Sergi Bruguera: "Federer is Ten Times Better Than Sampras"

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Lee, Apr 1, 2006.

  1. Lee

    Lee Guest

    Having played Pete Sampras five times in his career (and winning three of them), Sergi Bruguera is more qualified than most to compare the American’s attributes to those of current World No.1 Roger Federer. So, his assessment that Federer is ‘ten times better’ than the seven-time Wimbledon champion, carries some weight.

    Bruguera, currently competing at the Merrill Lynch Tour of Champions event in Doha, believes that Federer is superior in all aspects of the game apart from their respective serves.

    “Sampras had the better serve - that was 90 per cent of his game - but Federer has everything,” said Bruguera, who was answering fans’ questions in a BBC Sport website forum from Doha.

    “Federer is ten times better than Sampras - there is a big difference. Sampras had one of the best serves ever, his returning was ok, and he had a very good forehand. But Federer has an even better forehand, better backhand, better return game, and better touch and feel. Their volleying is pretty even.”

    The Spaniard was talking as Federer notched up a semifinal victory over David Ferrer in Miami, and Bruguera believes the Swiss may even have what it takes to win the only Grand Slam title to elude him so far – the French Open.

    “Of course Federer can win Roland Garros,” said Buguera, who won the French Open in 1993 and 1994.

    “He has shown that many times he is capable, winning Hamburg and playing in the semifinals of the French Open against Nadal last year losing in four sets. I think he lost that match because he didn’t really believe in himself. He has the perfect game for winning in Paris. For me he has the same chances as Rafael Nadal to win. But he has to have the same confidence. Maybe he sometimes isn’t as confident on clay like he is on other surfaces.”




    Source: http://www.atptennis.com/championstour/news/stories/06federer_sampras.asp
     
    #1
  2. scotus

    scotus Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,625
    Wow, if Federer is 10X better than Sampras, then Nadal must be 8X or 9X better than Sampras.

    Just what was Bruguera on when he made the statement?

    Federer is at best only slightly better than Sampras.
     
    #2
  3. Lee

    Lee Guest

    Logically, yes, but tennis matchups are not very rational:

    Check this out:

    Blake > Nadal
    Nadal > Federer
    So logically, Blake > Federer, but this is far from the truth.
     
    #3
  4. Shaolin

    Shaolin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,118
    Location:
    Kansas
    "Federer is ten times better than Sampras - there is a big difference. Sampras had one of the best serves ever, his returning was ok, and he had a very good forehand. But Federer has an even better forehand, better backhand, better return game, and better touch and feel. Their volleying is pretty even.”

    This is pretty accurate. 10x is a huge exaggeration of course but I think the ability to win the French and TMS events on clay is a huge difference between Fed and Sampras, so I see where hes coming from.
     
    #4
  5. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    Sorry I dont like the way some backers of each agressively compare the two because it means tearing the other down. Giving opinions which is better and why you feel that way, and why you feel Roger will or wont break Sampras's 14 slams record, and will or wont tie or break Sampras's 7 Wimbledon and 6 years at #1 record, is fine, but to come up with big hyperbolic statements like "10 times better" is ridiculous and disrespectful to the great champion you are referring to being on the short side of your argument. I have seen some very agressive arguments the other way that demeen Roger too, both ways are just wrong. Almost every player who has picked up a raquet the last 20 years could only dream of playing tennis like either of those two.
     
    #5
  6. Grigollif1

    Grigollif1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    659
    Lee it is way to early to say that Nadal got Fed' number. They only played four times, that is a very small number of matches. Let's wait for a few more so we can have a clear idea in Dubai Federer was completely outclassin Nadal in the First set, when he started to make a lot of unforced...i think it will be a matter of time before Federer start to Catch Nadal.
     
    #6
  7. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    I don't know. Sampras at his best was pretty much unstoppable. Not just because of his serve/volley, he had a fantastic ground game as well. He was most dangerous when he was hitting on the run. Bruguera played Sampras mostly on clay so what would he know.

    Federer is more talented than Sampras, more dominant in the last 3 years than Sampras ever was in 3 of his 6 years at #1...but to keep it up for another 3 years and win 7 more Slams will be tough, but doable. McEnroe was super dominant for a few years, Borg was even more dominant. But Sampras still tops the lists.
     
