Sampras at age 29-30

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by tennisaddict, Jan 20, 2013.

  1. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    yeah but first I think Federer doesn't really want to let go of the feeling of beating everyone and getting the trophy and also since pete won 13 slams and broke the record, the emphasis has been on breaking records. Pete thought his record would stand for ages but I think Federer would stick around to keep on racking titles up. Could be wrong but I think these days the focus on breaking records is way more. Like someone mentiioned Sampras only had 11 masters but masters have become more important these days, tennis has changed a lot. If Sampras was around these days he'd probably be trying to win more masters and play into his mid 30s
     
    #51
  2. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    LOL, 4-6 against someone like Krajicek is way more embarrassing than a 10-18 against one of the GOATs like Nadal who is 5 years younger who you played mostly on Clay :)
     
    #52
  3. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328

    Yea.. There is more pressure when you got a guy breathing down your neck and ready to overtake you in the slam count (Like Nadal was doing with Fed prior to injuries stopping him a few times).

    However, there was no one close to Pete in this regard because he TOOK CARE of his main rivals on the big stage (something Fed FAILED to do).

    If Fed wasn't Nadal's patsy, he would have been out of reach a long time ago and could have retired early.

    ... Refer Back to my first post..
     
    #53
  4. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    I largely agree, but breaking records has certainly been motivation for Federer. His very good 2012 was mostly about surpassing Sampras' weeks at number 1.

    Those of us who have witnessed both eras know there are asterisks that go with each. Sampras clearly did not value certain criteria which later on would prove to be more important (skipping or showing little interest in the Olympics for example). He had very particular goals and focused heavily on those at the expense of others.
     
    #54
  5. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    Well yea... But it was Pete who Put the records there for Rog to break.. :) Pete had broken most of the records (At least the major ones in his 20s). YE#1, most weeks #1, Slam count, YEC, Wimbledon titles etc.

    So I'm not understanding why people find it so hard to believe Pete lost some motivation. He broke the major records, and put the slam count way out of reach..

    Other then winning the French (which for whatever Pete gave up on after 96)... There wasn't much left for Pete to do. Major records broke, domination over his main rival contemporaries for 6-7 years. He had done what he set out to do


    ... and again with Nadal breathing down Fed's neck making him have to win more slams. Its easy to say why Fed stayed motivated.. He HAD to stay motivated



    Id probably lose motivation too if I was Sampras.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
    #55
  6. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,498
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    because he was rubbish.
     
    #56
  7. MonkeyBoy

    MonkeyBoy Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,468
    In Sampras' defense: human physiology is subjective, and while Pete has a poorer late career, he also had a better early career, winning his first major at 19, 1 month, instead of 21, 11 months
     
    #57
  8. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    True that.. Sampras won the USO 12 years apart.. I hardly call that "normal"

    How many guys win slams 12 years apart? Sampras could still play from 29-30. Not sure what people are talking about here.

    The USO showed Pete still had plenty of game
     
    #58
  9. Mick3391

    Mick3391 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,161
    Location:
    WA State
    Sampras didn't care, you should read up on him, his thoughts and attitudes about Tennis. Sampras was a MONSTER, second best in my opinion. He did benefit from faster courts, would have had more trouble today. Fed on the other hand would have been more dominant on the faster courts of the 90's.

    Love what Aggassi said on the Tenniography thing about Sampras serve, "Get in your serve reception area, take to lunges to your left and mark it, then two to your right and mark it, Sampras would hit either any time he wanted, or he'd just put it at your body.

    Sampras would take reception sets often knowing that he's ALWAYS get serve, then break once out of the blue and match is over.

    Great players all of these guys! Fed is just the bomb, so consistant for so long, just incredible.
     
    #59
  10. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    yeah but when Fed took care of his rivals then then it was "weak era" etc,..

    Look I'm kind of giving Sampras his due here- in his day no one cared as much about certain things, like masters were way less important - if they were Sampras might have more. In this day and age, Nadal or no Nadal, people expect a player to be in the semis/final every single event and winning slams all the time. Sampras breaking the 12 slam mark was actually a big factor in record breaking becoming such a huge issue. I also see Federer as less willing to let go of his tennis world.

