Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by FedLIKEnot, Feb 6, 2014.
So he didn't lose once therefore he couldn't lose? You're an idiot.
Of course it does you ********. Because if he could lose he would lose. It's not like he played the W final once or twice.
Btw, did I mention how you're a ********.
You probably also think Sampras is the greater USO player based on his additional finals right? :lol:
Your logic is asstoundering - see what I did there
time makes people forget. tennis fans unlike baseball fans are not really kind towards their history. 20 years ago is considered stone age, here are people that think a modern 5.0 would beat peak! (not 50 yo) macenroe because old school strokes are not competitive anymore.
over time that gets worse, look how little respect wood racket players like laver get (apart from maybe a handfull of "retro fans" in this section).
I think in 15 years people will treat nadal and federer like that too.
Great post I completely agree! It's kind of sad that some people aren't kind towards the Legends of Tennis past, but I guess this is what happens when you have a sport that seems to have drastic changes every 20 years. People seem to want to punish and laugh at the pros of yesteryear for their "outdated" ways. I guess they do that to make their generation feel superior to all the rest. Which in all is futile, because soon their generation will become outdated and a fresh new one will replace it, and the cycle will go on and on and on...
I watched an interesting short video about the Opening of Wimbledon in 1967.
Here they showed clips about the former greats of the game and talked about them.The funny part about the video is that they talk about how the games of Bunny Austin, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines, etc.. wouldn't stand up to the modern serve and volley game played at the time. They talk about how those legends of the 1930's, probably wouldn't stand a chance against the powerful serve and volleyers of the 1960's, with their "soft" "relaxed" game. Which is ironic because those "powerful" serve and volleyers of the 1960's have now become the "soft" and "relaxed" game of yesteryear, in comparison to the powerful modern game of Fed, Novak, and Rafa. And 30 years from now, the same thing will probably said about the games of Fed, Novak, and Rafa. :lol:
Sampras was one of the all time greats and has some of the best weapons.His record is that of a GOAT candidate.He was the truly last S&V champion.Will always have a special place in the game´s history.
Who would win, prime against prime, between Federer in Sampras in a USO final?
By your logic Federer would, as he was unbeaten in USO finals, whereas Sampras was not (even though he made more).
Sampras dominated his era under most diverse conditions with a deep field of very good players.
In a fast homogenized era (today slow homogenized) with a less deeper field (as today) he would have won over 20 slams.
Numnut, Monfed, who is numnut #2, referred to the 2001 match at WIMBLEDON (not the USO it has nothing to do with that) as his basis for why Federer is better, to which I replied that prime for prime in the FINAL, Sampras would beat Federer.
You then replied, just because he didn't lose doesn't mean he couldn't lose. The fact is, he didn't lose. So why bring hypotheticals into it. Once Sampras got deep into WIMBLEDON, he was unbeatable. Fact. Once he got 5 matches under his belt at WIMBLEDON, no one beat him at WIMBLEDON. He beat all the big names of his era in the WIMBLEDON FINAL...Ivanisevic, Becker, Courier and Agassi.
Now compare that to Federass (see what I done there?), who lost to his master in the final, and also lost another big final on W CC, to Murray. Yes yes I know it wasn't the W final, but it was still a huge final in the context of Federer's career and it was still centre court at Wimbledon. I don't think for a minute that Sampras would have lost the Olympic final on centre court at Wimbledon. This is just speculating of course but history shows that SAMPRAS DID NOT LOSE A FINAL ON WIMBLEDON's CENTRE COURT.
Sampras lost to peak Edberg before he had peaked himself. And if you read his book he says he also had a poor attitude going into that match. A prime Sampras would wipe the floor with prime Edberg in any final anywhere.
Now compare that to Federer who lost to Nadal at the height of his career.
Different set of circumstances but nice try anyhow.
I think Murray could have been better than older Sampras (which would be 1999 onwards), much like Hewitt was before him, but certainly not better than him overall.
