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

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

  1. Christopher

    Christopher New User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Both awesome players. But for me, Rodge takes it comfterbly. Thats my personal opinion though, I just dont believe Sampras ever had the ability to decide which type of style he was going to win with on a certain day the way Federer does.
     
    #51
  2. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,032
    Good one. Tilden over Agassi, heheheh...
    I think Tilden would have had his hands full with Donald Young!;)

    Yeah, man, inter-era comparisons are preposterous.....you can't win. They are fun to debate. So, you can't lose either.

    Sergi knows the game. Sounds like he was happy to be heard and may have added a little starch to his opinions. Let's not crucify him over semantics.
     
    #52
  3. bluegrasser

    bluegrasser Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,342
    I think with both players in their prime, they'd split matches quite a bit, with Sampras getting the edge on grass = better serve, better volley IMO.
     
    #53
  4. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,516
    Sampras was better than fed will ever be,wake up you fed lovers.
     
    #54
  5. Galactus

    Galactus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,291
    Given that he's played Sampras 34 times and Federer 11 times, I'll always go with Andre Agassi's assessment of the both of them:
    "Roger is the best I've ever played against - there's nowhere to go. He makes you play on the edge. You need to play the best tennis you've ever played. Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a 'place' to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you did it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Federer"

    The only possible loophole in his argument is that his matches vs. Federer came in the last 4-5 years, not in his prime.
     
    #55
  6. Pistol Pete

    Pistol Pete Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    251
    I am a huge Pete fan and for me to sit here and argue Pete is better will just get me yelled at. Pete Sampras in my opinion made the game look easier than federer. Pete Sampras' sheer power was just awsome and he did not set points up the way federer does he just would basically over power with his huge flat forehand and use his heavy topspin backhand to get the forehand. I honestly do not see the federer of today beating the Pete Sampras the beat Agassi at the 99 wimbledon final... I also do not see federer beating the Sampras that beat Agassi in the 01 U.S. Open quaters...Pete beat Andre with his Serve his volley and his groundies...
    They are both just out of this world and the fun is we try to compare them...but it just can never be said who is the better...just remember this when Roddick came on tour they said he had a better serve than Pete...when Hewitt came on tour they said he had the best return in the history of the sport...so things get hyped up for the audience and enterainment
     
    #56
  7. diegaa

    diegaa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    somewhere in between
    I bet you r american.... :rolleyes:
     
    #57
  8. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Typo, Please Read Below
     
    #58
  9. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    I think the only thing Pete did better then Roger was serve and volley. Everything else, Federer is better in.

    Also Federer is better on clay and is heads and shoulders above his competition, more so then even Sampras was.

    The competition these days are bigger and stronger and faster then players from the Sampras era. They might not be better (although some might be) but the players these days are phsycially superior. We have quite a few players serving over 130 on a consistant basis unlike the Sampras era when there were not nearly as many. Also EVERYBODY these days are in top phsycial shape, even ranked number 130. I think it's tougher to be number 1 these days then anytime before in the history of the game!

    Pete's biggest weapon was his serve, but we have seen Federer face Petes serve. Pete had lost a step when they met in there only meeting, but Petes serve was perfectly fine and Federer was able to handle Petes biggest weapon.

    Also Federer has a very good serve as well and Pete would definately have trouble with it. Pete never returned as good as Federer does and Federer's serve might even be a bigger weapon in there head to head match then Sampras's.

    I just don't see how Pete's strengths would beat Federer when Roger's strengths are just more well rounded. Federer has more bigger weapons then Sampras and has better defense.
     
    #59
  10. kooyah

    kooyah Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    230
    I always have to roll my eyes whenever people say "there just isn't as much competition" when discussing Federer. Isn't that the same thing as saying "Federer wins too much"? After all, there's plenty of competition. It just so happens that the majority of the time, the competition loses.
     
    #60
  11. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Physically the competition is better, there is no arguement at all about that. It's a clear proven fact. Players today are bigger and hit the ball harder then anytime before in history.