    And prior to Nadal getting injured he was only winning RG, having failed to take care of Djokovic at the other 3 slams. He would have a chance to overtake Federer but would likely need to win slams apart from RG again which wasn't a given at all. You can use all the injury excuses but the big thing that stopped Nadal was Djokovic (without him Nadal would pass Federer with little doubt) and that AO match with him is probably what caused his latest problem.
     
    #60
  11. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328

    Another thing is.. who cared about the "slam tally" until Sampras broke the record? Hell prior to Sampras breaking Emerson's record, I dont think I ever once heard of talk about slam count being broke. It wasn't a major deal. Now its the only thing that categorizes GOAT-ness. You got the most slams, you are GOAT. There isn't a clear concise set of achievements which constitutes what you would need to be GOAT.

    This talk of winning most slams=hands down GOAT is a 13 year old major achievement. Prior to that, what activements consisted of Supreme Greatness? I don't know. The calendar slam? Thats something probably won't ever be done again anyways. 200 tournament titles that Laver held? Again.. something that won't be touched.

    Sampras had the major records, (YEC at the time 2nd most important behind slams, wimbledon dominance, YE#1 record that still holds, most slams at #1 officially, most slams etc.). I figure he thought that would have held for quite a long time.

    At the time, Pete cemented himself the best of his era and no one was even close by 2000 or so. So naturally, a lack of interest and motivation happens

    The guy was on top of the tennis world for 6-7 years by that point with no rival in sight.. How long do you want the guy to stay motivated and interested. ROFLMAO
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
    #61
  12. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    yeah that's kind of what i'm saying. Sampras winning more than 12 slams changed the importance of records i think. And now there's more motivation for players at the top of the game. Peeople talk about quarterfinal streaks and being in how many finals in a row and winning so many matches at the start of a season and surface streaks etc..



    Except when Federer beat him in 2001 he was "finished" etc.. ;)

    At the USO in 2002 he got by beating sperm Andy Roddick (weak era player) and then old Agassi (Pete got beaten by weak era youngsters Hewitt and safin the 2 previous years but lucked out in 2002 by only having to play a guy older than him)

    Look seriously though, Pete did good to win another USO even with not a bad draw to say the least but he was amazing to win his first at 19. His run in 1990 was brilliant, even though some of those guys were getting a bit old, he was only 19 and still a rookie. To do what he did was huge.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
    #62
  13. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,058
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Seems like people here are incapable of discussing anything without it devolving into a Fed-Rafa hatefest :cry:

    Pete's game was aggressive; more high risk / high reward than most of today's players. As a result, there was more potential for variability in his performance from match to match especially as he got older. That's why in his later years he was capable of unexpected losses while at the same time still able to win a GS.
     
    #63
  14. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328

    Not sure what the significant of QF or SF streaks are (especially in this homogenized condition like-era) but whatever.. I never understood the significance of that.

    Young Sperm roddick ehh?? That was Fed's main rival at wimbledon and the USO for years. ROFLMAO


    Pete had to eventually play his main rival through his whole career in the finals of the USO.. I dont think thats "lucking out". Its not like Pete played nothing at all, all the way en route to the finals.

    Rog has had his share of patty cake draws too over the years.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
    #64
  15. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    No SPERM Roddick wasn't Fed's rival for years, he wasn't a sperm forever lol. I mean Nadal was apparently a baby at 21 in 2007, a year before he was in his prime and winning Wimbledon, so why isn't Roddick baby Roddick (I used sperm as a joke parodying the whole baby Nadal thing) in 2002 at 20, a year before he won the USO and 2 years before he made a Wimbledon final? Most of his rivalry came when he was past baby age.

    I know Fed has had easy draws, just saying that in 2002 Sampras was looking like he was losing it (and no one paints the picture of doom more strongly that Sampras fans whenever that wimbledon 2001 loss comes up) he had lost the last 2 US Open finals to young guns in straight sets. But in 2002 he gets someone his own age and wins which is no surprise since he is better than Agassi especially at the US Open.

