NOT a GOAT thread, but Fed is better than Sampras

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Fedfan34, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    251
    So this is not a GOAT thread, I'm not claiming that Federer is the greatest of all time, as Ralph and Djesus still have plenty of time themselves to man up and take it for themselves. Some will say oldies like Pancho Gonzales or Bill Tilden or Laver could take Fed on. I'm not commenting on that.

    This thread is simply to move the Petetards from the dark ages into the 21st century. Roger is better than Pete in almost every way possible. Even his volleys are more natural than Pete's, and he has to volley off of balls that are coming MUCH faster at him than anything Pete had to volley off of. Seriously, watch Sampr-ass v. Rafter 1998 US Open. If such creme puff returns were coming off his opponent's racket, hell even Nadal would serve and volley.

    The ONLY thing Pete has over Roger is the serve. THAT'S IT. Time for the flat earthers, civil war re-enacters, and birthers of the Petetard movement to come out of the shadows of the Bronze Age of 90s tennis into the light of the modern game.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2013
    #1
  2. jaggy

    jaggy G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Carrboro, NC
    But Pete dominated his rivals.
     
    #2
  3. Seth

    Seth Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,433
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Dumb thread is dumb.
     
    #3
  4. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    #4
  5. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    really? I like how you left out Krajicek, Stich and Edberg.... hell, Ferreira pwned Sampras indoors. Krajicek was b!tch slapping Sampras at every opportunity (leading 6-2) until he got injured, and sampras collected the last 2 of his wins.

    also, it helps to have no rivalries on your weaker surface. Pete got torn himself torn new ones many times on clay, in the early rounds, so he never met his "rivals" on clay.
     
    #5
  6. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    comparing Sampras to Federer is like comparing VW to Ferrari. I just hope Federer obliterates the reminder of the sampras records, just for the kicks.
     
    #6
  7. merwy

    merwy Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,186
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Although I agree with you in that Federer is better than Sampras.. this thread is just asking to get flamed. I have no idea why you created this thread, it is completely irrelevant to anything that is currently going on in tennis, it looks as if you're just trying to annoy Sampras fans (i.e. trolling)


    And I don't even know what to say about this. It used to be just the Nadal fans that were stupid trolls, but it seems that the *******s are making a decent effort to obtain the same reputation..
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2012
    #7
  8. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Wait a minute. How did Crampras ever get beaten let alone trail a H2H since his serve could never be broken?
     
    #8
  9. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    251

    I like to state truths that tick people off. There is no question about that. But the fact of the matter is that I *am* stating truths.

    Pete Sampras was the best player of the 90s. There's no question. But that statement requires many asterisks and sidenotes along with it, such as the fact that he could not win a match at the French Open to save his life in the latter part of his career, and lost to some pretty forgettable players like the great Yzaga at important events like...the AUSTRALIAN OPEN.

    Pete Sampras was the greatest champion to walk on the courts of Wimbledon. Again, 7 titles means we can't question that statement. But again, we have to consider that Pete was losing so quickly at the French that he had so much more time to recover in the wake of that tournament such that by the time the rest of the field arrived on grass tired from actually you know, playing at the French Open, Petros started off nice and fresh from the extra time.

    Pete Sampras had a winning record against his rival Agassi. Again, no question, but firstly, Pete lost on clay so much at the French he rarely had to play him there in the latter parts of his career, thus skewing the head to head in his favor at the slams. And Nadal is a VASTLY superior player to Agassi.

    Thanks for the explanation of what trolling is by the way.
     
    #9
  10. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    The whole game has changed today. Comparing the volleys Pete had to face vs. what Fed has to face is like, well, there is no comparison. Ball is moving much faster today and Pete would have looked like a mediocre volleyer in today's game.
     
    #10
  11. BevelDevil

    BevelDevil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,545
    Yeah, Fed is better than Sampras, but don't most people think that already?

    What I wonder about is Laver vs. Sampras.


    Did Agassi have creme puff returns?
     
    #11
  12. 10is

    10is Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,451
    Why make a thread to state something that is blatantly obvious? Threads of this nature seemingly have the opposite effect (at least for me) since it makes the fanbase of said player appear insecure about their man's legacy.
     