If only federer could play cedric pioline in the final wimbledon or mental headcase goran, grass guru jim courier, and MIA agassi.
instead he had to play roddick X3, nadal x3, murray X1 and phillippousiss...all 4 of whom are more dangerous than pioline, courier, and arguably tougher than agassi and goran.
Federer would not lose to any of pete's competition in those finals either.
I understand. Yes, he was pretty automatic with his serve. But its part of his game and its not like he aced every serve.
Rafter was. Pete was more than a SV player.
Don't forget Federer
Roderick and Murray better than Goran on grass? Not a chance. First, how many W did Roddick win? How many did Scud win? Murray...OK, whatever. Goran was a great grass court player. Much better than Roderick, Murray and Phillipoussis. Head case....whatever.
Here is the salient point. Federer has an insane return of serve that is NEVER discussed. Never. He would have trashed Richard K that day, because as great as Richards serves were, they weren't any better than the day Roddick served missiles and lost to Fed.
I saw Fed play Richard K. indoors and Fed was routining Richards bombs and sorry, indoors is quite often even more suited to big serves, poor lighting and such.
Federer had a much better return than Pete, Pete did not have much of a return, its why he relied so much more than Fed on his service game.
Pete was a great player because his return of serve set him up for easier service games.
Pete Sampras also hated being jerked around on the court. Can you imagine Pete Sampras chasing down Feds or Nadals crap? No one can. It just wouldn't happen, Pete would bend over and pretend his puking again
You're embarrassing yourself. Federer lost fair and square to Del Potro in the 2009 USO final.
goran won a wimbledon outside of pete's prime.
Roddick didnt quite have the same luck...
there was nobody to take federer out the years roddick was playing well on grass.
and roddick got far closer to defeating federer in a major W final than goran ever did against sampras.
Scud was a far more dangerous player than pioline, courier etc in a wimbledon final.
Its certainly arguable than roddick, scud and murray et al were better than goran and agassi on grass.
murray has already been to two W finals - same as agassi.
even goran himself admitted he "was crazy"..i.e. a headcase.
We can agree to disagree.
Philipousis...big serve and nothing else.
Murray...mental case in big finals.
Prime Sampras could play all of the above in the W final 5 times each and he would be 20-0. It's just how Pete rolls in the biggest match of the tennis year.
This is what happens when achievements no longer measure up. Posters get delusional and resort to hyperbole.
Jim Courier and Agassi aren't baseliners then? lol. Nadal is a better player than either of them, infact he has more slams and Wimbledon's than both put together.
Philippoussis took out peak Sampras on a slow hardcourt at 20 years old with just a serve? Really? Not to mention he was up a set one Pete at Wimbledon in 1999 when he had to retire and also pushed him hard at the USO at 19 years old.
Roddick played better matches in 04 and 09 against Federer than anything past his best Becker produced...15 double faults in the 1995 final lol. But yes Murray is the mentally weak one, especially when he played an excellent match and left it all out on court in the 2012 final. Ofcourse Goran was known for his mental strength anyway...
On fast grass, Philipousis would give Sampras the biggest problems. Sampras has lost to Philipousis in slams, even when he was a teenager. I think even Murray could give Sampras fits because he is a defensive baseliner with great passing shots and lobs.
Don't worry most people have him in their top 5, at least top 10 of all time. His problem is that a lot of people consider him inferior to Fed because Fed beat all his records bar the YE ranked 1, and another lot of people consider him inferior to Nadal as well because they consider Nadal superior to Fed (H2H, strong era, etc.).
Actually one excellent analyst tried to measure this. He measured the percentage of points won on serve when not in a break point situation, and he measured as well the percentage of points won on serve on break point situation. It showed that Sampras and Federer win less points when facing a break point than when not, which means that they play the break point less well than they play the other points.
On the other hand, Nadal is some measure, but very surprisingly Berdych win a higher percentage of points on break point than on normal point, which mean that:
1) they are able to rise the level of their game when facing break point, which is not the case of Federer and Sampras;
2) They may be less good than Federer and Sampras at playing all the points well.
