View Single Post
Old 10-02-2012, 11:11 AM   #33
tennis_pro
G.O.A.T.
 
tennis_pro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Germany, Munich
Posts: 15,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90's Clay View Post
Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.
Sampras losses in 1993:
- Edberg at the AO (straight sets)
- 33-year old Lendl in Philadelphia (straight sets)
- 22nd ranked Volkov in Indian Wells (straight sets)

- 87th ranked Eltingh (who? that doubles specialist?) in Atlanta (straight sets)
- Ivanisevic in Rome (straight sets)
- Bruguera in Rome (straight sets - 6-3 6-1 to be exact)
- Bruguera at the French Open
- Grant Stafford (who?) ranked 110th in Queen's on grass
- Brett Steven (who?) ranked 45th in Canada (straight sets)
- Edberg in Cincinnati
- Rafter (who was ranked 139th and half the man he became in 1997) in Indianopolis
- Costa (Carlos Costa) in Stockholm, for the record he was ranked 30th something which ain't shocking in Sampras' career. Now if Federer lost to a guy ranked 30th in his prime, the haters would be blowing all horns.
- Ivanisevic in Paris
- Stich at the Tour Finals
- Kodra in the Grand Slam Cup


Obviously, Sampras' competition will look stiffer if he has issues winning sets against pensioners and guys ranked outside the top 100. Also, there pretty much goes Sampras mental fortitude, out of the 15 losses he suffered in 1993 as many as 8 have been straight sets. What a fighter Sampras was!

Now compare it to Federer.

4 losses to Nadal - all 4 competitive (3 on clay)
1 loss to a teenage Murray in straight sets, a match I remember well as Federer was exhausted after winning Canada
__________________
Just shows you how pointless H2H's are. Nadal beat Fed but in the end it meant jack, they both walked away with nothing. It's about winning titles.

Last edited by tennis_pro : 10-02-2012 at 11:50 AM.
tennis_pro is offline   Reply With Quote