Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by benxten, May 8, 2012.
5 set classic showcasing both players' serve, sampras's volleys, and fed's forehand.
The better grass court player won.
Great grass court tennis, very entertaining. I wish the surface would allow Fed to go back to S&V
what's the point of this thread unless the match happened yesterday
what can I say, a 5-star thread that's what it is
A classic match that everyone should own this dvd.
It's worth every penny !
One of the greatest grass court matches I've ever seen,high quality exhilarating tennis. What this match proved to me was -
a) Federer is a competent volleyer and has "cross-era" adaptability. The latter being a mandatory GOAT requirement IMO.
b) Federer would have had his fair share of success on fast grass against Sampras since he beat him playing the same style as Sampras and the way grasscourters tasted success at the time.
c) Federer's underrated mental toughness. He had to be clutch when the margin of error on fast grass is very small,especially against the king of grass(at the time anyway).
Anyway, this thread is a dud without vids.
The most amazing thing about this match is that a baby Fed beat a still slam capable Sampras. Scary to think what peak Fed would have done there.
Is this poster actually Pete Sampras? 1 or 2 posts a year for 8 years where he always replies as Pete Sampras and his username is Pete Sampras:
Seriously, I know Sampras commented on someone's youtube video in 2007, and then had it taken down.
Are you actually that naive ??
I must admit, Sampras is the greatest US Open player of all-time, by a small margin.
I also admit, Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player of all-time, by a huge margin. His best is simply untouchable, beyond anything we've ever seen. A lot like Nadal at Roland Garros.
Too bad Sampras will never be a Tier 1 great like Federer, but Tier 2 is really nothing to sneeze at. Hell Nadal isn't even Tier 2 yet.
Your book means zero fortunately. Nadal is about to become Roland Garros GOAT.
Sampras is currently the only GOAT - lone leader with 7 Wimbledons.
Agassi and Federer rule Australia with 4 titles (Djokovic about to equal them perhaps).
Connors, Sampras, Federer are tied at the US Open with 5 titles each.
Nadal about to overtake Borg, and enough years left to get a huge GOAT lead.
Nadal surely does have a chance to become GOAT, like Raonic and Tomic do as well.
Well so if Sampras leads in # of Wimby's with 7 and that makes him grass GOAT. Then overall leader in slams is Federer so that makes him overall GOAT! Thanks, I was just using your own logic by the way .
It was a pretty cool match. Kind of sad that in a thread meant to discuss how awesome this match was the trolls like trollforthewin and NSK would look to further their own trolling agenda.
Ah, the day, they will learn.
How is Sampras the best US Open player? he has same no. of titles as Fed and...Connors I believe?
And Wimbledon it's not a huge margin. Fed made 7 straight finals, with 6 titles, something not even Sampras can boast.
I think you should talk to the mods about your ignore list not working, or are you always logged out and just happen to see my posts?
It's been 8 years, Sampras does actually post on the internet, it's very unlikely but possible.
Umm because I watch tennis. Nobody is even close to Sampras at Wimbledon. He is a freak of nature, just as Nadal is at Roland Garros. US Open, as I said before, Sampras by a very small margin. This is just my opinion.
But GOATs are statistical, so Sampras can only claim to be GOAT of Wimbledon. There is no GOAT of the US Open, and no GOAT of the Australian Open. Players are tied for titles there. Soon there will be a GOAT of Roland Garros however.
Don't assume Nadal is going to win another.
And It's still your subjective opinion that Sampras is a 'freak of nature' at Wimbledon. If he was a freak of nature, he wouldnt have lost some of the matches he did while on tour.
In fact because of your charm, I actually log myself out every time I see a hidden post from you just because I know there is some hidden treasure I need to look at. I was doing well for a long time, I believe there was a period of about 3-4 months I did not respond to any of your posts. Then curiosity got the better of me .
Btw NSK, take trolling lessons from DFTW. His style is to enter an innocuous thread and post one line comments intended to inflame emotions. A perfect example would be his first 2 posts in this thread. Perfect way to troll while flying under the ban-hammer radar
Apparently, the freak of nature on grass got straight setted in Wimby in his prime. No slight to Sampras, just saying to shut down a troll.