People tend to forget past icons because most people tend to live in the moment and have very short attention span. The lack of respect Sampras gets on these boards is simply awful. Even thought overall, I think Federer is the more accomplished player, I still believe that Sampras would have the edge on fast grass if both were to play in they're prime. On slow grass, yeah Federer and maybe Murray could challenge him but I wouldn't necessarly count him as beaten right away. I see some people here bringing up clay to justify that Sampras wasn't all that good which is rubbish. We all know the surfaces played extremely differently, back then, believe it or not, they're was what we used to call "surface specialist". This has all disappeared now because all the surfaces more or less play the same, so the transition is a lot more transparent. So the argument about Fed/Nadal/Murray/Djokovic being better players because they had success on all surfaces is rather weak when you consider that factor.
Go watch some tape from the 90's and please give Pete his dues, he was a great player on fast courts, had and still does have the best serve, great volleys/slam dunk smash, and a great running forehand. He was very tough mentally, winning most of the big/key points in a match. It's foolish to think that the current top guys would smoke Pistol Pete as if he would be considered a journeyman in this current generation.
Greatest server of all time. If everyone was at peak on a fast grass court i would pick him over anyone. It be boring to watch but pete would serve them off court
Pete Sampras has neither been forgotten nor exiled from the pantheon. No serious tennis analysts - in fact, very few casual fans - have ever doubted that he is one of the greatest players ever.
The real issue for Sampras fans is that there is no longer a sizable constituency that regards him as THE GOAT. This development is to some extent due to Federer's success. Federer has matched or approached all of Sampras's career marks, and he has also achieved several things that Sampras never came close to doing. Nadal now has 13 majors (just one behind Sampras) and more than twice as many Masters titles, although he still lags well behind Sampras in terms of weeks/years at No. 1 and WTF titles.
But even before Federer started his great run the case for Sampras as GOAT never seemed to me to be a particularly strong one, being based too much on his slam count. Sampras was neither dominant enough nor versatile enough to be considered the greatest player of all time. His failures on clay are well known - and before we hear any more about "surface specialists" in the 90's, we should remember that his contemporary Agassi completed the career slam and reached the finals of each major at least twice. Borg in 1978-80 and even Lendl in 1985-87 (not to mention Federer 2004-07) dominated their peers more than Sampras did in his peak years, 1993-95. Analysts vary in terms of the extent to which they consider peak performance (over a three or four year period) or career achievement when ranking players. For the Open era at least Federer and Borg are ahead in terms of peak performance, and Federer's career achievements are more remarkable than Sampras's. So it matters a lot whether the question is "Does Sampras belong in the pantheon?" or "Is Sampras the GOAT?"
Good post! Even thought I don't agree with you 100%.
Borg/Lendl played in an era where racquet/surfaces were different, the US Open was played on clay until 1978. As much as I think Federer is the GOAT and also my favorite player, comparing what he achieved vs Sampras isn't acurate either. By the time Federer reached his peak, surface homogenization had already begun. Now I do think Federer is a more versatile player than Sampras, no doubt about that, but it's hard to establish just how much more when you take that into account. The only comparable player you listed is Agassi, they evolved in the same generation, same surfaces, same equipment. Agassi is a more versatile player than Sampras, but his style of play (agressive baseliner) can work well on any surface/speed, where as Sampras is more of a S&V that is more suited to fast courts, which is where he won the most majors (W & USO). While Agassi is more versatile, does that really make him a better player than Sampras? I don't think it does, numbers don't lie. I don't understand why the clay argument is always brought up against Sampras's, perhaps it's because I never liked clay as a surface so it doesn't really matter to me, but the fact remains that he was very dominant on the 2 other sufaces, enough to be #1 for 286 weeks and win 14 majors. That alone should be a good indicator of his greatness.