    That might not mean they are better players then people from the previous eras, BUT, they do hit the ball harder and you can't tell me or anybody that it's easier then a previous era. All the commentators and past players have said this over and over and it's obvious.

    Physically the game has advanced and it's not the same type of players that played 10 years ago.
     
    #61
  12. Turning Pro

    Turning Pro Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,430
    Sergi Bruguera is on crack.I know it may be obvious but its official now.
     
    #62
  13. diegaa

    diegaa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    somewhere in between
    Who are you guys to say the competition back then was way better than the competiton nowadays?? You are just comparing a Becker, Edberg with a Nalbandian, Nadal... what cames first? the egg or the chicken?
     
    #63
  14. Simon Cowell

    Simon Cowell Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    354
    Sampras has 14 slams, more than anyone else. Until anyone equals that, I wont give them a thought for being as great a player as he is.
     
    #64
  15. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Federer is not as great as Pete but talent wise and playing wise, I think he's already suprpassed him!
     
    #65
  16. Galactus

    Galactus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,291
    PP, I'm also a 'Sampras-ite', yet a 'pre-prime' Federer with a 13-8 record on grass beat Pete on his favorite surface just 2 months prior to the match you mentioned. And grass is still quicker than Decoturf, yet Federer's returns were far more aggressive and offensive that afternoon in '01 thsn they are now. These days, he's simply adapted to the fact that hardly anyone comes to the net off a big 1st-serve anymore.

    I also don't think Sampras was 'on-the-slide' as much as everyone likes to suggest: given his straight-set back-to-back crushings at the '00 and '01 US Opens, it was just a case of players now adaptable to his impervious serve. Although not the all-rounder he turned out to be from '04 onwards, Federer in '01 was establishing himself as being one of the best readers of serves in the game at that time: Ivanisevic, Philippoussis, Rosset, Rusedski, Arthurs...all got owned by Fed around 2000-2002.

    Anyway, I guess it all boils down to what surfaces they'd be playing on and really, only a 10-15 match rubber would truly determine this 'Mythical Matchup'!
     
    #66
  17. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,032
    I like that expression, "Mythical Matchup".
     
    #67
  18. Insane90DegreeSpin

    Insane90DegreeSpin Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    It's like comparing future players against Federer.
     
    #68
  19. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    None of them were in their best serving conditions in that span.
    Ivanisevic would made Federer cry at the baseline in 1992. He made Agassi mad in that wimby final :)
     
    #69
  20. sliceroni

    sliceroni Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    865
    Sampras may be a bit better on the volleys, as somebody said that was his game. But the only time they played each other at Wimbledon Fed was at the net just as much as Sampras and was just as good if not better than Sampras. There aren't as many great volleyers now but as Blake said a lot has to do with the poly string and racquets making it hard for net play.
     
    #70
  21. kbg

    kbg Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    168
    Everybody points to that famous Federer and Sampras match as evidence of who was better but everybody forgets about how close that match was. In the first set tiebreak, Sampras had set point on Fed's serve. Fed's first serve was long but it was called good as an ace and got him level at 7-all. Sampras had a hissy fit, screamed "That was way out!" and in fact, it was. Sampras then proceeded to lose that breaker because of that one point which he probably would have won if he got a look at a second serve. I think the whole match hinged on that point because Sampras won sets 2 and 4 and would have won the match if not for that bad call. Also, in the fifth set Sampras got two breakpoints (virtual matchpoints) on Federer at 4-all which Federer played superbly and Sampras had a lapse of concentration which enabled Federer to break at 6-5.

    I really recommend that people get a tape of this match if they don't have it already because even a subpar Pete Sampras matches a young and hungry Federer shot for shot. Pete really was that good.
     
    #71
  22. Galactus

    Galactus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,291
    No - but they were all 130mph+ bangers on fast hardcourt surfaces.
     
    #72
  23. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,516
    Yes i am american+my favorite player is nadal,so what is your point!
     