    #12
  13. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    lol. 20th century.
     
    #13
  14. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Yea ok but what's up with your avatar? Why not change it to something less distasteful?
     
    #14
  15. sbengte

    sbengte Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    8,804
    Speaking of which , is that a photoshop product or a real picture of someone ? If so, who ?
     
    #15
  16. DeShaun

    DeShaun Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,837

    Rod could pass from anywhere on court. On either wing, from whatever depth. He had "all the strokes." Pete's first volley had better be a really good one. Rod could move--great wheels. Not only could he get to the ball, but have an arsenal of shots on Rolodex ready to be called on in stroking it.
     
    #16
  17. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    I guess it is pretty obvious, because the clay record seals the deal...
     
    #17
  18. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,669
    Location:
    Weak era
    Sampras won 13 out of his 14 slams in the 20th century genius.

    P.S. now that's an example of a *fact*.

    No, the fact of the matter is that you're stating your *opinion* on who's the better player between two of the best players of the open era.
     
    #18
  19. federerGOAT

    federerGOAT Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Messages:
    152
    Pete has NOTHING over Roger. Not even the serve. Pete's 2nd serve is incredibly overrated, its as if nobody could break him ever. Roger has a better 1st and 2nd serve with more disguise.
     
    #19
  20. josofo

    josofo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    571
    pete played in a much deeper era.

    he had to play against, courier, chang, stich, ivanisavic, edberg, becker, agassi, kafeltinkov, rafter, henman, enqvist, krajeck.

    the 2nd or 3rd best player from 2004 to 2006 when fed won 7 of his slams was andy roddick. fed beat baghdatis in a slam final.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2012
    #20
  21. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Why do you think chang, becker, ivanesevic, etc are better than Roddick or Bags?
     
    #21
  22. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    251
    I've honestly wondered if this is true. The amount of free points Roger gets on his serves these days is amazing considering that all surfaces are slow. Imagine his serve on the the faster surfaces of the 90s. I feel like it would be untouchable. I didn't include a comment like yours in my intro because I thought it would make people think I'd gone nutty.

    I think we can safely say Fed's service placement is as good or better than Sampras's.
     
    #22
  23. josofo

    josofo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    571


    really i got to make the case why boris becker was a better player than andy roddick.
     
    #23
  24. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Well please make the case using data, not any meaningless subjective feelings you may have.
     
    #24
  25. sadowsk2

    sadowsk2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    Macomb, MI
    What a tool... I LMAO at the thread title, and even harder when I actually read the original post... I'm glad I didnt waste any more time... :rolleyes:
     
    #25
  26. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    ^^^ Dumbest post of the week! Yeah, Agassi, Courier, Becker, Lendl, Philippoussis, Stich, etc., were all pushers compared to today's manly men on the ATP tour. Hahaha!
     
    #26
  27. Seth

    Seth Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,433
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    And putting it to use, at that! :roll:
     
    #27
  28. sadowsk2

    sadowsk2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    Macomb, MI
    I doubt that.
     
    #28
  29. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Then you would be wrong as usual.
     
    #29
  30. sunof tennis

    sunof tennis Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,118
    Quoted for truth. As a big Federer fan, I am embarrassed by some of the comments by the *******s here. I do believe that Federer is overall a better player. I did a stroke by stroke comparision in a previous thread. It is close, but it's Fed by a nose due to a better backhand and forehand. However, Pete takes the serve, especially the second serve and the volleys. Pete never missed the easy volleys Roger does.
     
    #30
  31. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,271
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong here. Guys like Agassi and Courier were certainly capable of more than 'cream puff' passing shots. Agassi was a contender for majors for a couple of years into Federer's run, so how can you say that he was such a weak player? His shots didn't have as much spin, but they were struck very hard and kept low. Sampras was a better volleyer than you give him credit for, especially when under pressure.

    If you can't see that then you need to open your eyes. And this is coming from as big of a supporter of Fed as can be; I'm just also realistic.

