Sampras at age 29-30

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

And Federer has a 100% winning record against Sampras. Aaarrrgh, that must hurt!

And 5 year retired Sampras was still serving down aces and unreturnables against peak Fed. Win or lose, he was aceing him.

I'll count to 1. 1. There.

You keep counting.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Blocker

And 5 year retired Sampras was still serving down aces and unreturnables against peak Fed. Win or lose, he was aceing him.

I'll count to 1. 1. There.

You keep counting.

In an exhibition match? LOL Baby Federer sent Sampras home by beating him on his best surface. That must sting. Sampras sucked in his later years. It doesn't matter if it's because he lost motivation, he still sucked. 5 wins and 6 losses at the French Open? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Towser83

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.

Federer, and Nadal on clay, have created that monster.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

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

The reason it comes across to some people as Sampras "destroying" Agassi is because Sampras beat Agassi in all 4 of their US Open matches pretty comfortably, despite the fact that Agassi was the pre-match favourite before all 4 of those matches.

[Agassifan]

Pete ain't worth bashing anymore. Post FO 2009, that is. He isn't irrelevant by any means, but comparing him to Roger when Roger has taken pretty much every one of his records is a bit silly.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

In an exhibition match? LOL Baby Federer sent Sampras home by beating him on his best surface. That must sting. Sampras sucked in his later years. It doesn't matter if it's because he lost motivation, he still sucked. 5 wins and 6 losses at the French Open? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Statistically Fed had the advantage. Tennis players are more likely to win slams at a younger age than in the last couple of years. Heck Sampras won the USO at 19, so that match went as expected, very much within the bell curve. But then Sampras won the USO in his last slam. Best book end player ever.

As for those exhibitions, Federer still got aced. Whether that match was for Fed's life, a million bucks or for W, he still got aced.

[timnz]

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 surface AND conditions matter. The huge Myth that doesn't seem to go away is that hard court is Nadals worst surface. We have to distinguish between outdoor hard and indoor hard. Every player will tell you that they could be considered completely different surfaces. Now indoor hard court is Nadals worst surface. He has never beaten Roger on that. Outdoor hard is Nadals possibly second best surface. Most outdoor hard courts are very slow surfaces these days (with the possible exceptions of US open and the US open series, which are medium paced) this suits Nadal hugely. If you don't think outdoor and indoor matters - then okay lets combine them - Roger is ahead - so what's your point then?

So summary indoor (hard or carpet) is Nadal worst playing situation....not just blank statement hard court.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

Pete ain't worth bashing anymore. Post FO 2009, that is. He isn't irrelevant by any means, but comparing him to Roger when Roger has taken pretty much every one of his records is a bit silly.

Well by that reasoning let's all go home. Bar Laver's double grand slam, Fed's achievements over all shadow everyone else. So why single out Pete? Why not single out Lendl, or Borg, or McEnroe? Or anyone else?

I think I know why. The one player Fed fans would not want to see their player play in a prime v prime match is Sampras. Wimbledon is the biggest show on earth, and against Sampras in his prime in the biggest match of the biggest show on earth, it could get very ugly for Fed.

And that's just the fans. What about Fed himself? He can accept the *** reamings he copped against Nadal at the FO, but facing PISTOL Pete on W Centre Court might just be enough to make the great Swiss cry...and that's before a ball has even been bounced. Note, prime Sampras, you know, 7 titles in 8 years...that Sampras, not well-past-it-Sampras.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Well by that reasoning let's all go home. Bar Laver's double grand slam, Fed's achievements over all shadow everyone else. So why single out Pete? Why not single out Lendl, or Borg, or McEnroe? Or anyone else?

I think I know why. The one player Fed fans would not want to see their player play in a prime v prime match is Sampras. Wimbledon is the biggest show on earth, and against Sampras in his prime in the biggest match of the biggest show on earth, it could get very ugly for Fed.

And that's just the fans. What about Fed himself? He can accept the *** reamings he copped against Nadal at the FO, but facing PISTOL Pete on W Centre Court might just be enough to make the great Swiss cry...and that's before a ball has even been bounced. Note, prime Sampras, you know, 7 titles in 8 years...that Sampras, not well-past-it-Sampras.

Eh? Sampras cries everyday that Federer came along so soon. So do you, by the sound of it

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Eh? Sampras cries everyday that Federer came along so soon. So do you, by the sound of it

Nah, any time I'm down I just put the 2003 ODI WC final on

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Nah, any time I'm down I just put the 2003 ODI WC final on

by the looks of it, you probably watched a punter master class everyday since FO 2009?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Dedans Penthouse

I love Fed. But i hate fanboys who post stupid know-nothing bullshlt....