    Not taking away from him, just saying that his best days were behind him and I think he made the right choice retiring rather than let the next generation beat up on him like he beat up on older becker etc. Though to be fair sampras was in a different league to Becker and still probably would have given the new guys some beatings. But in a slam over 5 sets it would come less and less likely just because of the problem with keeping concentration and stamina.
     
    #65
  16. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    Pete Sampras is the luckiest 2-digit slam winner. EVER.

    - weakest competition faced by any great. I mean, you only have to look at his "main" rival. did meth during Pete's prime. that's how stiff a competition he faced.

    - his bad match-ups either were clown heads (Stich) or injury-prone (Krajicek), so were a non-factor in his slam wins. All he had to do was beat guys who would gladly bend over for him (mental giant Ivanisevic, anyone?? -- he was Pete's biggest grass competition. LOL, at least Roddick was a 1-time slam winner all times he met Fed, but one)

    - competed in a era which approached today's WTA-esque standards... ZERO slam winners became #1 during the year, and would've ended YE #1, had Becker refused to cede his wildcard in a mm tourney to Pete. I won't even mention Malivai Washington reaching the finals of Wimbledon...

    - was super lucky that 2/4 slams suited his game very well. do well in those 2-slams, and you suck relatively elsewhere, yet end up as YE #1. That's how consistent his peers were...

    C'mon GameSampras. Refute these :)
     
    #66
  17. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328

    Oh this nonsense

    -Luckiest two digit slam player ever huh?.. I can say the same thing about Fed. During Fed's prime, his main rival couldn't even reach HC slam semis and lucky Nadal didn't become an all surface threat until 2008 by the time Fed had already racked upon a lot of non clay slams. Safin and Nalbandian both with the talent to take Fed out at multiple slams yet Safin was too busy bird dogging in the bars and Nalbandian too bust at the McDonalds drive-throughs. Lucky it took Djoker until late 2010-2011 to finally get his sh!it together.


    Sampras also had to deal with Courier, Prime Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Goran, Rafter, Becker, Edberg earlier on, then Safin and Hewitt at their peaks, etc.. later on which is>>>>>>>Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Baghaditis, Davydenko OLD Agassi, Ljubicic, Gonzales, Diaper Rash Nadal who couldn't do anything outside of clay which was when Fed racked up the most of his slams


    Sampras played more freakin slam winners then Fed did.

    For Fed's success he also had to AVOID his main rival at all costs on the big stage.. Pete went through his main rivals. Fed needs injuries to stop Nadal so he can win slams.

    Dont mess with me.. You're gonna lose this battle ****. If not for injuries, Nadal breaks the record before your boy does. TRUTH
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
    #67
  18. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,238
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    You've already lost it with your circular logic, Sard.

    Federer would have to have been a worse player to have a tougher field. IE, if Hewitt, Nalbo, Safin had won more majors, the era would look tougher, and Federer's competition stiffer. The only problem is that since Federer is a better player than Sampras, that DIDN'T happen. Nice try. I guess maybe Sampras should have been better than to lose so often at the majors. I mean, how many years did he win even two majors? let alone 3? Oh that's right, he took 12 years to win 14. I guess that's what happens when the top player of an era is not as strong as in this era, his contemporaries get better because they clean up the majors he fails to win in. Somehow Sampras is made to be better despite losing more often and taking longer to win his majors than Federer. Terrible "logic"

    Federer has never 'avoided' Nadal at the majors. 23 straight semis and 30-odd something quarterfinals STRAIGHT. Seems like nadal was avoiding HIM, rather. LOL. Nadal wasn't there. Nadal was too busy losing to 'weak era clowns' like Baggy, Gonzo, and Roddick LOL. Super fail logic on your part, 90's ****. Please try harder next time, your arguments are pedestrian at best.
     
    #68
  19. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,498
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    he wasnt that dominant sampras kept on losing his world no1 rank he had about 11 goes at no1 and had fewer wks at no1 than federer whos been no1 3 times...

    oop i forgot federer took a load of rank points away from sampras with 'past it pete' defending his title federer destroyed him at wimby 2001..:)
     
    #69
  20. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,238
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    If not for Steve Jobs, I'd have invented the iPod. TRUTH.
     