    As stated before: they may not have been as spinny of passing shots as those today, but it's not like the 90's was a different game from today's; Passing shots were still struck hard, and accurately; Sampras had great volleys and while he'd have more difficulty due to the excessive spin today and slower surfaces, he'd not be helpless at the net like you seem to think; I'm sorry but I can't in good conscience agree with your opinion.

    That's just ludicrous. I seriously doubt you've ever seen a full match of Sampras'. His hold percentage, career-wise, is far above Federer's, despite the fact that Sampras doesn't a ground game on the same level as Federer. His serve was lethal, and his second serve was no Joke. And yes, it's better than Federer's. truthfully only blind *******s would say it isn't. If you truly believe this, you've lost all credibility in this thread.

    An 89% hold percentage over career does kinda mean he wasn't even close to being easy to break. It's a hold percentage barely below that of Karlovic, and while Karlovic is broken occasionally, he does tend to hold serve VERY easily. And Pete got waayy more free points from service winners/aces than Federer ever has.
     
    #31
  32. sadowsk2

    sadowsk2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    Macomb, MI
    Nope, actually you'll just continue your amazing consistency at being incorrect and misguided...
     
    #32
  33. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    no, it's not. your stroke by stroke comparisons are a product of your subjectivity; look at the results, and you'll get an objective view. Compared to Sampras, Federer has more majors, masters, more titles on grass, clay and hard, more finals, SFs, much more dominant, and according to you, it is close? are you kidding me? you should be embarrassed by your own posts, not of your fellow *******s'.

    sampras should consider himself lucky that he gets mentioned in the same breath as Federer.
     
    #33
  34. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    how much of Pete's hold% was bolstered due to the lightning fast surfaces that are non-existant today? how does Pete's hold % on clay compare to Federer's -- that should be a true measure of the effectiveness of his serve; i mean, karlovic served 78 aces on clay, and that should count for something?
     
    #34
  35. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Pete would win less than 8 majors on today's surfaces.
     
    #35
  36. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    "Fed Rulz?" Hahaha! With a handle like that, certainly you are a p a r a g o n of perspective and objectivity. Have you ever seen Sampras play live? Federer? Any other greats? Who was Federer's main competition between 2003-2007 when he collected most of his titles? Counting up titles as the exclusive measure of greatness is hardly the method of an objective, analytical observer.

    PS: I can't imagine why "p a r a g o n" would be a problematic word on TT.
     
    #36
  37. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    You're not one to talk Limp-phallus. Your moniker betrays your age :)
     
    #37
  38. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    That's not a wholly unreasonable assessment! How many would Fed have won on the surfaces of the 90's? A few less than he has, I'm sure.
     
    #38
  39. josofo

    josofo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    571
    the players of the 90's had great net play far supiror to the players of today. the net play and skill of the the top players from the 90's far surpasses the slightly improved groundies of the players of the 2000's.

    like i said before djokovic and murray came around, federer era was incredible weak at the top.
     
    #39
  40. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Really? How does my superior age and experience negatively affect my objectivity? Does the fact that I've had the privilege of seeing almost every great male tennis player beginning with Rosewall up close and live, and the fact that I've been playing the game for over 40 years, diminish or augment my objectivity and the weight to be given to my opinions about tennis?

    PS: Curiously, tt seems that "phallus" is a permitted word on TT, but, "p a r a g o n" is not.
     
    #40
  41. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,271
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Why bring up the clay issue? Did you not read my post? I said that Pete's ground game didn't back up his serve as well as Federers, so of course Federer would have an equally easy time holding serve today because his groundstrokes cancel out the advantage that Pete's serve gives in the equation, so that Pete's serve+groundstrokes combo is not really better or worse than Federer's, except on clay, since FEDERER GREW UP ON IT.

    Get a clue, you're completely biased; that's like saying that Roddick's hold and winning percentage on clay should be the true measure of how effective his serve is compared to Federer's. It's shameless bias, and you know it. There's no reason to say clay vs. other surfaces is a better indicator. I could just as easily say that old grass is the best indicator of how well you hold serve, since you NEED to hold serve to have a chance.

    But i'm not going to say that, because it's nonsense. So I'm playing by the hold percentage.

    Right, Federer has more grass titles because he played warmup tournaments. Sampras has more Wimbledons, where it really counts. and no, the only person who should be embarassed is you, telling someone to be objective when you're the single most biased person in the thread.