Sorry but I seriously doubt that, otherwise you'd call Sampras fans for their BS as well, like these two posts below for example:

Originally Posted by Blocker

Yep. And then along came Federer who had a target to aim for. By the time he won his 5th, everyone was asking him if he could break Sampras' record. He had a target, he went for it and got it. And he has kept his fitness and game at a peak level because he doesn't want to happen to him what happened to Sampras.

Put Sampras and Federer head to head in their primes...that's the only way you can compare. Federer was made to look god-like when he had no one around in 04-07, but i suspect he would have been made to look very much human if a prime Sampras had been around in 04-07.

Originally Posted by Blocker

Well by that reasoning let's all go home. Bar Laver's double grand slam, Fed's achievements over all shadow everyone else. So why single out Pete? Why not single out Lendl, or Borg, or McEnroe? Or anyone else?

I think I know why. The one player Fed fans would not want to see their player play in a prime v prime match is Sampras. Wimbledon is the biggest show on earth, and against Sampras in his prime in the biggest match of the biggest show on earth, it could get very ugly for Fed.

And that's just the fans. What about Fed himself? He can accept the *** reamings he copped against Nadal at the FO, but facing PISTOL Pete on W Centre Court might just be enough to make the great Swiss cry...and that's before a ball has even been bounced. Note, prime Sampras, you know, 7 titles in 8 years...that Sampras, not well-past-it-Sampras.

Also, "stinking little fanboy vaginas"? Seriously? People are allowed to think Fed is better than Sampras, even much better, heck Sampras fanboys in this thread feel the same, just the other way around.

[jokinla]

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 ?

Heard of him, I played him at 18 clay courts in the late 80's. I'm sure most know of him, at least in the US.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Nah, any time I'm down I just put the 2003 ODI WC final on

That's good to hear, me for example I put the 2001 Wimbledon 4th round to see teenage Fed schooling defending champ Pete at his own game (despite Pete serving out of his mind) or 1996 Wimbledon QF to watch peak Sampras being made to look completely ordinary by a one slam wonder.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Nah, any time I'm down I just put the 2003 ODI WC final on

Aha! You see, that doesn't bother me anymore. Tendulkar has won the World Cup now, you see. Now go cry in your room.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Mustard

despite the fact that Agassi was the pre-match favourite before all 4 of those matches.

That's a really insightful point, actually. I never realized that.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Blocker

.
And that's just the fans. What about Fed himself? He can accept the *** reamings he copped against Nadal at the FO, but facing PISTOL Pete on W Centre Court might just be enough to make the great Swiss cry...and that's before a ball has even been bounced. Note, prime Sampras, you know, 7 titles in 8 years...that Sampras, not well-past-it-Sampras.

Federer on todays grass courts would be favoured over Sampras. On the old grass Sampras would be favoured, although I believe Federer's edge on the new grass is slightly bigger than Sampras's on the old grass.

[mxmx]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

........................

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
.

I think Pete had it hard on clay due to better/more clay court specialists....Back then people were more specialised...today, people are more versatile. There is (in my opinion) no way Federer would have done AS well as he did if he played in the era of Sampras. There were just too many "greats" back then...

There should be a thread adressing:
"What would have happened if Sampras and Federer switched eras"

[mxmx]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Federer on todays grass courts would be favoured over Sampras. On the old grass Sampras would be favoured, although I believe Federer's edge on the new grass is slightly bigger than Sampras's on the old grass.

why? new grass slower?

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Well by that reasoning let's all go home. Bar Laver's double grand slam, Fed's achievements over all shadow everyone else. So why single out Pete? Why not single out Lendl, or Borg, or McEnroe? Or anyone else?

I think I know why. The one player Fed fans would not want to see their player play in a prime v prime match is Sampras. Wimbledon is the biggest show on earth, and against Sampras in his prime in the biggest match of the biggest show on earth, it could get very ugly for Fed.

And that's just the fans. What about Fed himself? He can accept the *** reamings he copped against Nadal at the FO, but facing PISTOL Pete on W Centre Court might just be enough to make the great Swiss cry...and that's before a ball has even been bounced. Note, prime Sampras, you know, 7 titles in 8 years...that Sampras, not well-past-it-Sampras.