Fed is pretty close. But Sampras is no freak of nature.
His change to a 1HBH, and focus on the serve and attacking tennis was by design. Sure, he was a terrific baseliner and all-court player, but his mastery of S&V tennis was specifically tailored for dominating at Wimbledon.
Thank you for admitting this. It is very healthy for you not to repress such things. You are doing much better now I see. I understand your plight.
Unlike Sampras, Federer never got straight set during his prime, not even when he past his prime. That's from 2003 - present, or nearly 9 years.
I know Sampratard keep on milking 7 > 6, but there's plenty of stats that are in favor or Roger, thus more impressive/domination.
Curiously enough, yesterday I watched the QF match Federer-Henman ( Wimbledon 2001 ), a very beautiful match. In fact, watching it, I remembered how much more fun tennis was back then at Wimbledon.
Sampras took it to five sets in the R16 match against Federer mainly because of his great serve (overall, he was not stellar at all that day and he almost lost in Round 2 to an unknown player).
The Henman-Federer match in the following round was more attractive because Henman had not that killer serve nor that killer forehand of Sampras, so he had to be very careful with all his shots and volleys, had to actually work perfectly well at the net just about every point.
In fact if you watch several Henman-Federer matches from 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 you can see how much more effective (and beautiful) Henman game was before the slowing down of conditions everywhere.
Henman, in those years (and before) was a truly great net player, he was great to watch because like Rafter or Edberg, he did not have a killer serve or a killer forehand, so he needed to actually volley perfectly all the time and be very clever with his approach shots, to be successful. He needed to be focused all the time, because he hadn't a killer weapon to win 2 or 3 straight points with one shot. In spite of that, he was good enough in his serve_and_volley game to put pressure on you all the time.
That is why Sampras (and Becker) were different (to Henman, Edberg, Rafter), but for me these three players were so fun to watch because they had what they had (great net skills) and they had to use it in every point to put the maximum pressure on you all the time, and they were great at it (when the conditions were faster than the last 8-10 years).
Henman was very streaky at the net though, he would make some of the most incredible volleys, then mess up routine ones. Sampras was different to Becker at his best he volleyed as well as Rafter (in my opinion). In fact, he won the 1993 Wimbledon never serving over 105mph because his shoulder was injured.
Sampras, when he was inspired, could do everything so perfect that to many people he was almost boring, because in those moments, when he was "in the zone", he looked as if he wasn't even trying hard and still was making return winners, pashing-shots winners against Rafter, baseline winners against Agassi, Courier or Chang, etc. That is what he had, he could do amazing things and looking as if he wasn't even trying (when he was inspired, that was not always the case at all, in fact he had many many "bad days" everywhere).
But what I meant before is that Edberg, Rafter, Henman they had to be very careful not to put them 0-30 or 0-40 in a service game, and that is why they needed to be totally focused in their games and work hard for every point, whereas Sampras (and Becker to a lesser degree) could still "weak up" in that situation, 0-40, and hit three straight aces, or play one or two points from the baseline if needed and still win them.
For Henman, Edberg or Rafter, they had to live and die at the net, and they were great at it, but at the same time it not only put a lot of pressure on his rivals all the time, but it put a pressure on themselves as well because they knew they had not a killer weapon to escape from tougher situations. They had to play their game perfectly to be successful, whereas Sampras and Becker could play very bad in several patches of each match and still, in the important points, if required, to play great (with their strongest weapons) in special moments and win the matches.
WELL DONE TROLL
nice way to excite the *******s...
Someone find a full HD link then this will be worth it.
This one is more entertaining:
It used to be Wimbledon allowed no quarter you had to be ON or get blown off the court.
That fast blast grass required skill the clay courters never even would show up.
Sampras was losing it and struggled massively on grass starting in 2000.
The hard courts of USO allowed some leeway and he did well in 2001 and 2002.
Federer should have taken him out in 3 or 4 he played career match and then level dropped.
The abuse of Sampras has reached maniacal levels.
Separate names with a comma.