    You make normal Fed fans look bad. And Sampras absolutely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.
     
    #41
  42. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Really? Because the last time I checked, Federer beat Sampras on fast grass playing S&V tennis, he also won 2003 Wimbledon playing 80% S&V. In contrast, Sampras was a failure on clay, he was not even a factor there. Federer has had matchup problems but he never sucked on a surface like Sampras and Ralph which makes the two one dimensional.

    And Federer prefers the faster surfaces ANYWAY. So in theory he would've won more majors in the 90s. Tell me one major today that is even remotely fast compared to say 04/05 let alone the 90s. Heck even USO is slow today and it's only a matter of time when it's the same speed as AO. It's a joke how much the authorities have tampered with the surfaces.
     
    #42
  43. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    And Sampras grew up on hard courts, yet Federer's record far surpasses Sampras in HC; so what's the point of bringing up where he grew up? Are you claiming that the fast surfaces didn't aid sampras more in holding serve than the slower surfaces of today? what BS -- the world's "greatest" serve comes up a cropper on clay. Here's a gentle reminder: the surfaces were slowed down (wimby, especially) because the tournament was turning into a serve fest. Are you still going to deny that Sampras had an easier time holding serve because the surfaces barring clay aided him?

    yeah, Federer has more grass titles because he played warm up tourneys? and sampras didn't? it's Federer's fault that sampras lost early? what a moronic argument.. you seem to get into this mode anytime there's a Federer vs Sampras argument.

    you don't get to define what a "normal" federer fan is. may be you like Sampras and Federer equally, so you play the objectivity card, and would clamor for them to be mentioned in the same breath -- but i don't have to. i
    look at facts, and it's pretty evident that Federer is a league above sampras.
     
    #43
  44. josofo

    josofo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    571

    the slowing down of the sufaces is the biggest myth in tennis. they have only changed a bit, pete could stil serve in volley at wimbledon with no problem.
     
    #44
  45. Fedfan34

    Fedfan34 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    251
    Cue Petetards in their periods raging in outrage about you bringing up a silly little FACT like that. What shocks me is how often Petetards forget that Roger won his first Wimbledon serving and volleying on a fast grass court. He changed his style because in his own words he didn't want people to "be able to beat me with one shot".

    Also, Rafa to me is already superior to Sampras because he was similar to Sampras in that he was uncomfortable on a particular surface (hard court) but unlike Sampras, transcended the limitation, changed his game, and ended up winning the slam of that surface (US Open).
     
    #45
  46. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Not that sure. He would have gotten more RG titles than today. Imagine if not for Rafael Nadal, how many titles he would have had on RG? So am sure he would have definitely gotten more than one clay Major..
     
    #46
  47. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    lol, so using your subjective opinion is the preferred method of an objective, analytical observer -- plus you're neither analytical nor objective, so stop being so full of yourself. News flash: Federer surpasses Sampras by some distance in most metrics, not just titles. As far as competition is concerned, Mr. Sampras does not necessarily have a case for strong competiton when: his #2 was AWOL for most of his prime, no-slam wonder Rios as #1 during his prime, malivai washington in the finals of wimbledon, losing to Yzaga at the USO.. i'm not even bringing up clay or Gilbert Schaller or Delgado..

    hey, here's Mr. "Rosewall hit 80 mph backhands" nonsense guy. question for you: did you mean 80 miles per hour or 80 meters per hour? i'm pretty sure you're not that stupid to claim the former.... the latter sounds pretty stupid too, so can you please elaborate what the "m" stood for?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2012
    #47
  48. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    like how he S & V'ed his way to victory in 2002 against George Bastl?? good to know :)
    news flash: they slowed down the wimby in 2002.
     
    #48
  49. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    QFT... don't worry, the Petetards will disregard your post.
     
    #49
  50. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    Good to see some Fed fans with an objective view on Sampras. There's no doubt Fed has exceeded Sampras's accomplishments but he was a great player nonetheless, at least top 5 all time. Some *******s make it look like Sampras would be schooled by Nalbandian!
     
    #50

Share This Page