    #73
  24. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    iTym,
    I have that match on tape. Basically I saw Sampras toying with Bruguera.
    Bruguera tried to show he got some game but both Brugera
    and Sampras never believed he could beat Sampras at any moment
    in that match, IMHO. (And I thought it was meaningless round-robin
    matches. Pete already advanced and Bruguera already disqualified...
    Let me double check with my tapes..)

    Brugruera was not really a factor at the year-end Master's cup.
    He was often ridiculed by guys like Edberg.
    Against Edberg outside clay, he looked like a club player.
    Audience were laughing at the scenes where Bruguera try very hard
    to beat S&Ver's in vain. In one year, he got pretty close to beat
    Becker. It was really close but Becker did not look nervous at any moment.
     
    #74
  25. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294

    I'm somewhat surprised by this comment on Sampras.

    In an article in Tennis magazine, when they compare Agassi and Sampras,
    they said the same thing Agassi said but totally different context.
    It goes something like this,

    "Agassi punishes you from the beginning of a match.
    Absolutely no room to work with. But then in a first couple of
    matches with Sampras, players think they can beat Sampras next time.
    Typical scores like 7-6, 6-3. ONLY ONE BREAK PER SET. If I get
    lucky next time, maybe I can take it up to Sampras?
    Wrong. As time goes, players realizes they can never really
    beat Sampras feeling chilling fear."

    You think you have room to work with but you'll never
    really beat Sampras. He bites you like deadly shark.
    You think you're swimming in the peaceful water.
    One sweet bite and you're finished...

    Sampras is like sweet and mellow looking, sharp
    dressed,.. professional assassin with deadly efficency..
    Very very dangerous guy..
     
    #75
  26. Galactus

    Galactus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,291
    One of the best-ever analogies I read of Sampras-Federer comparison is as follows:


    Roger Federer, like Pete Sampras is translating his talent on court, but with seven, he is only halfway to the 14 Slams of Sampras.
    They say you can't compare across generations, that time and technology has warped any evaluation: ‘Big’ Bill Tilden never put a foot on Deco-Turf; Rod Laver never brandished an oversized Babolat; three of four Slams were once played on grass. In today’s tennis, topspin has developed exponentially, racket guts are now chosen according to surface, balls move differently and serve and volley is having its last rites. Hardcourts are being slowed down to clay-like conditions.
    Clay. The French Open. This was the one slam that Sampras never won. The Swiss surely must.

    The Swiss. We return to this argument today, tomorrow, next month, because of him, we need such a massive measuring stick because of him; we reignite this ultimate debate because we know not what else to do with Federer.
    Nothing less will do.

    Becker's 6 Slam titles spanned 37 Slam tourneys; Edberg's 6 spanned 30 Slam. Federer has won his six in the last 10 Slams he has played. He has, in the stylish slap of a wrist, made grand careers seem like inept productions. He has played his best tennis for only two-and-a-half years and already some say he belongs on the apex of this pyramid.
    Of course not. He says so himself. Best player in the world Roger? "Right now, yeah," he says. "But not nowhere close to ever, because just look at the records that some guys have."
    Still, no man among this lot has like him won their first six Grand Slam finals. Borg was five of six, so was Sampras. Still, no man has won 25 finals consecutively like he has.
    These 25 finals are worth another look, what lurks behind this statistic? Eighteen were played on hardcourt, four on grass, three on clay.
    Virtuosity meets versatility.
    Eleven times he is really pushed in 25 finals, some three-setters, some five, and he does not succumb. Not that his opposition is slight: five times he plays Roddick. Lujbcic four times. Hewitt three, Safin and Agassi twice, Nadal, Baghdatis, Gasquet, Coria, Lopez, Moya, Andreev, Fish and Henman once.

    Surely there are days in finals when he is not his best, his toe hurts, hand aches, movement is awry, rhythm off, forehand misfiring, serenity absent. It does not matter. He wins. How does he do it? We don't know. He doesn't know either. "I amaze myself that I can back it up one tournament after another. I wonder why I always play so well, and especially on the big occasions. It just seems to click for me."