    #7
  8. Lee

    Lee Guest

    I base my judgement from this year's performance. Of course, once Federer figures out how to flatten out those high backhands (hopefully by Roland Garros this year) he will be able to handle Nadal.
     
    #8
  9. Simon Cowell

    Simon Cowell Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    354
    He (Bruguera) is obviously an idiot.
     
    #9
  10. tennissavy

    tennissavy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,839
    I think Federer is better than Sampras because he is about even with his serve but better in all other aspects of the game.

    FedererHoogenbandfan, I know you love s l u t skaya but not only did an American kick her rear end again, a Japanese did too!!! She is done, career over.;)
     
    #10
  11. joesixtoe

    joesixtoe Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    mcenroe wasnt really known for his forehand and backhand. but was able to win in other ways, and still is known to be a great great tennis player. what i'm trying to say is, federer may be known to out class sampras in some aspects of the game, but that doesn't mean sampras wouldn't be as good or if not better than federer. i hope i made that clear. lol

    p.s federers volleys just as good as sampras?? i don't think so,,, that was sampras game.
     
    #11
  12. ragnaROK

    ragnaROK Professional

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    919
    I won't give Federer the advantage at net. Sampras was better at net than Federer in my opinion. Sampras never seemed out of place at net, Federer sometimes seems awkward and indecisive about coming in.
     
    #12
  13. flymeng

    flymeng Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Mount Everest
    10X better?

    Serve to Sampras - By a bit. It had more sting.
    Return of serve to Federer - Sampras blocks back. Federer is more versatile.
    Forehand - About equal.
    Backhand to Federer - Sampras slices a lot. Federer is more versatile.
    Volley to Sampras. By a bit.
    Mental toughness to Federer. By a bit.

    I think Federer has a better chance to win the FO than Sampras. Federer's all court game is more versatile. Sergei is way off. Federer is 1.5X better, maybe.
     
    #13
  14. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    I think the word u're looking for is "lot". By a LOT.
     
    #14
  15. StraightSets

    StraightSets Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    439
    I agree. And I think Pete had a much stronger serve than Federer did.
     
    #15
  16. flymeng

    flymeng Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Mount Everest
    Nope. A lot is like comparing Sampras to Chang's serve.

    Sampras had more sting. Federer places his serve better and sets it up for an easy point. Sampras got more aces. Both held their serve easily.
     
    #16
  17. arosen

    arosen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,101
    Yeah, you tell'm Scotus, the guy cannot possibly know what he is talking about, I mean, he only beat Sampras, like, 3 times. You on the other hand, heck, you post on TW message board. That's gotta count for something, right? :)
     
    #17
  18. diegaa

    diegaa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    somewhere in between
    lol. Well said.
    Come on, you´ve gotta gave some credit to Bruguera. He could be wrong about the 10x issue but he was out there playing top pro tennis for several years... so he probably knows 1000x more about the game than anyone of us.
     
    #18
  19. darkdreaming

    darkdreaming New User

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    33
    lol well said arosen ..gosh those punk and wannabe on the forum they amazed me ..some dudes used to play professional tennis ..this dudes played Sampras ...is much much more qualified than any of us and he came up with a conclusion of course it was an hyperbole 10x better but the meaning gets accross ....according to him federer is better than Sampras doesnt mean hes going to win as much and so on ....too many factors but gosh ...even agassi went along those lines ..so what the fudge is it with those knows it all in here that would contradicts professional players .. guys! what are your credentials to argues with the Bruguera Agassi ..and so on ...i personally dont think that federer will beat Sampras record of slams but i do see with my own eyes that Fed is a better player ....
     
    #19
  20. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    No one's arguing that Federer's the better player, but Bruguera definitely sold Sampras short. I don't need to have played Sampras to know how much better he was than anyone in history whose name isn't Federer. I've seen enough Sampras records and highlights and matches to have figured that one out. If you say Federer is 10X better than Sampras, than he must be at least that much better than Borg and McEnroe and Lendl and Laver and Agassi and everyone else.
     
    #20
  21. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    I agree it is impossible to quantify how much one player is better than another.

    However, it does seem both past and present players who have played both rank Federer higher than Sampras, tennis game wise.
     
    #21
  22. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    My conclusion from this is that Bruguera does not know much about
    Sampras.

