Originally Posted by 90's Clay
How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.
Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down
I guess that's just another reason why Fed>>>>Sampras, Fed would never be owned on a consistent basis by noobs like Sampras was in his later years.
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.