    It's easier to hold Federer up for scrutiny in the shadow of Pete, because Sampras we just saw. The Swiss is not the greater player, yet, but he is the better player, and there is a difference: Greatness is the utilising of talent to the maximum, the facility to translate gifts into results over a long period, excellence married to consistency.
    If Sampras is owner of the overall less diverse talent, then what extraordinary use he made of it, for it took him to 14 Grand Slam titles. Sampras cared for nothing but the winning; there was something almost pious to his search for victory. He suffered no distraction, was graced with good health, and faced big matches with an unflinching sternness.
    Sampras was the finest, most brutally offensive player in history, a Panzer tank of a player, but Federer can attack and defend with equal felicity. The Swiss has a wider repertoire and superior imagination; if both men were architects, he would build flowing cathedrals, Sampras straight-lined skyscrapers. Sampras played shots better than we had seen them played - Federer plays shots we have never seen.

    Agassi is the best evidence in this particular debate, he has played Pete at his best, and Federer near his best (we must presume Federer can get better). Agassi has been careful not to disrespect Sampras, but at this US Open he made his most definitive statements yet. Said Agassi of Federer: "He plays the game in a very special way I haven't seen it before."
    Style will not excite Agassi as it once did, effect does. Once he said of Sampras: "Pete could always let one ball go from the baseline and it would get you in trouble right away, or he could come forward and make you hit a pressure shot in a crucial situation over and over again."
    Agassi concluded after the 2005 US Open that "Federer is the best...there's no place you can go when playing him"
    Of course, Federer is told this, and even he is stunned. "Agassi saying that I'm better than Sampras, I'm little surprised", said Federer. "But, he says what he thinks is right. I don't think he would be lying in here."

    This means more to Federer than you think. In his interview he talks about playing not just people on court, but in the history books. That people is mostly Pete, and he articulates it. No disrespect is meant to Agassi, but Federer says: "For me, I've always looked much more up to Sampras than to Agassi ... For me, Sampras' career is quite extraordinary." If you had to guess it is the single-mindedness of Sampras he is awed by.

    Federer like Pete is translating his talent on court, but with seven he is just halfway to 14 Slams. Halfway, imagine that. At two Slams a year that is four years, and that is asking a great deal. It means for six years or so, at least, Federer must avoid injury, must hold up his consistency, must do as he does now which is artfully manage his playing schedule to allow for periods of rest, must defy the growing Nadal, Ljubicic and whoever else bolts from the pack to challenge him.

    How good is Roger Federer? In truth, we don't yet know.
     
    #76
  27. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    What? Sampras said HIMSELF after the match when asked why he bowed down was that he was just playing someone that "on a roll" and that was why made that motion. Bruguera was a good INDIVIDUAL matchup against Sampras, that's all. I'm not even saying Bruguera's even close to a better "champion" than Sampras, I'm just saying in this matchup. Where is the ACTUAL evidence of people mocking Bruguera?

    You're generalizing him, Becker how would you know if he did not look nervous at all or not, what about what he HIMSELF said after the match that Bruguera probably should have won, that that he got nervous lined up the pass to break and that he would have made that shot almost any other occasion. It was a VERY intense game at 4-4 on Becker's serve, see-saw with the break point actions, Becker had to bring his best stuff to scrape this game out. At 5-4 down, though Bruguera completely choked the next game away, just gave it away in seconds with nerves, and that was that.

    Krajicek said after losing to Bruguera indoors that he couldn't believe how fast he'd gotten. I'm just saying that IF he was on his game, he could definitely give fast court players trouble on fast courts. However, IF he got even a little down on himself or was just whatever he could be steamrolled VERY quickly indoors too. His technique was VERY unsuited to fast surfaces, so if he wasn't the slightist bit alert, it made all the difference, no margin for error because of the wristiness of his forehand. A guy like Becker with the classical technique and big serve, it's not like that. With Bruguera's it was either there or not under those kinds of conditions.