    People forget things, When Sampras was a top dog, people said
    same thing to Sampras as to Federer.

    Now he's saying Pete is serve only? This guy was routinely
    beaten like a drum by big serve and volleyrs of 90's outside
    of clay. Now he discusses serve and net game of Sampras ?

    Clay court tennis in 90's was extrememly polarized.
    He lived on clay and he is delusional outside of clay.
     
    #22
  23. joesixtoe

    joesixtoe Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    300

    federer places his serve better?? no way,, pete's serve killed people, thats why he beat agassi so many times,,, listen petes serve was much better that federers and pretty much 99% of the players ever to play,,
     
    #23
  24. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,097
    Agassi was very open about that after losing to Federer in the USO final last year. He should know. He said - with Pete there was a place you could get to using a strategy, but there is no such place with Fed.
     
    #24
  25. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    Pete had a marvellous running forehand that he used to hit countless passing shots. But he couldn't come close to Rogers' ability to hit forehands that jump (and actually seem to accelerate) off the court. Roger's forehands -- with all their variety and accuracy -- are things of beauty.

    Pete was definitely a better volleyer. But perhaps that's because he did it more than Roger, who plays a more all court game.
     
    #25
  26. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    Sampras' forehand didn't have to jump. It was so fast and angled that it was a winner anyway. Federer's forehand is better only because he can create those kinds of shots from any position, whereas Sampras usually had to be moved around to get openings. But it is ridiculous to say Sampras was just a serve, because he had a great volley, movement, and also a great ground game. If his ground game wasn't great, he and Agassi would have played a lot more tiebreakers.
     
    #26
  27. TGV

    TGV Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    141
    Most probably, the 10x thing was an exaggeration for effect, it's not to be taken literally.

    Apart from Bruguera, many have said similar things: McEnroe, Agassi, Bud Collins, Nick Bollettieri, Goran, Rafter, Stich, Safin, Santoro, Cliff Drysdale etc.
     
    #27
  28. quest01

    quest01 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,616
    The best person to ask whos better between Sampras and Federer would be Agassi. Agassi has played them both many times and in there prime. Federer may be better but Sampras had more competition. It was harder for Sampras to win titles and secure #1 for so long because of stiffer competition. There was much more competition in the 90s then there is now.
     
    #28
  29. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    Yes, and I agree with all of them, but pay respect where it's due. Just because Sampras has slipped to the #2 spot doesn't mean we should all be kissing up to Federer and leaving Sampras in the dark. "Federer is a golden God. Sampras? He was 90% serve. Not nearly as talented. Federer is a great role model as well. And he speaks many languages. And he doesn't slouch like the other guy did. And I swear, I'm not gay, but I think he's incredibly sexy."
     
    #29
  30. TGV

    TGV Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    141
    Sure. The fact that everybody compares Fed to Sampras tells you that he is standard in both achievements and level of play. Notice nobody bothers to compare Fed to Becker, Edberg, Agassi or even Lendl.
     
    #30
  31. wildbill88AA

    wildbill88AA Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    and how many times did bruguera play federer?

    how soon they forget.
     
    #31
  32. ask1ed

    ask1ed Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    605
    Sampras serve was way better, the best the world has ever seen.
    Fed. also just blocks his return, while sampras would put away the fh return, both blocked bh returns.
    Bh to fed, although Sampras sure made Agassi look bad with his bh.
    Volley to sampras.
    ABility to play better under fire: tie.
     
    #32
  33. Keifers

    Keifers Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,119
    Very good of you to defend Pete's interests like this.
     
    #33
  34. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    More competition in 90s? How do you measure that? Could it be that Federer is just too good for the rest of the competition right now?

    There are so many ways to measure competition. There was never a time in history of tennis, there are as much depth in both men and women's tennis, top 100 wise.
     
    #34
  35. flymeng

    flymeng Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Mount Everest
    OK. Sampras's serve was better. So was Ivanisevic, Becker, Krakerjack and Stich. Federer's serve is as good as Jeff Tarango's serve.
     
    #35
  36. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    depth? what depth? agassi to old. safin injured. hewitt in decline. ferraro in decline. roddick a head case, etc.etc.etc. if there were that much depth federer would lose a set now and then. these guys are beat in the locker room.
     
