The weak era was first used against Federer, then Fed fans started to use this argument against Djokovic or Nadal.
please list all the rivals pete has a winning record over, but only the ones as talented/accomplished as Rafael or Novak. take all the time you need
I guess 17 year old Rafa was too much of a challenge for world #1 peak Fed to beat on hard court.please list all the rivals pete has a winning record over, but only the ones as talented/accomplished as Rafael or Novak. take all the time you need
Didn't Fed struggle against the thundrous volleying of Tim Henman and not secure a winning record over said giant until he was 32?Sampras couldn't even accrue winning records over Hewitt, Safin and Roddick
Didn't Fed struggle against the thundrous volleying of Tim Henman and not secure a winning record over said giant until he was 32?
Not at all. Federer himself has stated multiple times he has improved with age (like a fine wine I suppose) so his losing h2h against Djokovic over the past 5 years or so is actually more proof of Novak's superiority and a nail in the coffin of Fedfans claiming it would be otherwise if "prime" Fed, which I assume means *young* Fed since *this* Fed has been established as *prime* Fed by THE Fed, played Novak...unless you are disputing Fed's assessment of his level?Interesting how you bring up age when it's convenient for you, it's old Agassi and 32 year old Henman when it suits you but Federer only losing the h2h lead over Djokovic when he's 34+ is dismissed...it's almost as if you have an agenda
I assume you have a quote to back this up?
Completely agree, except that some RF fans change their beliefs with the wind, as it suits them.
You're quoting an article from 2003 LOL? You do realize Sampras has said much about his best level and opponents since 2003, right?We've discussed this before.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-83754.html
"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older..."
Tour got stronger, #145 George Bastl would probably give 1994 Pete hell on the grass
Yet more proof of arrogance...We've discussed this before.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-83754.html
"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older..."
Tour got stronger, #145 George Bastl would probably give 1994 Pete hell on the grass
Not at all, more time gives greater wisdom and perspective, like how 2019erer considers himself a better player now than ever.
correct..Rafa is the greatest or second greatest player of all time...and you listed zero names, as expected
No, he just lacked perspective, like fans of 2004-7erer
Well I did list Henman and Rafter previously so I thought that would be redundant.
Correction, Pete. You were winning overly fast slams such as W and USO left and right. The slower slams that required a complete skill set, FO and AO, you won twice overall. Twice isn't left and right.We've discussed this before.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-83754.html
"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older..."
Tour got stronger, #145 George Bastl would probably give 1994 Pete hell on the grass
I'm starting to smell an agenda here, I mean Federer has reiterated that he's a better player now several times but he's never said it with such conviction as, "I was 10 times the player as I got older..." If Sampras can be so certain of his superior play as an oldie and the increasing standard of play on the tour how can you disagree with him? I thought players were the authority on their own play...
I dont mind talking about eras being weak or not, but it can be used both ways, and we will never know for sure. Plus, it does not mean they would not win if it was strong. That is why we should still value all wins the same, otherwise it is just one opinion verse another.
I agree with his more recent quotes that reflect his fuller wisdom and understanding, unless 2013erer is truly the besterer?
Oh, so the issue is the lack of Sampras quote production from me. I assume then if I produce a more recent Sampras quote that states his highest level was in the 90s and that 90s competition was deeper than 2000s that you'll stop pretending Sampras said the same thing about his level that Fed does about his in order to distract from the disturbing conclusion that Djokovic is better than peak Federer?
Self-awareness is a beautiful thing to behold.
Wait, you compared Henman and Rafter to Rafa and Novak??
How its gone for me? To avoid the implications of Federer's actual assessment of his own level you had to misrepresent an entirely different player's beliefs about his own. I'd say it went really well.
Then they can bring it.
Your...desire to get the heart of PETE'S true beliefs about his level which in itself was a sad ploy to distract from the implications of Fed's assessment of his own collapsed like a house of cards when I asked if producing more recent quotes would heal your confusion over the apparent disconnect in Pete's assessment of his level and his actual level. Rather than give a straight answer you deflected to the bizarre claim that the validity of a pro's assessment of their level is tied to how close this assessment is to the time in question, which I treated about as seriously as it deserved. Game, set, match, SaintPetros.
You are ridiculous. Must get boring being a full time troll.
Sorry for sounding too condescending and dismissiveOmala, it's alright. Neither of us is gonna win a prize for winning an argument, so truce
Didn't you say you agreed with me that PETE was GOAT?
He must have meant a GOAT, not the GOAT.
You tried to excuse your hypocrisy by making claims about more recent Sampras statements, of which I've seen none, and then by saying that the more recent quotes are more valid. To back this up you resorted to the cliche of "older and wiser", which is a meaningless saying - not everyone is wiser as they got older no?Sorry for sounding too condescending and dismissive
I'm speechless@NatF ... simple question for you and I'd appreciate a direct and precise answer. I consider Pete Sampras a better player than Roger Federer. Do you have a problem with that?
So far as weak eras are concerned, I agree. I've said more times than I can count ... weak era arguments have 0 merit
Now I understand.So was I ... when they said Djokovic was just a talent-less pusher!
They will never leave the forum these days sadly. How anybody call 2005 or 2007 weak is mindblowing. The real big drop is only 2016/17 to now.
Add to that that 2008 is suddenly considered stronger than 2007 just because Nadal edged Federer in the Wimbledon final.In reality 2008 wasn't stronger but you can't mess with the agendas on this board.