    Was Rafter mocking Bruguera too then? Why then did Rafter HIMSELF say that Bruguera always gave him trouble? WHy not the same response for Muster? Now, MUSTER was a guy who didn't have great passes, but Bruguera did. Cliff Drysdale during hte Sampras match at the Lipton, boy, Bruguera can be so tough on the pass, he can get the ball soo low to your feet, well you know Patrick, and Patrick, goes, "oh, yeah, definitely..." WHEN...that's how Bruguera was. When he was all there, great, if not he was horrible.

    Bruguera played two indoor matches with Korda indoors in 93, both very close, and Korda's the one who also played close matches to beat Sampras and Stich indoors same tournament. He's not anywhere near as bad against such fast court players as you want to believe.

    Really, Leconte was NOT laughing at Bruguera in the Paris Indoors match, it was a very high quality match, both applauding each other's efforts at various times, and Leconte really was pumped up and had unbelievable crowd support.

    He also really was one of the best indoor players at the end of 94, this is fact, and was pointed out in the news conferences. The reporters kept on trying to get Becker to go oh, this is going to be a piece of cake, but he wouldn't take the bait, said himself that after watching the Bruguera-Agassi match that it was going to be close.

    Bruguera when asked about his "surprising" play indoors at the end of 94, said that it was definitely encouraging and that he would thus focus on faster surfaces in the offseaon, but he got injured instead.

    In fact, it's almost mocking to suggest an audience would be laughing at trying to beat a serve and volleyer outside clay when he HAS done so, period, fact. You're using one individual matchup with Edberg as your proof? Was the BBC reporter laughing too when he beat Rafter at Wimbledon in the "match of the tournament?" Said that he was "shocked" Bruguera was not only serving and volleying a lot but at the volleys themselves? This is the match McEnroe himself pointed to as sending Rafter, who had been considered very promising at the time, into a tailspin...injuries, etc. Injuries DO make a difference at this level. He definitely had momentum indoors at end of 94.

    How about vs. Stich? He beat him easily at the US Open, a match I saw and Stich sucked and gave up in the third basically. But then beat him 6-3, and 6-1 the next year on hards, PMac said he saw Bruguera beat Stich and Korda that tournament and so he knew this wasn't some "fluke" how he was playing against Sampras at the Lipton later on.

    Even in 90 he split matches with Stich on hard courts, both close three setters. Then, he played him indoors in 92 and and lost in three, but two of the three sets he lost were tie-breakers, was the audience laughing then too? Then, he played Stich on GRASS for Davis Cup, and three of the first four sets were 6, 5, or 7, is that so easy too?

    In the Lipton match, Sampras said afterward that he had so many opportunities and that he played like crum, he gave no credit whatsoever to Bruguera after the match basically, this is why Rafter had issues with Sampras, said that he didn't give credit or respect after losing. Yet in the 93 masters match, he didn't say that...but he also won the match as well. "Toying" with someone you shouldn't feel the need to shake your head and bow down to someone. Neither were playing like their lives were on the line in this match, but neither was tanking either. I would say it was a fairly clean match from both, because there were no real nerve issues. Bruguera didn't look like he was exactly devastated after losing in the third. Some of the passes were extraordinary in the 97 Lipton, I don't know how that can be ignored if you're going to use this match as an example for his lacking to play serve and volleyers outside clay.
     
    #77
  28. scotus

    scotus Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,624
    It does not matter how good a player Bruguera is. You could ask all the ATP players of past and present and no one would agree with his statement. Sure, many including Andre Agassi would say that Federer is better than Pete was. But they would never say that Roger is 10X better than Pete.

    It is about respect and reality-check. You do not disrespect the winner of 14 grand slams by claiming that the current top player is 10X better than he.
     
    #78
  29. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    It's a seemingly tough task for Federer but if he wins the French Open, this year, even more past players will be convinced Federer is better than Sampras and publicly say so.