    #70
  21. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,574
    Given this stretch of losses to all these players with such horrible rankings for more than 2 years, it is more than reasonable to predict that USO 2002 would not have been his had Sampras had to face Hewitt or Safin who had his number.

    That all is what i want to project.

    The losses still are very hard to understand.

    Even someone like Davydenko or James Blake who are worse off in their current rankings will not have so many losses to lower ranked players when they quit.
     
    #71
  22. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    Sampras was gassed going into the finals vs. Hewitt after the brutal (yea a draw Fed would crap his pants over), Rafter (Fed is 0-3 agains), Agassi Playing peak tennis who whiped Roger off the court that year, and Safin who was the defending champ at the time.

    2002 Pete got a nicer draw with less defending USO champs to have to play en route to the finals.. A much NICER Draw. . Sampras DESTROYED Safin the year before at the USO and he had a lot of more energy going into the finals in 2002 then he did in 2001.. Doubt Pete loses to Safin there. Hewitt? I think Pete would have redeemed himself in 2002 vs. Hewitt. Pete wasn't gasses in the 2002 finals and it showed. He was zoning in through a lot of that match.
     
    #72
  23. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,574
    Still, it is hard to say someone isa great or a champion when you are not even 30 and lose 20 odd matches in a year and half to such lower ranked players. Not even Davydenko, Blake, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Haas, Gonzalez faced or facing this kind of extended losses.
     
    #73
  24. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    You should get it. In Sampras' last 2 years, he had achieved what he wanted to do, and that is hold the most slams and the most consecutive years as year ending number 1. He achieved that but he knew he had one left in him and he played until he won that last slam.

    Now compare that to Federer, who is trying to keep 2 other potential GOAt candidates at bay plus he wants to play in Rio 2016 so he has to keep his game and fitness at a peak level for some time to come yet. He's probably ****ting himself about the prospect of not winning singles gold.
     
    #74
  25. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yep. And then along came Federer who had a target to aim for. By the time he won his 5th, everyone was asking him if he could break Sampras' record. He had a target, he went for it and got it. And he has kept his fitness and game at a peak level because he doesn't want to happen to him what happened to Sampras.

    Put Sampras and Federer head to head in their primes...that's the only way you can compare. Federer was made to look god-like when he had no one around in 04-07, but i suspect he would have been made to look very much human if a prime Sampras had been around in 04-07.
     
    #75
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    There are other legends of the game like Laver, Borg, Connors, etc., not just Sampras. Whether Sampras existed or not, that doesn't change Roger's drive, determination, desire...

    The outcome would be just the same...the guy just love to compete and win.
     
    #76
  27. paulorenzo

    paulorenzo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,587
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    funny you say that, since federer has been the closest one can be to doing anything of the sort, and he's done it 3 times. so in that sense, federerererer would have been pretty alright.
     
    #77
  28. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Go outside, hold your breath and count to 8. With each number call, think to yourself that that is one extra win that Nadal has over the greatest of all time haha.
     
    #78
  29. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Ah, butthurt. Federer surpassed Sampras EVERYWHERE. Even the Olympics. Sampras was being ripped apart by journeymen at 29. Look at Federer. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha get over it, jocker.
     
    #79
  30. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    And Federer has a 100% winning record against Sampras. Aaarrrgh, that must hurt! :lol:
     
    #80
  31. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    And 5 year retired Sampras was still serving down aces and unreturnables against peak Fed. Win or lose, he was aceing him.

    I'll count to 1. 1. There.

    You keep counting.
     
    #81
  32. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    In an exhibition match? LOL Baby Federer sent Sampras home by beating him on his best surface. That must sting. Sampras sucked in his later years. It doesn't matter if it's because he lost motivation, he still sucked. 5 wins and 6 losses at the French Open? :lol: Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
     
    #82
  33. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Federer, and Nadal on clay, have created that monster.
     
    #83
  34. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    The reason it comes across to some people as Sampras "destroying" Agassi is because Sampras beat Agassi in all 4 of their US Open matches pretty comfortably, despite the fact that Agassi was the pre-match favourite before all 4 of those matches.
     
