Sampras at age 29-30

[ark_28]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I doubt it.. Because Nole or Murray wouldn't have been breathing down Fed's in the slam count like Rafa has been for the past few years. Only injuries probably stopping Nadal from eclipsing Fed in slam count, and total domination in the h2h (worse then it is now)


Had Nadal not been around, I would wager Fed would have lost major motivation (around the same age Pete did)

This!! Nole only really started dominating in 2011 and Murray only became. Slam winner last year!

The fact that Federer has a main rival who he had a losing record too kept him motivated!

Pete really was not motivated in his last few years but when people started questioning his ability and blaming his wife plus comments from Rusedski it fired him up so clearly the ability never went just motivation!

Good to see another sensible Pete fan btw

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Explain Pete destroying Andre during Andre's non meth years then? Was 'Dre on meth for 12 years from 1990-2002?

He never destroyed Agassi. 20-14 is competitive, considering more matches were played on surfaces favorable to Sampras.

And Sampras only won because Agassi wasn't committed enough and was busy deciding on wigs and doing meth.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Why do ****s like to create these threads? Fed has accomplished a lot. Why do they need to further their own insecurities..

Only insecure fans act this way. And there is no fan base more insecure then the Fed fan base. Sad really.. After all Fed has accomplished

Look, I like both. I grew up watching Sampras play, and during most of my adult years cheered for Federer. So trying to stand in the middle here....

Both players are legends, and have done remarkable things in their historic careers. The bottom line is that their names will be remembered through the history books when people look back on the players that defined this sport. In an essence, both have reach immortality as a result of their hard work, dedication to their craft. All this petty bickering does not change what these players mean to this sport.

If people are insecure in creating these threads. Then you have equally insecure fans that feel the need to retaliate, because if they don't, somehow the original flamming message would be the word of God, and that player truly was medicore. Neither was Sampras and neither is Federer.

[tennisaddict]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Why do ****s like to create these threads? Fed has accomplished a lot. Why do they need to further their own insecurities..

Only insecure fans act this way. And there is no fan base more insecure then the Fed fan base. Sad really.. After all Fed has accomplished

What is there to feel insecure ? Even if Rafa gets to more majors than Fed, at least there is no current player on the ATP who will get to all the other records created by Fed. So that is far from the truth.

What we would like to highlight through these threads is the gap between Fed and other greats like Sampras and Nadal.

Also what you need to appreciate is the effort that Fed puts in day in and day out at age 31 whereas Sampras threw in the towel at age 29 as evidenced by these pathetic losses.

Today when Fed loses to Berdych , Tsonga or Delpotro every one bashes Fed saying he does not have the tools to handle big servers or hard hitters and needs to quit. What they dont realize or fail to understand is Fed is not having the losses that Sampras had and is still strong even at this age, when he neednt be motivated any more as his records are so much out of reach from the rest.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

He never destroyed Agassi. 20-14 is competitive, considering more matches were played on surfaces favorable to Sampras.

And Sampras only won because Agassi wasn't committed enough and was busy deciding on wigs and doing meth.

Fed is 0-2 vs. Nadal on hard courts at the slams (been losing to Nadal on hard courts since Nadal was wearing Diapers), Fed's arguable best surface, Hands down Nadal's WORSE. Whats Fed's excuse there?

... Oh yea.. Matchup.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed is 0-2 vs. Nadal on hard courts at the slams (been losing to Nadal on hard courts since Nadal was wearing Diapers), Fed's arguable best surface, Hands down Nadal's WORSE. Whats Fed's excuse there?

... Oh yea.. Matchup.

Both came against post-prime Federer when Nadal was in his prime. And yes, match-up. Not to mention, Federer is better at Wimbledon and the USO than at the Australian Open. And you know that.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Richard Krajicek? Are you too scared to acknowledge him?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Both came against post-prime Federer when Nadal was in his prime. And yes, match-up. Not to mention, Federer is better at Wimbledon and the USO than at the Australian Open. And you know that.

And Nadal is WORSE on all those surfaces compared to clay.. Yet he also beat prime Fed at Wimbeldon (Lucky Fed didn't play him after 200.

I have my own suspicions how the USO would have gone as well

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Richard Krajicek? Are you too scared to acknowledge him?

6-4 h2h? Pete won the last few matches.

Surely not as bad Fed's issues with Nadal outside of indoors

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

And Nadal is WORSE on all those surfaces compared to clay.. Yet he also beat prime Fed at Wimbeldon (Lucky Fed didn't play him after 200.

I have my own suspicions how the USO would have gone as well

Atleast Prime Federer never received a straight-set beat-down at his best Slam from anybody.