    What if Federer does win the French this year? That will be FOUR in a row with Wimbledon and the USO to follow. The thought of what might be must surely excite some and make others feel uneasy.
     
    #79
  30. VictorS.

    VictorS. Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,227
    Federer's net game is not equal to Sampras'.....if it was you'd see him attacking the net more often.
     
    #80
  31. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Wow, what a sense of insecurity, and not even for yourself; for a retired clay savvant tennis player. What's all this "laughing" crap? Hey, maybe "they" were LAUGHING when Sampras SCHOOLED Bruguera...on clay...at ROLAND GAROS (supposedly Brugerra's "house" and Sampras' achilles heel).

    Brugerra's earned his place in tennis history...you don't have to worry...as a one-dimensional two-time RG winner who played in a transition era when there were not many great clay courters. And he won a grand total of 14 tournaments (all clay). Also, he had diaharrea in one match and still soldiered on...

    But then again, "they" COULD have been laughing about Edberg's record against Muster (10-0).
     
    #81
  32. legolas

    legolas Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,525
    bulls*it, dont even mention blake in a topic like this
     
    #82
  33. prince

    prince Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    752
    As to results - sampras owns it now , but roger is a work in progress.

    talent wise - so far roger is the best player that ever played .
     
    #83
  34. 156MPHserve

    156MPHserve Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,076
    I would say Federer is better too. Even Pete had many losses here and there because his game was quite straight forward. Try to get as many aces as you can. If you can't, you can blast good serves and finish off with a big forehand or volley. If that doesn't work, he's screwed. Federer has much more variety and game. Still, For Federer to dominate as long as Pete did, and be as consistent, I'd like to see him equal Pete.
     
    #84
  35. mucat

    mucat Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,072
    Location:
    king size donut bed
    So Federer should win 140 slams comparing to Sampras 14 slams. Federer has to win all 4 slams for the next 34 years ((140-7)/4). Oh god, not very promising for us tennis fans, we will have very boring slams finals for the next 34 years. I like to watch Federer play as much as the next guy, but not for 34 years... :mad:
     
    #85
  36. mucat

    mucat Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,072
    Location:
    king size donut bed
    Or Sampras can play like us, dink the serve in and poke the groundstrokes and hope for the best.

    What make Sampras so good is, it always works, it works so well he earned 14 grand slam titles. And isn't "blast good serves and finish off with a big forehand or volley." a very common tennis strategy??? Federer also blast good serves and finish off with a big forehand or volley.
     
    #86
  37. sarpmas

    sarpmas Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Think about this... even when the whole tour knew about Sampras weakness, they are still unable to truly exploit the weakness and stop Sampras from dominating the circuit for 6 consecutive years! This shows me how great Sampras is. If you have no weakness, you are expected to win. But you have a weakness and still able to withstand all sorts of attacks and win, this is even a more amazing feat.
     
    #87
  38. Onion

    Onion New User

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Regardless of who's better or not, who do you think had better competition? Sampras or Federer?

    Sampras played during an era of top notch tennis players. Each big tournament or major Pete would have to go through one, two, three, sometimes four to win a title. There were too many greats to list...

    Who does Federer compete against now that is in the same class as Pete's competition? Not saying there aren't great players now, just curious who and are there as many?

    I don't watch as much tennis these days. I just can't think of too many players today that are really spectacular. Nadal on clay is pretty deadly, but how is he on say grass? Hewitt seems to be in a slump. Agassi is great, but not the player he was several years ago. Roddick is a serving cannon, but has no real game IMO. Nalbandian? Nah. Blake looks to be promising. I bet he'll win a couple majors before he's done.

    But man, back during Sampras' career there were just so many players that were outstanding.

    Given that and the changing of surfaces and equipment, I don't think it's fair to compare Federer to Sampras. They're both great. To compare the two, you'd need them to play each other year after year during their primes. Only after looking at numerous results could you say definitively who's better.