    #36
  37. lucky leprechaun

    lucky leprechaun Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    412
    ooohhhh! pitting sampras fanboys versus federer fanboys. I am torn, probaby like many people, as I was a sampras fanboy when sampras was playing and am now a federer fanboy when federer took over. I don't know about federer being 10x better than sampras. I think federer is only 1.2x better than sampras since sampras does have the best serve in the game, and the serve counts many times more than having a better backhand, forehand, or return game when you're purely looking at it from the standpoint of winning matches.
     
    #37
  38. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    No. I put Sampras's serve way over Federer's even in accuracy department.
    I had too many times the bone-chilling moments watching Sampras's
    serves accuracy even with 2nd serves. Compared to Sampras', Federer's
    accuracy on serving is only mediore at best.

    I know Federer is dominating like no one ever did (still not as good as
    what mcAnroe did one year.) but guys let's not overboard on
    Federer's abilities.

    To me, he is a great player with near perfect balance between
    defense and attacking game. But please don't put his serve
    same level as Sampras'. That's over-boarding in my humble opinion.
    Also, I can't not accept Federer is an all court player.
    He is the best all court player in this age. But in terms of
    whole history. He is only a baseliner. He doesn't even volley
    as much as Borg did for god's sake....
     
    #38
  39. flymeng

    flymeng Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Mount Everest
    You guys are right. What was I thinking? Brain cramping. Sampras's serve is clearly more superior. Federer's serve is mediocre. But I will take his serve over my serve anytime.
     
    #39
  40. Tof

    Tof New User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    30
    Hey Sergui, tennis is not a video game. It is not the just the sum of your shots...
    The problem ith Sampras was that his serve was so good, and his volley much better than federer's, even if federer is better in backhand, and maybe on forehand (to be discussed) he still couldn't break Pete....that's the problem. So it gets difficult to win, even ith better groundies!
     
    #40
  41. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    Federer has a fine serve. But it's returnable. You don't see it completely disorienting his opponents like Sampras' serve did. And Sampras came in on those serves, and could volley the return right into the other corner. If you could break that serve, congratulations, but his return game was also very tough. He hit the ball flat and as far away from his opponent as possible. When you're beating up a young, fast Andre Agassi from the baseline, you have to be good.

    Agassi said that there's nowhere to go with Federer. But Federer does provide openings, we've seen them over and over again, most recently with his Blake matches. But once you drop your level for 2 seconds, which any human being must do at some point, he's still there hitting the ball right back. Sampras at his best didn't even let you into the match, no opening at all. Federer is better because his level is always high, the games go by, sets, matches, days, months, years, and he never lets, but both of those guys are pretty even in different ways.
     
    #41
  42. cpd222

    cpd222 Guest

    when comparing fed with sampras, dont campare career records. so dont compare career grand slam titles and years at #1.

    sampras' best year at #1 was 65-11 in 1996.
    in over 2 years federer has been 177-10 in a field that is supposed to be deeper than ever.

    more specifically, federer has gone 2004 70-5, and 2005 81-4. sampras' best 2 seasons was 1994 77-12, 1996 65-11.

    won wimbledon and usopen back to back years.

    3 grand slams in a year.

    and what about 24 finals in a row winning. pete didnt even do half of that.

    7-0 in grand slam finals.

    federer has already won more clay court titles
    than pete

    federer has already matched sampras' best result at the french, a semifinal.

    Federer has held the #1 spot on the ATP rankings for 113 consecutive weeks, the third longest streak in history. Pete Sampras (fourth) held that spot for 102 weeks from 1996 to '98

    Federer held a record 26 consecutive wins against top ten ranked opponents

    federer has already won more titles in one year(11) sampras won 10 in 1994.

    federer has a 35 match winning streak, better than pete's 29

    won more masters series in one year(4).


    Federer shattered the record for most consecutive singles wins on U.S. soil (now stands at 47 match wins).

    the list goes on and on, and so does federer's career.

    you cant compare years at #1 yet or grand slam titles yet since federer's career isnt done yet. but records you can compare federer holds the majority over sampras.
     
    #42
  43. Insane90DegreeSpin

    Insane90DegreeSpin Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    Did you see the 2001 Sampras vs Federer? It looked like Federer based his old game on Sampras and now he's making his own version.