Krajicek!

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I doubt it.. Because Nole or Murray wouldn't have been breathing down Fed's in the slam count like Rafa has been for the past few years. Only injuries probably stopping Nadal from eclipsing Fed in slam count, and total domination in the h2h (worse then it is now)


Had Nadal not been around, I would wager Fed would have lost major motivation (around the same age Pete did). Possibly would have retired a few years ago

yeah but first I think Federer doesn't really want to let go of the feeling of beating everyone and getting the trophy and also since pete won 13 slams and broke the record, the emphasis has been on breaking records. Pete thought his record would stand for ages but I think Federer would stick around to keep on racking titles up. Could be wrong but I think these days the focus on breaking records is way more. Like someone mentiioned Sampras only had 11 masters but masters have become more important these days, tennis has changed a lot. If Sampras was around these days he'd probably be trying to win more masters and play into his mid 30s

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

6-4 h2h? Pete won the last few matches.

Surely not as bad Fed's issues with Nadal outside of indoors

LOL, 4-6 against someone like Krajicek is way more embarrassing than a 10-18 against one of the GOATs like Nadal who is 5 years younger who you played mostly on Clay

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Towser83

I like how you highlighted the word destroyed by capatalising it, but apparently you have an odd definition of it. The only times Nadal has destroyed Federer are RG 2008 and Miami 2011 and maybe 2004. Even something like MC 2008 (7-5 7-5) is a fairly comfortable win but not a destruction.

I do agree Sampras had a lack of motivation though, but I think even if Federer had no Nadal to deal with, I think he'd still be motivated to deal with the youngsters like Djokovic and Murray. I don't think Federer has tired of the feeling of competing and winning titles. In the 90s the world of tennis was different, it's become insane these days, where the top guys must be playing every evernt and in the semis/finals all the time or something is wrong and they are "finished". There is ever more pressure to win and break records these days.

Yea.. There is more pressure when you got a guy breathing down your neck and ready to overtake you in the slam count (Like Nadal was doing with Fed prior to injuries stopping him a few times).

However, there was no one close to Pete in this regard because he TOOK CARE of his main rivals on the big stage (something Fed FAILED to do).

If Fed wasn't Nadal's patsy, he would have been out of reach a long time ago and could have retired early.

... Refer Back to my first post..

[DRII]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yea.. There is more pressure when you got a guy breathing down your neck and ready to overtake you in the slam count (Like Nadal was doing with Fed prior to injuries stopping him a few times).

However, there was no one close to Pete in this regard because he TOOK CARE of his main rivals on the big stage (something Fed FAILED to do).

If Fed wasn't Nadal's patsy, he would have been out of reach a long time ago and could have retired early.

... Refer Back to my first post..

I largely agree, but breaking records has certainly been motivation for Federer. His very good 2012 was mostly about surpassing Sampras' weeks at number 1.

Those of us who have witnessed both eras know there are asterisks that go with each. Sampras clearly did not value certain criteria which later on would prove to be more important (skipping or showing little interest in the Olympics for example). He had very particular goals and focused heavily on those at the expense of others.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by DRII

I largely agree, but breaking records has certainly been motivation for Federer. His very good 2012 was mostly about surpassing Sampras' weeks at number 1.

Those of us who have witnessed both eras know there are asterisks that go with each. Sampras clearly did not value certain criteria which later on would prove to be more important (skipping or showing little interest in the Olympics for example). He had very particular goals and focused heavily on those at the expense of others.

Well yea... But it was Pete who Put the records there for Rog to break.. Pete had broken most of the records (At least the major ones in his 20s). YE#1, most weeks #1, Slam count, YEC, Wimbledon titles etc.

So I'm not understanding why people find it so hard to believe Pete lost some motivation. He broke the major records, and put the slam count way out of reach..

Other then winning the French (which for whatever Pete gave up on after 96)... There wasn't much left for Pete to do. Major records broke, domination over his main rival contemporaries for 6-7 years. He had done what he set out to do


... and again with Nadal breathing down Fed's neck making him have to win more slams. Its easy to say why Fed stayed motivated.. He HAD to stay motivated



Id probably lose motivation too if I was Sampras.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

This thread is not about Federer-Nadal or Pete's records.

Let us stay on topic

Why did Pete lose to so many players outside of top 30 when he was age 29 /30 ? Was it no motivation alone ? Still why would you keep losing half your matches like that ?

because he was rubbish.