Roddick85: The question of how much versatility matters is a very good one that probably deserves a thread of its own. Obviously it's not everything, since I would agree with you that while Agassi was a more versatile player than Sampras, Pete was clearly the greater of the two. On the other hand, if we are comparing two players and one has won one major four times while the other has won each major once, most people would, ceteris paribus, prefer the latter. At the very highest level of the game versatility is clearly a consideration, since for most of us the GOAT should be a player who can succeed on all surfaces.
Surface homogenization over the past dozen years has been strictly a one way affair, with faster surfaces being slowed to accommodate the increased power of the new racquets but no corresponding changes in slower surfaces such as clay. Organizers at both Wimbledon and the US Open acknowledge that they have slowed their courts, and the new surface at the Australian Open is even slower than its predecessor, which was nowhere as fast as the old courts at Flushing Meadow. Other hard court tournaments have followed suit to remain in sync with the majors. Indoor carpet has almost entirely disappeared, being replaced by medium paced hard courts. Yet clay courts are no faster than they were previously.
These changes have produced winners AND losers among players, not just the former. Federer is very much in the latter category. Most observers agree that he is a much better fast court player than any of his main rivals. He is not the only player who would benefit from faster courts. Tsonga and Stepanek would also gain, as Roddick would have done before his retirement. But it's hard to see Federer winning fewer than 17 majors (to date) if Wimbledon and the US Open were still played on the courts of the 90's.
Very easy to see. Fed is a baseliner and a mediocre S&V player.
He needs much time to set up his forehand.
More time than Sampras and of course more than Agassi.
He can be lucky that he played in homogenized (slow) times with no real SV players.
Stakahovsky (what is his real name?), a third class SV player, destroyed Fed on slow (!!!) grass in W.
Pete did not play under homogenized (fast) conditions - otherwise he would have over 20 slams under his belt.
Let me spell it out for you NatF because it's apparent you have a learning disability.
In and amongst the players Sampras beat at Wimbledon, there's a good cross section of baseliners, serve volleyers, great returners and all court players. Sampras played every type of player and beat them all. No losses. You get it? He even whipped defending champion Stich like no tomorrow, albeit not in the final. Prime Sampras would not lose to anyone in the Wimbledon final and if he played prime Nadal even on today's Wimby grass, his very aggressive game would slap Nadal silly.
None of those players are Nadal or Federer for that matter. I'm going to stick to my first assessment and say that you're an idiot. If you don't think there's any possible way or circumstance that could lead to Sampras not winning a Wimbledon final, then you are pure and simply a moron.
Let it go, NatF, you are a good poster and Blocker certainly isn't worth it. Let him continue to think that losing well before the final is better than losing during the final. Let him claim that Fed has no shot at Sampras at Wimbledon even though he actually beat him there.
Also, lol @ the poster who claims Stakhovsky's victory over Fed means anything while probably thinking that Federer's victory over Sampras means nothing. Look up their respective ages during those losses.
Both players have 7 Wimbledons. It is irrational to act like one of them would win every match against the other when there is not much evidence either way.
Totally agree with you on Federer. I do think he would of had just as much success on fast court than he did at the current speed, if not more. On fast court, the match up between Roddick and Federer would of been a lot more entertaining, and probably not as one sided as I think Roddick was the biggest loser of the surface becoming slower and slower. If the court speed stayed like they were in the 90's, I think the current top 10 would be very different.
Thanks NDQ, you're right. I agree with your whole post. Both Pete and Roger have 7 Wimbledons and would probably have one of the most exciting rivals ever at Wimbledon.
Best to leave it at that. Don't want to be drawn into insulting a great champion like Pete just because Blocker is a sad fool.
Most regard him the 4th best player of the Open Era behind Federer, Nadal, Borg. Some even have him 3rd over Borg. That is about all he deserves so I dont think he is underrated. The emergence of Nadal and Federer simply pushed his place in history down is all.
The reality is when he first retired he was overrated. He never should have been put anywhere near on par with Laver given his clay ineptitude.
