he probably has one more slam in him. I did not think so a year ago but I have changed my mind. Why? The field is weak. Federer is right there with Djokovic and can still possibly beat him in a slam.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Fed knows he can't have a record at FO because Nadal is a million times better than him there, so his only hope is to break Sampras' record at USO, Wimbledon and YE#1. Has he broken any of those records? Apparently not. His goal is to break those records. Since he's hopeless at RG anyway, so those are his only realistic goals he has in mind.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
So, what is the problem with him wanting to break those records? He has a chance at Wimbledon and the USO, more so at Wimbledon imo.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Nothing's wrong. He's just a greedy dude who wants to be the GOAT at all slams. That's why he's so motivated even now when most players should have retired already, but his only realistic chance of breaking records are as I said, Wimbledon, USO and YE#1. Although I would say that YE#1 record is impossible now for Roger.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
He is not greedy! He loves the sport and is great at it. Plus, he is currently in great form. Should he retire at age 33 to sit around and eat Doritos all day? He has some life left in him and great players have to be motivated by something so of course he is looking at the records and what records are possible for him to break.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
You are a slave of the media. Any all-time great is motivated by the greedy desire to win more and more. Sampras and Nadal are also greedy, but they are nothing compared to Federer. Federer's desire to win is what drives him to this level of success. Without greed, there is no need for him to play professional match. He can play tennis anywhere around the world where he feels most comfortable playing. Why should he travel all over the world and goes through all the media and formals just to play tennis? Couldn't he just play at home all day 24-7 if he so much loves playing tennis only? Think man. The guy is greedy. He wants real titles to his name. He wants to be GOAT. That's why he's still playing on professional tour.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
I am the last person who is a slave to the media. Of course greed is part of every great champion's mindset but Federer also loves the sport and if the records are there for him to try and break, why shouldn't he try and do it if he is still in great form? Try putting your extreme Sampras bias aside for one minute. I think you are fearful that he will probably break the W or USO tie he is currently in with Sampras and I think you probably should be fearful. :twisted: Nadal and Djokovic are not going to win every single slam and if Federer has a great draw and is in good shape for two weeks, he may be able to win one more.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Why should I fear a record that is not my own? Fed can break Sampras' record for all I care, but it will not change the fact that his greed is what drives him to play professional tennis even at this age. He should just stay home and invite the ex-pros or the current touring pros to play with him all day if he just loves the sport and nothing else. The guy already has so much money he can live for several lifetimes anyway. Why is he still playing and stealing all the glories of the newcomers who should be shining at this moment? That's his reason? As a giving person, he should just retire and let the newcomers take over the spot and shine. That's what old guards are supposed to do. He's too greedy to let that happen. Think about it, the guy with a billion dollar still playing professional tennis for what? It's greed for glory, not for money. That's the biggest greed you'll ever find.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
"Crazy person" alert! :twisted:
Seriously, it is impossible for you to be objective and rational on this subject and thus anybody who tries to argue with you will be wasting his time.
Fans like you are mind-boggling to me.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
"Crazy person" alert! :twisted:
Seriously, it is impossible for you to be objective and rational on this subject and thus anybody who tries to argue with you will be wasting his time.
Fans like you are mind-boggling to me.
Calling someone crazy is a pretty good sign that you are one. Federer is as greedy as a person can be. There is no denying to this very fact. You can call me crazy, but you won't change the fact that Federer's greed is what is driving him to still play professional tennis, not his love for tennis. He can play tennis at home with 100 tennis courts built behind his backyards. Why go through a grind of travelling and formalities just to play tennis for 1 hour per day? If he loves tennis so much, he shouldn't be wasting 1 minute of not playing tennis, don't you think? :shock:
President
Legend
He is ( on a very consistent basis)the 2nd or 3rd best player in the world at the moment. Has any player ever retired at such a level? I'm not aware of one but correct me if I'm wrong.
Hopeless at Roland Garros describes Sampras, not Federer.
90's Clay
Banned
Fed is hopeless on all surfaces except indoors vs. Nadal which is even worse (And even indoors he managed to lose to Nadal)
BlackSilver
Semi-Pro
Borg? Even Rafter if you stretch it a little
F
Federer302
Guest
On fast 90s courts? No impact
If Sampras played Nadal 33 times, in all the same settings that Federer did, he'd have an even worse head to head than 10-23.
RF20Lennon
Legend
Answer this for me. For years Federer has always met Nadal on his best surface (clay) but there aren't enough tournaments on grass or indoor for Nadal to meet Federer and even in the ones there Nadal has barely made it to meet Federer so how can you say it's fair!
Maybe if Nole learned how to serve and volley, since that is all Rafter does....
90's Clay
Banned
Fed lost to Nadal at wimbledon in a finals while Fed was still in his prime. And has been losing to Nadal on outdoor hards since Nadal just hit puberty.
If Fed is the greatest to ever lace up the tennis shows why would it matter anyways? :shock:
If Fed had the clear advantage on everything but clay.. I would agree.. But Fed really doesn't have a clear advantage anywhere on an outdoor court. Only indoors under more. controlled conditions does Fed have an advantage
willhunting
Banned
Are you saying that Nadal didn't hit puberty until 17? lol, hyperbolic, much?
rodrigo_palacio88
Rookie
Those three guys beat Sampras when he was injured. Sampras should have won 8 USO at least if not for injuries. Fed on the other hand has zero injury and still manage to win less than Sampras at the US Open. :lol:
Fed just keeps playing because he knows Sampras is still greater than him at a few slams. What a poor chump, being 34 and still having to go out there and work his a*s off.
jajaj this is a joke!!
federer surprassed sampras in all the important records.
he has more AO and rg.
more success on grass and in masters cup too.
US OPEN EQUALS.
90's clay other guy who try to search something to put sampras above roger
Similar threads