[MonkeyBoy]

In Sampras' defense: human physiology is subjective, and while Pete has a poorer late career, he also had a better early career, winning his first major at 19, 1 month, instead of 21, 11 months

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by MonkeyBoy

In Sampras' defense: human physiology is subjective, and while Pete has a poorer late career, he also had a better early career, winning his first major at 19, 1 month, instead of 21, 11 months

True that.. Sampras won the USO 12 years apart.. I hardly call that "normal"

How many guys win slams 12 years apart? Sampras could still play from 29-30. Not sure what people are talking about here.

The USO showed Pete still had plenty of game

[Mick3391]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

I wanted to analyse Sampras's performance when he was 29-30 in relation to Federer's performance post year 2009.

It is mindboggling to see the kind of losses Sampras has had during these years. Sampras fans make it as though that but for clay he was god and also in clay , he was very competitive pre-1996. How can a grass and hard court god suffer so many losses when not even crossing 30 ?

I was seeing the calibre of players and the rankings of players over the top 30 whom Sampras lost to when he was age 29-30

Total 2002 win-loss : 27-17, Losses outside top 30 : 11

Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) Ranking 85 - 2002 Long Island
Wayne Arthurs (AUS) Ranking 70 - 2002 Cincinnati
George Bastl (SUI) Ranking 145 - 2002 Wimbledon
Nicolas Kiefer (GER) Ranking 66 - 2002 Halle
Andrea Gaudenzi (ITA) Ranking 69 - 2002 French
Nicolas Escude (FRA) Ranking 30 - 2002 Dusseldorf
Max Mirnyi (BLR) Ranking 39 - 2002 Hamburg
Felix Mantilla (ESP) Ranking 45 - 2002 Rome
Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) Ranking 62 - 2002 Miami
Wayne Ferreira (RSA) Ranking 48 - 2002 Scottsdale
Todd Martin (USA) Ranking 57 - 2002 Adelaide

Total 2001 win-loss : 35-16, No of Losses outside top 30 -9

Max Mirnyi (BLR) - Ranked 53 - 2001 Germany
Alberto Martin (ESP) - Ranked 38 - 2001 Cincinnati
Galo Blanco (ESP) - Ranked 76 - 2001 French
Alex Calatrava (ESP) -Ranked 50 - 2001 Hamburg
Harel Levy (ISR) -Ranked 54 - 2001 Rome
Andy Roddick (USA) -ranked 119 - 2001 Miami
Andrew Ilie (AUS) - ranked 43 - 2001 Scottsdale
Chris Woodruff (USA) - ranked 96 - 2001 Memphis
Todd Martin (USA) - ranked 54 - 2001 AO

How many of you have heard of Andrew Ilie , Chris Woodruff, Alex Calatrava ?

Will Federer have these kind of losses in his last 2 years ?

Sampras didn't care, you should read up on him, his thoughts and attitudes about Tennis. Sampras was a MONSTER, second best in my opinion. He did benefit from faster courts, would have had more trouble today. Fed on the other hand would have been more dominant on the faster courts of the 90's.

Love what Aggassi said on the Tenniography thing about Sampras serve, "Get in your serve reception area, take to lunges to your left and mark it, then two to your right and mark it, Sampras would hit either any time he wanted, or he'd just put it at your body.

Sampras would take reception sets often knowing that he's ALWAYS get serve, then break once out of the blue and match is over.

Great players all of these guys! Fed is just the bomb, so consistant for so long, just incredible.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yea.. There is more pressure when you got a guy breathing down your neck and ready to overtake you in the slam count (Like Nadal was doing with Fed prior to injuries stopping him a few times).

However, there was no one close to Pete in this regard because he TOOK CARE of his main rivals on the big stage (something Fed FAILED to do).

If Fed wasn't Nadal's patsy, he would have been out of reach a long time ago and could have retired early.

... Refer Back to my first post..

yeah but when Fed took care of his rivals then then it was "weak era" etc,..

Look I'm kind of giving Sampras his due here- in his day no one cared as much about certain things, like masters were way less important - if they were Sampras might have more. In this day and age, Nadal or no Nadal, people expect a player to be in the semis/final every single event and winning slams all the time. Sampras breaking the 12 slam mark was actually a big factor in record breaking becoming such a huge issue. I also see Federer as less willing to let go of his tennis world.

And prior to Nadal getting injured he was only winning RG, having failed to take care of Djokovic at the other 3 slams. He would have a chance to overtake Federer but would likely need to win slams apart from RG again which wasn't a given at all. You can use all the injury excuses but the big thing that stopped Nadal was Djokovic (without him Nadal would pass Federer with little doubt) and that AO match with him is probably what caused his latest problem.