    It's pretty obvious that a new replacement of Fed will come sooner or later. The tennis standards keep raising every decade so we can't just compare different generations of players.

    Fed still has some weaknesses. Heck, the future generations will think that Roger isn't that good.

    His weaknesses are... bah who cares we aren't playing against him. Just sit back and be entertained otherwise Michael Jackson will release a new album. For kids. Plastic nose included.
     
    #43
  44. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    Fastdunn, he beat Krajicek in straight sets indoors. He beat Stich easily at the US Open, and on hards just a few months later, beat Korda too same tournie. He owned Rafter and beat Rafter at Wimbledon serving and volleying much of the way(mathc of the tournament according to a BBC reporter) when he lost to him in 96 he said he was tired coming from the Olympics and didn't give as much, their last match after their French bout that year was when Bruguera wasn't playing the same level he did to start the year wheras Rafter was peaking and still a very fun match, saw it.

    Did you even see his match against Sampras at the 93 Indoor year ending masters? He won the second set 6-1, when the courts were ridiculously fast and he was NOT using a Babolat or even an RD-7. In fact, he came within two points of winning the second set 6-0. Beginning of the third, Bruguera rifled a return low at Sampras' feet and Sampras just shook his head then turned around bowed down to Bruguera, after that the match was pretty much dead even. Was only one break in the first, and in the third, Bruguera played a loosed game, and Sampras two great points to get one break and close it out but even then Bruguera got some great shots in.

    In the French when he lost to Sampras, he was in no shape at all, and still had a ton of break chances which he called one of the most frustrating matches of his career.

    He also beat Korda indoors when the courts were lightning fast, he in the grand slam cup in 93 in fact, Korda beat Sampras and Stich in consecutive epic matches to win the title, but in the quarters he barely beat Bruguera in three sets, was like 7-5 in the third or something.

    Did you see his match agianst Becker in the 94 year ending semis on Becker's home turf in the year ending championshsips? Becker said he was lucky to have won, that if Brugera didn't choke at the end of the second? In the third, he lapsed mentally Becker just rolled from there on, but it was NOT some streamroll match. He took nearly every single serve on the rise, NOT at all like Muster.

    He in fact was one of the BEST indoor players of 94, only a notch below the Beckers of the world, and he also took Agassi to the limit at the masters as well, Becker watched that and se he knew it was going to very close after that.

    He was an oft injured player, his fire was either there or it wasn't, as PMac said IF and WHEN he's feeling good physically and confident, THEN a great competitor...otherwise, tanker basically.

    Did you see his match against Leconte at the 95 Paris Indoors? Again, very fast surface, and Leconte played extremely fired up and inspired, surreal crowd and vibe, yet Bruguera still reversed the momentum in the third...some GREAT points, Leconte twice applauded Bruguera believe it or not.

    Did you see his match against Sampras at the 97 Lipton? Bruguera played some truly unbelievable passes that match, an unbelievable tie-breaker, and in the third, Sampras broke back and tried to get the crowd into it, and yet Bruguera "called his bluff."

    Bruguera had some of the best passes in the game, and one of the best backhand return of serves too. His weakness on the return was the forehand, but he did pretty decently chipping it low against Sampras making him volley up on a no pace ball, totally different philosophy than Muster against net rushers. He actually WANTED Sampras to come in before their match, said passing was one of his strengths, again not like Muster.

    Also, Bruguera actually took the ball on the rise to return against net rushers on faster surfaces. His chip was the weakness against baseliners, however, who could take advantage of it, or were going for it and "on" for the day. See how Guga and Agassi whooped him at the 96 Olympic finals and the French final. THEN, his chippie return was like a sitting duck.

    Brugera also matched up better then Agassi against the running forehand, because Agassi always had a tendency to smother the ball into the net at full run, stubby arms, low top, bad combo. Bruguera on the other hand could often diffuse Sampras' running forehands because he was fast enough, and much better and could flick it back deep with top to the backhand resetting the point. Sampras was the type where IF you could withstand his "knock-out" blows, for an extra shot or two, then chances went up exponentially. Agassi simply didn't have the same speed or reach.