With us Human animals, it is always about what have you done for me lately ? and we forget great things people of the past have done. That is the way of Humans. We are just base animals, nothing more.
I don't think the game will change as much at this point going forwards from the past as we're approaching the limits of how hard and how much spin can be applied to the ball and keep it in the court. Short of a radical technology change imparting even more spin, the only advances you can really see is if we had some upgrade in the athletes pursuing professional tennis
Cherry picking results is fun, but it's a game that everyone can play. I seem to recall a teenaged Federer facing Sampras at Wimbledon on fast grass when Sampras was the No.1 seed and defending champion. Guess who won? Federer, incidentally, was two years older during his 2013 match with Stakhovsky than Sampras was when he faced Federer in 2001. If Sampras couldn't do it, who are the "real SV players" who would have beaten Federer at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open?
As far as I know no one has suggested that Sampras played "under homogenized (fast) conditions." The courts at Wimbledon and the US Open were clearly faster than they are now, but the Australian Open was played on a slow hard court and the French Open, as always, on slow red clay.
Pete was great, but he's been elbowed out of the GOAT club by 2 historically good players in just a decade after retirement.
As with most sports, the players & absolute level of play just continues to get better. The best guys today are almost certainly a little better then Sampras. That's not a slight on Pete, that's just evolution. It's like watching the NFL or NBA in 1994 versus 2014. it's just a little bigger, stronger, and faster.
Federer and Nadal (and Djokovic to a degree) have been just a little more consistent & consistently dominant to the field compared to Sampras during both the tour events and the majors.
You never know what the future holds in store, anything could happen. The only constant that will probably remain is that athletes will continue to get fitter and stronger as time goes by.
What I do believe however, is that future generations look up to past generations and revere and idolize them, but in turn, want to be different from them and ultimately be better than them.The older generation sets the bar, for the newer generation to pass. Each generation wants to be unique, they want to stand out from the past ones and develop their own identity. This is why I believe tennis will look different 30 years from now than it does today. How much different though...that's the real question. There might be very subtle changes, or there may be radical revolutionary changes. But I guess one thing's for sure, I can't wait to find out!
2001 Wimbledon was already slowed down.
Pete had an inflamed shoulder and the media was allover his wife in a terrible way.
Greeks are very sensitive about family.
Sampras played in most diverse conditions.
Fed in most homogenized and his main rival between 2004-2007 was Roddick! LOL
Sampras dominated his era, and Fed did not.
Even Henman´s SV game was giving Fed so many problems.
Pete is undefeated in Wimbledon finals and fed is not so Pete wins lol
The courts were still fast in 2001. Federer and Sampras both served and volleyed much of the time during their match. So did that year's finalists, Rafter and Ivanisevic, who are not the finalists one would expect to see in a tournament played on slow grass. 2002 was the first year in which players and journalists remarked on the slow conditions. The finalists that year, Hewitt and Nalbandian, were not serve and volley players like Rafter and Ivanisevic. You can make excuses for Sampras's defeat, but the same applies to losses suffered by any other player.
So did Agassi, who completed the career slam and reached the final of each major at least twice. Sampras never came close to duplicating those feats.
Nadal was the world's No.2 player from July 2005 until the summer of 2008, when he succeeded Federer at No.1. As such, he was No.2 in Federer's peak years for a much longer period than Roddick.
Federer won 11 majors between 2004 and 2007. He is the only player in history, male or female, amateur or Open eras, to have won so many over a four year period. He also won the WTF three times in those four years. Of the 20 most important tournaments played between 2004 and 2007 Federer won 14, was the runner up in three and a semi-finalist in two others. Sampras did not at any stage of his career achieve that level of dominance.
Henman has stated on several occasions that Federer is the greatest player he has ever seen. The "problems" his game posed to Federer should be considered in the light of his own assessment of Federer's ability.
That's why some people misunderstood Fed fans don't like Sampras. It's the annoying poster like Blocker and 90's clay causes a stir. I don't think they believe what they are saying, but just by doing it to get a reaction from other fans.