    #84
  35. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,542
    Pete ain't worth bashing anymore. Post FO 2009, that is. He isn't irrelevant by any means, but comparing him to Roger when Roger has taken pretty much every one of his records is a bit silly.
     
    #85
  36. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Statistically Fed had the advantage. Tennis players are more likely to win slams at a younger age than in the last couple of years. Heck Sampras won the USO at 19, so that match went as expected, very much within the bell curve. But then Sampras won the USO in his last slam. Best book end player ever.

    As for those exhibitions, Federer still got aced. Whether that match was for Fed's life, a million bucks or for W, he still got aced.
     
    #86
  37. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,534
    Myths that need correcting

    Both surface AND conditions matter. The huge Myth that doesn't seem to go away is that hard court is Nadals worst surface. We have to distinguish between outdoor hard and indoor hard. Every player will tell you that they could be considered completely different surfaces. Now indoor hard court is Nadals worst surface. He has never beaten Roger on that. Outdoor hard is Nadals possibly second best surface. Most outdoor hard courts are very slow surfaces these days (with the possible exceptions of US open and the US open series, which are medium paced) this suits Nadal hugely. If you don't think outdoor and indoor matters - then okay lets combine them - Roger is ahead - so what's your point then?

    So summary indoor (hard or carpet) is Nadal worst playing situation....not just blank statement hard court.
     
    #87
  38. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Well by that reasoning let's all go home. Bar Laver's double grand slam, Fed's achievements over all shadow everyone else. So why single out Pete? Why not single out Lendl, or Borg, or McEnroe? Or anyone else?

    I think I know why. The one player Fed fans would not want to see their player play in a prime v prime match is Sampras. Wimbledon is the biggest show on earth, and against Sampras in his prime in the biggest match of the biggest show on earth, it could get very ugly for Fed.

    And that's just the fans. What about Fed himself? He can accept the ass reamings he copped against Nadal at the FO, but facing PISTOL Pete on W Centre Court might just be enough to make the great Swiss cry...and that's before a ball has even been bounced. Note, prime Sampras, you know, 7 titles in 8 years...that Sampras, not well-past-it-Sampras.
     
    #88
  39. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Eh? Sampras cries everyday that Federer came along so soon. So do you, by the sound of it :lol:
     
    #89
  40. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Nah, any time I'm down I just put the 2003 ODI WC final on :)
     
    #90
  41. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    by the looks of it, you probably watched a punter master class everyday since FO 2009?
     
    #91
  42. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Sorry but I seriously doubt that, otherwise you'd call Sampras fans for their BS as well, like these two posts below for example:


    Also, "stinking little fanboy vaginas"? Seriously? People are allowed to think Fed is better than Sampras, even much better, heck Sampras fanboys in this thread feel the same, just the other way around.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
    #92
  43. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Heard of him, I played him at 18 clay courts in the late 80's. I'm sure most know of him, at least in the US.
     
    #93
  44. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    That's good to hear, me for example I put the 2001 Wimbledon 4th round to see teenage Fed schooling defending champ Pete at his own game (despite Pete serving out of his mind) or 1996 Wimbledon QF to watch peak Sampras being made to look completely ordinary by a one slam wonder.
     
    #94
  45. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Aha! You see, that doesn't bother me anymore. Tendulkar has won the World Cup now, you see. Now go cry in your room.
     
    #95
  46. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    That's a really insightful point, actually. I never realized that.
     
    #96
  47. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    Federer on todays grass courts would be favoured over Sampras. On the old grass Sampras would be favoured, although I believe Federer's edge on the new grass is slightly bigger than Sampras's on the old grass.
     
    #97
  48. mxmx

    mxmx Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    680
    I think Pete had it hard on clay due to better/more clay court specialists....Back then people were more specialised...today, people are more versatile. There is (in my opinion) no way Federer would have done AS well as he did if he played in the era of Sampras. There were just too many "greats" back then...

    There should be a thread adressing:
    "What would have happened if Sampras and Federer switched eras"
     
    #98
  49. mxmx

    mxmx Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    680
    why? new grass slower?
     
    #99
  50. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,238
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page