    Also, Bruguera's heavy topspin to Sampras' backhand...duh, then add that his backhand was as Tony Trabert said one of the best and most versatile in the game when on. He put on a clinic with his backhand at the Lipton, he could defend, hit moonball, open stance, down the line or cross-court, or for power when he wanted to, plus he held the direction of the ball till the last possible second on the backhand pass because of the way he cocked his wrist. Also, remember Agassi hit much flatter, but not TOO flat like Korda's skidding shots, the ideal strike zone for Sampras. His backhand could go red hot against Agassi at times because of this.

    Again, just matchups. It's why Ferreira matched up well with Sampras too, but look at how he did with Agassi. Ferreira was COMPLETELY owned by Agassi. Yet against Sampras? Not so. Same deal, faster than Agassi, more reach than Agassi, just like Bruguera, could track down those running forehands, but also great on the pass.

    Ferreira against Agassi though, NEVER. Agassi's the best pretty good serve eater up there ever was, it's against the great serves where he might get into trouble sometimes by gambling too much thus getting aced too much.

    Matchups, Bruguera vs. Medvedev, assuming Bruguera was on, very good match up for hm. But Medvedev vs. Kuerten not as good for Kuerten, yet Bruguera's game played perfectly into Kuerten's hands because Kuerten was so tall that Bruguera's main shots, the heavy topspin, didn't bug him at all, they bounced RIGHT into his ideal strike zone, plus awesome concentration. Bruguera hated playing Muster more than anyone, because of this.

    Yet, take Kafelnikov on Guga, was outright dismissive at times, basically saying the only reason he won their matches was because he let him, that when he was on his game he was dominating. Kafelnikov played just like Medvedev, yet could hang tough like Guga who even on off days like against Mike Russel fought his heart out literally. When Kafelnikov was at his best, US Open match annihilation is a great example yet one match later? Kafelnikov could do NOTHING against Hewitt.

    10times better, maybe to Bruguera, but that's because his game simply matched up well with Sampras'. And also, just because someone says that does not mean he means literally 6-0, 6-0 for Federer in a real match. Of course, taking it too literally. At this level, *slight* differences in match up styles count huge. Maybe was said it was not PC enough, but don't think he meant it LITERALLY.
     
    #44
  45. Tof

    Tof New User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    30
    Hey cpd 222 (hy such a name, you think we want to chase you??)

    Check who Pete was playing against when he made 14 grand slam: agassi at the top of his career (not now...), courier at the best, edberg at almost the best, becker, rafter.......pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.......

    Who federer is fighting against: nadal for 1 year, when not injured and only really good on clay. What else, ljubicic, davidenko, agassi at 35, blake.....Not too impressive.

    Of course federer is a giant and I love his game. But he could not have broken pete so often. Remember, the most important shot is the serve and Pete's one was by far the best.

    For sure, Pete would have had a positive record in Wimbledon.
    Would say tie in US open.
    Federer would win on slower surfaces (agree his records on clay are already better than Pete's).
     
    #45
  46. galain

    galain Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,007
    I don't really know how Brugera can say that 90% of Sampras' game was his serve. That's really not giving credit where credit is die - Sampras had a fantastic backcourt game as well. He tore Agassi a new one from the baseline in 99 at Wimby.

    What kept Pete at the top for so long wasn't his game as much as it was his mind. I love watching Federer and no doubt - he is an incredible talent, but to me he doesn't seem as mentally strong as Pete. In much the same mould as Lendl - Fed seems to be a great front runner. Put him in a corner and he doesn't really feel as sturdy as Pete did.
     
    #46
  47. mucat

    mucat Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,072
    Location:
    king size donut bed
    Federer does NOT place his serve better. Sampras is deadly with both of his 1st and 2nd serve placement.
     
    #47
  48. lucky leprechaun

    lucky leprechaun Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    412
    Sampras has the best 2nd serve ever, and I mean EVER! in the game of tennis. You will not see the likes of him in that part of the game ever again, just like you will never see the hands of mcenroe ever again either. Sometimes perfection is reached and you can do no better.
     
    #48
  49. morten

    morten Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,333
    well said Tym. I think competition at the very top was tougher 10 years ago, but the top 100 level is better now. Even top ...1000.
     
    #49
  50. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    Dude, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. There's plenty of guys here who not only never played on the pro tour but never played Sampras who could tell you who was really better! I hate these pro players who want to re-write history. Next thing you know they'll say Tilden is better than Agassi.
     
    #50

Share This Page