The limiting factor we're running up against for big change is the court size. You really can't hit the ball any harder then they do with the spin we can produce and keep it in play.
I actually don't think the men's game will look that different assuming 1) no structural rule changes, 2) string technology isn't rolled back, and 3) that they don't significantly change the properties of the tennis balls. Changing the balls is probably the most likely way to radically alter the game.
The women, OTOH have a lot of potential to improve from strength and conditioning advances.
But "assuming" that just one of these things is changed will definitely make a difference in the way future tennis is played. That being said we don't know what's going to happen in the future. If none of these things you listed are changed, then I have to agree with you tennis 30 years from now may be essentially played the same way it is today, but I have a hard time believing that nothing major will change in 30 years from now, because History seems to dictate that around every 20 (give or take) years tennis goes through a new cycle. You may be right, tennis may have reached the peak of it's evolution, but we'll have to wait and see.
You are a bigger clown than NatF. How has Nadal overtaken Sampras? What, because he has a career slam? Has it occurred to you that Nadal is the biggest beneficiary of the slow down of the courts? Speed up the FO the way they slowed W and the AO and Sampras has 20 plus slams to his name.
Here's some stats for you.
Wimbledon: 7-2 Sampras
US Open: 5-2 Sampras
French Open: 8-0 Nadal
Aust Open: 2-1 Sampras
WTF: Sampras: 5-0
Year end no 1: 6-2 Sampras
Weeks at no 1: Best I don't say
I see Nadal's name once.
So if you think Nadal has overtaken Sampras then you are a brainless d.i.l.d.o.
Most probably it will change. Some conditions will surely change again, and the game will change again (not for the better, because it has never changed for the better to start with, it is just changing, adapting to new conditions).
I agree with you, Blocker, except for the need to tack the insults at the beginning and end of your post... Why is that necessary?
Sampras, just like many other past greats, is undersold because many people that watch tennis today, started watching tennis around the 00s, and they can't understand how different tennis was in past decades, how different conditions were back then.
Today top players play basically the same game on all surfaces, all of them playing endless baseline top-spin rallies on all courts because courts conditions have become too similar everywhere.
That is a clear advantage to current top players. Top players from past eras had it much more difficult. They had to change constantly the way they played, because of totally polarized conditions, and playing against players with totally different styles.
For example, when Sampras was playing on clay, he would stay back an play rallies (he would serve and volley on some first serves, but majority of points were baseline rallies) :
On medium-slow hard courts, he would serve-and-volley on all first serves and stay back on second serves, playing an all-court game (with many baseline rallies) :
On grass he would serve-and-volley on both serves (only on grass) and it was all serve-volley and return/passing-shots, except when he was playing against a baseliner, then you could see some rallies when the baseliner was serving:
but against someone like Ivanisevic, there would not be any single baseline rallye (on grass), it all was serve-volley and return-passing-shot/lob:
There were also very varied indoor conditions. On the fastest ones, Pete would serve-and-volley on all first serves and some second serves, and would play his all-court game but very very aggresively, killing the ball:
on the medium ones, he would also serve-and-volley on first serves and stay back on second serves, and play a lot of baseline rallies:
Post-prime Sampras, in his later years, tried serve-and-volley on almost all his second serves too (outside grass I mean) and chip-and-charge much more than what he used to do in his prime. Playing this way he still was dangerous, but that was not his all-court game that made him so successful in his prime years. Maybe some people only remember those last years when he was playing that way and was not as successful as before.
And as I said, it is not only Sampras. All those great players (Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Kafelnikov, Enqvist, Ferreira, Martin, Pioline and players from the 80s, 70s.....) had it way more difficult because they were constantly changing from one tournament with given conditions, to another tournament with vastly different conditions and balls, playing one round against one type of player and next round against a totally different player.
That is why there were many more casualties and there were many more different players reaching finals and winning big tournaments.
Separate names with a comma.