Sampras-Federer Myth Part 2

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Pete was not in his prime in 2001. He went 35-16 for the year with no titles at all. Does that sound like someone still in his prime after they accomplished what Pete had? Jeesh. Fed 4 years from his prime? ROFLMAO. He was 2-3 years from his prime by then. Probably 2 years. As he really started his ascent in 2003.

Pete was already a good 3 years or so past his prime by 2001. Maybe 4. In terms of his real big year around high level, Pete's last year was 1997 or so. Had a down year in '98, came back and looked awesome in 1999 Wimbledon and the YEC but was injured through most of the year and missed the USO and I believe the AO as well.

From 2000-on his prime was clearly over and pretty much already had a foot out the door. Just hanging on to win one more slam

Pete's prime as a player was probably 1993-1998 and maybe 1999. Anything after that... No way

sampras was still playing well in 2000 ... played well vs agassi @ the AO even though he lost, won wimbledon and reached the finals of the USO - beating his nemesis krajicek (incl a great comeback in the 2nd set breaker ) and then winning in straights ( although it was a competitive match ) vs hewitt

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Mick3391

Last night we watched the 3 1/2 hour 2001 Wimbledon where a raw 19 year old played a prime 29 year old Sampras. They were carbon copies, maybe a couple of points seperated them.

Fed was what, 4 years from his prime, he still looked a little like the Fed we know today, but very unpolished, so it stands to reason a prime Fed would crush Sampras on fast courts.

I realize they have played exhibitions, but they are a far cry from actual high tension matches.

eh, 2001 wasn't prime sampras .. although in that match, he did play well .....
so did federer

federer wouldn't be crushing sampras on fast courts ...though IMO he'd have the edge

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I don't really the see point of these threads other than to stir up the ***** of both players against each other.

It's acknowledged by all except the most vehement Sampras ***** that Fed > Sampras. And this is meant as no disrespect to Sampras, who is clearly No 2 of the Open Era and no lower than top 5 all-time. It's just that Fed has surpassed him in almost every conceivable way.

No need to post huge threads proving this point.

Very true.

[Laurie]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Very true.

Indeed. I think what I find baffling about this forum is that even though Federer has passed virtually all of Sampras' records and some keep saying that Federer is much better than Sampras, they keep having to say this on not only a daily basis, but a minute by minute basis which is a bit crazy.

Far from all of the obsessional arguing on this forum between posters, I actually think this is a big compliment to Sampras and perhaps Sampras is a lot better than they are letting on with their comments (if you see what I mean). If you think about it, Sampras last played a match in 2002 and yet on a daily basis his name is mentioned in General Pro Player discussion more than almost 98% of the current tour players.

I kind of see this all now as a bit of a laugh and not to be taken seriously.

[Indio]

For those who asked whether I'll be doing similar comparisons of Federer--Nadal or Borg--Nadal, the answer is no. We don't know whether Nadal is out of his prime, and in the case of RF--RN, they both still have many active opponents who are still compiling career stats.

90's Clay, before I respond to your attack on my post, I'd like to know something. Have you participated in the CBS Sports tennis forum under the name of Sman? Your style is very similar to his.

[bluetrain4]

Is the OP having this frantic debate in his mind.

His "controversy" seems sort of imagined. Certainly, in a Fed vs. Sampras GOAT debate, there are still a group of Sampras backers. But, most of them can at least concede that Fed as GOAT has a legit foundation, and can understand the argument in favor of Fed. Moreover, I'm betting that there are still many more Fed backers than Sampras backers.

So, the all this talk about myths seems a bit overwrought.

[helloworld]

Sampras = 90's GOAT
Federer = 00's GOAT

End of discussion.

Weak competition, slower court, better strings, blah blah are just non-sense.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Sampras = 90's GOAT
Federer = 00's GOAT

End of discussion.

Weak competition, slower court, better strings, blah blah are just non-sense.

But would it be nonsense if someone said 17 = 14 ?

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by TMF

But would it be nonsense if someone said 17 = 14 ?

If they played in the same era, it would make perfect sense, but they are not, so your point is moot.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

If they played in the same era, it would make perfect sense, but they are not, so your point is moot.

So you can say Sampras 14 is no better than Nole's 6 slams because they are not in the same era. Not that I agree with you but that's using your logic.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by TMF

So you can say Sampras 14 is no better than Nole's 6 slams because they are not in the same era. Not that I agree with you but that's using your logic.

To add: what about Borg/Nadal's 11 vs Pete's 14? I'd argue Nadal's 11 is higher because he had to beat Federer in 7 of them. whom did Pete beat?

[RF20Lennon]

#RESPECT. Well done. Thanks for setting the record straight. 17>>14 people. Even when they were tied at 14-14 fed still had it. He won the french which sampras never came close to doing. He beat Sampras at WIMBLEDON. Dont get me wrong I love Pete and I still think he has the best SV game EVER. But federer is just more regal, elegant and is much more accomplished

[mattennis]

I think Edberg and Rafter were clearly better serve-and-volley players (in fact Sampras was NOT a serve-and-volley player, as anyone who watched tennis in the 90s should now).