    When it's all said and done, the thing to compare is accomplishments. And as is, Sampras has a long list of those. Give Federer some time and see what he can do. It'll be impressive at the very least.

    This stupid argument is like comparing Wilt Chamberlain to Shaquille O'neal. Both great, but so much has changed between their careers...
     
    #88
  39. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,372
    While their career achievements up until today look quite similar, one cannot deny, that Federer has a stronger grip on the tour since 2004, than Sampras ever had - except the first half of 1994, when his was equally dominant and was slowed down by an injury. Federer simply wins all the time, despite not playing the standard he played in 2004. Like Borg, he has built up a psychological advantage over his peers (except Nadal) and goes for the tiebreakers more, without being a dominant server. Maybe players like Ljubicic or Nalbandian don't feel themselves as real top players, contending for the very top. Ljubicic looks more like a journeyman, who turned late and surprisingly into a top tenner. Normally a server like Ljubicic should excel in the tie breaker, but in finals he seems to get tight (also vs. Nadal or Berdych last year). I miss players, who really feel as potential champions, like Safin or Joachim Johansson.
     
    #89
  40. Galactus

    Galactus Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,291
    It carries NO weight at all and he is NO position to make such a statement:
    1 - He played Sampras just 5 times and won 3 - all on clay.
    2 - He played and beat Federer in one solitary match in 2000 - on clay.
     
    #90
  41. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    It's pretty well agreed upon that Federer is the slightly better player - more dominant day in day out, holds all these crazy records and streaks. But the biggest reason you can say that is just by watching his game and seeing that he has zero weaknesses, except maybe the hard lefty spin to his backhand followed up by another aggressive shot. But that's a very specific weakness and one that he'll probably iron out soon.

    The tour has more depth now, meaning guys that you face in the first few rounds are tougher than ever. Everyone is working hard to bring out the best in their game. However, I think you can say that Sampras had to deal with a lot more greats at the top. A lot more guys that were just born to win. The top 10 today is somewhat diminished - Agassi stayed in the top 10 until Sunday by playing less than everyone else and never being fully 100%, not even in the US Open. Coria, Gaudio, Davydenko, Roddick, Ferrer...these are the kinds of guys Sampras would have eaten up in his prime.
     
    #91
  42. ericsson

    ericsson Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,679
    Location:
    Land of beer and chocolate
    conclusion: their both GREAT players and you just cant compare, federer can brake the record but he hasn't so far so we'll see about that. but as for burguera, it's really dumb to say something like 10 times better, he should know better. pete in his best was to be scared off, i remember kafelnikov said when he'd won aussie open, thanks pete!!! (cos he didnt played there that year) ;)
     
    #92
  43. William NG

    William NG Guest

    Tennis is and Art for Federer and Sampras

    Dear all,

    I used to be a big fan of Pete Sampras and now a fan of Federer, I do have to say that the game of both players are very similar. Esp. when they are playing badly but still win their matches.
     
    #93
  44. William NG

    William NG Guest

    Tennis is an Art for Federer and Sampras

    Dear all,

    I used to be a big fan of Pete Sampras and now a fan of Federer, I do have to say that the game of both players are very similar. Esp. when they are playing badly but still win their matches.

    I think Federer is an extension of the legacy of Sampras game and he had perfected it with greater precision and consistency. I dont agreed that Federer is 10 times better but rather I do think Federer does learn from Sampras game a lot, even though he denied it.

    Federer Forehand is better with a base ball like holding of the grip and using mostly his upper body uncoil to generate lots of side spin and kick which makes it powerful with consistency.

    His serve looks very very relax but very effective. He is the ONLY player on the tour in my opinion has the Old Fashion touch of the game rather than pure Muscle on the tennis balls.... which is great news for tennis... I'm so surprise that the legacy of the Old didn't fade away thanks to Federer and Sampras...

    Their touches on the tennis ball is the prove to modern players that Tennis is an Art! rather than pure striking at the ball... it's like an artist at work seeing them play... I need to thank God for players like Federer and Sampras, although not the biggest on the tour with their built but were the dominant player in their era of tennis...

    I dont want to see these Art of Tennis legacy fade away and am still learning to play like them in my game...

    William
     
    #94
  45. Mugatu

    Mugatu Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    199
    obviously "10 times better" is a bit of hyperbole. but it is a bit disrespectful to sampras...

    i'm inclined to agree though, that federer has better groundstrokes and i don't think many would disagree that federer moves better on the court. however, that is to say that sampras wouldn't be able to beat federer more times than not.. simply that federer is a more complete player.
     
    #95
  46. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    If you look at the top players from 81-92 (Sampras coming in to his own from 93 on) you'd have to say they had infinitely more competition - as regards truly Great players- than either Sampras or Federer ever faced.
    While a win is still a win, no-matter who it's against, there is a huge difference between knocking off a Roddick, Ferrero, Philippoussis Ivanisevic, Rafter, Chang, Pioline or Courier and having to face up to a Lendl, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Borg or Becker in their prime (Id consider Becker in 95 to be past his best).
     
    #96
  47. ericsson

    ericsson Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,679
    Location:
    Land of beer and chocolate
    if you consider becker at his past in '95 then its time you start looking some dvd's man, especially the finals he played in '95 and the masters in '96 in stuttgart, man! one of the best matches ever!!! two times 5 sets, one time becker one, next sampras. incredible shots, aces, great volley's. if you're past you can't beat sampras at his best!!! ;)
     
    #97
  48. Shabazza

    Shabazza Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    5,106
    why don't you guys just revive the Sampras-Federer comparison thread! It's all been said already, this discusion is boring as hell! :rolleyes:
     
    #98
  49. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    It's really impossible to compare competitions.
    There were some similar talks about lack of competitions when
    Sampras just started to dominate. But that issue kinda dis-appeared
    as times go by(because some players still managed to win gland slams
    while Pete was dominating).

    However, at the moment there are some tangible differences:
    1. Sampras had to compete with more variety of players: huge serve and
    volleyers, tons of power baseliners, more lefties, more touch feely players.
    And when power serve and volleyers get hot on one day, there's nothing
    much even the greatest player can do.
    2. The average height of top players are shorter now for Federer.
    Right now, it's all about baseliners and top players are shortest
    in about 20 years I followwed tennis.


    I'm really hoping we have more varieties in the near future.
    I don't want to see big power players like Safin, Roddick
    or Lubicic never win salms again. I want to see Wimbledon
    changes condition a bit favorable for Serve and Volleyers
    like Dent, Stepanek or Henman( we can not have them
    extinct!). I also want to see more of touch feelly artists.
     
    #99
  50. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    Sampras said the secret to winning on grass, for him, was returning well. Fed's returns are considerably better than Sampras' ever was.
    Fed became a totally different player about 2 years ago. Another way of interpreting that match was a talented-but-still-extremely-raw Federer beat a seasoned Sampras who wasn't too far removed from his prime, if arguably out of his prime at all.
    Do some people here honestly believe that Bruguera really means 10 times better as if he found a way to quantify it perfectly? Look, if I say Pizza Hut it a million times better than Papa John's, I wouldn't recommend wasting time wondering how I managed to quantify it. It's just a figure of speech. Bruguera is simply saying that in his opinion Federer is much better than Sampras. Holy poop.
    Once you reach the quarters or semis, the competition between now and then is very close. What makes the competition tougher TODAY IMO is that the competition is stiffer from the very first round onward. Every round is a potential danger zone. Not as true back then. Players today have to be on point every single round. No freebies.
    Huh? That's like me saying "I don't really listen to music these days but it seems like the bands today aren't as good."
    Well, in that case, Sampras never won a Grand Slam, let alone two, so he's not as good as Laver.
    It's not stupid, it's FUN. Ali versus Tyson. Discuss.
    So what's your "position" based on?
    To all the people hung up on the "10 times" part, I give you "infinitely." Fixate at will. :mrgreen:
     

Share This Page